Slashdot Mirror

A functional quantum computer? Really?

I used to be a undergrad lab assistant. I never worked in quantum computing, but our neighbours were some of these guys. I picked up a few things, one of those things being that quantum computing is hard.

Classical computers use the laws of classical physics to operate. Classical physics is deterministic, and that's how we want our classical computers to behave. As the chip and die sizes get smaller and smaller (what are we at now, 65nm?) CPUs are more likely to suffer from quantum effects, but AFAIK there's circutry in there to compensate for that. Error checking.

A quantum computer is just a machine that uses the laws of quantum mechanics rather than the laws of classical mechanics to operate. The advantage is that some algorithms, when implemented on a quantum computer, are 2n instead of n^2. I never really understood this, maybe a better physicist will come along and explain it. Anyway, to build a quantum computer one needs two things:
- (a) You need some Quantum bits (qbits) to store data
- (b) You need to get those bits to interact with each other in some fashion

There are many approaches to building a quantum computer. One guy (Raymond Laflamme) has a bunch of different atoms that are different elements all in the same molecule, those interact with each other but he has only developed the ability to read / write to about 5 different qbits. I read about another guy on Slashdot here who made a giant array of qbits using atoms in a laser trap. That gets you a lot of qbits, but they don't interact at all. There are many approaches.

Anyway, the reason I think Dwave Systems is full of bullshit is that any approach thus far is good at (a) or (b), but not both. Someone who got a powerful quantum computer up and running would most assuredly win a Nobel Prize. Also, why the hell would he need to woo venture capital? I know I'm up in Canada, but I'm sure most governments are throwing scads and scads of research money at Quantum computing. Answer? Venture capitalists are more naive.

If there's anything I learned from here, it's that a lot of Con artists use buzzwords to try and justify their woo-woo science. "Quantum" is one of them.

Smart money on this guy being a fraud.

"These people are so vastly different from each other that literally their only unifying characteristic is that they're not mainstream."

No, the unifying aspect is that they're wrong. And so are you. And JREF has yet to pay out the million dollar bounty to anyone able to prove that any aspect of the paranormal exists

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

Thank you for playing, loser.

--
BMO

... passing assigned messages to other students in the class through dreams near the end of a single summer class ...

I can't just reject evidence that doesn't match my picture of the world

Acupuncture works. Nobody contests this. --The theory is that by inserting a metal needle and setting it to lightly rotate, the needle cuts through the Earth's magnetic field creating a micro-current which then affects the body in a variety of different ways.

On March 29, 2006, Bussard claimed on the fusor.net forum that EMC2 had developed an inertial electrostatic confinement fusion process that was 100,000 times more efficient than previous designs. However, the company's funding ran out, and Bussard is looking for additional funding to develop a full-scale fusion power plant. On June 23, 2006 Bussard provided more details of the breakthrough and the circumstances of the shutdown of this work by the government.

Show a reasonable protocol that was rejected.

Try this one, which was rejected without even a preliminary test because Russia is too far away, and it is too much of a burden for the JREF to travel there, and their "representative" in Russia doesn't feel like conducting any tests.

This is not a legitimate reason for rejection. The applicant gave a specific claim, and was not even permitted a preliminary opportunity to demonstrate it.

So find someone who was presented a proper challenge (meaning they've proposed a test protocol, they've made a positive statement of measurable paranormal phenomena, testing the phenomena would not hurt anybody, etc.)

Here's the first one I see, using only the posts on their own forum. (The videos are available elsewhere on the internet.) He presents video evidence of his ability, to convince them to conduct a preliminary test, and they refuse to even conduct the preliminary test on the grounds that he does not have three separate sworn affidavits from people testifying to his ability. They are just making up extra requirements to blow off applicants. This is not how a legitimate undertaking is run.

The fascinating thing is go and read the message board at the Randi Foundation http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43

The applications range anywhere from looney to quite competent and reasonable. The one thing they all have in common is that none of them have ever made it past the preliminary testing phase(a simpler test to show whether or not something unusual is happening and therefore warranting a full challenge test)

Most of the applicants can't even qualify for the preliminary test because they can't(or won't) follow the relatively straightforward and easy steps.

If I could demonstrate the slightest paranormal power, I'd be a million dollar richer.

However, I look at this kind of research as a way of satisfying our inate human curiosity. It would be wrong to dismiss this research for reasons like "it sounds stupid" or "if it were true, why haven't we seen these phenomena before"

Lots of people like to believe in magic, look at the overwhelming number of churches and mystical based groups.

