Talking warts away

Great Debates
461

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Your proposed challenge is as bogus as Randi’s.

No one has ever shoved a submarine up their ass. There is no evidence that shoving a submarine up someone’s ass is possible.
[/QUOTE]

Precisely. Just as there is no evidence that levitation, telekinesis, astral projection, communication with “spirits,” crystal healing, Breatharianism, wart charming (etc., etc.) are possible. However, various people throughout the centuries have claimed they have these abilities.

The challenge (whether we’re talking about Randi’s, or VT’s Ram-a-Sub) is simply a way to say “show that you can do what you claim. Here’s a monetary incentive to do so.”

That nobody yet has is a testament to the bogosity of the extraordinary claim, not the means of evaluating it or the incentive offered to do so.

Any of this seeping in?

462

Iknewit, you think it will be impossible to win the prize because psychics and the like don’t exist, yet also say Randi wouldn’t pay up because you have evidence that he once welshed on a bet (a claim you made with no reliable evidence).

If Randi’s well structured test actually is passed, it would be logical to assume a real example of psychicness, healing, remote viewing, etc. has been demonstrated. What makes more sense, that he will be dishonest and not award the money that’s not even his, or that he will shout from the rooftops, “I can prove that paranormal phenomenon exists and it was all due to my million-dollar challenge- Hooray for me!”?

463

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
How 'bout these?:

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]

Yes. That is one of the 24 facts. A fact that Randi admits to being wrong about and exempts from the challenge. (Did you even read it ? Evidently not)

Randi says the guy quit

  1. Randi (p. 95): And the SRI public relations man (who has since quit the organization) called Wilhelm of Time to see what could be done about the story.

The man did not quit and at the time of the Challeng was still there.

T&P contend: SRI’s public relations man, Ron Deutsch, did not quit the organization over this or any other issue, and is still there.

Again, Randi edits and omits to try and weasel out of a mistake. “over…this issue” The “…” being “or any other”.

My Response: Fellows, I never said that Ron Deutsch quit “over this . . . issue”! I merely reported what I had been told, that he had left SRI. T&P are partly correct. Deutsch, at the time T&P wrote, was still at SRI; he left shortly afterward.

Randi only concedes they are “partly correct” reasoning that he eventually left after they had reported that he was still emloyed. WOW. They should ahve known he was going to quit and respected Randi’s own psychic ability.

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Well. depends on exactly how irrartional you are. You can read all of Randi’s explanations and his admission that they were “partly correct” when in fact they were absolutely correct.

If, after reading this fiasco, you think Randi is going to honor any offer to pay money, you are simply just arguing because you like to argue. This was a mere $1,000 challenge and Randi worms and squirms and tries to plead a case where he is wrong, ending with :

“Well, there it is, warts and all…. Next week, we’ll lighten up again — a bit — and provide a little more variety. I had to publish this, because I’d agreed to do so. I hope you’re still with me….”

464

“There is one exception, where I admit I am in error;”
Yep. Randi admitted he was wrong.

465

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Yes. That is one of the 24 facts. A fact that Randi admits to being wrong about and exempts from the challenge. (Did you even read it ? Evidently not)
[/quote]

Yes, I read it, Please be honest and tell me what fact #18 is:

Is fact #18 that the public relations man called Wilhelm of Time to see what could be done about the story, or is fact #18 the basically irrelevant sidebar piece of info in quotes that the public relations man quit S.R.I?

It’s not Randi doing the weasling here; it’s you.

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
“There is one exception, where I admit I am in error;”
Yep. Randi admitted he was wrong.
[/quote]

You’re so proud of yourself that you figured you needed to repeat yourself in a separate post? Alrighty then!

Sorry, admitting being wrong about something was not what he agreed to pay $1000 over. You can repeat yourself 'til you’re blue in the face as you’ve done with all our other lame points in this thread, but I’m doubting that repeating yourself and getting the last word in is going to convince anyone that your arguments hold water.

466

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

This is the essence of the argument. There are those, like Randi, who claim cold fusion is not, garbage, not possible. By their claims of cold fusion being beyond natural law, impossible, a hoax, Then you tell me what we call a claim of an event that is not proven to exist or even be possible although we have a bunch of people claiming that it is. A hypothesis ? We have those for telekenetics. What’s the difference ? Both are under scientific study, both have mixed and disputable results. Both are considered garbage by Randi.

[QUOTE=Voyager]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, bodies can heal without medicine. But let’s look a bit more closely, removing the body from the equation.

"MADELEINE Ennis, a pharmacologist at Queen’s University, Belfast, was the scourge of homeopathy. She railed against its claims that a chemical remedy could be diluted to the point where a sample was unlikely to contain a single molecule of anything but water, and yet still have a healing effect. Until, that is, she set out to prove once and for all that homeopathy was bunkum.

In her most recent paper, Ennis describes how her team looked at the effects of ultra-dilute solutions of histamine on human white blood cells involved in inflammation. These “basophils” release histamine when the cells are under attack. Once released, the histamine stops them releasing any more. The study, replicated in four different labs, found that homeopathic solutions - so dilute that they probably didn’t contain a single histamine molecule - worked just like histamine. Ennis might not be happy with the homeopaths’ claims, but she admits that an effect cannot be ruled out."

Here we have no body, no mind, just 4 different labs replicating the same result.

[QUOTE=Voyager]
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.
[/QUOTE]

YOu can find the theory of telekinetics here: Metaphysical Magazine: A Monthly Review of the Occult Sciences and ... - Google Books

In fact, there are lots of theories for the paranormal.

[QUOTE=Voyager]
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?
[/QUOTE]

I would suppose for the same reasons he has refused to pay, for 30 years now, a measley $1,000 bucks that he lost to a challenge.

467

**Here we have Randi publishing another lie. He claims there were “many hundreds of throws” of dice. **

  1. Randi (p. l40): And, finally, as if there were not enough doubts about the procedure used to conduct this “test,” Time’s Wilhelm reported that the set of tries with the die actually consisted of many hundreds of throws, the object being to get a run of consecutive wins.

**Again, this very, very simple. There were 10 (ten) throws. Understand that ten is not many hundreds. **

T&P contend: There was no selection of a good run out of “hundreds of throws.” There were ten throws only, as reported in the Nature paper, eight of which were correctly guessed by Geller, two of which were passed. All the throws were reported.

**Randi tap dances again, trying to explain away his lie. He does not support any claim of “hundreds of throws” just like a magician, he uses diversion to try and weasel from the facts. If you can’t understand the simple fact that there were no “hundreds of throws” and somehow believe that this was not a lie, I can only assume you are delusional or just having some fun with facts. This is really, really, basic. Ten does not equal many hindreds. **

My Response: The throws were made, a few at a time, over a period of days. This is not “an experiment.” It is a series of sporadic demonstrations. There were die tests made before and after the SRI “official” tests. Tests were also made at Psychic magazine. (P&T recently admitted these, and excepted them from the “real” tests.) The tests were done at irregular times, when Geller felt “inspired” to do them; as usual, he was running the tests. Pressman, the SRI photographer, reported to a scientist there that the successful tests were not done while he was present but were reported to him by Puthoff the next day. If that is the case, the filmed tests were re-enactments, in direct contradiction to the official text of the SRI film. Pressman now denies that he told anyone that. See my book Flim-Flam! for details.

468

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
**Here we have Randi publishing another lie. He claims there were “many hundreds of throws” of dice. **

  1. Randi (p. l40): And, finally, as if there were not enough doubts about the procedure used to conduct this “test,” Time’s Wilhelm reported that the set of tries with the die actually consisted of many hundreds of throws, the object being to get a run of consecutive wins.
    [/quote]

Randi didn’t claim that there were hundreds of throws of dice. He claimed what a reporter named ‘Wilhelm’ from Time magazine reported.

Also, at no point does Randi admit that there were not hundreds of throws nor is there any evidence that there weren’t.

T&P claim that they didn’t make hundreds of throws and that is somehow evidence of Randi being wrong and not the reporter from Time magazine. Who is doing the tap dancing here, Randi or T&P?

You claim that Randi “claims there were “many hundreds of throws” of dice”, yet he did no such thing. Who is the liar, you or Randi?

Do you want to go over all 24 points?

469

Sorry, Randi’s explanation does not match up. He attributes the extra throws to other test while in his original statement he says “this test”.
We love Randi yes we do ! Even though his word is poo ! EVERYBODY SING ! We love Randi…

And yes, we can continue to go over the points one by one. I especially like where Randi says “There is one exception, where I admit I am in error”

You see, Randi admitted he was wrong. Randi says here “There is one exception, where I admit I am in error”

You see ? That means he admits he was wrong.

Again, “There is one exception, where I admit I am in error”

Wow. What does that mean to you ? (This one should be good)

470

I went over this for you already. Everyone is free to look over point #18 and make up their own minds over what the point is. Good luck convincing anyone that he welshed on the bet. I’m not going to go over what I already thoroughly explained. It’s rather pathetic that after showing you how you just lied about point #22 and you have no way of explaining yourself, you jump back to point #18 where you think you may have a glimmer of hope left. Pretty sad.

471

.
Iknewit, please point out to me where anyone in this thread claimed Randi to be infallible or unwilling to admit error.

Either that or give it a fucking rest.

Thanks.
.

472

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Iknewit, you think it will be impossible to win the prize because psychics and the like don’t exist, yet also say Randi wouldn’t pay up because you have evidence that he once welshed on a bet (a claim you made with no reliable evidence).

If Randi’s well structured test actually is passed, it would be logical to assume a real example of psychicness, healing, remote viewing, etc. has been demonstrated. What makes more sense, that he will be dishonest and not award the money that’s not even his, or that he will shout from the rooftops, “I can prove that paranormal phenomenon exists and it was all due to my million-dollar challenge- Hooray for me!”?
[/QUOTE]

The last time a psychic challenged Randi, that I know of, was years ago. The psychic was from England and promised to pay for the filming and televising of the “test”. Randi refused, of course, his normal way of testing was to take the psychic behind closed doors with a couple of his assistants and a few minutes later come out announcing the psychic failed. No one that I know of has ever seen a copy of the “test” or the “results” of the test on paper. The psychic was trying to level the playing field but Randi wouldn’t allow it. Psychics think he is a joke. I don’t think he wants a challenge anyway, psychics do not produce any money for him. It is the skeptics that Randi needs to keep on his side, that’s where his money comes from.

473

.
Ahh, nice. In this corner, the altruistic, noble, beleaguered psychics . . . and in this corner, the greedy, selfish, money-driven James Randi.

Can you back any of that up, lekatt?
.

474

[QUOTE=lekatt]
The last time a psychic challenged Randi, that I know of, was years ago. The psychic was from England and promised to pay for the filming and televising of the “test”. Randi refused, of course, his normal way of testing was to take the psychic behind closed doors with a couple of his assistants and a few minutes later come out announcing the psychic failed. No one that I know of has ever seen a copy of the “test” or the “results” of the test on paper. The psychic was trying to level the playing field but Randi wouldn’t allow it. Psychics think he is a joke. I don’t think he wants a challenge anyway, psychics do not produce any money for him. It is the skeptics that Randi needs to keep on his side, that’s where his money comes from.
[/QUOTE]

You don’t think it will be profitable for Randi to proclaim to the world that he found an honest to goodness psychic who can prove it in controlled situations? Will skepticism cease to exist and there will be no more money in that either?

Psychics think he is a joke? I think that would be a pretty good angle to take for one making money scamming others.

Do you have any evidence that Randi’s tests are run in the manner that you claim?

475

[QUOTE=lekatt]
The last time a psychic challenged Randi, that I know of, was years ago. The psychic was from England and promised to pay for the filming and televising of the “test”. Randi refused, of course, his normal way of testing was to take the psychic behind closed doors with a couple of his assistants and a few minutes later come out announcing the psychic failed. No one that I know of has ever seen a copy of the “test” or the “results” of the test on paper. The psychic was trying to level the playing field but Randi wouldn’t allow it. Psychics think he is a joke. I don’t think he wants a challenge anyway, psychics do not produce any money for him. It is the skeptics that Randi needs to keep on his side, that’s where his money comes from.
[/QUOTE]

Sure…but the English psychic in question was a hunchback with bowed legs…and notorious for being a liar and a scoundrel. All the skeptics think he is a joke, blah blah blah.

Or, IOW…do you have a cite to back up your claim? I can make any kind of off the wall out of my ass claim to trump your own off the wall, out of YOUR ass claim…but its sort of pointless without a cite to back it up and provide some context. Where did YOU find out about it? Friend of a friend or did you read it somewhere? If the later…provide the cite, ehe?

-XT

476

[QUOTE=andros]
.
Iknewit, please point out to me where anyone in this thread claimed Randi to be infallible or unwilling to admit error.

Either that or give it a fucking rest.

Thanks.
.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=X-ray vision]
Sorry, admitting being wrong about something was not what he agreed to pay $1000 over.
[/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=X-ray vision]
yet also say Randi wouldn’t pay up because you have evidence that he once welshed on a bet (a claim you made with no reliable evidence).
[/QUOTE]

The evidence is on Randi’s own website. It sems X-ray agrees that Randi is unreliable.

[QUOTE=X-ray vision]
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.
[/QUOTE]

**I admit I am in error; Deutsch, the P.R. man at S.R.I, did not quit. **

[QUOTE=X-ray vision]
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.
[/QUOTE]

I admit I am in error; Deutsch, the P.R. man at S.R.I, did not quit. (one of the 24 facts)

[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]

**See above…repeat, then repeat, then repeat. **

I do not argue that Randi has made any claim of being infallable. I claim that when he has offered money for people to prove him wrong, we have an example that he does not pay. He says if one of 24 facts was proved wrong, he would pay. Immediately he concedes, himself, that in one of the 24 facts , he was wrong. He didn’t pay.

The evidence:

The demonstrable probablity of a winner in Randi’s Challenge = 0

The demonstrable odds of winning Randi’s challenge = 0 in 7 billion

Number of winners = 0

Number of published challenges Randi has paid, even when admitting he lost = 0
**If anyone has any evidence that there is any probablity of anyone winning the challenge or that Randi would allow a winner or that if a winner was found he would pay, please bring it forward. All of the hard evidence we have proves otherwise. **

477

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
This is the essence of the argument. There are those, like Randi, who claim cold fusion is not, garbage, not possible. By their claims of cold fusion being beyond natural law, impossible, a hoax, Then you tell me what we call a claim of an event that is not proven to exist or even be possible although we have a bunch of people claiming that it is. A hypothesis ? We have those for telekenetics. What’s the difference ? Both are under scientific study, both have mixed and disputable results. Both are considered garbage by Randi.

[/quote]

Pons and Fleishman weren’t just throwing chemicals into tubs. They actually had a hypothesis about how fusion could be made to happen, and they were both well trained chemists. It turned out they were wrong, so they now have a falsified hypothesis. Whatever their sins, they never, to my knowledge, claimed that cold fusion was beyond natural law, and had a mechanism for where the energy was supposed to come from. There might be cold fusion true believers today.

What this has to do with the placebo effect is beyond me. If I were doing the experiment, I’d repeat it with a control of distilled water which histamines never touched. If she got the same results, that would rule out homeopathy having anything to do with it. If she didn’t include this kind of control, she’s a lousy experimenter.
Here we have no body, no mind, just 4 different labs replicating the same result.

Thanks! That’s the best laugh I’ve had in a week. I’ve only read the first two pages, but I can see where he is going. His assertion that table-turners can’t all be lying is slightly less than convincing, especially considering how Houdini exposed all that he went to. I don’t think anyone even does this anymore. As for repulsion, there is electrical and magnetic repulsion, but there is no opposite of gravity. I wonder if he’s going to use Brownian motion as a proof of repulsion - Einstein explained that in his Nobel-prize winning paper.

If the best theory you can up with is 110 year old Victorian nonsense, I think I’ve proved my point. I’ll read more - it’s comic gold - but it doesn’t come close to a scientific theory so far.

478

I forgot to add to my last post that claims of:

“Unhuh, he would too pay”

“I bet he would pay”

“I know he would pay”

“Randi says he woulkd pay and that’s good enough”

Are not considered “evidence”.

Evidence of paying or not paying a challenge can be found here or on Randi’s website. He has a demonstrable history of not paying, even when he loses.

479

[QUOTE=Iknewit]

The evidence is on Randi’s own website. It sems X-ray agrees that Randi is unreliable.
[/QUOTE]

Please refrain from making bullshit claims regarding what I seem to agree with without at least attempting to back it up.

480

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Please refrain from making bullshit claims regarding what I seem to agree with without at least attempting to back it up.
[/QUOTE]

You said I had no reliable evidence. That is what you said. The evidence is on Randi’s website. Therefore, you are saying that evidence posted on Randi’s website is not reliable. Regardless of whether you agree or not with the evidence, the evidence comes from Randi’s website. Do you consider Randi’s website to be reliable or not ? It’s a simple question.