I’m actually Canadian, but I’ll try to address your position instead of dismissing it outright becuase of a trivial error on your part.
Randi already has some influence in American society, though I’d be surprised if he believes American society will one day be free of irrational beliefs. The best Randi and other skeptics can do is keep the wave of ignorance from getting too far out of hand, by providing a good counter-example.
In any case, you seem to have an odd view of how skeptics behave; as though Randi was some deified leader without which the cult of skpeticism would collapse. Fact is, Randi isn’t the arbiter of all things skeptical and his death or personal discrediting would do nothing to invalidate the scientific method and/or lend evidence to the existence of the paranormal.
Then I need hardly point out that your “position” is a little short on good ambassdors, itself. It persists because of a prevailing desire on the part of many people to believe in untestable ideas, rather than any objective merit of its own, whereas approaching unusual situations logically and seeking simple, plausible explanations is long-proven useful.
I don’t know if I give the Challenge “Special praise and respect”. Here’s what I do: if I hear someone (on TV, on the SDMB, in person, whatever) claim to have some fairly controllable psychic power, I use the existence of the challenge as a strong argument that their claim is false. Not as absolute proof. I don’t bow down and kiss a photo of Randi before going to bed every night. But a strong argument.
You got a problem with that?
Btw: do you still claim that it’s unfair or invalid to ask people to prove their powers to extremely high degrees of certainty (ie, 1 in 10 billion)?
I disagree. Unless the message can be spread to people who haven’t heard it, and presented in a way to get them to consider it, logic won’t do us any good.
A stupid word game that dodges facts without answering them.
She wasn’t certain she could do it. She wanted to take the test anyway.
No, Kramer’s account shows there were a lot of disagreements, aside from the ones he lists explicitly.
**" At this point it became clear that the applicant was addressing issues he was concerned with, and ignoring JREF’s issues and concerns." **
So, Kramer states that Carey had other issues. That shows that Carey was not happy with the test he was offered, he just accepted it as being better than nothing.
The quote you give supports me. I showed flaws in the basic test design. The test is essentially rigged. He will lose, whether he is genuine or not. That statement makes no assumptions about what he can do.
But you know what I meant better than I do, of course. You being a genuine mind reader, and all.
No question, huh?
The exact quotes follow. The question is underlined, so Princhester recognises it.
=======================
**Peter : **
See for example the Rhine experiments, where his star performer achieved a 32% hit rate,
**Princhester : **
Waht you are talking about the results a tiny handful actually achieved, not about what they claim.
**Peter : **
A hair split so fine you couldn’t see it with an electron microscope.
**Princhester : **
Wait a minute. You are seriously suggesting that it is splitting hairs to suggest there may be a significant difference between what one claims to be able to do and what one can do?
**Peter : **
The Randi challenge test what people can do.
The Randi challenge tests what people claim they can do.
Sure there’s a difference. But not a significant one.
===============================
This is a trivial matter. Please stop obsessing over it.
The word “obsessed” is accurate. I deny any insult.
I admit saying that. You did insult me.
It is a very mild remark, especially compared to your attacks on me. You come out with some pretty vile crap sometimes.
Princhester, your questions are easy to answer. All you do is keep firing silly trivial points. shhot 100 in my direction, and hope that I’ll miss one or two. Then declare yourself the winner, that I am somehow unable to answer those,. ignoring all thew onbes I did answer.
your questions aren’t at all difficult. It’s just tedious. Especially when I’ve already answered miost of them.
The trouble is that Randi himself believes that he is the ultimate arbitreur of what is true or false, and many of his supporters believe him such. Anybody making an unusual claim, they say that Randi is the one to convince. It cannot be true unless they take Randi’s test and pass. A dozen experts may test and accept the claim, Randi feels he has the right to overrule all of them. To Randi’s followers, Randi is the only game in town.
I am a sceptic myself, and I object to this man presuming to be my leader. He is a fool, and dishonest. I think he is a disgrace to the movement, and scepticism in general would be better of without him.
You can be bold and simplistic while still being civil and literate. Randi appears to be neither. Well, he’s certainly uncivil, and his org seems be positively stupid.
Don’t sell yourself short! There have been many ingenious atheists and skeptics who could communicate well. There still are: Susan Blackmore, etc.
Further, there is a large sement of the population that won’t respond well to simplistic arguments. Intelligent theists certainly won’t, and for that matter stupid theists won’t either. Skepticism is a hard battle to be sure, but the slop of Randi’s org only provides any easy excuse to dismiss him.
Robust, yes; idiotic, nay.
The vast majority of physical scientists already favor your position. It’s time to propagandize effectively the rest.
Chill, dude. Isn’t Canada part of “America,” anyway?
That’s what I’m saying: Randi sucks as a role model.
Whoa, no one’s claiming that sort of thing. We’re saying that the Challenge is poor science and that Randi is a poor ambassador for your cause. And skeptics on this board do hold him and his Challenge up as something great for some reason, even though there are much better media skeptics out there.
The New Age is an overall approach to life, not one particular set of ideas that we think everyone must believe. Further, New Agers (at least not most of them) have no problem with the scientific method. Simply put, New Agers are not dogmatists whereas the vast majority of skeptics are hard-core atheists who feel that anyone who is not is stupid and/or duped.
Agreed, but I really don’t think that Randi is the right person to do it.
Under Randi’s self-appoi9nted leadership, the sceptics have become a mutual admiration society, slapping each other on the back and laughing at how deluded the wo-woos are. This does not create the right impression.
Well, if you’re going to define your terms so broady, perhaps you should be writing in Spanish if you want to convince “Americans”.
Hey, I don’t care if Randi is wife-beating, dog-kicking, SUV-driving creep. Since the JREF challenge doesn’t involve a comparative examination of Randi’s character, Randi’s character is not relevant to any discussion of the JREF challenge. On its face, the FAQ describing the conditions of the challenge is perectly reasonable, even if it is occasionally clumsily written.
If you have some sort of dislike of Randi personally… well, have you actually ever met him?
You’re trying to have it both ways, I think. If my “deified” is not accurate (regarding how skeptics view Randi) then how is your “hold him and his Challenge up as something great” more so? Besides… so what? How Randi is viewed is not relevant to the validity of the JREF challenge.
As for it being poor science; ridiculous. In examining a claim, the JREF evaluators (which don’t include Randi, it should be noted) are attempting to establish a hypothesis, then testing that hypothesis using a high standard of evidence to eliminate false positives. Sounds like a good application of the scientific method to me.
Your assessment of skeptics is incorrect, so I’m not inclined to buy into your assessment of New Age beliefs. If New Age beliefs lack dogma, it could easily be because New Age beliefs lack the necessary structure or consistency to build dogma in the first place. Of course, for all I know your definition of “dogma” includes anything discovered by someone now dead which is currently and widely accepted (largely) without question, in which case Newton’s Laws of Motion would count.
The FAQ describes the challenge as being as if the applicant is put on trial by the JREF and has to prove he’s in the right. In the first place, they’ve completely mangled the metaphor, in law a defendant doesn’t have to prove anything. It’s up to the plaintiff to make the case. It does, however, show what the JREF is all about. They are not interested in * testing* your claim, they will put you on trial and try to prove you wrong any damn way they can.
The scientific method is not an adversarial processl. It is a neutral examination of a hypothesis. A scientist devises a test to see if a hypothesis if true, and reports on the results impartially, whether the hypothesis is confirmed, or refuted, or the results neither confirms nor refutes it. Randi doesn’t do this. It is not a test to examine a claimant’s abilities. It is a challenge, where the claimant is required to meet conditions laid down by Randi. The way Randi runs his tests, there is too great a risk of false negatives. That is, someone might have genuine ability, and still fail.
Randi has nothing to do with the scientific method.
Most importantly, Randi’s
More importantly,
Darn it, I wrote a nice post here, and it got eaten by the stupid hamsters. Anyhow, I think my position is summed up by one post in particular which I don’t think you responded to the first time around, namely:
Sure, flipping a coin 1,000 times is going to be pretty boring, but heck, I’m trying to demonstrate one of the biggest and most important ideas in the history of humanity, and trying to get someone to give me $1,000,000. I ought to be able to put in some time and effort.
Read the above extracts again, and keep in mind that the first one is worded rather poorly. Do you find that they contradict each other? I don’t see that they do. What’s involved here is testing a claim that is highly suspect. To test a suspect claim, one must put it through the wringer and attempt to falsify it any way possible. Just as a prosecutor’s job in the court of law analogy is to prove the defendant guilty, so a tester’s job is to attempt to prove a suspect claim incorrect. If the claim withstands this wringing, then it may have merit, just as a defendant’s case has merit if it withstands the grilling by the prosecution. This portion of the scientific process is an adversarial process in the sense that it’s the tester vs the claim, and anything goes.
Yes, that is more or less what science is, though in reality it is rather more aggressive than you describe it. When a scientist comes across an extraordinary claim, do you really think he ought to treat the matter the same as when testing something more straightforward and orthodox, such as whether the acceleration due to gravity on Earth is really 9.8 m/s/s? Of course not. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, including the ability to withstand severe and rigorous testing. It is, loosely speaking, the duty of every physicist alive to attempt to tear down an extraordinary claim such as perpetual motion machinery, because the physical models and mechanisms in existence today do not support such a claim in the least. If a perpetual motion machine is suddenly unveiled, then the very first thing every self-respecting physicist should do is attempt to uncover the fraud by which it operates; that’s because its operation is in direct opposition to everything physics teaches, ergo either physics is wrong or the perpetual motion machinery is fraudulent.
If the physicists uncover no fraud, excellent. They can satisfy themselves that the perpetual motion is genuine, and devote more energy in an attempt to discover its mechanism, then move on to refine the entire scientific model, from friction to conservation of energy, etc., based on their discoveries. But before they go on to modify existing, thoroughly tested knowledge, you can rest assured that they will put the perpetual motion machine through the wringer in a manner that makes your depiction of Randi appear tame and meek.
Randi is like the physicist confronted with an extraordinary claim. He’s going to try tear it down before he can dedicate any serious throught and energy (and money) to it.
Yes it is. The test cannot proceed without the claimant first stating exactly what extraordinary feat he can accomplish. Once the feat and its range are known, a test is devised to test the claim and, consequently, the claimant’s ability to perform *significantly better than chance. The claimant agrees to this test.
Indeed, and you have yet to demonstrate that Randi’s tests or his conditions are unfair in any consistent manner, something I’ve been asking for quite some time now.
Again I ask for evidence of the above, still sorely lacking. Lay it out, provide cites, and actually examine what you are talking about instead of leaping to the conclusion you find most convenient (hm, remember your response about meteorites and how to identify the paranormal?).
That is a possibility. I might have genuine mathematical genius, yet fail something as elementary as a SAT math test, for which I have been practicing and preparing. Whose fault is it? The test? Me? Who failed to perform?
You claim that the Challenge is deliberately geared so that it is impossible to win it even if a claimant possesses genuine paranormal abilities. You haven’t provided anything to back up this extraordinary claim, and it’s about time you did. Systematically, please.
Well, I’ll let you actually demonstrate that yourself rather than get bogged down addressing hand-waving.