Randi's "silly excuses" are simply science in action. Extraordinary cliams require extraordinary proof, although in this case, I think what he asks adds up to simply ordinary scientific methods. In order to prove that you have paranormal powers, you have to show that what you are doing is not being done by other means. Randi's challenge simply says that the parameters of the test assure that. For example, claims that a person can turn the page of a book by telekinetic powers never work if the book is inside of a clear plastic box. Strangely, the person who claims these powers will claim that this is unfair. If you need more details, check out the rules.

When you get down to the nut cutting with Occam's Razor, the paranormal claims always fade out. They always reappear with the same claims and no evidence. The credulous will always be with us. The good news is that many of them like to play cards for money.

So, question:

What do you propose a biogeneticist (that means someone whose speciality is in the process of biogenetics, ie the building blocks of life - as opposed to being a politician, a general, a condom dispenser, a teacher, a full-time skeptic, or other things) do?

Your second paragraph seems to be saying something along the lines of "DON'T INVEST IN BIOGENETICS! BECAUSE SOLVING DISEASES IS ONLY A BANDAID TO THE GREATER PROBLEM OF blah blah". Notice the "blah blah". That is my way of implying that I tune you out because you don't make any sense. Tell me, where did I mention that this was GOING TO SAVE THE ENTIRE PLANET FOREVER ALL OUR TROUBLES GONE HOOP, HOOP, HOORAY? Oh, that's right, I didn't. Are you saying that nobody should give bio-genetics firms any money, because it's just a waste? Guess what - speaking rhetorically, if I give a bio-genetics firm money, it is with the express intent that they use it to bio-geneticize. And it seems like, in that regard, this is a very successful bio-genetics firm. Bio-genetics isn't cheap, you know. Well, anyway, how about just telling me in what firms to invest in to make sure the fundamental problems are fixed? Oh, wait, you mean it's vast and multi-faceted and there's no one firm that's working on the Perfection Engine? Oh well. I hate to sound like an asshole (not really), but you lose this paragraph.

And, Occam's Razor as applied to your conclusion: "blah blah blah I am a disgusting cowardly borderline-racist and we shouldn't share the spoils of hundreds of years of science with the primitives, just let the 1% with 90% of the wealth in Primitivswana get to make deals on the stock market and surely they will trickle down the wealth to the poor and all shall prosper!! blah blah". The "blah blahs" in this allude to you somehow managing, with three short paragraphs, to be even more long-winded and redundant than I am in all my pages of text.

Look at it this way: You're a two year old. I'm the wise old grandmother who babysits you. One day, I notice that one of your shoes is untied. Should I tie your shoe for you, knowing that, in the future, you'll possibly be able to tie your own shoe, but for now it's best just to tie your shoe (a crude, stopgap quickfix) so you don't trip, given that you are currently too young to learn how? Or should I just make sure you have access to shoes and laces and fingers and knots, then carry about my Objectivist business? If you answered "yes" to the former, then congratulations on re-thinking your original stance. If you answered "yes" to the latter, however, then you're probably a Libertarian, and I don't think there's any help for you.

Just ask James Randi - he's been keeping track of dubious scams and claims for decades. Just read through a few of his newsletters if you ever want to be amazed at the things people will pretend they can do for money, power, or just plain delusion.

In my oppinion, healthy skepticism is something that should be taught to every school child as part of a minimal education. Knowing how to be properly, rationally skeptical is a very important skill - being either unskeptical, or holding irrational skepticism based on what you want to feel is as much a disability as not being able to read or do math. The scientific method helps if it is introduced comprehensively - but there's a LOT of scientists with doctorates that will be fooled by some of the simplest scams, then convince themselves they couldn't be fooled. Healthy skepticism is both knowing that you can be wrong, but you being wrong doesn't make someone else's extrordinary claims correct, even if it's an innocent mistake for all involved.

Especially disturbing are the constant resurgance of medical scams. People willing to try anything can be put through real hell by people willing to offer them an option that no one else will provide. The family of the dead rarely know to put any blame on a false cure, and the living often mistakenly promote as a miracle whatever was offered, so these scams can erupt almost anywhere. Add in scam artists using religion, blaming the dying for their own failed cure, and the unfounded skepticism of scientific medicine, and you can see how nasty these situations can be.

Ryan Fenton

Maybe they should mount a dowsing rod onto the guidance system...

Documented how? Are they documented as in "I, a highly reliable member of this religious order, do attest that I witnessed these miracles take place." I think that's usually how it's done, isn't it? And of course, the witnesses are so interested in the truth of the events that they ruled out misunderstanding what they saw, slieght-of-hand, and outright fraud?

If a miracle were broadcast from Time Square on New Year's Eve with irrefutable scientific proof that it could not possibly have occurred without a supernatural explanation, people would still refuse to believe in it.

Not to pile on here, but what exactly are you talking about? If I read you right, you may be eligible for a million dollar prize if you are able to arrange such an occurance. And please note, very few make it past the "talking big" portion of Randi's test because it turns out they don't have the courage to stand up in front of highly trained observers and try to run a sham across them. Those that do invariably are caught faking it in some way.

Evolution and creation are not exclusive. The book of Genesis, read as an allegory, is almost perfectly consistent with our current understanding of the origin of the universe.

What bull is this? I can claim my next fart as an allegory of the origin of the universe. So Fucking What? Does the Book of Genesis reveal one single thing that is useful outside the context of a religious community? Stripped as it is of its role as the Book Of Knowledge, can the Bible be anything more than entertainment?

Did you know that the Shroud of Turin is encoded with three-dimensional information? A topographical relief camera, using only the shroud itself as data, can produce a three-dimensional image of a man's face. We don't have the technology to produce such an image artificially today, much less centuries ago when scientists claim the shroud was made.

There's a fact for you. Enjoy!

This isn't really a fact. It's an assertion of yours. You don't say who "knows" this or who has proven it. Furthermore, you make no compelling argument as to why three-dimensional images could not have been created in the past. Sounds a lot like the "intelligent design" premise: "This flagellum is too complicated for me to understand. Ugh! It must have been intelligently designed!"

Sounds more like a issue with sensitive hearing and high frequency noises. If she can demonstrate the ability to sense EM cell phone calls via a double blind test, she might qualify for Randi's $1 million.

That's amazing! You should write to James Randi. He has a cool million dollars waiting for you!

James Randi ( http://www.randi.org/ ) has been offering his million dollar prize for evidence of the paranormal to the people selling "magnetic wine aging" gadgets for some time. Oddly enough, none of them seem willing to take the money by showing that their wotsit does what they claim it can.

"But as an odd aside related to dowsing."

If you actually believe you have the power of "dowsing," take the JREF's One Million Dollar Challenge. Thousands of "dowsers" have tried and failed to show ANY results in real, controlled conditions.

Dowsing is a combination of statistical random chance and the ideomotor effect, nothing more. Prove otherwise, and the million dollars is yours.

Quackwatch
Professor Protests
Warning Signs of Chiropractic foolery
Wikipedia Article

Chiropractic is pseudoscientific horseshit. While it's true that some chiropractors are merely back massagers, the majority believe in the strange teachings of their school. Some excerpts:

"Chiropractic was founded in 1895 by Daniel David Palmer, a grocer and "magnetic healer" who believed that all diseases are the result of misplaced spinal bones. According to his theory, "subluxations" (misalignment) of spinal vertebrae cause disease by interfering with the flow of "nerve energy" from the brain to the body's tissue cells. Spinal "adjustments," by restoring vertebrae to their "proper places," allow brain energy to heal the diseased condition."

"Nerve conduction studies of human spinal nerves identified as being subluxed by chiropractors were shown to be normal by conventional scientific measures. Studies involving X-ray and CT scanning of the human spine before and after chiropractic manipulation show no changes in joint position as identified by radiologists."

"Aside from placebo effect chiropractic therapy has never been shown to treat any condition other than musculoskeletal problems."

Chiropractic has never been shown to have ANY verifiable effect on ANY condition. Not only is it useless, it can often be dangerous. In fact, if you can find a chiropractor who can provide actual evidence of the practice's efficacy, or even of a simple "subluxation," you'll be eligible for the JREF's One Million Dollar award.

Penn and Teller did a succinct expose on the dangers of chiropractic on their show "Bullshit."

Seems pretty irrelevant as an end of year list to me too. For instance, significant progress has been made this year at debunking the entire homeopathy scam as woo-woo new age wishful thinking, plus they've found out that a lot less Dark Matter needs to exist in the universe if you simply apply the Einstein equations of relativity to the problem of spinning galactic discs instead of Newtonian physics equations.

In 2003, Dr. Randell L. Mills was nominated for the James Randi Educational Foundation's Pigasus awards for other claims: http://www.randi.org/jr/061303.html

This is not the first time somebody claims to have made some major scientific breakthrough, leading to almost limitless energy. As usual, nothing ever came out of these claims.

I suggest everbody heads straight to James Randi's website http://www.randi.org/ to look at some of these claims. I am also not surprised that if some of these scientists looked at this particular claim were fooled by chalatans. It's not the first time this happened, either. You need a magician to see through these tricks.

Yes, you will never see a magician invited to a magical demo.

There's no need to sue anybody if you have a haunted house. In fact, I'd love to buy a house that was actually haunted. That way I could win the million dollar prize.

JREF has a forum with challenge application emails submitted back and forth between whoever wants the $1mil and JREF. You can see that the preliminary test is created under conditions that *both* parties have agreed to:

http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43

Christ, at least be honest. The test protocol is agreed to by BOTH the participant and the James Randi Foundation. What this says is that applicants won't agree to a proper test protocol. If you say that ghosts exist why wouldn't you agree to ruling out EVERY possible alternative explanation. The rules aren't "arbitrary", they are designed to eliminate any chance that the "paranormal" is misrepresenting his claims and are agreed to by the paranormal. A true paranormal would welcome the strictest of tests because it would prove beyond doubt that, at the very least, his skills are genuine. If you could prove that you could talk to the dead you would be rich beyond your dreams as you would have the entire world as your client.

The fact that nobody has ever been tested is testament to the fact that "Paranormals" are a bunch of frauds. At best they're entertaining, at worst they're criminals.

As this excerpt from the FAQ points out. Finger pointing is pointless. Either you have the skill or you don't and since you have to agree to the test protocol you can't claim that it was some set of "arbitrary" rules.

Since 1964 parnormals have had the opportunity to put up or shut up, yet in over fourty years, none have.

Taken from http://www.randi.org/

1.1. What's the history of the Challenge?

The Challenge started in 1964 when James Randi put up $1,000 of his own money to the first person who could provide objective proof of the paranormal [1]. Since then, the prize money has grown to the current $1,000,000, and the rules regarding the Challenge have gotten more and more official and legal. It is vital that you understand this fact before you apply. The contract signifies your willingness to adhere to the Challenge rules. If you do not feel that you can abide by the rules, you should not apply, because NO rules will be circumvented on your behalf. So don't even ask.

1.2. Why is there a Challenge in the first place?

During a live radio panel discussion, James Randi was challenged by a parapsychologist to "put [his] money where [his] mouth is", and Randi responded by offering to pay $1,000 to anyone who demonstrated a paranormal power under satisfactory observational conditions. [2]

1.3. How many applicants have there been for the Challenge?

Between 1964 and 1982, Randi declared that over 650 people had applied [3]. Between 1997 and February 15, 2005, there had been a total of 360 official, notarized applications.

1.4. How many people have passed the preliminary test?

None. Most applicants never agree to a proper test protocol, so most are never tested.

1.5. How many people have passed the formal test?
No one has ever taken the formal test, as one must first pass the preliminary test.

2.1. What do you mean by "mutually agreed upon"?

"Mutually agreed upon" means that neither side can force the other side into doing or saying something that they don't want to, and that if no agreement can be reached, the application process is terminated, with no blame or fault attributed to either side.
It's easy to point fingers after a Challenge claim comes to an impasse and say that the other side was being unreasonable. This phrase is used to insure that finger-pointing has no merit.

If you really think ghosts and all are fake, then how about this: put up, say $1000 of your own money to the first person to scientifically prove they exist. You wouldn't do it right? Because you know you'd be out $1000.

James Randy aka "The Amazing Randy" (a retired stage magician) has put up 1000x that -- a cool 1 million to the first person that can demonstrate any of these paranormal claims. If someone could get a ghost to strut around for the test, I'm sure they could pick up a bit of spare change.

James Randi has offered one million dollars to anyone who can prove the existence of anything supernatural or paranormal. No one has claimed the prize, and I say no one will. There may be things we don't understand the nature of yet, but there is no such thing as supernatural or paranormal.

Here's a better idea: If you can repeatably show "evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event", James Randi will pay you one... MILLION dollars.

If you're willing to put a time limit on it, I will gladly enter into a $1000 wager with you on whether or not ghosts or other similar phenomena will be proven to be real in that time frame.

It's already been done. So if you are the "brilliant scientist" with evidence, just give the the amazing randi" a call and you can be a "brilliant scientist" with a million dollars.

No it shouldn't, Chiropractic is bullshit. See a real back doctor who went to medical school, not a pretend doctor.

But who really need the FSM when there are already so many stories to choose from
Check out:
http://www.randi.org/jr/062405silly.html#2
Actually you should read the entire site, I'm sure you'll feel much better afterward

Me? I was hired to be the "instructional tech guy". What did that mean? Well, in a nutshell nobody really knew exactly, so I could do what I wanted. I've got a reasonably clued boss who trusts me when I say "I think we need to do X", so at various times it's meant

• Moving us to an Open Source course management system, ePortfolio, and image database.
• Doing all the integration to get the above to talk to each other and various closed source systems
• Training faculty to use all the stuff
• Writing custom apps in everything from VB (spit) to PHP to Actionscript
• Video and photo editing
• Designing tech for classrooms
• Writing grants to pay for all of the above
• And a host of other random things

In other words, whatever I felt was interesting to play with that day. Couple that with an interesting intellectual atmosphere (Where else can you ask around about negative yield curves and get good answers?) and the freedom to add to that. (I've invited James Randi to speak on campus next week[1]) Oh yeah, and no TPS reports. About the only thing I have to do to justify my actions is write a few paragraphs once per year.

As far as advancement, we tend to hire total noobs with good attitudes. My boss (head of IT) started as a secretary with a high school education. Moved up to the Help Desk, started working on her BS, started managing the Help Desk, moved over to the admin support staff...

Yeah, it can get annoying at times with the petty politics, but for all you hear about prima-donna professors I'll take them anyday over typical corporate minions. (I've worked both sides)

[1] If you're in central Virginia, it's the 5th of October and it's free. Check his schedule for details

"The planets don't lie" as I said there. ;)

I'm obviously not a great "communicator", I only meant I trust Nature & Science more because of their "journal" status. I agree New Scientist is more suited to a general audience and is also widely available on the newstands as is Scientific American. Both are good mags.

Why bad science reporting pisses me off:
I am a recovered victim of bad science reporting. Until the age of 30 I did not have any science education to speak except good marks for science at high school. In my late teens I belived all sorts of crap (especially phycic stuff). In my early twenties I read many books and magazines (from the science section in the newsagent!), I had been convinced that Uri Geller was genuine since I was 16! I picked up a second-hand book by The Great Randi and found out I had been reading science fiction as science fact.

After that I became more selective and started reading Scientific American and found a copy in the Library that contained J. Conway's "Game of Life". Like a true nerd I spent hours hand drawing grids to see what would happen. I got frustrated with the tedious drawings and taught myself programming on a secondhand Apple IIE. About 8yrs later I ended up with a Computer Science degree and a healthy pay-pack.

The first thing that people need to learn about science is the scientific method, ie:what is science. Unfortunately my high-school science class was absorbed in the experiments and results that flowed from the method, I can't remember it ever being mentioned. We were told to write our "reports" as Hypothesis, Method, Results, Conclusion. We did, but we didn't know why, most of the time we knew what we were suposed to "prove" and simply worked backwards. In hindsight the teachers either just assumed everybody knew about it or had no idea themselves. A magician taught me more about science in one thin book than the public school system had in ten years. I still get sucked in by bad science but at least it doesn't happen every day now. :)

Yeah, that's what we all say. We know that it's a huge waste of fucking time and that 90% of the people who post here are blithering idiots, but we keep coming back anyway.

Honestly, every online community I've spent any time in, from K5 to Slashdot to DailyKos, is rather poor quality. The only exception I've found is the JREF Forum. Stay out of the Politics & Religion section, and you can talk about every subject imaginable with intelligent adults.

I'm not really against teaching "Intelligent Design" in schools. I mean, no one said it had to be Christian intelligent design.
 
What, would the fundies be opposed to me teaching their children the earth is carried by an elephant which rides on the backs of four turtles? Dare they say that their version of "intelligent design" is the one true myth? Blasphemy!

(I cannot take credit for the "teaching multiple intelligent designs" idea. See this.)

Randi is still teh fucking shit

http://randi.org/

Hyponchondriac is nothing. Alternativ medicine is more dangerous in my eye : people really ill getting alternative treatment and dying. And the web make for an exponential propagation of those despite that they are if not all, mostly junk.

