Really Cecil, I hope this is an example of you on an off day. grin
Yay so you talked to some debunking stage magicians who enjoy picking on Geller. Yay, so they told you one of the possible ways he MIGHT have done it. Whether he used some kind on PK or not, you should have at least have pointed out that even if he WAS using some of of stage magic, that just because two “experts” think they have his “tricks” figured out doesn’t mean that they really do know how he did it.
Untill Geller comes forward and says that he’s willing to reveal all, you have to admit that the info you have is just conjecture. I understand that from a scientific rationalist point of view you would have a rabid need to apply Occums Razor to this “phenomenon” and call it a stage magicians trick because to your philosophy it would have to be untill some number of groups of “expert scientists” tells you that it might be otherwise. However in this case it seems as if you stumbled over your panic to disbelieve an unproven phenomena and did some shoddy work.
A simple “We really don’t know for sure, but this is a possible explanation.” would have vastly improved the quality of your response.
Cecil’s stance on Geller: I would expect it to be one foot on his chest and the other on his neck.
Wyldkard: Since Geller is claiming the existance of the radical, it is up to him to prove that there was no rational way for him to achieve his effect, not the other way around.
I can claim that I levitated out of bed this morning. You can’t prove me wrong. It would be up to me to prove that I am right.
To perhaps clarify Wyldkard’s position on the matter: Randi and the various other debunkers have never come out and said that any specific method was the one used by Geller in his demonstrations. What they have instead said is that certain methods might have been used by Geller. As any magician knows, for any given effect, there are a great many ways to produce that effect. Geller might have used the methods described by Randi and Cecil, or he may have used some other method. The point is, that there exists at least one method of bending spoons that’s easier than using telekinesis.
Even if I were going to presuppose that Geller was/is (is he even still alive?) a psychokinetic of some sort for this post, I would then follow that presupposition and assume that TANSTAFL* applies and thus agree that there is at least one method for bending spoons easier than telekinesis.
I personally don’t think that the data on either is particularly meaninfull. I mean I’m sure that it’s more convenient these days to talk to someone by telephone than via telepathy, however I wouldn’t rule the existance of telepathy out on those grounds.
Untill we have the applicaple instrumentation to detect let alone measure something at least related to these phenomena in a way that can be reasonably conclusive, there’s not much point in saying that there are easier ways for him to have done it. There’s also not a whole lot of point (other than fame, money and probably the desire to incite a whole lot of people into exploring the notion of such things) to doing such demonstrations on tv as “proof” that such things exist.
That is however off my point that Cecil should have more respect for the variety of a Magicians tricks of the trade.
I wouldn’t see a whole lot of point in berating Cecils attempt to personally debunk some poster’s “Geller experience” (though some of his explanations like the one about Geller snapping the key in half with his foot in a sidewalk crack while no-one noticed seems LESS plausible than PK given the degree of exertion he would probably have have to apply-sorry Cecil) seems like a bit of a waste of time to me given that at this point it seems to me that all statements of “proof” and professional “debunking” aren’t much more usefull than than a childs name calling match. (Though both DO let off a bit of steam).
On the other hand discussions of how PK and other such phenomenon can be possible (ie: what their operating mechanisms and natural bahaviors are, as well as where they can be fit into various working models of the universe) , assuming the presupposition of their existance is at least an interesting and rewarding (in terms of improving at such explorations) bit of mental exersise.
Stepping into and out of presuppositions is one of my main hobbies. I’m not very fond of dogmatic belief, however dogmas can make interesting playgrounds…
[size=1] *“There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” -R.H.
Pop: If you did I would probalby want to know what was wrong with your legs at the time? grin If you said “Nothing.” I wouldn’t care if you proved it, I would still think that you are either a moron or that you get a high out of levitating and if i were to give you the benifit of the doubt, I would probably be more interested in the connection between levitation and endophine production.
Oh, come off it; no one pretends that duplicating Geller’s feats by sleight of hand proves anything. What it does is shine light on the false premise of Geller’s claim: “I bend spoons, therefore I am psychic.” By showing that there are non-psychic ways of bending spoons, they show that Geller’s logic is false; he still might be psychic, but he hasn’t proven anything. By offering a prize if Geller can pass a test they they devise, skeptics offer the chance for Geller to prove his claims; since he’s made no attempt to collect (instead choosing to sue skeptics), I infer that Geller is not psychic, but I don’t claim that it’s proven.
:rolleyes: Maybe the prizemoney wasn’t worth as much as what he feels he can get through Lawsuits. This Geller fellow sounds like a very practical man…
Besides how is his “logic” of defining himself as psychic to his audience by demonstrating to that same audience what he is representing as a “psychic phenomna” (whether it is or not it is or not aside) more threatening to the lot of you SR’s than your average stage Mentalist who says “I’m psychic because I can read your mind.”. Assuming they put on a good performance of either genuine Telepathy or something which looks like it, their doesn’t seem to be much difference in terms of results other than scale.
Or is that it.
Are you SR’s worried that someone like Geller might get a concept or belief into mainstream society without it first having been processed by the Approved Scientific Standards of Testing ™.
I never know with you Scientific Rationalists, you can be irrationally obsessive as Inquisitors protecting their dogma from heracy sometimes. Other times you make some sense.
Most of the time the former behavior results from SR’s forgetting and not respecting the limitations of the tools they limit themselves to using.
sigh
No disprespect intended, given that establishment science currently has no relevant instrumentation that they’re willing to use to explore the matter, who the f*ck cares what their stance on matters which are out of their league such as (apparently) this one (since debunkers for all their theories have yet to catch the guy in the act).
It’s gets realy far into the area of pointless speculation after awhile (unless you really enjoy dismissing people who disagree with you with a wave of your paw. (Dogbert reference)) .
I didn’t say that…if he’s managing to commercialize his “powers” (whatever their nature-psychic or showmanly or both) in some way where people are giving him money for things they’re not really getting or aren’t worth the money they’re forking over then I’d definately call him a scam artist regardless.
That has very little to do with his intruging ability to at least produce the perception of bending or otherwise altering the states of objects (Which must be reasonably impressive or he wouldn’t make a very good scam artist using his usual gig anyway.) .
Well, unless you are betting everything purely on a consensus model of reality, I imagine the beliefs of Dopers (or the population at large for that matter) have very little impact on the matter. :wally Besides if you were even if you ARE going to place that bet I doubt that the implied variable are quite that simple under those rules anyway.
His “intriguing ability” is sleight-of-hand combined with persuasive stage presence. IOW, he’s a skilled conjuror.
Combine that entertaining skill with his promotion and sale of self-branded equipment for would-be psychics (featuring the inevitable crystals) and his appearance in the media for fat fees purportedly influencing and predicting the outcome of sports events, and I would say … scam artist. Not a very socially harmful one (though if you severely embarrass him he sues you), but still a fraud.
Oh dear, I hadn’t realized that you were going to be that disconnected Hemlock. In anycase even if you say that there are millions of scam artists who specificly use “the psychic powers gig”, that doesan’t prevent someone with paranormal powers from being a scam artist any more that it prevents someone without them from being one.
Besides given the seeming (and claimed) inability of science to measure these phenomena even to the degree of being able to determine if they are there (probably due to the limitations of “good testing” and the omptimal conditions for a manifestation of said phenomenon not being very compatible (my assumption to give both sides equal benifit of the doubt)), I find it highly unlikely that there has been much good data collected about the incidence of such powers in the first place. so it’s hardly a fair comparison from the start.
[[Besides if you were even if you ARE going to place that bet I doubt that the implied variable are quite that simple under those rules anyway.]] Wyldkard
Oh sorry that ought to be variables, and i had accidently misread Hemlock and thought he was saying that since there are millions of people who believe that Geller is a scam artist as compared to the lack of proof (for or against apparently) that he’s capable of PK somehow has bearing on which statement is more probable.
I was then saying that even IF I were to assume an entirely Consensus model of reality (ie: what the overwhelming majority of people agree is real IS real. Allowing for a shifting of reality with the shifting of belief), then a mere few million people is unlikely to have a whole lot of Effect in re-writing the nature of Geller’s performance because even IF you were going to assume that concensus was being reached purely taking into account human belief (which makes very little sense) a million people probably wouldn’t reduce the probability of his being a PK’er to 0.
Besides that model also includes also sorts of things like collective doubt, apathy and other areas of confusion in the scheme of things. This model generaly requires a bit more creativity to be used in an interesting way than seemed to suggested by my misreading of the post.
At any rate, thought experiments aside, proving or disproving Gellers abilities or the nature of reality for that matter have very little to do with my OP so I’m gonna stop answers posts that call for me to do so in this thread. (At least I won’t unless I find it entertaining to do so which is unlikely given the “dryness” of most of the responses. Including my own I’m sad to say.
In reference to your OP, I don’t feel that applying Occam’s Razor equates to shoddy work. I don’t think many people here would agree with you on that.
I think that Cecil trusts his readers to know when he’s saying something definite and when he’s giving the most probable answer. His columns wouldn’t be as much fun to read if he constantly hedged on his conclusions.
Personally, I think the main thing wrong with the column is that it doesn’t describe Geller’s legal nonsense and the fact that Randi’s people have given him every opportunity to prove he’s not a fraud. He wants to keep claiming to be genuine, but is too much of a coward to show it.
By the way, I don’t think even Geller has claimed that science doesn’t have the tools to see a spoon bend or not. He just doesn’t want to let anyone look that closely at his tricks.
People who believe in mystic phenomena never like Occam’s Razor. When there are two explanations for an occurence, they prefer to believe the weird one. They ignore data which point to a simple answer.
Whether you like it or not, William of Occam’s little Razor is pretty sharp. If there are two or more possible theories to explain a phenomenon, the simplest theory is the better. It is not necessary to multiply the number of theories.
If I pull a rabbit from a hat, you can develop many explanations. For example -
the animal was created in the hat by my magic powers.
the animal fell into the hat through a mutli-dimensional kink in the universe
I have a matter transporter back stage
I produced the rabbit by a simple conjuring trick
One of the first three may be true - there is no way to prove them untrue. However, if I control such power, why on earth am I pulling rabbits out of hats?
The last is the simplest solution, which obeys those boring old laws of nature as we know them. Not romantic, but sadly real. There is no need for the first three explanations.
Geller is doing a higher level version of the rabbit in the hat. Occam’s Razor cuts him up completely.
Wyldkard, it is only you who is talking about different models of reality, so your complaint that it has little to do with the OP is strange. Did you see anyone else posting nonsense about “consensus models of reality”? That postmodernist crap doesn’t carry too far with Dopers, so I will gladly accept your offer to stop talking about it.
I have a question for you. What does the following mean? “…given that establishment science currently has no relevant instrumentation that they’re willing to use to explore the matter…” The matter (PK, RV, ESP, etc.) has been explored scientifically. Many more times than the subject deserves. We have all the instrumentation we need, consisting of eyes, ears, and careful double-blinding. No well-done studies ever show that there’s anything to them. We don’t have to invent a “PK Ray detector”; we just show that the claimed effects do not exist.
So what we’re left with is someone making a very nice living off his spoon-bending act. This act can be perfectly explained by a simple sleight-of-hand explanation. I think it was Randi who said that if he’s spoon bending with PK, he’s doing it the hard way. In fact, he has been caught on more than one occasion using sleight-of-hand. But I guess he still could be using PK all the other times. And monkeys could fly out of my butt.
What I really get a kick out of is the unfalsifiability of Wyldkard’s “logic”. It will always be impossible to prove Gellar a 100% fraud by those standards. Gellar can do a deathbed confession saying exactly how he did each one and True Believers will just go on ignoring it. (Which has already happened with those fairy photograph people.) It’s indistinguishable from Flat Earth arguments.
Reminds me of a guy that posted on Usenet years ago. Uri visited his house and was caught planting one of his Niobium devices in a fish tank. Yet the guy still believed. Sheesh.
