Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Debunking skeptics .....

13

Comments

  • #102
    Rob Humanoid
    Registered Users Posts: 123 ✭✭Rob Humanoid


    My computer is set to American spelling for some inexplicable reason...And I'm just too lazy to fix it. :D


  • #103
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Zombrex wrote: »
    No, to be a skeptic you have understand the principles of science and appreciate why they matter. If you simply ignore them because its too boring or not fun enough (or because you simply don't have a clue what they are), and instead rely on the utterly unreliable assessment of "common sense", which is basically just another name for guessing, then you are not in any way being a skeptic.

    If thats how you define sceptic and common sense, then more power to you. Its no wonder you're so confused. being sceptical technically has nothing to do with science per se. You really should read up a bit on the whole thing.

    Ah, brilliant.

    Explain to me maccored what I would "do" in the field of paranormal research when there isn't a methodology to use ...

    How about helping to develop one? Better than complaining about he paranormal on the internet.
    Of course there is a methodology, it is called guessing and making sh*t up (or as you put it "common sense"). The problem is you don't seem to grasp why that is a bad methodology to use and why you shouldn't use it and why using it makes you the opposite of a skeptic.

    So you are saying my "methodology" is "guessing and making sh*t up". Fancy backing that up? Plus, please understand that from where Im sitting, you dont sound very scientific at all. Are you a scientist, or do you just want to sound intelligent?


    Dear lord. :rolleyes:

    Let me hand this over a man who put it better than me

    Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down by the mind before you reach eighteen.
    Albert Einstein

    So now you think common sense is rubbish. Well done.


  • #104
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    Seems upset when Zombrex appears to insult him.
    Appears to insult other poster.

    what kind of argument is that? People used to go on like that in primary school ... i fail to see your point. Maybe you should tell me.


    My point is "If they have an effect on the physical world, then yes[ we can test for them]."

    The initial tests don't even have to involve expensive recording equipment.
    Take one 'real' EVP and one fake, artificially generated one. The real one was taken after a simple question was asked, like; What is your name?"
    Then tell 50 people that the recording was taken after that question was asked and let them listen to either the real or the fake one and see what answers they come up with.

    This test would show a difference between real EVPs and just background noise being wrongly interpreted. If you can't get a definite trend towards the real EVP then there is no point continuing.

    I dont believe you understand the kind of evps that are being captured. theres plenty that cant be described as 'background noise'. Then again, you'd only know that if you actually went looking for them and decided to do some actual research. there are many things that have an effect on the world that we dont know of yet. Going by your assumption, science should know everything by now. obviously thats not true, so youre "we can test for them" idea (ie everything that affects anything in the world) is obviously misguided.


    You didn't, as far as I can see. You are quick to accuse others of not reading your posts but then you don't read ours. Check the line after that bit you quoted, it says:

    See?

    I think you are doing just fine destroying your credibility on your own.

    I have been reading the posts. I think the issue is moreso that you either refuse blindly to or just cant understand what Im talking about since to many of you people either believe that everything paranormal exists or that nothing paranormal exists. All whlst never actually bothering to go research anything. And then a bunch of you like to think you are hyper intelligent scientists. Yeah, right.


  • #105
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    surely that would depend on the 'event' and whatever had apparently happened. again - and I hate repeating myself - but if more people started to research the subject they'd find there are many occasions where the most obvious answers dont seem to be the correct ones, and people end up assuming its 'paranormal'. That obviously doesnt mean it *was* paranormal - but making assumptions far far away on the internet wont get anyone anywhere either.
    Standman wrote: »
    I'm just a bit confused as to why some people think a "paranormal" description of an event warrants even a consideration in the first place.


  • #106
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Rob Humanoid wrote: »
    That, for me anyway, tends to drown out the other more genuine people - Not that I'd believe them anyway, as I don't believe in psychic phenomena, etc.

    Dont forget , the paranormal covers a lot more than psychics


  • #107
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    kylith wrote: »
    Originally Posted by Zombrex viewpost.gif
    Groan ... thank you for brilliantly demonstrating my point.

    Explain how you learn anything about the paranormal using "your head" but not scientifically? All that means is that we can't find anything scientifically but we still like to pretend something exciting is going on so we simply abandon scientific principles and make it up.

    Christ it is like the Enlightenment never even happened .... what next? Well we cannot scientific demonstrate this lead will turn into gold but if we just use "common sense" I'm sure we can imagine how it might
    It's 'knowing' or 'feeling'. I 'know/feel' this is true...'. 'I feel a presence...'. If you believe something is true then, in paranormal circles, that's good enough, also known as this

    I believe its about time this was called out for what it is as well. Zombrex twisting (or else just cant understand) viewpoints by claiming I stated you CANT use science to research the paranormal, rather than at present there is no scientific methodology to do so, and then kylith answering that misconceived post with some bull**** about 'feelings'. Are you telling me kylith, thats how I approach the paranormal - because apparently you are. Once more I'll make a request to back that claim up - though I know I wont get an answer (which is why this forum is so boring).


