James Randi

H

Halcyon

Guest
A lot of people throw out this name in psychotronic arguments, but no one seems to really know the nature of this man's work. He is not what he says he is, he's an admitted liar concerning "research" done by his "organization." I'm posting this here, for people to add what they know, ask questions, and learn a bit more about this man.

I'll start off with this article, more to come:

James Randi

The January 2000 issue of Dog World magazine included an article on a possible sixth sense in dogs, which discussed some of my research. In this article Randi was quoted as saying that in relation to canine ESP, "We at the JREF [James Randi Educational Foundation] have tested these claims. They fail." No details were given of these tests.

I emailed James Randi to ask for details of this JREF research. He did not reply. He ignored a second request for information too.

I then asked members of the JREF Scientific Advisory Board to help me find out more about this claim. They did indeed help by advising Randi to reply. In an email sent on Februaury 6, 2000 he told me that the tests he referred to were not done at the JREF, but took place "years ago" and were "informal". They involved two dogs belonging to a friend of his that he observed over a two-week period. All records had been lost. He wrote: "I overstated my case for doubting the reality of dog ESP based on the small amount of data I obtained. It was rash and improper of me to do so."

Randi also claimed to have debunked one of my experiments with the dog Jaytee, a part of which was shown on television. Jaytee went to the window to wait for his owner when she set off to come home, but did not do so before she set off. In Dog World, Randi stated: "Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked by." This is simply not true, and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape.

reference:
http://www.sheldrake.org/controversies/randi.html
 
More, as promised:
In an article called sTARBABY, written by Dennis Rawlins, co-founder of CSICOP(Randi was a member. Dennis quit after finding out that Randi had falsified evidense support his invalid claims concerning the Gauquelin astrology reports. Randi had set out to disprove Gauquelins findings, instead using Gauquelins methods to his horror, he verified his findings. )

"In this article about three quarters thru Rawlins relates that he and Randi were talking about his then ten thousand dollar challenge and Rawlins asks Randi if he wasn't concerned that some day he might have to give up the money and Randi answers that he wasn't concerned because he always has a way out. He had no intention, then, in giving the money away and he has none now, either. It is only a publicity stunt. He is an ego maniac who needs constant attention and will start trouble, call names whatever it takes to get that attention.

He has had two heroes, Houdini, and Dunninger, Houdini is who he tries to emulate with his paranormal debunking, and Dunninger is the guy who gave him the idea for a phony monitory challenge. Most professional magicians such as myself have nothing but contempt for the nasty fellow. "
 
Surprise, more. Used with permission by http://www.alternativescience.com

James Randi's "$1 million challenge"

Most people have heard of the challenge by James Randi offering $1 million to anyone who can demonstrate psychic powers.

On the face of it, Randi's challenge must be a good thing mustn't it? There's a million dollars just sitting there waiting to be picked up, and all anyone has to do to win it is perform under controlled conditions the kind of claim we read about every day in the newspapers -- spoon bending, mind-reading, remote viewing.

So doesn’t the mere fact that no-one has won Randi's challenge prove that such things are impossible? As usual in the murky world of "skepticism", things are not exactly what they appear to be.

Randi's $1M challenge was unveiled on 1st April 1996. You can read its terms in full at the website of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) the organisation administering the challenge.*

A quick glance through the provisions seems to show an eminently reasonable and fair challenge. But now go back and look again a little more carefully, this time with the kind of critical eye that Randi brings to exposing cheats and frauds. What you find are some ambiguities that are likely to make any serious claimant uneasy to say the least.

The first such ambiguity is contained in the preamble where it says, "Since claims vary greatly in character and scope, specific rules must be formulated for each applicant."

This means, quite reasonably, that the rules for any particular attempt cannot be finalised until a claimant steps forward and announces what he or she is going to do -- bend spoons, read minds or walk on fire. But it also means that Randi will fomulate the rules for each individual attempt at his challenge on an ad hoc basis. And, of course, the claimant has to agree to these ad hoc rules. If he or she does not agree, the contest will not take place at all.

