Like Max, I invite you to name names instead of just pronouns.
I guess, in a particularly big slow vehicle that lets me talk at length before disappearing around the corner.
Okay, I’ll admt I don’t get the joke.
Your post, where you quoted Aeshines, who doesn’t appear anywhere in this thread, had me puzzled until I thought you might have posted it in the wrong thread. It happens, no biggie. Either that, or this thread is moe paranormal than I thought.
But sir, we are distinguishing the content of statements from the form and tone of statements. One can get his/her message across, even firmly, without resorting to a contemptuous manner.
BTW, I think outright hostility and contempt are deserved at times, as when one’s opponent is proposing something that is outright evil (Holocaust deniers) or willfully untruthful (i.e., they’re lying and they know it).
Yes, absolutely. The hard thing for many people, however, is accepting that a quick thinkover of a matter is not enough to resolve it. Many people cannot tolerate ambiguity, and they try to resolve things on the spot through any means necessary. I think young people do this a lot, and it is one of those things that characterizes immature thought or rhetoric.
At this point you’re off the rails of our interaction, as I never suggested that a lack of contempt in one’s manner equals acceptance of whatever your opponent says.
I think one reason for his popularity among skeptics IS his boorishness. People enjoy a good barb at their enemies, so what about Randi’s manner is not to like? Within the echo chamber, nothing. But outside the echo chamber Randi’s rhetoric doesn’t serve to convince people. He’s gotten himself a decent gig as a person who’s feisty and always ready to play the skeptic side on TV and whatnot–skeptics love him, those who don’t know much about him perceive him as telegenic and clever, and those who know more about him and aren’t skeptic love to hate him. But is he really winning converts to Reason? A few perhaps, but not many.
BTW, the Amazing Kreskin is a debunker/atheist/skeptic who does what Randi does but without being a huge dick about it. There is a better way.
To me the true adult is sane, integrated, reflective, responsible, compassionate, and loving. Steady in times of trouble, above petty squabbles, serene. Obviously, this is an ideal that few people can attain. I try myself and fail daily. But I try.
(the first time I’ve used this particular smiley, congrats) Aeschines has posted eight times to this thread, although all on page 1 (as of this writing) while the thread is now nearing the end of page 2.
Remember, I said by inference, which includes negative labeling of anyone who considers the reality of PSI phenomenon by calling them a variety of derisive epithets.
I was wrong about “this thread,” I was thread-hopping, and just can’t keep track of it all, but there’s lots of skeptic posters here who contend that ESP is “bunk,” “nonsense,” etc. You can start with Scumpup, cause I was just there, but I don’t keep a little black book of who’s who in parapsychology on SDMB, so you’ll have to wait for names.
“We” in my original useage referred to all of humanity, BTW. I went back to check and try to figure out how you got that wedgie. I misspoke.
Great. Now we’re close to the same wavelength! 
I’ll say! “A lot of refinement” is an understatement. As someone once said about P & T’s Geller testing, “The mice were running the test.”
Have you ever seen a Geller “performance” up close? It’s a madhouse. He tries some things, quickly moves on to others, moves across the room, leaves & comes back, goes to a faucet (“sometimes it works better under water”), then finds some more stuff to work with, drops one thing, picks up another, distracts the audience in a dozen different ways, and hours later, look! A spoon has bent! All by itself! A miracle!
No, just conjuring. It’s been done before. And better. {Yawn.}
Sure, we can consider those things. And the only reason the shielding was used was probably due to the ignorance of the testers. Ever listen to someone who thinks he knows how magic is done describing a magic performance? “He must have used a concealed chemical to soften the metal!..” when the real reason was more likely misdirection, prop swapping and a little psychology. Misdirection is used a lot more often than real smoke and real mirrors. Geller knew a Faraday cage would have no effect on his performance, since he doesn’t emit or receive any radio waves. He even might have suggested it.
As far as “considering all those things,” don’t lose sight of one thing that needs to be considered as well: that NO supernatural or paranormal forces are involved at all and the lab dudes are being fooled royally.
Now I have to call you on this one. I cannot claim to have been personally present at any Geller test, but the “controlled conditions” you are referring to are controlled only by the rat. The lab technicians are totally ignorant of what’s really happening. To a magician trained in these matters, it’s just another performance of a colleague, not mysterious, and not terribly good, either.
Is Geller “rare”? Only if you consider his claims that he is not a magician, but a paranormalist. Magicians have been doing the same tricks he does for centuries if not longer. His tricks are not new or original. His claim of supernatural powers or forces harks back to the middle ages, and it requires a credulous audience.
A characteristic of pseudo-science is, “when the controls are tightened, the phenomena disappears.” Remember when Geller went on Johnny Carson? Carson followed Randi’s advice, tightened the controls, and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HAPPENED! Geller was a total dud.
Then you will have to forgive me. I couldn’t see what you were driving at, did a search for Aeschines’ name (maybe I misspelled it) on both pages, didn’t find it, and thought you might have mis-cross-posted. It’s happened to me.
[Emily Litella] Never mind! [/Emily Litella]
I have no trouble believing that Geller is a fraud a lot of the time. None.
But I do have trouble believing that he is a fraud all of the time. On his website (a big, kitschy, garish, embarrassing mess, I will readily admit), he has quotes from many people, one of them Werner von Braun, who said that Geller bent metal in their own hands without even touching it.
The quote:
On another page, Financial Times reporter Julia Llewellyn Smith wrote this (in a 17/08/2002 article):
But if these events happened, then they happened, and our understanding of physics must change.
If you want to talk about misdirection, let’s indeed talk about the people who have investigated Uri in the lab. The skeptical stance, implied but never directly stated, that if one or more of the experimental conditions were not acceptable, then all the experiments were worthless. But intellectually honest will ask this: Was any evidence gotten that Uri has the powers he claims he has? Was anything documented that could not have been faked? And the answer seems to be yes. They took a bunch of movies, after all, and Geller was able to make needles move (voltmeter, etc., IIRC) without touching the machinery. And so on.
So when the skeptics talk about Uri, their argument is, Well, there has been some stuff that looks like fraud and the experimental conditions were less than ideal, so Uri is a charlatan and has never provided any evidence of psychic ability.
The supporters say, Is there just one undeniable documented instance of psychic ability?
The skeptics are using poor, disingenous logic, as they know that one documented display of the ability is a sufficient condition for proving that psi is real. (No, a phenomenon does not have to be repeatable under lab conditions to prove that it is possible. If one instance is documented, then we know that it is possible.)
What do I see in Uri? A guy with poor taste, a poor spokesman for psi, disorganized in how he presents himself (website, frenetic displays of his powers), and for all I know he cheats all the time. But looking at the overall pattern and having read what both sides have said about him, and considering the lab evidence (including lots of movie footage), I am inclined to believe that he is able, at least on occasion to do what he says he can do.
Statements from Von Braun and Smith are interesting, but I’d rather hear an account from a witness who was a professional magician, and thus experienced at slight-of-hand and other possible cheats, making it likely that he could spot them if they were being used. This is not to say I know for a fact Geller is cheating but simple Occam’s Razor says it is more likely that he is cheating than that he has some unusual power over metal.
Frankly, if I was seeking evidence of Geller’s power, I wouldn’t take the word of a rocket scientist or a financial rerporter. I’d want testimony from people who are experts in fields that might provide alternate explanations, in this case, magicians. If a professional magician watches Geller’s work and can’t explain it, then I’ll start to be impressed.
Brian, I purposely chose examples of metal bending without Uri touching it (or, in the second example, continuing to bend after he touched it) because I don’t think it would be possible to fake that.
Also, about Occam’s Razor. Skeptics misuse this principle all the time here on SDMB and elsewhere, thinking, “If it doesn’t fit my atheist-materialist worldview,” then it’s probably not true. Sometimes the more parsimonious explanation for a phenomenon is that psi is real, not that an elaborate hoax is being perpetrated on the world. I think the more parsimonious and simple explanation of Uri’s constant success in getting people to believe that he has psi powers is that he does, in fact, have psi powers.
That’s a frequent claim of such people. “I only cheat when I have to. All other times, I was honest. Honest.” Sure, Dude.
Oh, that Werner! What a magician he is!
Do you really think that knowledge of rocket science qualifies Mr. Von Braun to detect a magic trick?
Do you seriously think a Financial Times reporter is qualified to discourse on magic? Especially when a claim is made that would upset physics as we know it? And anecdotes like this should be taken seriously? Not how science works, my friend.
I can make a needle move, too, without touching it. It’s an old magician’s trick to palm a magnet. It can be hidden in clothing, in the toe of a shoe, almost anywhere. A good magician can fool a lot of people this way.
Haven’t seen one, and I’m getting bored waiting for it.
Not if the laws of the universe need to be rewritten. Could there have been a flaw in the test? In the document? We do not know that is possible until it can be reliably replicated under diverse conditions and by diverse parties.
If someone showed you solid, documented evidence that he had built a perpetual motion machine, would you require physics books to be rewritten? Or would you say, “Hmmm… let’s check into this some more first. After all, the claimant is a well-known trickster. I wonder if he has a battery hidden somewhere.”
Aeschines, I say this not to be a smart-ass or to insult you, but your last post, where you express surprise at some very common magic tricks indicates to me that you haven’t studied up on how conjuring works. I urge you to read some material and research basic conjuring. Practice fooling your friends. Hang around magicians. Look up these tricks that you find mystifying. While many tricks are truly kept secret, Geller-style tricks are so old and so simple that they are in many magic books available at libraries and Amazon. Do some research, and you may be amazed at what you find. Seriously. And enjoy. Fooling others can be fun!
To wrap up, I would like to quote from a Randi speech I frequently link to:
That’s what Geller does – he approximates breaking the laws of the universe using subterfuge and trickery. All it takes is some practice and a little skill. Doing it the supernatural way is a lot harder.
Here’s one way to “fake that.” Bend your object (key, spoon, whatever) sureptitiously, say under the table or against a chair leg while your audience is distracted just a tiny bit (after all, they’ve been waiting for your paranormal powers to surface; it’s been several minutes, and they’re not watching too carefully anymore).
Now don’t show the bent object entirely. Conceal the bend in your hand. You may have to tilt the object so the exposed part is “normal,” that is, doesn’t look bent. Then, excitedly, say, “Look, look – it’s bending,” as you reveal the rest of the object. Tilt it slightly so the bend is not edge-on and doesn’t look very bent, then say, “it’s still bending, all by itself!!” and as you rotate it slightly, it will look like it is. Say it convincingly, and most of the audience will believe you. After all, they saw it with their own eyes!
And they will go home and tell all their friends, “He didn’t even touch it! Really! Just like Werner Von Braun said! Scientists are baffled!”
Here’s another description of the same trick, from this site:
You have just learned some basic principles of magic – 1. the trick may be done way in advance of the “reveal,” and 2. your patter helps to convince people of what they think they’re seeing. After all, would a magician lie?
I think it’s rather easy to fake, actually, or at least convince witnesses that you have managed the feat without touching the object, when you’ve actually switched objects using misdirection and slight-of-hand, or were using an accomplice, or any numer of conventional magician techniques. Hence my wish for a magician witness, who can spot these techniques if they are occuring. If the magician can’t spot these techniques, a major alternate explanation (that Geller is using basic trickery) can be eliminated. Until this possibility is eliminated, it is a more plausible explanation than the notion of Geller possessing paranormal abilities.
And again, instead of addressing my specific points, you make some broad generalization about skeptics. This does not refute my points in the slightest, it’s not an accurate assessment of how I personally view Occam’s Razor, and I doubt it’s an accurate assessment of how skeptics in general view Occam’s Razor.
Then we differ, because to me the more parsimonious explanation is that Geller is faking. Fakery is a well-established phenomena, while the ability to change the shape of metal through some form of telekinesis is not. For you to assume Geller has such an ability, you’d have to postulate some mechanism by which it operates, which involves having to make additional assumptions, which violates Occam’s Razor because an adequate alternate explanation that requires no additional assumptions already exists (trickery) and has not been eliminated, despite testimonails from selected witnesses.
If you think that a magic trick exists whereby a metal ring can be bent in someone’s hand without the “magician” apparently touching it at all, then that is a claim on your part for which you need to provide cites or other evidence.
You are assuming a priori that everything Geller has ever done was through stage magic. Assumption does not equal science.
It’s your assertion that it is stage magic. Can a spoon lie on a table and continue to bend? Does such a trick exist in the books you mentioned? If so, please provide a cite for that assertion.
So, are you asserting that is how Uri did what he did? If so, that is a positive claim on your part and requires evidence.
Added to.
Many psi experiments have been replicated. You still deny them.
Causing a metal ring to bend in someone’s hand without touching it is a “common” magic trick? Is that your assertion? I think you’re just straw-grasping.
Ooh! Nice try!
But the method you describe did not explain how to:
-
Make an object bend in someone’s hand without appearing to touch it at all.
-
Lay an object on the table and have it look like it’s still bending–without your continuing to touch it.
'Splain that!
Overall the above is reasonable, except this: People feel they have eliminated the possiblity of trickery on Geller’s part, at least in specific instances, and they’ve documented these cases.
Of course, when skeptics invoke Occam’s Razor they most assuredly feel they are doing so correctly. Often they seem incorrect to me.
Fakery may be well-established phenomenon in the general, but it is a positive claim and must be proved in each instance. Geller has done too many highly impressive things in front of too many people.
Here’s another. The page.
Again, I can’t personally attest to whether such an event took place. But there are witnesses, etc. If it happened, it sure doesn’t sound like “stage magic.”
First, I don’t “assume” Geller to have psi powers, I believe that he has them based on the kind of quotes I’ve given in this thread. And no, there is no requirement for me to hypothesize a mechanism of action. Your logic is rotten here. Suppose that Geller were tested in the lab and unambigously and to the satisfaction of James Randi and Susan Blackmore was able to bend huge metal bars right and left without laying a finger on them. Would his powers still be in doubt because the mechanism of action was unknown? Of course not.
Further, the mechanism of action of gravity is unknown, but there is no doubt that it exists.
Sure thing.
- It never happened.
- It never happened.
Next?
I realize the comments were directed as Musicat. I hope it won’t seem too presumptuous of me to jump right in.
Emphasis, needless to say, added. If Geller’s power doesn’t require touching, then there should be no “apparantly” about it. It should always be absolutely clear, though observant witnesses (preferably familiar with slight-of-hand) and careful video recording that Geller (or any of his staff, as they may be accomplices) absolutely never touches or has a chance to touch the metallic object.
Unfortunately, assuming that Geller sometimes accomplished feats without stage magic does not equal proof. Heck, I’ve read comic books. I’d love the idea of using superpowers to alter metallic objects. I just don’t see any evidence such powers exist, and lots of evidence that fakery from a skilled magician is hard for a nonmagician to spot.
You’re begging the question by assuming the spoon did, in fact, continue to bend. There are witnesses who say it continued, but the power of suggestion is powerful and proven. The best test for this would be for Geller to put the spoon on the table and not say anything, letting the witnesses decide without prompting if the spoon is still bending or not.
What Geller did could be adequately explained by simple magic tricks. He is the one making the extraordinary claim that it is not trickery, so if anyone is required to show evidence, it’s him.
Well, if you’ve got £29.99 to spend, I’m sure this guy can shed some light on the subject.
These “wavelengths” you propose…
This sounds self-contradictory… how can you not be present and make this claim?
ibid.
So, “where’s the beef?”
People also claimed to travel to the moon. Are the astronauts therefore liars?
No. I missed it. I’d love to hear versions from two sides, though.