Slashdot Mirror

The James Randi Educational Foundation has been offering a $1 Million prize for some time now to anyone who can repeat such phenomena under agreed-upon viewing conditions.

There's one-eighth of the budget right there -- if you can deliver the "desktop demo".

The James Randi Educational Foundation has been offering a $1 Million prize for some time now to anyone who can repeat such phenomena under agreed-upon viewing conditions.

There's one-eighth of the budget right there -- if you can deliver the "desktop demo".

Don't laugh at the 'unbelievable' too hard. It might be next year's Science Today.

You'll excuse me if I take that risk and go ahead and laugh now. Actually, maybe I'll cry instead...

Don't you think that if one single aspect of psychic phenomena was real, we would have seen evidence of it by now?

People have been talking about this for years, and if any of it were true it would radically change the way we view the world. In effect it would turn everything we know about the universe upside down. But guess what? It hasn't. Life continues on. Crimes aren't solved by psychics (regardless of what TV may have us believe). No psychic has won the lottery or been kicked out of casinos. Missing persons have not been located by remote viewing. Sure some spoons get bent, but hey I can do that too (no telekenetic powers required I assure you).

If you want to know how paranormal events have failed scientific investigations, do yourself a favor and check out the James Randi Foundation

> If we can't criticize him because he's on Comedy Central, then
> why should we listen to any serious arguments from him,
> seeing as he's on Comedy Central?

On one hand, I think you're correct. Jon Stewart should be careful, or he will end up embracing cynicism or nihilism of not standing for anything (I'm looking at you, Colin O'Quinn). However, there is a major difference.

I see Jon Stewart doing to Journalism what James Randi does for pseudoscience, like psychic powers, telekinesis, Creationism, "faith healing", and other decidedly non-scientific endeavors.

James Randi is a magician, but he exposes pseudoscientists and people who try to fake out the public. He clearly understands scientific concepts, and he understands the scientific method. His purpose is not to be a scientist, but to be a sort of referee, since many scientists do not wish to even address the pseudoscientists, because they see pseudoscience as clearly outside the realm of science. But that means that the pseudoscientists can work to deceive the public. James Randi works to both entertain and educate the public. For a great read, check out his book, The Truth About Uri Geller or Flim Flam! [neither are referral links].

As a comedian, Jon Stewart (like Al Franken) isn't required to be a journalist. But he implicitly understands journalism and what it's supposed to be about. It's not supposed to be about entertainment; it's supposed to be about educating the public. That's why our Constitution protects it.

So today when we have politicians and pundits who are willing to resort to sophism, it's important that we have the journalists do what our Constitution protects them to do. Unfortunately, we don't see enough of that these days.

Clearly magic is preferable to science.

And yes, audiophiles do quite a bit of blind testing. Or at least scientist audiophiles do.

If you can really tell the difference in a double blind test, you could probably win a million dollars from the Randi Foundation. Their mission is partly to debunk unscientific claims, which I'm pretty sure includes (for them) being able to distinguish sound differences from different "power supplies, power cords, interconnect cables, and speaker cables". One interesting take on 'sound improvement' is here. An interesting followup directly related to supposed cable differences is here.)

And yes, audiophiles do quite a bit of blind testing. Or at least scientist audiophiles do.

If you can really tell the difference in a double blind test, you could probably win a million dollars from the Randi Foundation. Their mission is partly to debunk unscientific claims, which I'm pretty sure includes (for them) being able to distinguish sound differences from different "power supplies, power cords, interconnect cables, and speaker cables". One interesting take on 'sound improvement' is here. An interesting followup directly related to supposed cable differences is here.)

And yes, audiophiles do quite a bit of blind testing. Or at least scientist audiophiles do.

If you can really tell the difference in a double blind test, you could probably win a million dollars from the Randi Foundation. Their mission is partly to debunk unscientific claims, which I'm pretty sure includes (for them) being able to distinguish sound differences from different "power supplies, power cords, interconnect cables, and speaker cables". One interesting take on 'sound improvement' is here. An interesting followup directly related to supposed cable differences is here.)

I think James Randi http://www.randi.org/ is also skeptical of 'golden-eared' audio nuts. In fact, he has a million dollar prize for anyone who can tell the difference in sound quality between super expensive speaker wires and cheap crap from the hardware store.

