You may not have attacked believers in ESP directly, but posts containing such phrases as "ESP=BS" amount to the same thing - ridicule. Ridicule is the idiots form of dismissal, as it involves no argument. The strange thing about such comments, is that they usually come from those least qualified to make them - people who have done NO research into the matter at all. I forget who said this, but it remains very true:
"Refutation prior to investigation, is the worst form if ignorance"
James Randi is on the record as saying he is an out-and-out rationalist whose aim is to debunk all paranormal phenomena. This is called "setting an agenda". He believes in something and then sets out to prove it, sadly this is how most science works so he is not alone in adopting that philosophy. However, scientific study is certainly not the carefully orchestrated determination of data and theory creation by logical deduction that many think it is.
The childish giggling and name-calling about things like ESP by the disbelievers is sadder and more pathetic than the clingers-on who want to believe it. Those who repeat "there is not a shred of evidence..." are basically saying "I have never done any research into this matter". There is a huge body of research, and increasingly elegant and scientifically acceptable research with spectacularly significant results into such subjects as (and I just know this will not go down well): remote viewing, ESP, astrology, pre-cognition and reincarnation.
I stand by my assertion that if you cannot see the inherent weaknesses csicops statements, then your thinking must also be weak. Their claims may be more acceptable to the majority of the scientific community, that does not make them correct. If Randi wants to dissect and expose flaws in research, then he must also be prepared to accept such analysis of his own statements and work.
The occam's razor comment I made was from Stephen Hawkings book (he may not have used these exact words). Occam's razor is frequently used PRIOR to forming a theory, to simplify potentially very complicated calculations. In Hawkings book, he talks of simplifying the mathematics for a particular theory
in order to make it solvable .
But your definition (or that popularly described):
A problem should be stated in its basic and simplest terms. In science, the simplest theory that fits the facts of a problem is the one that should be selected.
May, in fact, be the reason for the many failings of science. Think of the drugs industry, for example. Following this principle, successful natural remedies are discarded on the basis that their "active principle" has been identified and synthesised. Problem: natural remedy less effective, but new drug has horrible side effects not present in the original. This is a very common finding, and in fact 35% of all hospital admissions in the USA are due to the side effects of drugs administered by your wonderful pharmaceutical industry. Occam's Razor is the science of parts, of incomplete study, of discarding anomalous results. Perhaps anomalous results hold the key to understanding the universe, as these "subtle" effects may in fact be indications of quantum level effects.
Occam's Razor is a means to achieve a result more quickly. It is not a principle, nor has it ever been proven to be correct, nor can it be proven correct in any given situation (except a manufactured one).
Occam's Razor is often interpreted to mean unknown phenomena should first be explained in terms of what is already known. While this is perfectly reasonable, scicop appear to take it to the extreme of, IF it can be explained (however manufactured that explanation is) by some other means then we can dismiss it. This is not a progressive, or even scientific, viewpoint. That Randi can bend spoons by sleight of hand, does not mean that is how Geller does it. Reproduction of a RESULT is not the same a reproduction of an EVENT or EFFECT.
That scicop has published Sheldrakes response to their own studies is a positive step, but past incidences indicate that they will bury research and ignore it, if they can. I don't believe thay have changed their ambitions, and I wonder if Sheldrakes response was published in their magazine. I would like to think it was, as perhaps scicop may have learned from past lessons. The events to which I refer, are those surrounding the work of Michel Gauquelin. A whole book has been written about this (in fact there may even be 4 books) so I don't want to repeat it here. Scicops involvement in this, their falsification of results, their failure to reveal their data sources for inspection (when demanding this of Gauquelin, who complied with their every demand), their preposterous assumptions and eventual refusal to discuss the matter any further, were an indication of how low they would stoop to prevent any counter-rationalistic evidence from being publicly accepted. Gauquelin's work is irrefutable, the data sources are statistically highly significant and based on tens of thousands of studies is several countries, his statistical methodology is sound and accepted. All scicop could do was say - it's wrong for the USA (their falsified results) therefore its all wrong. Pathetic. Pscicop exist to stifle debate, not to encourage it (at least at that time). There were resignations and changes at the top in scicop, but I suspect this had more to do with the embarrassment they suffered from being exposed, than to any change of heart or willingness to open up the debate.
You only have to look at the "staring" experiments conducted by scicop to see how, after the first experiment produced positive results, the protocol was altered for the second experiment, and in a way identified as likely to affect the results. Read the articles for details. Scicop funded this research and published it - and it was bad science. They will publish bad science if it supports their view, and I suspect they only published Sheldrakes response due to his considerable standing, and pressure brought to bear by an increasing minority of scientists willing to take on these kind of studies. Psicop have a history of unprincipled behaviour and inadequate discussion.
Since Einstein himself encountered "violent opposition" to his ideas, then many/most/all/some ideas that encounter opposition must be true!
I did not say anything of the kind. I merely used an obvious example to demonstrate that radical ideas are very rarely accepted by the scientific community. Opposition to an idea is not proof the idea is wrong, nor that it is right, but opposition to ideas goes against the philosophical basis of science.
An idea may be "less likely" to be correct but on what scale? How do you judge an idea is "less likely". Your definition (or even the commonly accepted one) still amount to "less likely based on WHAT WE KNOW". Regardless of you assertion - you need to look deeper than words. Physicists, particularly, are acutely aware that simple does not always mean correct. The more complicated the system you study, the more complicated the theory (which explains why theories concerning biological systems are few, while physics progresses in leaps and bounds). "Simple" physical theories for explanation of unversal phenomena usually turn out not to be complete theories at all, but are derived from much more complex theories, that appear in different forms according to the prevailing physical contraints. The Grand Unified Theory being a perfect example of this.
Simple theories are easier to work with, and if they can explain 99% of the results, they are accepted. But the 1% anomalies won't go away, and will sooner or later need explanation. Occam's Razor is not an over-riding principle to reach the truth, it is merely a means to manage theory into digestible chunks.
Far from "bending spoons the hard way" I would suggest that physical means to manipulate the universe, as opposed to quantum mechanical ones, is doing it the hard way. One requires a huge expense of energy, the other the tiniest fluctuation at the Planck scale. Randi is demonstrating his ignorance of the nature of such events by comments like these. Your eagerness to accept them and laugh, also shows how eager you are also to accept the "status quo" in terms of thinking. Sure it's easier to "think" about bending spoons with your hands. I have never seen anyone perform "spoon-bending", but I do know it is a lot more prevalent than you think, by all accounts Geller was a novice - try "rolling up" a spoon like a cigarette paper (and leaving no marks). I do know someone who has seen it done (by a teenager) and from what they said it has nothing to do with the kind of explanations Randi prefers. This could be a genuine phenomenon, though quite what its purpose may be I have no idea, and Randi's attempts to stifle study are achieving very little.
Your point about Gellers claim (from mining companies) is well taken. Though it has been confirmed by some 3rd parties, to a degree, and Geller has recently revealed the names of some companies he worked with, who I understand, did admit that he was on the payroll for a while. I cannot recall the article or the reporter, which is annoying or the book where I got the information, but it was within the last year or 2. However, althought the following link is from Gellers website, I can confirm (as a UK resident) that the article did appear:
http://www.uri-geller.com/sub.htm
Make of it what you will. He has since been hired by crash investigators to locate sunken parts of aeroplanes that have downed at sea, so he is taken seriously by many in authority. Geller is a phenomenon who has impressed many people with his "tricks/abilities" but again, the questions begs, why can they not be duplicated under contolled conditions? Perhaps the research methodology is not there, I don't know the answers, but I don't refute the testimony of the many senior scientists who have witnessed what he can do.
Randi is not lying - he is in a state of permanent denial. He probably believes himself. But I fail to see how manipulating a spoon using sleight of hand, to produce a bent spoon, can even conceivably be seen as the same things as, and I quote:
"Uri ran his finger above the spoon and stood back. Nothing happened. We expressed some disapointment, still watching the spoon. He said, Wait and Watch. Slowly, as we watched, with Uri standing well away, the spoon started to curl in front of us, and within four minutes the tail of the spoon had risen up like a scorpions sting.
Dr. Peter Fenwick. MB, BChir, DPM, FIRCPsych
and
"Geller altered the lattice structure of a metal alloy in a way that cannot be duplicated. There is no present scientific explanation as to how he did this." (This is the first research related to parapsychology conducted at a US Government facility to have been released for publication by the US Department of Defence).
Eldon Byrd (US Naval Surface Weapons Centre, Maryland - U.S.A.)
My greatest concern, is not that we might be missing some physical property unknown to science or even that I cannot personally bend spoons/know when cars are going to turn left, but that idiots like Randi, who clearly simply refuse to accept alternatives to their world-view, have so much influence. Perhaps its for the good, I don't know, but it is certainly not good science, and it is not good that the majority of people appear to be being misinformed.