  • #108
    IRWolfie-
    Registered Users Posts: 100 ✭✭IRWolfie-


    Science is that process of systematically building our knowledge of the universe.
    maccored wrote:
    there is no methodology so far for paranormal research

    And with that goes any claim that paranormal research is falsifiable or meaningful.

    Science deals with claims that are falsifiable. If it's not falsifiable it is outside the realm of things that we can show to be true about the universe, and thus eliminated by Occam's Razor as superfluous to our understanding. You can not have evidence for the paranormal because, then you would be acknowledging that it is falsifiable. Your comments display an ignorance of what science is, and the philosophy of science, and why it is relevant to the discussion.

    You may then argue that your belief is a religion, but just remember that you can not make claims to evidence. It is forbidden to you while you claim or your statements lead to the claim that it is not falsifiable.

    No doubt you have experienced some things you can't explain, or one of a number of "hidden persuaders" http://www.skepdic.com/hiddenpersuaders.html to convince you that the paranormal is real. You've used a number of fallacious arguments to try and back up your position, made a number of straw men arguments, and engaged in rampant hypocrisy by attacking other editors after complaining about being attacked. You appear to be convinced something exists, whilst simultaneously berating people for the way "everyone around here knows everyone and everything". So let's switch the tables. Why are you so convinced the paranormal exists? How are you so convinced if you acknowledge that you are only using the flawed arbiter of truth which is common sense, and do not have any rigorous methodology?

    Also, maybe you want to limit yourself to one reply before someone else comments? Making 5 posts in a row reminds me of someone doing a Gish gallop, and quite frankly, makes you look a bit unbalanced.


  • #109
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Of course there is methodology for paranormal research. Studies such as Ganzfeld experiments looking at evidence for psi effects are carried out following the scientific method and are completely falsifiable. Many studies have shown evidence for psi effects, other studies show no such evidence. It can be argued whether the science conducted is good science or bad science for any of the work done in terms of the experimental method, how well the experiments were controlled, etc. but to say it is not science or follows the scientific method is simply lying.

    Skeptics call it pseudoscience because they don't like the conclusions, but are actually anti science as science should be neutral when it comes to conclusions and not dictated by dogma. The evidence I have seen from people like Dean Radin suggests that psi effects exist but are not understood. Much of the evidence I have seen from skeptics is either sloppy or dishonest or both, they appear to be much more interested in debunking ideas they don't like because of their belief systems than actually conducting science.


  • #110
    IRWolfie-
    Registered Users Posts: 100 ✭✭IRWolfie-


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Of course there is methodology for paranormal research.
    maccored wrote:
    there is no methodology so far for paranormal research

    Two paranormal enthusiasts are saying the opposite of each other. Which of the true believers is correct?
    nagirrac wrote:
    Skeptics call it pseudoscience because they don't like the conclusions, ...

    We've already established that you like particular physicists because they say what you agree with. Isn't that doing what you say skeptics are doing?

    Don't forget, there is a million dollar prize for anyone who can demonstrate psychic ability.


  • #111
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    IRWolfie- wrote: »
    Two paranormal enthusiasts are saying the opposite of each other. Which of the true believers is correct?

    We've already established that you like particular physicists because they say what you agree with. Isn't that doing what you say skeptics are doing?

    Don't forget, there is a million dollar prize for anyone who can demonstrate psychic ability.

    If you have a science background you already know the answer to #1.

    No, most skeptics do no science and earn their living debunking the work of others. We can argue about the different conclusions of individual scientists, but most sceptics are not scientists. Apples and oranges.

    You mean James Randi, the failed magician? Why would any serious scientist waste their time with this charlatan?


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    IRWolfie-
    Registered Users Posts: 100 ✭✭IRWolfie-


    nagirrac wrote:
    You mean James Randi, the failed magician? Why would any serious scientist waste their time with this charlatan?

    You regard Academy of Magical Arts Lifetime Achievement Fellowship award winning, Houdini record beating, spoon bending, James Randi, who is internationally known for being a great magician in his day, James Randi who famously exposed James Hydrick, Uri Geller and many more, as a failed magician. Excuse me if I don't take that seriously.

    With all due respect, until you get an award from the American Physical Society, get a fellowship from the McArthur foundation, take part in medical research team http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2005.00109.x/abstract (despite your claims to the contrary, skeptics do plenty of research; perhaps you simply haven't looked.) and have an asteroid named after you, I might respect your points, but at the moment you just sound like you irrationally hate him for exposing the bull****.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7BQKu0YP8Y

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT_cz_QNIn4


  • #113
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    You forgot the Richard Dawkins award which is what really seals it for me;)

    Randi does a good job exposing fellow magicians and charlatans which is doing society a favor. Howver, in my opinion he crosses the line when he accuses serious scientists studying psi effects using the scientific method of being charlatans.


