Talking warts away

[Bryan_Ekers]

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
I believe in wart charming ? That’s news to me. I visited one, the warts were charmed, they went away. I never had any faith in the wart charming and have said as much.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t see how you can reconcile “I believe in wart charming?” and “the warts were charmed”. You casually contradict yourself within one paragraph.

Please answer these three questions directly:

1. Were your warts charmed away? (yes/no)

2. Do you believe your warts were charmed away? (yes/no)

3. Do you believe in wart charming? (yes/no)
   And the followups:

4. Do you believe Randi believes in wart charming? (yes/no)

5. Does Randi’s belief or disbelief have any effect on the validity of wart charming? (yes/no)

6. Could a wart charmer who could charm away warts in seconds win Randi’s challenge? (yes/no/maybe/verbose commentary at your discretion)

[Iknewit]

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Next time, read your links thoroughly before posting them. Your claims as to the contents do not match up with the contents themselves.
[/QUOTE]

Yes they do.
To which claims do you refer ? I will gladly support the claims.

The report, on Randi’s website, quotes Randi directlty from a letter he wrote to Fate magazine:

“I will give $1,000 to any named charity, should Targ and/or Puthoff be able to substantiate any of the 24 ‘facts’ they allege concerning statements made about their Geller research fiasco in my book, The Magic of Uri Geller. There is one exception, where I admit I am in error; Deutsch, the P.R. man at S.R.I, did not quit. I had been informed otherwise by a person at S.R.I”

We can hand pick any one of the 24 points. Here is one:

This is what Randi published in his book

14. Randi (p. 49): [With regard to the Faraday cage experiments] He could even reach his arm out of the cage. What is to prevent Shipi from signaling these three [targets] to Geller? Nothing.

The actual conditions of the experiment did not allow any arms out of the cage. Randi was wrong.

T&P contend: The Faraday cage is entirely sealed and guarded. Only by opening the door can one reach out. With regard to Shipi acting as a confederate to signal to Geller, again, as in all experiments, neither Shipi nor any other potential confederate was permitted into the target area or knew of the target, a precaution insisted upon and followed as a result ot advice from consulting magicians.

Randi redirects the lie with a bunch of balogna. He was wrong, demonstrated wrong and did not pay.

My Response: I was told that the large mesh of the “cage” allowed one to reach out. I was never able to see the cage, or a photo of it, though opening the screen door is obviously not difficult. Hannah Shtrang was in the target area this time and was a general “gopher,” thus being provided with an excellent opportunity to act as a confederate. Many people wandering by asked to see the target and were shown it. The control on this test was ridiculous.

If you would like to review more of the evidence here, just say so, we can take it point by point.

[Iknewit]

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
I don’t see how you can reconcile “I believe in wart charming?” and “the warts were charmed”. You casually contradict yourself within one paragraph.
[/QUOTE]

“The warts were charmed” in the sense that the wart charmer did his thing. I was there, he touched them, whispered, etc. Does this mean they were charmed in a magical sense ? Don’t know.

I can’t answer your questions as presented. Sorry.

[Bryan_Ekers]

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
“The warts were charmed” in the sense that the wart charmer did his thing. I was there, he touched them, whispered, etc. Does this mean they were charmed in a magical sense ? Don’t know.

I can’t answer your questions as presented. Sorry.
[/QUOTE]

Are you attributing the warts’ disappearance to the actions of the charmer, even slightly?

[Iknewit]

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Are you attributing the warts’ disappearance, however slightly, to the actions of the charmer?
[/QUOTE]

I can not attribute them to anything within my knowledge, with any degree of certainty or evidence. He charmed them, they went away within the window of his statement. That’s all I got for you.

It can be seen from all kinds of perspectives and my thoughts on it vary. These thoughts are however, just thouhgts of imagination and imagining how or why they went away. The truth is, I do not know.

[Bryan_Ekers]

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
I can not attribute them to anything within my knowledge, with any degree of certainty or evidence. He charmed them, they went away within the window of his statement. That’s all I got for you.
[/quote]

If this was repeated with the JREF supervising, would it meet any reasonable burden of proof on the existence of wart charming?

[Iknewit]

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
If this was repeated with the JREF supervising, would it meet any reasonable burden of proof on the existence of wart charming?
[/QUOTE]

That is a deeply hypothetical question condensed to very simplified terms. I don’t believe the question can be answered with any meaningful reply.

[Iknewit]

But we can continue to demonstrate that Randi does not pay his Challenges, even when proved wrong.
Randi published this statement in his book

15. Randi (p. 52): And is it not curious that this Geller test series was never reprinted or mentioned by any of his SRI disciples? [Referring to the 100-envelope double-blind clairvoyance test that Geller failed.]

**This is really, really simple. It was reprinted and mentioned. **

T&P contend: This test, with its negative results, is also in the Nature paper, fourth paragraph from the end of the section on Geller.

Radi explains that no one could have seen it, although, of course, if it was printed, someone certainly saw it and someone isn’t no one. Besides, it was reprinted, regardless. He was wrong.

My Response: There is no way that anyone could identify the 100-envelope test reported in Nature with the Rebert/Otis tests. T&P say in Nature, “On each day he made approximately 12 recognizable drawings, which he felt were associated with the entire target pool of 100. On each of the three days, two of his drawings could reasonably be associated with two of the 20 daily targets. On the third day, two of his drawings were very close replications of two of that day’s target pictures.” FACT: There was never any provision for “associating drawings with the entire pool.” He was to tell the contents of one envelope at a time. T&P are attempting to salvage something from these failed tests, which they had to report since they were designed by others at SRI. FACT: The episode on the third day took place after the test was officially terminated and involved a special set of six envelopes not in the original target pool. Geller left the room several times during the tests and scored direct hits on two envelopes. Rebert solved that one; anyone could.

[x-ray_vision]

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Does this mean they were charmed in a magical sense ? Don’t know.

I can’t answer your questions as presented. Sorry.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
It can be seen from all kinds of perspectives and my thoughts on it vary. These thoughts are however, just thouhgts of imagination and imagining how or why they went away. The truth is, I do not know.
[/QUOTE]

You don’t know if they were charmed through magic? Doesn’t this contradict some earlier statements?

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
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.
[/quote]

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
And “if” is a great word. “If” they could read minds. But they can’t. You know they can’t. I know they can’t. Randi knows they can’t. It’s bogus.
[/quote]

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
We have already proved that the laws of probability and statistics are in the favor of the prize not being awarded.

Number known psychics, levitation, telepathy, etc = 0
Number of known winners of contest = 0
Number of unknown things we know = 0

The evidence says The prize can not be won.
[/quote]

The number of known wart charmers is 0 also, right?

[Iknewit]

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
You don’t know if they were charmed through magic? Doesn’t this contradict some earlier statements?
[/QUOTE]

I don’t know what wart charming is. I can only tell you my experience with it. Is it magic ? Depends on which sense of the word you mean. Illusion ? An appearance of the supernatural ? Black magic ?

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
The number of known wart charmers is 0 also, right?
[/QUOTE]

Right. In the sense of verified, tested wart charmers. The odds of them existing are 0.

[x-ray_vision]

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
I don’t know what wart charming is. I can only tell you my experience with it. Is it magic ? Depends on which sense of the word you mean. Illusion ? An appearance of the supernatural ? Black magic ?

Right. In the sense of verified, tested wart charmers. The odds of them existing are 0.
[/QUOTE]

The odds of them existing are 0, yet you don’t know if the warts were magically charmed. Yeah, you’re makin’ a lot of sense.

[Iknewit]

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Wow. You copy and pasted an accusation that by itself makes no sense and hasn’t been verified to reflect the truth. Amazing.
[/QUOTE]

From earlier, I just wanted to make sure you have noted that the before stated accusation, that Randi failed to pay a $1,000 dollar challenge, has been verified to reflect the truth. It was verified by James Randi.

If Randi will go to such great lengths to avoid paying a measley $1,000 dollar challenge, after been shown exactly wrong, I find it difficult to believe that anyone would think he actually intends to ever pay a million.

I must admit that reading his account of the story is quite entertaining. What a floundering farce !

