There is a big problem in the skeptical community. There is rampant obscuration of the truth by prominent skeptics who have misled masses of people. Skeptics often say that believers in the paranormal have been fooled by charlatans but it is the skeptics who have been fooled by prominent members of their community who seem to be more interested in winning the debate than in illuminating the truth.
Don't believe me?
Have a look at these links (excerpts below).
Richard Dawkins refuses to consider peer reviewed scientific studies in a debunking documentary.
http://dailygrail.com/node/5817
James Randi who claims mediums routinely use cold reading to fool people fails to demonstrate it that can be done:
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/ar...keen/randi.htm
Randi FAQ makes incorrect claims about parapsychology
http://www.randi.org/jr/faq.html
Randi forced to retract false statements about paranormal research:
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.o...Randi_dogs.htm
Michael Prescott discusses rampant innacuracy in a chapter of a book by Randi.
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.o...cott_Randi.htm
I am trying to collect more evidence of this rampant disregard for the truth by prominent skeptics and would appreciate it if others would post any other examples they may be aware of.
Here are more details:
http://dailygrail.com/node/5817 Quote:
Richard seemed uneasy and said, "I don’t want to discuss evidence". "Why not?" I asked. "There isn’t time. It’s too complicated. And that’s not what this programme is about." The camera stopped.
The Director, Russell Barnes, confirmed that he too was not interested in evidence. The film he was making was another Dawkins polemic.
I said to Russell, "If you’re treating telepathy as an irrational belief, surely evidence about whether it exists or not is essential for the discussion. If telepathy occurs, it’s not irrational to believe in it. I thought that’s what we were going to talk about. I made it clear from the outset that I wasn’t interested in taking part in another low grade debunking exercise."
|
From the randi.org faq:
http://www.randi.org/jr/faq.html Quote:
|
"And, there is not a single example of a scientific discovery in the field of parapsychology that has been independently replicated. That makes parapsychology absolutely unique in the world of science."
|
The truth is:
http://www.deanradin.com/para2.html#ninea Quote:
|
"A meta-analysis of the database, published in 1989, examined 800 experiments by more than 60 researchers over the preceding 30 years. The effect size was found to be very small, but remarkably consistent, resulting in an overall statistical deviation of approximately 15 standard errors from a chance effect. The probability that the observed effect was actually zero (i.e., no psi) was less than one part in a trillion, verifying that human consciousness can indeed affect the behavior of a random physical system."
|
That's 800 experiments by more than 60 researchers over the preceding 30 years demonstrating odds of a trillion to one in favor of psychokenesis being real.
Michael Prescott discusses rampant innacuracy in just a chapter of a book by Randi.
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.o...cott_Randi.htm Quote:
"Randi comes across as a bullying figure, eager to attack and ridicule, willing to distort and even invent evidence - in short, the sort of person who will do anything to prevail in a debate, whether by fair means or foul.
The title of his book thus takes on a new and unintended meaning. From what I can tell, James Randi really is the Flim-Flam man."
...
Hebard, Randi says disputes the Targ-Puthoff account. He [Hebard] is quoted [by Randi] as saying, "It's a lie. You can say it any way you want, but that's what I call a lie."
"Dr Hebard was very annoyed by this claim since, as he explained to me, Randi had tried to get him to make this charge and he had refused. Dr Hebard later signed a statement to this effect for me."
|
You have to read the full article to get the full effect, but if one chapter is so full of inaccuracies how many are in the entire book?