snopes.com Post new topic  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » Archived Forums » Science Archive » Alternative Science (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Alternative Science
Shadowduck
We Wish You a Merry Giftmas


Icon 207 posted      Profile for Shadowduck     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I offer this website for your mockery without further comment.

Enjoy!

--------------------
But of course, I could be wrong.

Posts: 858 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
The Velour Fog
I'm Dreaming of a White Sale


Icon 1 posted      Profile for The Velour Fog   E-mail The Velour Fog   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
How odd... Although I note that he is the author of a Do-It-Yourself-PR book and various PR websites

My favourite:

Do You Really Need Your Brain?

Scans have found more than 100 people with "No detectable brain" in their heads.

...No-one knows how people with ‘no detectable brain’ are able to function at all, let alone to graduate in mathematics, but there are a couple theories...

[lol]

--------------------
She's built like a steakhouse, but she handles like a bistro

Posts: 26 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
RealityChuck/Boston Charlie
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for RealityChuck/Boston Charlie   Author's Homepage   E-mail RealityChuck/Boston Charlie   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Typical false syllogism:

They laughed at the Wright Brothers, and the Wright Brothers were right.
They laughed at me.
Therefore, I am right.

Posts: 675 | From: Schenectady, NY | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Delta-V
Xboxing Day


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Delta-V     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Not only that, but the Wright Brother's research was scientific, and anyone in the field familiar with their work would not have laughed. They used wind tunnel testing and scale models. They flew unpowered gliders to test their designs.

When the average bloke laughs at you, that's one thing...when even your peers laugh at you, that should tell you something.

--------------------
"My neighbor asked why anyone would need a car that can go 190 mph. If the answer isn't obvious, and explaination won't help." - Csabe Csere

Posts: 1225 | From: Wichita, Kansas | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
damsa
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Problem with sites like Alternative science is, there is a nugget of truth in what they are saying.

It's easier to mock a conspiracy nut who does not use facts but pure conjecture. But this person uses facts that are kinda right but just comes off with the wrong conclusions.

And not everything he says is totally off. Often is quoted that average life expectancy has gone up. But that's generally due to better infant mortality rates, and a lot of it has to do with nutrition rather than advances in medical science.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Hell's Granny
Xboxing Day


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Hell's Granny   Author's Homepage   E-mail Hell's Granny   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RealityChuck, Travis Tea #20:
Typical false syllogism:

They laughed at the Wright Brothers, and the Wright Brothers were right.
They laughed at me.
Therefore, I am right.

The Marx Brothers had the answer to that one, in one of their movies:
Groucho: "They laughed at Marconi! They laughed at Edison! They laughed at Einstein! The laughed at my uncle Harvey...!"
Zeppo: "Your uncle Harvey? I anin't never heard of your uncle Harvey!"
Groucho: "Aha! That's because he was mad!"

--------------------
Oakleaf Circle - Elfin Magical Diary-Transit: the astrologers' newsletter

Posts: 1304 | From: South-West Scotland | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Aaron
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Aaron     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I've always liked Carl Sagan's quote on the subject.

"But 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."

--------------------
(insert witty remark here)

Posts: 229 | From: Connecticut | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
rsmall
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 102 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Delta-V:
When the average bloke laughs at you, that's one thing...when even your peers laugh at you, that should tell you something.

It is entirely typical of the scientific establishment to laugh at theories that stray too far from the conventional wisdom. Take the reaction of the older and more influential members of the French Academy of Sciences to the theory that rocks can fall from the skies. As this source states:

"On December 13, 1795, a stone of about 25kg was seen to fall in Wold Cottage, England, by several eyewitnesses. The fall occurred in broad daylight, out of a clear, blue sky, refuting the most popular explanations for the formation of meteorites, such as lightning or condensation in clouds. Subsequently, the meteorite of Wold Cottage was analyzed by a young and open-minded British chemist, Edward Howard, who found it to contain grains of nickel-iron metal, similar in composition to the iron meteorites described in [Ernst Florens] Chladni's book. In 1802, Howard published the results of his analysis and his conclusions regarding the Wold Cottage incident, convincing a growing number of scientists that meteorites actually represent extraterrestrial matter falling from the sky.

