Interesting it is, but not very credible. It’s not as if Randi refused to admit Robinson entry to the $1M challenge; he just refused to take part in a poor-quality daytime TV show hosted by credulous people (Richard and Judy). Big deal.
Indeed, the claims that that Victor Zammit page makes concerning James Randi are nothing but lies and distortions.
-
The $1 million is not Randi’s to simply give away to someone on a daytime television show. The money is held in trust by a major brokerage, to be disbursed upon successful demonstration by a claimant of his or her claimed power.
-
The application for the Challenge does not allow for “allowing an audience of television viewers” to judge whether the test has been successful. Rather, both the claimant and the JREF agree to decide upon what specific power is to be demonstrated in advance, then work together to design a test whose protocols are acceptable to all parties. Only then does the challenge take place. A daytime television program is, needless to say, as far from properly controlled circimstances as one can get.
-
Randi has not “chickened out,” because there is nothing to “chicken out” of. If Chris Robinson has not filled out the application and agreed to a preliminary test, Randi is under no obligation to do anything.
-
“Chris said he did not want to demonstrate anything in secret with just him and Randi alone.” That isn’t how any of the tests that the JREF and various claimants have agreed to have worked. Not even close. So Mr. Robinson’s objection here is based in nothing but his own prejudices.
You see this thing time and time again. These so-called psychics try to bait Randi or other skeptics into appearing on talk shows and other venues where they can work the audience and “prove” their skills. But they’re never willing to simply fill out the application, help JREF design a test that will allow them to demonstrate that they can do what they claim they can do (JREF will not hold them to demonstrating any power they have not themselves claimed), and take the money. Never. It’s just more bullshit from some conman.
Well of course: those that have undergone the prelim tests have been handily exposed by Randi before even getting to the real tests, and have themselves backed out: like the little girl who claimed she could see with her mind even though blindfolded. So of course people are hesitant to find out that their claimed powers aren’t what they believe them to be.
Randi’s protocols demand that the person first perform their power without ANY controls, just to make sure that the person feels their power is working to their satisfaction.
Only then does Randi impose the agreed upon controls (in this case, he had figured out that the girl was using a physical quirk: a very low bridge of the nose, and litterally seeing over it and out the side of her blindfold: so taping down the sides, or putting a black foam over the bridge of her nose, ended her ability)
This is great stuff. This Victor Zammit guy says:
I checked out Professor Schwartz - here’s a sample of his “highly credible” research:
http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/92/152/01_2_m.html
Emphasis mine.
He’s doing studies with basically no controls whatsover. The psychics are allowed to use their friends as subjects, and are allowed to receive whatever type of “information” they feel like. And I don’t see anywhere in the methodology that wrong answers were counted against the psychics. An example given that supposedly proves psychic power is that one of the psychics correctly guessed that the subject “had a relative that died in WWII”. Gee, somebody died in WWII - what are the odds?
How did this guy even get to be a college professor?
It is to laugh.
From lekatt’s NDE website:
Just to clarify, most people would consider you to be a Christian, Leroy, since you obviously believe in Jesus. Maybe what you meant is that you don’t belong to any mainstream sect of Christianity, but to say that you are not a Christian doesn’t seem very accurate.
One of the most annoying things about trying to communicate on the Internet is having to read everything into the written medium. In person the tone of voice you used when you spoke of “God” would probably tipped me off as to your personal stance on the issue. I used your usage of the word “God” to help extrapolate your stance. In common English usage in the US, that capitalization is only used when refering to the Christian god. Obviously I was wrong in this case. I apologize.
**
And here is the apparent impasse. I don’t doubt your experiences, but I don’t think it’s an appropriate step to reach from there to somewhere in the 2.a.? hierarchy that I outlined earlier. Why would it not possible that our definition of “death” and understanding of consiousness are flawed?
I am a big fan of Sherlock Holmes. One of his sayings was “Once you rule out the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” I don’t honestly have a particular ending point on the flows I mentioned above. I’m not cheering for 1.a.iii any more than I’m cheering for 2.b.i I simply want to know the truth so I can adjust my life accordingly. In this search I am going to examine the simplest scenario first, it should be the easiest to either prove or disprove. Hook up additional types of equipment to people during surgeries like Ms. Reynolds’ and see if you can detect brain activity that you did not before. Until we fully understand how our biology relates to our consiousness I’m afraid I can’t rule out the possibility that NDEs are a previously unknown state of consiousness. Since we are better equipped to study ourselves than we are to study the realm of the spirit, it makes more sense, to me anyway, to focus on fully understanding our own biology.
It’s not a matter of which we think is true, but a scientist must explore all alternatives with equal fervor. I can’t set out to determine cause of a NDE through scientific methods if I already believe it was caused by a transition to the supernatural plane of existance. I may end up proving that very thing, but I can’t go into my investigation TRYING to prove that. I have to base my investigation on finding the truth, nothing more, nothing less.