The second ambiguity is in Clause 4, which says that "Tests will be designed in such a way that no "judging" procedure is required. Results will be self-evident to any observer, in accordance with the rules which will be agreed upon by all parties in advance of any formal testing procedure taking place."

This means, quite reasonably, that there will be no interminable arguments by 'experts' over statistical measurements. Either the spoon bends or it doesn't: either the claimant reads minds or he doesn't. The written rules, agreed up front, will decide.

But it also means that there will be no objective, independent judging or adjudication, by scientific criteria, carried out by qualified professional scientists. Randi alone will say whether the terms of the challenge have been met -- whether the metal was bent psychically, or the electronic instrument deflected by mental power, or the remote image was correctly reproduced. In the event that the claimant insists the written terms have been met, but Randi disagrees, then it will be Randi's decision that prevails.

Not only will Randi be the sole judge of whether the claimant is successful, but even if a claimant appeals on scientific grounds that he has met the agreed terms of the challenge, Randi will be the sole arbiter of any appeal as well. Randi says there will be "no judging". In reality, he is both judge and jury -- not only of the claimant's cause but of his own cause as well.

With these two major ambiguities in the rules it would not be surprising if Randi never found a serious claimant to accept his challenge. Any potential claimant who reads the rules carefully will be concerned about two things.

First that the terms enable Randi to draw up specific rules that are unwinnable -- and hence that no claimant would agree to -- and then enable him to claim that "no-one has won the prize".

Second there is Randi's own objectivity. His position can be understood from his own writings such as this.

"The scientific community, too, must bear the blame. When a Mississippi inventor obtained the signatures of some thirty Ph.D.'s (most of them physicists) on a document attesting that he had discovered a genuine "free-energy" machine (essentially a perpetual motion device), and when the U.S. Patent office issued a patent in 1979 to another inventor of a "permanent magnet motor" that required no power input, there was little reaction from the scientific community. The "cold fusion" farce should have been tossed onto the trash heap long ago, but justifiable fear of legal actions by offended supporters has stifled opponents." [Click here for the real scientific facts].

"These absurd claims, along with the claims of the dowsers, the homeopaths, the colored-light quacks and the psychic spoon-benders, can be directly, definitively, and economically tested and then disposed of if they fail the tests."

It doesn't seem to have occurred to Randi that the thirty Ph.D.'s who attested to the new machine might know a little more about physics than he does.

Given uninformed and prejudiced views such as these, the concern will be that Randi, as sole judge of success, will never accept that paranormal phenomena have been demonstrated because his position is that he knows on a priori grounds that the paranormal is impossible and hence whatever the claimant has demonstrated must be merely an unexplained trick of some kind.

I put these ambiguities in the rules to James Randi. He dismissed them, saying only that I should "read the rules", and suggesting that I am a "nitpicker" and "pedant".

Randi is a non-scientist who has announced that -- by some undisclosed but non-scientific means -- he knows that such anomalous claims are farcical and 'absurd', and should be 'tossed on the trash heap.'

The real facts are that Randi is doing exactly what he has accused some scientists of: he has conducted no properly designed experiments, has published no empirical results (reproducible or otherwise) and has not submitted himself to any peer-review process. Yet he expects us to accept his conclusions as having some scientific significance and meriting attention.

Randi says, "There seems to be a certain quality of the human mind that requires the owner to get silly from time to time. Sometimes the condition becomes permanent, a part of the victim's personality."

Here, at least, are words that no-one can disagree with.
 
And to find out what happens when someone challenges Randi for the 1 million, read on:

Randi runs away


In June 1999, a Mr Rico Kolodzey of Germany wrote to James Randi and challenged for the reputed $1 million prize. Mr Kolodzey is one of several thousand people who believe and claim that they can live on water alone, absorbing 'prana' or life energy from space around them.

Now this claim is, to say the least, extraordinary. It is perhaps even more extraordinary that an individual should offer to prove this claim by submitting himself to a controlled test.

The claim is one that most people would treat with great skepticism, and might well run a mile from. But James Randi is not most people -- he is the person who has publicly claimed that he has $1 million on offer to all comers who challenge him and are willing to submit to rigorous testing, as Mr Kolodzey has offered to do.