"However, a large number of conservative scientists kept on denying the obvious facts, among them some of the most influential members of the respected French Academy of Sciences. Their mockery and sarcasm was silenced several months after Howard's publication: on April 26, 1803, a shower of about 3,000 stones fell in broad daylight near L'Aigle, France, witnessed by countless people."

The Alternative Science website makes some excellent points about the scientific orthodoxy.

Rodney

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rsmall:
The Alternative Science website makes some excellent points about the scientific orthodoxy.

Possibly so...but it makes them in a rather foolish way, by putting forward nonsensical and dangerous ideas in a highly deceptive manner.

If one is going to take the mock, I prefer the style of The Onion, rather than, say, Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

If there has to be laughter, at least one ought to have the grace to present something that is actually funny.

(Science and scientists have long known how to laugh at themselves: I grew up on "A Stress Analysis of a Strapless Evening Gown," a wonderful collection of japes at the expense of hide-bound science.)

Silas

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
chillas
Coventry Mall Carol


Icon 1 posted      Profile for chillas     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rsmall:
It is entirely typical of the scientific establishment to laugh at theories that stray too far from the conventional wisdom

Suggestion: scroll up, re-read RealityChuck's post. Repeat until comprehension occurs.

--------------------
Come on, come on - spin a little tighter
Come on, come on - and the world's a little brighter


Posts: 5595 | From: Columbus, OH : The Soccer Capital of America | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
rsmall
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chillas:
quote:
Originally posted by rsmall:
It is entirely typical of the scientific establishment to laugh at theories that stray too far from the conventional wisdom

Suggestion: scroll up, re-read RealityChuck's post. Repeat until comprehension occurs.
Suggestion: Educate yourself about the history of science before embarrassing yourself any further.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
James G.
Xboxing Day


Icon 1 posted      Profile for James G.   Author's Homepage   E-mail James G.   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rsmall:
Suggestion: Educate yourself about the history of science before embarrassing yourself any further.

A certain ammount of resistance to new ideas has to exist in science, its part of the entire protocol.

1. Person A looks at the current body of evidence, draws it together, looks for holes and from his understanding of this makes a hypothesis.
2. Person A considers this hypothesis and designs an experiment to test this. Using his hypothesis he will predict the outcome of said experiment, this outcome will either support or refute his hypothesis.
3. Step two will be repeated to exclude as many alternate hypothesis as occur to person A.
4. Person A publishes their results. (Or tries to)
5. Rest of scientific community looks at results.
6. Community will attempt to find alternate hypothesis supported by the data, contradictions with existing experiments, flaws and biases in the data etc.
7. Person B (who may be the same person as person A) will begin the process again, conducting experiments which address the holes in the original experiments, either refining th model, refuting it or proposing a new model.

While it is true that some idea will take longer to come to acceptance than others, it is wrong to suggest that this is part of some grand conspiracy. (As the OP website seems to imply) Yes it is true that the odd few scientist may be resolute in a belief even after it has been pretty thoroughly refuted, but you have to remember that they are people; an individuals views are not always best representive of the community as a whole.

--------------------
This is a public service announcement. The board is moving. Check Announcements Photos[/URL]

Posts: 1302 | From: Edinburgh, UK (Currently Nr. Swindon, UK) | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
First of Two
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for First of Two   Author's Homepage   E-mail First of Two   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rsmall:
The Alternative Science website makes some excellent points about the scientific orthodoxy.

Unfortunately, they do this by covering one ounce of "point" with a two-ton layering of absolute bullNFBSK.

--------------------
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle

Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
rsmall
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by First of Two:
quote:
Originally posted by rsmall:
The Alternative Science website makes some excellent points about the scientific orthodoxy.

Unfortunately, they do this by covering one ounce of "point" with a two-ton layering of absolute bullNFBSK.
Can you provide an example or two?

Rodney

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
TurquoiseGirl
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 1 posted      Profile for TurquoiseGirl   Author's Homepage     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by damsa:
Problem with sites like Alternative science is, there is a nugget of truth in what they are saying.

