Wrong, actually. It was stated in the linked article that Geller was not in contact with the wrench. Aeschines also states that a ring was bent without contact. These are his assertions, not mine.
Aeschines referred to the force required to bend the titanium-vanadium wrench as “superhuman.” It seems reasonable to assume that someone capable of bending a wrench 30 degrees could bend a key until it breaks, or even rip it. Unless you are asserting that Geller possesses a force that works one way on wrenches and another way on keys. is that your claim?
The weigtht lifting analogy was yours, not mine. If it has no application here why bring it up?
you have not shown where I have made any claims about the operation of a force that I deny exists, you have confused Aeschines’ assertions with mine, and mistaken your analogies for mine. Is this your idea of logic?
I disagree, Abe. If we all, even provosionally, agree that it’s all a bunch of hogwash, we are assuring that the extraordinary evidence will never be presented. Some brave souls must, as long as anecdotal evidence continues to remain unexplained, swim against the tide and do research, however they can, to determine what if anything, is causing this phenomenon. To do otherwise is irresponsible. To ridicule those who do research is ignorant bigotry. However, to refine their research techniques (without rejecting their attempts at research) is good science.
Fine. But nuclear energy and electrical energy operate differently, and to assume PSI energy will follow the straits of other forces assumes more than is reasonable.
Like someone once said, after their sleeping position was described through other than physical means: “Why can’t you tell me what my room looked like?” They assumed that if consciousness was there, “eyes” were there, and that’s not the case.
Similarly, “if psychokinesis can bend a spanner, it should be able to sculpt iron” is poor logic. People assume they can predict the mechanisms actions without knowing what the mechanisms are.
I believe the defintition is simple. Anything outside or apart from the current normative view that humanity has adopted and beyond the explanation of the current normative understanding of said humanity.
All you witchhunt bastids are just normatives. Open up your mind, quit letting prejudice define your words.
Hey, who was crazier, the witches or the people who burnt witches?
Hey, who was crazier, Frankenstein’s Monster or the angry villagers?
::Nightmares of Scientific Idealogues chasing me with their Bunsen burners::
No, I don’t. Assuming the Geller can do as he claims and bend a chrome-vanadium spanner, what exactly is happening to the metal during this process? From the biography on Geller’s own website, he “became well known for a few scientifically unexplained phenomena” including “Bending, breaking and softening metal and other solids with the power of the mind, e.g. spoons, keys etc, more rarely plastic and glass.” (emphasis added) If he is capable of softening metal as he claims, why doesn’t he sculpt it in a manner that is clearly not replicable by mere sleight-of-hand, i.e. taking a metal spoon and smearing it out in a flat pancake shape?
The simplest response to your statment is that you don’t seem to know very much about black holes.
And who exactly are you adressing when you say “All you witchhunt bastids” ? If you’re going to say something like that in GD, I suggest you add a smiley to make your humourous intent (if that’s what it is) crystal clear.
Quite literal!
And since we are talking literally (i.e., concerning words and their meanings), I think you are on to something here.
The rest of us have been immersed in scientific models of “paranormal.”
You bring us back to literality. (maybe even literacy?)
Thanks! Your perspective is enlightening, and a bit humbling.
Guess you didn’t get it after all.
Back to kindergarten.
Examples:
If you are capable of deductive reasoning as you claim, why don’t you just determine Unified Field Theory once and for all?
If these pilots are capable of flying, as they claim, why don’t they go up to the moon and bring us back some moon rocks?
Since clay is malleable, and can be formed freely, then you should be able to make string out of clay.
If a torch can melt metal, then why don’t we just make a puddle of metal that will form a disk?
I can speak to that last one personally. I can heat metal with my torch enough so that it will bend extremely easily! However, the air is constantly also cooling the metal, so I cannot heat the metal to the degree that it will form a platter, or disk, or that it will form a “pancake shape.” My torch also cannot “rip or tear” the metal, or any of the other ridiculous effects you expect.
You are assuming results without having any basis for assumption.
If the premises are true and the conclusion false, the inference must be invalid.
If “A” is capable of softening metal in the form of “B”
Then “A” should be able to also form metal, like “C”
Also, PSI ≠ metallurgy!
If we don’t know how PSI can do what it does, how can you assume it must be able to do things as you propose?
Illogical conclusions are what you are throwing at us, and you’re saying that if reality doesn’t meet your illogical conclusions, then it must not exist.
If you don’t get this, then you really need to finish high school before you continue to debate in this thread. I’m done with you. You are talking nonsense. You are also making skepticism look very bad, no, I take that back, you are making yourself look very stupid and you are making me look overly patient.
To which I must say, Bryan, your deductive reasoning puts you in a poor position to make judgements about what anyone else knows.
You’ve never displayed any evidence of an ability to condescend to me, so I’m not offended but rather slightly puzzled as to why you’d think it would be an effective debating technique.
Are you even thinking about before you post them? They’re uniformly ridiculous and irrelevant (but occasionally humourous, so maybe it’s worthwhile)
By your own claim, there’s no evidence Geller’s power (assuming has has one) works in a manner comparable to any known physical process, so your torch analogy is completely irrelevant. Geller claims the ability to soften metal with his touch. I’d like to see him use that claimed ability for something other than spoon-bending, which can be casually faked by a skilled magician.
And I don’t believe I ever actually used the phrases “rip” or “tear” (that was trandallt). I said “sculpt”. If the metal is softened in Geller’s hands (as he claims), then why can’t he sculpt it, instead of just bending it? For that matter, if you wanted to sculpt the metal using your irrelevant torch, what’s stopping you? If you softened the metal with your torch and then pushed on the soft metal while wearing an asbestos glove, you should be able to shape the metal into a pancake shape or anything else. Geller seems to have this ability without needing the torch or the glove. Let him show it.
Exactly, we don’t know what PSI can do, except apparantly only things that magicians can do. I’d like to see PSI do something a magician can’t do, and at that point I’ll consider the possibility that PSI is really PSI and not simply dressed-up magic.
I’m prepared to put that question to a poll, actually. I’d like to see ten or more people evaluate my apparant stupidity and your apparant patience. If the poll doesn’t support your statement, will you apologize?
We are preventing a veritable horde of unsubstantiated claims and publicity stunts from flooding the information pathways (something people like Geller routinely attempt to do in their quest for more exposure and money) and ensuring that information that reaches us is qualified. We remain completely open to good, reliable evidence pointing any way at all, and good reliable evidence always trumps provisional agreement.
This is why I focused so much on the axiom that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” in our previous discussion. It is senseless to reinvent the wheel every time some bizarre claim is put forward by some paranormalist. I’ll elaborate on why in the rest of the message, but the short version is: do you test every single perpetual motion machine, or do you apply logic and knowledge to conclude that perpetual motion machinery is a sham?
First of all, I am not sure what you mean by “as long as anecdotal evidence continues to remain unexplained”. Anecdotal evidence, when genuine, is normally easily explainable, though I can’t give a catch-all explanation because each depends on the situation (e.g. UFO anecdotes, OBE anecdotes, ghost anecdotes, alien abduction anectodes, etc.). Anecdotal evidence is also frequently false. It’s worthless.
Paranormal researchers come in two basic categories: responsible, and irresponsible. I brought up one of the leading “responsible” paranormal researchers in the last discussion on this topic we had (when I discussed and linked to Blackmore, whose work was derided in this thread on the basis of her hair style). There are many other researchers who are irresponsible, and who (as I already said) rely on fraudulent, dishonest, or at the very least irresponsibly manipulative methods in order to demonstrate an effect.
I feel completely free to treat this latter category with all the derision I want. However it is easy enough to invalidate irresponsible claims in science without recourse to derision. This is done routinely. No scientific journal or forum uses the technique of derision (or other logical fallacy) to invalidate research results.
The thing is we may ridicule anyone at all, and often with good cause. We don’t however (and this is where I agree with you), attempt to invalidate their arguments by using ridicule. Well, sometimes we do, when it is clear that a particular source of claims has given us more than sufficient cause (in the form of consistently poor methodology, manipulated results, sloppy analysis, illogical reasoning, etc.) to provide provisional agreement on his or her lack of credibility; but this is done for practical reasons to prevent scientific forums from being overrun by kooky claims, and can never substitute for reasoned, scientific evaluation.
It is not “ignorant bigotry” to ridicule ridiculous claims. Bigotry is an unreasonable prejudice. In the case of a ridiculous claim, our prejudice is, as I am about to explain, in fact quite reasonable – and the precise opposite of ignorant, since we have informed ourselves on the matter.
Well, here you seem to be assuming the existence of psi, which is a poor assumption to make given the lack of solid evidence for it. There is no theoretical basis that points to the existence of psi, nor is there physical evidential support for it. All we have is questionable experiments, manipulated results, and anecdotal evidence, which is worth precisely squat in science. Why then do we have to consider psi at all until better support is provided?
The problem is also that everything with psi is vague, and the term “energy” in new age or paranormal topics is left undefined. Energy is energy no matter how it is produced: simply put, energy is a physical measure of how much work a system can do, or how much heat it can exchange. The two main forms of energy are kinetic and potential (electrical energy is the movement of electrical charges, nuclear energy is the energy stored in the nucleus of an atom that holds it together, heat is the vibration and movement of particles in a substance, etc.).
Psi – aside from being a mere unsubstantiated claim – doesn’t fit anywhere in a worldview that otherwise works rather well.
Force and energy are not the same thing. A force is the net effect on a system that causes the system to accelerate (or deform, or whatever, depending on the system in question), and is measured in newtons. The effect of a force may also depend on pressure, which is force over area (this is why you can drive a nail into a wall with a hammer, but not the hammer itself).
Energy and force are fundamental quantities that may arise from a variety of means, but can be measured with standard units and calculated or otherwise handled with standard formulae depending on the situation. I wouldn’t say the energy itself operates any differently, it still remains the same concept: potential for work or heat exchange, whether it is kinetic or potential. (we don’t need to go into the three/four fundamental forces of the universe)
As such it ought to be a simple matter to measure consistently the energy and/or the force applied by whatever alleged psi means one chooses; the problem is this is not the case. The results, barring trickery (and there is a lot of trickery involved, which is why people like Randi are extremely valuable resources), simply do not support the claims that force or energy may be transferred by these undefined alleged paranormal methods.
This unclear statement seems to refer to the equivocation of one’s claims in a scientific setting through the use of the unfalsifiable hypothesis, which can provide favourable results for paranormalists because it essentially asks for the lifting of controls. And what is “other than physical means” in this case? Imaginary?
If the force involved is, say, 6 kilonewtons over a small area like a spanner, you can make at least some predictions about what it may and may not do (and, of course, it has never been demonstrated that psychokinesis exists, let alone that it can bend a spanner). In your above quote you are keeping the force constant but changing the system to which it is applied, which is what I was discussing earlier. We can’t say that the force required to bend the spanner will necessarily sculpt iron (because of other variables involved, including angle of incidence and pressure) but we know that 6 KN is a very large force (for a human) and that it could easily sculpt iron under the right circumstances.
A newton is the force required to accelerate a mass of one kilogram at a rate of one metre per second squared. 6 Kn is roughly equivalent to the gravitational pull between a heavy horse or bull and our planet.
Could you even stand up if you weighed 6 Kn, which here is a mass of over 600 Kg? I don’t know any person who can apply or withstand that kind of force, much less apply it in a small area like a spanner (a bull uses four legs and considerable musculature just to stand upright). And I don’t know of any instances where Newton’s third law isn’t relevant: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, which is why if you tried really hard to lift a bull you would probably snap your back. Similarly, if you somehow managed to apply a high pressure force of 6 Kn to deform a resilient object, physics indicates that whatever body part you used to generate that force would be seriously damaged (fingers, skull, or brain as the case may be, wherever the force originated). Even the force required to bend a spoon – much less than the massive 6 Kn – is still enough to cut through our brains, which are little more than fat and water.
So, in order to believe in these kinds of effects, we are forced to ignore fundamental tenets of science that we know are established and accurate. We must: introduce mysterious undefined forces from unknown inscrutable sources for which zero corroboration exists; assume hypothetical “psi leverage” or whatever; and suspend our entire understanding of the universe. In other words, we have to resort to magic, not science.
Or we can more easily, given our previously established and well supported provisional agreement, say that people like Geller are illusionists and tricksters hungry for publicity, and, excepting rigorous and extraordinary evidence, safely dismiss such claims.
I know a little, I believe they are analogous to the strangeness of “earthly” paranormalities. Sure, we hypothesize and theorize about them based on our limited ability to study them and current physical understanding. From light years distant, and seeing only the ghost of a black hole from hundreds or thousands of years ago, we conclude many things and explain them, perhaps correctly, perhaps erroneously…we don’t really know do we? Bryan, I conclude from your statement that you know much more than me about black holes or perhaps have some special knowledge. I ask you to verify one thng- Where does all of the matter a black hole ‘engulfs’ go to? I mean where is it? Can you tell me? (Oh, and none of that woo-woo about singularities or event horizons- I want an address…someplace I can go…give me some proof!)
Oh and come on folks, devilsknew’s recent assertions on the nature of science and on black holes are completely asinine. Let’s not get bogged down in this nonsense when there is already serious work to be done here.
Absurd to wonder about a singularity- the invisible repository of a black hole in defiance of and outside of everything that is physically normal? How can you possibly refer to it in anything but paranormal terms? An infinite and unknown place it seems. Hmmm…why would anyone even wonder about such a thing, let alone believe in it, without proof of its existence.
Black holes are not paranormal: they and their properties are predicted by mathematics and physics, and are confirmed to varying degrees by various observations (some of which are mentioned in the cite I provided).
Which is not at all the case for telepathy, psychokinetic spoon-bending, ghosts, and the various other unconfirmed claims invariably based on anecdotal evidence that are commonly lumped together under the term “paranormal”.
Just because someone cannot understand the physics and properties of black holes does not make black holes paranormal phenomena. On the other scalar end of physics we have quantum mechanics, where common sense and intuition break down completely – but these are still not paranormal phenomena; quantum mechanics may be bizarre (possibly more bizarre than black holes) and poorly uderstod by almost everyone, but principles of QM are observed, studied, predicted, and confirmed, just like black holes.
Nobody has ever observed a black hole directly…the most one can do is infer data based on anecdotal evidence from surrounding phenomenon. That a singularity exists cannot be confirmed nor denied. I don’t vouche for psychokinesis, telepathy or ghosts and don’t commonly lump them together as the definitives of the paranormal, or even half of the definition of paranormal. I do believe that these are all phenomenon well within physical possibility and deserving of study, legitimate study. Hell, if a singularity is possible, why not these much more mundane posssibilities. Maybe they exist within a singularity? Who knows? But if we left it to you guys we would never get past the part of your mind that would dismiss it autonomically based on it’s definition as paranormal woo-woo! b.t.w -Geller is a bad magician and a fraud. You don’t think I’m going to argue for him, do you?
Yeah, my cousin’s friend’s case worker lived near a black hole and man, could he tell stories about it. He’d just go on and on.
“Anecdotal evidence” isn’t quite what astronomers use. And you’ve jumped to conclusions regarding skeptics. It would not be appropriate for a skeptic to say telepathy, etc. is impossible, but it’s perfectly reasonable to state that anyone who claims to have telepathy is extremely likely to be either faking or deluded. If you know of a case that can be verified, and not due to fakery or delusion, feel free to share.
It’s worth pointing out that the kinds of people who built the various telescopes that discovered black holes in the first place were by and large a fairly skeptical bunch, who tested ideas rigourously and relied on logic and empirical evidence. They made mistakes, to be sure, and they have competing theories, but the notion that we need to suspend our bullshit filter to accomplish something is nonsense. What verifiable discoveries of scientific merit have been made by self-proclaimed psychics, anyway? Did they invent computers using the guidance of ghosts? Has psychokinesis ever been shown to be an improvement on the six ancient machines? Are extrasolar planets being located through astral projection?