If someone had the ability to see in the infrared spectrum, they could possibly decieve the James Randi Educational Foundation. Contact James Randi, claim you can see "auras", set up the test to your advantage and viola! A cool $1,000,000! Put another way:

1. Get infravision.
2. Contact James Randi.
3. Profit!

It's very simple: Mr Stephens is casting as broad a predictive net as possible, so that, no matter what happens in the near future, he can still claim to have been correct. It's an old "psychic" con called cold reading.

Of course, Mr Stephens probably has some knowledge of the beneficial effects of vagueness, skills honed when he was an anonymous gossip columnist. No wonder he's still using the same pseudonym.

> I believe that Michael Moore is to left-wing/democrats what
> Ann Coulter is to the ring-wing/republicans

Suggesting that Michael Moore is to the left as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, or any of those other right-wing demagogues is simplistic. That's like saying that, well there are equal numbers of books on astrology and astronomy in my public libary, so I guess they're both right.

I would say that Michael Moore is kind of more like a political version of James Randi* with Rush Limbaugh & co being the political version of Uri Geller.

Rush Limbaugh and his ilk simply make up facts or take things out of context and then use them to bolster their beliefs. They're propagandists in the normal sense of the word.

Michael Moore, like Al Franken, is seeking to debunk the pseudo-journalism (analogous to pseudoscience or pseudohistory) of the above right-wing ideologues. One difference is Moore will skewer anyone: Democrats or Republicans. The above ideologues are overwhelmingly Republican boosters. A second difference is that Moore and Franken use facts to bolster their opinions. You can argue with their opinions, but you can't argue with the facts. That doesn't make them journalists any more than James Randi is a scientist. All the complaints about Bowling for Columbine that I've read have been about critics drawing incorrect inferences from footage in his movies.

For example, Charlton Heston is head of the NRA and he promotes this "big man with a gun" image [Fact #1]. He shows up in Littleton soon after the massacre to do an NRA rally [Fact #2]. Maybe he showed up because the location had been set up in advance [Opinion #1]. Maybe he showed up because the NRA figured that the massacre would make people more willing to accept gun control [Opinion #2]. Maybe it's the latter, but the NRA chose to use the former excuse as a cover [Opinion #3]. Contrast this with musician Marilyn Mason canceling his shows out of respect for the tragedy [Fact #3]. So Moore, since he's a film maker, wants to illustrate these facts and then illustrate his above opinions. So Moore uses footage to introduce Heston's tough guy image (for Fact #1). Some complain Moore is saying that Heston said his usual battle cry "from my cold dead hands!" at the Columbine speech. However, it doesn't matter whether he said at the speech or not since Fact #1 doesn't depend on that. Moore never explicately says that Heston said it at the Denver speech. If he wanted to lie to make you think Heston did, then he could have cropped the video image to make it less obvious. But the point is, Moore's opinion doesn't not require Heston to use his trademark line at the Columbine speech.

Then Moore shows footage of Heston's speech in Denver (for Fact #2). The parts of the speech Moore chose to use ("The Mayor said not to come. We're already here.") helps him illustrate Opinion #2, but leaves open Option #3.

That's why people say that Moore's movie isn't like a newspaper article; it's more like an op-ed piece. Not that I think this will change some people's minds. Some people treat their politicians and leaders like deities who can do no wrong. And when someone like Moore or Franken point out that the person did in fact do wrong, they can either change their opinion to accommodate the new facts or rail at the messenger. Wise people do the former; others nitpick to help them do the latter.

* I'm not suggesting that James Randi holds the same political beliefs as Moore or Franken. I've read lots of Randi's books, but I don't know his political opinions.

Bah! I only use alternative medicine! Those people don't have to prove that anything works! In fact, when proven that it doesn't work, it doesn't change a thing!

Oh, and the doctors on those fields don't even have to be graduated from any school, so there's no risk of losing the title, either.

Think again

Indeed... "chiropractic" is almost all complete bullshit. Anyone with real back or joint problems should see a qualified doctor.

Lack of evidence in no way eliminates existence.

I don't know how you can tie in Ron Brown's death and critical thinking. The truth is that if there was good evidence of foul play the opposite side would jump on it.

True, critical thinking would be very useful in examining the claims and policies of our elected officials. Is Bush really responsible for the, so called, jobless recovery? Are the Bush tax cuts really the cause of the recent econimic upturn? Both sides make claims that need to be examined with the light of reason but most people will fail to do so and just pick the side they already believe is right.

This is precisely what I ment when I said that muddy headed thinking is responsible for most of the world's ills. People are stupid and will believe things either because they wish them to be true or because they fear them to be true ( that is not mine, it is Terry Goodkind's).

Ah yes, the Breatharians with a cheeseburger to go! (Read Randi's site skeptically, of course. Read everything skeptically.)

Slyia has agreed to be tested, but hasn't shown up yet. She apparently has put off the test for over a thousand days now.

The million is not in escrow at the moment. It is in a investments that are "negotiable" (can be easily chased in).

Maybe Michael's Computers should try to claim the prize, what with the supernatural performance of their systems. ;)

As far as Michael's Hardware, just remember, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is, and at the very least, you should check first.

In mild defense of astrology, someone like Randi who actively seeks to debunk astrology and the supernatural is probably not terribly invested in designing a fair test.

Applicants must state clearly what they claim as their special ability, and test procedures must be agreed upon by both parties before any testing will take place. All tests must be designed in such a way that the results are self-evident, and no judging process is required. We do not design the protocol independently of the applicant, who must provide clear guidelines so that the test may be properly set.

Now, of course that seems like hogwash, and maybe it is, but it is pretty accurate

Bullshit. If it's accurate, then you could come up with a test to prove it. You could take astrological predictions for an individual based upon his house and compare them with random predictions. These could then be compared for statistical validity, proving once and for all that astrology is accurate.

Wow, if only someone would take the time to perform tests like these. Maybe someone could even make a contest to offer money to anyone who could prove a fantastic claim like "astrology is accurate".

Get it through your skull. It's PROVEN TO BE bullshit. It's always been bullshit, and it will always be bullshit. I've had close dealings with astrologists. I know how some of what they say can seem to be more than just coincidence, but that's all it is -- coincidence and psychology. It's got nothing to do with anyone's "house" or "fate". It's all just bullshit. Don't be a sucker.

• James Randi Foundation - Randi is a stage magician who now spends his time in the debunking business. His weekly column sometimes degenerates into a rant (he's not known for his diplomacy), but overall it's an interesting read. He also offers a $1 million prize for reproducable paranormal phenomenon.
• CSICOP
• Skeptic Magazine

• James Randi Foundation - Randi is a stage magician who now spends his time in the debunking business. His weekly column sometimes degenerates into a rant (he's not known for his diplomacy), but overall it's an interesting read. He also offers a $1 million prize for reproducable paranormal phenomenon.
• CSICOP
• Skeptic Magazine

Other interesting sites are CSICOP and Skeptic Magazine.

Other interesting sites are CSICOP and Skeptic Magazine.

Well, back in high school, I did a bit of practicing, and got good enough that I could flip a coin repeatedly and it would land in my palm with the original side up more than 90% of the time.

I just did a test with a quarter that was in my pocket, and found that I've lost my touch. I flipped it 10 times, and it landed the same side up only 8 of the tries.

Maybe I need to get back in practice, now that there's a "scientific" study of such a bias.

(Consult the Amazing Randi for many more such examples.)

I don't know that GWB has the power to strip US-born atheists of their nationality. However, it is impossible for a foreign-born atheist to become a US citizen without either breaking the law or compromising their principles.

Now, many atheists have become US citizens, and some of them (e.g. James Randi) are quite vocal atheists. The usual way to do this is to be sworn in to citizenship as part of a group, and to remain silent while the rest of them say "under God".

I have a couple of problems with this approach. One is that a country where I have to break that country's laws to become a citizen isn't really a country I want to be a citizen of. The other is that my main problem with the Pledge of Allegiance is that my allegiance goes to the Constitution, not the flag. The US Government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed, and its power from the Constitution. The Pledge of Allegiance is the only formal statement of that consent, and it's been ballsed up by legislators who did not understand (or disagreed with) the intent of the Founders.

</rant>

Especially when you consider that there are companies that bottle their water straight from the tap.
Like this one

The Amazing Randi, along with Penn and Teller and a host of other illusionists, have actually has done a couple of shows debunking certain quackeries and paranormal happenings.

They mostly focus on psychic tricks and illusions-- showing tricks on how it is to get information on your dead relatives, by using selective questions and special wording, watching for you to react to certain words, etc.

Their philosophy is that it's OK when everyone involved knows that the trick is for entertainment. The line is crossed when people start taking it seriously, and start paying large sums of money for quackery.

Randi has even appeared on some popular kids science shows such as Bill Nye the Science guy where he'll take a horoscope, seperate each sign and the associated "fortune", mix them up, and then paste one sign to an unrelated fortune, so that the sign Aries actually has the fotune for "Taurus", etc.

He then has audience members read the fotunes, and guages their reaction. "Gosh, that fortune sounds just like my brother, who is an Aries", when in fact it's just a fortune from another randomly selected sign. The fortunes are all so generic that they work for just about everyone, at about any point in your life.

This stuff is mostly focused at kids, but it's a great science lesson.

On a side note, we should not place 'psychics and other con-artists' together, because they are not the same.

This is true; there are psychics who are not con artists. OTOH, I have yet to see a psychic who can actually do the things he or she claims to be able to do without using the techniques that a con artist would use. If you have, by all means point them at James Randi's million dollar challenge.

What's really depressing about all this is that I, and I'm sure the rest of us, had hopes that the {Learning, Discovery, History} Channels wouldn't pander to the crackpots... and yet there I was the other week watching the History Channel put on a very credulous hour's worth of claptrap on the so-called "Bible Code."

I am not certain what you mean by "lots of which has been experimentally validated". There have been, to my knowledge, no replicable experimental validation of any "paranormal" phenonoma that go against the widely accepted understanding in the physical sciences. Any "alternative medicine" effects that were testable and more effective than "regular medicine" would not be called "alternative medicine", but rather we would call them "medicine" and use them in standard treatments. Perhaps we should change the terminology from "alternative medicine" to "untested medicine", or for those that have been tested and found wanting to "ineffecitive medicine", but that might mean the bottom would drop out of the "AM" marketplace - and there is a lot of money in that market.

If you know of any repeatable experiments that are not "explained" by "conventional" science, not only is the Nobel Prize possible, you could quite quickly pick up a million bucks from the JREF.

As for rants that various "scientific" public policy decisions have been bad, I do not dispute that. However many other "scientific" public policy decisions have been good. To deny that increased scientific knowledge has made it possible for more people to safely live healthy lives would be folly. In fact the only reason we know the errors we have made are actually errors is because of our continued improvement in understanding of the sciences. And many of the "errors" we have made from a public policy point of view were made over the objections of many "experts" in the first place - so I don't know that one can blame "science" for all the troubles of mankind. It is probably easier to blame selfish, short-sighted, greedy human nature present in us all to a variety of levels.

I've heard infrasound can cause hallucinations, but the article doesn't mention that...

Randi published a short story (second section on the page) about a scientist and his haunted lab experience involving infra-sound, but it's merely an anecdote, unlike the study.

IIRC, the effectiveness of traditional polygraph "lie detector" tests depends ENTIRELY on the skill of the test administrator. In other words, the machine isn't testing you, the tester is testing you and his goal is not to determine whether you are telling the truth, but to determine if you BELIEVE you are telling the truth. The machine is just a device to put the test administrator in position to conduct this analysis.

I'm not sure (never had a LD test), but I think it uses a lot of super-secret techniques similar to the cold reading stuff that fraud(**) John Edwards uses on his ridiculous T.V. show.

However, the kind of voice stress analysis mentioned in the article is probably of as much practical use as E.S.P. and "remote viewing", so I agree with you that this story goes in the PR bucket.


(**) My opinon, but The Amazing Randi still has his money.

But he doesn't say it is necessarily false, which is why he does what he does. He affords anyone the opportunity to work with him to design a test both sides can agree on (you mentioned reading the specifics of his tests, but this makes no sense.... he doesn't have one set test, since each claim is different..... the JREF works with claimants to develop a test, set of rules, etc. that BOTH parties agree to, and then set out to enact it).