It's easier to mock a conspiracy nut who does not use facts but pure conjecture. But this person uses facts that are kinda right but just comes off with the wrong conclusions.

And not everything he says is totally off. Often is quoted that average life expectancy has gone up. But that's generally due to better infant mortality rates, and a lot of it has to do with nutrition rather than advances in medical science.

And I would say that his section on forbidden subjects is right on. Which leads to the obvious conundrum of some of these things being dismissed as "pseudoscience" or worse because they have no scientific evidence, but not being able to attempt to get scientific evidence, because if you do, you are clearly doing pseudoscience and discredit yourself. And of course the lack of funding to develop the knowledge and techniques that would be able to answer the questions once and for all.

There are many issues that I think could be approached this way, but if you take them at all seriously, you discredit yourself.

--------------------
There are people who drive really nice cars who feel that [those] cars won't be as special if other people drive them too. Where I come from, we call those people "selfish self-satisfied gits." -Chloe

Posts: 6995 | From: New Mexico | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rsmall:
Suggestion: Educate yourself about the history of science before embarrassing yourself any further.

Other than a bit of pot-kettling, what, specifically, are you referring to?

The web-site referred to has articles, for instance, attacking talk.origins faq...and demonstrating a staggering ignorance of actual evolutionary science.

The article suggesting that the sun is powered by "cold fusion" is inane, doubly so since nuclear fusion has been demonstrated on earth (those pesky H-Bombs, y'know.)

(In fact, the internal structure of stars is a very simple mathematical model, derived from four simple equations. It is a commonplace undergraduate exercise to put them together. In another thread, I mentioned the Hertszprung-Russell diagram, something that would not work if stars were "cold" inside.)

Oh, yeah, and the business where people are suggested to be alive and functioning without brains... Hm... Amusing, but, let's get real: what *is* processing their visual input if there is no visual cortex? How *do* they move their muscles if there is nothing attached to the motor nerves?

I know a lot of people who *have* brains, but don't *use* them...but I just can't accept the notion of someone using one without having one.

("Funny funny funny. It's sort of funny funny funny to think without a brain --
it is really something like a trick but not a trick to think without a brain.
Talking is even harder but it can be done." Cordwainer Smith: Angerhelm)

Silas

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
rsmall
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 102 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer:
quote:
Originally posted by rsmall:
Suggestion: Educate yourself about the history of science before embarrassing yourself any further.

Other than a bit of pot-kettling, what, specifically, are you referring to?

Sorry about the pot-kettling, but I was referring to the incontrovertible evidence, some of which is presented on the Alternative Science website, that whenever a radically new concept is presented that contradicts the conventional wisdom, the scientific establishment reacts by ridiculing that concept. True, some new concepts deserve ridicule, but to say that "when even your peers laugh at you, that should tell you something" is flat out wrong. No matter how valid the new concept may be, it is ridiculed by the establishment -- it is almost always only newcomers to a scientific field and rank outsiders who are open to the notion that the new concept may be valid.

Rodney

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rsmall:
. . . I was referring to the incontrovertible evidence, some of which is presented on the Alternative Science website, that whenever a radically new concept is presented that contradicts the conventional wisdom, the scientific establishment reacts by ridiculing that concept. True, some new concepts deserve ridicule, but to say that "when even your peers laugh at you, that should tell you something" is flat out wrong. No how valid the new concept may be, it is ridiculed by the establishment -- it is almost always only newcomers to a scientific field and rank outsiders who are open to the notion that the new concept may be valid.

This is, roughly, the thesis of Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Kuhn goes so far as to say that scientific advance is not possible within a single generation, and that new ideas can only take hold when the ancien regime has died.

I take a slightly more optimistic view, especially today. Yes, science is intrinsically conservative, and its skepticism is difficult to overcome. But if you present sufficient evidence then the scientific community will rally.

Remember that crackpots -- or merely good people holding views that are in error -- outnumber scientific revolutionaries who end up proving to be correct by approximately ten to one. Science *must* be conservative in such a situation.

