• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Randi and

Your post is in violation of forum rules.

Please edit you rpost to remove the content and post a link instead.

Thank you.
 
These are pretty funny - the reading comprehension of these rules and the reaching done to find the 'deficiencies' are hilarious. A couple of examples:

Under Article 3, the applicant allows all his test data to be used by the Foundation in any way Mr. Randi may choose. That means that Mr. Randi can pick and chose the data at will and decide what to do with it and what verdict to pronounce on it.
Click to expand...

That is not how I read that rule. To me, it means that once the test is complete, and the test is designed so the results are seff-evident , the results of the test may be used by JREF in its publications. It does not say 'Randi can pick and chose [sic]'.

Under Article 7, the applicant surrenders all rights to legal action against the Foundation, or Mr. Randi, no matter what emotional, professional or financial injury he may consider he has sustained. Thus even if Mr. Randi comes to a conclusion different from that reached by his judges and publicly denounces the test, the applicant would have no redress. The Foundation and Mr. Randi own all the data. Mr. Randi can claim that the judges were fooled. The implicit accusation of fraud would leave the challenger devoid of remedy.
Click to expand...

Where does it say that if Randi comes to a conclusion different than the judges he will not have to forfeit the prize? The test is agreed upon by both parties beforehand, if someone pulls the wool over Randi's eyes and passes the tests, he will have to fork over the million!

Regarding the insult - I don't care what happened and was bored with his story of it in his commentaries. What Randi said to some lady in a hallway in the UK does not affect a dowsers rod in a test.

And even if Randi turned out to be the biggest fraud in history, it wouldn't have any bearing on the complete lack of other compelling evidence for the things he tests.

Oh wait - a listing of references to anecdotes, one going back to 1887 - I guess there is compelling evidence after all!
 
Read #3 and #6. Just because it dates BACK to 1887, doesn't mean they are all that outdated.

Anyone can go after obvious frauds. Randi never seems to touch on any of the real science being done,as in the Parapsychological Association. And when he does, as from the posted article, he seems to see things as he wants to, as in Schwartz. The man who posted, Keen, seems to me to be much more straightforward in his account than randi and his babbling in most of his, and also the

Also the case of the insult is supportive of selective memory and poor fact finding, regardless of the anecdote itself was interesting.

Focusing on Frauds, not science, seems to me a poor way of reaching truth. If he were interested in Truth about reality rather than just truth about fraud.

http://www.parapsych.org/

If he were interested in the truth about the paranormal, this would be a good place to start to find harder information to spread to the public.
 
Pelopre said:
The man who posted, Keen, seems to me to be much more straightforward in his account than randi and his babbling in most of his, and also the
Click to expand...
It is curious that you suggest that Mr. Randi is "babbling."

I put it to you that you are the one who is babbling. You do not make any sense.

I do not mean this as an insult, as I am aware that not all persons who come to this forum speak English as a first language. I merely state, however, that what you wrote is unintelligible.
 
Well, yeah, what I posted, after I had posted it, seemed to get caught up a little stream of conscious (sp?) like, but that means nothing to what I said, and I take it you are intelligent enough to extrapolate the meaning.
 
Read #3 and #6. Just because it dates BACK to 1887, doesn't mean they are all that outdated
Click to expand...

You are right here, and anecdote from 1887 is just as useless as an anecdote from 1996 (the most recent cite).

Anyone can go after obvious frauds. Randi never seems to touch on any of the real science being done,as in the Parapsychological Association
Click to expand...
.

But that is what the point is - to go after frauds! The test is not about science, although it can be a tool used to conduct the test, it is about being able to do what you claim. A guy claims he can find gold under cups, great! Let's put 40 cups out there and put gold under some of them and see if he can find them. If he can't, he's a liar or he is deluded. QED.

And when he does, as from the posted article, he seems to see things as he wants to, as in Schwartz. The man who posted, Keen, seems to me to be much more straightforward in his account than randi and his babbling in most of his, and also the case of the insult is supportive of selective memory and poor fact finding, regardless of the anecdote itself was interesting.
Click to expand...

