Alex's religious beliefs?

[Venom]

Originally Posted by eyemsougly

Randi's challenge is designed to test claims for individuals who claim extraordinary powers for themselves or for people who make anti scientific claims (like they built a free energy machine in their basement).

Well some people think that parapsychologists make anti-scientific claims. For me, no problem, a guy like Alex or any other parapsychologists who are convince that they found a replicable experiments should apply for the MDC. That's the way to go if you want to convince me. Alex's behavior is the way to go if you DON'T want to convince me.

Is it really that clear? Randi - a non-scientist with an axe to grind has somehow maneuvered himself into a position as ultimate referee - it is absurd! Using a magician to explore people like Uri Geller may have had some sense - but as an assistant, not as ultimate arbiter!

I don't say that Randi should be the ultimate arbitrer.

Simply, you were claiming that presentiment experiments are easely replicable. So my point is: let's put that to the test! If Randi can replicate this, I'd be really impress.

On the other hand, the fact that Randi is a conjurer and not a scientist is irrelevant. Let's say for exemple that I'm skeptical that gavity do exist. You reply to me "but there is a guy who did an experiment, he went at the top of the Eiffel tower and drop something, and it fell; That proves that gravity do exist". I would say; I'm still skeptical, let's having that guy apply for the MDC. Then Randi goes to the Eiffel Tower, drop something and it fell. He replicate the experiment. That's it. Simple and easy.

My point is: if the phenomenom is real, Randi, like anyone else trying to replicate the experiment, should be able to do it. So why not Randi? He's available. If you apply and win, you get 1 million of dollars that you can put in Psy research.

What's wrong with that?

Nothing... But parapsychologists prefer to act like it's an issue, so they have a (lame?) excuse not to do it. As usual.

[David Bailey]

Venom,

Well at least one quote from Randi's assistants showed a total failure to understand statistics - something about X having failed the test with results far below chance!

I think a magician can play a part in testing certain kinds of claim, but not generally. Suppose, for example, a magician were to examine a drug test and say something like "Hmm I reckon the control mice were surreptitiously injected with an extra dose of carcinogen - after all, they were not being monitored full time with a camera - that's why this drug appears to work!" Science would just come to a stop! I think Dean Radin's work should be assessed by normal scientific standards.

Hardly any science experiment is proof against the claim that its results were generated by magician's tricks! If you can fool people with a coin under three shuffled cups, think what you could achieve with a whole test tube rack

Let me put it another way, if skeptics want to play fair, they really need to come up with a set of reasonable criteria by which to assess this stuff.

David

[Venom]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Let me put it another way, if skeptics want to play fair, they really need to come up with a set of reasonable criteria by which to assess this stuff.

Well, I wonder how can you even imagine that it's possible to do science when the experimentater effect (parapsychological version), especially with claims like Dean Radin (that even skeptical intentions can stop positive results to show up, and even futur readers intentions could stop positive results to show up).

The Rogues Gallery » Blog Archive » Chocolate Masterpiece

Come on, with that kind of claim, science, AS A ALL, is impossible.

How do you want us to be "fair" with that. It's like being fair with the "Intelligent Design" propaganda. It's impossible, because it's just NOT science. It's anti-science, it's ideology, it's metaphysics claims (like Alex claiming that science could "prove" God, and thus disprove the New Atheists mouvement), and so on.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Venom

How do you want us to be "fair" with that. It's like being fair with the "Intelligent Design" propaganda. It's impossible, because it's just NOT science. It's anti-science, it's ideology, it's metaphysics claims (like Alex claiming that science could "prove" God, and thus disprove the New Atheists mouvement), and so on.

Well this makes my point - what skeptics are saying is that they don't believe in Ψ, full stop. All the rest of what they say about statistics, faults in random number generators, faulty protocols, fraud, are just rationalisations of what they have already decided!

There is nothing wrong with this, we all do this about zillions of things - I do it about astrology, for example - but then I don't bother about the subject at all. If people want to take a public position on Ψ research they should either:

a) Just say, "I have not studied the evidence but I don't believe it!"

OR

b) Apply some reasonable criterion to the evidence and accept what comes out.

David

[eyemsougly]

first, sorry bout your mom.

2nd, like David I think your protocol is too subjective. If you want a simpler more authentic protocol it would be easier just to have each sitter get two readings, one from a real medium and one from a cold reader and have the sitter choose which one was more accurate.

[eyemsougly]

woops, wrong thread. Whatever.