As I pointed out, it's all available on file, and the applicants can go public with any complains they have.
Oh yes, to the parapsychology review board. If the public are randi's peers, you have made my point most eloquently; unqualified, hysterical, and prone to knee jerk reactionism. Not unlike most of the responses here.
You yourself pointed to the rules about a mutually agreed upon test protocol. That's not a standard?
Not when you claim to adhere to scientific method. That sets its own standards, which you sadly are not familiar with. What you are talking about is an agreement.
Everybody carries some sort of bias.
Everybody except science. The laws of nature couldn't give a crap, and any honest researcher admitting he has a bias one way or the other is not worth a crap.
So, you have publicly avaialable results, clearly stated and mutually agreed upon test protocols, and objective criteria for success and failure.
No, you really don't. What you have is james randi with no credibility, no scientific method, running his own half assed three ring media circus and making a damn good living from it.
I think it's an apt comparison. Show us the bias. Where have the results been unfair? Who has come up with a reasonable test protocol and had it rejected? Can you describe even a hypothetical case where they could act unfairly and not be called on it, given the documentation trail they leave? If I had a reasonable claim to the million dollars and documented proof that they had cheated me out of it, you can bet that I would go public with it. Seriously, do you give any creedence to the creationists who claim that they're shut out of journals but who never produce any rejected submissions as proof?
This discussion really has brought some wild ass and weird characters out of the woodwork. Not that this would include yourself, but I admit to being quite surprised by the level of vehemence on the part of many of the posters here. However, without fail, they have all raised the same objection: show me proof that randi has turned down genuine psychics, as though there was a vast catalogue of injured parties by the wayside while randi cackles over his booty.
So I'm going to use this post as a focal point rather than responding to each of them with the same response and receiving the same tired old shrill bawling from _each_and_every_one_of_them.
You are asking for proof that randi turns down valid applications. My point is that hes running a three ring circus (look at the front page) to his own profit (and STFU about the million already, his running costs don't come out of that, so don't get all pious on me). So heres you, asking for evidence from the foundation that the foundation doesn't really give a crap. Nice one. Added to that, their methods are opaque, unscientific, arbitrary (and if you don't like them, you can get lost, but hey, no blame or damages, remember?), and their results are dubious in the extreme, as well as being tainted by gutter press tactics. None of which makes the balanced mind any more likely to view them as anything more than an entertaining sideshow. Which in turn leads me to believe there are as many unbalanced minds on the anti-psychic side as on the pro-psychic side. Not that I fall into either, I prefer to acknowledge my own ignorance and actually try to further the sum of knowledge of mankind.
Fear is exactly what tasty pastry products of the half bakery like "psychics" and the amazing randi play upon, and make plenty of bank on. And a whole lot of people here reek of it.
If you want information on a particular case or protocol, it's on file. You can get it.
Peer review. Standards. Transparency. Non bias. Thats science. Until you have those, you have zero right to claim what you are doing is any more scientific than dowsing. Which is about the level of the amazing randi.
You're sounding a lot like the creationists who appeal to some sort of vast scientific conspiracy to silence them in the journals.
Yup, just keep dropping those strawmen in, its not making my argument any weaker.
A million for a high profile scientific discovery doesn't seem much at all.
Your original point. Point out to me the word excited in there. You get to use the word "science" when you have peer review and transparency. JREF ain't science.
An interesting note in this regard is that "psychics" interviewed by CIA evaluators said the program worked well as long as it was run by those "who accepted the phenomenon." Sorry, guys, but objective scientific results shouldn't depend on who's running a study!
So you mean a study into the powers of the mind worked better when the mind accepted those powers? How peculiar...
What do ISO standards have to do with this!? Is there an ISO standard that describes how to look for the paranormal?
Well if you can pick it up via scientific method, why should there be an ISO standard for it? Whats wrong with this picture is that you won't ever see any third party audits, any standards, or any real science being done here. You want to ask yourself, are you fighting for a belief thats every bit as non-rational as the beliefs in psychics and spoon benders?
Most media loves the paranormal, not to mention stories aboout wronged people...
Yup, and happily for jolly jim, he has latched on to that neatly. And before you start thinking I have something against the man personally, I call him jolly jim because of the photo on the front of the site. Its like calling a bald man curly.
So, you could have summed up your large number of posts on this with "I don't like James Randi" and we'd be done with it.
Strawmen abound. How about you show me one single post where I said I don't like James Randi. Just one. For all i know, he could be a very affable fellow. But his business model sucks.
You seem very interested in proving you are right, and not at all interested in convincing others that you are right.
How are these two any different?
I'd have not bothered to post.
