"Randi is a fake" is not a specific enough claim to investigate. In fact it's not really a claim at all: it's an unsubstantiated assertion.
If you can come up with a claim like "Randi has investigated dowsing and falsified the results to indicate failure" and you have a good reason to state this then certainly it will be worth looking into.
We need specific claims to investigate, not assertions.
Ok,lets try this one more time shall we... I am simply asking for one sceppie on here to look at Randi from a different angle(just from investigation purposes. And they themselves seek out to find proof that Randi is all that he claims to be.. That is it..That is all I really dont see why no sceppie is willing to pick up the gauntlet and try.. What is the problem in somoene doing that?
"Randi is a fake" is not a specific enough claim to investigate. In fact it's not really a claim at all: it's an unsubstantiated assertion.
If you can come up with a claim like "Randi has investigated dowsing and falsified the results to indicate failure" and you have a good reason to state this then certainly it will be worth looking into.
We need specific claims to investigate, not assertions.
But surely to goodness before believing in the man sceppies have took into account he could be just that? Inky..for goodness sakes you have the logic and intelligence and hopefully unbiased way of going about things(I will clean my mouth with soap after this, but its true) couldnt you do this?
Ok,lets try this one more time shall we... I am simply asking for one sceppie on here to look at Randi from a different angle(just from investigation purposes. And they themselves seek out to find proof that Randi is all that he claims to be.. That is it..That is all I really dont see why no sceppie is willing to pick up the gauntlet and try.. What is the problem in somoene doing that?
What does Randi claim to be?
I'm personally not willing to take up such a challenge not because I am "afraid of what I might find". I have no fear of discovering that what is commonly termed as "the paranormal" actually exists. I just require some evidence and not to have to resort to blind faith. I choose not to take this challenge because I genuinely don't know a great deal about James Randi, and I certainly do not take every word he says as "gospel" (to continue the religion analogy...).
Funnily enough, I'm quite capable of being a sceptic without hanging on Randi's every word!
I still don't see how anyone can pick up your challenge though. As with all enquiries, there has to be something to investigate to begin with, and a claim that "Randi is a cheat" is useless unless you can provide anything to back it up with. Give us an example of when Randi has cheated and I'm sure all the "sceppies" will be happy to investigate. And unlike religion, if Randi is proven to have cheated, he will be exposed.
Personalities are not in the slightest bit important. It's the truth which is important. If Randi is cheating in order to hide the truth, then I'm sure all true sceptics would prefer to know what that truth is, and would no longer trust him.
Fry: Hey, wait, I'm having one of those things…you know, a headache with pictures. Leela: An idea?
It amuses me that the people who criticise the skeptics are only too happy to tell us we're wrong about them, and that we should be skeptical about Randi instead! Sorry but there's no contest. And great posts Inquisitor and bujin.
So.....how would you suggest individuals that experience something they deem life changing go about finding out if their experiences(majority personal) were real? If someone experienced something,whatever it was...they were probably on their own when it happend. That in itself is a huge problem for there are no witnesses. Even if they were to ask others for their input...how can it truly be known if it were real or not?..I have said time and time again that just because something can be reinacted does not mean 100% that is how it originally happend. So,in all seriousness Inky...what would you suggest?
Well this is the fundamental problem isn't it?
If you examine your own (unusual) experiences yourself then you're likely to come to false conclusions as you're not aware of your own cognitive errors. You'll just end up reinforcing your own biases.
It becomes a choice of whether to believe your own senses or look for explanations that other qualified researchers have found.
An analogy might be dowsers. They tend to believe in dowsing 100%. They test themselves and it always works. The reason is that they don't know how to test themselves properly. They just end up reinforcing their own belief system.
So, in order to find (or stand a chance of finding) real answers we have to realise that our senses could be fooling us and look outside ourselves to see if there's any scientific research that can explain what's going on.
And that's true of everyone.
I have a vivid memory of a situation that happened when I was 10 months old. My parents' friends didn't believe that I could walk at that age and they put me on the floor, my dad went out to the kitchen and called me, and I remember being anxious as I had to run past the visitors to get to the kitchen.
The problem is, we are not capable of such memories at such a young age!! The brain is not yet wired up to achieve it.
So, I have a vivid memory yet it can't be real. I had to admit when I found this out that the memory was probably constructed by myself when I was older. Probably as a result of hearing the story a few times and imagining what must have happened.
So, I can understand what it's like to believe something and then have to face up to the belief being false (although it's hardly life- changing in my case).
It amuses me that the people who criticise the skeptics are only too happy to tell us we're wrong about them, and that we should be skeptical about Randi instead! Sorry but there's no contest. And great posts Inquisitor and bujin.
How interesting Skepto how you immediately do the us and them... I am simply suggesting that they should not take this guy at face value..isnt that what sceppies are so the opposite of?taking things at face value? Oh thats right,your a trainee sceppie arnt you? Read Inkys post regarding sceptics and what indeed a sceptic should be..you might learn something! Also your point about believers/mediums...when/where have LR,MM or any of the mediums on here at any time said that sceppies are wrong about mediums. We have suggested and stated some views are wrong to be placed on all mediums/believers!
So.....how would you suggest individuals that experience something they deem life changing go about finding out if their experiences(majority personal) were real? If someone experienced something,whatever it was...they were probably on their own when it happened. That in itself is a huge problem for there are no witnesses. Even if they were to ask others for their input...how can it truly be known if it were real or not?..I have said time and time again that just because something can be rein-acted does not mean 100% that is how it originally happened. So,in all seriousness Inky...what would you suggest?
Well this is the fundamental problem isn't it?
If you examine your own (unusual) experiences yourself then you're likely to come to false conclusions as you're not aware of your own cognitive errors. You'll just end up reinforcing your own biases.
It becomes a choice of whether to believe your own senses or look for explanations that other qualified researchers have found.
An analogy might be dowsers. They tend to believe in dowsing 100%. They test themselves and it always works. The reason is that they don't know how to test themselves properly. They just end up reinforcing their own belief system.
So, in order to find (or stand a chance of finding) real answers we have to realise that our senses could be fooling us and look outside ourselves to see if there's any scientific research that can explain what's going on.
And that's true of everyone.
I have a vivid memory of a situation that happened when I was 10 months old. My parents' friends didn't believe that I could walk at that age and they put me on the floor, my dad went out to the kitchen and called me, and I remember being anxious as I had to run past the visitors to get to the kitchen.
The problem is, we are not capable of such memories at such a young age!! The brain is not yet wired up to achieve it.
So, I have a vivid memory yet it can't be real. I had to admit when I found this out that the memory was probably constructed by myself when I was older. Probably as a result of hearing the story a few times and imagining what must have happened.
So, I can understand what it's like to believe something and then have to face up to the belief being false (although it's hardly life- changing in my case).
But whatif the experince happens when you are an adult,wide awake etc etc... How would you suggest that person analysis's the situation/experience and gains a better insight into the more likely probability of that experience. If someone has an experince but truly want an answer...how could they go about getting some answers without it simply being dismissed?Ithappened..something happened,so how do you find out for certain what exactly happened?
But whatif the experince happens when you are an adult,wide awake etc etc... How would you suggest that person analysis's the situation/experience and gains a better insight into the more likely probability of that experience. If someone has an experince but truly want an answer...how could theygo about getting some answers without it simply being dismissed?Ithappened..something happened,so how do you find out for certain what exactly happened?
Firstly, you'll never be able to find out for certain what an experience was.
People are very diverse. Even wide awake people can occasionally hallucinate. Some people are more prone to hallucination than others. People with conditions like right temporal lobe epilepsy can experience all sorts of things for example.
Around 4% of people are believed to have what's called a "fantasy-prone personality". They have (often solitary) fantasies that are so powerful that they become as real as hallucinations. And their fantasy experiences are perceived as being real.
So we have to take on board the huge range of human diversity.
Then, to look for the most likely answer to such experiences. I would argue the case for taking a naturalistic, rather than mystical, viewpoint.
A good reason for this is that paranormal type experiences can be induced in many people by stimulating the right temporal lobe of the brain with complex magnetic fields or by using drugs for example.
If these experiences can be induced in the brain then that is strongly indicative that it's the brain where these phenomena occur - i.e. we are not simply passive observers of external events.
At the end of the day, it comes down to evidence. There is evidence (psychological, neurocognitive, etc.) which explains (to a large extent) what is going on. There is zero evidence that anything paranormal is really going on.
Remember, with science, we're dealing with probabilities, not certainties. What we have to do is look for the answer that is the most probable one.
The paranormal is not impossible; but I'd argue that it is highly improbable.
Firstly, you'll never be able to find out for certain what an experience was.
People are very diverse. Even wide awake people can occasionally hallucinate. Some people are more prone to hallucination than others. People with conditions like right temporal lobe epilepsy can experience all sorts of things for example.
ok
Around 4% of people are believed to have what's called a "fantasy-prone personality". They have (often solitary) fantasies that are so powerful that they become as real as hallucinations. And their fantasy experiences are perceived as being real.
hmm I could understand that for some...
So we have to take on board the huge range of human diversity
. I understand
Then, to look for the most likely answer to such experiences. I would argue the case for taking a naturalistic, rather than mystical, viewpoint.
The problem with that owuld be I suppose unless various tests etc are undertaken there and then ,or very soon aftre the experience..that could place doubt on the findings!
If these experiences can be induced in the brain then that is strongly indicative that it's the brain where these phenomena occur - i.e. we are not simply passive observers of external events.
Yup understand that too..
At the end of the day, it comes down to evidence. There is evidence (psychological, neurocognitive, etc.) which explains (to a large extent) what is going on. There is zero evidence that anything paranormal is really going on.
Also the problem I would have thought as mentied above,unless tests are done immediatly after the event,wouldnt that mean that paranormal could not 100% be ruled out but only probable conclusions?
Remember, with science, we're dealing with probabilities, not certainties. What we have to do is look for the answer that is the most probable one.
The paranormal is not impossible; but I'd argue that it is highly improbable.
I have a vivid memory of a situation that happened when I was 10 months old. My parents' friends didn't believe that I could walk at that age and they put me on the floor, my dad went out to the kitchen and called me, and I remember being anxious as I had to run past the visitors to get to the kitchen.
The problem is, we are not capable of such memories at such a young age!! The brain is not yet wired up to achieve it.
So, I have a vivid memory yet it can't be real. I had to admit when I found this out that the memory was probably constructed by myself when I was older. Probably as a result of hearing the story a few times and imagining what must have happened.
I had that too. I was sure that I remembered when a photograph was taken of me when I was a few months old. I always thought it was my earliest memory, sat on the lawn in a back garden, playing with a rattle. I could remember the house was on my right.. but then I found out a couple of years ago that there was no house on the right. So the memory wasn't real.
I suspect I know where you're leading with this but yes.
Me lead..never
So....... <----Innocent angelic sweet grin Does that mean then???...that serious sceptics are not of the opinion that mediumship .the paranormal etc is not possible,just that it is improbable?
Does that mean then???...that serious sceptics are not of the opinion that mediumship .the paranormal etc is not possible,just that it is improbable?
Absolutely.
All you have to do is provide the evidence, and we'll believe*. But that evidence will have to be as water-tight as, say, the theory of evolution, the heliocentric solar system, etc...
Surely it's not a big ask, given how common psychic abilities seem to be? If we can prove that the Earth goes around the sun and that mankind evolved over billions of years from single-celled organisms, surely it can't be THAT difficult to provide proof that mediumship is real...
* EDIT: I should point out that there's a bit more to it than that - the evidence must be peer-reviewed and demonstrable, repeatable, etc... and must be compared against known fraudulent techniques. There's no reason why it should have any less treatment than any other scientific theory.
