Talking warts away

Great Debates
301

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
In the world of the unknown, the odds are also 0 with the exception of the > (less than) symbol which denotes the smallest expression of an actual number possible. A number that is, in the real world, impossible to even observe. It’s just an idea of a number.
[/QUOTE]
You’re math is as bad as your logic, I see. Four things wrong in three sentences. About par for your course, I’m afraid.

First, the > is not a “less than” sign, it’s a ‘greater than” sign.

Second, neither the > or the < denote the “smallest expression of an actual number possible”, in fact, they don’t specify any size at all. If a number is > 0, it could be 1, .001, 10000000, or any positive number at all, as long as it’s greater than zero.

Third, the > doesn’t mean a “number that is, in the real world, impossible to even observe.” This is just repeating yourself (something you seem to think makes you correct), but it’s still just as wrong.

Fourth, the > sign is not ”just an idea of a number”. It shows one relationship between two numbers, namely that one is larger than the other. It’s not an “idea” of any number at all.

It is this kind of poor conception, poor logic, and repeated nonsense that make all your arguments foolish.

And I’m afraid that even the entertainment value in pointing this stuff out has faded.

302

Incidentally, it’s awesome that you keep repeating “bogus being deceitful and dishonest,” but given how you’ve made false claims about what events are paranormal by your own definition, I’m not sure it’s helping your case to keep reminding us of what “bogus” means.

Daniel

303

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Hey man, if you can get Randi to state this, I’ll retract that his challenge is bogus. Otherwise, it is bogus. Bogus being dishonest and deceitful.
[/QUOTE]
No, it means that you can’t see the obvious. The problem isn’t Randi or his challenge, it’s your little delusion that a person can be dishonest and deceitful without ever actually telling a lie or trying to trick anyone.

And what do you think a ‘Challenge’ is, out of curiousity? A thing where you get paid whether or not you succeed?

304

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Incidentally, it’s awesome that you keep repeating “bogus being deceitful and dishonest,” but given how you’ve made false claims about what events are paranormal by your own definition, I’m not sure it’s helping your case to keep reminding us of what “bogus” means.

Daniel
[/QUOTE]
He’s doing this because I sarcastically modified the definition of 'bogus" back at him. Maybe he thinks it earns him credibility or something.

305

This is a great quote in the fact that Randi admits that any winner would present a new aspect of “science”. This demonstrates the fact that Randi has no concept of what paranormal is. Paranormal is beyond science. That’s what the word means. He doesn’t understand that. It’s beyond his grasp evidently. If we take the previous arguments here that unexplained does not equal unexplainable, the very minute someone displays a never before verified activity, in Randi’s mind, it becomes a new “aspect of science”. It immediately leaves the realm of paranormal. Randi, and others believe that everything has an explanation. The above quote is evidence that Randi is simply not open to accepting the very definition of the word paranormal. He thinks it would become science. The very essence of the word is absence of science. The prize is bogus by the mans own words and beliefs. he doesn’t acknowledge that paranormal exist and further explains that upon the revelation of anything new, it becomes a new aspect of science. He doesn’t understand the meaning of the word paranormal and displays no intent to acknowledge it’s meaning in the face of it’s very demonstration.

It’s bogus. Bogus being dishonest and deceitful.

306

At this point, it’s “four legs good, Randi bogus!” and the OP has obviously hit the spike strips, but hasn’t run out of gas, so it’ll be a long, slow, sparks-flying grind to a halt.

Spectacular crashes are more fun.

307

Add the word “science” to the list…

308

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
This is a great quote in the fact that Randi admits that any winner would present a new aspect of “science”. This demonstrates the fact that Randi has no concept of what paranormal is. Paranormal is beyond science. That’s what the word means. He doesn’t understand that. It’s beyond his grasp evidently. If we take the previous arguments here that unexplained does not equal unexplainable, the very minute someone displays a never before verified activity, in Randi’s mind, it becomes a new “aspect of science”. It immediately leaves the realm of paranormal. Randi, and others believe that everything has an explanation. The above quote is evidence that Randi is simply not open to accepting the very definition of the word paranormal. He thinks it would become science. The very essence of the word is absence of science. The prize is bogus by the mans own words and beliefs. he doesn’t acknowledge that paranormal exist and further explains that upon the revelation of anything new, it becomes a new aspect of science. He doesn’t understand the meaning of the word paranormal and displays no intent to acknowledge it’s meaning in the face of it’s very demonstration.
[/QUOTE]
Faeries are paranormal, right?

If I demonstrated they were real (I know I can’t do it), that would be a demonstration of the paranormal, wouldn’t it?

But wouldn’t it also mark the transition from faeries as a paranormal phenomenon, to faeries as a real-world phenomenon?

I don’t see a problem - if something hitherto understood to be false can be demonstrated to be real, we can start studying it, in the light of this changed status.

309

What is so damned funny is that I agree with the guy on the issues of magic and psychics and such. They don’t exist. Problem is, as is common among scientist, they fail to recognize that there are events beyond human understanding. There are things that defy our limits of reason and logic. Human consciousness being one of them. I also find the hgorizon problem an interesting phenomenon. There are particles of light 28 billion years old in a universe that is only 14 billion years old. That’s gonna be a tough one for the human mind. Some things just are just beyond our meager brains.

Randi’s insistance that upon discovery or display, any new phenomenon becomes science, is unreasonable. It illustrates his inablilty to concede the limits of human understanding. I don’t know the limits but I’m sure we can only grasp so much of what is a giant bucket of stuff.

His prize is restricted to events that he knows beforehand, are not possible. He is offering a prize that can not be won, not because the paranormal exist, not because we can explain everything but because he is only willing to accept that which he already knows as a losing cause.

The cahllenge is bogus. Bogus being dishonest and deceitful.

310

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Faeries are paranormal, right?

If I demonstrated they were real (I know I can’t do it), that would be a demonstration of the paranormal, wouldn’t it?

But wouldn’t it also mark the transition from faeries as a paranormal phenomenon, to faeries as a real-world phenomenon?

I don’t see a problem - if something hitherto understood to be false can be demonstrated to be real, we can start studying it, in the light of this changed status.
[/QUOTE]

Yep. Now you’re getting it. It’s a dog chasing his tail. Reference the earlier post here to see the arguments of “unexplained vs unexplainable”. The very existence of faeries would open to science (and Randi, by his own words) a new door of science. An expectation of explanation. That opens the whole box of worms we already opened here: Unexplained does not equal unexplainable. People like Randi believe that by the very existence of anyhting, it is scientifically explainable. This leaves absolutely no room for anything paranormal. He doesn’t believe and by his own admission, will never believe, in anything but science. He says as much. That’s what makes it bogus. Bogus being dishonest and deceitful.

311

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Randi’s insistance that upon discovery or display, any new phenomenon becomes science, is unreasonable. It illustrates his inablilty to concede the limits of human understanding. I don’t know the limits but I’m sure we can only grasp so much of what is a giant bucket of stuff.
[/quote]
If it can be consistently demonstrated, then it becomes accessible to science - we can study it - what’s the problem with this?

The repetition is getting tiresome.

Also still waiting for you to respond as to whether the graped text in post #264, oh heck, I’ll repost it here:

  • copied and pasted from the challenge home page, represents fair preliminary notification that applicants will have to demonstrate their claimed abilities.

Also still waiting for you to tell me how you know this:

  • maybe it’s stated somewhere on the site? I’d like to see it, that’s all.
312

Great news. I was hoping this would be a fair test. Oh shit…wait a minute.

OK. JREF does’t involve itself except that we control pretty much everything.

Damn. There is JREF not involving itself in the procedure again. Do these guy even know what “true” means ?

The numbers from the available data on applicants accepted were on the Pete Morris site. He had requested them and was denied. I think he had to count them himself from what he could see on the website as they refused to give accurate numbers.

My apologies for the repetiton but there were some other words thrown around about what I had said about the challenge. To avoid the risk of being misunderstood or making a careless claim myself, I just want to make abundantly clear what I think of the Challeng. It’s bogus. Bogus being dishonest and deceitful.

313

You haven’t really answered my question - the quotation I pasted in above was in response to your statement that it was not made clear from the outset that a demonstration of the claimed power would be required. I don’t see how you can read this:

-and fail to notice that they’re expecting a demonstration of the claimed power.