Honestly, I think thats a good policy, and you should stick to that henceforth.
Enough for a valid generalization.
Anyone that mentions scientific method and generalisations in the same sentence really has no idea of the meaning of either.
That whole post is awfully rich coming from someone who couldn't even be bothered to read the FAQ on the organisation he is defending. Give it up already.
Ya but I hold that Randi and company are not motivated by science, they are not academics, nor are they researchers. Wherever the money came from, its there now, and I good and guarantee you that JR isn't doing this for the joy of it. As I pointed out ad nauseum above, the foundation and its staff are making a good living out of this.
This is like the land of the strawmen. Good thing I am a non smoker. You selected a uniquely European timeline for your chronology of science, and then proceeded to pile on more and more... ach why am I even bothering. You're a troll and won't last long on slashdot. Happy New Year!!1!
So? I don't understand what your problem is with this. Are you trying to imply that there are billions of psychics out there lined up to take the prize, but that they are being denied the prize because the evil foundation is going to bury every application it thinks might win the prize?
You can read whatever you like into my comments, and it still won't make your interpretation any more correct. I find myself repeating the same words over and over here, to pretty much the same arguments, so I'd advise you to read the entire thread before you post.
But, wouldn't you think that if there were a number that had valid applications denied because the foundation was unreasonable that there would be some sort of complaint?
Even assuming there were, and I'm not saying there were, who would listen? JREF denied my application, sure, heres some cane, go weave a basket. Heres what I say. Let JREF apply for an ISO qualification, conduct all research in a transparent fashion, and actually try to further the sum of knowledge of all mankind, rather than sitting there chortling at the deluded, and they will have my support. Thats not too much to ask, is it? I mean they have nothing to be concerned about since they adhere completely to best scientific practices, right?
You seem very personally invested in the argument.
Strawmen make you seem more personally invested than me. I just don't like bullshit, whether from con artists "psychics" or jolly James Randi making a good living from being a professional cynic pandering to public opinion.
Discoveries aren't made through the scientific method. Discoveries are validated through the scientific method.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? So every discovery ever made was the result of a blinding flash of inspiration or accident, rather than the patient application of scientific method? Ancient Greece called, it wants its muse back.
You can't apply the scientific method to test something that doesn't exist.
Yes, invisible intangible things that we cannot fathom or measure. Imagine that. Oh wait, that would be like radio waves a couple of centuries ago.
Oh but it is completely out of context. My point is that Randi is not a dependable or reliable source to point at, although he does make life easy for a lot of people- hoho no one has claimed that million yet, see? see?!?- since they have every incentive NOT to pay the million, and very little incentive to pay the million. They rather depend on sensationalism and gutter-press tactics to further their own financial ends. I'll tell you what, when an unbiased third party audits JREF and they conform to ISO standards, and operate in 100% transparency, they will have my full support. Thats not too much to ask is it? Something tells me we will be waiting a long, long time before that happens, however.
Taking quotes out of context is not an advisable method of debate. Directly after "sensationalised"... Does that appear to you to be the hallmark of an organisation which adheres to a balanced and honest perspective?
A million for a high profile scientific discovery doesn't seem much at all.
No, indeed if you were an academic who had devoted his or her life to researching this, it would be a trifling sum. Academics are exactly what James Randi and company are not, however.
That is very interesting, and it does synch very well with some of the somewhat less bizarre writings I have found on spiritual matters (although I hesitate to mention much more in this fortress of hysterical scepticism here). A concern I have is that an increasingly cynical culture might somehow dampen or remove an inbuilt instinct that might lead to much greater things, or prove important at some stage in the future. Again, there is little to no evidence that this might be the case, but stories like yours tell us that there might be enough reason to continue investigation, and even provide an actual functioning method of investigation. Maybe in this case, we literally can't see the wood for the trees....
I know that many people don't like to think of themselves as 'meat machines' - but what has this got to do with whether they are or not? The urge you speak of is the urge to go where the facts take us; and all the evidence we have points in the materialist direction, so, whilst we should certainly remain open to the possibility of some kind of radical paradigm shift, we must work under the assumption that paranormal phenomena can be explained in a manner consistant with the huge volume of evidence we have about the way the world works.
Ah yes, and if god wanted us to fly, he would have given us wings. Thats a very comfortable perspective. And we don't have a huge volume of evidence about the way the world works, we have barely managed to melt the top layer of ice on the tip of the iceberg. To deny that really is ignorance and arrogance of the highest order. And in any case you didn't address some of the peripherally mentioned but nonetheless important aspects of my post.
Each of these demotions has been hard for many to accept, if they even accept them at all. But they don't require anybody's assent. There isn't a vote to determine whether they true or not.
