talkmagic.co.uk

nameless wrote:Next week: Dawkins disproves Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

Funny story. When I was about 6 (or whatever) I thought I'd try to fool the tooth fairy into leaving me a sixpence (yes it was that many years ago) under my pillow. So I made a fake tooth out of newspaper (into gimmicks even back then) and placed it under my pillow. I didn't tell my mum & dad because..well, what did they have to do with it?

The next morning there was a shiny new sixpence under my pillow and the fake tooth had gone. Now obviously I must have told my mum or dad or they must have seen what I was doing. But I like to beleive that something...weird... happened that night.

But then I have experienced a ghost, witnessed a UFO, and seen all manner of crazy stuff in the seance room. Science? Schmience!

James Randi offers (and has done for a long time) a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation)does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant."

To date, no one has ever passed the preliminary tests

The Enimies of Reason episode was (as previously stated)very well put together and touches on the aspect of so called spirit mediums and whether they are using peoples grief as a tool and, if they can talk to the dead, why ask and engage in daft conversations like "he doesn't like the new picture in the hall" type affair, instead of asking the dead questions like " can you see the whole universe? What's if like?"

Grasshopper wrote:I have the episode on DVD and would be happy to copy it if someone was interested.

Errm - you may actually want to be a little careful there, Grasshopper, as - technically - this falls into the murky realms of copyright infringement, which is a contentious issue here on TM

Roger, cancel my last and thanks for the heads up, would this count as it's an already broadcast channel 4 programme?
Anyway, it's on tonight, worth watching.

Grasshopper wrote:Roger, cancel my last and thanks for the heads up, would this count as it's an already broadcast channel 4 programme?
Anyway, it's on tonight, worth watching.

If you have a TV licence, then you have every right to watch a pre-recorded show. But if it's commercialy available on dvd, then what?
It's a bit of a grey area, so best to leave it be.

Post edited accordingly

beeno wrote:If you have a TV licence, then you have every right to watch a pre-recorded show. But if it's commercialy available on dvd, then what?
It's a bit of a grey area, so best to leave it be.

Interestingly, a TV licence only grants permission to receive radio and TV signals.

Odd, innit

Tomo wrote:

beeno wrote:If you have a TV licence, then you have every right to watch a pre-recorded show. But if it's commercialy available on dvd, then what?
It's a bit of a grey area, so best to leave it be.

Interestingly, a TV licence only grants permission to receive radio and TV signals.

Odd, innit

They took out the radio bit years ago. It's only for that trash they call television now.

I just watched this and it was alright. Nothing new here of course, but still a good watch. Not as good as The Root of All Evil though.

beeno wrote:They took out the radio bit years ago. It's only for that trash they call television now.

Old Joke's Home: We've never had a TV licence, but do you know, the telly has always worked just as well...

Hmmm, I usually agree with what Dawkins has to say, but some of the stuff he said tonight was a bit troubling, namely his total belief that all scientists and doctors work for the power of good. Every other walk of life has people that distort things to forward their own agenda, why not scientists and doctors? They can't all be good people (Shipman anyone?), and it's pretty common knowledge that big pharmaceutical companies can be 'bought' by anyone with enough money, just like any other big business.

From my own experience, I suffered a brain haemorrhage a few years ago. After a few weeks in hospital they let me out without any advice or real idea of what to expect in the next few months (ie. lots of crazy pains and feelings inside my head, loss of vision, tinnitus among other fun stuff). As a result I began to suffer from stress (the real thing) because I didn't know what was happening.

After getting no joy from the super, amazing, pure as driven snow western medicine industry, I went for some acupuncture.

It worked. I felt better.

Was is a placebo? Maybe. But I know it was more effective that what the real world had to offer.

Grasshopper wrote:James Randi offers (and has done for a long time) a one-million-dollar prize

Yes, of course it does.

Grasshopper wrote: engage in daft conversations like "he doesn't like the new picture in the hall" type affair, instead of asking the dead questions like " can you see the whole universe? What's if like?"

Just to let you know, I'm very much on the fence when it comes to psychic phenomena. As a magician I know only too well how such phenomena can be reproduced using conjuring techniques (heaven knows I've done it often enough myself). On the other hand I have witnessed too many weird things in my time to dismiss everything as superstition, mumbo jumbo, or (god help us) flim flam.

The reason mediums tend to concentrate on such seemingly banal things like the spirit not liking the picture on the wall is because this provides personal proof to the sitter that the medium is indeed chanelling the spirit of their deceased relative. ie how would the medium know about the picture?

If however the medium went into a long poetical rant about how the spirit was in heaven, and could see beautiful lights stretching as far as the edge of the universe etc. etc., then such a message from the spirit could never be verified. It means absolutely nothing to the sitter. It contains no personal info and the medium could very well be simply making it up on the spot.

That is why the medium (whether he be in communication with a spirit or be using reading techniques) concentrates on what at first glance may appear to be banal or trivial information. In fact personal information is anything but trivial. It means the world (and more) to the sitter.

I thought it was a fascinating documentry and I for one couldn't agree with Dawkins enough.
I think he overplayed the attack on science a bit too much but he is right that if people reject their rationality for faith or beleif in an unfounded system then it undermines what makes humans so successful as a species. As he said in the documentry that all the things that have made a practical difference to our lives have been a result of science.

I think nameless above misunderstood when he states that Dawkins beleives that all scientists are good. My slant on whaty he said was actually a comment on the core principle of science itself. This is to explore, come up with a hypothesis, test it repetitively to DISprove it and then publish the results to be reviewed by anyone who wishes to. They can then repeat the experiment to see if they get the results and in time a hypothesis which has been proven to work then becomes part of science itself.
If any of these so called supernatural powers or complimentry medicines have any foundation in truth then what is there to be scared of when it comes to such a system?

Just to add to what greedoniz said. Though individual researchers might be dishonest, the scientific method has evolved checks and balances by encouraging healthy scepticism and cynicism of research results in a positive way. The idea is to take someone's published results, to try to replicate them using the same and different methods, and to try to find mistakes. It's called peer review. If enough people can't disprove the original result, it, on the balance of probability, can be said to be real. Those italics are vital. Truth about the world is an aggregate of results all pulling in the same direction. On the balance of probability, we know gravity is attractive everywhere and not repulsive, for instance. Anyone claiming to have absolute truth but who can't show you their peer reviewed results is probably a) after your money and b) lying to you.

That Deepak Chopra really showed himself up in the programme by claiming that the likes of Bohr, Heizenberg and the other early nuclear physicists had stolen and subverted the word "quantum" from him - about 50 years before he was born! It was even more hilarious for him to try to backtrack and say there was a debate about it! A very funny guy.

What would Dawkins do if he woke up one morning with a really bad feeling about a flight he was taking that day?