Possible twist on the challenge

[DarkPrimus]

I was fortunate enough to attend one of Mr. Randi's lectures recently, and he mentoned that dowsers taking the challange did not want him in the same room because of his "negative vibrations" or somesuch.

He continued on to say that if they had known he was still in the building at all, they would have probably claimed that the vibrations are able to pass through walls.

So, I got to thinking: If they claim that the vibrations can be sensed through walls, why don't they be tested by detecting things in another room?

 

[Patricio Elicer]

So, I got to thinking: If they claim that the vibrations can be sensed through walls, why don't they be tested by detecting things in another room?

Good point DarkPrimus, they can also be tested for the ability to detect Randi's presence in the building

Welcome to the boards

 

[uneasy]

Or even better, have Randi run in and out of the building or have him swing on a swing set swinging in and out of the building. Then connect the dowsing rod to a piston to drive a generator and presto! A new source of electrical power! Good excercise for Randi too.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I see a time coming when James Randi will win his own challenge.

Only thing he should do was to prove his bad vibrations and then stick out the tongue at Silvia Browne and others.

 

[CFLarsen]

DarkPrimus,

Spot on. However, it's not just Randi - it's every skeptic!

You just walk up to the next creduloid you find and start talking. Get an audience to listen in. Ask if you can test her (chances are, it will be a female). She'll cleverly spot you as a skeptic. Admit this. Ask if skeptics have a negative influence on the results. When she says yes, then ask if you can test her to see if she can detect a skeptic in the room.

Watch her get flustered.

Some in the audience will be against you. But some will also start realizing how ridiculous her claims are.

That, my friend, is practical skepticism.

 

[T'ai Chi]

(bold added)

You just walk up to the next creduloid you find and start talking. Get an audience to listen in. Ask if you can test her (chances are, it will be a female).

Can you please point me towards a peer reviewed study which shows this?

 

[CFLarsen]

Can you please point me towards a peer reviewed study which shows this?

Can you please point me towards where I claim it is?

 

[MRC_Hans]

I think this is a nice twist . Many of the ... creduloids? (mmm, I kinda like that word, there is something infinitely insulting about it) are, quite apart from their primary ridiculous claim, often piling other, even more ridiculois claims on top, and it is a great idea immidiately to take them up on those.

I just had a homeopath (on another bb) tell me that DBPC testing was too uncertain because "AS IT IS CONDUCTED BEGINNING TO END, DEFINITIONS TO FINDINGS, BY FALLIBLE, BIASED, SOMETIMES LOGICAL AND SOMETIMES IRRATIONAL HUMAN BEINGS. " (original citation, capitals included). I asked him where that observation leaves homeopathic provings ...

No answer as yet...

(Edited to add: Oh, got an answer now. He is "finished with me" bacause I'm "too irrational".

Yeh.

----)

Hans

 

[T'ai Chi]

Can you please point me towards where I claim it is?

LOL.

I'm wondering if anyone can show that more "creduloid"s are female. I wonder if the JREF applicant demographics supports this or not.

 

[CFLarsen]

LOL.

I'm wondering if anyone can show that more "creduloid"s are female. I wonder if the JREF applicant demographics supports this or not.

I see you are now switching your original claim. But, since you can not even point where I claim there is a peer reviewed study, could you stop derailing this thread?

Thank you.

 

[patnray]

CF: T'ai Chi did not claim you said there was a peer reviewed study. He was asking you if you could back up your unsupported claim that "chances are, it (a creduloid) will be a female". You avoided backing up your claim, or admitting you have no data to back it up, by twisting his challenge into something it was not. No one believes you said there is a peer reviewed study that creduloids are more likely to be female, nor did T'ai Chi imply that. He mentioned peer reviewed studies to mock you, since he probably believes you will not be able to back up your characterization of women.

 

[Rolfe]

I just had a homeopath (on another bb) tell me that DBPC testing was too uncertain because "AS IT IS CONDUCTED BEGINNING TO END, DEFINITIONS TO FINDINGS, BY FALLIBLE, BIASED, SOMETIMES LOGICAL AND SOMETIMES IRRATIONAL HUMAN BEINGS. " (original citation, capitals included). I asked him where that observation leaves homeopathic provings ...

No answer as yet...

(Edited to add: Oh, got an answer now. He is "finished with me" because I'm "too irrational".

Yeh.

----)

Hans

I know this is OT, but this is hysterical!

Hans, could you post the url of that board? I'd like to skim through and see how you're getting on with these fruitcakes. Did you really plough your way through the Organon? I don't know how you do it. I don't mind going up against them here, but tackling them in bulk on their own ground really takes some nerve.