It should not be very difficult to arrange a test of Mr Kolodzey's claim. All that is needed is to lock him in a police cell, under CCTV observation, with only water to drink. If he experiences significant measurable weight loss, or asks for food, then his claim is false. If, on the other hand, he does somehow survive on water alone, then Randi is wrong, conventional science is wrong, and Mr Kolodzey has won $1 million.

It ought therefore to have been a very simple matter for Randi to offer to lock Mr Kolodzey up for a week or two. But that is not what Randi did. Instead he ignored Mr Kolodzey entirely. When Mr Kolodzey wrote again to Randi asking about his challenge, he received the following email from Randi (later confirmed with a hard copy):-

Date: 6/18/99 12:03 PM

Mr. Kolodzey:

Don't treat us like children. We only respond to responsible claims.

Are you actually claiming that you have not consumed any food products except water, since the end of 1998? If this is what you are saying, did you think for one moment that we would believe it?

If this is actually your claim, you're a liar and a fraud. We are not interested in pursuing this further, nor will we exchange correspondence with you on the matter.

Signed, James Randi.
(A hard-copy of this letter will be sent by post to you, today.)

James Randi Educational Foundation
201 S.E. 12th Street (Davie Blvd.)
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316-1815


So, now we know exactly how much confidence can be placed in James Randi's "challenge" and exactly how Randi behaves when confronted by a real challenger, willing to submit to rigorous scientific testing of his claims.

Randi runs away.
 
Methinks Halcyon protests too much.

For those who are interested, I invite you to judge for yourself, rather than reading second-hand accounts which seek to twist the facts.

Here's a link to JREF:

<a href="http://www.randi.org" target="_blank">JREF</a>

Check it out.
 
Last edited:
Here's Randi's response regarding Kolodzey (see Halcyon's post above):

It won't stop. At www.alternativescience.com there's a chap named Kolodzey who wants to apply for the JREF prize because he claims that he can survive on nothing but water. I gave this dumbo a short, sharp, answer long ago, but he's still carrying on about this nonsense. A critic writes to me:


Although I VERY MUCH DOUBT that he can do any such thing, I do not think that you did yourself any favors by, in effect, telling him to go jump in a lake. YOU are the guy who puts up the proud $1 Million challenge to all comers. Should have tested him out Randi.
I couldn't resist trying to explain a few basic facts to this man. I thought that perhaps I could introduce him to a factor that he may have heard of, but has never considered: reality. I listed for him a few claims, asking that he read and consider them carefully:


1. I can fly by flapping my arms, but not when anyone is looking or observing or recording with video.
2. I am God.

3. I can survive for weeks without any nourishment besides water.

4. I can soften stone just by looking at it.

5. I can cure any disease, without exception, just by knowing the name of the patient.

6. I can make a meteorite hit any spot on Earth, on demand.

7. I can make it rain anywhere in the world, at any given time and date.

I added this:


Okay? Do you seriously think that we at the JREF should or would spend our valuable time and facilities investigating ANY of these juvenile notions? These claims are made by people who need and crave attention; we have no time to feed their egos. Often, they are only looking for their names to appear somewhere, and have no intention of ever doing what they have claimed. And, they will not agree to just do the stunt; they insist upon press and publicity to be brought in to glorify them. For example, when he was asked to have a meteorite hit my backyard the following Sunday as a simple indication of his powers, the claimant for #6, above, wanted us to issue a press release in advance, and take an ad in the paper. We of course refused, and he went away.
We are often criticized for going after only the silly people, the "easy" targets: dowsers, homeopaths, "applied kinesiology" practitioners, magnet gurus, etc. But these claims cost lives and tax dollars, so must be dealt with. How much more would we be criticized for going after the seven claims listed above? Yes, we've had all of those claims made, some many times over. We must ignore them, because they're just so juvenile. Testing any of them would take much time and labor, and at the end, we have exactly what we knew all along: the claim is an empty one. There's no satisfaction or reward in doing this.

We're a serious organization, not a circus, and we won't be drawn into stupid confrontations. Let them go to Gary Schwartz, at the University of Arizona, who will undoubtedly find them to be the real thing no matter what their claim is, simply because he doesn't know how to design and conduct a test.
Click to expand...
 
Randi is not a scientist..

He is a damn magician

He QUOTES about himself: Im a liar, a sleight of hand, a magician, a trickster.. ...

Funny how the 1st "scientifical empirical evidence" question regarding psi comes from:
what about the 1million dollar test?

OMG people, grow up... and I tell.. how about all the true research and labs ?

What are we going to listen to? Mr. Randi!?
or serious, even if not totally absolut conclusive, scientific studies?

Oh well :rolleyes:
 
James Randi certainly has the resources that I don't when it comes to making a challenge. It also occurs to me that Randi is up front about his illusions. He tells his audiences that it is an illusion!

Contrary to the the flim flam artists who take advantage of a public willing to shell out $16.95 for a book on so-called psi abilities, or collect from willing believers at faith healings, or a fee equal to diner and a movie at a palm/tarot reading, Randi lets his audience know this is not real, it's a trick.

We are raised as children to believe. Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Jesus Christ, God, little green men, etc. We discard much of it as we grow older, but the propensity to believe in things larger than us must be balanced with skeptical scrutiny.

Of the "true research and labs" you ask about, the few of these don't amount to a hill of beans. Even the research you linked to in other threads indicated nothing more than statistical anomalies. The methods for measuring "psi" abilities that rely on guessing games are non-conclusive. The studies that use EEG measurements hold promise of something interesting, but, again, nothing conclusive.

If you know of some conclusive evidence... the kind that can be repeated... the kind that makes anyone who reads it / sees it say, "oh," then show it. Don't keep saying tons of evidence, lots of evidence, all the true research, etc., etc. If these "true" researchers have it, it would be mainstream by now.

But no. You'll keep saying how ignorant the "skeptics" are and "beware the skeptics," and "don't listen to the skeptics." This is a common response/retort from the Flim Flam artists to their "flocks." This is how they prepare the minds of their believers.... so, too, has the authors of your Remote Viewing books prepared your mind.... or so it would appear.

Never mind Randi. Never mind his million $$$. Do you really think that if there was any real evidence that was conclusive and undisputable, that mainstream science would be so biased as to ignore it? If so, what would be the reason for the bias? The whole new field of study awaiting new discoveries with their names on papers? The chance to be the next Newton, Pasteur, Feynman, or Hawking?

I hope I don't come off as too harsh, but I sincerly view pseudoscience as a danger to our society.
 
There is plenty of data
As you know plenty of labs, plenty of research, plenty of proof that something is going on..

Now you said pseudocience is a danger to humanity?
LMAO :D

Without it Mr. Einstein wouldnt be accepted by the science community since his Relativity Theory was at the time just "Flim Flam"

He gained a nobel prize not because of that, just because of plain electromagnetic phenomena.. and nothing to do with space/time only after his death that Space/Time "flim flam" was found to be very true

Nobody at his time wanted to say that Newton was wrong considering speeds near c.

The same thing we can say about the Wright Brothers, Robert Goodard (we was stated in the Times magazine as a faker, a hoax, because of his ideas of rockets being able to move in space/vacuum) and other invents such as the light bulb, the telefone, radio, etc..

If you search for some information regarding Bell's Telephone, we was stated as a hoax and a pseudocience fellow

When Humanity sees first hand about a wacky New Invent (all major and important ones were) a lot of nonbelievers have a hardtime debunking the claims etc.. But Time of course will eventually reveal the truth.
There is always to fear of change buried deep in humanity

So learn that pseudocience, or experimental, theoretical, speculative science is one of the most important things for the evolution of science as we know it today

Learn the facts about what as happened in the past, and you can learn alot about our future

Cya!
Ertai
 
Originally posted by Ertai
There is plenty of data
Where?

As you know plenty of labs, plenty of research, plenty of proof that something is going on..
What proof?

Now you said pseudocience is a danger to humanity?
I think the point was that making false claims (like you can live on water alone) are harmful. If you dispute this say why. If you can' explain why, then don't make the assumption.

Without it Mr. Einstein wouldnt be accepted by the science community since his Relativity Theory was at the time just "Flim Flam"
Actually no. A number of his ideas were already 'established' and he just did legwork to combine them. Although he also had original thought to. The difference between his claims and the claims being discussed here, is that relativity can be demonstrated... and is everyday.

He gained a nobel prize not because of that, just because of plain electromagnetic phenomena.. and nothing to do with space/time only after his death that Space/Time "flim flam" was found to be very true
They are entwined. Regardless, space/time is just a method of representation anyhow.

Nobody at his time wanted to say that Newton was wrong considering speeds near c.
Really? News to me.

The same thing we can say about the Wright Brothers
Must of been why the government helped their research out.

and other invents such as the light bulb, the telefone, radio, etc..
These are flim flam how? They produced results, that work, and you are currrently using. This has not been shown to be true

If you search for some information regarding Bell's Telephone, we was stated as a hoax and a pseudocience fellow
And you will notice that the people saying so were not knowledgable of SCIENCE behind his research.

When Humanity sees first hand about a wacky New Invent (all major and important ones were) a lot of nonbelievers have a hardtime debunking the claims etc..
There have been many wacky new inventions lately. It is fairly easy to determine which ones would work.

But Time of course will eventually reveal the truth.
Hell with time. Demonstrate that it works and belief will follow.

There is always to fear of change buried deep in humanity
Yawn. You have yet to actually say anything of substance besides 'people don't want to believe'. If you DEMONSTRATE the disbelief disappears... as has been shown by your previous examples of telephone, radio, television, relativity, etc....

So learn that pseudocience, or experimental, theoretical, speculative science is one of the most important things for the evolution of science as we know it today
You list "pseudocience, or experimental, theoretical, speculative science" as if they are the same thing... when they are distinct. What has pseudoscience ever provided us? And what the hell is speculative science?

Learn the facts about what as happened in the past, and you can learn alot about our future
Read your last sentence and memorize it. Then add "and don't misrepresent it".
 
Originally posted by Halcyon
And to find out what happens when someone challenges Randi for the 1 million, read on:

In June 1999, a Mr Rico Kolodzey of Germany wrote to James Randi and challenged for the reputed $1 million prize. Mr Kolodzey is one of several thousand people who believe and claim that they can live on water alone, absorbing 'prana' or life energy from space around them.


Randi runs away.
Click to expand...

The so called 'Pranic Nourishment' was soundly debunked already. A Follower of this ideology, 'Jasmuheen' author of 'Living on Light' was asked to demonstrate her ability to live on nothing more than water.

Guess what? After a few days in a hotel room being supervised by the camera crew, she got sick! She made all manner of excuses, like these folks always end up having to do, but ultimately failed to demonstrate her claims. But, there's still a web site peddling her books and tapes to the gullible.

Hey, if it works, how come there's famine in hot countries? Why don't they just live off sunlight!? Because it's obviously rubbish.

Anybody who can work a computer should be beyond entertaining such stupidity.

As for Randi setting ground rules. IT'S 1 MILLION DOLLARS! You aren't going to give it up to any old nutter who makes some apology for failing to demonstrate their abilities, while their crony believers look on and ask for the cash, are you?

It has to be a demonstrable effect. Not a statistical glitch. Not a 'did you feel anything', none of that.

As for the 'psychic dog'. Damn, my dogs are psychic too! Either that or they have much better hearing than me, and can hear my girlfriends 4x4 coming from a lot further off than me. Hey, what do you reckon, psychic, or those large, radar sized ears are more sensitive. Let me think about that one.
 
Originally posted by Ertai
There is plenty of data
As you know plenty of labs, plenty of research, plenty of proof that something is going on..
Click to expand...

But nothing conclusive.... how many "labs" is plenty? Name two "labs" that are either solely dedicated to psi research or dedicate 51% or more of their time. Only labs with actual addresses need apply.

Originally posted by Ertai
Now you said pseudocience is a danger to humanity?
LMAO :D
Click to expand...

Your laughter is part of the problem. I said a danger since increasingly more people turn to the New Age nonesense and away from the sciences. Enrollments in colleges are down in science majors. Subscriptions are down in science journals and periodicals. Subscriptions are up in New Age malarky and the Psi/UFO/Paranormal baloney sells well at Barnes & Noble. It's very telling when this section is larger than the science section.

Originally posted by Ertai
Without it Mr. Einstein .... Newton ... Wright Brothers, Robert Goodard ... and other invents such as the light bulb, the telefone, radio, etc... Bell's Telephone,
Click to expand...

The difference is that each of these individuals and disciplines had testable, repeatable results. None of the "lots" of research in "Psi" or the "plenty" of labs that do it can say that.

Tell you what. Simply write down the mathmatical formula for Psi abilities and post it here. That'll settle everything.

Originally posted by Ertai
Learn the facts about what as happened in the past, and you can learn alot about our future.
Click to expand...

Listen to your own advice. In the past the belief in demons and witches was mainstream. The idea that alchemy was real was accepted as common knowledge. I think I even remember reading something about the "restoritive powers" of mercury. Each of their proponents undboubtedly warned their followers and customers to "beware the skeptics."

It wasn't skepticism that ridiculed the people and events you mentioned above, it was ignorance. A skeptic has the ability to be skeptical of either side of an issue.... it all depends on where the evidence is.
 
Originally posted by phlogistician
The so called 'Pranic Nourishment' was soundly debunked already. A Follower of this ideology, 'Jasmuheen' author of 'Living on Light' was asked to demonstrate her ability to live on nothing more than water.

Guess what? After a few days in a hotel room being supervised by the camera crew, she got sick! She made all manner of excuses, like these folks always end up having to do, but ultimately failed to demonstrate her claims. But, there's still a web site peddling her books and tapes to the gullible.
Click to expand...
"It is hard to imagine more stupid advice that telling people to stop eating food. It is equally hard to imagine how anyone could think that they could give this advice and get paid to give it. Not only that, but they then expect people to believe that they live without food themselves. The owner of Jasmuheen's Cosmic Internet Academy proved on Australian television during 2000 that she could not go even five days without food, but that has not stopped her touring around the world lying to people and stealing their money. I don't suppose any of the money will go to Verity Lynn or Lani Morris, but, being dead, they probably don't need it as much as Ellen Greve does."

Source: The Millenium Project
 
Originally posted by SkinWalker
But nothing conclusive.... how many "labs" is plenty? Name two "labs" that are either solely dedicated to psi research or dedicate 51% or more of their time. Only labs with actual addresses need apply.
Click to expand...


Man its really boring to give all the data to every skeptic that questions this..

Use your Faith! ;)

No just kidding, but considering psi research, psi researchers kind of have to reinvent the wheel every day just to prove that indeed psi research is alive and well, and there is some ground to it..

Well if any of you guys did the homework you'll know that there is a lot of foundations, institutes, etc..

Some arent serious, so I'll give you the biggest and best research labs/foundations

Here are just some,

from American Soil:

Labs (check their sites, they do have an address)

The Cognitive Sciences Laboratory
http://www.lfr.org/csl/

Consciousness Research Laboratories
http://www.psiresearch.org/

James Spottiswoode and Associates
http://www.jsasoc.com/

Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/

Rhine Research Center (Institute for Parapsychology)
http://www.rhine.org/

Europe:

University of Amsterdam Anomalous Cognition Group
http://www.psy.uva.nl/resedu/pn/res/ANOMALOUSCOGNITION/

Koestler Parapsychology Lab (University of Edinburgh)
http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/


Now please for all the skeptics here
Its good to question all these stuff

Im not supporting UFOs, lunatics, illusions, etc..
Just the human mind and some phenomena related to ESP

Its not that Flim Flam... Paranormal as many myths, but the Parapsicology research is only done to the most real aspects of paranormal and verified experiments

And If ESP was just an illusion then Nature and SCIAM magazines and IEEE articles wouldnt do such claims..

Skepticism is ok, but if people didnt read or know anything about a particular field of science how could they even question it?
And "debunking" is just as fake as the bunk on some Randi, or other fancy skeptic people

The phenomena is there, but we might still have many years to pinpoint the physics and hard evidence that permits these phenomena to occur

Over and out
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Ertai
Here are just some,

from American Soil:

Labs (check their sites, they do have an address)
Click to expand...

I only found addresses to three in the U.S., and one of these was certainly in an office plaza. One of the sites led back to the first. And only the Princton.edu site linked to any accreditation. At least three of the sites appeared to be publication mills, designed to offer "credibility" to book sales and class enrollments. One even offered at the bottom of the page the info that they weren't officially associated with the university that they lead the casual browser to believe.

All of this supports my hypothesis: So-called Psi researchers and "labs" are merely making a profit off of willing believers in the same fashion that corrupt preachers rip off little old ladies at faith healings and diet gurus sell their new diet fads to desparate fat people.

Originally posted by Ertai
And If ESP was just an illusion then Nature and SCIAM magazines and IEEE articles wouldnt do such claims..
Click to expand...

I can show you articles in both Nature and SCIAM as well as Science that debunk the idea of "Psi" abilities. In the one IEEE article that I remember, 30+ pages were spent to say that "Psi abilities are beyond our comprehension" (not a direct quote, but paraphrased) and that the engineering society should be more tolerant of the research... that was from 1982.

Originally posted by Ertai
Skepticism is ok, but if people didnt read or know anything about a particular field of science how could they even question it?
Click to expand...

By being skeptical, one is questioning. Skepticism does not mean that ideas are rejected. It simply means that thorough scrutiny is applied... as it should be.

Originally posted by Ertai
And "debunking" is just as fake as the bunk on some Randi, or other fancy skeptic people
Click to expand...

People make mistakes... and good people are willing to be proved wrong. So prove Randi wrong!

Originally posted by Ertai
The phenomena is there, but we might still have many years to pinpoint the physics and hard evidence that permits these phenomena to occur
Click to expand...

Good luck. Publish a paper when you do.
 
Ertai:

<i>Randi is not a scientist..He is a damn magician</i>

Yes, and he has never claimed to be anything else. In fact, he doesn't even like the world "magician", since it implies somebody who uses magic. He calls himself an "illusionist".

<i>He QUOTES about himself: Im a liar, a sleight of hand, a magician, a trickster.. ...</i>

In the context of his stage work, of course.

<i>how about all the true research and labs ?</i>

None of it is convincing, except to people who want to believe in the first place.

(Actually, that's not quite true. A tiny, tiny proportion of studies are actually quite interesting and deserve further investigation, but these are a drop in the ocean of blatant fraud and flawed science.)
 
Originally posted by James R

(Actually, that's not quite true. A tiny, tiny proportion of studies are actually quite interesting and deserve further investigation, but these are a drop in the ocean of blatant fraud and flawed science.)
Click to expand...

Ah! Finnaly I notice some belief in you ;)

There are indeed serious FLIM FLAM, Hoax, etc.. Sources for the paranormal... its indeed a shame to see that many people use it just for money, and no science..

But People who dont know much about it inicially claim that there is no scientific research... not quite

Well at least you must understand that indeed scientific data as been produced, and yes we have many labs with ongoing experiments

The problem here is to get real good hard data (already done, but for pratical uses we need more)
And of course.. to be accepted in the mainstream fields of science..

The most of the scientists that go for research on parapsychology are in fact Biophysics and/or psychologists.
And there is many good data to say that the understanding of ESP phenomena will probably have a good future

For example, today a study regarding the dreams of blind people since birth as revealed that they imagine colors and image forms that could not have been explained thru words, and that this images of real-life are indeed being seen by blind people that never saw nothing with their eyes (scans of brain waves, etc.. permit to prove that the retina/brain part does "see" the images of dreams although not received thru the eyes)

And Im refering to images like you and me see... not imagined images of what people explain to blind people what they could see.

Its a good start for hipotesis on some kind of Genetic Data Banks that are stored in our brains since we were in the uterus. It suggests that there is a bank of visual memory that actually was never adquired thru normal means (eyes)

It could be the start of theories regarding future memory or "total memory" that could possibly explain plenty of ESP phenomena.

Finished for today, cya
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top