He thinks he is a Kung fu master and he is threatening us? :smack:
He is as effective as Ed Gruberman!!
Well, at least he got the pajamas! 
Purdue University.
This is one juicy canard that the skeptos never sicken of. I’ll say it again: “extraordinary” is an emotional qualifier; it’s an opinion. It has no basis in deciding what level of proof is needed for any claim. Sufficient proof is always sufficient.
… and we’re waiting for it.
So when are you going to show us some? So far, we have none. Is none sufficent?
Such naivete. 500 years of science, huh? Both Copernicus and Newton, to name just a couple of respected dudes, believed in astrology… and host of other things not copaceptic in your worldview. Your atheistic, materialistic way of thinking is really only about 150 years old.
Nice, though, how you give your worldview credit for all our modern inventions, such as the computer. Actually, having worked in applied science myself, the vast majority of “scientific discoveries” are actually the result of people tinkering around in labs, getting their hands in the Play Doh, and has very little to do with theoretical purity.
M-not-k, as I am not trying to prove that remote viewing is real to a bunch of people who are free to Google the issue and read debunkings and de-debunkings written by persons who are far more knowedgable of the topic than I. This OP, shittily written as it was, was to say that, seeing as how the paranormal is being treated more and more seriously by the media (Crossing Over, Super Special, whathaveyou), you will no longer be able to rest easy as assume the truth will remain in the same dark corner it has been forced to sit in for the past 100 years.
Ah, classic Skepto pejorative. Why go for the fillet knife when an axe is handy?
When you post rubbish like this, you lose your rights to resent anything.
You remind me of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle & the Pixies. A silly waste of an otherwise perfectly acceptable mind. :smack:
I’ve read both sides of the issue: the original claims, the debunkings, the debunkings of the debunkings. Basically, I didn’t find it too hard to believe the claims, but one is required to believe that someone out there is NOT lying. I mean, if a study says that So-and-So got this really big, impossible hit, and if the person who wrote that study isn’t a big liar, then RV is right… right?
Skeptos start with the assumption that the phenomenon is impossible, and thus any such big case (such as those on the TV show) indicates fraud. Well, I don’t concur with that logic, and hence we differ.
As for Cecil, well, he’s great most of the time, but when he hits Paranormal Avenue it seems he always heads directly for the Skeptic Pub, which serves Knee-Jerk Skeptic Milk (a boring drink, if ever there was one) tall and cold. Let’s take a look at broken logic at work:
So where does this leave us? Let’s look more closely at the studies. Utts said the “psychics” were accurate about 15% of the time when they were helping the CIA. Fifteeen percent? Is this supposed to convince us to pay them to help the United States government? Utts says she thinks “they would be effective if used in conjunction with other intelligence.” My intelligence tells me that 15% accuracy isn’t much help no matter what it’s used in conjunction with–that’s an 85% failure rate! So 85% of the time, spies would be wasting their time and resources on incorrect information. We’re supposed to be happy with that? And that’s presuming she’s right about the 15%.
This is hopeless stuff. Firstly, a 15% hit rate is mega-high! We’re not talking about guessing cards with a calculable probability rate, we’re talking about starting with virtually nothing and getting big, mind-blowing hits 15% of the time.
This proves RV without a doubt. Cecil doesn’t bother to separate the issue of whether RV exists (proven by the result cited) from the issue of whether these pyschics can actually be used effectively and economically.
The “with other intelligence part” is apt, I think. That only means that the psychics method will become more usable the more the base data can be narrowed down–which is true of any type of intelligence. I mean, if you’re told, “Here’s the minefield,” you can use metal detectors. If you’re told, “There’s a minefield within this 20 square mile area,” you can’t use metal detectors.
An interesting note in this regard is that “psychics” interviewed by CIA evaluators said the program worked well as long as it was run by those “who accepted the phenomenon.” Sorry, guys, but objective scientific results shouldn’t depend on who’s running a study!
Hmm, I understand Cecil’s point, but technically he’s not correct. “Pychic powers” are ultimately a phenomenon of the human psyche, and pyschological studies can easily be screwed up by the way the experimenter runs them. If you have a hostile experimenter who’s trying to trip up the subjects as much as possible, then, sure, the results might not be forthcoming.
I’ve read both sides of the issue: the original claims, the debunkings, the debunkings of the debunkings. Basically, I didn’t find it too hard to believe the claims, but one is required to believe that someone out there is NOT lying. I mean, if a study says that So-and-So got this really big, impossible hit, and if the person who wrote that study isn’t a big liar, then RV is right… right?
Skeptos start with the assumption that the phenomenon is impossible, and thus any such big case (such as those on the TV show) indicates fraud. Well, I don’t concur with that logic, and hence we differ.
As for Cecil, well, he’s great most of the time, but when he hits Paranormal Avenue it seems he always heads directly for the Skeptic Pub, which serves Knee-Jerk Skeptic Milk (a boring drink, if ever there was one) tall and cold. Let’s take a look at broken logic at work:
So where does this leave us? Let’s look more closely at the studies. Utts said the “psychics” were accurate about 15% of the time when they were helping the CIA. Fifteeen percent? Is this supposed to convince us to pay them to help the United States government? Utts says she thinks “they would be effective if used in conjunction with other intelligence.” My intelligence tells me that 15% accuracy isn’t much help no matter what it’s used in conjunction with–that’s an 85% failure rate! So 85% of the time, spies would be wasting their time and resources on incorrect information. We’re supposed to be happy with that? And that’s presuming she’s right about the 15%.
This is hopeless stuff. Firstly, a 15% hit rate is mega-high! We’re not talking about guessing cards with a calculable probability rate, we’re talking about starting with virtually nothing and getting big, mind-blowing hits 15% of the time.
This proves RV without a doubt. Cecil doesn’t bother to separate the issue of whether RV exists (proven by the result cited) from the issue of whether these pyschics can actually be used effectively and economically.
The “with other intelligence part” is apt, I think. That only means that the psychics method will become more usable the more the base data can be narrowed down–which is true of any type of intelligence. I mean, if you’re told, “Here’s the minefield,” you can use metal detectors. If you’re told, “There’s a minefield within this 20 square mile area,” you can’t use metal detectors.
An interesting note in this regard is that “psychics” interviewed by CIA evaluators said the program worked well as long as it was run by those “who accepted the phenomenon.” Sorry, guys, but objective scientific results shouldn’t depend on who’s running a study!
Hmm, I understand Cecil’s point, but technically he’s not correct. “Pychic powers” are ultimately a phenomenon of the human psyche, and pyschological studies can easily be screwed up by the way the experimenter runs them. If you have a hostile experimenter who’s trying to trip up the subjects as much as possible, then, sure, the results might not be forthcoming.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
There is a force all right, and it is economical: they go for the most outrageous things, all for ratings. See for example the case of Uri Geller and the Tonight Show: when Geller appeared with Carson as host, Geller failed: because Carson knew how magic tricks were done and he knew what to look for. In an entertainment level, it was a dull show. More recently, Geller had a better showing with Jay Leno, needless to say: Jay did go for the show ratings and not for the truth.
[quote]
They’ve had Uri in a lab and run the camera. He does his thing; meters, you know, scientific instruments move in response. Wash, rinse, repeat.
No evidence! Fraud most likely… no, certainly!
Google it, you’ll find it.
And ever since I discovered that Sir Isaac Newton was a wackjob who focused most of his energies not on physics or mathematics, but on nutso occult topics, divination, etc., I’ve been disinclined to believe that E=MC[sup]2[/sup].
No, wait, that was Einstein, who incorrect because in believed in that superstition called “God.” Unacceptable.
And also, if some wacko calls up Art Bell and says he can do RV but can’t (shudder!), then RV must not exist. Voila!
Great logic. You’re a certified skeptic. Your certified J. W. Randi skeptical supporter will be sent to you when you send your jock size, address, and check for $19.95 to 222 Burberry St., Pasadena OH.
[QUOTE=Aeschines]
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
There is a force all right, and it is economical: they go for the most outrageous things, all for ratings. See for example the case of Uri Geller and the Tonight Show: when Geller appeared with Carson as host, Geller failed: because Carson knew how magic tricks were done and he knew what to look for. In an entertainment level, it was a dull show. More recently, Geller had a better showing with Jay Leno, needless to say: Jay did go for the show ratings and not for the truth.
You expect people to believe you earned a Masters with “Google it, you’ll find it.” as a cite? You’re not making “remote viewing” more believable; you’re making your claim of a Masters less believable.
[QUOTE=Fish]
The arguments are all along the lines that a for-profit television show does not equate to an airtight-controlled scientific study.
[quote]
No shit, Sherlock.
You can hardly blame me for stating the obvious.
Wait a sec here.
You need to write with more precision. I’m not blind; rather, I know how not to waste time.
What evidence? But yes, always.
Yeah, they exist. Google 'em and study up.
How about roll your own?
Oh, it’s far more interesting than that. If such a TV show can be made in this way (either as truth or as a polished hoax with many people involved), what does that tell you? The people here assume “fraud”–well, where does that assumption lead you? I find that the boring, dull, uninteresting thing about the Skeptos is that they come to an interesting logical conclusion but fail to do anything with the information so gained.
It’s rather like the Moon Hoax people (idiots). IF such a hoax was indeed perpetrated, what does that tell you about the US government? Surely Nixon knew about it… and did nothing. What does that tell you about what kind of hoaxes can be perpetrated, and at what scale? Of coarse, some of these cranks DO follow the conclusions, and suddenly you have a worldview that is completely crackers. A lesson from the moon hoaxers: it’s not just what you believe that makes you nuts, it’s also what you don’t believe.
And it’s rather like the Democrats during the Clinton impeachment thingie. OK, you’ve granted that Clinton’s action was “despicable” and whatnot, but you say that he doesn’t deserve impeachment. Very well, but, having granted that he did something “despicable” and worthy of a censoring, why are you grinning with him in a photo-op 10 minutes later? There is no heart in the rhetoric.
So it is with the Skeptos. Fine, elegant hoaxes are being perpetrated all around the globe. And so? What does that tell you?
Nada. Uh, fraud. Forgotten. Wash, rinse, repeat!
[quote]
Look up the word “incontrovertible” in the dictionary and you will find that it means “impossible to dispute, unquestionable.” And you yourself admit that there are holes in the evidence big enough to walk Elizabeth Smart through. When you will you provide the rock-solid evidence we are asking for? Or do you just believe because this particular show.
[quote]
I don’t know who the devil you’re conversing with, 'cause it ain’t me. Wrong message board, perhaps?
Oh, here are the answers to your questions:
1. Was the show broadcast in Japanese? Yes or no.
It was on Japanese TV, so take a wild fucking guess.
2. Do you speak Japanese? Yes or no.
I already said I was insulted by this question.
3. Can you provide a link to a controlled study of Remote Viewing? Yes or no.
Yes.
4. What evidence do you have that the show was not rigged to produce favorable results?
None, and I already said so.
5. How do you know that the television program wasn’t a scripted, fictional show?
'Cause it wasn’t.
[quote]
They say it’s real and that’s good enough for you. You evidently trust someone when they tell you something is real and true. It’s not good enough for me. I want to confirm what I’m told, either through independent reason or additional sources of evidence.
[quote]
Well ain’t we rigorous? And I want to sort and count all my lucky charms to make sure the proper proportion of green clovers is in there. My mom, James Randi, and Lucky the Leprochaun will be so proud of me!
No, but I’m willing to work with those you google up for me.
No personal insults in GD, unless you’re wearing your genuine J.W.R. Skeptical Protector. Then it’s… play ball!
“Wild assertions.” This is insulting rhetoric inappropriate for GD. The next thing you know, you will be flashing me the Putz! smiley, which is also illegal.
Ok, you claim to have a ‘Master of Science’ degree. That is an excellent starting point! Now we can rely on you to provide links to scientifically viable studies! Not some stupid geocities crap or similiar nonsense, no sir! With your considerable background, you will surely be able to provide some evidence, no?
This is clearly a personal insult, which is not allowed in GD. Apparently no one chooses to obey this rule except myself, which puts me at a disadvantage.
I never kick a man when he’s down. Now get up, punk, and hit me with your best shot!
[QUOTE=scr4]
I HAVE seen Super Special before, and I have seen many other variety shows produced by this TV station. It’s obvious that it’s meant to be taken as entertainment, not scientific results. The produces don’t care if the “psychics” are real. If they can do a decent imitation that’s good enough material to put on TV.
[quote]
They seemed pretty serious about it all to me.
I’m fluent precisely because I haven’t watched much TV. Do you know what “ame” means in Japanese? It can mean either “rain” or “candy.”
It’s not an experiment; it’s a demonstration of the phenomena. And if it’s not a hoax, then it was, in fact, a good demonstration.
What would be so elegant about a remote viewing hoax on a Japanese network known for sensationalist TV? I don’t get it.
As for your other comments… We “skeptos” don’t take anything on blind faith. That includes a dismissal of the paranormal. If evidence existed, we could be convinced. That’s how we work. Show us evidence, try to convince us. If not, stop wasting our time.
I don’t understand how you can post a bazillion replies saying that showing us evidence would be a waste of your time. One post with good evidence is all you need to convince us and be done with the matter.
I’m not going to do your homework for you. Hit the books.
It’s not fraud if they don’t expect people to believes in it. When FOX presented evidence that the moon landing was a hoax, did people cry “fraud”? No, they dismissed it as inaccurate sensasionalism which is typical of television.
When are you people gonna read what I’ve actually written and respond thereto? I’m not here to prove that remote viewing is real to you!