Please explain to me the scientific explanation for and the physical principles involved in the “placebo effect.” And, if this doesn’t qualify as paranormal, why aren’t doctors everywhere healing people with it?
If it’s science, it’s explicable, demonstrable, repeatable. Or it’s not “normal” its paranormal.
Gee, Daniel, who is benefiting from that money? Randi is. His ‘challenge’ has made him more famous than Uri Geller! His ‘challenge’ enables him to remain in the limelight where he can make big bucks! He’s getting richer and richer because of that money.
And what if someone finally does come around and wins that money? Who loses? Randi no longer has a reason for being so famous and has to go back to being a conjurer, and because of the publicity I suppose he won’t be in much demand anymore.
Perhaps he has taken that money and arranged it so that it can never revert to him, but I think he just fooled you with more of his slight of hand. He’s benefitting from that money, no one else. It’s his to use in a way he has chosen, as an investment, to get richer and richer.
Maybe he can no longer touch or spend (except as prescribed) those particular million dollar bills, but don’t fall for the old “it’s not his money” crap.
He just slipped the card up his sleeve while you weren’t looking. Simple misdirection.
Just to be sure I’m understanding you: you’re saying that if Randi comes forward and says, “I, who have shown countless frauds to be frauds, who have unmasked psychics and dowsers and all manner of flimflam artists–I, Randi the Skeptic, do hereby unveil to the world the fact that Teresa the Telepath is the Real Deal! I give her to the world, giving her a million dollars as proof of my faith–the faith of a skeptic–in the veracity of her claims! She is the world’s first psychic whose powers are proven scientifically!” – you’re saying that this statement would make him less famous? You’re saying that he would gain less publicity?
Daniel
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Based on the second sentence, I think that your failure to read the original thread is letting you down.
You know you’ve lost the argument when your best shot consists of saying that while you have no objective basis for saying someone’s wrong, they must be wrong because they’d not make money if it were ever proved that they are wrong.
Clap, clap. Great rant and needs to be said. While certain mealy mouthed individuals wring their hands, rooted to the spot by the possibility that maybe just maybe if you could conduct some perfect test you might find that possibly there’s some sort of paranormal effect, and the desire not to be associated with some crass yank who spells sceptic with “k” and lives in Florida (I mean really), the less conflicted woo woos are out there boldly proclaiming their bullshit and the punters are lapping it up, and that crass yank is the only person effectively standing in their way.
A nice summary of the placebo effect issue, plus a link to one skeptic’s doubt about its significance. It must be noted, if believers are going to cite the placebo effect as evidence of the paranormal, that there is not a consensus that it even exists.
Wow! Excellent reference there. Basically saying, “We don’t know wht’s going on, but it works sometimes.”
FYI: – oh never mind, You’ll never believe it anyway.
I’d suggest that the reasonable interpretation of that link is “The placebo effect, whereby a positve mental attitude correlates with some physical benefit, is small, if it exists at all”.
Again, it gets down to statistics. There is reasonable doubt about whether the placebo effect really does peek out above statistical noise. Even if it does, is it really so unscientific a hypothesis that a positve mental attitude might be associated with quicker healing or a stronger immune response (after all, stress and depression can clearly affect the physical body negatively)?
The $1M is not for demonstrating something interesting or poorly understood. It is for clearly demonstrating a paranormal phenomenon or ability. This must jump out of the statistical noise far more clearly than the very very slight if at all extant statistical effect called “placebo”.
I’m sorry, I’m confused (really, I’m not being snarky here) …
Are the believers stating that the placebo effect exists ?
If so, are they stating that it is paranormal ?
If they are then that’s fine, we can work with that. Tests can be (and have been) done looking for evidence of a placebo effect then we can examine possible scientific causes. If we find an effect that can’t be explained then this would be some evidence of paranormality (is that a word?).
But, if we establish the placebo effect as a real thing (explained or not) then haven’t we just taken a dent out of acupuncture, faith healing, physic surgery etc. All these things now have to perform better than some Joe A. Random pretending to do the same whilst having no special powers.
I’m not saying that there isn’t some postive thinking == getting better connection, more that if that exists it’s evidence against external mystical influence making people better.
Are you saying that paranormal isn’t ‘demonstrable’ (then what’s the point of it ?) or ‘repeatable’ ?
