|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 | ||||||||||
Greg Owen Special user 623 Posts |
Careful Michael -
"Wouldn't a real psychic not care about the money? Wouldn't they use there ability to make a real difference in this world?" Humm...why? There seems to be an implicit association in the collective consciousness that extrordinary ability (being psychic in this case) should be related to a humanitarian ethic. But this is our, unspoken, assumption. Being simplistic for a moment, divide the population into people that are altruistic vs. those that are greeded (have seeking money as a primary motivator). Now ask whether being one of the lucky few to have psychic ability should be related to which group the person is in. Or...is there something about having psychic ability that would change a person's life motivation? I can see where neither would be the case. Powerful people in other areas (not psychic - maybe charisma, financial, war generals, etc.) have not of necessity been "good" people - whatever that means. "What kind of vehicle do I drive?" Certainly this IS available in a registration database somewhere, unless as Unfinished suggested you do not drive. Also, as crazy as this may sound, having read many of Unfinished's posts, I'm seeing his (her?) point. Not agreeing/disagreeing, but seeing the point that in the battle for the psyche of customers and would-be customers of psychics, the psychics have already won. Those that seek their guidance need no (further) proof - and there are more than enough repeat customers to go around. Also, taking real psychic ability as a possibility for the moment, it may not be possible to design a test that would satisfy the scientific and skeptics among us. Consider Unfinished's predictions. He (she?) was replied to with the idea that these predictions were not specific enough. I understand where this is coming from, but suppose the *real* psychic ability is to predict as Unfinished did? WHY would psychic ability HAVE to be specific down to the day, date, time, etc? Just a question from a healthy skeptic. - Greg Owen
Author of The Alpha Stack ebook - the balanced memorized stack
gobeatty@yahoo.com |
|||||||||
John LeBlanc Special user Houston, TX 524 Posts |
Quote:
On 2004-12-17 15:02, Greg Owen wrote: Of course. "Believers" provide the psychic's version of Erickson's "trance chair". John LeBlanc |
|||||||||
travisb Special user Vancouver, BC 546 Posts |
Well, this is barely worth replying to, but since I've got nothing better to do for the next two minutes...
Dear "not finished," you have missed/dodged the point about ad hoc explanations by saying "Randi does it too!" You might have an actual point in your own head, but you haven't communicated it. If you want to try again, I'm happy to reply, but you'll have to actually address the point being raised. -Travis |
|||||||||
Micheal Leath Inner circle 1048 Posts |
Oh yeah, as to being incompetent, didn't you say that about Banachek? In that case, I couldn't have asked for better company than that.
|
|||||||||
not finished New user 31 Posts |
With reference to the November 2nd earthquake I already predicted that one and received massive publicity for it. However I am referring to an entirely different one.
Harry H, anybody that knows anything about psychic work will tell you that you cannot be specific to the last detail. If a psychic could do that he could win the lotto. That is simply not how the thing works as Greg pointed out. It is a bit like looking through frosted glass. You get glimpses but you don't see everything. I will be delighted to give the answer to the date of the White House scandal. It will be 23rd November 2005 at 2pm. I do object to the assertions of vague generalities about my predictions. I think the one about watermelons and the US coming under Scottish rule speaks for itself. I am indeed truly psychic. I predicted the rather silly reactions here and it seems that I am correct as always. |
|||||||||
Greg Owen Special user 623 Posts |
"As too the unnatural behavior, isn't that what you told someone else who challanged you in another thread? There is certainly nothing unnatural going on in my life, so that is just your way of trying to make someone look bad. You just proved to me even more that you are full of nonsense."
Micheal - I have quoted you above, and am not sure what you refer to. I know I was, in a way, perceived by some (many?) as antagonistic on a thread about Richard Osterlind's recent DVDs. Is that what you refer to? I believe my questions were legit...although confontational at points. But what serious enquiries, with those who will not provide a direct answer, are not? - Greg Owen
Author of The Alpha Stack ebook - the balanced memorized stack
gobeatty@yahoo.com |
|||||||||
Micheal Leath Inner circle 1048 Posts |
Greg, I was responding to a statement made by "not finished." He accused someone else of unnatural behavior in another thread. He posted under another name. Sorry if I was not clear.
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/searc......=3888523 To you, "not finished," I do indeed drive a pickup truck. It's a 1983 Toyota as a matter of fact. I spent a whole $500 on it. It took me 1 weeks to get it running, but it is now the best vehicle I have owned. I will not try to reason with someone who obviously is full of nonsense. That's putting it nice. |
|||||||||
Lee Darrow V.I.P. Chicago, IL USA 3588 Posts |
Quote:
On 2004-12-13 07:41, travisb wrote: Yes, but that has no impact on the design erroes of the study itself. Experimenter bias skews psychological and other performance tests even when acknowledged by the person(s) being tested. Hence, even though they agree to his parameters, they are still working in an inhibiting environment and with a biased experimenter. That, in any experiment involving human behavior, rules out accurate results by definition. Quote:
And if "psi" was so sensitive to the people in the room, why wouldn't the psychics have noticed this at some earlier time in their lives, and therefore only agreed to terms that would allow them to perform? Or, why couldn't they bring in another psychic to "reverse lam" Randi's supposed negative psychic influence? I honestly am not sure, however, I can speculate. Many of the psychics being tested are NOT educated scientists. In many instances, they have at best a high school education - hence, they would not be aware of something like a confounding variable based on experimenter bias because the concept is not present in their minds. We can only represent what we know and/or synthesize based on what we know. That being said, the combination of Randi's broadcasting acts as a signal jammer, and, if the radio analogy holds true, it doesn't matter how strong the receiving set is if there's static in the air. Quote:
If the people agree to the conditions, you can't come in after and start inventing reasons after the fact why they didn't succeed. "Oh, the solar winds weren't high enough that week," or, "Randi must have psychically blocked me." Why not? Peer review of psychological tests is done this way as a matter of course. The fact that I have seen NO peer review of Randi's testing protocols being allowed by any institution of higher learning sems to point to the idea that he does not want the idea of experimenter bias to be exposed. In any of the sciences, experimentation is done on a progressively exacting model - a pilot study is done and the methodology is reviewed by the experimenters and by peer review panels. Then a more exacting study is done, using more precise methodology. Then another round of review, sometimes this process goes on for decades and for dozens of design revisions. Add to that the fact that we don't even know WHAT we are trying to measure and we have a very difficult situation. We have no ideas of the energies at work, if any, what the influences on them may be and whether we are dealing with a talent, a sensory ability or an atrophied neuromuscular system that can only function sporadically. Quote:
If I was a genuine psychic, I would do all of the above, win the contest, and go after the prize money. Even if I don't get it, at the very least it'd be egg on Randi's face, and if I were a psychic, I would probably find that that made it all worthwhile. LOL! Well I can agee with you on the last particular as I really get annoyed at people who profess to be skeptics (meaning having an open mind and wondering what the reality of something is) as opposed to the "new" meaning which is just a synonym for "disbeliever." Hope this helps clarify the concerns I have with the current state of affairs in Psi research. Lee Darrow, C.H. P.S. Thanks to all of you who said such nice things about my earlier posts! - LD
http://www.leedarrow.com
<BR>"Because NICE Matters!" |
|||||||||
christopher carter Special user 660 Posts |
Everyone has a few completely trivial pet peeves. One of mine is the misuse of the word "skeptic." Several times I've read somebody refer to a "true skeptic" as somebody who keeps an open mind, as opposed to somebody who openly doubts or is antagonistic to a particular point of view. The only people who adhere to this definition are mentalists or 'believers' trying to use their manufactured definition against those who hold opposing views.
The historical definition of skeptic is in fact far closer to 'disbeliever' than not. 'Open Minded' is only marginally applicable to any definition of the word, in the sense that, as a philosophical practice, skepticism is supposed to be a path toward the truth. Historically, the word "skeptic" has connoted doubt and even outright hostility. Many noted atheists where, in their day, called "skeptics" of religion. Here are two quick online definitions: "A skeptic: one who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions." "A skeptic: an attitude of doubt or a disposition of incredulity either in general or toward a particular object." Greek philosophers who practiced skepticism took a stance of systematic opposition toward an idea or assertion. In other words, the acted as if the idea were false, assuming that true knowlege could only be obtained from those ideas which withstood a such an assault. You don't have to agree with their doctrine, but scoffers and doubters ARE the true skeptics. --Chris P.S. Check out this thesaurus listing: Entry: skeptic Part of Speech: noun Definition: unbeliever Synonyms: agnostic, apostate, atheist, cynic, disbeliever, dissenter, doubter, doubting Thomas, freethinker, heathen, heretic, infidel, materialist, misanthrope, misbeliever, nihilist, pagan, pessimist, profaner, questioner, rationalist, scoffer Source: Roget's New Millenniumâ„¢ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1) |
|||||||||
Bambaladam Special user 636 Posts |
Ah but Chris,
When the word skeptic is used to describe someone who has made their mind up NOT to believe certain things (say ESP) on the basis of other beliefs they DO hold (say that the scientific method is the only way to arrive at accurate conclusions regarding reality), the word is not used corectly. Scepticism scoffs at empirical data for one, so science is disqualified automatically. What reason have I to trust my senses and so on. When it is used as a synonym for materialist fundamentalism, it is not used correctly. Why not stick with the label materialist fundamentalism? It is very accurate when used to describe most people who call themselves "skeptics". /Bamba |
|||||||||
christopher carter Special user 660 Posts |
Sorry, Bamba, but look again at the definitions. Although the definition derives from the Greek philosophical school, it has diverged. Historically doubt and cynicism toward particular ideas are absolutely part of the definition, regardless of the biases which spawned them. Early materialists were described as skeptics.
Meanings of words do change over time. Nevertheless, your usage is distinctly a minority one. It may be that your assumption of materialist fundamentalism is one that I should be skeptical of However, if that is what drives one's skepticism, the word is still correctly used. --Chris |
|||||||||
Bambaladam Special user 636 Posts |
Hi Chris,
I'd like to point your right back at the definitions you offered. They are both decent enough, as long as we agree not to intend the Greek philosophical school. But they are not appropriate names for materialist fundamentalists. These people embrace skepticism, especially when it suits their agendas, but they do not deserve to be called skeptics anymore than, say, an aborigine who refuses to be treated by western doctors. I agree anyone who doubts anything could be considered a skeptic, but I don't think the groups that use the term to describe their own character use it fairly. I am certain my usage is in the minority on this board, and perhaps in the US, but the use of the word skeptic is different where I live, and almost only used in reference to someone who is unjustly negative, or in reference to the school of philosophy. I agree we should not get bogged down arguing definitions, and that "skeptic" as used here usually means only one thing and that the name serves its purpose in this discussion, but I must ask what use we have of a term equally applicable to Mr Randi and the aborigine I mentioned earlier? Would it not be more prudent to refer to the beliefs the reluctance to accept an idea stems from? And if it should be interpreted to mean materialist fundamentalist, as I feel is the case, then why not be upfront about that? /Bamba |
|||||||||
christopher carter Special user 660 Posts |
Call it what you like. When Randi calls himself a skeptic, I have no problem understanding his meaning. Apparently you don't either. His usage is in keeping with the traditional usage of the word, and the word economically conveys the tenor of his belief (disbelief?) It's a better and more accurate description. If you read Skeptic (the magazine) or Randi's site, it seems to me that the term skeptic applies more accurately than Fundamentalist Materialist, which you also have to admit wouldn't make a very compelling title.
Don't forget, I said this was a trival pet peeve. Much like this thread, it's an argument with almost no point or direction Getting back to the question posed in the thread, asking whether Randi's challenges are legitimate can have several possible meanings. It could be interpreted to be "are his challenges science?" If that is the question, the answer is 'no.' Even Randi acknowleges that they aren't scientific experiments. If the question is "will he pay up if the challenge is met?" I believe the answer is 'yes!' I could be wrong. I am poor judge of character. The bottom line is that Randi is saying 'these are the conditions that would satisfy me' when it comes to paranormal phenomena. It's one guy's opinion, backed up by a lot of money. Clearly many people agree with his conditions and hold a similar mindset. Apparently many more don't. However, if you take the challenge, you are agreeing to them, and thereby giving them legitimacy. I more or less agree with Randi, but so what? The smart psychic will do what Mark Lewis has been preaching all along: you'll put the Skeptics on the defensive, you'll do what you've been doing all along anyway, and in the end all the converts will be yours. That's human nature. --Chris |
|||||||||
Bill Hallahan Inner circle New Hampshire 3222 Posts |
There have always been some people who scoffed at new ideas, especially extreme claims. People scoffed at the idea that the lights in the sky were stars, that the earth was round; that mankind would build flying machines, etc.. Of course these skeptics were wrong.
But that argument selects only ideas where the skeptics were wrong. If you examine all, or even most, of the extreme ideas that have been proposed where the truth was eventually determined, skeptics have been proved correct the vast majority of the time. Of course in some cases, such as this one, the matter has remained unresolved. The idea that someone who is skeptical cannot be completely open minded is totally false. I maintain everyone in this topic is skeptical about something or other. I also believe that most people here would accept conclusive proof showing them wrong. Instead of focusing on terms used to label people who lean toward one position, wouldn't it be better to test claims? If there are some issues regarding testing, wouldn’t it be better to discuss, and, if possible, resolve those issues?
Humans make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to create boredom. Quite astonishing.
- The character of ‘Death’ in the movie "Hogswatch" |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Are Randi's challenges really legitimate? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.08 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |