babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » Oh crap - now the creationists are getting into neuroscience

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Oh crap - now the creationists are getting into neuroscience
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 25 October 2008 12:54 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Schwartz and Beauregard are part of a growing "non-material neuroscience" movement. They are attempting to resurrect Cartesian dualism - the idea that brain and mind are two fundamentally different kinds of things, material and immaterial - in the hope that it will make room in science both for supernatural forces and for a soul. The two have signed the "Scientific dissent from Darwinism" petition, spearheaded by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, headquarters of the intelligent design movement. ID argues that biological life is too complex to have arisen through evolution.

In August, the Discovery Institute ran its 2008 Insider's Briefing on Intelligent Design, at which Schwartz and Michael Egnor, a neurosurgeon at Stony Brook University in New York, were invited to speak. When two of the five main speakers at an ID meeting are neuroscientists, something is up. Could the next battleground in the ID movement's war on science be the brain?


Creationists declare war over the brain


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 25 October 2008 01:11 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sir John Eccles thought so, too. And so did Sir James Jeans. Scientist-sceptic, and materialist for most of his life, Thomas Huxley became unconvinced that the human mind is merely a sum of physical brain parts and "chemical reactions." Canadian neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield spent a considerable part of his career trying to locate a section the brain where "I am" lives. He never found it.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 25 October 2008 01:29 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fidel, not all philosophical materialists (about the brain, anyway) are simple "physicalists" . See Dennett et al.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 25 October 2008 01:47 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No doubt. And I think if it wasn't for a lack of proof either way, everyone would be on side.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 25 October 2008 03:04 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Researchers will study if out-of-body experiences are real

Mind the gap between man and machine

I'll be impressed if and when DARPA dudes can make those new spying flybots as intelligent as the real thing.

[ 25 October 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 25 October 2008 05:48 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I started a search for the out of body thing, but gave up out of lazyness.

Trust me, the study has been done before, using the photographs on the top of shelves, and no one claiming an out of body experience mentioned the photographs, let alone described them.

Probably not an uncommon phenomena, but as a kid, when laying in bed I sometimes felt myself floating out of my body, to the point where it felt that if I let the feeling persist, I might not be able to "return". The fact it only happened when I was just about falling asleep, while on my back probably had something to do with it. Decreased blood flow to the brain, or something.

When oxygen stops flowing to the brain, funny thoughts and feelings shouldn't surprise anyone. Look how many people cut off oxygen to the brain by consuming alcohol, and then think it's funny to put a lamp shade on their head, or vote Liberal, for example.

[ 25 October 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 25 October 2008 05:53 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What I find interesting with the whole "evolution vs. creation" "debate" is that the creationists plan a line of attack, go public with it, and get debunked. Then they develop another line, and it gets debunked, so on and so forth.

I wonder when they will run out, and give up?


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 25 October 2008 05:59 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
When oxygen stops flowing to the brain, funny thoughts and feelings shouldn't surprise anyone.

They've ruled that out as the cause. That and "temporal lobe epilepsy."


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 25 October 2008 06:16 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Tommy_Paine: I wonder when they will run out, and give up?

Unfortunately, natural selection is not allowed to do its work, and ignorance is rewarded for the time being, because powerful people benefit from the dissemination of such ignorance, and they know it, and encourage it, and so on.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 25 October 2008 06:23 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think there was at least one offhand experiment to test the OOB or NDE experience, but no one in that hospital passed the test. Resuscitation techniques have improved over the last few decades, and more people around the world are apparently being revived from clinically dead and describing similar experiences. One Hispanic-American remembered his experience after charging the enemy in Korea. His mates watched as he was shot several times, and then bayoneted in the face, throat, and torso. He remembered them zipping the plastic bag over his face and leaving him for dead. And then he described leaving his body for a few minutes

[ 25 October 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 25 October 2008 06:34 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
True, and not all of them are liars, either, no more than all the people who claim alien abduction could all be liars. But it doesn't mean that they are to be believed.

In both cases, there is an undeniable phenomena going on that needs investigating. Whatever the explanation, it will increase our knowledge of the human brain.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 25 October 2008 06:39 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sounds good to me
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 26 October 2008 02:55 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The following is an excerpt from an article by Charles Tart which was published in the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research. In it, Dr. Tart documents the out-of-body experience of a young woman who was one of his research subjects. What makes this particular out-of-body experience remarkable is that she was able to leave her physical body and read a 5-digit number, which was at a significant distance, and correctly give it to him upon return.

From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 26 October 2008 05:17 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 26 October 2008 07:19 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Good Dr.

The problem with paranormal phenomena, is that when we've found tests that seem to indicate something more than random, and then the testing proceedures are tightened up to prevent out and out cheating, or mistakes in data collection and statistical analysis, the phenomena shrinks, then dissapears.

Rest assured though, if Miss. Z and Tart can repeat the phenomena under the observation of James Randi, Randi is prepared to make them millionaires.

Myself, I keep an eye on big lottery winners and Casinos. When I see the same people winning lotteries all the time, and Casinos going broke, I will start believing in psychic abilities of all kinds.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 26 October 2008 07:43 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In fiddling about looking for stuff on Tart, I found a testimonial from a person who experienced "out of body phenomena" as a child, and had the same reaction as I did-- a fear that one would not be able to return to the body, and die.

Although it hasn't happened in some years now, I also used to experience sleep paralysis both as a child and in my adult years.

I find it interesting that at no time in my life did I think either was a "paranormal" phenomena, but something happening entirely internaly.

I think it's interesting because some, obviously do reach for the "paranormal" explanation. And it seems to happen with or without exposure to rational thinking, and sceptical analysis.

Makes me think we are born sceptics or true believers. And, as much as many sceptics think the true believers are wack jobs, and true believers think sceptics are miserable old party poopers, ( I am not a party pooper-- unless of course, it's that kind of party...) I think we need each other in a wierd kind of way.

I would not like to live in a world of just sceptics. And of course, a world of just true believers would have extincted itself eons ago.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 26 October 2008 12:50 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
James Randi is not a scientist. So why should his opinion matter to real scientists or even true skeptics? The proof that his opinion matters little is that physicians in the U.S. and Britain have decided on further investigation of OOB.

What will be different with this latest experiment is that unlike Dr Tart's patient, Ms Z, flatlining cardiac patients will not be told beforehand that they should take notice of anything else in the room while out of body for the first time in their lives. Which could make for an impressive result if even one patient was to report something unusual post-recovery. Would people believe then?


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
penumbra
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13297

posted 26 October 2008 03:14 PM      Profile for penumbra     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
(whoops. i am pretty wrong. but anyways...)

[ 26 October 2008: Message edited by: penumbra ]


From: ON | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
TVParkdale
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15681

posted 26 October 2008 04:36 PM      Profile for TVParkdale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
What I find interesting with the whole "evolution vs. creation" "debate" is that the creationists plan a line of attack, go public with it, and get debunked. Then they develop another line, and it gets debunked, so on and so forth.

I wonder when they will run out, and give up?


You are gonna LOVE this guy. He's our fav YouTube de-bunker, a science teacher.

Even a science eejit like me understands him and he's fun

Thunderf00t--Why do People Laugh at Creationists Series

[ 26 October 2008: Message edited by: TVParkdale ]


From: DaHood | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 26 October 2008 04:55 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thunderfoot says life expectancy was 24 years in 1000 AD. They seem to imply that life expectancy being what it is today is due to technological advancement, which is partly true. But potential human life expectancy hasn't really changed in tens of thousands of years. Big pharma hasn't produced anything as life-saving and Banting's insulin or Salk-Sabine's polio vaccine.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
TVParkdale
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15681

posted 26 October 2008 05:22 PM      Profile for TVParkdale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
Thunderfoot says life expectancy was 24 years in 1000 AD. They seem to imply that life expectancy being what it is today is due to technological advancement, which is partly true. But potential human life expectancy hasn't really changed in tens of thousands of years. Big pharma hasn't produced anything as life-saving and Banting's insulin or Salk-Sabine's polio vaccine.