Just have a look at all those totally supersticious claim and alternative medicine : homeopathy, colorotherapy, herbotherapy, crytsllotherapy, fengshui... Indeed we are in a demon haunted world.

I think education is the only answer, but how can you educate people when part of them learn that ID/creationism must be thaught in their class with the same footing than evolutionism, people misappropriate the definition of a theory in science, downright lie or misuse term they do not understand to support their own unscientific pet peeve, or even politic is used to support religious activity, even if there is a separation of church and state, downright disrespect, to not say hate, of science in all its form inclusive medicine.

For all wanting to learn a bit and start fighting against obscurantism I recommend this : James Randi Education Fundation (JREF I think it is called).

I think before solving hyponcondiacism we have to solve the problem of people believing in all sort of crap, and teach the tenet of the scientific method, or even if it is too much, at least teach back respect of science !!!

Frankly in comparison hyponchondriacism is nothing. It does not propagate as much damage...

Jigsaw puzzles
More puzzles
Computer Stupidities (warning: may provoke laughbursts)
Math articles
Quicktime panoramas
The world's most famous debunker

Variously educational, baffling, entertaining, or just pretty.

If you think reflexology is a science, that there's anything at all to it, you should become a practitioner and apply for the $1,000,000 (that's one MILLION dollars) prize from the James Randi Educational Foundation. There are more details at http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html

Reflexology is specifically listed as qualifying.

If you don't, you're either a fool or a liar. Even if you "aren't interested in the money," think how much "legitimate" research could be done - how many people could be helped - with that million bucks.

2.2. What do you mean by "paranormal"?

This is a remarkably difficult word to define correctly.

Webster's Online Dictionary defines it as "not scientifically explainable; supernatural", and it defines "supernatural" as, "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature; attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)".

Past JREF Challenge rulings have shown that certain events which deviate from what is usual or normal aren't always considered paranormal by the Challenge administrators. Potential applicants are free to inquire (prior to submitting an application) as to whether or not their claim would be acceptable under the Challenge rules. The rules must be followed strictly, so don't waste your time arguing about them. They will not be changed or altered in any way.

2.3. Does (this) qualify as paranormal?

The best way to answer this is to examine this list of things that people commonly apply for.

The following things are paranormal by definition:

Dowsing. ESP. Precognition. Remote Viewing. Communicating with the Dead and/or "Channeling". Violations of Newton's Laws of Motion (Perpetual Motion Devices). Homeopathy. Chiropractic Healing (beyond back/joint problems). Faith Healing. Psychic Surgery. Astrology. Therapeutic Touch (aka "TT"). Qi Gong. Psychokinesis (aka "PK"). The Existence of Ghosts. Precognition & Prophecy. Levitation. Physiognomy. Psychometry. Pyramid Power. Reflexology. Acupuncture. Applied Kinesiology (aka "AK"). Clairvoyance. The Existence of Auras. Graphology. Numerology. Palmistry. Phrenology.

The following things have been ruled NOT paranormal and/or NOT eligible for the Challenge in the past:

UFOs. "Bigfoot" & "Yeti" (or other legendary creatures). Anything that is likely to cause injury. "Cloud-busting". Claims of a Religious or Spiritual nature. Exorcism and/or Demonic Possession. The Existence of Chakras. The Existence of God[5]. Reincarnation. The Existence of the Soul or "Astral Bodies".

There are some claims that are far too implausible to warrant any serious examination, such as the "Breatharian" claims in which the applicant states that he can survive without food or water. Science conclusively tells us all we need to know about such matters, and the JREF feels no obligation to engage applicants in such delusions.

Many of the NOT PARANORMAL claims are listed as such solely because they cannot be properly tested for. For example, in order to prove that Exorcism is real, one must first establish the existence of demons. The JREF is unaware of a manner in which it might be proven that demons exist (or god, or angels or "elementals", for that matter), while remaining open to any suggestions that might change their opinion in this regard.

So, if someone can suggest a test protocol that would conclusively verify such things, the JREF would be willing to hear about it.

Other claims, such as "Crop Circles" and UFO's are rejected because they have been definitively proven to be the result of hoaxes or mass hysteria. Claims involving "Cloud-Busting", for example, are rejected because Science (along with keen observation) tells us conclusively that clouds will move and disperse despite the efforts of humankind to move them according to their wishes. The phenomenon behind Oujia boards, for example, is attributed to ideo-motor reflexes, and not to anything paranormal.

The JREF will also not waste its time (or the applicant's safety and well being) with claims from applicants who exhibit clear signs of paranoid delusions, schizophrenia or other mental illness, feeling strongly that it is their moral responsibility to avoid the furthering of such delusions in the minds of those who may be in need of immediate psychiatric attention. What this means is tha

The NCCAM is not real science.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/ nccam.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/altm ed/snake/evidence.html

Also, search within this page for NCCAM
http://www.randi.org/jr/042602.html

And that's just skimming the surface.

The NCCAM is a bunch of quackery and pseudoscience. The most you will ever get from acupuncture, reflexology, chiropracty or any other bullshit is the placebo effect. If anyone claims that any of these things are real, as them why they haven't won the million dollar challenge.

But don't believe me just on my word. Do your own research. Use google. Go to the library. Read what real scientists and various studies say about the NCCAM and the bs that is most alternative medicine. When you are done, you will become as enraged as I am that your tax dollars are spent funding this crap instead of working on real medicine.

The NCCAM is not real science.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/ nccam.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/altm ed/snake/evidence.html

Also, search within this page for NCCAM
http://www.randi.org/jr/042602.html

And that's just skimming the surface.

The NCCAM is a bunch of quackery and pseudoscience. The most you will ever get from acupuncture, reflexology, chiropracty or any other bullshit is the placebo effect. If anyone claims that any of these things are real, as them why they haven't won the million dollar challenge.

But don't believe me just on my word. Do your own research. Use google. Go to the library. Read what real scientists and various studies say about the NCCAM and the bs that is most alternative medicine. When you are done, you will become as enraged as I am that your tax dollars are spent funding this crap instead of working on real medicine.

Pretty simply, because it doesn't work. The reason they explain it using divine or unexplained phenomenons is because they are not scientifically provable. The most likely explanation for this "cobblestone" bunk is that it's pure placebo or something that doesn't involve "reflexology" is at work. I'd like to see double-blind placebo-controlled studies that prove the validity of this practice. Also, if you can prove reflexology works, you can win $1,000,000USD from the James Randi Educational Foundation (http://randi.org./

YOu mean lawsuits like those filed by psychic (or is it psycho?) crackpot Uri Geller?

He has sued (and lost) book publishers http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/U/Ur /Uri_Geller.htm and Nintendo http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/ngeller.htm among others.

For years, one of Geller's favorite pastimes has been suing crackpot debunker the Amazing Randi http://www.randi.org/

Besides, she has 1 million dollars waiting for her if she can prove she has paranormal abilities

A billion... at _LEAST_.

Not that it matters... even _IF_ paranormal abilities actually exist, it's highly suspect that their effects would not be reproducable on demand, which would be necessary in any offering of a proof. And of course, in any isolated incident which might be attributabed to supernatural phenomena, alternative explanations always seem to conveniently arise after the fact.

So I figure they should raise the stakes to a billion dollars. It's not like they have anything to lose.

I've seen faith healers do things M.D.s can't.

Believe me, MDs can look like idiots too.

And are you sure none of those "faith healers" might have been MDs as well? :)

I've seen many posts on /. about how bad religion is, but I have yet to see one by someone who has actually taken time to understand religion or any spiritual beliefs.

Really? How do you know? Did every such slashdot post contain a disclaimer, eg. "Note: I have not actually taken time to understand religion or any spiritual beliefs." ?

The difference is I have always been open to different beliefs [...]

The difference is that your bullshit detector has been turned off for a long time and you just haven't realised it.

Once you get into the habit of thinking critically and actually asking the difficult questions, you may find your bullshit detector starting to come back to life. For example, a rather good question to ask those "psychics" you've met is "Why haven't you collected one million dollars from James Randi yet?"

I'm certainly interested in seeing such a case appear in court. Usually, charlatans such as these take care to avoid independent scrutiny and measurability. To let it appear before court would place her in the position of having to prove the had any abilities to begin with... and that's going to work against her the most. At least, I'm guessing the judge is going to be a lot more emotionally independent than her clients who probably have an emotional interest in believing in her abilities.

Besides, she has 1 million dollars waiting for her if she can prove she has paranormal abilities

The unexplained is just an open area to be researched. Here is a good site get you started. http://www.randi.org/ . Then if you still believe in ghosts there is a million dollars in it for you if you can show Randi a ghost or spirit.