A recent issue of The Skeptical Inquirer gave a brief overview of the ten-year passage of the revolutionary notion that ulcers are caused by a virus -- remember, everyone "knew" that they were caused by excess acidity from stress! -- from "nonsense, what a load of rubbish" to "why, of course, everyone knows that."

In essence, the scientific method worked, in that case, exactly as it was supposed to.

In the beginning...folks laughed at this ridiculous upstart and his heretical notion.

Rightly.

Then evidence began to accumulate. People set aside their initial doubts and, reluctantly, took a closer look at the data.

Rightly.

In the end, the theory was shown to be correct, the old theory was shown to be incorrect, and everyone shifted their allegiance. Pharmaceutical companies began to look for new treatments for the malady.

Rightly.

Show me any other system of organized inquiry that could have handled this *better*. ("Show me a better 'ole, ducky...") Like two-party democracy, science isn't perfect, just better than any other system ever devised.

Silas

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Logoboros
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Logoboros   E-mail Logoboros   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Reluctantly, I do have to with one point on rsmall's rebuttal. In today's research climate, gathering evidence, especially for medical issues, requires a hell of a lot of financing. If the unorthodox concept is always laughed out of town at it first go, there could well be fruitful research that can't get beyond that first step because the laughing-out-of-town means there's no money to continue gathering evidence. Unless you can dupe some eccentric billionaire into financing your program...

Less than a hundred years ago, an individual working independently could do a lot. Einstein could revolutionize physics working with just a paper and pencil after hours at the Patent office. Today, your independent radical thinker might not be able to afford the tens of thousands of dollars in computational equipment and dollars used in a Physics Department.

Which isn't to say that there isn't a lot you can still do with a pencil and paper or a couple of petri dishes and hot plate, but for most serious research at the cutting edge of contemporary science, you need some serious dough.

--Logoboros

--------------------
"If Men were Wise, the Most arbitrary Princes could not hurt them. If they are not wise, the Freest Government is compelld to be a Tyranny."

--William Blake

Posts: 1025 | From: Memphis, TN & Columbia, MO | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
damsa
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:

Less than a hundred years ago, an individual working independently could do a lot. Einstein could revolutionize physics working with just a paper and pencil after hours at the Patent office. Today, your independent radical thinker might not be able to afford the tens of thousands of dollars in computational equipment and dollars used in a Physics Department.

Today an individual can buy for pennies what computational equipment bought for dollars 20 years ago. I think if it is a truly great idea then it can wait until costs come down enough. One such example is Seti@Home, which even 10 years ago seemed pretty fruitless. So let's say 10 years ago you have 1 trillion dollars. You can either invest in improving computer chip design or in looking for alien life on other planets. Most people would agree with improving computer chip design.

Penn and Teller talked about all the tax payer money being wasted on psychic research. Some have argued that it doesn't hurt to look into alternative science. But it does, every dollar being spent on remote viewing is money that can be used for curing disease.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Logoboros
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Logoboros   E-mail Logoboros   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
But it does, every dollar being spent on remote viewing is money that can be used for curing disease.
I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with my assessment. Your last quote would seem to say that funding is best consolidated into tried-and-true research paths -- which runs against Silas' position that ideas initially rejected will, if they have underlying truth to them, eventually see the light of day.

And while some prices come down, there are some things that can't. A human trial of any experimetal drug or surgery is going to be something of a constant, and well beyond the ability of the individual, independent genius to afford. And I may think I have a radical new way to look for life on Mars, but I don't think I'm going to be able to get a personal loan any time in the next century that will pay for a space launch.

Also, there's nothing independent about Seti@home. Distributed computing is still a form of institutional support. Donated support, sure, but still donated by willing and convinced individuals. The total computing power (not to mention the original radio telescope time) is still well beyond the means of the independent researcher.

--Logoboros

--------------------
"If Men were Wise, the Most arbitrary Princes could not hurt them. If they are not wise, the Freest Government is compelld to be a Tyranny."

