Lucianarchy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,105
The Don said:
It's been along time. But I think I have got them on another system somewhere. If you check your PM box later today I might well be able to hook you up.
It's been along time. But I think I have got them on another system somewhere. If you check your PM box later today I might well be able to hook you up.
Ratman_tf said:
I find your post to be very interesting. As a knee-jerk reaction, it smacks of self-deception.
But seriously, folks...
99.9% of the claims out there are transparently BS. It's what you do with the remaining .1% that counts. After a bit of investigation, you can either dismiss them with an offhand "it's somehow bunk, I just don't know how" or think "it could still be bunk, but let's further investigate."
That's the crucial point that separates so-called pseudoskeptics from the skeptics. I hope I find more of the latter here.
Riiiiiight
So it goes like this:
- You post some information relalting to a PSI event endorsed by the usual suspects
- Skeptical members of the board point out flaws in the protocol and the evidence
- You claim that this falls into the other 0.1 %
And you claim to be skeptical. $1m awaits if this can be reproduced.
So it goes like this:
- You post some information relalting to a PSI event endorsed by the usual suspects
- Skeptical members of the board point out flaws in the protocol and the evidence
- You claim that this falls into the other 0.1 %
And you claim to be skeptical. $1m awaits if this can be reproduced.
Lucianarchy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,105
The Don said:
I can get $1m for being skeptical!! Whoo-hooo! Hold the Front Page! where do I sign???
Hey, thus far we have only an anecotal claim, and one which is, on the face of it, identical to what happened in the video I mentioned. Until there is more than an eyewitness account of a highly emotional group event with no controls to speak of....pardon me if I do not get excited. I don't need to dismiss this claim with a "it's somehow bunk...", because right now there is nothing there to dismiss! The burden of proof is squarely where it belongs--demonstrate the phenomenon first. Until that point, there is no reason to suppose it is in the .1%, or indeed any reason to waste time thinking about it at all.flyboy217 said:
(BTW, I really hate to bring up that video again--after all, no one has commented on it, and it is not a video of the people under question in this thread...but consider, it is a demonstration that very smart people can bend spoons purely through the power of their bodies, and still think it was by mind. That is precisely the experience that is being discussed here, and so we have a demonstration that one can believe that one has bent a spoon through the power of one's mind, and believe it honestly, when in fact nothing of the sort has happened. Even if we assume no trickery at all, this demonstrates that we need more evidence than eyewitness accounts, no matter how smart and reliable and numerous the eyewitnesses are.)
Lucianarchy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,105
steenkh said:
But you are woo-woo, don't forget! No million bucks for you
Ah, ha, but I am sceptical of your claim! Please make you cheque payable to 'Oxfam'. Thank you.
I find that taking a long view on claims of oddness is a far more useful strategy than trying to discern how a given faker did it.
In the present case the idea of altering the integrity of metal with some paranormal power would have certain implications. Mass thought in aircraft causing massive and catastrophic failures whenever one is in a thunder storm (don't tell me you don't picture the wings falling off), a sea change in defensive and offensive weapons (Gee wonder if Henry V got his troops to will the chains holding up the drawbridge at Heurfleur to "bend"). And the fraud in question works for Boeing and he did not sell out to them? Right.
The point is if this is a ubiquitious and potentially destructive a "power" as is contended we would be living in a very different world. Oh, but wait, it only occurs in woo parties under the auspicis of Mr. Whatshisname. Or....the guy is a fraud. You pick.
In the present case the idea of altering the integrity of metal with some paranormal power would have certain implications. Mass thought in aircraft causing massive and catastrophic failures whenever one is in a thunder storm (don't tell me you don't picture the wings falling off), a sea change in defensive and offensive weapons (Gee wonder if Henry V got his troops to will the chains holding up the drawbridge at Heurfleur to "bend"). And the fraud in question works for Boeing and he did not sell out to them? Right.
The point is if this is a ubiquitious and potentially destructive a "power" as is contended we would be living in a very different world. Oh, but wait, it only occurs in woo parties under the auspicis of Mr. Whatshisname. Or....the guy is a fraud. You pick.
Lucianarchy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,105
Mercutio said:
I'm sorry Mercutio,
Yes, I think that video is a perfect example of a group of people wanting something happen badly enough that they misremember what has happened. It's very similar to an audience's experience with a good cold reader who claims to be a psychic (as opposed to bad cold readers) in which the perception of what happened (bold assertions remembered, "fishing" questions actually happening).