Randi's babbling, writing skills, memory, beard color or favorite color have no bearing on weather or not a dowser can find gold under a cup. Keen can write the most elequent book ever written, and it wont prove that someone can do telekenisis. You can't make something true by writing pretty words about it.

If he were interested in the truth about the paranormal, this would be a good place to start to find harder information to spread to the public.
Click to expand...

The test are about individuals who claim to be able to due specific paranormal things. He says 'show me', that is all.

Also - welcome to the boards. :)
 
But incase you're not, here:

Read #3 and #6. Just because it dates BACK to 1887, doesn't mean they are all that outdated.

Anyone can go after obvious frauds. Randi never seems to touch on any of the real science being done,as in the Parapsychological Association. And when he does, as from the posted article, he seems to see things as he wants to, as in Schwartz. The man who posted, Keen, seems to me to be much more straightforward in his account than randi and his babbling in most of his.

Also the case of the insult is supportive of selective memory and poor fact finding, regardless of the anecdote itself was interesting.

Focusing on Frauds, not science, seems to me a poor way of reaching truth. If he were interested in Truth about reality rather than just truth about fraud, he wouldn't do so, it seems to me.

http://www.parapsych.org/

If he were interested in the truth about the paranormal, this would be a good place to start to find harder information to spread to the public.
 
The man who posted, Keen, seems to me to be much more straightforward in his account than randi and his babbling in most of his
Click to expand...

and then:

Well, yeah, what I posted, after I had posted it, seemed to get caught up a little stream of conscious (sp?) like, but that means nothing to what I said
Click to expand...

You should really take your own advice.
 
Pelopre said:
Well, yeah, what I posted, after I had posted it, seemed to get caught up a little stream of conscious (sp?) like, but that means nothing to what I said, and I take it you are intelligent enough to extrapolate the meaning.
Click to expand...

I'm intelligent enough to recognize that it is copied from here.

Are you Montague Keen?
 
If it is, then that is a very inappropriate last name.

Maybe it is Victor Zammit himself?
 
Sorry, you still don't make sense. Posting the same thing twice didn't make it more coherent.

I'm reminded of the movie "Blazing Saddles," in which Gabby Johnson (Jack Starrett) makes a speech that predominantly gibberish. Olson Johnson (David Huddleston) then rises and says, "Who can argue with that?"
 
>You are right here, and anecdote from 1887 is just as useless >as an anecdote from 1996 (the most recent cite).

Have you read the most recent documents?


>But that is what the point is - to go after frauds! The test is not >about science, although it can be a tool used to conduct the >test, it is about being able to do what you claim. A guy claims he >can find gold under cups, great! Let's put 40 cups out there and >put gold under some of them and see if he can find them. If he >can't, he's a liar or he is deluded. QED.

I was talking about Randi in general, and his mission, not just the challenge.

>Randi's babbling, writing skills, memory, beard color or favorite >color have no bearing on weather or not a dowser can find gold >under a cup. Keen can write the most elequent book ever >written, and it wont prove that someone can do telekenisis. You >can't make something true by writing pretty words about it.

I haven't mentioned dowsers once. You're right about the pretty words, though. I was just trying to put forward that he seemed genuinely honest, intelligent, and concerned.

>The test are about individuals who claim to be able to due >specific paranormal things. He says 'show me', that is all.

The test is, you're right. But the parapsych assoc. is researching, among other things, how conciousness and beliefs reflect reality, which they do, we now know on small levels. The implications of such studies seem to warrant a serious look from Randi, if he takes what he does seriously. Because, depending on the amount we find that belief can alter any physical relationship, this would effect his, and other studies.

>Also - welcome to the boards.

Thanks.
 
Have you read the most recent documents?
Click to expand...

Are they available on line? If so I will, but if they are anecdotes I don't really see the point. Titles like The Runki missing leg case and The death of Gudmundur Magnusson tell me these are reports of one-time occurrences, not replicable scientific studies.

