--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <richardhughes103@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > <snip> > > > It's all crap I think for more reasons than I could > > count. I'm sure Randi has arrived at the same conclusion > > or started with the same assumption. I don't feel the > > need to try and prove it's crap as much as I think > > mediums should try and prove it isn't. > > I'm sure there are a *lot* of frauds. I'm not sure they > all are. > > The issue of proof with this kind of thing is more > problematic than Randi is willing to acknowledge--i.e., > that the effects might be genuine even though they > don't show up on the kinds of controlled experiments > he administers. > > Lawrence LeShan recently published a book arguing at > some length for a different approach to researching > telepathy, precognition, and so forth: > > "A New Science of the Paranormal: The Promise of > Psychical Research" > > http://www.amazon.com/New-Science-Paranormal-Psychical-Research/dp/0835608778/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261067360&sr=1-3 > > http://tinyurl.com/ya7lne6 > > He argues for a social-science approach, basically, and > for studying strong individual real-world instances of > purported psi in depth, rather than putting people in a > lab and having them try to guess cards or influence > random-number generators. He makes a compelling case, I > think, but his thesis is too complex and tightly reasoned > to summarize here. > > But basically, we can't effectively "test" for psi > ability until we have a better idea of what it is and > how it operates. All the controlled lab experiments > can prove is whether it shows up in controlled lab > experiments, not whether it exists, in other words.
Hmmmm, I'd have to read it but it sounds like special pleading, surely *somebody* would have been able to demonstrate something by now. Especially when you see just how many are convinced they can do something but fail Randi's tests which are designed to stop them doing what he thinks they are doing to kid themselves, whether consciously or not. I might treat myself to the book for Crimbo. > <snip> > > Randi was on a recent TV doc about a guy who makes a fortune > > out of reading the minds of babies, which is a concept so > > obviously ridiculous that you'd wonder why anyone would > > fall for it or even want confirmation that babies *can* think. > > But there are always people willing to believe (and pay for) > > bizarre stuff and they obviously get crumbs of comfort from it. > > > > It was so obvious that he cold-reads the babies mother and > > sure enough when she wasn't there his mysterious "powers" > > weren't so effective. > > Um, and what happened when the mother *was* there? What > would a "positive" result be if the mother was present? > (I'm not challenging you or Randi here, I just don't > understand what was involved. I mean, presumably the > baby wasn't saying, "Yes, that's just what I was > thinking.") It was an open and shut case, when the mother was there he kept up this babble of seemingly innocent questions that gave him clues to what they thought about things. When the baby was in the arms someone else who didn't speak he didn't "pick up" anything. I could see what he was doing straight away and he was good but you are reading minds or you aren't and Randi demonstrated that he wasn't. Interestingly he went to a researcher who was much more of a believer in mystical stuff and this guy hooked him up to an EEG machine and showed that he was using a different part of his brain in a unique way. The guy (and the programme makers) concluded that he had a real skill in reading minds. Trouble is they tested him with mother present so he could do his cold-reading trick, renedering the results pointless. This is why we need sceptics for this type of research, much less likely to make mistakes. > He believes in it enough to try for > > the million dollar challenge. Randi set the test with his > > help and he failed miserably (of course) and then claimed > > that the test was set up to make him fail, which is what > > they all say much to Randi's amusement. > > It would appear that the guy thought he could do > whatever it was even with the controls, if he helped > set it all up and approved of the approach. I'd have > to know more of the details to comment further, but > at worst it sounds as though the guy was deluded > rather than committing intentional fraud. I'd say he definitely believed that he had a special power, no intentional fraud. Doesn't make it real of course, what annoys me about it is that he makes a fortune from credulous parents who don't even learn anything to their advantage. technically things like this are illegal in britain now, if you are selling something that turns out to be crap it doesn't matter if you didn't know, might have a wait before any court vases come