I don't know if you've looked at the Veterinary Times letters saga. Niall has had a smart idea to come back on them with the proving challenge after the JREF was rejected as "a circus act" (quel surprise). He's proposing to organise a less formal test, by getting hold of a batch of remedies and a batch of unmedicated pills. He's going to try to get a couple of dozen volunteers from the people who declare that they can detect these proving symptoms, and send them either the real thing or the dummy, and ask them to say which.

I was wondering how hard he's find it to recruit enough volunteers, and maybe you knew where else he could trawl for fruitcake? However, better not be too mad. The ones who feel that provers who haven't actually taken the stuff can still be entangled in the gestalt probably wouldn't really fit in!

He's working out the detail now, but I'll PM you if it gets to needing to find some homoeopath. Or if you have any smart ideas regarding the methodology, feel free to PM me.

[ANNOUNCEMENT]Normal service on this thread will now be resumed.[/ANNOUNCEMENT]

Rolfe.

 

[CFLarsen]

patnray,

If he wants to mock me, that is his privilege. However, it is also my privilege to give it all the attention it deserves.

 

[T'ai Chi]

CF: T'ai Chi did not claim you said there was a peer reviewed study. He was asking you if you could back up your unsupported claim that "chances are, it (a creduloid) will be a female". You avoided backing up your claim, or admitting you have no data to back it up, by twisting his challenge into something it was not. No one believes you said there is a peer reviewed study that creduloids are more likely to be female, nor did T'ai Chi imply that. He mentioned peer reviewed studies to mock you, since he probably believes you will not be able to back up your characterization of women.

That is pretty accurate, with the exception of me trying to mock Claus. I'm not. I'm simply asking to see if Claus has any evidence that most "creduloids" are female.

If not and that's his belief, that's OK, I'm just curious.

Unfortunately it seems like he considers such a sensible inquiry as "derailing". Oh well.

 

[CFLarsen]

That is pretty accurate, with the exception of me trying to mock Claus. I'm not. I'm simply asking to see if Claus has any evidence that most "creduloids" are female.

If not and that's his belief, that's OK, I'm just curious.

Unfortunately it seems like he considers such a sensible inquiry as "derailing". Oh well.

It is my opinion. An opinion supported by quite many forays into the creduloid world. If you have data that show me wrong, please show it.

 

[patnray]

Thank you for admitting that it was your opinion based on anecdotal observations.

Back on track.

The claim that skeptics can block psychic phenomena through negative energy, or what ever, is a desperate attempt to explain away failures. Apparently those who use the excuse have not thought it through very well, because if "Skeptical blocking" were true it would create even more difficulties for the credulous.

If true, it would appear to be one of the most reproducible psychic phenomina. There must be a limit to the range of this alleged "negative energy", otherwise no psychic phenomina could ever be observed as long as there is at least one skeptic in the world.... If you believe psychic phenomina exist, then there must be a limit to skeptical blocking. And it should be possible to measure the limit or range. Yet I am not aware of any experiments that have tried to measure the alleged effect, which must be one of the most powerful and reproducible of psychic phenomina. I wonder why...

Other questions for the creduloids:

Can a sufficient number of believers negate the effect, or is one skeptic enough to block them all?

Does the skeptic have to know about the psychic test under investigation or is being near by sufficient to block all psychic phenomina in the area?

How many skeptics would it take to block all psychic phenomina world wide?

These are logical questions, but don't hold your breath waiting for logical responses. Or any effort to actually test the alleged powerful and widespread effect...

BTW, the most credulous person I personally know is male...

 

[Folly]

CFLarsen said

It is my opinion. An opinion supported by quite many forays into the creduloid world. If you have data that show me wrong, please show it.

After just finishing Shermer's "Why Smart People Believe Weird Things" I recall him saying that the incidence of credulity was not clearly gender linked. I don't remember references to data that backed his claim either (although they may have been there) so it could be just as anecdotal as your claim, but it sure makes it seem that your claim "chances are, it will be a female" isn't a self evident thing.

If you have any evidence other than "that's what I've seen" for your claim, please show it.

 

[Rolfe]

Steve Grenard
Kumar
Bratok
Lord Kenneth
T'ai Chi? (or is he just trolling?)
Interesting Ian
Lyndale

On the other hand....
Clancie
Lucianarchy (or don't we know sex of this one?)

That's just off the top of my head, remembering set-tos on this forum. I realise we don't know for sure which sex some of these are, but I'm not immediately struck by the predominance of females.

And in my current real-life homoeopathy war, nearly all the homoeopaths are male.

Rolfe.

 

[patnray]

It is my opinion. An opinion supported by quite many forays into the creduloid world. If you have data that show me wrong, please show it.

You made a statement based on anecdotal evidence, for which you were challenged. As you are well aware, it is not up to us to prove you wrong. It is up to you to prove your statement or retract it...

 

[T'ai Chi]

It is my opinion

OK..thnx. It wasn't a big deal. Just curious, because it my experience it has been the opposite.