  • #114
    IRWolfie-
    Registered Users Posts: 100 ✭✭IRWolfie-


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Howver, in my opinion he crosses the line when he accuses serious scientists studying psi effects using the scientific method of being charlatans.
    Your comment is too general to address. Who specifically are you talking about?


  • #115
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    IRWolfie- wrote: »
    Your comment is too general to address. Who specifically are you talking about?

    As I said, when he moves aways from his area of expertise (sleight of hand and deception) and into genuine areas of scientific research, such ESP and telekenesis. He has been very critical of people like Dean Radin for example, and not being a scientist himself he is out of hs knowledge zone in this area and just spreading misinformation. Like a lot of skeptics he has never actually looked at the data seriously, and more significantly as a professional skeptic, whose career is based on debunking, he cannot look at it objectively.

    Basically I think Randi has build a career picking on easy targets, magicians and psychics. I find his exposing magicians a bit dishonest given he made his living from the same profession for many years. Magicians are entertainers, people pay money to be entertained, so what if it is based on deception? Magicians are not called illusionists for nothing. Clearly there are many charlatans out there claiming to be psychics, but in the grand scheme of things, again so what? People go to see them and pay a few bob and feel better afterwards, a bit like people going to mass.

    If Randi and other professional skeptics were truly serious about exposing fraud, why don't they go after the big targets? How about going after organized religion, not the small fry faith healers, the whole shebang. Go after pharma companies who sell drugs "off label". Astra Zeneca was fined $520 million in 2010 for selling Seroquel as a treatment for "bad behavior" in children, when their own clinical trials had shown serious side effects in children. I know these are somewhat straw man arguments, but there is a contextual issue here of what professional skeptics bring to the table.

    Fundamentally I don't believe science should be constrained by what is viewed as being "common sense" or what is the consensus view of reality. I have great respect for scientists who go out on a limb and explore aspects of our reality that are not well understood. Life would be so boring to me at least without people like Grof, Sheldrake, Radin, McKenna, who challenge our comfortable view of reality and common sense. They are complementary to materialist reductionist science in my opinion, and suppressing them is to deny how we evolved as a creative species. We didn't evolve in terms of civilization by following an exact recipe, we evolved mainly by individuals leapling into the unknown.


  • #116
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Well don't worry, there is a whole host of real scientists happy to criticize Dean Radin and his nonsense, so I'm sure Randi doesn't worry about it that much :P


  • #117
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Well don't worry, there is a whole host of real scientists happy to criticize Dean Radin and his nonsense, so I'm sure Randi doesn't worry about it that much :P

    Point us to one scientist who has criticised the work of Dean Radin. Not disagreed with the conclusions, criticised the work and called it nonsense. You won't find any, as any scientist who has looked at his work regards the quality of the experiments as exemplary, and indeed most scientists today accept that psi effects exist but are not understood. Again, educate yourself.

    Randi has enough to be worried about since his partner of 30 years was convicted of identity theft (which caused signicant harm to the individual he stole from), something Randi admitted in court he was aware of. Interesting that the exposer of fraud turned out to be a dishonest fraud himself, a bit like a preacher bashing gays who turns out to be gay himself.


  • #118
    IRWolfie-
    Registered Users Posts: 100 ✭✭IRWolfie-


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Point us to one scientist who has criticised the work of Dean Radin.

    http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/radin1.html

    You don't look very hard. You have a stereotypical image of what a skeptic is, and it's not backed up by the evidence. You need to stop with the straw man opinion of skeptics.

    As an aside, accusations that if your partner commits a crime that you committed a crime is wrong and stupid. It's dirty mudslinging, and it only reflects badly on you.


  • #119
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    IRWolfie- wrote: »
    http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/radin1.html

    You don't look very hard. You have a stereotypical image of what a skeptic is, and it's not backed up by the evidence. You need to stop with the straw man opinion of skeptics.

    As an aside, accusations that if your partner commits a crime that you committed a crime is wrong and stupid. It's dirty mudslinging, and it only reflects badly on you.

    I asked for a refutation of Radin's work by a scientist and you post a review of his book by an atheist Philosopher??? Really, you think that's a meaningful response. There are sceptics, which all of us should be, and there are professional sceptics who earn their living from expressing their biased point of view. Can you really not tell the difference? Point me to a scientist who has criticized Radin's work or stop the waffle.

    I don't know where you live but in the USA harboring a criminal and aiding and abetting a criminal are crimes. Randi admitted in court that he knew his partner was from Venezuela and had a Venezuelan passport when they met. They travelled together for over 25 years, where did Randi think he got his US passport from? The question as to why Randi was not charged is an interesting one, most of the speculation on that question is it involved an out of court settlement with the victim.

    I have no interest in who Randi sleeps with or whether they are criminals or not, it speaks to character and honesty, the fact that the individual was a paid director of the Randi foundation headed by Randi adds to the dishonesty. No doubt there will be a heart rending documentary on the evils of US immigration coming shortly with Dawkins as the guest speaker.


  • #120
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7BQKu0YP8Y

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT_cz_QNIn4
    [/QUOTE]


    All Easily replicated. :pac:

    I saw James Randhi doing an interview on how psychics use cold reading. This was somebody else's finding that he has now nicked (probably to sell books) Its funny during the 90s there was not a sniff of cold reading from him.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    IRWolfie-
    Registered Users Posts: 100 ✭✭IRWolfie-


    Dre, I don't know what you mean by "All Easily replicated". James Randi exposed Hydrick and Popoff. It wasn't a magic trick; once he exposed them, it's not like someone else can go and expose them again. I don't think Randi has ever pretended that cold reading was something he came up with. He's a representative for skepticism, so he gets asked about these things, and talks about them. That's how fields progress, you build on the works of others.
    By mentioning the 90s you seem to be implying that cold reading was only recently discovered, but the forer effect for example, was found in the late 40's.


  • #122
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Point us to one scientist who has criticised the work of Dean Radin. Not disagreed with the conclusions, criticised the work and called it nonsense.

    Well apparently you don't like Professors of Philosophy pointing out the problems with Radin (a reverse appeal to authority? why does it have to be a scientist if the points are valid?), so how about a professor of psychology. James Alcock has been exposing the pseudo-science in the conclusions of Radin for years.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    You won't find any, as any scientist who has looked at his work regards the quality of the experiments as exemplary, and indeed most scientists today accept that psi effects exist but are not understood. Again, educate yourself.

    Despite years of looking into it these "scientists" have never found an observable phenomena. What they have found are statistical curiosities, when you put hundreds of people together you find some odd events, but they can never narrow this down to individuals expressing psychic ability.

    There is nothing here. Despite that these researchers continue trying to find a phenomena they can call paranormal, before they even get to explaining how it happens.

    This is exposes the dishonesty of this research, they are actively looking for a phenomena to fit the explanation they wish were true (because it's damn exciting). This is the exact opposite of how science is supposed to work. These researchers so desperately want the interesting explanation to be true they are they are ignoring all the problems with their research, trying to find some way to claim that there is a paranormal element to these observations. It is the problem when you start with the conclusion and work backwards, again the exact opposite of what you are supposed to do in science.

    Don't believe me? Find me a single observed phenomena that these researchers have started off with and proceeded to explain using a paranormal theory.

    Just one will do.


  • #123
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    IRWolfie- wrote: »
    Dre, I don't know what you mean by "All Easily replicated". James Randi exposed Hydrick and Popoff.

    what has he done since, despite writing books on how he exposed the world wide phenomenon, the household name that was James Hydrick :P


  • #124
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    IRWolfie- wrote: »
    Two paranormal enthusiasts are saying the opposite of each other. Which of the true believers is correct?

    True believers? Eh? The only believers I know of are those who A) think ghosts definitely exist and B) those who think ghosts definitely dont exist.
    nagirrac wrote:
    If you have a science background you already know the answer to #1.

    Please - explain to me how the scientific method is being used in paranormal research. Please dont mention ESP or mediums.


  • #125
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    I think Randi himself is genuine enough. Its his overenthusiastic followers that give him a bad name.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    what has he done since, despite writing books on how he exposed the world wide phenomenon, the household name that was James Hydrick :P


  • #126
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    maccored wrote: »
    Please - explain to me how the scientific method is being used in paranormal research. Please dont mention ESP or mediums.

    There is obviously vigerous debate surrounding parapsychology and whether it is "true" science or "pseudo" science. However, regardless of one's views on this question, what cannot be claimed is that parapsychology research does not follow the scientific method.

    Psychical research started in London in 1882. Stanford and Duke Universities were the first to open laboratories in the US studying ESP and telekeneisis in the early 20th century. If you don't believe the scientific method is being used to study ESP then you need to look up Ganzfeld experiments. There have been thousands of studies done under very strict laboratory conditions, in fact I would say that psi research is more closely monitored and controlled than most areas of science (extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence).

    Keep in mind those who are most vocal about psi research being pseudoscience are professional sceptics who earn their living from debunking the work of others. We live in a very mysterious universe, those that mock and seek to suppress certain areas of science because they do not like the mystical implications, are not helping us understand it better. What contribution to furthering human knowledge has been made by professional skeptics? None.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Theres more to paranormal research than esp and psi. theres no way at present to test for ghosts, therefore (at present) no way to collect decent data, make constructive experiments or progress much in actual research. This is why I say theres no use of the scientific method when it comes to other paranormal claims such as evps, the apparent relationship between the paranormal and emf etc etc.

    This is changing mind you as people start to look at environmental factors with some datalogging environmental changes to see if they bear any reflection on any apparent paranormal events recorded during such experiments but that side to it is in its infancy. I stand by the claim that general paranormal research at present wouldnt satisfy the scientific method as it isnt being applied. That doesnt mean that in the meantime researchers wont concentrate in monitoring and ruling out normal environmental factors, rather than trying to isolate paranormal events.