Other examples of this kind of thing occuring (in my experience)
- Wildly differing witness accounts of almost any occurrence
- Two sets of supporters' reactions to the same incident
- Starting a story with "you remember the time....." the first few times they'll be polite after a whole they actually WILL remember
- The fact that neither Arsene Wenger or Alex Ferguson have ever seen their players commit a foul
What I do find illuminating is that while "skeptics" are quite willing to admit to the fallibility of human perception and memory (prefering to rely on "hard" evidence), those who support PSI are quite prepared to admit that there can be no such fallibility in "their guy"'s account
edited to fix a faulty Wenger
Yes, I think that video is a perfect example of a group of people wanting something happen badly enough that they misremember what has happened. It's very similar to an audience's experience with a good cold reader who claims to be a psychic (as opposed to bad cold readers) in which the perception of what happened (bold assertions remembered, "fishing" questions actually happening).
Other examples of this kind of thing occuring (in my experience)
- Wildly differing witness accounts of almost any occurrence
- Two sets of supporters' reactions to the same incident
- Starting a story with "you remember the time....." the first few times they'll be polite after a whole they actually WILL remember
- The fact that neither Arsene Wenger or Alex Ferguson have ever seen their players commit a foul
What I do find illuminating is that while "skeptics" are quite willing to admit to the fallibility of human perception and memory (prefering to rely on "hard" evidence), those who support PSI are quite prepared to admit that there can be no such fallibility in "their guy"'s account
edited to fix a faulty Wenger
Pragmatist
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 12, 2004
- Messages
- 1,529
Lucianarchy said:
This is pseudoscientific BS.
As far as I am aware nobody has shown "control of DNA" or that "water is coherent". The very first thing to ask would be how is the "coherece of water" defined? Throwing some techie sounding term into something doesn't make it scientific, it's meaningless.
"Hyperspace positrons". Nobody has demonstrated the EXISTENCE of hyperspace let alone that it has positrons. And positron electron annihilations create GAMMA rays! Why can't we detect these gamma rays being emitted? Not to mention how is that this highly ionizing/damaging radiation doesn't kill us?
"Carry information into the subconscious". Somebody had better define "the subconscious" for a start. And then show how photons interact with it exclusively.
"Allow the mind to create holographic images". An annihilation doesn't contain any holographic information.
"And other functions". When in doubt, fudge!
The Don said:
Since when is Crichton a "usual suspect?" He's a self-professed skeptic, and a Harvard-trained MD. Or the professor at Arizona? And do you mistrust Radin? Do you have any reason to? Can you provide examples of where he's cheated or lied? Or do you mean that all people are usually suspect?
As for flaws in the protocol and evidence, that's the point of this thread, as I keep saying. I'd like to conduct one with those parts fixed. My response was to the knee-jerk reaction that "it must be false because it's weird." I see that pretty often, and I think critical reasoning would be a better approach.
I didn't claim that this falls into the other .1%, did I? Just that it's important to investigate the other .1%.
Now for a matter of judgement. Are the claims sufficiently interesting to warrant my time and energy in testing this myself? Please re-read Crichton's account that was described as "very interesting." Rather than dismissing it as some kind of vague self-delusion on the part of a highly intelligent and respected man, I think it's worth a shot to look into first.
And you claim I'm not skeptical?
Posters who have found this exponent of PSI interesting may also be interested in the following practitioners:
- David Copperfield (he can fly!!!)
- Paul Daniels
- Ali Bongo
By all means investigate but do so with your eyes open:
- Your personal recollection of the evening may not be reliable, use videotape where possible
- The most likely explanation for the effects is still illusion so look for:
- swapping props
- misdirection
- insistence that there has been an effect
- requirement to pay money
- David Copperfield (he can fly!!!)
- Paul Daniels
- Ali Bongo
By all means investigate but do so with your eyes open:
- Your personal recollection of the evening may not be reliable, use videotape where possible
- The most likely explanation for the effects is still illusion so look for:
- swapping props
- misdirection
- insistence that there has been an effect
- requirement to pay money
The Don said:
Since you've been oh-so-carefully following this thread, you alread know that
1) I intend to use my own stainless steel forks
2) I'm no magician, and won't allow anyone else to touch my forks
3) I'm hosting my own party
4) I'm not charging anything for it
If I gain a positive result, I'll videotape it on my second attempt.
Lucianarchy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,105
Pragmatist said:
Well, of course, that's your subjective opinion. And you are welcome to it.
You could do with being a little patient with a dictionary.
Pragmatist
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 12, 2004
- Messages
- 1,529
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yes...
Maybe there is some misunderstanding of the points that have been made. Mercutio's post sums it up pretty well. ANYBODY can be fooled. NOBODY is immune. Whilst you honestly believe that your precautions are sufficient, it helps to be aware just HOW frauds in this area can be perpetrated. For example, *I* wouldn't consider myself immune.
