I really don’t have time to play did/didn’t with Peter, I’ve provided quotes, he’s provided strawmen and claims of things that are not so. Suffice it to say that to interpet Randi as “dishonest” on the basis of him not mentioning karst is to say the least, nitpicky.
This has been hashed over already. Peter’s just trying to rewrite history.
Randi has made many claims in many articles along the theme of : dowsers say they can find underground rivers, but there are no underground rivers anywhere, and this proves dowsers are wrong. I have shown numerous quotes where he says such, and numerous quotes where geologists disagree with him.
He is just saying any old thing to support his argument, without caring about accuracy.
In that regard, he is exactly the same as the craziest of dowsers.
No better, and no worse.
Your use of that term suggests that you aren’t seriously looking.
You said that Randi’s actions were not according to agreement. Logically, that means that either there was no agreement as to how the results would evaluated, or that Randi broke the agreement. Are you now claiming there was no agreement whatsoever regarding any aspect of the test? Either you are accusing Randi of breaking an agreement, or you are claiming that Randi would be foolish enough to conduct a test without agreeing beforehand whether the results would be combined. One or the other.
And you wonder why people are rude to you? If you want respect, it would help if you didn’t dismiss arguments you don’t understand as “lacking logical substance”. Look, either there was an agreement beforehand to combine the results, or there wasn’t. What some “mathematicians” say about whether they should have been combined is completely irrelevant to whether there was such an agreement. Your implication that it is relevant is in error. Do you really not understand that? And Randi did not fiddle the figures; he simply presented them in a manner which you have a subjective problem with.
Except that only way that there could be anything wrong with combining the results would be if there were an agreement, implicit or explicit, not to do so. Combining results is not like burglery; there is no law against it.
You dismiss any error on your part as “trivial”, yet you feel free to nitpick other people’s post. For instance, Mr. Miskatonics said that you said that Randi broke an agreement. You say that no, you said that Randi did something which was in no agreement. That’s basically the same thing, on par with you misremembering who said what, or how to spell “reknowned”.
No, Miskatonic claimed that you were making that claim, he did not make that claim himself.
How so?
I find that very difficult to believe, else you would have recognized the importance of the null hypothesis and therefore why your comments were irrelevant.
What kind of scientist are you? What are your credentials and qualifications?
Ah, yes. Mangeorge.
Biological science based on critical examination of the evidence regarding the existence of Bigfoot strongly suggests that such a creature (or creatures) most probably do not exist. However, while science does not absolutely exclude that possibility, the predominance of the evidence will lead all careful and rational people to discount its possibility. The only way to reverse the predominance of evidence against Bigfoot (and similarly, the supernatural, etc.) is by providing clear positive evidence under rigorous skeptical scrutiny.
So far, nearly all people who claim to be able to produce such evidence under those conditions refuse to do so – thereby leaving the preponderance of evidence overwhelmingly against them and their claims. But one of the few legitimate excuses they offer for refusing to have their claims rigorously evaluated is because of the cost and inconvenience. Randi’s JREF offer addresses that.
The fact that no one has ever been able to demonstrate paranormal claims under rigorous skeptical scrutiny doesn’t prove that the paranormal doesn’t exist, but there’s no denying that this fact leaves the preponderance of evidence strongly against such claims. And when the preponderance of the evidence is so clearly against a claim (such as in the case of non-mundane recognition of staring or the paranormal in general), no rational person can justify a belief in it.
As for Peter, it’s clear that reasoning with him is quite futile. But I commend the patience and intestinal fortitude of all those who have tried!
To The Ryan
No I didn’t.
What I said was that Randi combined the results in a misleading manner.
Miskatonic claimed that the test subjects “agreed” to have the results combined.
I have stated that there was no such agreement, and Miskatonic is unable to produce any cite for his claims.
This is not in any way whatsoever a claim that Randi “broke an agreement”, it is a claim that Randi presented the results in a misleading manner.
It’s Miskatonic that keeps going on about Randi keeping, or breaking an agreement, that only exists in his own head.
The agreement made by Randi and the subjects made no mention whatsoever about combining the results. I personally don’t think that makes Randi “foolish”
There wasn’t.
Which is exactly what I have been telling Miskatonic. So, your points refer to logical flaws in his argument, not mine.
Once again, Miskatonic is stating that it is relevent, I am stating that it is not. Your words should address him, not me, since he is the one making that claim.
I agree with you that it is irelevent, that is what I have been saying.
No, combining the results is deliberately misleading. It does not require “breaking an agreement” to be wrong.
You see those as the same thing?
“Randi broke an agreement” and “there was no agreement for Randi to break” are the same thing in your mind?
Calling them different is a “nitpick?”
Sheesh.
He has repeatedly claimed the test subjects “agreed” to having their results combined.
