A case of psi right here on the Skeptiko forum?

I realize you're doing an impersonation, but you do raise some interesting points:

-What does it mean to have reliable or unreliable testimony.

This should be a major focus of discussion for this forum. In a scholarly way.

-Confirmation bias works two ways, as noted in the Nobel Prize winning physicist Josephson's lecture, The Pathology of Disbelief.

Confirmation bias works in all ways. We can't help it. We do it instinctively. Unless deliberately controlled for I'm not sure there's much we can do about it. Just being aware of the issue isn't enough, imo. We're all susceptible to it. It's part of how we are wired.

Humans are pattern spotting creatures - even if there is no pattern there.

-Randi's MDC isn't a good way to prove anything. It not only displays a misunderstanding or just plain ignorance of how invariants determine what phenomena are amenable to scientific investigation - and how mental states might play a role in cases where the Phenomenal seems to pierce the Material - but it's questionable whether Randi would even pay out.

I'm not sure anyone around here has suggested it would prove something.

-On magicians - I think it's useful to show how someone might fool even the most observant scientist who is untrained in such tricks. But this should not be taken as a good indicator that magicians can do good science. Randi got involved in the cold fusion debate as well, though what that has to do with magicians is beyond me. Seems like his skills would've been more useful guarding people against the ID theft his partner committed?

The input of magicians is only relevant in certain types of psi experiments. From what I understand the suggested value is re: setting up controls and educating scientists about things to watch out for when relevant. I'd be surprised if anyone seriously advanced that simply being a magician qualifies someone as a scientist.

I doubt a magician would be much help to anyone with regard to guarding people against ID theft such as his partner was involved in. His partner bought the package from a crook, who had told him it was the identity of a dead man. I'm not sure where being a magician would have helped prevent that. You'd have to analyse what skills were involved in the seller obtaining the ID - then utilise someone with those skills.
 
I doubt a magician would be much help to anyone with regard to guarding people against ID theft such as his partner was involved in. His partner bought the package from a crook, who had told him it was the identity of a dead man. I'm not sure where being a magician would have helped prevent that. You'd have to analyse what skills were involved in the seller obtaining the ID - then utilise someone with those skills.

I think you mean one crook bought a package from another crook. Those are the facts, along with Randi claiming it was a "victimless crime". Everything else is just anecdotes right? Or is it insider information on ID theft like Randi got from the "Broomhilda group"?

You really should make an effort to be more skeptical of these unverified claims.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
I think you mean one crook bought a package from another crook. Those are the facts, along with Randi claiming it was a "victimless crime". Everything else is just anecdotes right? Or is it insider information on ID theft like Randi got from the "Broomhilda group"?

You really should make an effort to be more skeptical of these unverified claims.

You seem to be just shooting in all sorts of directions here. There's a lot I don't like about Randi but the whole he didn't turn his husband in for identity theft thing is pretty low on the list. And I've already presented a possible solution to alter the behaviour of someone like Randi but you've made your opposition to it clear.

You've somehow turned from the substantive topics you raised to making it about Randi as an individual. Randi is only relevant to the extent that he's expressed an opinion on it that can be evaluated like any other opinion. When you bring him up all the time -especially in topics that have nothing to do with him - you give the impression that more weight should be given to his views. His being the head of JREF does not give him added authority in terms of being correct or not. I can't recall citing him outside of topics like Geller or Peter Popov. I don't think any reg on this forum has suggested that the MDC is authoritative. Randi himself calls it a publicity stunt. There are people who give it too much weight but they are not here for the most part. Maybe you want to also join a forum where there are people who gave those views and discuss it with them directly?
 
That sounds like it might've been a joke - Perhaps your skeptical side simply caused you to misunderstand the tone?

I mean the forum can be pretty serious, and just poking a little fun at one interviewer acting childish and whiny might be a good way to lighten the mood.

You should probably lighten up and not make such a big deal out of it.

I'm pretty lightened up! Believe me. What I'm trying to say is that the accusation was absolutely, imperically NOT a joke. Does that change the way you feel about it?
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty lightened up! Believe me. What I'm trying to say is that the accusation was absolutely, imperically NOT a joke. Does that change the way you feel about it?

Maybe it wasn't a joke: but that doesn't mean it was meant to be taken literally. If one had made as poor a showing as Churchland, one might well have wanted to save face. Maybe that was the force of the point being made.
 
You seem to be just shooting in all sorts of directions here. There's a lot I don't like about Randi but the whole he didn't turn his husband in for identity theft thing is pretty low on the list. And I've already presented a possible solution to alter the behaviour of someone like Randi but you've made your opposition to it clear.

You've somehow turned from the substantive topics you raised to making it about Randi as an individual. Randi is only relevant to the extent that he's expressed an opinion on it that can be evaluated like any other opinion. When you bring him up all the time -especially in topics that have nothing to do with him - you give the impression that more weight should be given to his views. His being the head of JREF does not give him added authority in terms of being correct or not. I can't recall citing him outside of topics like Geller or Peter Popov. I don't think any reg on this forum has suggested that the MDC is authoritative. Randi himself calls it a publicity stunt. There are people who give it too much weight but they are not here for the most part. Maybe you want to also join a forum where there are people who gave those views and discuss it with them directly?

1) Try to take posts in this thread with a grain of salt. Remember there's a lot of impersonation going on.

2) Wait, I bring up Randi all the time? I'm not the one that derailed the food thread by mentioning him out of nowhere. Might want to start with the Man in the Mirror and ask him to change his ways. <<insert appropriate smiley>>

3) Randi represents a mindset, as he is one of the high priests of materialist evangelism. But he isn't the only one who's likely faked/manipulated data/experiments - something I'll get into later...
 
Maybe it wasn't a joke: but that doesn't mean it was meant to be taken literally. If one had made as poor a showing as Churchland, one might well have wanted to save face. Maybe that was the force of the point being made.

I'll stop beating this dead horse. But my last word on it is the person in question was serious, adamant, and 100% sincere in the suggestion that she admit to alcoholism whether it was true or not. And that's a fact. We discussed it in detail, and I couldn't believe it.

And I'll leave it at that!
 
I suspect we might as well lock this thread, as clearly people are only okay with jokes about the other side.
 
I suspect we might as well lock this thread, as clearly people are only okay with jokes about the other side.

I'm sure we're all ok with people taking heat/jokes on both sides. But when you first mention Churchland as an example, and I mentioned the specific and sincere accusations of alcoholism I'm surprised you see the distinction. It seems that no one can bring themselves to actually believe it could have been sincere. If you want I can PM you the information and you can confirm it yourself.
 
Sorry, you seemed to be posting things you had posted before. Didn't realise you were joking.

Well, there's truth in every joke I suppose. Why should we believe the story from Randi's crook partner if it's just an anecdote without evidence?
 
Back
Top