Here is an update .
Note that there are no experts in fraud and misdirection on the examining team, only gullible and trusting doctors. What does that tell you?
Because it’s fake. It has to be. The scientific community will get as much out of studying this as they would from studying a guy who claim to fart out pixies.
There are two and only two options possible here:
- He’s a fraud.
- He actually is an alien and/or somehow is actually inhabiting a different dimension with different physical laws.
These are the only two options because if he’s telling the truth and he is a human who has consumed no food or liquid in 70 years, then he’s come up with a way to violate the first law of thermodynamics. Which is by definition physically impossible. So either he’s a visitor from another world who can photosynthesize or something - or he’s a liar who’s in it for fame and fortune. One of these is somewhat more likely than the other, in part because why would an alien try to masquerade as a physically impossible human?
Anyway, “I’ll just use a camera to monitor this guy” is not a properly controlled test in this case. Put him in a hospital room. Do not allow visitors and do not allow any food or drink into this room. Do not allow him to leave the room. Why didn’t they do it this way? Oh, right - because that would prove that he’s a liar.
http://www.india-server.com/news/prahalad-jani-startled-doctors-with-26064.html
http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article425184.ece
It may not make sense, but I can’t see anything wrong with studying this. If fraud can be ruled out, it would be an interesting report to read when it comes out in a couple of months.
I don’t see the problem in investigating this. If he is a fraud, it would be interesting to see how exactly he managers to trick observers. If he is genuine, it could possibly involve a revolutionary change in our understanding of human physiology and perhaps even physics. Scientific laws aren’t absolutes and it’s possible that our current scientific understanding on some issues is mistaken or incomplete. Of course before believing this guy is genuine I would like see him examined by a bunch of international experts including experts in frauds. That could be the next step if the current experiments show evidence of something really unusual.
The thing is, if this is going to be studied and analyzed, it needs to be studied and analyzed correctly. That is, under strict, scientifically-rigorous conditions. Based on some of the statements by the doctors and professionals involved in this “study”, I’m very skeptical that such rigor is actually being used.
For example, from Wesley Clark’s second cite (“The Hindu”) above:
(underlining mine)
Really? Can Dr. Dr. Ilavezhagen please direct us to some of the peer-reviewed studies in which people have survived longer than 15 days without food and water? A claim like this by one of the professionals conducting this study, just does not bode well for the validity of any “results” obtained from it.
Peer reviewed studies aren’t the only source of legitimate facts. I believe the world record for survival without water is 18 days and IIRC Terry Schiavo survived a couple of weeks without water after the tube was pulled. So the statement doesn’t seem particularly off.
How long did Bobby Sands of IRA fast before dying ? Was he forcefully fed ?
More indication of bullshit.
Oh yeah. Apparently the term ‘without water’ is pretty vague in India because, to me, ‘gargling’ and bathing are definitely not living without water.
You can survive quite a while without food, which Sands did (66 Days), but not without water. Sands didn’t eschew drinking water.
How in the world any thinking person can for even one minute entertain the notion that this is not a hoax is completely beyond me. I am afraid for the human race.
Yeah, some people interpreted those lessons on always keeping an open mind a little too liberally.
This is the easiest thing in the world to test. I will do it myself if I get promised immunity at the end. I would just build a poured concrete room lined in hard plastic for comfort. He apparently doesn’t need anything else so that is the setup. Seal him in it for 20 days with no outside contact. Jackhammer the chamber open after 20 days. If he is still alive, I give him everything I own. If he is dead, someone has to give me $5 and I get to mock the guy at his funeral. Pity, he looks so sweet in that picture too. That’s just the way the lying little bastards get you though.
My thoughts exactly. In any debate about the supernatural, the skeptics will insist that they would believe the claim if it were subjected to scientific study. Then when a claim about the supernatural is subjected to scientific study, they just go on insisting that the claim is false. Typically there are two reasons.
The first is that the claim must the false because it goes against what the scientific community knows to be true.
But this, of course, demonstrates the exact opposite of what the skeptical community claims to have as principles. They generally claim that they’re willing to “question everything”, to “refuse to act on blind faith”, to “reject dogmas”, and so forth. How, then, can they justify saying that certain observations must be hoaxes just because those observations contradict what the scientific community has previous held?
Scientific laws are not guaranteed to be true. To say that something is a scientific law merely means that it’s been observed to be true so far. If a trustworthy observation contradicts a scientific law, out goes the law. There was a time when no one had observed a magnetic monopole. Now someone has. Should we call it a hoax because it contradicts the law that there are no magnetic monopoles?