  • #128
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    nagirrac wrote: »
    What contribution to furthering human knowledge has been made by professional skeptics? None.

    Surely to research something you have to be as unbiased as possible? It's very important to be skeptical, ie on the fense - otherwise youre biased one way or another. Too many cynical people (ie those with a belief that the paranormal is bull****) call themselves skeptical - but that doesnt mean we should lose sight of what being a 'skeptic' means in regards to paranormal research.


  • #129
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    maccored wrote: »
    Surely to research something you have to be as unbiased as possible? It's very important to be skeptical, ie on the fense - otherwise youre biased one way or another. Too many cynical people (ie those with a belief that the paranormal is bull****) call themselves skeptical - but that doesnt mean we should lose sight of what being a 'skeptic' means in regards to paranormal research.

    I agree everyone should be sceptical but I would make the distinction between sceptics and professional sceptics (that's what they do for a living) and in particular those that are influenced by them almost to a religious degree and are not sceptical at all but highly biased.

    I think the best examples of this is what is regarded by many to be "common sense" or "conventional wisdom". When a lot of these "truths" are examined they are found to be false or have no evidence at all to support them.


  • #130
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    pseudo-skeptics is what I call those.

    I would differentiate between 'common sense' and 'conventional wisdom'. conventional wisdom is a shared logic, where as common sense varies in degrees in different people. For example, conventional wisdom might say to eat a banana upside down to cure a flu - whereas common sense wouldn't - though that would depend on how much common sense that person was using.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    I agree everyone should be sceptical but I would make the distinction between sceptics and professional sceptics (that's what they do for a living) and in particular those that are influenced by them almost to a religious degree and are not sceptical at all but highly biased.

    I think the best examples of this is what is regarded by many to be "common sense" or "conventional wisdom". When a lot of these "truths" are examined they are found to be false or have no evidence at all to support them.


  • #131
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Deleted User wrote: »
    what has he done since, despite writing books on how he exposed the world wide phenomenon, the household name that was James Hydrick :P

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi#Bibliography

    How many books have you written? :P


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    nagirrac wrote: »
    I agree everyone should be sceptical but I would make the distinction between sceptics and professional sceptics (that's what they do for a living) and in particular those that are influenced by them almost to a religious degree and are not sceptical at all but highly biased.

    I think the best examples of this is what is regarded by many to be "common sense" or "conventional wisdom". When a lot of these "truths" are examined they are found to be false or have no evidence at all to support them.

    You just don't like them because they point out all the problems with your pet fields, the things you want to be true despite no researchers being able to produce accurate theories that they are. Time and time again you have rejected off hand any criticism of your fav researchers because they are ruining all the fun of pretending that there are paranormal phenomena going on, rather than just statistical oddities.

    And you have the gall to complain about people being biased, you and maccored are quite the pair :rolleyes:


  • #133
    IRWolfie-
    Registered Users Posts: 100 ✭✭IRWolfie-


    nagirrac wrote: »
    What contribution to furthering human knowledge has been made by professional skeptics? None.

    You are so closed minded you wilfully deny what sceptics spend their time doing; the books they write, the journals they write in, the studies they do, the consumer protection work they do. Their contribution is real and tangible. To you, these contributions don't exist because you have a closed mind and refuse to see people who are sceptical in anything but a negative way. This is what makes you a true believer.

    Sceptics don't dismiss all paranormal investigators or investigations, they question, challenge them and look at the methodologies etc etc. They don't even claim that paranormal phenomenon have been falsified, or even claim they are falsifiable. You on the other hand "know" the truth, and will go to any lengths to try and discredit anyone who doesn't share your belief; no matter how illogical your claims against them are. The severe cognitive dissonance necessary for that must be making you queasy.


  • #134
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    IRWolfie- wrote: »
    You are so closed minded you wilfully deny what sceptics spend their time doing; the books they write, the journals they write in, the studies they do, the consumer protection work they do. Their contribution is real and tangible. To you, these contributions don't exist because you have a closed mind and refuse to see people who are sceptical in anything but a negative way. This is what makes you a true believer.

    You have an interesting idea of what a closed mind is. A closed mind is one that will not consider alternatives to what is regarded as "conventional wisdom". I would argue that my mode of thinking is the opposite of that mode of thinking, but perhaps you know me better than I know myself. A sceptic is one who questions everything that is claimed to be true and wants to see evidence to support the claim. I am a sceptic, why would I see sceptics in a negative light?

    My statement that you highlighted is that professional skeptics (such as Randi) do nothing to further our knowledge. You might point me to one discovery, invention, breakthrough in any field initiated by Randi, Wiseman or any of the well known professional skeptics. I am making the distinction here between skeptics in general and professional skeptics and in particular some of their fanatical followers who believe everything they say without actually looking at any evidence themselves.

    I am not denying that Randi and others do some good work in exposing frauds. I would say this value can be overstated however in the same way that atheists trying to debunk religion is overstated. If religion give comfort to billions of people, where is the actual value to society in removing that comfort? Are these billions of people going to morph from having a spiritual outlook to having an outlook solely based on reason? Are they all going to take up Philosophy and abandon spirituality?

