Exactly what I’ve been saying all along Max. Thanks for backing me up on this one.
Cynics disbelieve everything (witness DtC saying “100% of X are fraudulant!”).
Gullibles believe anything (I read it, so it must be true).
We skeptics form the spectrum between the two, conditionally accepting more of a premise as more evidence is provided. I tend to be a harder skeptic because I even withhold belief on some things that have amply been demonstrated; I use the principles as long as they work for me, but don’t necessarily accept (nor necessarily reject, either) the current explanations (nuclear physics, for instance).
If it works, I’ll use it; I don’t have to explain or believe it to use it.
Randi is not saying “I know with 100% certainty that nothing paranormal exists”. He is saying “I would like someone to prove to me that something paranormal exists. To entice this proof into happening, and to lend credence to the argument that if no such proof is forthcoming it is due to the lack of paranormal things, I will add this $1,000,000 prize”.
Once again, if you have specific criticisms of his approach, or suggestions for how it could be done better, we’d love to hear them.
You said that the JRF would not consider your prediction that a man who is elderly (OTTOMH, I don’t know how old Randi is. Late seventies or so?) will die next year, to be proof of paranormal abilities. You then say the the JRF are liars who will find any excuse not to pay out the money regardless of the evidence.
I think it’s entirely relevant to point out your own beliefs in the area and extremely relevant to point out what you claim qualifies as a verified paranormal event.
Why yes, I did have an experience that in toto seemed to involve a rather odd transduction of three of the four primeval forces. (How many ways are there to verbally express what I experienced, which sounds weirder?)
I never made a psychic prediction of an earthquake. That implies that I claim special ability and was the originator… I don’t and I am not. I observed and experienced something of a portentous nature. (Don’t use your loaded words and prejudice to define my objective description.)
Well, that’s different!
Since I believe that anything is possible, I guess that it’s possible that some things are not possible!
Please understand that when I say ‘anything’s possible’ what I’m doing is acknowledging that I am not omnipotent. Some people evidently believe they already know everything. I know I don’t.
I allow for the possibility of anything. I don’t believe in anything until I have either scientific proof or overwhelming evidence as to its validity.
I don’t reject things spuriously, or based on a “lack of evidence.” It also takes a lot for me to believe in anything. Most often I give conditional acceptance to a thing because it works, and use it as long as it’s useful.
I don’t think the program was quite as lopsided as originally predicted – just as dull and as much of a waste of time. What’s more, I think such programs – when they are the same old same old – give false hope to people who are desperate. The lucky ones are those who respond to the placebo effect or the restful surroundings.
When science discovers how to tap into the body’s ability to turn on the placebo effect, that’s the “psychic” healing program I’m interested in.
Didn’t Bill Moyers have a program about chi a few years ago and another about the effects of meditation?
DtC, what do you mean when you say psychic healer?
“Psychic healing” is an umbrella term for any number of scams which purport to use paramormal powers to “heal” physical afflictions. South America is lousy with these guys.
maybe you’ve heard of the “psychic surgeons” who use stage magic to make it appear as if they’re pulling bloody tumors and the like out of their “patients?”
“transduction of three of the four primeval forces”? How is that an objective description? It isn’t. It’s filled with loaded words and your own prejudice.
Sorry. Despite upgrading CWShredder, Spybot S&D, and Ad Aware just yesterday, I’m infected with spyware again. This was probably responsible for the IE window I was using for LiveJournal hitting an error. Which is when I found that I had highlighted all the text I had just written, but forgotten to click and copy it.
In my defense, you did forget to use the irony and sarcasm tags.
And what, precisely, is your beef with Randi? What, precisely, is wrong with REQUIRING PROOF for the claims people make?
Look, I’d LOVE for ESP to be possible. Particularly if I had it. If magic worked, it would be a MUCH more interesting world. But (a) I think the probability of either of those things being true is very, very, low, and (b) I know with absolute certainty that lots of people will try to fake either phenomenon in order to take advantage of the poor and gullbile. Thus, I support efforts to enforce strict standards of proof on extraordinary claims. Why don’t you?
“The master conjurer conjures up an impossible set of conditions that looks doable – at first glance. (Till you read the details).”
I don’t side with this either way. I like Randi just fine. But pretending that Evans hasn’t expressed his beef cogently and coherently doesn’t make sense.
Yes, but it has been pointed out again and again, with appropriate cites and links, that this is not true, and yet he persists in repeating this without providing any evidence. That is the part that doesn’t make sense.