Instead, you seem to have started off on a tangent questioning the integrity of the tests themselves…

314

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
You haven’t really answered my question - the quotation I pasted in above was in response to your statement that it was not made clear from the outset that a demonstration of the claimed power would be required. I don’t see how you can read this:-and fail to notice that they’re expecting a demonstration of the claimed power.

Instead, you seem to have started off on a tangent questioning the integrity of the tests themselves…
[/QUOTE]

It says “power or event”. It also says “in most cases” and a " test of the claim". I would be happy to demonstrate consciousness for anyone. Or provide evidence of the horizon. “Everyone stand and walk outside please. Observe the horizon.”

315

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
It says “power or event”. It also says “in most cases” and a " test of the claim". I would be happy to demonstrate consciousness for anyone. Or provide evidence of the horizon. “Everyone stand and walk outside please. Observe the horizon.”
[/QUOTE]

After which you will, I presume, demonstrate that science cannot possibly explain these concepts, ever? Or perhaps you plan to demonstrate that “unexplainable” has some meaning other than “cannot be explained”? Or perhaps you have some other avenue by which you plan to make this demonstration be relevant to the definition of “paranormal” on which you’ve hung your hat?

I still don’t see the connection. As near as I can tell, you’ve admitted that you can never demonstrate that ANYTHING is paranormal by the definition you use. You claim that such a demonstration would require proving a negative, which you cannot do. Since you can’t demonstrate that anything is paranormal, why do you keep acting as though you can?

Daniel

316

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
It says “power or event”. It also says “in most cases” and a " test of the claim". I would be happy to demonstrate consciousness for anyone. Or provide evidence of the horizon. “Everyone stand and walk outside please. Observe the horizon.”
[/QUOTE]

Again, this isn’t what I was talking about. You claimed that they stated out asking just that the applicants would ‘show evidence’, and that they then dishonestly switched to asking for a demonstration - but the quote (from the challenge home page) doesn’t leave any doubt that a demonstration of the claimed power will in fact be required.

My contention is therefore that you were wrong in suggesting that they dishonestly omitted to mention the necessity of the demonstration, because it is in fact mentioned.

317

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Again, this isn’t what I was talking about. You claimed that they stated out asking just that the applicants would ‘show evidence’, and that they then dishonestly switched to asking for a demonstration - but the quote (from the challenge home page) doesn’t leave any doubt that a demonstration of the claimed power will in fact be required.

My contention is therefore that you were wrong in suggesting that they dishonestly omitted to mention the necessity of the demonstration, because it is in fact mentioned.
[/QUOTE]

First, does say “show evidence”. It does not explicitly say demonstrate. It says in “most cases” a preliminary “test”. I don’t see anything that says “an actual demonstration”. It says a test of the claim. If you wish to test the horizon problem, go right ahead.

318

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
After which you will, I presume, demonstrate that science cannot possibly explain these concepts, ever? <snip> Since you can’t demonstrate that anything is paranormal, why do you keep acting as though you can?

Daniel
[/QUOTE]

You understand that your arguments only validate that the claim is bogus ? Paranormal means unexplainable. If you contend that I must prove “unexplainabiltiy”, that is the exact claim that makes the prize bogus. Bogus being dishonest and deceitful. **You can’t prove unexplainable. You can only claim it. ** If you are attempting to force someone to prove a negative, you have no ground to stand on. Ask around. The only proof that can be presented is an explanation. Not proof of no explanation, as none exist.

Again, you are helping to prove that this is just a play on words. Because of the very problems you help display, the prize can not be won. It is bogus. Bogus being dishonest and deceitful.

319

No, it doesn’t say exactly those words, it says these instead:

At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the “applicant” becomes a “claimant.”

No reasonable person could read that and fail to understand that their intention was to seek a demonstration of the claimed ability.

In fact, I have to wonder if your argument was based on a truncated quote of the ungraped section - I only saw you quote the first bit when you made the argument that they deceitfully failed to mention that there would be a test.

320

By the way, bogus doesn’t mean “dishonest and deceiptful”. I just found a scroll from 1421 that defines it as “fun-loving and youthful.”