Skeptics ( Unwitting ) dupes?

[CKava]

Originally Posted by anonymous

Jonathan Margolis is an independant journalist. The fact that it is ambiguous in it's conclusions is an indication of its objectivity rather than being the biased work you try imply when you mention that it comes from Geller's web site.

It isn't particularly ambiguous in it's conclusions. It basically says it is almost certain that Geller is a real pyschic and if he isn't then he is the greatest magician who ever lived.

Originally Posted by anonymous

You compain the evidence is anecdotal. Yet in another post you tell of a book that debunks his tricks. Why don't you go through all the first hand eye witness accounts I've posted and tell how those tricks were done? Why don't you post some evidence yourself instead of innuendo?

Someone being able to replicate what Uri does with trickery gives most people pause before they accept Uri's claims... what if he uses such trickery too? When this is combined with the fact that Geller has been repeatedly found to be actually use such trickery and be wrong in his predictions the appropriate response is skepticism until strong evidence is provided to the contrary. Your 'first hand accounts' do not equate to strong evidence as they are almost all simply cases of someone being unable to explain a magic trick and concluding it was due to paranormal powers because they are too smart to be tricked. You give the impression that skeptics are arrogant but personally I find people who don't believe they can ever be tricked because they studied science to be the arrogant ones. I'll say it again... it's been repeatedly demonstrated that scientists are not best suited for detecting trickery.

Originally Posted by anonymous

Geller is the most criticized psychic in all history. If those reports were faked someone might have discovered it or contradicted it or denyed it. Have you any evidence of that?

What are you asking for here? Proof that all positive accounts of Geller are fake? They aren't. Many people have bought into Geller over the past 40 years. If you asking for explanations of his abilities... yes there are tonnes of sites and books where such analysis is provided. Can you select your top 3 examples and we will look into them in more detail?

Originally Posted by anonymous

This is a common trick of skeptics. Attack evidence with a hypothesis. In the skeptics calculus, a hypothesis is worth more than an observation. That is not scientific. The way to contradict evidence with evidence.

I was wondering when the scientific terms were going to come out. Evidence being questioned is in fact a major part of any good scientific endeavour. If the evidence is robust it will stand up under critical scrutiny, if not, it will be blown through like a deck of cards. Clearly Geller's evidence falls into this second category. Again though I suggest we look at specific examples and explore a bit deeper so can you provide your best three pieces of evidence for Geller's powers being real.

Oh and btw do you like how my pyschic prediction came true! Maybe I'm the next Uri!

[British Sceptic]

Anoymous,

are you ever going to actually 'read' what I write or is your pure bred hatred of anyone that questions your belief system going to continue deliberately cherry picking what us sceptics say.

Go away, read it with eyes open instead of cherry picking, very common it see with you and have a sensible debate.

to reiterate, I asked for other peoples opinions on the book, I never made any claims to truth, I am interested in how you can prove Geller is psychic?

Any hard evidence?

Get over yourself, if you want to hate sceptics theres a thread you can discuss that on, other wise get with the programme.

I also notice you convenienty ignored all other posts questioning gellers abilities, very interesting,

regards,

Den.

[David Bailey]

British Skeptic,

If I might butt in on this discussion!

I think there are several types of psi evidence that form a spectrum ranging from:

1) Serious experimental evidence that has been reproduced many times.

2) Anecdotal evidence from a variety of psychic practitioners - including Geller.

If psi is real, at least some of the things reported in (2) will be genuine, but not easy to verify. Even if psi is real, there will be fakes out there - just as there are in other areas of science, and life in general. People like Geller may provide interesting information, but they cannot provide scientific 'proof'.

The case for psi does not really depend on the anecdotal part of the evidence, and so it is frustrating that skeptics like to concentrate on that part of the evidence - seemingly because it is easier to attack! If they are serious, surely they should tackle the most robust evidence.

Serious parapsychology books discuss the experiments and careful controls and statistics related to actual experiments - for example, if you want to read about the statistical tests for the 'file drawer effect' go to Dean Radin's book. Can't you realise that it is frustrating to move from that type of material, to "Why people believe weird things".

