snopes.com's David Mikkelson Interviewed

pipingguy writes "Online Journalism Review interviews David Mikkelson of the Urban Legends Reference Pages. While the Internet has taken its share of knocks for helping scammers perpetrate e-mail and Web hoaxes (the Bambi hunt reportedly was staged to sell videos on the proprietor's Web site), not enough credit is given to the folks who are using the Internet to debunk them. Snopes.com is the work of the husband-and-wife team of David and Barbara Mikkelson, who have taken their passion for urban myths to the Web since 1995."

Comments

Re:A matter of trust

[wiggys]

For starters Snopes show you what references they've used when hunting down the facts (makes it possible to check that Snopes are at least reporting the facts correctly, even if you don't like their conclusions).

I guess at the end of the day you make up your own mind. Snopes don't force their opinions down your throat, they simply present their findings and leave it up to you.

James Randy debunking paranormal claims

[bstadil]

James Randy is another person that has dedicated his life to debunking paranormal claims, notably religious charletans.

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

Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims

[TomHandy]

I'm sorry, but this is a complete distortion of what James Randi and the JREF do. Anyone who really cares about this can read Randi's work for themselves at the JREF Website

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

Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims

[dvdeug]

Sure, there's little to no evidence of divinity, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Agnostics are the only ones who can claim that their beliefs are based off the scientific method, since they admit there's not enough evidence to make a conclusion, either way.

Sure, there's no little to no evidence of invisible pink unicorns, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. The scientific method includes this little thing called Occam's razor; if there's little to no evidence for something, and it would be simpler if you left it out, leave it out.

Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims

[TomHandy]

Again, James Randi does not assume that all paranormal events are false. Where do you get this from? The most he ever does is go by experience, and so if he sees someone claiming to be able to do something that has been previously shown to be impossible, he will make an assumption that it is probably false.

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