# Talking warts away **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 2, 2007, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-warts-away/417796 "2007-09-02T07:16:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![Iknewit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/4491bb/32.png) [@Iknewit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iknewit)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2007, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-warts-away/417796/401 "2007-09-06T20:54:51Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] Why didn’t you have them whispered? [/QUOTE] I did. Shit. I’m arguing with people who haven’t the slightest idea where the conversation came from. You are officially ignored. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2007, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-warts-away/417796/402 "2007-09-06T21:05:49Z")
Wait, I wanna have some fun to. So there’s a number, it’s \>0, and that’s the number: 0.000…infinitenumberofzeros…00001? And this number is different from 0? So you’re saying that .999999999999999… is NOT equal to 1. Actually it is. .999999…=1. My next question. Is this the dumbest thread in the history of the Straight Dope, or merely one of the top ten dumbest? I mean, it’s gotta compete with “Monkey Butlers” and “Gotcha Ya!”, for crying out loud. So where in the pantheon of bogus (bogusbogusbeingdishonestanddeceitful) does this thread lie? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2007, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-warts-away/417796/403 "2007-09-06T21:38:25Z")
[QUOTE=Iknewit] Sure, you can find your way around what I\*\* mean\*\* by taking me at what I **say**. Have at it. Good thing we’re dealing with Randi here though cause what we would have here, is another case of a poster supporting exactly what I calim about the Challenge: It does not mean what it says. You can litterally satisfy the Challenge, like propoase to do mine, but your claim won’t be accepted or paid. [/QUOTE] If I was a genetically-modified solar astronaut who had completed the challenge as you **said** when you wrote: > [@](#): > > Here is my challenge: I offer ten million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate the ability to sprout wings, fly to the sun and bring a piece of it home. …and you refused to pay up, I would sue you and I would probably win. In fact, unless you’ve actually put aside ten million, you made a challenge with absolutely no intention to fulfill your end, while Randi and the JREF actually _do_ have a million dollars put aside. A telekinetic could walk in anytime, show his stuff, and walk out richer, or do you claim the JREF would start weaseling as you are doing? Randi believes telekinesis is bunk, he believes it with such fervor that he claims he _knows_ it is bunk, but there’s still a million bucks stashed away, just in case. If anyone here is “bogus” (in the non-scroll sense), it’s you. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2007, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-warts-away/417796/404 "2007-09-06T21:40:32Z")
[QUOTE=Iknewit] I did. Shit. I’m arguing with people who haven’t the slightest idea where the conversation came from. You are officially ignored. [/QUOTE] Why didn’t they go away? ---
**Author:** ![Iknewit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/4491bb/32.png) [@Iknewit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iknewit)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2007, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-warts-away/417796/405 "2007-09-06T21:41:43Z")
[QUOTE=Lemur866] Wait, I wanna have some fun to. So there’s a number, it’s \>0, and that’s the number: 0.000…infinitenumberofzeros…00001? And this number is different from 0? So you’re saying that .999999999999999… is NOT equal to 1. Actually it is. .999999…=1. [/QUOTE] No, the number is the same as zero for all intents and purposes. I do not claim the number is any different than zero. The number is the demonstrable chance of winning the challenge which some here clams makes the challenge winnable. I submit that the number **does equal zero.** There is 0 chance of winning the challenge, it is bogus. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2007, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-warts-away/417796/406 "2007-09-06T21:52:10Z")
[QUOTE=Iknewit] You are officially ignored. [/QUOTE] You have not quite been clear whether you are indicating that you are going to use the vB software to put **Contrapuntal** on your Ignore List or whether you are simply declaring that you intend to use your own discretion to refrain from posting responses to **Contrapuntal**. In either event, your declaration is not appropriate on the SDMB as noted in this [statement of the rules regarding the Ignore Lists](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7697065&postcount=13). Do not do this again. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2007, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-warts-away/417796/407 "2007-09-06T21:52:14Z")
[QUOTE=Iknewit] You don’t know what you’re talking about. Randi is suppose to pay $10,000 by personal check. [/QUOTE] Yeah, ok he does pay out a little. And where does the rest come from? > [@](#): > > As for the rest of your post, it all seems like “no it’s not”. I have brought evidence, shown statistics and probabilty to support my claim. If you have evidence, “put up or shut up” , as many have said here. A virtual claim of “no it’s not” or “yes it is”, carries no weight. Ah, turning your opponent’s argument around and throwing it back at him. Gosh I haven’t seen that one in a while. Only the normal tactic is provide a reason to do so, and you haven’t. What ‘evidence’? I’ve read this thread and you have yet to provide anything but baseless speculation that Randi has no intention of paying out. > [@](#): > > As for the quote. “Concerning the challenge, I always have an out. I’m right” > > Yes I can see where that absolutely changes things. That absolutely sounds like a man who intends to pay a prize now. Duh. Ah, more personal interpretation and speculation. Whatever makes you feel good. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2007, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-warts-away/417796/408 "2007-09-06T21:55:40Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] If anyone here is “bogus” (in the non-scroll sense), it’s you. [/QUOTE] Scrolling or non-scrolling, leave the personal attacks outside this Forum. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Iknewit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/4491bb/32.png) [@Iknewit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iknewit)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2007, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-warts-away/417796/409 "2007-09-06T22:05:19Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] You have not quite been clear whether you are indicating that you are going to use the vB software to put **Contrapuntal** on your Ignore List or whether you are simply declaring that you intend to use your own discretion to refrain from posting responses to **Contrapuntal**. In either event, your declaration is not appropriate on the SDMB as noted in this [statement of the rules regarding the Ignore Lists](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7697065&postcount=13). Do not do this again. [/Moderating] [/QUOTE] I would like to be quite clear that I do not intend to use the vB software to ignore **Contrapuntal**. I did not know such a feature to exist. I am simply declaring, for the duration of my intent to ignore, I will in fact, use my discretion, to refrain from posting responses to **Contrapuntal**. The board rules have been noted. I will not do this again. (“This” being an announcement of intent to ignore.) Thank you for your direction. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2007, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-warts-away/417796/410 "2007-09-06T22:05:48Z")
[QUOTE=Iknewit] I like this definition too. Here is the opening of the Wiki article: "Paranormal is an umbrella term used to describe a wide variety of reported anomalous phenomena. According to the Journal of Parapsychology, the term paranormal describes “any phenomenon that in one or more respects exceeds the limits of what is deemed physically possible according to current scientific assumptions” An “ **umbrella term** ”, very nice, very broad, and we further have "\*\*any \*\* phenomenon that in \*\*one or more \*\* respects exceeds ". The article does go on talk about pshchics and telapathy but I have said that those things weren’t under that **umbrella** term, paranormal. [/QUOTE] Exceeding the limits of what we consider possible according to known laws is different from 'stuff we just haven’t worked out yet. Isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Iknewit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/4491bb/32.png) [@Iknewit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iknewit)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2007, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-warts-away/417796/411 "2007-09-06T22:08:40Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] Exceeding the limits of what we consider possible according to known laws is different from 'stuff we just haven’t worked out yet. Isn’t it? [/QUOTE] I don’t think we can know until you actually “work it out”. This is the logic of: existence = explanation. The very reasoning by which the challenge is bogus. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2007, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-warts-away/417796/412 "2007-09-06T22:15:42Z")
[QUOTE=Iknewit] > [@](#): > > If there was a community of people who claimed that, on a regular basis, they could sprout wings and fly to the sun (“Look, I’ll even prove it by selling you a piece of Sun Crystal!”) - but that they generally just did it when nobody was watching, then I think a challenge offering ten million dollars for a demonstration, presented as a transparently obvious way of saying “put up, or shut up” isn’t dishonest. Un huh. The honesty of my claim doesn;t depend on **my honesty** , it rest with what a bunch of other people are saying. Nice logic. [/QUOTE] I’m not describing a claim, I’m describing a _challenge to extant claims_ Nice try at putting words in my mouth. But you know what I’ve realised after all this? I don’t really care. I’m exasperated by your mode of argument and discourse, but I don’t really care enough about Randi’s challenge to worry whether it gets your knickers in a twist. But what you’ve done is you’ve managed to snag a number of people into arguing blue in the face with your provocative demeanour, so that it looks like your opponents are all rushing to defend their lovely hero, when in fact they’re merely ensnared on the sharp edges of your arguments. Interesting tactic, if it was indeed deliberate. I don’t see this coming to any satisafactory conclusion and I think to continue will only paint a picture I know to be incorrect, so have fun, I’m out. Declare that as any kind of victory you wish. ---