The details of the JREF Challenge can be read here (and I would suggest reading it carefully because many of the JREF's critics misconstrue a lot about how it works, or complain that the tests aren't fair, etc. even though the challenge clearly states that the tests are designed together by both parties, and nothing happens until the claimant themselves is happy with the conditions): JREF Challenge

But again, Randi never starts out assuming that all paranormal events are false. He simply starts out saying they should be able to pass a test that can show they can do what they claim to do.

One of the most popular types of claims he gets, for example, are dowsers. So, they work to develop a test of their abilities, by setting up a double or triple blind test of their dowsing abilities. And they both agree on what would be a reasonable success rate (i.e. something that would be better than just what someone would get by chance). Randi and the JREF don't automatically assume these are false, but the nice thing about designing double and triple blind tests is that Randi's personal opinions are irrelevant.

Whether Randi personally believes a claimant can do what they say has nothing to do with whether they can pass a test they agree to. If Randi's personal beliefs did affect it, it would be pointless.

And again, Randi doesn't automatically assume that all dowsers, for example, who come to him are not what they say they are. The most he will do is say "I've seen hundreds of dowsers come and try to prove what they can do, and they can't do it" and he will go on that to have a pretty clear idea that a dowser might not be able to do what they say they can do.

But again, that has nothing to do with it, and if someone with a legitimate ability to demonstrate dowsing or any other paranormal abilities would have every opportunity to do it.

But again, I can't stress this strongly enough. Randi's own trustworthiness isn't and can't be related to the tests themselves. If a claimant doesn't want Randi involved in any way, he can make that part of the terms of the test. Randi isn't the one who makes the decisions, and if someone ever could pass a scientific test they all agreed on, that would be it.

Anyway, you're right, it's good to see all sides of an argument, and people can be free to make up their own minds from looking at sites like survivalscience.org and the various other groups and individuals that criticize James Randi, and then they can also look at the arguments of his supporters.

-Tom

Clearly though the folks at Survival Science have a bone to pick with people like him and other debunkers.

But either way, what you have said is not in line with what James Randi does. He doesn't take the vantage point that anything paranormal must be false. He simply says that it should be something that should hold up to scientific testing.

Saying he ditches the scientific method is ridiculous, and he has documented the exact tests they have worked with claimants to develop, and these are almost always scientifically sound.

But again, trying to argue about the scientific method with someone from SurvivalScience.org is probably futile, as I'm sure you're convinced that your brand of science is much more valid than anything that is done by the folks associated with the JREF.

-Tom

Look at his lecture Series, If he comes to your city it is well worth attending the lecture.

Look at his lecture Series, If he comes to your city it is well worth attending the lecture.

"And then other times, he proves himself to be just as blind and arrogant as the people he seeks to debunk when he makes snap statements and dismisses without properly investigating first."

What in the above account provided by Randi is inaccurate? It's very possible that I have missed something.

If you are only complaining in general about Randi, can you please provide examples of him exhibiting this behavior?

It is not enough to "claim" or "say" that you can "communicate with the dead", "read peoples' minds". Anyone, all day long, can create hype and spout psuedo-science, and many, many, many people do.

Not only this, but so many of these claims have been encountered many times before and in many variations, and they have been shown again and again to be frauds, lies, nonsense and jibberish, 'cons', delusions, and ignorance.

If you are serious about your claims, and if you are serious about arranging for proper scientific testing to verify and document your claims, then stop the hype, stop the press-releases, stop the propagandizing on your website, stop whining about "bad vibes", stop ranting and raving to your followers about Randi and the "conspiracy to suppress the 'truth'", stop the bull, and stop the crap, because he has seen it all before.

Contact the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) and work with them to arrange the proper scientific testing and documentation of your claims on terms that you are involved in specifying and agree to.

Unless your "psychic hotline" is already quite profitable, surely you won't pass up the opportunity to come and claim your $1million USD? Donate it to a charity if you like.

And if your abilities and claims are just the sorts of things that a proper scientific test can not be arrange for, or can not be conducted in the presence of "bad vibes", then what, precisely, do you expect us to do? If you are the one making the claim, and you are the one with the ability, then there is absolutely nothing we can do until you prove it to us.

Is Randi "Arrogant"? Maybe.

Is Randi "Blind"? If he is, then prove it to him and prove it to all of us. Contact the JREF and work with them to arrange a proper scientific test of your abilities on terms that you are involved in specifying and agree to, and claim your $1million USD.

I, for one, am waiting.

Please. Take any miracles to this man and he will award you a million dollars. What miracles? Jesus in a wood ring? Miracles are always heresay

Link check.

The James Randi Educational Foundation no longer owns jref.org. Instead, it belongs to a quasi-bank.

However, the million-dollar offer is still valid.

> If Jesus were to appear and perform a miracle
> in front of me, I would abandon atheism.

That wouldn't be enough for me. Jesus would have to appear and perform a miracle in front of James Randi and get him to abandon atheism before I would convert.

C'mon skeptics, put your money where your mouth is.

You obviously have never heard of James Randi. He (and his foundation) have offered a $1,000,000 prize to anyone who can scientifically prove claims of the paranormal.

Guess what. Nobody has ever collected. In fact, nobody has ever passed a preliminary screening test for the prize.

I don't have a copy of Randi's An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural with me at work, but I'm sure there's an entry about cattle mutilations. You might borrow that book from the library sometime (or any of Randi's other books, or a tape of his PBS Nova special). It would definitely give you some perspective, even if it didn't answer your questions about dead bovines.

Skeptics are skeptical because we believe that there are a set of rules to follow when observing phenomena and formulating explainations for them. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to believe. Just because I can't readily provide a rational explanation for dead cattle doesn't mean that "aliens must have done it." If that sounds like a cop-out, consider it this way: just because I can't provide a rational explanation of how a magician appears to levitate somebody on stage doesn't mean that he has supernatural powers. Most of us know that magicians don't have super-powers, yet most of us can't explain how their tricks work (at least, the good ones).

Add to that the fact that many people want to believe in the supernatural, even if they're proven wrong! Many people still believe that crop circles are made by visitors from another world, even though it has been shown (many times!) that all you need is a 2x4, some surveyor's tape, a few buddies, and 6 hours in the dark.

So skeptics aren't negative, they're just less easily excited. That may make them seem like party-poopers, but it's really just the fact that many people are waaaaaaaay too willing to believe.

C'mon skeptics, put your money where your mouth is.

You obviously have never heard of James Randi. He (and his foundation) have offered a $1,000,000 prize to anyone who can scientifically prove claims of the paranormal.

Guess what. Nobody has ever collected. In fact, nobody has ever passed a preliminary screening test for the prize.

I don't have a copy of Randi's An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural with me at work, but I'm sure there's an entry about cattle mutilations. You might borrow that book from the library sometime (or any of Randi's other books, or a tape of his PBS Nova special). It would definitely give you some perspective, even if it didn't answer your questions about dead bovines.

Skeptics are skeptical because we believe that there are a set of rules to follow when observing phenomena and formulating explainations for them. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to believe. Just because I can't readily provide a rational explanation for dead cattle doesn't mean that "aliens must have done it." If that sounds like a cop-out, consider it this way: just because I can't provide a rational explanation of how a magician appears to levitate somebody on stage doesn't mean that he has supernatural powers. Most of us know that magicians don't have super-powers, yet most of us can't explain how their tricks work (at least, the good ones).

Add to that the fact that many people want to believe in the supernatural, even if they're proven wrong! Many people still believe that crop circles are made by visitors from another world, even though it has been shown (many times!) that all you need is a 2x4, some surveyor's tape, a few buddies, and 6 hours in the dark.

So skeptics aren't negative, they're just less easily excited. That may make them seem like party-poopers, but it's really just the fact that many people are waaaaaaaay too willing to believe.

The web is full of weirdos showing off photos of UFOs, faces on mars, alien crop circles, water finders, magic spirals, health magnets and garbage like that.

Why does NASA care what these people are quacking about? Don't they have anything better to do?


Put it another way. Why should the nutters have it all their own way? What we need on the web are more sites saying that all this UFO, face on mars, crop circle, dowsing stuff is a load of old cobblers, to redress the balance in the name of science, sanity and common sense.
For every Bad Astronomy or James Randi there are dozens of web-enabled nutcases spouting the most insane bollocks, and where this concerns something NASA is involved with I think they've got a perfect right to put the case straight.
Good for them.

http://www.randi.org/jr/020102.html

Just scroll a little ways down.

but I know a set of identical twins...

If you know any twins like this, send them to take James Randi's test and collect $1,000,000. Maybe they will give you a cut!

"Flim-flam!" or just about anything by James Randi (the guy who exposed Uri Geller),
he's a magician, not a scientist and has a good sense of humor.

(Also don't miss out on his $1 million dollar prize or his weekly newsletter on what the kranks are up to..)

"Flim-flam!" or just about anything by James Randi (the guy who exposed Uri Geller),
he's a magician, not a scientist and has a good sense of humor.

(Also don't miss out on his $1 million dollar prize or his weekly newsletter on what the kranks are up to..)

For something that's small, let the theory die out naturally. For something that's big, make your case, and don't linger on it.

Most important, for those who want to wallow in ignorance, let them, their no helping some people no matter how much you try.

But I don't think it's NASA's job to do these things, there are certainly enough websites that are dedicated to this type of thing. This site for instance.

Ouch.

Personally I would prefer an ignorant populace to the credible, misinformed boobs that surround me.

I work with people who believe we never landed on the moon, because of a television special ... not to mention "John Edward" and some woman who allegedly speaks to pets.

Even as a child I could distingush reality from fantasy. Someone needs to instill these people with a sense of critical, rational thinking.

I think I'm going to go read James Randi and be fanatically skeptical now.

cuz I post links to insightful articles that are completely on-topic. Sorry, I guess I should stick to flaming and offtopic rants.

Anyhow...

Here is another link to an article critical of the Atkins diet. Nobody denies it works but it is essentially supported by anecdotal evidence - my man Randi taught me better than that!

As far as I am concerned, we are losing sight of the basic truths of nutrition... quit looking for a quick fix and be sceptical of everything.

I not only researched various diets - I also talked to people that had lost a lot of weight and kept it off for years.

Here is what I ended up doing (I won't call it a diet - it's the way I live now):

I went to Ask a Dietitian and used the healthy body calculator to calculate my caloric needs. I was very careful not to overestimate my daily activities. I arrived at a recommended daily caloric intake.

I referenced that against the Canadian food guide to find out approximately how much I should eat each day from each category. For me, it was 6 ounces of lean meat, 2 servings of dairy, 6-8 servings of grains, and 5 servings of fruits and vegetables. This is what I eat six days per week. If I ate this seven days per week, I would lose 2 pounds per week.

On one day per week, I pretty much eat what I want without gorging. The first few weeks I gorged until I was sick - now I'm not so bad. This really helps me stick to eating healthy because I know that for the rest of my life, I can occasionally eat snacks and not feel guilty!

Based on this, I should lose no more than 2 pounds per week - however, thanks to exercise, I have lost a bit more - 10 pounds net. Based on my bodyfat changes, I have actually gained a little bit of muscle, so I have actually lost more than 10 pounds fat, but I'm too lazy to do the math.

As I mentioned, exercise is important. I exercise 20 to 60 minutes, three times per week in addition to walking for 30 minutes (to and from the train to work) each day. I also weight train three times per week. On my eat-what-i-want day, I sit on my ass and play video games.

I keep a food and exercise journal to help me keep track of what I eat. And if I slip, I don't freak out or give up - I move on.

Here is the main thing I learned - there is no "one size fits all diet" - you have to do some research and decide what will work for you while filtering out the crap (fat blocker pills, ab rollers, etc). Talk to a registered dietitian (beware of nutritionists though) if you need help. If you are obese, talk to a Bariatric physician. Set small, realistic goals - don't say "I'm gonna lose 20 pounds in 4 weeks" - say "I'm gonna lose 5 pounds in 4 weeks".

I now have lots of energy, feel great, look good, and my girlfriend says I don't look so pasty anymore and I'm more of a sexual Tyranosaurus now :) Every other diet I tried left me tired, weak, and/or nauseous.

Once I have lowered my bodyfat, I intend to increase my caloric input again and continue to weight train to build more lean tissue and increase my basal metabolic rate.

and stuff