The second reason is based on attacking the credentials of the people who did the study or the publication that provides the information. This, at least, is safe for those who have a deep emotional commitment to not believing in the supernatural. No matter what credentials a researcher has, you can always demand that the research be repeated by someone with higher credentials, hence you always have an escape route back to skepticism. But of course you don’t always have a route to truth. Lots of good research has been delayed or denied because of groundless attacks on the credentials of the researchers.
I doubt anyone who claims to be a skeptic would accept any scientific study, regardless of whether it’s peer reviewed or if the methods were sound. Clearly, there’s a really big question here as to the methods being used.
I freely admit that there’s a lot I don’t know, and that science doesn’t know. But some guy making really extraordinary claims makes me check my wonder at the door for a little bit and go, “What’s most likely here?” Is it that he’s found the mystical secret to not needing water or food and we can chuck out all of our understanding of the human body out the window, or that this is a fraud? It’s not to say he must be a fraud, but the evidence just isn’t there to support his claims. I mean, if he has access to water, and is putting that water in his mouth, during an experiment where he claims he can survive weeks without drinking, isn’t that an area of concern for you in terms of fraud possibilities?
I mean, if the headline was “Man can survive on surprisingly low water intake compared to others when meditating and exerting self very little”, nobody’d really double-take. Maybe the guy really can get by on less water. But he’s come out of the gate with a claim that he’s had no food or water for 70 years. Yeah, sorry, we’re not going to believe that without some real proof.
On the other hand, without skepticism, we’d never make any progress because of all the wasted time investigating each and every example of utter bollocks that was ever claimed.
ITR Champion, I’m definitely a skeptic and my first reaction when I read the original story was along the lines of “Oh yeah, sure he’s gone decades without food or water”.
Why? Because we’ve got thousands of years and uncounted jillions of cases demonstrating that people cannot in fact go years without eating and drinking. Days, sure. In a few cases, weeks - and those are rarities.
And there are also plenty of cases of people claiming that they can go much, much longer without any sustenance, and they’ve been shown to be flat-out wrong (in most cases, flat-out BS).
Given that, my first reaction will undoubtedly continue to be something like “Yeah, whatever, let’s see you prove it” the next time the same claim is made.
But I will not state categorically that it’s impossible. I will state that it’s never happened before, and there’s a mountain of evidence that humans can’t come within a mile of such an ability, but not that it’s impossible - just highly unlikely.
And because it is, IMHO, so highly unlikely, if someone wants to be believed they are going to have to prove their claim and since there’s a history of fraud, they’re going to have to be pretty thorough in their evidence.
And that’s the thing, it doesn’t take much to be thorough with a claim like this. As a matter of fact, simpler is better - why use CAT scans, fasten cameras to the guy and let him walk around the city, hook him up to a thousand machines and all that when you can basically lock him in a room for a month, have a single camera recording continuously if you wish and then see how he does? No food, no water - certainly you can see the problem from an experimental design standpoint if the guy says he wants to gargle and bathe?
And if the doctor making his initial claims has been shown to be a fraud several times before on just the same thing (again, see the article linked in reference to Dr. Shah), maybe he can’t be trusted to be part of this test? Would you buy a used car from a guy who’s been found guilty of defrauding car buyers multiple times or would you find a salesman with a good track record?
Yes, because headline makers always go for veracity first. How do we even know he has claimed to have abstained for 70 years? Because the newspapers have said so? They are just trying to get the reader’s interest in the hope they’ll be suckered by one of the adverts alongside the story.
Who is asking anyone to investigate “every example of utter bollocks” ever claimed?
Without filtering claims with skepticism (or something like it, but with a different name), how would you decide what was most likely to be worth investigating?
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” isn’t a statement of bias, it’s actually one of balance. It could just as easily be stated as 'Claims require evidence in proportion with the magnitude of their departure from that which is known".
It’s just a way of saying that claims will be evaluated consistently - “Cow jumps over fence” might be surprising, if it’s a tallish fence, but it’s not a massive departure from that which is already known - so the gap required to be filled with evidence is reasonably ‘ordinary’. “Cow jumps over the Moon” IS a massive departure from the known (in other words, it’s extraordinary) - which means there is a large and unusual gulf to be filled with evidence - an extraordinary set of evidence is required, in proportion with the magnitude by which the claim departs from the known.
The problem is one of semantics, I think. ‘Extraordinary’ can be interpreted to mean ‘surprising’, but it shouldn’t - not here.