There are plenty of people conducting honest research into these things. I personally hope they find something, simply because it would be cool; a new branch of science and the possibility of an evolutionary leap. I’m not holding my breath, though. The point you’re ignoring is that if “psychokinesis, telepathy or ghosts” really exist, our belief or disbelief in them will make no difference. Psychics frequelty claim that their powers may not work if an observer is doubting too strongly. If the psychic’s ability is real, the doubt of observers should be irrelevant. Does the fact that we may be skeptical of the existence of ghosts somehow make ghosts not exist? Why would it? And if it doesn’t, please stop trying to lay some kind of guilt trip on us becuase we’re less credulous than you.
With regards to the paranormal spanner melting/sculpting/bending discussion, I feel a need to be Devil’s Advocate here. Please keep this in mind in this post.
It seems less than useful, logic-wise, for someone to say, “If he could bend a big wrench, why couldn’t he bend a small one?” or “If he can melt one metal part, why doesn’t he get employment in a blast furnace”? because the phenomena under discussion has not been sufficiently narrowly defined.
Let me elaborate with a similar situation. Years ago, Kenneth Roberts asserted that Henry Gross’ dowsing powers worked reliably only on flowing, underground water. He based this claim on many, many trials to find everything from lost dogs to gold rings. He felt that Henry’s powers had some validity in many cases, but not all, and his primary strength was finding the best place to dig a well.
Let me repeat that. It must be[ul][li]Flowing, and []Underground, and[]Water.[/ul]Now, I’m sure we can guess how he arrived at that conclusion. When a spot for a well was chosen by the rod, and a hole dug, they almost always got water. But the lost dog was not always found. Hey, that’s logic as some people know it.[/li]
But Roberts always insisted that Gross’ dowsing powers worked reliably only on flowing, underground water. Therefore, any test of static water in buckets, or garden hoses under a porch would not be testing the true dowsing “force.” He even argued that if the water in the hose was turned off, it might slosh around for a while and still be detected by a dowser even though the valve said “off” – “Only a dowser can tell this, not a scientist!” said Roberts. :rolleyes:
He arrived at this remarkable conclusion when Gross failed to detect water greater than chance in covered buckets and couldn’t trace the outline of a hidden garden hose under a wooden porch. Many of us would say that was because there is no force as claimed, but Roberts conveniently changed the primary assertion instead.
So a test of the presence of an underground lake would not be fair, as it isn’t flowing water. A test of underground oil is not water. A test of water in pipes or hoses is not underground.
(Side note: Roberts even argued that the rod detected past evidence of water, so the dowser had to ask it if the water was still present. You know those crazy rods – like computers, they’re sticklers for the literal!)
Back to the spanner melting. If the force is claimed to work only to melt a large spanner on days that begin with “M”, it will be a straw man argument to suggest a test of a small wrench on a Tuesday. If the test fails, the claimant can always say the test wasn’t testing his actual claim.
So to test the claim that a large spanner can be melted without touching it, we need to see a demonstration of exactly that, and only that unless all parties agree to different parameters. It shows just how important the design of the $1Mil Challenge is.
*Anything * can be faked by a skilled magician. They can even do things PSI cannot (as far as we know).
And since we’re just covering the same irrelevant ground, over and over, and since this has nothing to do with the OP, you can continue to rant, hijack and make irrelevant assumptions all by yourself. I see everyone else has stopped listening to you (except Peter), so I will join them.
I take your point. I feel I need to make mine one more time.
Aeschines asserted that Geller bent a spanner without touching it. The force required was said to be the equivalent of six kilonewtons. I asked Aeschines if he could explain why Geller needed to touch a spoon in order to bend it if he could bring 6 kilkonewtons to bear upon a spanner from across a room. I also made a remark about ripping a key in half which Snakespirit has focused on while refusing to respond to my arguments, and impugning my debating technique. I retract the remark about ripping the key. I accept for the sake of the argument that Geller bent the spanner. My question has to do with how he does it, rather than what he does. Why is touching required sometimes and not others? So far, all **Snakespirit **has managed to come up with is along the lines of “wow, that psi is some pretty wacky stuff, huh?” Aeschines has left the thread.
As for the Challenge, absent Geller agreeing to be tested, this sort of back and forth is all we have.