    In my view, the limited good done by professional skeptics and their followers is is offset by the damage they do by attacking any science that they see as challenging conventional wisdom. We can argue this point indefinitely, but I won't change your mind and you won't change my mind. I resent the term "true believer" however. As an agnostic I am not a true believer in anything, and you will not find evidence for that in anything I have posted.


  • #135
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    nagirrac wrote: »
    You have an interesting idea of what a closed mind is. A closed mind is one that will not consider alternatives to what is regarded as "conventional wisdom". I would argue that my mode of thinking is the opposite of that mode of thinking, but perhaps you know me better than I know myself. A sceptic is one who questions everything that is claimed to be true and wants to see evidence to support the claim. I am a sceptic, why would I see sceptics in a negative light?

    My statement that you highlighted is that professional skeptics (such as Randi) do nothing to further our knowledge. You might point me to one discovery, invention, breakthrough in any field initiated by Randi, Wiseman or any of the well known professional skeptics. I am making the distinction here between skeptics in general and professional skeptics and in particular some of their fanatical followers who believe everything they say without actually looking at any evidence themselves.

    I am not denying that Randi and others do some good work in exposing frauds. I would say this value can be overstated however in the same way that atheists trying to debunk religion is overstated. If religion give comfort to billions of people, where is the actual value to society in removing that comfort? Are these billions of people going to morph from having a spiritual outlook to having an outlook solely based on reason? Are they all going to take up Philosophy and abandon spirituality?

    In my view, the limited good done by professional skeptics and their followers is is offset by the damage they do by attacking any science that they see as challenging conventional wisdom. We can argue this point indefinitely, but I won't change your mind and you won't change my mind. I resent the term "true believer" however. As an agnostic I am not a true believer in anything, and you will not find evidence for that in anything I have posted.

    If you are genuinely open minded, and genuinely a skeptic, they what possible reason do you have to object to "professional skeptics", when
    they are merely exposing frauds and pointing out the weakness in claims?

    Of course that isn't why you object to them. You object to them because they also spend time pointing out that the things you like to believe in are not supported by science, that the researchers who claim to have significant support for these things you like to believe in haven't actually managed to support them, and that the conclusions you and these researchers draw are based on faulty reasoning.

    In other words they ruin all your fun. They ruin all the excitement. They are party poopers. They are the guys who say well actually it was a mistake, it was a fraud, it was a trick. And of course if you didn't have a strong emotional investment in really really wanting to believe in this stuff you wouldn't mind.


  • #136
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Of course that isn't why you object to them. You object to them because they also spend time pointing out that the things you like to believe in are not supported by science, that the researchers who claim to have significant support for these things you like to believe in haven't actually managed to support them, and that the conclusions you and these researchers draw are based on faulty reasoning.

    The usual bluff and bluster with no end product Zombrex. I see you ran away over on the "born with the idea of God" thread after the usual bluffiing about my providing no evidence, and then when the evidence is provided you dodge over here.

    I am an agnostic deist Zombrex, not an atheist. My reasoning is entirely different to yours. I keep an open mind when I see conflicting or tentative evidence as we have on many of these topics, such as psi effects, NDEs, etc. A strong atheist like yourself cannot approach these subjects with an open mind, as to even consider them lets in a sniff of God which must not be allowed. What you can't seem to comprehend is it is quite possible to hold science in the highest regard, as I do, and also to hold spiritual beliefs. Contrary to your firmly closed mind, lots of people have meaningful and reasoned lives that combine both.

    You should also stop appealing to science, as on every thread when things get remotely technical from a scientific standpoint you either run away or defer to others who actually know something about the subject matter.


  • #137
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    nagirrac wrote: »
    The usual bluff and bluster with no end product Zombrex. I see you ran away over on the "born with the idea of God" thread after the usual bluffiing about my providing no evidence, and then when the evidence is provided you dodge over here.

    I'm sorry, where did you present any evidence? I must have missed that, because all I saw was you claiming that we know LSD extends the mental and cognative ability of the human brain beyond its natural limits because the people on the drugs said so :rolleyes:
    nagirrac wrote: »
    I am an agnostic deist Zombrex, not an atheist. My reasoning is entirely different to yours.

    Well yes, you will get no dispute from me there nagirrac.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    I keep an open mind when I see conflicting or tentative evidence as we have on many of these topics, such as psi effects, NDEs, etc.

    People always say they have an open mind when others are pointing out that their faith in their beliefs is unsubstantiated. In this context "open mind" just means I'm going to choose to ignore all the things that say I'm wrong, and keep an "open mind" that in fact I'm correct.

    You only keep an "open mind" for the things you want to believe in. You keep an entirely closed mind to the idea that the things you want to believe in are not true or not supported or that the researchers you admire have made poor judgement, poor research or simply got it wrong.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    What you can't seem to comprehend is it is quite possible to hold science in the highest regard, as I do, and also to hold spiritual beliefs.

    You don't hold science in the highest regard.

    Part of science is accepting when claims cannot or are not supported. Part of science is going where the evidence takes you, not coming up with something you want to be true and then squeezing the evidence to fit this notion while disregarding all contrary evidence.

    Science often tells researchers that in fact they are wrong, that there isn't something interesting going on, that what is actually happening is far more boring that the original claims.

    Genuine scientist often have to accept this, accept that a claim was wrong and move on. They go where the evidence leads, even if that is not some where they want to be.

    That is what real science is, because in real science having an accurate model of the world is more important than having an exciting one or an emotionally pleasing one.


  • #138
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Zombrex wrote: »
    That is what real science is, because in real science having an accurate model of the world is more important than having an exciting one or an emotionally pleasing one.

    Please don't try and tell me what science is. Unlike you I have actually worked in the research field for over 25 years. I would never put my name to anything that I, or others who have worked for me over the years, have published that did not have solid evidence.

    You are simply incapable of distinguishing what is firmly established by science from what is tentative. It has nothing to do with faith as it has nothing to do with spiritual or religious beliefs. It has to do with looking at data that does not quite fit with our "conventional wisdom" model of the universe, and not allowing dogma influence how you look at it. If it were not for research into areas with tentative evidence, there would be no scientific progress.

    What is ironic is that strong atheists like yourself who rejects tentative data in fields like psi are no different than religious who rejected the concept of evolution because it did not fit their blinkered view of reality.


  • #139
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    You object to them because they also spend time pointing out that the things you like to believe in are not supported by science

    Seriously, what planet are you from. Do you actually really believe that? Is that how simplified the whole thing is?

    I wouldnt even laugh if you were one of the people out there trying to see what is and isnt supported by science, but considering you dont seem to have ever spent a minute doing any related research at all just makes that post hilarious.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    If you are genuinely open minded, and genuinely a skeptic, they what possible reason do you have to object to "professional skeptics", when
    they are merely exposing frauds and pointing out the weakness in claims?

    Of course that isn't why you object to them. You object to them because they also spend time pointing out that the things you like to believe in are not supported by science, that the researchers who claim to have significant support for these things you like to believe in haven't actually managed to support them, and that the conclusions you and these researchers draw are based on faulty reasoning.

    In other words they ruin all your fun. They ruin all the excitement. They are party poopers. They are the guys who say well actually it was a mistake, it was a fraud, it was a trick. And of course if you didn't have a strong emotional investment in really really wanting to believe in this stuff you wouldn't mind.


  • #140
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Zombrex wrote: »
    And you have the gall to complain about people being biased, you and maccored are quite the pair :rolleyes:

    How so? You really dont like people having a different opinion from your own really, do you ... how very open minded of you.


  • #141
    IRWolfie-
    Registered Users Posts: 100 ✭✭IRWolfie-


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Unlike you I have actually worked in ..
    Ad hominem again.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    What is ironic is that strong atheists like yourself who rejects tentative data in fields like psi are no different than religious who rejected the concept of evolution because it did not fit their blinkered view of reality.
    It's funny. You call it tentative data (i.e uncertain, without confidence), and yet you claim it's comparable to people rejecting evolution (which has overwhelming evidence). Do you really think that is a valid comparison on any level?
    What does rejection of the "evidence" of psi have to do with atheism? I fail to see the connection. You believe in Psi despite there being a lack of solid evidence, that is your prerogative, but it doesn't mean anyone else has to.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    IRWolfie- wrote: »
    It's funny. You call it tentative data (i.e uncertain, without confidence), and yet you claim it's comparable to people rejecting evolution (which has overwhelming evidence). Do you really think that is a valid comparison on any level?
    What does rejection of the "evidence" of psi have to do with atheism? I fail to see the connection. You believe in Psi despite there being a lack of solid evidence, that is your prerogative, but it doesn't mean anyone else has to.

    I was referring to the initial rejection of evolution by religious, not rejection by modern day creationists. There was no overwhelming data supporting evolution in the early days, my point is it was rejected by many as it did not fit their view of reality and what was "conventional wisdom" at the time.

    True science involves openness and not embracing ideology to determine what is good and bad science. I do not consoider psi because ideology, I consider it from looking at the data and whether it has been duplicated. As for atheists and science, as I pointed out to Zombrex on another thread, the "God Helmet" research by Michael Persinger is a classic example. This was jumped on by atheists and claimed as proof that mystical experiences could be duplicated by attaching electrodes to one's skull . The fact that the experiences reported were nothing like mystical experiences and were never duplicated outside Persinger's lab did not deter atheists from claiming it supported their view. That is the difference and if you cannot see it then fair enough.

    Evidence for psi such as Ganzfeld studies have been duplicated in many labs worldwide. Dismissing the evidence is largely based on ideology and not based on looking at the data. That is scientism, or anti-science.