**Author:** ![Iknewit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/4491bb/32.png) [@Iknewit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iknewit)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2007, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-warts-away/417796/413 "2007-09-06T22:29:52Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] I’m not describing a claim, I’m describing a _challenge to extant claims_ Nice try at putting words in my mouth. [/QUOTE] You are describing that the _claim_ to offer a prize is somehow validated by others false claims. No one elses claims have any bearing. The claim to offer a prize is either honest or not. The mere fact that you suggest that because other people are lying has some bearing on another persons honesty is absurd. [QUOTE=Mangetout] But you know what I’ve realised after all this? I don’t really care. I’m exasperated by your mode of argument and discourse, but I don’t really care enough about Randi’s challenge to worry whether it gets your knickers in a twist. But what you’ve done is you’ve managed to snag a number of people into arguing blue in the face with your provocative demeanour, so that it looks like your opponents are all rushing to defend their lovely hero, when in fact they’re merely ensnared on the sharp edges of your arguments. Interesting tactic, if it was indeed deliberate. I don’t see this coming to any satisafactory conclusion and I think to continue will only paint a picture I know to be incorrect, so have fun, I’m out. Declare that as any kind of victory you wish. [/QUOTE] And what I have realised after all this is that the argument doesn’t matter to most. It’s the target. So long as Randi targets people that you, and others don’t care for, that makes him above the same scrutinty he imposes on others, with the same sharp edges, caustic nature and down right rudeness. The difference in Randi and the objects of his ire is that some of these people _really believe_ they have psychic power. On the other hand, Randi does not believe his own prize to be winnable, in fact, he knows it isn’t. He always “has an out”. You’d have to be an idiot to think he is sincere when he actually has said that he is not. But being an idiot is no more a crime than being dishonest I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2007, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-warts-away/417796/414 "2007-09-06T22:51:58Z")
[QUOTE=hotflungwok] It is contrary to the laws of science, but that doesnt make it supernatural. No one has ever claimed supernatural _anything_ about cold fusion, it’s always been done in a scientific context. There are lots of things that are contrary to scientific laws and are not supernatural. If someone claims to have acheived cold fusion, and then goes to Randi for a test, everyone will instantly know they’re full of crap because cold fusion has nothing to do with the supernatural, and never has. [/QUOTE] Just a correction for both of you. Cold fusion, assuming it could be demonstrated, is not against the laws of science. No one ever claimed that conservation laws were being violated, for instance. It would falsify a bunch of theories about fusion, but that has happened before. If it were truly against the laws of science, there wouldn’t have been a rush to reproduce the experiment. Certainly no one runs around trying to copy perpetual motion machines. If the cold fusion effect would have been reproduced, there would have been a rush to redo the theories. But your larger point, that cold fusion has nothing to do with the supernatural, is right. Ditto for the placebo effect. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2007, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-warts-away/417796/415 "2007-09-06T22:59:45Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] But your larger point, that cold fusion has nothing to do with the supernatural, is right. Ditto for the placebo effect. [/QUOTE] You don’t understand. Unexplained equals unexplainable. And unexplainable equals paranormal. Q.E.D. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2007, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-warts-away/417796/416 "2007-09-06T23:13:37Z")
[QUOTE=Iknewit] You are describing that the _claim_ to offer a prize is somehow validated by others false claims. No one elses claims have any bearing. The claim to offer a prize is either honest or not. The mere fact that you suggest that because other people are lying has some bearing on another persons honesty is absurd. [/quote] Just in case anyone’s wondering what Mangetout said for Iknewit to claim he suggested, “that because other people are lying has some bearing on another persons honesty” and that Mangetout is describing, “that the _claim_ to offer a prize is somehow validated by others false claims”, here it is: > [@](#): > > If there was a community of people who claimed that, on a regular basis, they could sprout wings and fly to the sun (“Look, I’ll even prove it by selling you a piece of Sun Crystal!”) - but that they generally just did it when nobody was watching, then I think a challenge offering ten million dollars for a demonstration, presented as a transparently obvious way of saying “put up, or shut up” isn’t dishonest. How very honest of