--William Blake

Posts: 1025 | From: Memphis, TN & Columbia, MO | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Chimera
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Chimera     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
If I had a quater for everyone I tested for remote veiwing abilty... well, I'd have about $1.50 but that's not the point. The point is with skeptic organizations, JREF (million dollar chalenge), ect. these non-conventional people have plenty of oppertunity to step right up an win the big prize. The thing is they don't. Even with the preliminary testing I was involved in over half the people backed out after claiming paranormal abilities. All the rest failed meseriably when they tried to prove their abilities. Many, many people from all over the world have been tested for remote viewing without a single positive result. The same holds true with other paranormal claims. As nice as the idea of such powers may sound there is no reason to believe they exist. There are many private organizations trying their damnest to find an example of such an ability but they all come up empty. Testing (not to mention prize money if someone can actually demonstrate a paranormal talent) isn't cheap. Its not always that expensive either but it does take time and some experiments (i.e. testing dowsing claims require complex construction, often underground pipes that either have water or don't have water flowing through them, ect. The subject simply has to say which ones are on... and they can't freaking do that. But of course no one wants to hear its BS. There was a big thing a few years ago, I think it was in Germany, and they planned a 3 hour long special on dowsing and the world's greatest dowser, until everyone failed the test... then it ended up as a couple minute blip on the evening news).

Some of the things the website mentioned have just been tested for so long with no positive results that it seems really pointless after a while. While it does take a while for alternative views to become accepted I think things generally work the way they should. If there is evidence to back up the claim, no mater how rediculious it might sound, people are going to take notice.

--------------------
"The question for joining the protected forum for real magicians should be:

What is the use of women?"
Steve W. from JREF's 'This is no fun'

Posts: 7622 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Brad from Georgia
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Brad from Georgia   Author's Homepage   E-mail Brad from Georgia   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I agree, Chimera. I lurk at the JREF site, and I'm amazed at how someone, sure of his/her ability to do something really weird and scientifically inexplicable, will come on that board, state a claim, and announce that he/she is ready to take the challenge for the million bucks.

But...then the claimant proceeds to delay, complicate, and develop diva-ish qualities endlessly until the JREF foks become exasperated and deny the claim without testing. And then the claimant usually bawls, "See? They won't test me 'cause they know I'm sloppin' over with magic!"

It's actually sort of pathetic. One recent claimant there went from seeming perfectly sane to seeming to be a ranting loon in about three weeks.

--------------------
"No hard feelin's and HOPpy New Year!"--Walt Kelly
Hear what you're missing: ARTC podcasts! http://artcpodcast.org/

Posts: 7581 | From: Gainesville, Georgia | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Chimera
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Chimera     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks Brad from Georgia. I'm glad someone else recognizes this phenom. Many make claims but few show up for (or agree to) testing. None of the big names have ever agreed to be tested regaurdless of many request on the part of skeptic organizations. Sylvia said she would but that's been some time ago and she remains a no show.

But for those who do show, I have literally been yelled at for ruining the test due to my bad vibes when someone failed. These folk will use every excuse in the book for why the test are not valid (but if they were sucessful and won the money I doubt they'd complain). I don't wish people to fail and I don't think I give off negative energy to screw with the results. I actually think it would be kind of cool if someone did have paranormal abilities. But what I would like and what the evidence shows are two different things.

You would probably be amazed at how much we have dumbed down claims to get participants. We've had people contact us claiming remote viewing and saying they could correctly identify every random card in a deck via another party. After an hour of misserable failure we gave them the chance to go by suit or colour... and still they sucked just as bad. Although I do remember someone getting forty some percent with a colour only test(black or red). Impressive until I realized that random guessing should equal around 50%. Maybe that proves negaitive psychic abilities. But if the results aren't what the person wants to hear it is always the fault of the people performing the test (usually due to negative energy). My favourite still has to be the remote viewer that made all kinds of fantastic claims and we dumbed down a corespondence test to 1-5 bottles in a box (20% chance of getting it right) and he got it wrong. Slightly disappointed I never got a chance to personally meet with the individual but he didn't like us very much after that.

Additional: to those that claim to seperate clouds by using their mental abilities: PLEASE, stop contacting skeptic groups! You are insane and are asking for difficult to imposible "controled" experiments. Star Trek is probably on cable, please get lost in the final frontier and leave the rest of society alone. Thank you.

--------------------
"The question for joining the protected forum for real magicians should be:

What is the use of women?"
Steve W. from JREF's 'This is no fun'

Posts: 7622 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
rsmall
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chimera:
. We've had people contact us claiming remote viewing and saying they could correctly identify every random card in a deck via another party. After an hour of misserable failure we gave them the chance to go by suit or colour... and still they sucked just as bad.

I assume that Randi never tested Pat Price, but what about this claim by Richard Milton? Also, is this account accurate? If so, why did Randi refuse to test the claimant?

Thanks,

Rodney

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rsmall:
quote:
Originally posted by Chimera:
. We've had people contact us claiming remote viewing and saying they could correctly identify every random card in a deck via another party. After an hour of misserable failure we gave them the chance to go by suit or colour... and still they sucked just as bad.

I assume that Randi never tested Pat Price, but what about this claim by Richard Milton? Also, is this account accurate? If so, why did Randi refuse to test the claimant?

Thanks,

Rodney

I don't know the particulars of the Puthoff/Targ affair.

But as for dismissing someone's claim to have lived for years on water... I don't find that at all a problem.

There is an Indian restaurant near where I live. On the wall is a photograph of a yogi lifting a heavy weight. The man is small and slender and tiny...he looks a little like M. Ghandi. The weight that he is lifting is labelled "77 tons."

I don't *need* to test this. I don't have to waste eight seconds of my life in examining it.

It's false. It's a lie. It is bullhooey, plain and simple. That man is not lifting 77 tons, and that other man does not live by water alone.

"Prejudice," like "discrimination," is not *always* a bad thing!

(However, the world *is* flat...)

Silas

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
rsmall
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 102 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer:

I don't know the particulars of the Puthoff/Targ affair.

But as for dismissing someone's claim to have lived for years on water... I don't find that at all a problem.

There is an Indian restaurant near where I live. On the wall is a photograph of a yogi lifting a heavy weight. The man is small and slender and tiny...he looks a little like M. Ghandi. The weight that he is lifting is labelled "77 tons."

I don't *need* to test this. I don't have to waste eight seconds of my life in examining it.

It's false. It's a lie. It is bullhooey, plain and simple. That man is not lifting 77 tons, and that other man does not live by water alone.

"Prejudice," like "discrimination," is not *always* a bad thing!

(However, the world *is* flat...)

Silas


But either Randi tests all claimants or he doesn't. And, isn't there something to be gained by testing, under test conditions, this claim? According to Richard Milton, "Mr Kolodzey is one of several thousand people who believe and claim that they can live on water alone, absorbing 'prana' or life energy from space around them." Why not disprove this claim once and for all? What is the downside from Randi's perspective?

Rodney

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
diddy
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for diddy   E-mail diddy   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Randi idnt going to test any theory that would a person at risk or is simply untestable. Testing and observing a living on water alone could be considered a test that would put teh subject as risk. Randi wont do it for liability reasons.

Its also a test that doesnt require testing since you cannot accuratly test the existance of any spiriualism. Its like proving God.

--------------------
W.W.F.S.M.D?
But this image of Bush as some sort of Snidely Whiplash tying the fair maiden to the railroad tracks is beyond the pale. - Joe Bentley

Posts: 2311 | From: Minnnesota | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Elbe
Little Sales Drummer Boy


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elbe   Author's Homepage   E-mail Elbe   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I guess you could have a situation where the person being tested has access to food, he just has to not eat any.

--------------------
Nobody loves Elbe...
-The Adventure of the Avatar Tutorials (3/29)

Posts: 2776 | From: Chicago, IL | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
damsa
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
]I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with my assessment.
I think I am leaning towards agreeing with your assessment. For some things you need institutional support, monetary or otherwise. Clinical trials to test breatharians would be pretty hard to get without law suits and jail.