I’d say that an effect is paranormal if our currect understanding of the world doesn’t predict it (there is nothing currently understood that predicts faith healing) or specifically disallows it (perpetual motion). Any paranomal effect has to be demostrable so we can see it and if that’s true it should be repeatable.
Is that a fair definition ?
SD
I think it started when one of the deniers cited “the placebo effect” as a scientific explanation for a claim of the paranormal. But I could be wrong. Personally, I’m sceptical of the claim.
Is acupuncture accepted as being “real” these days? It’s taught, licensed and controlled by the government. Does it really work? Or are thousands of people being bilked out of their hard-earned dollars by fraudulant practices? Can 4 billion Chinese be wrong? I, who some here label as a “believer,” think that it’s bunk; I tried it and it had no effect as far as I could tell. Others swear by it! Has our government been snowed? It’s touted as “alternative medicine,” right in there with chiropractic (which can be demonstrated to have some effects).
It seems that although things happen which we are unable to explain, we aren’t able to reliably produce them on demand. So the point is to research it, to find out what it is.
Well, I guess we just aren’t there yet. At one time in the not too distant past we couldn’t demonstrate or repeat E=MC² either. Now we can. It always existed, but we just didn’t understand it. I think those things that are actual “paranormal” events will someday be explained and incorporated into known science.
SnSp
Poor old Princhester. Still the same old reading comprehension difficulties.
Princhester claims that I’m unlikely to mention that quote? Well folks, as usual, he’s lying. I have cited that quote numerous times as showing how wrong Randi is.
You can see it for yourself here
Just look at it, folks,. Princhester cites this as a geologist agreeing with Randi. Look at it for yourself.
Randi says here "A better test would be to ask the dowser whether he can find a DRY spot within 100 metres of a well he has dowsed. With more than 90% of the world’s land mass above reachable supplies of water, this should be quite difficult. "
I asked the geologists for their comments on Randi’s 90% figure.
Examine the reply which Princhester claims supports Randi.
"Who knows? True, you can find some water most anywhere, if you drill
deep enough and don’t need much water. Does a gallon per minute count? "
Princhester thinks this supports him. He’s missed the point of the comment, and failed to see the sarcasm in the reply.
Let’s examine it, bit by bit.
“Who knows”
Hardly an agreement is it, Princhester?
"True, you can find some water most anywhere, if you drill deep enough and don’t need much water. "
Here the geologist is commenting that most spots only yield small amounts of water, and hard to reach.
“Does a gallon per minute count”
Princhester clutches desperately at this straw. Princhester answers the question “yes” and does not recognise any other answer is even possible. But if it’s so obvious, why does the geologist ask? The point he is making is that the term “dry spot” is ambiguous, it depends on the definition you are using. Most spots yield only trivial amounts of water, that many people would call dry.
he follows this with
**We have wells supplying farms around here with 10-15 gpm flow rates.
We have other wells supplying irrigation water with 2000 gpm rates, from
different depths and tapping different geological units. **
“Dry” is a relative term. One spot yields 2000 GPM, another spot a few metres away yields only a few GPM. A well theat yields only 1GPM is “dry” to all but the most pathetic of pedants.
The rest of the geologist’s message describes how water varies from spot to spot, and good sources are hard to find. This totally demolishes Randis claim that water is easy to find.
And this, folks, is the nearest Princhester could find to an agreement.
so, all the attack that Randi makes on Uri Geller and Sylvia Browne for the money they make proves he’s wrong?
Thanks, Princhester.
Well, I’ve given one.
Randi issued a challenge to “find me a dry spot”
I wrote to him, telling him that - on the advice of qualified geologists - finding a dry spot in the ground would be easy.
Randi attempted to railroad me into dowsing for damp soil in a plastic container.
Even though I’d never claimed to be a dowser, he tried to force me into a dowsing test.
And I said I could find dry spots in the ground, but he tried to force me into a test with soil in plastic containers.
That is the way he works, Princhester.
This sort of behaviour makes it impossible to agree on a fair protocol.
Of course, you make excuses for him. You always do.
By all means present it.
As pathetic as calling Randi’s rhetorical “challenge to find a dry spot” a literal request for applicants for such a test?
It’s just as real as any other test he offers. He has made the same challenge numerous times.
You claim that the 10-container test for actual dowsing ability is “not real”?
It is a literal “challenge” only isofar a a gallon of water per minute is literally “dry”.
I don’t undeestand you?? :eek: 
Well, I put it in the simplest language I could. What don’t you understand?