I'd have to disagree partially
Although food is in more consistent supply most people I've ever met would be dead without antibiotics at different points. That's ongoing research.

What about HIV cocktails?

Heart and stroke drugs?

Asthma medications?

Cancer medications?


We can kick big Pharma and the medical profession around endlessly [and I occasionally do] however I don't think that's relevant to the creationists vs. science struggle.

That's the problem of big $$$ and profit before people, not scientific discoveries.

Start a dedicated thread and we can have a go at that one


From: DaHood | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 26 October 2008 06:52 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There are several alternate threads still open on that subjecthere and here and here

And, philosopher Martin Cohen said:

quote:
As the contemporary philosopher Martin Cohen puts it, "much of modern physics is built not upon measurement but on thought experimentation".[1] As Cohen argues, the Renaissance period and the Enlightenment were characterized by breakthroughs in ways of seeing the world, not merely by new methods (and tools) for 'measuring' it.

If what scientists have been doing is altering their way of looking at the world in making the breakthroughs they have, perhaps this is what they are doing in an attempt to understand the human brain. Is grey matter of our brains a sum total "I am", or is it some kind of transformer, a reducer of as of yet unidentified universal energy and permitting us to become individual manfestations of this mysterious cosmic energy? Yeah, that sounds spooky and pretty good at the same time, if time does exist or matter or all that much. And if I was an independently wealthy mad scientist, I might try to prove it.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
TVParkdale
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15681

posted 26 October 2008 07:20 PM      Profile for TVParkdale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
T

And, philosopher Martin Cohen said:

If what scientists have been doing is altering their way of looking at the world in making the breakthroughs they have, perhaps this is what they are doing in an attempt to understand the human brain. Is grey matter of our brains a sum total "I am", or is it some kind of transformer, a reducer of as of yet unidentified universal energy and permitting us to become individual manfestations of this mysterious cosmic energy? Yeah, that sounds spooky and pretty good at the same time, if time does exist or matter or all that much. And if I was an independently wealthy mad scientist, I might try to prove it.


Uh, if you haven't seen all of Babylon 5--I think you'd like it

I'm an atheist so it's Farscape for me

Come back from 1000 years in the future and tell me what you find out...

String Theory, Time Travel

Frankly, I think I'm stuck in one of the unrealized timeline wormholes

[ 26 October 2008: Message edited by: TVParkdale ]


From: DaHood | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 26 October 2008 07:33 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've read Michio Kaku's views before. Fascinating. I liked his critique of SETI's search for interstellar communications and likening it to intercept of sequenced internet packets. Our modern internet doesn't necessarily send all of the same message by one route.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mojoroad1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15404

posted 30 October 2008 03:46 PM      Profile for Mojoroad1     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
James Randi is not a scientist. So why should his opinion matter to real scientists or even true skeptics? The proof that his opinion matters little is that physicians in the U.S. and Britain have decided on further investigation of OOB.

What will be different with this latest experiment is that unlike Dr Tart's patient, Ms Z, flatlining cardiac patients will not be told beforehand that they should take notice of anything else in the room while out of body for the first time in their lives. Which could make for an impressive result if even one patient was to report something unusual post-recovery. Would people believe then?


Because Fidel, Randi is a debunker of junk paranormal stuff. The reason he is important, is because anything for example Uri Geller (the spoon bender) and self proclaimed "psychics" can do, he can do too. And he makes no bones about it either because he's a magician. Many a scientist has been tricked into believing "psychic" phenomina, because there methodology doesn't account for "magic" in the "trick" sense of the word. Randi, and others like him claim that ALL paranormal research must have magicians included to watch for what a scientist would miss. He has help organize conferences that include scientists, magicians and sceptics in general. His $1,000,000 challenge has stood for years and no one yet has been able to claim it.

I highly recommend you read up on him, as he has done the scientific community a world of good (and at the same time caused quite alot of hilarious mischief)


Randi wiki

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: Mojoroad1 ]


From: Muskoka | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 30 October 2008 04:39 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes but remember, James Randi still isn't a scientist. He prefers not to debate real scientists like Brian Josephson. Randi is a big chicken. He himself is a sideshow for profit. He's like the heavyweight champ whose crooked handlers padded his fight record on the way to the top. He's a bum. No one wants to fight him because his title is a fraud.

quote:
Professor Victor Weisskopf physicist who studied under Niels Bohrr worked on the A bomb and over saw the development of European atom smashers.
"I was shocked and amazed how Mr Geller bent my office key at MIT while I was holding it. The sturdy key kept bending in my hand; I can not explain this phenomenon I can only assume that it could relate could relate to quantum chromo dynamics".

Jack Sarfatti - PhD, Physicist "My personal judgement as a PhD physicist is that Geller demonstrated genuine psychoenergetic ability at Birkbeck which is beyond the doubt of any reasonable man, under relatively well-controlled and repeated experimental conditions."



From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 30 October 2008 05:27 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Brian Josephson isn't a scientist any more. Once he co-won the Nobel prize in Physics he turned his back on science and devoted himself to meditation and attempting to develop a theory that synthesizes the constructivist epistemology of Jean Piaget with the teachings of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

Jack Sarfatti hasn't been a scientist since 1975, when he founded the Physics Consciousness Research Group to do research on parapsychological phenomena such as telepathy.

And he has recanted the glowing words about Uri Geller you quoted:

quote:
Sarfatti was initially impressed by Geller, and commented: "My personal professional judgement as a Ph.D. physicist is that Geller demonstrated genuine psychoenergetic ability at Birkbeck, which is beyond the doubt of any reasonable man, under relatively well-controlled and repeatable experimental conditions." He later revised this opinion after discussing the matter with James Randi. He wrote in a letter: "On the basis of further experience in the art of conjuring, I wish to retract my endorsement of Uri Geller's psychoenergetic authenticity." - wikipedia

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 30 October 2008 05:49 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Brian Josephson isn't a scientist any more.

That's like saying, he's not a Nobel prize winning physicist anymore because he's investigating unknown phenomenon in another area of science. It's grammatically correct, I suppose, but makes no sense as an illogical statement.

"Brian Josephson is known for the Josephson effect with important applications in quantum-mechanical circuits, and he is currently a researcher of parapsychology as might possibly be explained by quantum theory.

some people are afraid that psi might be true. For example, fear about psi arises for the following reasons:

  • It is associated with diabolic forces, magic and witchcraft.
  • It suggests the loss of normal ego boundaries.
  • People might be able to read your mind and know that you secretly (or unconsciously) harbor sexual and aggressive thoughts, or worse.
  • If you talk about it, people might think you're crazy.
  • If you think you experience psi, maybe you are crazy.
  • Your parents provided negative reinforcement for your any demonstrations of psychic ability (or past lives) when you were a child.
  • Thinking about psi leads to a medieval superstitious mentality, which will in turn support a rising tide of dangerous, primitive thinking.
  • With ESP, you might learn things that you do not want to know about yourself or other people -- i.e., accidents that are about to happen, and things you would rather not be responsible for knowing about.
  • Psi might interfere with the normal human process of ego separation and development. Therefore, we have devised subtle strategies for cultural inhibition.
  • If you are telepathic, how will you distinguish other people's thoughts from your own? Perhaps this will lead to mental illness.
    Many people have a self-destructive streak to their personality. What damage would result if psi were used in the service of this factor? Psychiatrist Jule Eisenbud wrote about this in his book Parapsychology and the Unconscious.
  • If psi exists, how many of my other cherished beliefs will I have to give up?
  • If psi exists, does that mean that a psychic could watch me while I am using bathroom facilities?
  • If psi exists, then perhaps I cannot wall myself off so easily from the pain and suffering in the world.
  • With mind-matter interaction, you might have to take more responsibility for what happens--whether to you, others, or the world around you

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mojoroad1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15404

posted 30 October 2008 05:56 PM      Profile for Mojoroad1     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Randi on Geller recanting that he's supernatural:

and I suggest this for the background

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: Mojoroad1 ]


From: Muskoka | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 30 October 2008 05:57 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A nutbar with a Nobel Prize is still a nutbar.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 30 October 2008 06:10 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay I'm convinced. Geller is a nutbar who Randi has had an unhealthy obsession with for 25 years of his life.

Therefore, the entire field of parapsychology must be bunk based on what a former magician and non-scientist has to say about it.

People like Brian Josephson and Jessica Utts are wasting their time using scientific methods to look into it further after realizing themselves that psi effect is real, because Amazing Randi has checked it out with his magician sense and knows better.

Feel free to add to these logical fallacies at your leisure.

The Randi Prize "I always have an out"

quote:
A leading Fellow of CSICOP, Ray Hyman, has pointed out, this "prize" cannot be taken seriously from a scientific point of view: "Scientists don't settle issues with a single test, so even if someone does win a big cash prize in a demonstration, this isn't going to convince anyone. Proof in science happens through replication, not through single experiments."

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 31 October 2008 06:39 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yes but remember, James Randi still isn't a scientist.

Well, he most certainly is a scientist. Science isn't confined to university degrees, Fidel. Would you credit Phillipe Rushton with being a "scientist"? I believe he has a Ph.d.

All "science" is, is an organized way of thinking and exploring the universe. And while James Randi may be personally abrasive (mostly to those he sees as taking economic and emotional advantage of the vulnerable and gullible) it cannot be said that he does not posses an organized way of thinking and exploring the universe. Just the way Bushmen of the Kalihari are so organized in the way they track prey, for example.

Perhaps the biggest problem we face today which relates to politics, global warming, etc, is that we tend to think "science" is only open to ivory towered people in white coats and university degrees.

This is very dangerous.

So, James Randi, is indeed a scientist. So is Lance Burton and Penn and Teller. They are expert in the fallibility of our congnative senses-- which lies outside the field of expertise of most people who hold degrees in physics, and most other formal disciplines.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 31 October 2008 07:08 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
One of the ways we organize our thinking is to adopt the rule "the onus of proof lies with the person making the claim." It saves us from wasting time on trying to prove a negative.

I don't think any devoted sceptic would ever say "bigfoot does not exist", or James Randi would say "paranormal abilities do not exist".

It's just that the claims have not yet passed an organized examination.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mojoroad1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15404

posted 31 October 2008 09:33 AM      Profile for Mojoroad1     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Exactly. As a matter of fact he has stated that he is not dismissing the possibility of the paranormal at all, only that he has yet to see anyone able to validate their claims in a "controlled" condition - that would be one where magicians could spot tricks, that - like with Geller on Carson- if it involves an object, that the person with the claim have no access to it before hand. That scientists have the tools necessary to conduct a proper examination....Uri Geller was hugely famous at the time and fooled even the most highly decorated scientists. That why Randi went after him. Same thing with a very popular faith healer, where he brought in a radio scanner to one of his sermons and listened to his wife give him all the info into an ear piece. Also he's debunked many other charlatans.

BTW Harry Houdini was the Randi of his time: he spent much time debunking the "ectoplasm" fad that was so common in his day and other "paranormal" acts that were nothing but a way to sucker people out of their money.


From: Muskoka | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 31 October 2008 12:19 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
This is very dangerous.

So, James Randi, is indeed a scientist.


James Randi is not a scientist. He's never heard of the double-blind protocol and has no regard for statistically significant anomalies. If he ever has claimed to be a scientist, then he is a fraud.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 31 October 2008 12:31 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
He's never heard of the double-blind protocol...
Really?

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 31 October 2008 12:34 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fidel, you are completely missing the excellent points that Mojoroad1 has been making in regard to James Randi. It takes a con artist to know a con artist. People like Randi do a great service for science, and skeptical thinking, and so on. Hoser!
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 31 October 2008 12:58 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Fidel, you are completely missing the excellent points that Mojoroad1 has been making in regard to James Randi. It takes a con artist to know a con artist. People like Randi do a great service for science, and skeptical thinking, and so on. Hoser!

I'm sure Randi is a swell guy who has made a career of hounding Yuri Geller for 25 years.

Real scientists like Jessica Utts and Brian Josephson don't accept his criticisms of psi as legitimate, and they speak from a scientific point of view. Randi himself said he's never claimed to be a scientist. So let's not get carried away with claims that he is one. He's not.

Would you ask a parking attendant what he thinks of global warming, or would you tend to rely on several climate scientists' opinions on that one? Just curious.

ps: Anyone of us can do what Randi does, and that is to set arbitrary and random thresholds for psi effect and offer a million dollars to anyone who passes an absurd and unscientific one-time winner take all test. But real scientists won't be convinced. It's why they are still curious as noted in the OP and fifth post. The human body is a new frontier for science. Real mainstream science is an unbiased investigation into the unknown. Quacks like Randi can only watch and be skeptical from the sidelines

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 31 October 2008 01:40 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
Anyone of us can do what Randi does, and that is to set arbitrary and random thresholds for psi effect and offer a million dollars to anyone who passes an absurd and unscientific one-time winner take all test.
You haven't even bothered to inform yourself of "what Randi does" or the terms of his million dollar offer. Randi has ensured that the thresholds and the testing methods would have to be mutually agreed upon, so anybody taking up the offer would know and agree in advance exactly what would constitute proof.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 31 October 2008 01:43 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Who cares what Randi thinks? Real scientists don't.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 31 October 2008 02:38 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Tell me, Fidel my friend, what is a real scientist, then?
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 31 October 2008 02:45 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Established scientists tend to have their ideas published in scientific journals like Nature and are awarded Nobel prizes for their achievements.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 31 October 2008 02:53 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think you have the wrong idea about science.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 31 October 2008 03:01 PM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

Seem about right?


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 31 October 2008 03:02 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Does Randi have anything published in a peer reviewed scientific journal?

Randi reminds me of the Catholic inquisition. I think he would be in his eyeholes as his own judge and juror ordering people burned at the stake for sorcery


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 31 October 2008 03:12 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Did Galileo? Newton? Franklin?

Your view on what science and scientists are is very narrow, Fidel.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 31 October 2008 03:18 PM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is only a nobel prize holder a scientist? Randi has quite a few distinctions for his debunking work. As per Wiki:

quote:
Randi was awarded a MacArthur Foundation "Genius" award in 1986.[5] The money was used for Randi's comprehensive exposé of faith healers including Peter Popoff, W. V. Grant and Ernest Angley.[5] During the course of the investigation Randi was "healed" by these ministers.[5] When Popoff was exposed, he was forced to declare bankruptcy within the year.[39]

From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 31 October 2008 03:30 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
Who cares what Randi thinks? Real scientists don't.
Well, some do.

In 1989 the American Physical Society presented James Randi with their Forum Award. The citation read: “For his unique defense of science and the scientific method in many disciplines, including physics, against pseudoscience, frauds and charlatans. His use of scientific techniques has contributed to refuting suspicious and fraudulent claims of paranormal results. He has contributed significantly to public understanding of important issues where science and society interact.”

In 1992 the Hungarian Society for the Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge awarded its highest decoration, the Commemorative Medal with Golden Wreath, to James Randi: “For his very successful activity and his enlightening efforts during several decades in the field of unmasking pseudoscientific beliefs.”

The International Astronomical Union officially named a planetoid in honor of Randi. Asteroid 3163/1981QM C is now known as “Randi”C.

Isaac Asimov said of him, "Perhaps nobody in the world understands both the virtues and the failings of the paranormal as well as Randi does. His qualifications as a rational human being are unparalleled."

Arthur C. Clarke said,”I regard Randi as a national treasure, and perhaps one of the remaining antidotes that may prevent the rotting of the American mind.”

Carl Sagan said of Randi's book The Truth About Uri Geller, “Splendid! A witty and fascinating dissection of Uri Geller's humbuggery...a healthy antidote to charlatanism on all levels.”


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 31 October 2008 03:58 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noise:
Is only a nobel prize holder a scientist? Randi has quite a few distinctions for his debunking work. As per Wiki:


That's wonderful, a foundation started in the name of a deceased insurance company magnate. Which only goes to prove you can't take it with you when you're gone, so let's honour former circus employees, Randi, and wingnut magicians, Hyman, with cardinal expertise in skepticism and disbelief. What are they afraid of? Why don't they go out and real jobs?

James Randi owes Matt Blaze a million dollars This is an indication of Randi's own gullable nature and partly why scientists pay little attention to him


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 31 October 2008 04:14 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Pathological Disbelief of Alfred Wegener's Hypothesis of Continental Drift

quote:
I just had a very interesting question sent to me from a university in the USA. In 2004 Professor Brian Josephson gave a lecture to a group of physics nobel laureates in Lindau. It was called Pathological Disbelief (you can see the slides for it here if you open the pdf file of the talk near the top). In the lecture, which sounds both entertaining and quite fascinating, Professor Josephson questions why certain ideas are rejected by the scientific community

Surely everyone remembers Wegener? Galileo?!

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 31 October 2008 04:21 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
James Randi owes Matt Blaze a million dollars This is an indication of Randi's own gullable nature and partly why scientists pay little attention to him
Um, Matt Blaze is actually a supporter of James Randi! And at the bottom of the page you will read the following:
quote:
The fine work of the James Randi Educational Foundation deserves your attention and support.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 31 October 2008 04:29 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, and apparently it wasn't the first time Randi's "encoded" box content keys was cracked by internet hounds. Blaze and Randi's groupees must have been somewhat embarrassed for him.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 31 October 2008 04:33 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm following this while handing out treats at the door ( baby carrots, cucumber slices, healthy stuff. not. ) And I only have time to inquire, Fidel, as to why you seem to reserve your highest scepticism for sceptics, but not...well, dubious claims?
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 31 October 2008 04:38 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's wonderful, a foundation started in the name of a deceased insurance company magnate.

While I think the basis of the rewards are what they are to be judged on, let's go with this for a moment. You seem to put a lot of stock in the Nobel prize, which was founded in recognition by Nobel that he did, or felt he did, bad things.

Which I do not mean as a point of arguement, but as illustration. You seem to have shifting standards, and I think you should ask yourself why.

I think when it comes to claims of the paranormal, you want to believe.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 31 October 2008 04:41 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
Surely everyone remembers Wegener? Galileo?!
"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." -- Carl Sagan

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 31 October 2008 04:48 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
And I only have time to inquire, Fidel, as to why you seem to reserve your highest scepticism for sceptics, but not...well, dubious claims?

I don't read the national enquirer or pay attention to people like Uri Geller, if that's what you're trying to imply. I think I hear some kids at your door.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 31 October 2008 05:06 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Must be ghosts.

Hey. I'm going to drop this. I like you, Fidel, I always have. I sense you are getting irritated with me.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 31 October 2008 05:27 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think ridicule and derision are a large part of "pathological skepticism." It always was, and it does little to further scientific understanding. No offense to anyone here. Continents drift and sometimes form mountains over long periods of time. That wasnt so evident at one time.

The Stargate Chronicles - Joe McMoneagle

Oscar the cat is more talented than James Randi

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca