Good show, I was surprised it was on Fox. The people they had on defending the topics were really annoying and in the end I'd say the skeptics won every time.
I accept the value of skepticism, logic, etc. I use these daily. However, to dismiss everything as nonsense is, well, nonsensical.
Is there irrefutable proof that it is all nonsense? Of course not, otherwise there would be no reason to believe it.
Philosophically speaking, skepticism is self-defeating, as demonstrated by "greatwhitmonkey". And Positivism, the dominant paradigm of the western world, is illogical.
Also, regarding "skeptics". To question the truth of something is being skeptical and i believe very healthy. To doubt the truth of something is to express that you are biased and believe contrary. Most "skeptics" pick a side in a question they admit cannot be falsified. Choosing sides on an unsolved question is not taking the side of truth.
I will undoubtedly be buried, the "skeptics" will take offense. If you bury me, i challenge you to demonstrate the error in my thinking.
I watched this badly explained strawman argument video through point #5. Admittedly I gave up after that. Possibly, point #6 or beyond, which I didn't see, may have included something about Randi bashing with a baseball bat anyone who applied for this contest (though I doubt it).
You might want to find a better example of why demanding extraordinary proof when someone makes extraordinary claims is a bad thing. Because this goofy video ain't it.
Being sceptical is not so much about choosing a side, its about wanting some proof before choosing a side. Im sceptical that God exists, but if he comes down and says hi I will be willing to believe in him.
I think that believing in god without personal proof is nonsense. People get indoctrinated from a young age or it suits their purposes to believe certain things. Often they are not given the chance to be sceptical.
Obviously no one can know that all psychics are frauds. So yes he is just as foolish as someone who believes something without proof.
I am skeptical of the existence of god as well but if he/she/it did appear before me a simple "Hi, I'm God." is not gonna cut it. I've not yet thought of a way to test if this being was a god, the god, or otherwise which contributes even more to my skepticism of the existence of such a thing. As such I don't believe there really is one/many.
These are too complex to go into in this medium but I'll try.
Point #1:
* The claim: No one has made the preliminary challenge although even though "gifted mediums and psychics" have produced brilliant paranormal evidence when tested at the Windrich(?) institute.
Although I'm not clear what this guy is claiming, he seems to be saying that this Windrich evidence should be enough for James Randi. This makes no sense. This is Randi's test. Why shouldn't he see this evidence first hand without having to take someone else's word on the matter.
Point #2:
* The contest isn't legally enforceable, is this claim. The claim is further that the applicant has to sign something saying they won't file suit against James Randi.
So is the guy in the video claiming that no one has taken this test because they don't have the right to file a law suit, or because the test isn't legally enforceable and therefore James Randi might not pay them their million bucks when they pass the test?
I can't speak for everyone but if I could demonstrate the ability to bend spoons with my mind, I'd take a shot at this and risk that Randi wouldn't pay me and I could make a laughing-stock of him.
Point #3:
* The claim here is that the challenge is unfair because it is not "put under oath" nor is it "subject to perjury laws." I couldn't make out exactly what the guy in the video said between "...the applicant..." and "...the court could send(?) Randi up to five, six years in jail."
I have no idea what his complaint is here. Is this related to point #2 where the video guy is afraid Randi will bailout on the million dollar payment? Or is he claiming that James Randi will lie when confronted with the "truth" of paranormal ability? In either event this is nothing more than a manufactured argument based on nothing.
Point #4:
* This is my favorite claim: "A close-minded skeptic will always obtain negative results."
This is so silly I'm not sure I know what to say about it. Does this mean that if I really don't believe in electricity then my toaster will stop working?
Point #5:
* "James Randi does not have the capacity to perceive the paranormal through empirical equanimity," our video guy tells us.
So the only people who can properly judge a person who claims to be a clairvoyant are those who believe in the paranormal?
It might be acceptable for a medical doctor to claim that only another medical professional can fully understand why high blood pressure is bad. But in most cases this would be based on a limitation of education; not a difficult-to-define ability to perceive. To claim that only someone who is paranormal can decide whether the bends-spoons-with-his-mind guy really used brain waves is just nonsense.
Not at all. I've never met the guy. For all I know he's a conniving jerk who'd push his own mother down the stairs for a quick buck.
But that doesn't alter the basic tenet that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Without that we can all run around and make all the wild-arsed claims we wish but it doesn't change what is.
Not that I do not agree there is value to skepticism but this guy is clearly a moron. He is stating things as fact that are clearly not facts. His whole proof of skepticism is to make assumptions. Assumptions are not proof.
He is basically disproving something by saying well for it to have happened, A would have had to happen. Then he states A did not happen (even thought there is no proof that it did not happen), so it must be wrong. The fact here is that just goes you do not know how or if something took place, does not mean it did not happen. Simply put the philosophical thought "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" For this analogy , he is basically saying that the tree did not make a sound because he never heard it.
wow, that priest is clearly out his mind. He said that the fact that he can choose love and things blah blah.. basically what he said was that because humans have self awareness that proves God exists. Question here is HUH, how does that prove that?
There is a common thread that runs through your complaints. You seem to believe that Mr Randi is a) honest, b) immune to observation bias, c) is actually willing to part with the money.
I have read the challenge before, and most of this lawyers points are correct, according to what is published about the challenge.
What happens when you use a little skepticism towards Mr Randi? You may be surprised by the results.
greatwhitmonkeyFeb 12, 2012Buried
I really doubt there is any value in skepticism...
jboyd88Feb 12, 2012Buried
Good show, I was surprised it was on Fox. The people they had on defending the topics were really annoying and in the end I'd say the skeptics won every time.
norman619Feb 12, 2012Buried
I see what you did there....
ammattikiFeb 12, 2012Buried
Why do psychics need proof, but they dont ask for proof of god.
isuzu14bFeb 12, 2012Buried
I accept the value of skepticism, logic, etc. I use these daily. However, to dismiss everything as nonsense is, well, nonsensical.
Is there irrefutable proof that it is all nonsense? Of course not, otherwise there would be no reason to believe it.
Philosophically speaking, skepticism is self-defeating, as demonstrated by "greatwhitmonkey". And Positivism, the dominant paradigm of the western world, is illogical.
Also, regarding "skeptics". To question the truth of something is being skeptical and i believe very healthy. To doubt the truth of something is to express that you are biased and believe contrary. Most "skeptics" pick a side in a question they admit cannot be falsified. Choosing sides on an unsolved question is not taking the side of truth.
I will undoubtedly be buried, the "skeptics" will take offense. If you bury me, i challenge you to demonstrate the error in my thinking.
isuzu14bFeb 12, 2012Buried
Do you say things like, "believing in god is nonsense"?
If not, then you get it. It is healthy to not know.
But people like James Randi "know" that psychics are frauds. Do you see the error?
rrouseFeb 12, 2012Buried
How would you recognize God if you saw him? Perhaps there are God-like Beings.
16x9Feb 12, 2012Buried
I watched this badly explained strawman argument video through point #5. Admittedly I gave up after that. Possibly, point #6 or beyond, which I didn't see, may have included something about Randi bashing with a baseball bat anyone who applied for this contest (though I doubt it).
You might want to find a better example of why demanding extraordinary proof when someone makes extraordinary claims is a bad thing. Because this goofy video ain't it.
norman619Feb 12, 2012Buried
Huh?
ammattikiFeb 12, 2012Buried
Being sceptical is not so much about choosing a side, its about wanting some proof before choosing a side. Im sceptical that God exists, but if he comes down and says hi I will be willing to believe in him.
ammattikiFeb 12, 2012Buried
I think that believing in god without personal proof is nonsense. People get indoctrinated from a young age or it suits their purposes to believe certain things. Often they are not given the chance to be sceptical.
Obviously no one can know that all psychics are frauds. So yes he is just as foolish as someone who believes something without proof.
downshiftdxFeb 12, 2012Buried
I am skeptical of the existence of god as well but if he/she/it did appear before me a simple "Hi, I'm God." is not gonna cut it. I've not yet thought of a way to test if this being was a god, the god, or otherwise which contributes even more to my skepticism of the existence of such a thing. As such I don't believe there really is one/many.
mu5qularFeb 12, 2012Buried
Q
16x9Feb 12, 2012Buried
These are too complex to go into in this medium but I'll try.
Point #1:
* The claim: No one has made the preliminary challenge although even though "gifted mediums and psychics" have produced brilliant paranormal evidence when tested at the Windrich(?) institute.
Although I'm not clear what this guy is claiming, he seems to be saying that this Windrich evidence should be enough for James Randi. This makes no sense. This is Randi's test. Why shouldn't he see this evidence first hand without having to take someone else's word on the matter.
Point #2:
* The contest isn't legally enforceable, is this claim. The claim is further that the applicant has to sign something saying they won't file suit against James Randi.
So is the guy in the video claiming that no one has taken this test because they don't have the right to file a law suit, or because the test isn't legally enforceable and therefore James Randi might not pay them their million bucks when they pass the test?
I can't speak for everyone but if I could demonstrate the ability to bend spoons with my mind, I'd take a shot at this and risk that Randi wouldn't pay me and I could make a laughing-stock of him.
Point #3:
* The claim here is that the challenge is unfair because it is not "put under oath" nor is it "subject to perjury laws." I couldn't make out exactly what the guy in the video said between "...the applicant..." and "...the court could send(?) Randi up to five, six years in jail."
I have no idea what his complaint is here. Is this related to point #2 where the video guy is afraid Randi will bailout on the million dollar payment? Or is he claiming that James Randi will lie when confronted with the "truth" of paranormal ability? In either event this is nothing more than a manufactured argument based on nothing.
Point #4:
* This is my favorite claim: "A close-minded skeptic will always obtain negative results."
This is so silly I'm not sure I know what to say about it. Does this mean that if I really don't believe in electricity then my toaster will stop working?
Point #5:
* "James Randi does not have the capacity to perceive the paranormal through empirical equanimity," our video guy tells us.
So the only people who can properly judge a person who claims to be a clairvoyant are those who believe in the paranormal?
It might be acceptable for a medical doctor to claim that only another medical professional can fully understand why high blood pressure is bad. But in most cases this would be based on a limitation of education; not a difficult-to-define ability to perceive. To claim that only someone who is paranormal can decide whether the bends-spoons-with-his-mind guy really used brain waves is just nonsense.
16x9Feb 12, 2012Buried
Not at all. I've never met the guy. For all I know he's a conniving jerk who'd push his own mother down the stairs for a quick buck.
But that doesn't alter the basic tenet that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Without that we can all run around and make all the wild-arsed claims we wish but it doesn't change what is.
sbuckley00Feb 13, 2012Buried
Not that I do not agree there is value to skepticism but this guy is clearly a moron. He is stating things as fact that are clearly not facts. His whole proof of skepticism is to make assumptions. Assumptions are not proof.
He is basically disproving something by saying well for it to have happened, A would have had to happen. Then he states A did not happen (even thought there is no proof that it did not happen), so it must be wrong. The fact here is that just goes you do not know how or if something took place, does not mean it did not happen. Simply put the philosophical thought "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" For this analogy , he is basically saying that the tree did not make a sound because he never heard it.
sbuckley00Feb 13, 2012Buried
because** not goes
sbuckley00Feb 13, 2012Buried
wow, that priest is clearly out his mind. He said that the fact that he can choose love and things blah blah.. basically what he said was that because humans have self awareness that proves God exists. Question here is HUH, how does that prove that?
isuzu14bFeb 12, 2012Buried
Could you please elaborate as to how Mr Randi has been misrepresented by the man in the video?
isuzu14bFeb 12, 2012Buried
Im not seeing the strawman,
There is a common thread that runs through your complaints. You seem to believe that Mr Randi is a) honest, b) immune to observation bias, c) is actually willing to part with the money.
I have read the challenge before, and most of this lawyers points are correct, according to what is published about the challenge.
What happens when you use a little skepticism towards Mr Randi? You may be surprised by the results.