You may think everyone is unreasonably focussing on the fraud aspect. But there's a reason for that, it's because in practice these things have been investigated many times in the past and they have ALWAYS proved to be frauds - or so badly done that no reasonable conclusion could be made either way.
Now nobody may have tested Houck in particular. But it's still instructive to look at the bigger picture. This is what we have so far:
Houck makes a series of claims. Those claims do not simply challenge preconceived ideas about one aspect of scientific knowledge, they challenge ALL of science and ALL the previous experience of skeptical investigators. Nobody can simply dismiss that, particularly as the evidence of the latter far exceeds the evidence of the former.
Houck introduces a whole HOST of "strange" claims. As I mentioned before he brings in "remote viewing", pendulums, dowsing rods, clairvoyance, telepathy, psychokinesis - in fact, the whole spectrum of "woo woo" for want of a better word. So far that follows the usual pattern of people who like to falsely claim that they are impartial investigators. No impartial investigator buys into the whole package without CONCLUSIVELY demonstrating one aspect of it first. And then each subsequent addition needs to go through the same process. Anecdotal information from parties doesn't count as conclusive proof.
Then he introduces the "usual suspects". People who have zero credibility in the skeptical community because of things they have done in the past that PROVE they are not reliable. Look at the pseudoscience of Eldon Byrd. Or the claims of Russell Targ. Or Uri Geller. As soon as these kinds of names start cropping up, alarm bells start ringing. You dismissed Laura Lee. So do you understand why I reject, Byrd, Targ, Geller and Houck himself?
We also have Crichton and Radin. Who may well be perfectly reliable people. But again, ANYBODY can be fooled. I don't know it for a fact, but I would bet that even Randi would accept that HE could possibly be fooled - and he knows most of the tricks inside out. And the circumstances under which Crichton at least had the experience are nowhere near controlled. So that only leaves Radin and the information we have about his experiments is way insufficient to draw any conclusion.
So in essence, we don't really have a lot to go on. We have the usual kind of claim, under the usual kind of circumstances, by the usual suspects, in the usual manner that has been shown to be some kind of fraud/self-deception in the past. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to assume (until proved to the contrary) that it is just the same as usual, i.e. fraud/self-deception. For the benefit of anyone who questions WHY that is reasonable, it is worth going over what has been observed from past events. This has nothing to do with whether you do the experiment yourself.
You said before you expect everyone to congratulate you if you don't get a result and to attack you if you do. That's not likely. If you get a negative result, the reaction will probably be more along the lines of "I told you so". And if you get a positive result the reaction will be, "O.K. another anecdote, so what?" And I don't think, taking past events into account that either reaction is unreasonable or unjustified. If you think it IS then perhaps you should look first at the existing evidence.
A valid question to ask is, why are you doing this? I don't mean performing the experiment, I mean, what do you hope to ACHIEVE by doing the experiment, and why are you discussing it here? Please don't assume that implies that you shouldn't do either. What I mean is an examination of what you hope to achieve would be valuable. If you hope to convince yourself either way and just that, fair enough. But if you want to convince anyone ELSE then what do you intend to do to make that possible? And of course, if that is the case, WHY would you want to convince anyone else? And be prepared for the fact that unless you can offer hard evidence to back up each and every claim, some will simply not believe you.
The danger in these situations always comes when someone believes that they know the truth and then goes out of their way to convince others. The sad fact is that human nature all too often leads to selective memory, extrapolation beyond the facts, and "infilling" of gaps to make the inconsistent, consistent! True research into this kind of area requires an exceptional level of integrity.
And also, at the end of the day, why should anybody believe anybody on here? You're just an anonymous poster. So am I. I have no special reason to trust your integrity over anyone else (and vice versa). So if you come back tomorrow announce that you performed the experiment and that it was a complete success, why should I (or anyone else) believe you? That's not any personal comment, I'm making a more general point. You could be anybody. You could be Jack Houck. Or you could be his best friend. If he is a fraud, you could be making a fortune out of deceiving people into believing this stuff, you might be a partner in the fraud - for all I know. All I'm saying is, bear in mind the facts of the situation before drawing any conclusions.
flyboy217 said:
Maybe there is some misunderstanding of the points that have been made. Mercutio's post sums it up pretty well. ANYBODY can be fooled. NOBODY is immune. Whilst you honestly believe that your precautions are sufficient, it helps to be aware just HOW frauds in this area can be perpetrated. For example, *I* wouldn't consider myself immune.
You may think everyone is unreasonably focussing on the fraud aspect. But there's a reason for that, it's because in practice these things have been investigated many times in the past and they have ALWAYS proved to be frauds - or so badly done that no reasonable conclusion could be made either way.
Now nobody may have tested Houck in particular. But it's still instructive to look at the bigger picture. This is what we have so far:
Houck makes a series of claims. Those claims do not simply challenge preconceived ideas about one aspect of scientific knowledge, they challenge ALL of science and ALL the previous experience of skeptical investigators. Nobody can simply dismiss that, particularly as the evidence of the latter far exceeds the evidence of the former.
Houck introduces a whole HOST of "strange" claims. As I mentioned before he brings in "remote viewing", pendulums, dowsing rods, clairvoyance, telepathy, psychokinesis - in fact, the whole spectrum of "woo woo" for want of a better word. So far that follows the usual pattern of people who like to falsely claim that they are impartial investigators. No impartial investigator buys into the whole package without CONCLUSIVELY demonstrating one aspect of it first. And then each subsequent addition needs to go through the same process. Anecdotal information from parties doesn't count as conclusive proof.
Then he introduces the "usual suspects". People who have zero credibility in the skeptical community because of things they have done in the past that PROVE they are not reliable. Look at the pseudoscience of Eldon Byrd. Or the claims of Russell Targ. Or Uri Geller. As soon as these kinds of names start cropping up, alarm bells start ringing. You dismissed Laura Lee. So do you understand why I reject, Byrd, Targ, Geller and Houck himself?
We also have Crichton and Radin. Who may well be perfectly reliable people. But again, ANYBODY can be fooled. I don't know it for a fact, but I would bet that even Randi would accept that HE could possibly be fooled - and he knows most of the tricks inside out. And the circumstances under which Crichton at least had the experience are nowhere near controlled. So that only leaves Radin and the information we have about his experiments is way insufficient to draw any conclusion.
So in essence, we don't really have a lot to go on. We have the usual kind of claim, under the usual kind of circumstances, by the usual suspects, in the usual manner that has been shown to be some kind of fraud/self-deception in the past. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to assume (until proved to the contrary) that it is just the same as usual, i.e. fraud/self-deception. For the benefit of anyone who questions WHY that is reasonable, it is worth going over what has been observed from past events. This has nothing to do with whether you do the experiment yourself.
You said before you expect everyone to congratulate you if you don't get a result and to attack you if you do. That's not likely. If you get a negative result, the reaction will probably be more along the lines of "I told you so". And if you get a positive result the reaction will be, "O.K. another anecdote, so what?" And I don't think, taking past events into account that either reaction is unreasonable or unjustified. If you think it IS then perhaps you should look first at the existing evidence.
A valid question to ask is, why are you doing this? I don't mean performing the experiment, I mean, what do you hope to ACHIEVE by doing the experiment, and why are you discussing it here? Please don't assume that implies that you shouldn't do either. What I mean is an examination of what you hope to achieve would be valuable. If you hope to convince yourself either way and just that, fair enough. But if you want to convince anyone ELSE then what do you intend to do to make that possible? And of course, if that is the case, WHY would you want to convince anyone else? And be prepared for the fact that unless you can offer hard evidence to back up each and every claim, some will simply not believe you.
The danger in these situations always comes when someone believes that they know the truth and then goes out of their way to convince others. The sad fact is that human nature all too often leads to selective memory, extrapolation beyond the facts, and "infilling" of gaps to make the inconsistent, consistent!
True research into this kind of area requires an exceptional level of integrity.And also, at the end of the day, why should anybody believe anybody on here? You're just an anonymous poster. So am I. I have no special reason to trust your integrity over anyone else (and vice versa). So if you come back tomorrow announce that you performed the experiment and that it was a complete success, why should I (or anyone else) believe you? That's not any personal comment, I'm making a more general point. You could be anybody. You could be Jack Houck. Or you could be his best friend. If he is a fraud, you could be making a fortune out of deceiving people into believing this stuff, you might be a partner in the fraud - for all I know. All I'm saying is, bear in mind the facts of the situation before drawing any conclusions.
Pragmatist
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 12, 2004
- Messages
- 1,529
flyboy217 said:
So is Lucianarchy!
CurtC
Illuminator
You conveniently left out the most likely explanation, which is that Houck is using magician tricks. Previous posts here have supported this explanation - the fact that Crichton handed his spoon to Houck before he could begin bending it, and that the silverware gets placed in a big pile at the beginning of the party.
And you keep pointing out that Chrichton is a "Harvard-trained MD." So what? That makes him an expert in detecting how a magician does his tricks? Have you never seen a magic trick that you can't figure out how it was done? When you did, did you then assume that it was some paranormal stuff going on?