View Single Post
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 01-12-2008, 06:20 PM
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Paul C. Anagnostopoulos is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 963
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Topher
Your right Paul -- or at least no one takes Serios seriously who is credible (and taking Serios seriously is proof that one is not credible). After all, Randi has said that he could easily reproduce everything that Serios has done under the same conditions any time he feels like it, and that should end the matter, it being completely irrelevant that Randi has never "felt like it" in all the decades since he first made the claim. More importantly, Serios has done stuff that if it were real would constitute evidence of phenomena that we know absolutely and with certainty cannot be true -- it makes no sense to accept as evidence anything that would constitute evidence to something we don't believe in, after all. The mere fact that nobody has ever been able to do more than a rough approximation of Serios's demonstrations under very much looser conditions (and while sober), and that no one has actually been able to demonstrate Serios cheating, despite multiple sessions under tight laboratory conditions with trained magicians and hours and hours of video tape to examine is completely irrelevant.
Sorry, I don't have to take him seriously even if you do give me another browbeating lecture about what a good skeptic would do. If a good little skeptic is required to treat every ridiculous claim with equal respect, then skeptic is a synonym for Milquetoast.

He needs the paper gismo. That surely has something to do with the brand new science that came out of all the experiments with him.

Oh wait, somehow what he does with his brain and the camera receives absolutely no acknowledgment in scientific theory.

I'm required to assume that a guy can think of an image, encode the image somehow, convert it to electromagnetic radiation in the appropriate pattern, and beam the radiation out of his skull.

I'm required to stifle my feeling that perhaps, instead, there is an optical device in the gismo.

I'm required almost to make my brain explode in rejecting the obvious probabilistic argument here.

~~ Paul
Reply With Quote