Serious question about ESP (I don't mean psychic or anything silly)

[bdk3clash]

Naphand:

Obviously you have done a ton of research, reading, and thinking about these types of things, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm out of my depth responding to a lot of your assertions.

Having said that, a few of your statements stood out to me as less-than-accurate or, at the least, ambiguous to me.

Other than that, I'm cool "agreeing to disagree" and all, but I have to say, I remain unconvinced--as I'm sure you do for most of the things I've said. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
If you cannot see the transparently flawed thinking behind these statements (from James *The Amazing* Randi - a man who specialises in misleading the public) then you are in no position to understand their implications either.

[/ QUOTE ]

This strikes me as an ad-hominem attack. Not once did I attack ESP (etc.) believers--I don't really think this is fair.

[ QUOTE ]
Application of Occams' Razor - we don't need it therefore we ignore it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a reasonable application of Occam's Razor.

[ QUOTE ]
When scicop comes across evidence they cannot refute - they bury it and refuse to discuss it, and worse. That this organisation has any credibility whatsoever, is a damning indictment of the nature of so-called *scientific progress* and the entrenched attitudes of the scientific community.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a previous post, you posted a link to an article by an author who dissented with the conclusion of a previously published "Sketpcial Inquirer" article. Does this strike you as the actions of a group of people who "bury" and "refuse to discuss" dissenting opinions?

[ QUOTE ]
"if, for one answer to be true, well-established laws of logic and science must be re-written, ignored, or suspended in order to allow it to be true, and for the other answer to be true no such accomodation need be made, then the simpler--the second--of the two answers is much more likely to be correct."

Yeah - I'm pretty sure Einstein ran into plenty of people with these kind of ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, this old chestnut. Since Einstein himself encountered "violent opposition" to his ideas, then many/most/all/some ideas that encounter opposition must be true!

[ QUOTE ]
Note that "more likely to be correct" does not "=BS" it just means "less likely". And in fact in just means "less likely from our present level of understanding".

[/ QUOTE ]

No--the definition is "much less likely."


[ QUOTE ]
And finally:

"I've read "Skeptical Inquirer" for years, and I haven't found any article that shows how an event can be replicated, and then concludes that the event could only have happened that way."

Really? Why then, is this Randi's standard approach to debunking so-called "paranormal" phenomena on his TV appearances?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know--seems pretty reasonable to me. If someone makes a claim ("I can bend spoons with my mind"), and then Randi shows another way it can be done, I guess it's up to the viewer to believe what he wants to believe.

As Randi points out, if people are bending spoons with their minds, they're doing it the hard way. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
His particular relationship, and totally unscientific hatred, of Uri Geller is a case in point. While I find Geller "interesting" I am not in a position to confirm or refute his claims, though the fact he has made millions using his powers for the benefit of mining companies is itself a level of vindication (they would not have employed him if he could not supply the "goods").

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, the notion that Geller has made millions from mining companies is completely unsubstantiated by anyone other than Geller himself. Conveniently, Geller claims that these deals are so super-duper top-secret that he can't divulge any information about them.

Secondly, let's say that Geller has in fact received millions of dollars from mining companies. Do you really take this as any level of "vindication" that Geller has "the goods?"

[ QUOTE ]
But Randi uses a conjuring trick to bend spoons on TV in front of live audiences, and claims that, because he has duplicated Gellers "tricks" on TV, they are in fact also just conjuring tricks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, take it for what it's worth. Geller bends spoons, Randi bends spoons in an identical manner (from the tapes I have seen.) Geller claims to do so using telekinetic powers, Randi claims to do so using simple conjuring tricks.

Maybe Randi is the one that's lying! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]