By the way, I think that peter morris is basically correct on the ‘agreement’ issue.
As was pointed out in another thread, there is a distinction between Randi’s contract with the claimants and Randi’s relationship with the public.
It is possible for Randi to make statements that are not prohibited by his contract with the claimants but are still inappropriate with respect to the public.
In fact Randi requires that his subjects pay the full cost of the test, Randi’s flight, Randi’s hotel bills, etc.
Actually, they have, quite often. The result is that what was once paranormal instantly becomes normal.
Hypnotism is an example of such. About 150 years ago it was classified as a psychic ability, and the Randis of the day denied that it even existed.
Meteorites are another example, paranormal 200 years ago, normal today.
Or, a more recent example, an example of crank medicine that was eventually proved true, considerElizabeth Kenny’s polio treatment
BTW, “rigorous skeptical scrutiny” often refuses to see the evidence under its nose. Antoine Lavoisier, expert scientist , discoverers of the thorory of combustion, and complete skeptic gave meteorites the old “rigorous skeptical scrutiny” and came to the conclusion that they were ordinary stones that had been struck by lightning. Just thought I’d point that out to you.
My suspicion is that science does not in fact currently know everything. I think it possible that some things that science ridicules today will turn out to be true after all. Then once proved, they will seem mundane and ordinary.
It is up to people making extrordinary claims to prove them. But Randi’s challenge is a poor way of testing them. I don’t think that any of the three examples I listed could have passed Randi’s challenge, had it been running then. Yet Skeptics would claim the mere existence of Randi’s test is evidence against them.
There may well be a thousand Uri Gellars for every Elizabeth Kenny, but Randi’s fault is that he lumps them all together. I am sure that, had he been active at the time, Randi would have been leading the attack on Kenny.
**
Its never been tried
Well said, lucwarm, you have made my point for me much more clearly than I was able to. Thank you.
This is a classic Peter Morris half-truth. The first part of the sentence is true. The second part is an invention. Randi does not travel solely for the benefit of the test. That happens on ly in Peter’s Randi-hating mind.
That the JREF does not pay expenses is only fair. After all they are the ones putting up the money and are expecting nothing in return should the challenger lose. There is little reason for the JREF to give free vacation tickets to Florida just for waving some sticks over coins.
However, to imply that Randi gets free plane tickets and hotel rooms is simply a lie. The challenge rules are fairly clear about how this will be resolved by the use JREF appointed representative when distance and time are an issue (whcih is most of the time).
There are times when Randi may in the same area as the testee due to other obligations, when this happens, expenses are paid by the JREF from fees Randi recieves frm those sources. Its basicly a “I was in town, so I stopped by” sort of thing.
There are also times when a TV show sponsors pay for Randi to travel especially to test a group of challengers or a single challenger. This is fairly rare, but when it happens it gets a large amount of exposure.
That Randi does not get travel expenses for the vast majority of challenges is answered simply: Randi does not travel exclusively for the challenge. The last thing he’d want to do is be under obligation to a bunch of kooks to dart around the world on ShitBall airlines and be put up at the fleabag motel, only to have the challenger waffle out at the last minute.
This is not the first time the Peter Morris has hinted at financial impropriety by Randi. It is typical of his usual overstated claims.
This is a classic Peter Morris half-truth. The first part of the sentence is true. The second part is an invention. Randi does not travel solely for the benefit of the test. That happens on ly in Peter’s Randi-hating mind.
That the JREF does not pay expenses is only fair. After all they are the ones putting up the money and are expecting nothing in return should the challenger lose. There is little reason for the JREF to give free vacation tickets to Florida just for waving some sticks over coins.
However, to imply that Randi gets free plane tickets and hotel rooms is simply a lie. The challenge rules are fairly clear about how this will be resolved by the use JREF appointed representative when distance and time are an issue (whcih is most of the time).
There are times when Randi may in the same area as the testee due to other obligations, when this happens, expenses are paid by the JREF from fees Randi recieves frm those sources. Its basicly a “I was in town, so I stopped by” sort of thing.
There are also times when a TV show sponsors pay for Randi to travel especially to test a group of challengers or a single challenger. This is fairly rare, but when it happens it gets a large amount of exposure.
That Randi does not get travel expenses for the vast majority of challenges is answered simply: Randi does not travel exclusively for the challenge. The last thing he’d want to do is be under obligation to a bunch of kooks to dart around the world on ShitBall airlines and be put up at the fleabag motel, only to have the challenger waffle out at the last minute.
This is not the first time the Peter Morris has hinted at financial impropriety by Randi. It is typical of his usual overstated claims.
Well, we’ve seen Mistatonik’s guess.
Lets see what Randi himsel says, shall we?
<<Thomaz wants James Randi to come to Brazil to the challenge." I do not travel to meet challengers, or I would be going all over the world, every day. My proposition, already stated, is that if a lecture tour of Brazil can be arranged, with a minimum income of $10,000 for the James Randi Educational Foundation — ** plus all expenses such as hotel and transportation paid,** as previously discussed — I am prepared to go to Brazil. Seeing Morton fail in his demonstration would only be an added, minor, point of interest. He is a person of very little importance to me; I have seen a hundred others who do the same tricks. >>
Note Randi’s words here ** plus all expenses such as hotel and transportation paid,**
The key woprds being :
So, in fact to imply that Randi gets free plane tickets and hotel rooms is simply the truth.
I changed the emphasised area above and refer back to a part of my post that Peter conveniently snipped:
“There are times when Randi may in the same area as the testee due to other obligations, when this happens, expenses are paid by the JREF from fees Randi recieves frm those sources. Its basicly a “I was in town, so I stopped by” sort of thing.”
Randi is not demanding expenses for the challenge, he is telling this Thomaz that he will test him if he is in Brazil, and what is needed to get him to Brazil.
Honestly, can you not see that?
And what is needed, specifically, is that his flight and hotels bills are paid, and a lecture tour be arranged for him, and $10,000 paid to JREF.
And if all that is done for him, then and only then is he willing to drop by and test the guy.
Yes, but peter has not shown that this is the case, and the quetion of whether Randi’s actions are inappropiate is the important issue. peter’s nitpick as to whether it was against an agreement, or never agreed upon, is simply clouding the issue.
You said
If there was no agreement, then Randi’s actions were not according to agreement. For Randi’s actions to be according to agreement, there must be an agreement. This is simple logic. I don’t know how to make it any clearer.
Nor you for yours.
I thought you said there was no agreement?
You said
I have already pointed this out to you, and explained that it implies that what the mathematicians said is relevant. You did say it’s relevant. You did not say it is irrelevant. Mr. M did not say it was relevant. Either you have a serious memory problem, or you’re a liar (and an amazingly poor one at that).
What, so you’re a mindreader now?
Yes, it does.
You claim that whether Randi broke an agreement is not important, what’s important is that his reporting is misleading. If you really believe that, then the difference between “Randi broke an agreement” and “there was no agreement for Randi to break” is not important.
When it’s done to doge a legitimate question, yes it is.
What’s needed is for the guy to read the terms of the challenge, specificly the part where it says the JREF will get a local representative to run the preliminary challenge there, while Randi goes about his business.
Of course, according to your link he also has to say specificly what he will do in a formal acceptance of the challenge before even that can happen.
Should he succeed in passing the preliminary test, Randi is still under no obligation to go to Brazil. The challenger is free to travel to the JREF in Florida or he can wait until Randi is asked to lecture in Brazil.
To The Ryan:
Look, show 10 of your friends the statement “Randi’s actions were not according to agreement.” Then ask them what they think it means.
Ask them the following : Do you think it meant :
a) An agreement existed, but Randi broke it.
or
b) No agreement existed, so Randi couldn’t break it.
A nice simple multiple choice answer.
I can promise you that 99% of people reading it will say that meaning a is correct.
Sure, its possible through convoluted logic to extract meaning b, but that isn’t the natural interpretation of the words, and certainly not what was meant when they were used in this forum.
You are just desperately playing word games.
To Miskatonic :
Maybe Randi himself should read it. He is the one not following it. Randi isn’t offering to send a local representative, he is offering to test personally, provided that his hotel bills and flights are paid.
Randi is incluined to ignore his own rules any time it suits him.
If you read the entire thing in context you would see that the guy essentially felt that Randi was going to come down and test him. Randi was working on that basis and setting his standards for showing up. It is obvious to anyone who reads it that he is basicly saying “I’m not coming there for your benefit just becuase you made some noise”. However, I forget that you are obsessed with hating Randi and refuse to consider this in any context other than Randi trying to squeeze money out of a challenger.
Perhaps you can find examples where Randi actually has made challengers pay for the expenses of his travel. Please post them here:
Randi has made exceptions to the conditions of the challenge at times when it is suitable for both parties. The most common exception is to forgo the preliminary test. The most common reason for this is the proximinty of the challenger, such as when a dowser shows up at the JREF doorstep. This is about the only exception to the challenge conditions I am aware of, but perhaps you can find exceptiosn of the other 11 conditons and place the evidence for them here:
I just read Randi’s July 25 newsletter. I agree with the philosophy of what he says, but I’m not ready to agree that scientists who profess a faith in god are idiots and/or liars, and that’s basically what he says. At least that’s what his test proves.
How does one who has a belief in god, but accepts and praises Randi’s wisdom, reconcile such a strong dichotomy?