Here are a few links:

Scientific Method:
http://www.freeinquiry.com/intro-to-sci.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit:
http://www.carlsagan.com/revamp/carlsagan/baloney.html

Skepticism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scepticism

Anomalous phenomenon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranormal

An excerpt from the definition of science found at the top link:

"...science is a method of discovering reliable knowledge about nature..."

It's not a dogma.

And Jimtron gets the crowd riled up again. You are an evil warmonger. LOL

Every scientist may not believe that he knows everything, but if it cannot be proven scientifically, it does not work or is wrong or does not exist.

I can't prove it, so I must be wrong or don't exist. Who am I? What Year is it?

"but if it cannot be proven scientifically, it does not work or is wrong or does not exist."

Not really, it can be a valid point even if it can't be proven.

There are many idea's and hypothesis about such things as how many dimensions we live in, or quantum physics, etc., that are all currently un-provable but still highly regarded by the scientific community.

Why? Because you can back up your opinion with some form of data, show some correlations, have some formula's or at least reached your point with logic.

You can't just say, "Well, I can talk to dead people" or "I think we are all made up of tiny pieces of gum" and think that society should take your word for it.

There has been no data, free from fraud, that has shown any sort of psychic activity. Every single case either dissolves when closely viewed, or turns out to be outright fraud.

If there was really psychic activity in the world, do you think that we would be here discussing it?

NO, we would be out living as psychics or talking to psychics, etc.

There have been claims for thousands of years of supernatural activity, and never has that been the case.

With everything else in life, there is evidence to support things. The fact that we don't float away supports gravity, or the fact how radios and TV work supports Electro Magnetic Waves.

However. there is no clear evidence that supports psychic activity.

I think that saying "It knows when it's being tested and doesn't work under those conditions" is completely false and simply a way to dismiss any test that show that there is no psychic activity.

I think you are entitled to your own opinions, but at least represent them as what they are: Fiction.

Don't say they are fact.

I'll stick my hand up here...

I don't think an exploration of the scientific method is necessary here; obviously, it's probably too much for some of the people here.

Let's make it really simple: it comes down to what can be observed; and those observations being unencumbered or confounded with anything else. For instance, if "b" happens after "a"--and there's no other explanation for "b" that can be possible outside of "a," it's generally open to further research (not accepted yet, but should be tested a couple more times before people will begin to agree).

So, say for instance someone says they can move a spoon with their mind when it's on a table. A=person thinks while looking at the spoon; B=spoon moves. Now, it seems as if we've found a clean observation, however, we need to tease out certain things. How do we know it's not the wind? We control for it in a lab room. How do we know it's not some secret device? We control for it in the lab room. How do we know it's not the type of spoon? We control for it in the lab room.

When you control for all possible counter-arguments and show your evidence is reliable, then people start to listen. When you don't, it's considered "not good enough" science and goes into a file-drawer somewhere.

Still, I'm worried this simple model will be too much for most people.

I just agree with everyone. Why? Because we can argue until we are blue in the face and never come to an agreement. Like arguing religion.

And just like religion, the reason we can't agree is that some people insist on believing things without any evidence and then claim that disbelievers are close-minded fools.

Hi folks,

I mentioned to Mr Randi that he was the subject of an increadibly interesting topic at the Café. As he is a Café member but a very infrequent visitor to The Café, he passed on the following comments;



***I make no claim. The "psychics" do. I merely challenge those who make the claims, to prove them - and I offer a million dollars as a reward. Hundreds have tried, and none have succeeded.

I do not conduct the tests. They're done by "outside" persons, agreeable to myself and to the applicant, and under conditions agreed to by all involved.

The manner in which tests are done, cannot be faulted. It's airtight, fair, proper, and fully visible. Anyone can witness it.

And, as an aside, don't think that you have some wondrous method that can get by the security. Jonathan was not fully informed - by design -
concerning the precautions we took with Hydrick (it was "Song Chai," Jonathan) and we were ready for anything. I didn't fall off an apple tree yesterday.***



I'm aware the thread's gone sleightly off-topic again but I just thought I'd throw that in.

Kinesis

Thanks Kinesis

Most of us are on Randi's side, we just love gettign up the "psychics" noses. If you are not having fun, make your own fun as they would put it.

Regards
Wolflock

Wolflock
LOL, it's not often I laugh out loud, but that did it

Didn't fall off the apple tree? Well, neither did I.

Who are the JUDGES of this farcical challenge? No, "not the persons who conduct the tests" The JUDGES.

Or should I say the one judge. I get a psychic feeling that he has a beard.

That's the whole point, the conditions are agreed (by both parties). There is no judge. If you fulfil the requirements (that were agreed to) under conditions (that were agreed to)you win.

Hey "not finnished". Long time no see. Where you been? Been missing your posts, my good fellow.
I did fall from the apple tree, I should not have been stealing them I suppose. Lesson Taught.

Thanks Kenisis, glad you enjoyed that.

Regards
Wolflock

Dearie me, Kinesis.
Who is the JUDGE that you have fulfilled the requirements? There has to be a judge.

Let me try it this way. Who is the judge as to whether the money is paid out?

One moment please. I had better try again. Who decides IF THE MONEY IS TO BE PAID OUT?

Once more. Let us assume the "requirements" have been fulfilled. Everything is now hunky dory and it is perfectly obvious that the psychic has shown his great magnificence.

Who decides to RELEASE THE CHEQUE? That is the only judge that matters. And I bet he has a beard.

The application states that the test is devised so that the result is self evident and that no judge is required. However, as the offer of reward is made by James Randi through JREF, I can see where you are coming from. However, no one but James Randi (or perhaps JREF) can offer an answer to that question and so within this forum your question becomes rhetorical.

Real life discoveries change the way we live, alter our perception of life. If real psychics existed or if we could really move objects with our mind why are the psychics still performing on tacky daytime TV shows or psychic fairs? Why aren’t the spoon benders turning the laws of physics upside down? Why do spirit mediums not pass on information of some use e.g. the unfinished theories from a dead scientist? Sure they can predict what movie star will fall in love with who or make a big movie in 2 years time. Yes, they can tell you your picture above the fire is crooked. Get them to predict a natural disaster or an act of terrorism – No! Why is that?

Who is the judge who decides whether to fork over the money? WHO? WHO? WHO?

This is the only judge that matters. As for the "self evident" stuff I can only say that one man's "self evidence" is another man's load of twaddle.

However I do not want to discuss that. I want to know WHO IS THE JUDGE THAT DECIDES WHETHER TO FORK OVER THE MONEY OR NOT?

This is the real KEY question not anything else. When I sell Svengali decks I often say there is a money back guarantee. However this is contingent on people actually finding me. In other words I don't really mean it.

I rather suspect there is someone else who doesn't really mean it either.

Psychics can be sceptical too. We get vibes about people and we think the burden of proof on the bearded one to prove he is going to fork out the money if we manage to produce a ton of ectoplasm from his left ear.

It is no point chattering about the question not being relevant since it is the most important question of the lot.

Again WHO IS THE PERSON WHO IS THE JUDGE ON WHETHER TO FORK OVER THE MONEY? That is really the only judge that matters.

I'll give you a clue. I bet it isn't Sylvia Brown or John Edwards.

Rex - The difference between science and religion is that scientists are prepared to admit they were wrong and change to fit with new discovery or information. Religions are not willing to accept change or listen to anything that is not in their favour. I'd rather live in a world that isn't perfect than one that is blinkered to the truth.

You can be the judge. If someone takes the challenge, proves their paranormal ability, and doesn't get the money, I would think they would make some noise about it, and you and all of us can make a judgement. I think it's usually in the press when someone actually gets through the preliminary phase; for example Time magazine covered the Russian girl who took the challenge.

First, let's define what science is and is not. Science is the branch of philosophy that studies how objects and processes operate.

As to the nature of proof, I'll refer you to James Sedgwick, who was able to describe the difference between right, wrong and meaningless so aptly:

* "Why do I keep dropping things?"

* "It's the shoons."

* "What are shoons?"

* "Invisible beings that pull things out of your hands and throw them on the floor."

* "Why would I believe that?"

* "Well, if you can't disprove it, you have to believe it."

* "But you didn't prove it."

* "I can feel them. You can feel them too. You're just in denial."

* "Well I don't believe it."

* "So you are an ashoonist."

* "What's an ashoonist?"

* "One who arbitrarily refuses to believe in shoons. You wonder why you drop things, but you arbitrarily reject the explanation."

* "Okay then, I'm an ashoonist."

* "But ashoonists are all cynics and killjoys! Is that the kind of company you want to keep?"

What a silly way to argue! Or is it? If you separate the method of argument from the content, then you might notice that it is the most common of all methods of argument: the arbitrary declaration. They say that something is so, and you have to either disprove it or agree with it. Refusing to do either is joining the Meanies.

It's a paradox. You cannot reject an assertion without reason, but you could waste the whole day finding reasons to reject arbitrary assertions. An epistemology of reason solves the paradox by taking away permission to make assertions in the first place without reasons.

Come to think of it, where did that permission come from? If an assertion does not come with an observable connection to reality, why would anybody pay attention to it? Well, if it has to be either right or wrong, then you have to decide which, and you have to be reasonable. So you can't reject anything without disproving it.

But what if a statement could be something else besides right or wrong? What if it could also be simply meaningless?

Right and wrong are relationships to reality - correspondence and non-correspondence. To judge a statement as right or wrong, you compare it to reality, by finding what part of reality it compares to. If a statement does not say what part of reality it compares to, then it is presented without connection to reality. It could mean all sorts of things, depending on where it fits in reality. Since that is not specified, it means nothing. It conveys words, but not meaning. Since you cannot call it right, and you cannot call it wrong, you call it arbitrary. Arbitrary means lacking any evidence of a relationship to reality.

To treat arbitrary assertions as right is to be a self-made sucker. To treat them as wrong is to try judging without evidence. The objective way is to realize that assertions without evidence are meaningless. No matter how much emotion they contain, nothing has been said.

Here's a completion of the original argument:

* "Wait! Before you told me about the shoons, was I a shoonist, or an ashoonist?"

* "Well, neither. That word just meant nothing to you."

* "And it still means nothing to me. Try me again when you've got evidence."

The topic of this thread is about the legitimacy of Randi's challenge. I find the philosophical discussions about science, belief, and religion interesting, but determining the authenticity of Randi's challenge is fairly simple and straightforward.

So far it has been impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god. All credible scientists would agree (I think) that there are many things we don't know, and may never know (known unknowns in Rumsfeldspeak). Love, art, and god, for example, will likely never be measurable by science.

However, in my view it is relatively simple and straightforward to determine if Randi's challenge is legit, just as it is not too difficult to determine, under test conditions, whether someone is bending metal with their mind or with a trick. Of course there are many things that can't be proven. But there are many other things that can be.

I've seen lots of evidence that leads me to believe that Randi is legit, and for all the insults and allegations I've heard against him here at the Café, I've yet to hear any evidence to back them up.

Perhaps we could start a new thread on the "not very magical" section to discuss religion and science, and for this thread stick to the topic: Randi's legitimacy. I think we've gotten way off topic.

I think if More of those posting here just enjoyed life without questioning everything, life would probably be better for everyone. But then again, we would be ignorant. No we wouldn't, Yes we would...

*Wolf proceeds to argue with himself*