But since there is a finite number of research funds and other external factors, every claim cannot be researched. So there is a dilemma. For every 1,000,000 crazy ideas there might be 1 that may save lives or improve humanity somehow.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Felessan
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Felessan   E-mail Felessan   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by damsa:
quote:
]I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with my assessment.
I think I am leaning towards agreeing with your assessment. For some things you need institutional support, monetary or otherwise. Clinical trials to test breatharians would be pretty hard to get without law suits and jail.

But since there is a finite number of research funds and other external factors, every claim cannot be researched. So there is a dilemma. For every 1,000,000 crazy ideas there might be 1 that may save lives or improve humanity somehow.

Breatharian advocate Jasmuheen was put to the test by the Australian 60 Minutes program. Details here and here.

--------------------
You fool! That's not a warrior, that's a banana!
- a surreal moment in a role-playing game

Posts: 2480 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by diddy:
Randi idnt going to test any theory that would a person at risk or is simply untestable . . . .

And if, now and then, he simply dismisses something out-of-hand as absurd on its face, that's fine with me.

If I contacted Randi's group and claimed that I could cause the Moon to turn rainbow colors, I somehow doubt they'd bother even to return my letters.

Silas

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
diddy
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for diddy   E-mail diddy   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer:
quote:
Originally posted by diddy:
Randi idnt going to test any theory that would a person at risk or is simply untestable . . . .

And if, now and then, he simply dismisses something out-of-hand as absurd on its face, that's fine with me.

If I contacted Randi's group and claimed that I could cause the Moon to turn rainbow colors, I somehow doubt they'd bother even to return my letters.

Silas

Exactly, Why is he going to waste his time when we have Snopes to dismiss such nonsense.

--------------------
W.W.F.S.M.D?
But this image of Bush as some sort of Snidely Whiplash tying the fair maiden to the railroad tracks is beyond the pale. - Joe Bentley

Posts: 2311 | From: Minnnesota | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Homsar999
I Saw Three Shipments


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Homsar999     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Here's another false syllogism for all of you:

Nothing is perfect.
I am nothing.
Therefore, I am perfect.

Posts: 95 | From: Gurnee, Illinois | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Elwood
Little Sales Drummer Boy


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elwood   Author's Homepage     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
My favourite:

Do You Really Need Your Brain?

Scans have found more than 100 people with "No detectable brain" in their heads.

Even more scary is that in chapter 10 of Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator, entitled "The Enigma of the Mind," J.P. Moreland, citing a study by Sam Parnia and Peter Fenwick, argues that the brain and mind are demonstrably different entities. Moreland repeatedly argues that the brain works as a sort of antennae for the mind, which is why brain damaged people have such difficulty communicating. However, "scientists" now know that consciousness has little, if anything to do with the brain, proving that the soul really does exist.

There is also another argument in the chapter stating that the resistance of the Vietnamese to repeated U.S. attacks "proves" that the mind and brain are different.

quote:
Moreland: In Vietnam, we bombed, we came back, we bombed and so forth. We assumed that after we gave the North Vietmanese shock after shock, pretty soon we could manipulate their behavior. After all, they're just physical objects responding to stimuli. Eventually, they had to give in.
Strobel: But they didn't.
Moreland: That's right, it didn't work
Strobel: Why?
Moreland: Because there was more to the Vietmanese thean their physical brains responding to stimuli. They have souls, desires, feeling and beliefs, and they could make free choices to suffer and to stand firm for their convictions despite out attempt to condition them by our bombing. . . .
Lee, obviously they, (the materialists) are wrong. We do have free will. We all know that deep down inside. We're more than just a physical brain.-page 256

quote:
Moreland: Another study showed a delay between the time a shock with applied to the skin, it's reaching the cerebral cortex, and the self consious perception of it by the person. This suggests the self is more than a machine that reacts to stimuli and receives them.-page 258
El "and Strobel's supposed to be an apologist!" wood

--------------------
"If I didn't see it and didn't know it was a real news report, I wouldn't believe it. I mean, how nutty can you get?"-Pat Robertson Oct 26, 2006.

Posts: 2936 | From: Mean Streets of West Virginia | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2