I don’t know why you keep saying this, I don’t see it as being fair criticism of sceptics like Randi – take the case or Uri Geller, and his spoon-bending phenomenon, a sceptic will look for the many possible physical explanations; sleight of hand/misdirection/etc, then will design an experiment that removes these variables from the equation, any ability that still remains is unexplained, and presumably couls serve as evidence for some real paranormal phenomenon.
In the case of those who proclaim ability in dowsing, a sceptic would look first to explain any apparent or claimed ability by known mechanisms; enviromental cues/positive reinforcement/etc, and then would design a test to eliminate these variables.
Nowhere in this process is Randi (for example) positing the existence of the paranormal – on occasion he may make the testable experimental hypothesis that say Geller bends spoons with the power of his mind and not his fingers is a different thing altogether.
For the record, I don’t rate Randi, he’s a rather unimpressive magician, and his attempts to debunk cold-reading by emulating self-professed clairvoyants are disappointingly abysmal. (Criminy, did anyone see him on the C4 program on the subject of clairvoyance? I wouldn’t be surprised if his cack-handed, half-assed “performance” did more harm than good).
Ok, so that means any time a scientist or investigator is accused of improper conduct, I can claim that some agreement out there excuses his or her behaviour and there’s no need for me to actually produce the agreement or any portion thereof. Whatever.
Sez I:
Sez the ryan: **
Well, here are your exact words:
Does that refresh your recollection?
**
Gah. I said peter morris was right on one particular point. Doesn’t mean I’m adopting all of his views. Let’s suppose peter morris loves strawberry ice cream. BFD.
**
Look, if you disagree with peter morris on some issue feel free to debate it with him. If you disagree with me on some issue, feel free to debate it with me. It’s that simple.
**
Ok, so if what’s in the agreement matters, then you can hardly complain if peter debates its contents.
This is your idea of answering my question, is it?
I don’t know of any evidence that she is a psychic, so I don’t believe her. If she comes up with evidence, that’s fine.
Gee, Peter, don’t you know what an Internet search engine is?
Doesn’t your country have a telephone?
Or do you mean ‘I hate Randi so much that I’ll make unfounded claims and say silly things just to get at him’?
And you haven’t answered these either:
Cite for Randi’s ‘snide attacks’?
Indeed it does.
But it doesn’t need much to back up your claims above - except you refuse to provide cites.
And now for your standard of courtesy:
Do you ever wonder why you have so few supporters?
Well the point is that saying someone has an ‘agenda’ to do something is the implication that they have a second reason (usually secret and disreputable) - as in “Bush had an agenda for invading Iraq” (he wanted to win re-election by persuading the voters that Saddam was behind 9/11).
Well, what I meant in saying that Randi has an agenda is that he does not seem to be neutral. Another way of putting it is to say that it seems that Randi is trying to convince people that paranormal abilities do not exist.
What is troubling about this is that if Randi were confronted with bona fide evidence of, say, dowsing, he would likely deny it and invent excuses.
If you feel that this does not qualify as “having an agenda,” feel free to characterize Randi with whatever words you chose. It doesn’t change my basic point though.
**
I’m not sure what you are asking here – do you disagree that Randi is an advocate who presents data in such a way to support his poisition?
No, it means that in this case, the burden of proof is on peter morris. Please stop misrepresenting me.
This is what’s known as “equivocation”. You’re using the word “evidence” in a manner completely different from how I used it. Here’s a recap of the events, since you seem to have missed them the first time:
You: Oh really? So if I tell Randi that I can call a coin flip 90% of the time; and he flips a coin 10,000 times; and I’m right 85% of the time, the results are not evidence of paranormal abilities?
Me: It would be misleading to assign any probabilities to the event. Sure, subjectively it looks like something besides chance is going on, but there is no objective conclusion that can be reached…
Translation: I am clarifying what I mean by “evidence”. I was using the word “evidence” in a statistical context to refer to definite statements of probabilities. Such a meaning excludes the hypothetical you present.
You:Interesting that you choose to evade the question.Translation: Despite the fact that you gave an extensive answer to my question, I’m going to insult you for no better reason than you don’t agree with me
Me:It’s interesting that you choose to mischaracterize my post. What color is the number 5? Note that you still haven’t answered my question. Evading the question I take it?
YouI didn’t mischaracterize your post at all. You made a claim – that any results that don’t pass the agreed criteria between Randi and his subject are not evidence of paranormal abilities. I used an extreme example to show that your claim is false. Translation: I somehow think that referring to you disagreeing me as “evading the question” is not a mischaracterization. I further believe that simply presenting a situation in which your statement would be false constitutes showing that it is false.
Me: I don’t recall making that claimTranslation: you presented a situation where even without an agreement, there would be reason to think that there is paranormal. You say that this disproves one of my claim. Apparently you think I claimed that without an agreement, there is no way to have any reason to suspect paranormality. I don’t recall ever saying that
You: Does that refresh your recollection? Translation: Doesn’t this edited version of your post match the words (but not the meaning) of what I said you claimed?
But it does appear that the point that you think that he was right on is the combining numbers point.
I starting to think that you aren’t interested in an honest discussion.
Me: What exactly is he right about?
You: He’s right on the point I’ve been arguing.
Me: What point have you been arguing?
You: Stop trying to debate with me regarding your disagreements with peter!
From what I’ve gathered, you think that there is some point on which peter is correct, but you are uninterested in explicitly stating what it is, and you think that any attempt to discuss it with you is invalid, since any point of peter’s I should be discussing with peter. Is that an accurate summary?
I didn’t complain about peter debating the contents, as I’ve explained multiple times.
And how does he intend to prove this negative?
Perhaps you meant ‘Randi is generously offering a fortune to anyone with paranormal powers - and also exposing frauds who prey on gullible people by claiming to have psychic powers.’
That’s quite an assertion. What evidence do you have?
I’ll give you a clue - none, since it’s never happened.
You’re not … biased … against Randi, are you?
And if you look at the Challenge, you’ll realise it’s a real prize with a legal contract.
So your assertion above is probably libellous.
it seems you are the one with an agenda.
Well obviously I disagree, since Randi invites claimants to provide the data.
And as soon as they do, there is a legal procedure to hand over the million.
I think you are confused - it’s the claimants who have a position “I can dowse!” “I can predict the future!” “I can remote view!”. Randi provides a scientific environment for them to prove their claims.
Now if only a single psychic would provide some data…
No, you’re doing what’s known as “weaseling” Rather than be honest and admit you were wrong, you’re trying to claim that you actually meant something different from what you said.
**
The point I think he was correct on was the significance of the agreement. I’ve said that before, by the way.
Don’t be ridiculous. I spelled my point in detail. Here it is again, since your memory seems to be so poor.
The tone of his commentaries and my knowledge of human nature. I suppose if you press me I’ll try to come up with a couple specific examples.
Note that the ryan seems to agree with me on this point.
**
My assessment of Randi and my knowledge of human nature. I’m happy to concede that (1) my assertion has probably never been put to the test; and (2) it’s speculative. It’s just my humble opinion.
I’ll keep an eye out for the process server.
**
For what it’s worth, I’m trying to assess things objectively. I do believe that Randi is basically correct that these psychics, dowsers, etc. are most likely fakers/frauds/fooling themselves.
**
Go read it, see how Randi combined the results of three seperate tests in order to hide the fact that one of the tests showed results far above chance.
Note the absence of anything in the agreement giving Randi permission to combine the results. This proves Miskatonic a liar for his claim that the dowsers agreed to have their results combined.
Since we’ve done the peter morris vs. Randi debate before, I’ll stick to the OP.
I just did a very informal test and found that my peripheral vision covers an arc slightly greater than 270%. To be honest, and even though I knew it was greater than 180%, the number surprised me. Thanks for prompting me to test it.
We already know that was some agreement. And implicit in a “fudging” accusation is an assertion about what was in the agreement.
I spent a lot of time explaining the difference between statistical significance and subjective significance. It’s not my fault you decided to read the last sentence of a paragraph and ignore the rest of it. Had you read the entire paragraph, you would have seen my statement “As a human being, 22% means a little. 85% means a lot.” The only way I’m “wrong” is that if one takes one of my statements out of context, and applies one possible meaning to it which is inconsistent with the context in which it appears, then that statement is wrong. Seems to me that you’re the one weaseling.
But what exactly about the agreement was he correct?
You call that spelling it out in detail? That’s a bunch of implications and intimations without any clear statement. Perhaps you should go into politics.
peter morris, after your blatant lies about the agreement issue, I don’t expect you to admit error, but you link simply further demonstrates the absurdity of your postion. According to your link, each person claiming the ability to dowse was tested separately. But you didn’t give their results separately. You picked out the ones with the best results and presented just those, and presented them as one statistic. If Randi’s combining different types of dowsers was “fudging” the numbers, then surely your combining dowsers themselves was “fudging” the numbers.
I have a question for both you and lucwarm: do you think that lottery results suggest that some people have paranormal abilities?
Lucwarm, you made several allegations about Randi (and I think the Chicago Reader is not going to be amused if a process server turns up at their offices over their publication of your libel).
When I ask you for cites, you reply:
So it’s all just your opinion, no cites?!
Then you say:
Well you are clearly failing in that objective.
Here we go again. Is that derogatory? What do you mean exactly?
Or is this relevant:
And on what evidence do you make that assertion?
Is this just more of your unsupported opinion?
Or are you ‘confessing’ that Randi is a well-organised scientist, who has performed a valuable service?
Ah yes, more insults from the Randi fanatics. A typical reaction when they are cornered. What lie would that be then? I’ve shown that you and Miskaronic atre wrong, wrong, wrong. Yet you cling to your claims in the teeth of the evidence.
I will if you actually show me one
Actually, it was Randi that failed to give the results seperately.
Save for the fact that it was Randi’s actions, not mine, I agree with you. Randi combined all the water dowsers into one figure, not me. I have previously stated that I would want to see individual scores, but Randi has chosen not to make them available. There may well be the same sort of fudging in the water figures too. Perhaps one person got 50%, and another got 0%, and Randi is hiding that by claiming that all together they got 22%. And I agree with you that this is further fudging on his part, I have said so previously.
Listen to me. I’ve said this over and over. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN PSYCHIC POWERS. Please do try and understand.
Just because I see serious flaws in Randis test does not mean that I believe the subjects.
Try and get that concept through your skull.
And yet you Randi fanatics keep presenting me as a believer, because its the only way in which you can deceive yourselves that I’m wrong about anything.
"
They are wrong in suggesting that it was only after the dowsers left
that the water results were analysed. They weren’t. They were announced
separately at the end of the tests and in the presence of the dowsers."
Ok, so your assertion about burden of proof applies to any scientist or investigator is subject to some kind of agreement with respect to the research in question?
**
Here is your entire paragraph in all it’s glory:
(emphasis added)
You were pretty clearly claiming that test results that do not satisfy the agreement between Randi and his subjects do not constitute evidence.
Please stop your weaseling and admit you were wrong.
**
He was correct that the agreement does not necessarily excuse Randi’s conduct. In this case, the conduct in question is “combining numbers.” This does not mean, however, that “combining numbers” is right or wrong. Only that if it is wrong, the agreement doesn’t make it right. This is the distinction that you refuse to grasp.
**
It’s certainly clear enough to refute your claim that I took a position on whether combining numbers was appropriate. Why won’t you concede this obvious point?