up. Maybe a job for the new athiests? > > It was interesting to see how Randi removes any > > possibility of cheating with absolutely locked down > > controls, there's no chance of pulling the wool > > over his eyes in controlled conditions. > > That's nice, but I do have a problem with his > assumption that what he's eliminating is necessarily > "cheating," i.e., intentional fraud. I'm not sure he is thinking that. One person who went for the challenge claimed to be able to turn pages of books with his mind only. Randi simply put a piece of glass between him ad the book. Honest, a lot of people just kid themselves. > I couldn't help thinking > > some meditation researchers could use his help with > > the Marshy effect. Make sure they aren't just kidding > > themselves in some way. > > I'm all for that. > > > > Years ago back on alt.m.t, I did a detailed analysis > > > of Randi's chapter on TM in his book "Flim-Flam," > > > showing how he fudged a lot of his "evidence" with > > > quite deliberately misleading statements. I'll go > > > look it up and post the URL if you'd like to read it. > > > > I would, though I've not read his book. > > I should have said I'd *try* to find it. I did try, and > I can't. There are references to it in a number of later > posts, but the original isn't accessible, it seems. Pain > in the butt, because I think I made a really good case! I did find another interesting criticism of Randi's book here: http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Prescott_Randi.htm Which doesn't show him in a very good light. It's a shame, this stuff needs to be tackled head on but Randi here seems to have a case of believing totally that something is nonsense but is unable to prove it without a bit of flim flam of his own. Michael Persinger seems to have a more honest approach as does Susan Blackmore, who gave up PSI research for the reasons you outline above, that the lab maybe aint the best place to find it. Can't think how else you'd do it to convince me though, especially as so much supposed proof doesn't stand up to the slightest nudge. It isn't hard to see why people get so sceptical, no excuse for poor research though,it will only backfire. > I did locate a detailed discussion of Randi's quite > deliberate misrepresentations of what TM claimed about > Yogic Flying, but it's pretty arcane; I was also having > to deal with huge amounts of dishonest flak in Randi's > defense laid down by his disciple Andrew Skolnick (who > once worshipfully proclaimed Randi to be "St. George > slaying the dragon of pseudoscience," I kid you not). Hmm, I remember you don't like Andrew very much ;-) I found some things Randi said about the ME first time it was claimed to be working, I think his response was spot on. It was too easy to show that it wasn't working as claimed. > At any rate, you'd need to be very attentive and > patient to follow all the twists and turns, and the > point isn't all *that* important, although ultimately > it's a really clearcut example of Randi's willingness > to fudge. > > > > He's significantly more humble in this post on climate > > > change; at least he's willing to admit he isn't sure > > > of his ground. But as you note (and I did as well), > > > a lot of his argument is rather grossly ignorant, and > > > he introduces a bunch of complete non sequiturs. It > > > makes one wonder if he's been similarly sloppy in doing > > > his homework on other things he's supposedly debunked. > > > > It does, I think the million dollar challenge is safe > > but maybe some skeptical thought comes from the fact > > that if something isn't seen as being possible it must > > not be and things maybe get twisted to fit. Yuri Geller > > was caught out good and proper though, he had stooges in > > the crowd and all sorts. You can see why Randi and co feel > > justified in doubting anything else he claimed was > > mysterious. > > If it were just a matter of *doubting*, I'd agree it's > justified. > > Wikipedia's entry on Uri Geller has some details on a > series of non-Randi scientific tests Geller underwent > that seemed to indicate more was going on than Randi > had managed to debunk. Don't know how reliable the > Wikipedia report is. I may try to track down more > extensive accounts. Here's a good Uri story: Uri was in London when he saw his first white taxi, he has a mania for signing things so he asked the cab driver if he could autograph his cab, he does right on the hood. Much later the magician David Blaine calls Uri saying that he was visiting England has been a fan for ages and wants to meet up, Uri says sure and gives him his address. Blaine flies to England gets in a cab at heathrow and arrives at Uris house where Uri nearly faints on seeing Blaine leap out of the white cab with his autograph. Apparently true but do we believe anything he says anymore? > This is 50 and out for me. Catch you later. >
