Well we can consider omagablue's cage well and truly rattled.
omegablue said:
Business my friend, media-skeptic business. Holding up at any cost, a stupid and limited view of the world.
What like paid psychics, UFO spotters, organised religion, ghost hunters, witch doctors... that sort of stupid and limited view of the world?
I realise asking for evidence for claims is terribly boring and inconvenient for believers, but it's hardly a stupid and limited view of the world. Unless you consider a quest for truth to be stupid and limited. Maybe you do. I don't know.
I dunno how some people who already know of the existance of many phenomenons that dogmatic-skeptics have as false, still bothers themselves trying to open skeptic´s hopeless mind to that. Wake up, you gotta notice that this skepticism you are subscribed to is nothing more than a phiolosophy of life, a choice, not an absolute truth.
How can searching for evidence be consider an absolute truth? It is an approach to claims. Of course it is a philosophy as is credulism, cynicism, wilful ignorance etc.
Scepticism asks for evidence - what annoys you so much about that? Maybe it's worth asking yourself.
Dogmatic Skeptics simply chose to refute and ignore paranormal evidences everywhere, like Randi does, he just hit the easy targets (i.e charlatans, sloppy scientists with unconclusive results, and simply normal and uneducated people claiming things).
An enormous amount of people believe in these 'easy targets', despite how little credibilty they have with even the most cursory examination.
Do you not feel they still need to have their claims challenged?
If not, why not?
Ask him (Randi) about CSICOP´s shame on Mars Effect, Rosemary Altea, Rico Kolodzey, The experiments on distant healing at Maryland, the HBO experiment on afterlife, Richard Dawkins´ "perinormal", and many many others.
don't know about all of those instances, but no-one is claiming CSICOP. Randi or any other sceptic is perfect. Mistakes are made.
It hardly renders the approach of scepticism invalid.
Surprisingly he has many claims, assumptions, and speculations filled up with ad hoc in order to convince you that they are only liars, charlatans, and fools. But no scientific efforts are made to investigate more about these and many other results in apparently flawless experiments.
Like what?
And anyway, who says it is the sceptics responsibility to perform this further investigation?
Anyone can perform any experiments they like. If they are flawless and replicable and show a paranormal effect they will be replicated and the effect demonstrated.
There is so much incentive to be the one making the breakthrough.
But some people love to make out there is a conspiracy to repress the data or criticise it for fun.
Obviously this is nonsense.
Skeptics tend to act like Randi said on the famous CSICOP´s fiasco called sTARBABY: "Let´s ignore it and hope it goes away.", his exact words. He was speaking about the mars effect, that no skeptic could debunk because the results were far too compeling about the truth of the effect. they chose to hide it at any cost, just to "avoid transcient kucko chirpin." (his exact words)
Like I say I am not familiar with that example.
And again sceptics make mistakes.
You seem to be trying to merge the concepts of scepticism, scientific investigation and the personal opinions of certain sceptics. It's an oft-used tactic, but doesn't really advance your point terribly well.
That kind of dogmatism seems to be some kind of FAITH and belief, it reminds me also on dishonesty, charlatanism and it does not have anything to do with science.
Er no it doesn't. Randi does not represent science.
Surely paranormal research doesn't require Randi's blessing or involvement to yield scientific results.
Just open your eyes, do not abandon skepticism, but be skeptical on the skeptics also.
The attitude of the sceptics isn't really relevant. The evidence will exist (or not exist) totally independently of anyone' opinion on the subject.
There is a whole new world of understanding being hold from the eyes of the naive public, with the false promise of being a hero of debunking, bringing light to the eyes of those who lives in the darkness.
What new world of understanding?
The world of psychics and psi and UFOs that is on TV and in the media all the time?
The one that doesn't yield scientific results?
That world?
How many paranormal proponents could the average person name?
Versus how many sceptics?
I don't think the sceptics have much sway on what people believe.
And debunking is hardly a false promise - We see it happen repeatedly. Frauds and charlatans are everywhere. A lot more could be debunked if that's what sceptics really wanted to do.
Check it out, it may be the other way around. I´m still skeptical, and i say this specially cuz i´m skeptical even on the self-proclaimed skeptics experts on debunking.
Of course - again we speak to the only true sceptic in the world. Strangely there seem to be a lot of you.
They are leading naive people to the wrong side of knowledge of the world. Sorry if you happen to be one of th, firiend.
Really? What is the right'side' of knowledge in the world?
I thought there were things that are true and things that weren't true, but apparantly there are different sides to knowledge. Please elaborate.
As it relates to this specific topic, there are many ways an illusionist or even the average dogmatic skeptic could ruin some experiment just by nulifying the effcet implementing many cheating controls, and simulating a false understanding about what he is going to investigate.
Oh so now sceptics actively sabotage experiments?
How deep does the conspiracy go omegablue? Thank heavens we have you to tell us all of this which you have found out by some mysterious method.
So, if apparently the researchers do think that they could further investigate this instead of burying it, dumb skeptics fire the "they are biased toward sheldrake´s results" bullet. I can´t tell whether they are not sympathetic to sheldrake´s findings but i clearly know that they are not dumb and narrow-minded misinformed skeptics also.
Check this for instance:
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Dace_amazing3.htm
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Dace_amazing3.htm
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Prescott_Randi.htm
Ah man, i could go on for a year listing how dogmatic skepticism could be dangerous to severely limiting one´s view.
Ditto credulous apologists.
At least sceptics are capable of thinking for themselves without having to resort to regurgitating 'scepticalinvestigations' (excuse me while I laugh) biased viewpoints wholesale.
One question - what benefit exactly would your (theoretical) sceptics get from inhibiting, denying and sabotaging experiments that demonstrated paranormal abilities or supernatural phenomenon?
Still, when all's said and done the evidence will come if the phenomena exist.
I think it is safe to say that clear evidence has not been presented so far.
