heliocentric:
It is far from the case that all applicants are frauds. Many sincerely believe they have special powers, I am certain. But the ones who are not fraudulent also tend to be the ones who have no conception of what a scientific test is
Im not sure what you mean by that exactly, are you suggesting that people who drop out over disagreements over the protocol have no concept of scientific experimentation?
You seem very keen to discredit Randi and JREF. It is almost as if you see the organisation as an affront to your own beliefs.
I think theyve sold the whole process of skepticism down the river, no question. Its a sad sign of the times that you can say 'skepticism' to people and they immediately think of blokes in beards debunking the paranormal.
That really isnt what skepticism is, skepticism is a process/qualitative form of enquiry that treats everything with scrutiny.
Ive read enough quotes from Randi to know that he thought absolutely everything paranormal was hog-wash before hed even set up the JREF.
For all the experimental rigour his beliefs actually lie completely outside of empirical research. I really wouldnt like to see someone like that championed as a modern day skeptic, then again i guess alot of atheists wouldnt like to see themselves represented by dawkins so i guess im in good company.
Let me ask you straight out. Do you believe in any form of the "paranormal"? ESP? Ghosts? Astral travel? Speaking with the dead? Anything? And do you make money from promoting such believe?
Taking everything paranormal into account the only thing im positive on is ghosts, although i hate the term, empricial equniry has shown me theres definitely something there. What the phenomena actually is or how it works i have no idea though, we'll probably know by the end of the century either way.
Other than that, clairvoyancy is something ive got time for, im not completely sold on it but i dont rule it out either.
So i guess about 35% of what could be considered paranormal or there abouts i either have compelling reason to believe in or reason to consider it.
Personally, where alarm bells start going off in my own head is when you come across people who believe in absolutely everything paranormal without question, and likewise people who disbelieve in everything paranormal. Its usually a good indicator of personal whimsy at play rather than empiricism, not always but most of the time.
Or are you just an "unbiased" commentator?
I try to be! (who knows how well im actually doing though), although more than that i try to be a skeptical empiricist above all else.
And my attention usually falls on subjects and people which others tend not to be skeptical about - purely to try to maintain some kind of balanced level of skepticism through the ranks.
If you claim that has happened, you need to provide evidence.
I didnt claim it had happened.
My opinion is that Randi does a good job of exposing "flim flam", as he calls it. Given that society is flooded with false claims from those out to separate suckers from their money, he is performing a valuable community service.
In some respects, i agree. I mean he has debunked some complete shills in the past, so hes not all bad. I just dont think his work is a replacement for parapsychology research, for the reasons given in my last post.