Enjoy,
Steven
I never counted them, but guessing there are over 50 people I have quoted on my site. I quote them because I like what they said. I do not worship any of them.
I am not a Christian, I do not belong to any church, I do not go to church.
When a person relates his personal experiences to you, and you were not present with him when they happened, there are four appropriate responses.
- You don’t believe him.
- You do believe him.
- You reserve judgement.
and 4. you can tell him he is wrong and it could not have happened that way because of proof you will supply to him.
Without proof this response should not be used.
The bottom line in refuting NDEs is to prove consciousness is purely biological. If you can do that I will admit I have been in error.
Love
Leroy
I don’t think anybody here is disbelieving that people have these personal experience, they are debating what the experiences mean - this is something that the person who experienced them is not automatically qualified to determine (getting run over by a truck doesn’t turn me into a mechanic).
Having look at Victor Zammit’s website as well as James Randi’s, I have to say, based only on the websites, I find Randi to be the more fair, open minded person. He even has a story about having lunch with two parapsychology researchers. http://www.randi.org/jr/082302.html is the website. Here’s a brief quote:
'In 1982, I had the privilege of inviting two prominent figures in parapsychology, Dr. John Beloff and Dr. Stanley Krippner, to my home in New Jersey for lunch. They had been attending a convention of the Parapychological Association nearby.
When lunch was done, we spoke at length about matters on which we differed — a substantial spectrum, I assure you. But I remember that pleasant event for one particular response I received. I had reminded both gentlemen, who each had many decades of involvement in the science of parapsychology, that by their own admission, in all the decades that parapsychology had been laboring mightily to establish its claims, there had not been a single experiment in that discipline that had been replicated. I pointed out that after those many decades they’d spent in the field, they might have re-thought their convictions, and might have opted to change direction.
Now, just to explain the situation, let me say that in science it is expected that those with similar experience and skills in a particular facet of research, will attempt to replicate any interesting, published, finding made in their field, especially if that discovery is of doubtful quality, or if it appears to fly in the face of established, accepted, knowledge. Publication is one thing; replication must follow for a paper to be generally accepted and endorsed. That replication should be done by independent parties, to equal or greater standards than the original, by those who are recognized as capable of carrying out such a task. Results should be comparable and compatible with the original results.
Yes, this was a very confrontational question I’d asked, but it was an opportunity that I might not have again, to pose a difficult question to two leading authorities, informally and in congenial circumstances. I expected some squirming. But the answer I received was both a surprise and a comeuppance, I admit. I’d failed to take into account that these were two very experienced scientists with extensive experience in their field. I was pretty well floored by what Stanley Krippner said to me.
As best I recall, Dr. Krippner said, “I think I can speak for John when I say that we’re still in the field because we’re both convinced that there’s something there to be found.”
Wow. How can anyone argue with that? Isn’t that what genuine science is all about? Could any real scientist not pursue the Golden Fleece if he/she really felt that it did exist, somewhere? Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Dick Feynman, all of the great contributors to science, must have had moments — if not weeks — when their search for meaning seemed unlikely to be successful. Yet they stayed with it, and we’re better off for that persistence. Others, unsung, kept on plugging along but found they were sowing in infertile ground. But they, too, deserve our thanks; they tried diligently. That’s all we can ask or expect. As I will attempt to explain here, in my opinion, all such investigations have value, whether positive or not. ’
Okay, maybe not so brief, but the point that comes across is clear. Randi is a skeptic, but he’s willing to consider new ideas if they can be properly proven.
Zammit on the other hand, frequently refers to “closed minded skeptics” and
a quote from his website:
‘Skeptics can be seen to overgeneralize saying for instance that because some mediums are fraudulent therefore all mediums are fraudulent.’
I don't recall ever hearing that.
‘Further, skeptics distort information saying that because it may be possible to reproduce certain phenomena by fraud - even at odds of one billion to one - that they have proven that fraud took place. In this sense, the skeptics find it impossible to transcend their ‘metaprogram’ (their overriding world view of reality) of materialistic beliefs.’
On the contrary. Pointing out that phenomena CAN be reproduced by fraud doesn't prove that fraud took place, it merely demonstrates that more stringent methods are required for testing. Skeptics have often shown that fraud DID take place.
I guess all I’m trying to say here is, Lekatt et al., you’re too defensive and using websites like Zammit’s do you no good. Try to understand skepticism. It’s just an attitude that proof is required, and that just because somebody says “I have proof,” doesn’t mean they really do. If there is anything to NDE, and I am skeptical, somebody will eventually figure out how to prove it. Anecdotes and pseudo-scientific double talk don’t suffice.
I also think that it’s a bit presumptious to say that there are only four appropriate responses to somebody making a claim about anything; for example (although this is perhaps only a special case of 3) you might tell them that in before you can accept their claim, you would like to see some evidence in support of it; I don’t think this is particularly rude or demeaning; extraordinary claims should be accompanied by weighty evidence or they remain nothing more than claims. (there’s nothing particularly wrong with that)
Here’s a good chance for me to stick in another couple of cents on the subject of anecdotal evidence. In pretty much everything but the “hard” sciences, anecdotal evidence is important. Gather enough anecdotal evidence for statistical analysis and bang, you’ve got a study. Behind every datapoint in a study about NDEs will be a much more detailed anecdote.
Perhaps we’ll be able to get more and/or better equipment to measure states of consiousness that currently fly below our radar and we’ll be able to turn this into a “hard” science matter. But right now, our evidence comes from personal experiences. There may be enough experiences to begin analysis on and it may prove valuable to do this analysis and then correlate it to the brain-mapping initiatives. If the experiences in near-death states correlate in similar ways then we may know what areas of the brain to monitor more closely the next time a surgery like Ms Reynolds’ occurs.
Enjoy,
Steven
Mangetout
NDEers are relating their experiences. Not trying to prove anything. It is the skeptic that requires proof.
What I am saying is that it’s not appropriate to call someone’s personal experience wrong without hard proof.
NDEs are numerous, studies say millions have had them.
I don’t know if this is true or not.
ok, let’s say you are more qualified to judge my experience than I am, and you judge it brain burps or something similar. I would still deserve your proof of this. In other words show me where the memory of the experience was stored in my brain before it burped.
Again lekatt, no one is judging the content of your experience, or claiming that you didn’t have the experience. What people are pointing out is the interpretation you have of what the experience MEANS is open to serious question, and by no means does having the experience necessarily even give you any special position to interpret what it proves about the world outside your subjective experience itself. That’s a whole different ball of wax.
I totally agree with you, now I have two scientific studies to agree with me.
http://ndeweb.com/wildcard
Their addresses are at the bottom of this article. Do you have any scientific studies showing NDEs are biological to refute them.
I have been offering solid proof of my position here all along.
People just laugh at it and tell me it is no good. But they don’t show me any proof. Do you think that is fair. I don’t.
Where is the proof that NDEs are only brain burps?
Yes, that is very clear, me having the experience means I don’t know anything about it. I will need someone to interpret for me.
I am in no position to interpret it.
Why do I get the feeling something is wrong here. I think that’s what the high priests told the populace during the dark ages.
Now if you would show proof of where this experience of mine, which was the first time I ever saw anything like this, was stored in my brain before it came out, I would sure appreciate it.
Yes, that is very clear, me having the experience means I don’t know anything about it. I will need someone to interpret for me.
I am in no position to interpret it.
Why do I get the feeling something is wrong here. I think that’s what the high priests told the populace during the dark ages.
Now if you would show proof of where this experience of mine, which was the first time I ever saw anything like this, was stored in my brain before it came out, I would sure appreciate it.
You are making the claim that you left your body and visited God - the burden of proof is yours.
I dreamed I could fly. Prove that I can’t fly.
—Yes, that is very clear, me having the experience means I don’t know anything about it.—
You continue, again and again, to miss the point, perhaps because in missing the point, you can avoid dealing with the issues here.
You can of course tell us all about what you experienced, better than anyone else possibly can.
However, you are in no better position than anyone else as far as figuring out WHY and HOW you experienced it: what was actually going on that caused the experience: the mechanics of the event. Was your disembodied mind accessing another level of reality? Or was your mind simply in an altered state? How can you possibly say for sure?
—Now if you would show proof of where this experience of mine, which was the first time I ever saw anything like this, was stored in my brain before it came out, I would sure appreciate it.—
YOU are the one claiming that it was NOT simply an altered mental state, that it was, indeed, something distinctly different from anything we know about how the brain operates.
Indeed, as has ben pointed out, many of the consistent items of NDEs, like the tunnel, the feeling of having an intense and profound experience, are well known and well explained biological phenomenons.
As it happens I’m not qualified to judge your experience at all, nobody is. However, you’re not just talking about the experience; you’re imposing an interpretation of the cause that simply doesn’t stand out as the only possibility; it’s up to you to prove your claim, sorry.
Here, let me save you the bother of responding:
http://ndeweb.com/wildcard
On a bit of a tangent: Twenty years ago my father experienced a very serious brain haemorrhage; for a while the outlook was very grim indeed, but thanks to the skill of the neurosurgeons at Southampton (some of the best in Europe, I believe) and a number of other factors, he eventually made a very good recovery and is still with us today. The odd thing though is that his memory is altered; he has memories of events that we know never happened - for example we might be talking about a specific childhood trip to the seaside and he mentions a story about our beach ball falling into the water and being blown out to sea and lost - this never happened on that trip or any other, but to him it is completely indistinguishable from a memory of a real event. I mention this only to add to the debate the point that memory of an experience does not necessarily mean that the experience happened at all; it may be that no brain activity happens at all during a NDE event, but that the recovery from that event leads to spurious memories being constructed.
However I wont assert this as fact and expect you to prove it wrong.