[Iknewit]

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
The odds of them existing are 0, yet you don’t know if the warts were magically charmed. Yeah, you’re makin’ a lot of sense.
[/QUOTE]

It depends on your use of the word “magic”. I know folks here don’t agree with umbrella definitions so it is difficult to communicate with clarity here. If you mean “magic” in the sense of some illusion or appearance of the supernatural, like Randi does in his stage act, then yes, it at least had the appearance of “magic”.
Perhaps you can use a more specific term so that we understand each other.

[x-ray_vision]

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
From earlier, I just wanted to make sure you have noted…
[/QUOTE]

Hah! I catch you contradicting yourself and you go back to another argument to try even the score. Sweet! I’ll take a look at your evidence in the morning and get back to you.

[x-ray_vision]

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
It depends on your use of the word “magic”. I know folks here don’t agree with umbrella definitions so it is difficult to communicate with clarity here. If you mean “magic” in the sense of some illusion or appearance of the supernatural, like Randi does in his stage act, then yes, it at least had the appearance of “magic”.
Perhaps you can use a more specific term so that we understand each other.
[/QUOTE]

You know exactly what context you used when you wrote:

"Does this mean they were charmed in a magical sense ? Don’t know. "

You’re getting desperate and using your ‘word definition’ technique again to avoid admitting to contradicting yourself. Whatever.

[Iknewit]

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Hah! I catch you contradicting yourself and you go back to another argument to try even the score. Sweet! I’ll take a look at your evidence in the morning and get back to you.
[/QUOTE]

I am the first to admit, and have already here, that I lie. Scientific studies have shown that most people do lie, although most people will not admit it. I may lie out of ignorance, by mistake and yes, sometimes because I want to. I try not to lie at all. You very well may catch me in at least, a vaguely contradictory statement after a few days of seemingly endless statements. I am no saint and no genius (though some people have insisted, of the diabolical sort) however, I know shit when I smell it and I have enough skills to sometimes figure out when someone is being dishonest and deceitful.

[Iknewit]

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
You know exactly what context you used when you wrote:

"Does this mean they were charmed in a magical sense ? Don’t know. "

You’re getting desperate and using your ‘word definition’ technique again to avoid admitting to contradicting yourself. Whatever.
[/QUOTE]

I just admitted that I may lie or contradict. Most everyone does. I said I don’t know because I don’t. When he says “magical sense” I can not, by the insistance of people here, rely on an umbrella definition of the word. I would have to get a more narrow definition in order to avoid another huge debate on the meaning of magic.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
I didn’t think he was either. Just spouting off at the mouth about things he doesn’t underastand.

[/quote]

That’s fine. I assume that you agree there would be nothing supernatural about cold fusion, assuming it were demonstrated?

Which is a good explanation of why the challenge is bogus. Anyone can argue that if it exist, the laws of nature are simply extended = not paranormal.

Pure speculation here. We infact have evidence that Randi has already refused to pay one challenge and and no evidence of paying any. The only evidence we have lends itself to the fact that he does not pay his challenges. The assertions that he would are mere speculation.

Do you think someone would come up with a plausible explanation next week? Look how long it took to explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. The only reason I can see for your contention that Randi would sit for years waiting for an explanation is extreme Randi hatred. However, my understanding is that what constitutes success is set down in writing. One of the problems he mentions is that many of those wanting to take the test have no idea of how to document their claim. (Or are unwilling to write down a real claim.)

I would then expect you to explain the placebo effect, in solid terms, to demonstrate the difference. It is something we know to exist, but has no explanation. The argument of whether it falls within one category or the other is moot until it is demostrated otherwise.

I’m not a biologist, just married to one. But clearly our bodies heal themselves without medicine, quite often. Clearly our mind is part of our body, and affects it. I was able to lower my heart rate when hooked to a monitor once, just from the feedback and without training. That our minds affect our bodies is not an extraordinary claim. Now, our minds replacing missing organs would be something else, but that’s not covered by the placebo effect.

Not always true. Dark matter is only an infered existence but science plows ahead to explain it. Black holes were began with explanations dating to the 18th century and they certainly had no evidence of actual black holes, only a clue that something of that nature probably did exist.

I could quibble that these things fall under predictions made by theories accounting for existing evidence - but you have a point. Alas, there are no theories of the paranormal that I know, and nothing you’d expect if the paranormal existed (like people who could consistently display these abilities) have happened.

I would disagree. The placebo effect is a wonderful example of why the challenge is bogus. I also disagree that Randi would ever give the money away, considering his comments caught in candid moments. He admits he does not think anyone will ever win and confronted with the possibilty of it being won says he always has “an out”.

We’ve already seen the full cite about the “out”. Of course he doesn’t think anyone will ever win! He’s not a witling! He’s spent a good bit of his life exposing these clowns, and has never seen a real case. The purpose of the challenge is to make people with these claims, be they honest or charlatans, to put up or shut up. And this isn’t Win Ben Stein’s Money. He already doesn’t have the use of the money, so why would he want to dishonestly keep someone from winning?

[Bryan_Ekers]

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
I just admitted that I may lie or contradict. Most everyone does. I said I don’t know because I don’t. When he says “magical sense” I can not, by the insistance of people here, rely on an umbrella definition of the word. I would have to get a more narrow definition in order to avoid another huge debate on the meaning of magic.
[/QUOTE]

Does wart charming qualify as paranormal, per any definition of the word you’d like to use?

Does Randi disbelieve in the paranormal, per any definition of the word you’d like to use?

If paranormal phenomena (per any definition you’d like to use) actually exist, doesn’t this mean Randi’s confidence that they don’t exist is misplaced?

If so, doesn’t this mean Randi is putting the million bucks at some non-zero risk?

[x-ray_vision]

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Next time, read your links thoroughly before posting them. Your claims as to the contents do not match up with the contents themselves.
[/quote]

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Yes they do.
To which claims do you refer ? I will gladly support the claims.
[/quote]

How 'bout these?:

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
And also, for anyone who doubts that Randi backed out of paying a $1,000 challenge, he has it posted to his website.
[/quote]

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
From earlier, I just wanted to make sure you have noted that the before stated accusation, that Randi failed to pay a $1,000 dollar challenge, has been verified to reflect the truth. It was verified by James Randi.
[/quote]

I’m not seeing where Randi verifies that he backed out on paying anything that he owed.

You seem to be using this as a main piece of evidence:

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
To which claims do you refer ? I will gladly support the claims.

The report, on Randi’s website, quotes Randi directlty from a letter he wrote to Fate magazine:

Quote:
“I will give $1,000 to any named charity, should Targ and/or Puthoff be able to substantiate any of the 24 ‘facts’ they allege concerning statements made about their Geller research fiasco in my book, The Magic of Uri Geller. There is one exception, where I admit I am in error; Deutsch, the P.R. man at S.R.I, did not quit. I had been informed otherwise by a person at S.R.I”
[/quote]

Randi didn’t say if any errors are found in his book he will pay $1000; he said if any of the 24 ‘facts’ are found in error he would pay. Something as mundane as a P.R. man quitting S.R.I. is not one of the 24 facts, is it?

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
We can hand pick any one of the 24 points. Here is one:

This is what Randi published in his book

14. Randi (p. 49): [With regard to the Faraday cage experiments] He could even reach his arm out of the cage. What is to prevent Shipi from signaling these three [targets] to Geller? Nothing.

The actual conditions of the experiment did not allow any arms out of the cage. Randi was wrong.

T&P contend: The Faraday cage is entirely sealed and guarded. Only by opening the door can one reach out. With regard to Shipi acting as a confederate to signal to Geller, again, as in all experiments, neither Shipi nor any other potential confederate was permitted into the target area or knew of the target, a precaution insisted upon and followed as a result ot advice from consulting magicians.

Randi redirects the lie with a bunch of balogna. He was wrong, demonstrated wrong and did not pay.

My Response: I was told that the large mesh of the “cage” allowed one to reach out. I was never able to see the cage, or a photo of it, though opening the screen door is obviously not difficult. Hannah Shtrang was in the target area this time and was a general “gopher,” thus being provided with an excellent opportunity to act as a confederate. Many people wandering by asked to see the target and were shown it. The control on this test was ridiculous.
[/quote]

Okay? So you just proved that Randi DOES NOT admit to being proven wrong and then go on to claim that he is lying without having evidence that he is. Oh, my bad- you already admitted to being a liar three times.