  • #143
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    jesus christ - this whole obsession by some about esp, mediums and PSI really show how little interest the 'critical thinkers' really have in the paranormal. Nothing worse than armchair critics.


  • #144
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    nagirrac wrote: »
    the "God Helmet" research by Michael Persinger is a classic example. This was jumped on by atheists and claimed as proof that mystical experiences could be duplicated by attaching electrodes to one's skull . The fact that the experiences reported were nothing like mystical experiences and were never duplicated outside Persinger's lab did not deter atheists from claiming it supported their view.

    I tried to get him to interview about that experiment. He wasnt having any of it. I dont know if thats because the experiment was flawed or if it was because of the furor it caused.


  • #145
    Myrddin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    maccored wrote: »
    jesus christ - this whole obsession by some about esp, mediums and PSI really show how little interest the 'critical thinkers' really have in the paranormal. Nothing worse than armchair critics.

    Why then is it ok to be an 'armchair' believer? Surely you can't believe in something on faith alone, much the same as you can't dismiss something on lack of faith?

    So again, why is it ok to believe in something if you havn't researched it...but its not ok to be cynical about something if you havn't researched it?


  • #146
    IRWolfie-
    Registered Users Posts: 100 ✭✭IRWolfie-


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Evidence for psi such as Ganzfeld studies have been duplicated in many labs worldwide. Dismissing the evidence is largely based on ideology and not based on looking at the data. That is scientism, or anti-science.
    Again more unfounded claims. http://skepdic.com/ganzfeld.html. You make the a priori assumption that the skeptics dismiss it because of ideology, and don't even bother to check what they actually think. Can you please stop with the straw men.


  • #147
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    EnterNow wrote: »
    Why then is it ok to be an 'armchair' believer? Surely you can't believe in something on faith alone, much the same as you can't dismiss something on lack of faith?

    I dont know any armchair believers though. They dont come on here insisting they are right. Or do I just not see their posts?


    So again, why is it ok to believe in something if you havn't researched it...but its not ok to be cynical about something if you havn't researched it?

    personally I tar believers and cynics with the same brush, as they are essentially the same thing.

    If you arent researching the subject - believer or cynic - then you arent in any position to debate it, as one wouldnt actually know what one was talking about. Research in my book doesnt just mean running around looking for ghosts - it can also involve educating yourself about the subject. In this subforum, I dont see much of that either.


  • #148
    Myrddin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    maccored wrote: »
    personally I tar believers and cynics with the same brush, as they are essentially the same thing

    So people who believe in spirits & ghosts in the main paranormal forum, have completely unfounded & irrational beliefs unless they have actually researched the paranormal?

    People who believe in God & devote their lives to Catholicism {or any other God/religion for that matter} are essentially 'armchair' believers?


  • #149
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    its their perogitive what they believe in. If any religious zealots where to tell me how wrong I am about things (as happens in this subforum to many), I would have no problem in correcting them. Point is, the 'believers' keep themselves to themselves and dont pretend they know everything. This subforum could learn some lessons from that.

    Plus learn how to debate rather than badly attempt to make posters go out of their way to slag people off, by using leading questions. Just like you done there now.
    EnterNow wrote: »
    So people who believe in spirits & ghosts in the main paranormal forum, have completely unfounded & irrational beliefs unless they have actually researched the paranormal?

    People who believe in God & devote their lives to Catholicism {or any other God/religion for that matter} are essentially 'armchair' believers?


  • #150
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Another thing you are (very widely) missing is that this subforum is for those who have proof that the paranormal isnt true. Instead what do we get? Talk of ESP, mediums and spirituality. That smells like a fail to me.
    EnterNow wrote: »
    So people who believe in spirits & ghosts in the main paranormal forum, have completely unfounded & irrational beliefs unless they have actually researched the paranormal?

    People who believe in God & devote their lives to Catholicism {or any other God/religion for that matter} are essentially 'armchair' believers?


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Myrddin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    maccored wrote: »
    its their perogitive what they believe in. If any religious zealots where to tell me how wrong I am about things (as happens in this subforum to many), I would have no problem in correcting them. Point is, the 'believers' keep themselves to themselves and dont pretend they know everything. This subforum could learn some lessons from that.

    So again, people who believe in the paranormal do so because its their own perogitive to do so, regardless of what if any research they've done on the subject? Whilst on the other hand, sceptics, are branded as 'armchair sceptics' for having the very same faith but at the opposite end of the spectrum? Why does the belief in the supernatural give you the perogitive to believe, while skepticism of it means your labeled with a derogatory term? It doesn't sound very rational at all, perhaps you can better explain why you see one groups faith exonerates them over another where research hasn't been done?
    Plus learn how to debate rather than badly attempt to make posters go out of their way to slag people off, by using leading questions. Just like you done there now.

    I'm just trying to see if I have your take on the subject right by asking questions which summarise your opinion. Who am I making slag someone off? I'm open to correction, they are not leading questions...if I misunderstood you then correct me :)


Advertisement