Iknewit, ain’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Iknewit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/4491bb/32.png) [@Iknewit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iknewit)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2007, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-warts-away/417796/417 "2007-09-06T23:24:48Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] Just a correction for both of you. Cold fusion, assuming it could be demonstrated, is not against the laws of science. No one ever claimed that conservation laws were being violated, for instance. It would falsify a bunch of theories about fusion, but that has happened before. If it were truly against the laws of science, there wouldn’t have been a rush to reproduce the experiment. Certainly no one runs around trying to copy perpetual motion machines. If the cold fusion effect would have been reproduced, there would have been a rush to redo the theories. But your larger point, that cold fusion has nothing to do with the supernatural, is right. Ditto for the placebo effect. [/QUOTE] I wouldn’t disagree with you, sounds like you know what you’re talking about. I would just ask, is Randi right when he says that cold fusion should be thrown out with the garbage ? Both this and the placebo effect demonstrate that the challenge is bogus though. Does anything known violate the laws of nature ? I mean things like seemingly miraculous healings actually are not beyond the laws of nature, simply by their very existence. We create a term to describe an effect that we don’t fully understand, we just describe it and begin to try and unlock it’s secrets. In other words, if it exist, it is because nature allows it. That is absolutely true to any understanding you can apply. If nature didn’t allow it, it wouldn’t be here. I the rules of science didn’t allow it, it would not be here. If it is against our rules, then we just misunderstood and have some things to work out. \*\*There is nothing that can be shown to exist that is not natural, (disqualified from paranormal), by the fiber of it’s existence. \*\* If it exist, it is real. If it is real, we will apply a term to it, make the best guess we can at it’s nature and document it. Goodbye paranormal. Anyone who can see that the very struggle here to identify _anything_ rational and real, that could possibly be considered paranormal, has a human attempt at understanding that will disqualify it. In other words, you folks made the point for me. You had to. There is no such thing as an unexplainable event. You know it. I know it. Randi knows it. We might be wrong and someday change the explanation but even a wrong explanantion is right until proved wrong. And even the things we can’t truely explain, like the placebo effect, we document and throw theories at it so we can sleep at night and not fear the unknown. Randi always “has an out”. His challenge is bogus. ---
**Author:** ![Iknewit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/4491bb/32.png) [@Iknewit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iknewit)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2007, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-warts-away/417796/418 "2007-09-06T23:29:18Z")
[QUOTE=x-ray vision] Just in case anyone’s wondering what Mangetout said for Iknewit to claim he suggested, “that because other people are lying has some bearing on another persons honesty” and that Mangetout is describing, “that the _claim_ to offer a prize is somehow validated by others false claims”, here it is: How very honest of Iknewit, ain’t it? [/QUOTE] It is exactly honest. He claims that if there were people claiming (insert lie) then a challenge to prove (insert lie) is honest. YOu don’t need people claiming (insert lie) to determine the honesty of offering a prize for a lie. It’s a prize for a lie whether people are c.aiming said lie or not. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2007, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-warts-away/417796/419 "2007-09-06T23:30:22Z")
[QUOTE=Iknewit] In other words, you folks made the point for me. You had to. There is no such thing as an unexplainable event. You know it. I know it. Randi knows it. We might be wrong and someday change the explanation but even a wrong explanantion is right until proved wrong. And even the things we can’t truely explain, like the placebo effect, we document and throw theories at it so we can sleep at night and not fear the unknown. Randi always “has an out”. His challenge is bogus. [/QUOTE] This has been explained to you multiple times. It doesn’t matter if someone can read minds and after the fact we come up with a scientific explanation for the new phenomenon. He has had people try to demonstrate these sort of powers and had they been successful, they would have won the challenge. ---
**Author:** ![Iknewit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/4491bb/32.png) [@Iknewit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iknewit)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2007, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-warts-away/417796/420 "2007-09-06T23:34:19Z")
[QUOTE=x-ray vision] This has been explained to you multiple times. It doesn’t matter if someone can read minds and after the fact we come up with a scientific explanation for the new phenomenon. He has had people try to demonstrate these sort of powers and had they been successful, they would have won the challenge. [/QUOTE] All you have to do is prove it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-warts-away/417796.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-warts-away/417796.md?page=22)