I was talking about Randi in general, and his mission, not just the challenge.
Click to expand...

Your post is in the Million Dollar Challenge forum, which is why I responded thusly. I again point to the fact that Randi's credibility has no impact on the existence (or non-existence) of paranormal phenomena.

I haven't mentioned dowsers once. You're right about the pretty words, though. I was just trying to put forward that he seemed genuinely honest, intelligent, and concerned.
Click to expand...

It was an example, since they are the most common folks to take the test. Whatever you do, don't actually address any of my points. Let's see if you do in the next paragraph.

But the parapsych assoc. is researching, among other things, how conciousness and beliefs reflect reality, which they do, we now know on small levels. The implications of such studies seem to warrant a serious look from Randi, if he takes what he does seriously. Because, depending on the amount we find that belief can alter any physical relationship, this would effect his, and other studies.
Click to expand...

Is someone saying conciousness and beliefs don't reflect reality? Do you mean 'affect' reality? I would argue that all beliefs reflect reality (or one's interpretation of it) in one way or another, it is our only fram of reference. Either way, Randi is not a scientist. I don't see anything in the foundation goals to suggest that he should launch into a study of parapsychology. If you disagree, please point out where it does.
 
Pelopre said:
Illuminator. I did not post the same article twice.

BTW, I am not Keen, or Zammit.
Click to expand...

Then you have no right to quote them in their entirety. It's against the rules of this board. Your post has been reported to the moderators.
 
Pelopre said:
...

The test is, you're right. But the parapsych assoc. is researching, among other things, how conciousness and beliefs reflect reality, which they do, we now know on small levels. The implications of such studies seem to warrant a serious look from Randi, if he takes what he does seriously. Because, depending on the amount we find that belief can alter any physical relationship, this would effect his, and other studies.

...
Click to expand...
I, for one, do not know that consciousness and beliefs reflect reality, on any level (if by that you mean something 'paranormal,' since the statement could be interpreted otherwise).

But, Randi is not in the business of 'taking a serious look' at these phenomena, assuming you mean he should do something beyond offering the prize for a demonstration of the effect, under controlled conditions. Randi has often stated that the mechanism is of no interest to him, at least until the effect has been demonstrated. What he does do is offer a huge incentive to anyone who can demonstrate the effect. That's all: demonstrate the effect. Millions of paranormal practitioners out there, and no one can demonstrate the effect. Not even for a million smackeroos. How much more serious can you get? He's got a million dollars on the line for what should be step 1 of research into paranormal effects: demonstrate the effect. After that, some imminent and well respected paranormal researcher can take his $million and find out all kinds of things about how it works. Just demonstrate the effect.
 
>Your post is in the Million Dollar Challenge forum, which is why I responded thusly. I again point to the fact that Randi's credibility has no impact on the existence (or non-existence) of paranormal phenomena.

Correct. But his reporting of facts about the phenomena incorrectly or not can effect people's access to the information, or misguide it, to whether they are real or not.

>It was an example, since they are the most common folks to take the test. Whatever you do, don't actually address any of my points. Let's see if you do in the next paragraph.

I did address your point about the pretty words, I said you were correct. ???

>Is someone saying conciousness and beliefs don't reflect reality? Do you mean 'affect' reality? I would argue that all beliefs reflect reality (or one's interpretation of it) in one way or another, it is our only fram of reference. Either way, Randi is not a scientist. I don't see anything in the foundation goals to suggest that he should launch into a study of parapsychology. If you disagree, please point out where it does.

I apologize, I did mean effect. (not affect, though). Effects on random number generators (sp?) being some of the more recent. I think Parapsych. is very closely related to what Randi does and claims to do here, regardless of what the foundation guidelines say.
 
Roger.

I wasn't referring to the keen article but my previous post, sorry. And I believe that article is not under any copyright, does anyone know differently? If so, let me know. As for the moderators, they can do what they want with me.

HGC

I am not familiar enough with law and the rules. I have heard alot from both sides about it, but I just don't know enough if it is genuine or not. But if it is, then you are right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom