talkmagic.co.uk

Craig Browning wrote::lol: We have two different things being addressed here... the legal issues concerning Randi Are exactly why we removed the last thread. We are not treating Randi any differently to anyone else, if the same things were said about the celebrities you mentioned we would remove them too. Please stop bringing the subject up as it is not directly relevent to the discussion.

Sorry, but I loathe censorship regardless the reasoning. That said, I do expect any derrogatory remarks said about Readers or accusations that we are all shysters & con-artists to be treated the same way... we must protect the guilty... I mean, the "innocent" after all.

(And yes, I know I'm being rediculous in that statement...that's the point. The forum is liable for what I or any other member says about anyone. What I've stated is fact based on documented histories on the person in question that can be found in public records. Guilt or innocence is not being stated, only the fact that someone is suspected for something and it went to court until a mysterious pay-off put an end to the investigation.)

You'd almost think we are @ the Magic Cafe, given this sort of policy

Craig Browning wrote:You'd almost think we are @ the Magic Cafe, given this sort of policy

We're not quite down to that standard yet ( ) but we have to be very aware that there may be those legal implications mentioned. Sadly, it doesn't seem to matter whether the wording is true or not, the legal eagles still go for the jugular on the basis that they probably have more money muscle than we do.

If nothing else, all this has inspired me to do some net surfing and it's very illuminating to see what is, as Craig says, publicly available. To use that hackneyed phrase, the truth is out there.

Thanks Mandrake

In my research I've found that entire sites have been mysteriously forced to move (changing ISP and URLs) as the result of JREF harassment tactics. I know people that have been deliberately "black listed" for speaking out aganst Randi (and I've recently made it to just such a list, so I'm told) and there are tales of those who've had some rather mysterious virus problems take place in their PCs shortly after standing their ground against the hypocrisy of the JREF and the apparent "Con-Game" surrounding the Million Dollar Challenge and Randi being able to live an tax exempt life-style via his very profitable non-profit education foundation (there's so much money in non-profit I so wish I had half the larceny in my heart as some believe I have, I could start my own church and live well )

But, here's a few things for folks to think about...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Not every skeptic is this irresponsible, but the cases we've been evaluating tend to be embarrassingly typical. The simple fact remains that parapsychology's detractors have a terrible time explaining away the field's findings. If psi doesn't exist, this fact would be self-evident by now. So it is more than revealing that the field's debunkers so often fall to manufacturing flaws in our experiments - or even, as with the CSICOP/Gauquelin fiasco, cover up their own positive findings.
http://66.221.71.68/analysis.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------
It would seem that Randi focuses exclusively on more famous paranormal claimants like Browne or Geller because doing so is more likely to get him an appearance on the Larry King show. If you're a common person with an extraordinary claim, don't waste your time and energy applying for the Challenge; Randi clearly is not interested.
Michael Goodspeed -- http://www.rense.com/general50/james.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Hyman, a leading Fellow of CSICOP, has pointed out that Randi’s challenge is illegitimate from a scientific standpoint. “Scientists don’t settle issues with a single test … Proof in science happens through replication.”

IF RANDI’S CHALLENGE WAS LEGITIMATE, HE WOULD SET UP A DOUBLE-BLIND EXPERIMENT WHICH HE HIMSELF WOULDN’T JUDGE.

But considering his hostility toward scientists receptive to paranormal phenomena, this doesn’t seem likely. His “challenge” is rigged yet he can crow that his prize goes unclaimed because paranormal-phenomena simply does not exist.
http://drewhempel.gnn.tv/blogs/14651/The_Problem_With_Magic_Randi

to suggest that it is the likely hood one would not get paid by Randi is the single most important reason no one has done it, ignores that fact that any successful applicant (not necessarily successful in Randi's eyes, but in those of the public) would make many millions from the book rights alone... imagine: "I debunked the debunker... my story".

it hasn't happened because no one can do it. that's the reason.

B0bbY_CaT wrote:to suggest that it is the likely hood one would not get paid by Randi is the single most important reason no one has done it, ignores that fact that any successful applicant (not necessarily successful in Randi's eyes, but in those of the public) would make many millions from the book rights alone... imagine: "I debunked the debunker... my story".

it hasn't happened because no one can do it. that's the reason.

I just love loyalty in people... even when it's blind.

There have been several applicants that have "succeeded" and rather than moving beyond the first phase of his "testing" Randi changed the rules and ran. This has been documented and with little effort can be found all over the internet.. of course Randi & his fellow double-talkers have put their little spin to things but it still boils down to the fact that Randi is NOT a "scientist" and he does not conduct the challenge in a fair, impartial and genuinely scientific manner.

We also can see, as I also quoted above (I think) certain debunking groups have deliberately falsifide testing results in order to "prove" someone a fraud or research questionable, etc. In short, there seems to be no low to which certain of the more cynical sect won't go to "prove" their point... this includes, in more than a few instances, physical violence. Which is very interesting if you look at the whole game from macroscopic psychological perspective -- seems the most of the believers and supporters of Psi ability, etc are passive by nature, more calm, reserved, and benevolent and their detractors are more "in your face", obnoxious, insecure and physical...

Kind of makes you wonder if maybe their anger stems from their fear that in admitting it "could be" means they might have to actually take responsibility in altering their psyche just a bit by using known and proven meditative and breathing techniques, programs in mental focus and acts of personal healing????

Hmmmm

to state the obvious... had they succeeded, REALLY succeeded... i would have seen it on 60 Mins. i would not need to search obscure web sites. almost anyone can put up a web page these days. say anything and pass it off as fact...

this does however open up a very interesting question since whilst i dont believe in spoon bending with one's mind, i do believe that the power of positive thinking can have a positive effect on helping one overcome "some" illness. and if you thought you would get better because i put my hands on your forehead and said so... who really did the healing???

hard to prove or disprove and i imagine that is a continuous battle for someone like Randi.

I very strong proponent of "positive thought" or "affirmation" as we call in the business... then again, I worked with Louise L. Hay and the whole southern California New Age crew back in the early 80s so I tend to know a lot about it from direct experience. I'm likewise familiar with what is known as the "Placebo" effect, which is what you are alluding to and something that's done daily within much of western medacine... a doctor friend of mine formerly of Ceadar's Siani in Beverly Hills explained, "We must decide whether the $5.00 or $50.00 placebo will work best on certain patients. .. "

The Human Mind is a fantastic thing that cannot be sold short by cynics and those living by a "prove it to me" attitude in that such points of view oft times blind them and prevents them from see what really is there in the form of subtle, yet amazing manifestations.

As to your comment about 60-Minutes covering a story such as those I've referred to... sorry, but that's simply not the case. Randi is on their payrole and has been one of their chief consultants for a very long time, why would they allow mud to be smeared on his face and create yet, another coo around their news reporting credibility? They don't talk about Randi's distant past and the legal headaches he's known either, but it really happened and in some instances, investigations are on-going.

Believe me, especially if you're relying on the American News sources, don't count your chickens before they hatch and even then, check for clones... our media is so well controlled and "censored" now thanks to the so-called Patriot Act and other Gestopo Tactics put in place by our current administration you're not going to get much of anything that would support information that may even remotely threaten the idea that biblical points of view are wrong and psychic abilities aren't only real, they are natural and non-demonic. Just ain't going to happen until we get the narrow-minded Texan and his gun tot'n buddies out of office and out of power.

You've be better off listening to the BBC or Japanese News for the time being.

more interesting comments Craig,
so... the conspiracy theory...

if as you suggest Randi is on 60 Mins' payrole then pick another show on a competitive network to prove one's special powers. it doesn't happen because it cant be done.

not wanting to subject the special powers to scrutiny is what stops it happening. otherwise someone would grab for the cash... if not Randi's then someone else's.

re your comment:
a doctor friend of mine formerly of Ceadar's Siani in Beverly Hills explained, "We must decide whether the $5.00 or $50.00 placebo will work best on certain patients. .. "
~clearly a very well known doctor. i have heard the same story many times.

in reference to your suggestion, people not believing spoon bending because it conflicts with the bible... i cant speak for everyone, however most people i know dont believe someone can bend spoons with the power of their mind because it's B.S. not because it is anti biblical.

I do not have the experience or training, nor the credentials to make informed judgements such as those by Craig, but I do have opinions, which I'd like to share.


The age old "defeat by trial" principle has always been used by people with power, wealth or public standing to enforce their own views.

For instance, the subjective arguments over what constituted a woman as being a 'witch' in the past was the cause of many lost lives, and the simple 'rules' which a woman should meet and the tests she should endure to be pronounced 'un-witchlike' were quite well loaded in the direction of NOBODY passing the test.

Ergo, the public were lead to believe that because the tests were not passed (drowning, burning, etc.) the women involved simply MUST have been witches.

Sorry if this appears a simplistic view of the subject of this thread, but it would appear that Mr Randi's pompous self-accreditation as a debunker of psi phenomenon is safe with his bet.

Let us draw a parallel to this, a kind of metaphor...

Imagine, if you will, that the US Military/NASA put up a reward for people to find life on Mars. $1million for the first person to claim that Mars did in fact have intelligent life, and indeed, the public at large had been subject to abductions and visitations from beings not from this planet. And for them to prove it.

Let us perhaps consider their agenda; that if there WERE life on another planet, and we HAD been visited by UFOs in the past, their own claims and research of a contrary nature over the past century would surely be shown to be lies and/or deceit. Something which they possibly wouldn't want to do. (!!!)

Now, because their own team is more powerful than ANY individual who may come up with the challenge (not more powerful in experience or intelligence, bear in mind), they are surely going to be able to debunk any claim which is put their way.

Ergo: a) Nobody would win the money, b) The claims would be shown to be nonsense, c) They'd get EXTRA publicity proving their original claims to be correct, d) The public, by default, would believe that by making the claim, the US Military/NASA are confident that their views are so watertight, that nobody can prove otherwise.

Rigged? Yes. It surely would be. Even though valid claims COULD be made, of course, the governing bodies controlling the 'competition' would be working in favour of debunking claims to: a) protect and perpetuate the standpoint, and b) make nonsense of any claim in order to preserve their original standing that there HAVE NOT been any scientific substantial lots of evidence to support the theory that life on another planet has visited Earth.

Back to Randi...
So. We have Mr Randi. Psychic debunker, and lifelong campaigner against psi phenomenon. Scientist? Evangelist? Or perhaps just public figure and celebrity?

By creating a campaign to prove HIMSELF wrong, which is predominantly impossible to realise, he's simply reinforcing his own views that psychics and telepathy and esp and pk are merely clever parlour tricks.

Furthermore, by default, surely if he's 'so confident' that nobody can with the $1million, people are going to be led to believe that he is right, right?

Science alone cannot prove the existence/non-existence of psychic ability. Only humans can prove it to science. Science dictates that if something cannot be proven and repeated under conditional arrangements, it is simply not possible.

However, this 'black and white' approach which science and scientific experiment has, which ignores the 'grey' areas of possibility.

If we analyse the progression of technology and discovery over the last century, surely it is obvious that science is a rulebook based on shifting sands. Science should be open-minded, as by virtue of it's own definition, it is a voyage of discovery.

The laws of physics, although set in stone, are also based on shifting sands. Which is why I can't see why people have such blinkered views.

Until scientists DISCOVER new laws and diversities in physics, they base assumptions purely on the rules already in place. The 'grey' area is yet to be discovered, and history itself proves that the shifting sands which form the REAL rulebase of our universe cannot be snapshotted or frozen. They will and do evolve, and as we learn more about the planets, ourselves and our universe, our science and physics change.

So, is it really right for Randi to be so confident that just because he can't find evidence, that these psychic phenomenon don't exist?

100 years ago, if you would have said that a device could be made which is wireless and fits in your pocket and could be used to communicate globally in real time with other people with such devices, you'd have been called either visionary or a fool.

Radio and television waves are circulating us constantly. We can't feel or see them, but there are hundreds of voices, pictures, musical arrangements, data files and media floating in the air all around us. All they need is the correct receiver to be able to see them. So why can't the human brain be capable of sending and receiving such information? Just because the right receiver hasn't been invented yet doesn't mean that our thoughts are confined to our own minds, surely?

But as technology progresses, perhaps in the future we'll be able to PROVE psychic phenomenon exists by use of manmade technology. After all, advances have let us see inside a human body without using a knife, while the subject is still alive. And that technology gets better and better.

We as a race are intent on creating nature-defying science. Inventions which enable us to explore and control physics in ways which have never been thought possible.

Personally, I am of a scientific viewpoint. I personally cannot prove or disprove that phychic ability exists—but I would like to believe it does.

Mr Randi stands at a point in time where he, for now, can feel secure. But wouldn't it be fantastic if he had indeed been wrong all along, and someone takes his 'hard earned' cash from him.

(the views and opinions in this post are my own, and I am neither stating I am right or wrong. The people, organisations and theories are used here for example, and I in no way encourage anyone to take them as fact or fiction.)

Simply put, a scientific experiment could only ever prove that these phenomena were real, never disprove them; if someone fails that doesn't mean it is not possible, only that this person couldn't do it undder these conditions.

Only when you find the right experiment can you make any acceptable claims about the existence and nature of a phenomenon, making claims one way or the other without physical proof is not only unscientific but incredibly short sighted.

Going on the 'it has never been done so it must be impossible' is probably the most horribly flawed argument in existence; has man been to Mars? No. Does that mean it is impossible? Well I guess we will find out in about 2020 when NASA attempt it.

nickj wrote:Simply put, a scientific experiment could only ever prove that these phenomena were real, never disprove them; if someone fails that doesn't mean it is not possible, only that this person couldn't do it undder these conditions.

Only when you find the right experiment can you make any acceptable claims about the existence and nature of a phenomenon, making claims one way or the other without physical proof is not only unscientific but incredibly short sighted.

Going on the 'it has never been done so it must be impossible' is probably the most horribly flawed argument in existence; has man been to Mars? No. Does that mean it is impossible? Well I guess we will find out in about 2020 when NASA attempt it.

I hate it when someone condenses what I was trying to explain into three easy to understand paragraphs !

Well said, Nick.

I always had problems getting anywhere near target word counts at uni though!

My English teacher used to praise me on the thorough and entertaining nature of my writings. However, as life goes on, I realise that perhaps I took that advice to heart and my brain now insists on making a short story long.

Ho hum.

nickj wrote:Simply put, a scientific experiment could only ever prove that these phenomena were real, never disprove them; if someone fails that doesn't mean it is not possible, only that this person couldn't do it undder these conditions.

Sorry Nick, I have to disagree. Of course a scientific experiment can never prove that the phenomena are not real, merely that they don't occur reliably under the conditions of the experiment. It can never prove that a phenomenon is real and is as stated either - it can merely provide evidence for a certain line of thought. This is why scientists refer to theories.

[edit: I should have put "attempt to clarify" rather than disagree. I think I misread something you wrote]



(Remember the words of Einstein "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.")

What I think you were trying to say is that it's impossible to prove by experiment that something can't be done.

Despite having been accused of it before. I'm not fan of Randi, although I have some sympathies with some of his ideas. I imagine in certain circumstances the prize money would be able to be claimed, although they would almost certainly be set in such a way as to make it impossible to claim for most people.

Of course Randi can't offer a prize in a field as wide as this, and publish the rules for all cases in advance, otherwise he'd be in significant danger of leaving out a specific case, and having to hand over the money to some harmless old codger with a well known card trick, just because the rules weren't specific enough for testing for that case.

To accuse Randi of being unscientific is probably accurate, but possibly unfair, as the very things that are being questioned are not by nature things that submit well to rigourously scientific testing.

True scientific method can't really be applied to people, their reactions, emotions, and agendas - the basis of it is that there is a level playing field for testing in the first place. Further, it's almost impossible to be correctly scientific about repeatable studies, as I imagine it's often claimed that the applicant has special powers that can't be repeated by just anyone. Repeatability is key to being accepted by the scientific community.

When a scientist measures a specific property of a sample, a substance will be tested a number of times, and the results recorded and analysed, but there is no question of the sample having an agenda to fool the scientist, so it is not examined on that basis. The general trend of evidence with be used to build a hypothesis, which will then be examined and tested by other scientists to see whether there is a consensus, and modified if necessary.

Randi's challenge may be dressed in scientific terminology, but by the very nature of what he's trying to test/debunk, it can't be truly scientific. Randi has an agenda, in just the same way that Joe Spoonbender has an agenda.

Randi states that he doesn't believe in paranormal phenomena (or whatever), and Joe Spoonbender states that he has incredible an unusual powers. This is by nature a confrontational dispute, and can't be solved directly by scientific approach, although scientific methods may be useful to both parties in demonstrating their case.

It seems completely appropriate to me that the testing should be setup in this way, although I think it's probably appropriate that people have an understanding of what the aims of the challenge are, and the agendas involved. Anyone who thinks that the foundation has no agenda clearly hasn't understood the situation.

It may be appropriate for someone else to be appointed to judge the criteria, but under those circumstances, it would possibly also be appropriate for any applicant to put up equal money to that they are trying to claim (in the manner of a bet). As it is, the claimant is wagering nothing (other than the dubious value of their reputation) against the possibility of winning a large sum of money. Randi may have an agenda, but he's probably not insane - anyone would be a bit cautious about criteria and judging under those circumstances.

I should add that I think the basis of "science vs paranormal" is bogus.

If "paranormal" claims can be verified and repeated (even if in small ways), they will become part of scientific knowledge. They will gain credibility and respect when they are repeated further, and understood.

The argument is between those who believe in the phenomena, and those who don't, not between "science" and "paranormal".

Of course many scientist have a tendency to dismiss paranormal issues, this is partly because of the difficulty in measuring them, and partly because of a lot of collective experience in seeing experimental error, bad claims, and misinformation (I'm talking specifically about claims from within the scientific community - anyone else remember the cold fusion experiment that required a catalyst?)

Scientists are generally open to strange ideas and concepts that are difficult to understand, once they have been peer reviewed and replicated. Most of the stuff that is now relied on in particle physics and some of the maths requiring multiple dimensions used to explain parts of the universe would have been considered distinctly odd 50 years ago, and would not have been believed. It may yet turn out to be completely wrong, but at the moment it is useful.

Probably one of the main difficulties is that scientists have a different language and standards of experimental evidence to most of the public, and probably many proponents of paranormal (yes I know that there's some overlap between all the groups). Scientists have opinions and ideas too, and they are not always based on scientific knowledge. Scientists are often arrogant, foolish, and just plain wrong.

We know that some people claim wierd things in order to mislead, so some people (myself included) tend to believe that most similar claims are likely to be of that nature. I don't stake any reputation or pride on the non-existence of "real" spoon bending, and other effects, I simply apply Occam's razor, and generally believe that the cause is likely to be people attempting to mislead rather than some bizarre force at work.

Could I be wrong? absolutely I hope so. There are many things that happen that are beyond scientific understanding, but until there's a real reason to suspect that anything other than trickery, Occam continues to provide the answer.

The human mind is an incredible thing, and is capable of doing amazing things itself (aforementioned placebo effects, "power of positive thinking" etc). It's quite amazing enough without ascribing other bizarre capabilities to it, though I would be delighted if some of them were true.

What gets my goat is when people make claims based on untested and dubious ideas, that lead others to make important decisions or part with money, change their medical treatment or whatever. There's often a financial benefit (and/or belief support in the case of cults etc) for the claimant, and an associated loss or risk for the believer.