My lack of comfort in reading a book like that would stem from the triviality and untestable nature of its claims, and also from the logical fallacy of attempting to support conclusion A, by first assuming that A must be true!

Likewise, a book detailing possible ways in which Geller may have cheated, would only be of real interest, if claims of psi actually rested on that sort of evidence.

(Yes, I know I am mixing thread topics here - but the point seems related)

In my (limited) experience, there is a huge (and rather surprising) gap in academic rigour between the serious parapsychology books, and the books on the other side of this debate.

David

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

1) Serious experimental evidence that has been reproduced many times.

Post hoc analyses are never convincing. As long as parapsychology cannot offer a replicable experiment it does not have "serious" evidence.

The case for psi does not really depend on the anecdotal part of the evidence, and so it is frustrating that skeptics like to concentrate on that part of the evidence - seemingly because it is easier to attack! If they are serious, surely they should tackle the most robust evidence.

Isn't it a valuable community service to expose frauds? Some even endanger and destroy lifes by promising quack cures to serious diseases.
I find it fustrating (but telling) that there is not more support from the parapsychological community for this.
Why doesn't someone like Radin say: "My work shows that psi is a tiny effect that can be produced by anyone therefor almost all or maybe all professional psychics are frauds."

Serious parapsychology books discuss the experiments and careful controls and statistics related to actual experiments - for example, if you want to read about the statistical tests for the 'file drawer effect' go to Dean Radin's book. Can't you realise that it is frustrating to move from that type of material, to "Why people believe weird things".

IIRC he uses Rosenthal's failsafe n. Something that will seriously overestimate the size of the file drawer.

[anonymous]

Originally Posted by Miguel

Post hoc analyses are never convincing. As long as parapsychology cannot offer a replicable experiment it does not have "serious" evidence.


Isn't it a valuable community service to expose frauds?

Yes it is. But it is unfortunate that the skeptics sometimes use dishonest tactics to discredit phenomena that they can't othewise debunk. Because of that people don't take them seriously and they create confusion about what is known and what is not known. In those cases thay are not furthering our understanding of the truth they are obscuring it.

http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptik...html#post10334

Some even endanger and destroy lifes by promising quack cures to serious diseases.

And because they are so confident of their beliefs they will debunk alternative treatments with out fully investigating them and make it more difficult for serious researchers to do a careful analysis. That may prevent useful treatments from becoming available to the public. (See my following post below for an example.)

I find it fustrating (but telling) that there is not more support from the parapsychological community for this.
Why doesn't someone like Radin say: "My work shows that psi is a tiny effect that can be produced by anyone therefor almost all or maybe all professional psychics are frauds."

Maybe it is because the parapsychologists recognize that is not a logical conclusion?

According to your logic, if most people can't hit a major league pitcher's fast ball, it proves that trained base ball players can't either.

Can you please explain the logic in more detail I don't get it.

IIRC he uses Rosenthal's failsafe n. Something that will seriously overestimate the size of the file drawer.

[anonymous]

Originally Posted by anonymous

And because they are so confident of their beliefs they will debunk alternative treatments with out fully investigating them and make it more difficult for serious researchers to do a careful analysis. That may prevent useful treatments from becoming available to the public.

Below is an example of an alternative treatment that turns out to be real.

Why don't the more responsbile skeptics speak out about the irresponsible debunking that is going on in the name of skepticism that is hindering advances in medical treatment?


Easing pain with acupuncture BY Chuck Roberts

This is on the US Army web site:

http://www.army.mil/-news/2008/06/26...h-acupuncture/

Niemtzow developed and named the Battlefield Acupuncture technique in 2001. It is a radical departure from classical acupuncture, said Niemtzow, who realized its possible military value. As an Air Force acupuncturist, Niemtzow has trained hundreds of his military counterparts.

Battlefield acupuncture focuses on locations on the ear that he said have been known for hundreds of years as effective areas for pain control. The ear is a practical target for acupuncture because it can be readily accessed whether the patient is on the battlefield or in a hospital bed.

[British Sceptic]

Originally Posted by anonymous

Below is an example of an alternative treatment that turns out to be real.

Why don't the more responsbile skeptics speak out about the irresponsible debunking that is going on in the name of skepticism that is hindering advances in medical treatment?


Easing pain with acupuncture BY Chuck Roberts

This is on the US Army web site:

Easing pain with acupuncture

Explain your definition of 'real' please.

[CKava]

Originally Posted by anonymous

Below is an example of an alternative treatment that turns out to be real.

Why don't the more responsbile skeptics speak out about the irresponsible debunking that is going on in the name of skepticism that is hindering advances in medical treatment?


Easing pain with acupuncture BY Chuck Roberts

This is on the US Army web site:

Easing pain with acupuncture

A certain army officer promoting a treatment does not make it 'real'.

These articles go into more detail though I'll be suprised if you read them:

Science-Based Medicine » Battlefield acupuncture revisited: That’s it? That’s all Col. Niemtzow’s got?
Science-Based Medicine » “Battlefield acupuncture”?

[British Sceptic]

David,

I have no problem with evidence, I do have a problem with people using anecdotal evidence as proofs of psi ability. If we accept anecdotal evidence for everything we must accept the holocaust never happened, climate change is not happening, evolutionary theory is false, flat earth theory is true, the earth is centre of universe etc.

We cannot pick and choose, using science to support our claims when it suits, we must follow the evidence wherever it leads.

We must understand the different levels of evidence, empirical, anecdotal, primary source, secondary source etc.

I havent attacked anything other than having to read 20 pages which lead to the conclusion one scientist had no opinion, based on Gellers own website, no references to sources used.

Biased much?

How about a sceptic did the same trick to prove Geller was fake, would believers accept that without question?

For me I have a right to question evidence, I questioned the validity of 'the psychology of the psychic' and one nice person provided evidence to discredit it. You still need to look at the evidence in context but that is balance, that is debate, not attacking sceptics just because they brush up against a cynical closed minded belief system.

Regards serious parapsychology books, im reading one now, a university reader, surely that is serious enough.

Back to original thread, I love the way you and others discredit the book on title alone, I on the other hand have put every book put forward on my wishlist at Amazon and when I get time and finance shall endeavour to read them. No matter the titles make me uncomfortable due to the content they suppose.

How can any one learn anything if they only read material that supports their belief system, if you are not prepared to read a book written by a Psychology PHd and Science historian that happens to be a skeptic thats fine, but cant you see by only reading books that in your opinion are 'serious' you miss out on so much growth and depth of knowledge.

I think my words will fall on deaf ears, all I can say again is im here to learn, to grow and develop. To brush myself against material that will make me think critically about what I think I know and maybe even change my viewpoint on certain things.

Hopefully I will not here the 'all sceptics are closed minded cynics' argument, after this thread I have really had my eyes opened to the closed set of beliefs believers in psi seem to have, but I may be wrong.

Thanks for the feed back David, feel free to butt in anytime,

Regards,

Den.

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by anonymous

Yes it is. But it is unfortunate that the skeptics sometimes use dishonest tactics to discredit phenomena that they can't othewise debunk. Because of that people don't take them seriously and they create confusion about what is known and what is not known. In those cases thay are not furthering our understanding of the truth they are obscuring it.

http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptik...html#post10334

We should not think Geller to be a fraud because he sometimes cheats but we should condemn skeptics because they're just human after all?

Originally Posted by anonymous

Maybe it is because the parapsychologists recognize that is not a logical conclusion?

According to your logic, if most people can't hit a major league pitcher's fast ball, it proves that trained base ball players can't either.

Can you please explain the logic in more detail I don't get it.

Psychics and mediums claim to produce large and dependable psi effects several times a day.
Yet even someone like Radin admits that they only find this tiny, elusive and capricious effect that ordinary scientists can't replicate.
That's a contradiction.