Typoz
Member
Please don't presume to speak for anyone but yourself. Your statement is inappropriate.
SRI Experiments with Uri Geller as video evidence
- Thread starter bishop
- Start date
bishop
Member
Yes I was being facetious. The question "Is there anyone here who believes that the SRI Geller video shows actual instances of psi?" seemed innapropriate. To ask such a question is to completely disregard anything that has been discussed in this thread.
No offense Pat. But many have explained clearly that they do, including Alex, in this thread and in countless other Geller threads.
Last edited:
bishop
Member
Plus, as Alex emphatically pointed out earlier in this thread the SRI video is basically off limits to criticism because of its history with Randi.
bishop
Member
Perhaps I should have said "off limits to skeptical criticism".
Right here. This.
This is why its so easy for skeptics to dismiss parapyschology as a whole. Its this mentality that is carried over to legitimate scientific inquiry of parapsychology that makes it so easy for skeptics to dismiss it.
I don't know if Geller does what he does legitimately. If I had to take a surface guess; I'd have to say he's a fraud.
But this mentality of ' I don't know how it's done mundanely, but I know its done mundanely ' is the mindset that gets in the way of true scientific inquiry into parapsychology. It's shuffled off as magic tricks and bad science because the idea seems so inane to us that our mind possessed abilities in excess of what materialist-based science tells us.
Bad explanations are no substitute for proper scientific theory, and a boat that constantly needs to be drained of breaching water is no proper scientific theory. If we have to keep making up untenable excuses and incoherent explanations to support our current scientific understanding; do we really care about scientific understanding at all? Or do we just not want to be plunged into the cold, uncomfortable waters of doubt that we avoid so desperately? Skeptics are guilty of this, proponents are guilty of this, you're guilty of this and so am I.
But it's that mentality quoted above that gets in the way of all honest inquiry: I don't know how its done, but I know its done in a way that fits into my worldview.
Is that not an argument from authority in a way? Maybe argument from negative authority, or negative argument from authority?
Anyway, since you and Ersby have been making careful arguments from your own observations and research, it should not matter.
Nobody is making this about Randi, let us please keep it that way.
malf
Member
He only uses psi when his conjuring powers desert him... or something...
malf
Member
when you were criticising it?
Well, Dakota Rider - you say that you have seen it all.
So have I in my >70 years of existence - and I have learned to be more careful in my statements.
Now, how about this one:
My comment about this performance: just like the involved neurologist - he has no explanation. But of course, he is a moron :D (and so am I, eh?)
I've never heard Bavli say he has psi powers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Bavli
Here is the video in English:
Note how he evades the question of telekinetic powers at 1:40. And at 2:40: "What you saw was a form of telekinesis, or what other people perceive as telekinesis."
Pretty obvious what's going on at 4:16--4:28, I think. Why did the host let him touch it?!
Where did the key at 5:42 come from?
~~ Paul
Sorry - accidentally I put in the Spanish version.
Anyway - to show that I am quite willing to know what the experts say:
But.... the critic did not say a word about the high peak burst on the EEG....
Just more trickery. You might want to lookup on Youtube James Hydrick performing similar tricks.
The human brain at full throttle uses about 15-20 watts. Not much is it?
Oh..... and? Is that the answer to the strong peak in the EEG? The neurologist said that he had never seen something like that before and offers no explanation. Apparently you do? Then tell us - I am all ears!
He is a "neuropsychologist," not a "neurologist." Now is there some reason we shouldn't believe that Guy is performing a trick with the EEG, too? Also, come on, how did they correlate the gamma spike with the pen moving? The least they could have done to convince us was show us a timer.
My personal opinion? The entire thing was staged.
~~ Paul
So what? A neuropsychologist should have considerable knowledge about EEG's.
But Paul, as usual you are so right! Of course, the whole thing MIUST have been staged....
However, suppose we write to the channel involved, and ask them for details, we receive them and from which it becomes abundantly clear that is was NOT staged. What will you say then?
I know your reply already: no matter what - it was fake anyway...
Just clarifying what he was.
I would wonder why we would trust what a TV channel says about how they produced their shows.
What happens when a magnet is placed near an EEG lead? Why wasn't a long baseline reading done? Why didn't they at least try to find out what a magnet would do? Why didn't they show us how they correlated the spike with the pen movement?
It's not even trying to be a controlled experiment. It's entertainment. And finally, why would you assume that Bavli is doing psi when he never says that he is? Isn't that a bit of "I don't know how he did it, so it must be psi"?
~~ Paul
Sure it is all entertainment....Have it your way.
But your latest line is sheer b****t. Nowhere have I insinuated that "I cannot explain it therefore it must be psi".
My take is quite straightforward: what is happening here I find pretty interesting and worth investigating further. But what it is, I do not know. And if it turns out that is indeed all fakery, then so be it. I could not care less.
Sorry, I didn't mean to say you, specifically. I often use "you" when I ought to use "people" or something. I apologize.
~~ Paul