I note you are come at this from a completely western European perspective, and not paying any attention to the wide variety of other cultures or belief systems that have and do exist out there. Very comfortable perspective.
But what really irks me is the accusation of arrogance, so often made against materialists - we're not the ones who think humanity is the crowning acheivement of the creator of the universe, who made everything with us in mind!
Very cosy. Occams razor != the lowest common denominator.
In fact, it seems to be the ones who believe in souls and life after death who are the most dangerous right now, and who have the least respect for the lives of others
Don't confuse spiritualists with the followers of cack-brained cults of personality stretching back to the who-humped-who of camel shepherds three millenia ago. The former have an honest interest in the truth of the matter, the latter are warped probably beyond any return, in a very real and psychological fashion.
And what exactly does that have to do with the JREF being above board? I just love anonymous cowards with an agenda, although that might be an oxymoron. Moran?
They money is in a trust already, he doesn't have access to it so the payment of the funds is not a problem.
I see, so he and his staff are not making a living from the foundation work, and are merely doing it out of the goodness of their heart? How very charitable of them...
Also, as others have pointed out, find a case where he shot someone down who was legit.
And as I have pointed out to these others, and I will continue to point out, nowhere that I can find does it say that all applicants are posted publicly.
The conditions he enforces are such as to make the experiments empiricly valid.
Nope, they are arbitrarily set by someone who stands to lose a million dollars and their livelihood, not to mention no small measure of fame and public acclaim. My faith in their dollars outweighs your faith in their honesty, I am afraid.
In other words, thigns you need to do a real scientific experiment...Thus you are in a hard position to claim they havne't done their job.
Actually my main problem with JREF is that they don't adhere to any particular kind of scientific method, except on the surface of it. I mean look at the cases which are posted. The ludicrous and the credulous are pilloried and sensationalised. Does that appear to you to be the hallmark of an organisation which adheres to a balanced and honest perspective? Because it looks to me like they are pandering to peoples fears and concerns, and in the process doing quite well out of it.
This has been studied for a while too, 50 years or so, with no evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
Enough already.
As I pointed out, it's all available on file, and the applicants can go public with any complains they have.
Oh yes, to the parapsychology review board. If the public are randi's peers, you have made my point most eloquently; unqualified, hysterical, and prone to knee jerk reactionism. Not unlike most of the responses here.
You yourself pointed to the rules about a mutually agreed upon test protocol. That's not a standard?
Not when you claim to adhere to scientific method. That sets its own standards, which you sadly are not familiar with. What you are talking about is an agreement.
Everybody carries some sort of bias.
Everybody except science. The laws of nature couldn't give a crap, and any honest researcher admitting he has a bias one way or the other is not worth a crap.
So, you have publicly avaialable results, clearly stated and mutually agreed upon test protocols, and objective criteria for success and failure.
No, you really don't. What you have is james randi with no credibility, no scientific method, running his own half assed three ring media circus and making a damn good living from it.
I think it's an apt comparison. Show us the bias. Where have the results been unfair? Who has come up with a reasonable test protocol and had it rejected? Can you describe even a hypothetical case where they could act unfairly and not be called on it, given the documentation trail they leave? If I had a reasonable claim to the million dollars and documented proof that they had cheated me out of it, you can bet that I would go public with it. Seriously, do you give any creedence to the creationists who claim that they're shut out of journals but who never produce any rejected submissions as proof?
This discussion really has brought some wild ass and weird characters out of the woodwork. Not that this would include yourself, but I admit to being quite surprised by the level of vehemence on the part of many of the posters here. However, without fail, they have all raised the same objection: show me proof that randi has turned down genuine psychics, as though there was a vast catalogue of injured parties by the wayside while randi cackles over his booty.
So I'm going to use this post as a focal point rather than responding to each of them with the same response and receiving the same tired old shrill bawling from _each_and_every_one_of_them.
You are asking for proof that randi turns down valid applications. My point is that hes running a three ring circus (look at the front page) to his own profit (and STFU about the million already, his running costs don't come out of that, so don't get all pious on me). So heres you, asking for evidence from the foundation that the foundation doesn't really give a crap. Nice one. Added to that, their methods are opaque, unscientific, arbitrary (and if you don't like them, you can get lost, but hey, no blame or damages, remember?), and their results are dubious in the extreme, as well as being tainted by gutter press tactics. None of which makes the balanced mind any more likely to view them as anything more than an entertaining sideshow. Which in turn leads me to believe there are as many unbalanced minds on the anti-psychic side as on the pro-psychic side. Not that I fall into either, I prefer to acknowledge my own ignorance and actually try to further the sum of knowledge of mankind.
Fear is exactly what tasty pastry products of the half bakery like "psychics" and the amazing randi play upon, and make plenty of bank on. And a whole lot of people here reek of it.
How does it feel it actually be the missing link?
You should have your own sitcom or something.
If you want information on a particular case or protocol, it's on file. You can get it.
Peer review. Standards. Transparency. Non bias. Thats science. Until you have those, you have zero right to claim what you are doing is any more scientific than dowsing. Which is about the level of the amazing randi.
You're sounding a lot like the creationists who appeal to some sort of vast scientific conspiracy to silence them in the journals.
Yup, just keep dropping those strawmen in, its not making my argument any weaker.
A million for a high profile scientific discovery doesn't seem much at all.
Your original point. Point out to me the word excited in there. You get to use the word "science" when you have peer review and transparency. JREF ain't science.
An interesting note in this regard is that "psychics" interviewed by CIA evaluators said the program worked well as long as it was run by those "who accepted the phenomenon." Sorry, guys, but objective scientific results shouldn't depend on who's running a study!
So you mean a study into the powers of the mind worked better when the mind accepted those powers? How peculiar...
Princeton University disagrees with you.
What do ISO standards have to do with this!? Is there an ISO standard that describes how to look for the paranormal?
Well if you can pick it up via scientific method, why should there be an ISO standard for it? Whats wrong with this picture is that you won't ever see any third party audits, any standards, or any real science being done here. You want to ask yourself, are you fighting for a belief thats every bit as non-rational as the beliefs in psychics and spoon benders?
Most media loves the paranormal, not to mention stories aboout wronged people...
Yup, and happily for jolly jim, he has latched on to that neatly. And before you start thinking I have something against the man personally, I call him jolly jim because of the photo on the front of the site. Its like calling a bald man curly.
So, you could have summed up your large number of posts on this with "I don't like James Randi" and we'd be done with it.
Strawmen abound. How about you show me one single post where I said I don't like James Randi. Just one. For all i know, he could be a very affable fellow. But his business model sucks.
You seem very interested in proving you are right, and not at all interested in convincing others that you are right.
How are these two any different?
I'd have not bothered to post.
Honestly, I think thats a good policy, and you should stick to that henceforth.
Enough for a valid generalization.
Anyone that mentions scientific method and generalisations in the same sentence really has no idea of the meaning of either.
That whole post is awfully rich coming from someone who couldn't even be bothered to read the FAQ on the organisation he is defending. Give it up already.
Ya but I hold that Randi and company are not motivated by science, they are not academics, nor are they researchers. Wherever the money came from, its there now, and I good and guarantee you that JR isn't doing this for the joy of it. As I pointed out ad nauseum above, the foundation and its staff are making a good living out of this.
Yup, thats why I said snake oil salesmen aside. Twice.
This is like the land of the strawmen. Good thing I am a non smoker. You selected a uniquely European timeline for your chronology of science, and then proceeded to pile on more and more... ach why am I even bothering. You're a troll and won't last long on slashdot. Happy New Year!!1!
So? I don't understand what your problem is with this. Are you trying to imply that there are billions of psychics out there lined up to take the prize, but that they are being denied the prize because the evil foundation is going to bury every application it thinks might win the prize?
You can read whatever you like into my comments, and it still won't make your interpretation any more correct. I find myself repeating the same words over and over here, to pretty much the same arguments, so I'd advise you to read the entire thread before you post.
But, wouldn't you think that if there were a number that had valid applications denied because the foundation was unreasonable that there would be some sort of complaint?
Even assuming there were, and I'm not saying there were, who would listen? JREF denied my application, sure, heres some cane, go weave a basket. Heres what I say. Let JREF apply for an ISO qualification, conduct all research in a transparent fashion, and actually try to further the sum of knowledge of all mankind, rather than sitting there chortling at the deluded, and they will have my support. Thats not too much to ask, is it? I mean they have nothing to be concerned about since they adhere completely to best scientific practices, right?
You seem very personally invested in the argument.
Strawmen make you seem more personally invested than me. I just don't like bullshit, whether from con artists "psychics" or jolly James Randi making a good living from being a professional cynic pandering to public opinion.
Discoveries aren't made through the scientific method. Discoveries are validated through the scientific method.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? So every discovery ever made was the result of a blinding flash of inspiration or accident, rather than the patient application of scientific method? Ancient Greece called, it wants its muse back.
You can't apply the scientific method to test something that doesn't exist.
Yes, invisible intangible things that we cannot fathom or measure. Imagine that. Oh wait, that would be like radio waves a couple of centuries ago.
Sufficient unto the day, the evil thereof. Coward.
How did you jump from the financial aspects of science and research to "getting excited" about them?
Oh but it is completely out of context. My point is that Randi is not a dependable or reliable source to point at, although he does make life easy for a lot of people- hoho no one has claimed that million yet, see? see?!?- since they have every incentive NOT to pay the million, and very little incentive to pay the million. They rather depend on sensationalism and gutter-press tactics to further their own financial ends. I'll tell you what, when an unbiased third party audits JREF and they conform to ISO standards, and operate in 100% transparency, they will have my full support. Thats not too much to ask is it? Something tells me we will be waiting a long, long time before that happens, however.
That's no text, laddie.
Taking quotes out of context is not an advisable method of debate. Directly after "sensationalised"... Does that appear to you to be the hallmark of an organisation which adheres to a balanced and honest perspective?
A million for a high profile scientific discovery doesn't seem much at all.
No, indeed if you were an academic who had devoted his or her life to researching this, it would be a trifling sum. Academics are exactly what James Randi and company are not, however.
That is very interesting, and it does synch very well with some of the somewhat less bizarre writings I have found on spiritual matters (although I hesitate to mention much more in this fortress of hysterical scepticism here). A concern I have is that an increasingly cynical culture might somehow dampen or remove an inbuilt instinct that might lead to much greater things, or prove important at some stage in the future. Again, there is little to no evidence that this might be the case, but stories like yours tell us that there might be enough reason to continue investigation, and even provide an actual functioning method of investigation. Maybe in this case, we literally can't see the wood for the trees....
I know that many people don't like to think of themselves as 'meat machines' - but what has this got to do with whether they are or not? The urge you speak of is the urge to go where the facts take us; and all the evidence we have points in the materialist direction, so, whilst we should certainly remain open to the possibility of some kind of radical paradigm shift, we must work under the assumption that paranormal phenomena can be explained in a manner consistant with the huge volume of evidence we have about the way the world works.
Ah yes, and if god wanted us to fly, he would have given us wings. Thats a very comfortable perspective. And we don't have a huge volume of evidence about the way the world works, we have barely managed to melt the top layer of ice on the tip of the iceberg. To deny that really is ignorance and arrogance of the highest order. And in any case you didn't address some of the peripherally mentioned but nonetheless important aspects of my post.
Each of these demotions has been hard for many to accept, if they even accept them at all. But they don't require anybody's assent. There isn't a vote to determine whether they true or not.
I note you are come at this from a completely western European perspective, and not paying any attention to the wide variety of other cultures or belief systems that have and do exist out there. Very comfortable perspective.
But what really irks me is the accusation of arrogance, so often made against materialists - we're not the ones who think humanity is the crowning acheivement of the creator of the universe, who made everything with us in mind!
Very cosy. Occams razor != the lowest common denominator.
In fact, it seems to be the ones who believe in souls and life after death who are the most dangerous right now, and who have the least respect for the lives of others
Don't confuse spiritualists with the followers of cack-brained cults of personality stretching back to the who-humped-who of camel shepherds three millenia ago. The former have an honest interest in the truth of the matter, the latter are warped probably beyond any return, in a very real and psychological fashion.
And what exactly does that have to do with the JREF being above board? I just love anonymous cowards with an agenda, although that might be an oxymoron. Moran?
Do read the other posts in the thread before degassing, like a good lad, hey?
They money is in a trust already, he doesn't have access to it so the payment of the funds is not a problem.
I see, so he and his staff are not making a living from the foundation work, and are merely doing it out of the goodness of their heart? How very charitable of them...
Also, as others have pointed out, find a case where he shot someone down who was legit.
And as I have pointed out to these others, and I will continue to point out, nowhere that I can find does it say that all applicants are posted publicly.
The conditions he enforces are such as to make the experiments empiricly valid.
Nope, they are arbitrarily set by someone who stands to lose a million dollars and their livelihood, not to mention no small measure of fame and public acclaim. My faith in their dollars outweighs your faith in their honesty, I am afraid.
In other words, thigns you need to do a real scientific experiment...Thus you are in a hard position to claim they havne't done their job.
Actually my main problem with JREF is that they don't adhere to any particular kind of scientific method, except on the surface of it. I mean look at the cases which are posted. The ludicrous and the credulous are pilloried and sensationalised. Does that appear to you to be the hallmark of an organisation which adheres to a balanced and honest perspective? Because it looks to me like they are pandering to peoples fears and concerns, and in the process doing quite well out of it.
This has been studied for a while too, 50 years or so, with no evidence.
Who by, exactly?