You've heard of Uri Gellar, re: bending spoons....

[Monstrous Mike]

I ran across an interesting take on Uri Gellar's ability to bend spoons with his mind. It is actually quite funny.

Source from randi.org but original source unknown:

"Mr. Geller's claim to fame is that he can bend spoons with his mind. Oh sure, he claims a lot of other kookery, but it's the spoon-bending that most people know him for. He purports to be able to bend a spoon just by concentrating on it. Let's assume for the moment that he really can do this feat. Some observations about it:

1) His method is inefficient. It's not like before Uri came along, we were wondering how on earth we'd get a spoon bent. If the need for a bent spoon arose, we'd grab it in our two hands and bend it, simple as that. We didn't have to concentrate very hard on the task.

2) His method is slow. The "grab it with both hands and bend" method of bending spoons is demonstrably faster than the "concentrate and rub" method.

3) His method is unreliable. Believers in psychic ability call this the "sheep and goats effect." For some reason, when a skeptic is in the room or scientific controls are in place that would eliminate cheating, the spoon will fail to bend through mind power alone. Sometimes the "vibes" aren't right. However, the no-rubbing grab-and-bend method works independently of vibes, regardless of how many people in the room doubt it will work.

4) Most importantly, people don't need spoons bent. In fact, the optimal configuration for a spoon is un-bent. The only purpose for bending a spoon I can think of, is demonstrating one's psychic abilities. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't think of a single time I've needed a bent spoon. Fortunately, although I'm not psychic, should the occasion arise, I'm pretty sure I could bend one with just my hands.

So in conclusion — this man enjoys fame and, I presume, wealth, because he has a slow, inefficient, and unreliable method for accomplishing a task that no one needs done..."

[pctower]

I ran across an interesting take on Uri Gellar's ability to bend spoons with his mind. It is actually quite funny.

Source from randi.org but original source unknown:

"Mr. Geller's claim to fame is that he can bend spoons with his mind. Oh sure, he claims a lot of other kookery, but it's the spoon-bending that most people know him for. He purports to be able to bend a spoon just by concentrating on it. Let's assume for the moment that he really can do this feat. Some observations about it:

1) His method is inefficient. It's not like before Uri came along, we were wondering how on earth we'd get a spoon bent. If the need for a bent spoon arose, we'd grab it in our two hands and bend it, simple as that. We didn't have to concentrate very hard on the task.

2) His method is slow. The "grab it with both hands and bend" method of bending spoons is demonstrably faster than the "concentrate and rub" method.

3) His method is unreliable. Believers in psychic ability call this the "sheep and goats effect." For some reason, when a skeptic is in the room or scientific controls are in place that would eliminate cheating, the spoon will fail to bend through mind power alone. Sometimes the "vibes" aren't right. However, the no-rubbing grab-and-bend method works independently of vibes, regardless of how many people in the room doubt it will work.

4) Most importantly, people don't need spoons bent. In fact, the optimal configuration for a spoon is un-bent. The only purpose for bending a spoon I can think of, is demonstrating one's psychic abilities. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't think of a single time I've needed a bent spoon. Fortunately, although I'm not psychic, should the occasion arise, I'm pretty sure I could bend one with just my hands.

So in conclusion — this man enjoys fame and, I presume, wealth, because he has a slow, inefficient, and unreliable method for accomplishing a task that no one needs done..."

You love humor. What about this:

Secrets of the Skeptics

How to Become a Media Skeptic

by Guy Lyon Playfair

Need a second income? Then why not become a Media Skeptic, one of those who pop up on our screens almost daily to assure us that "the paranormal" (or psi, as it is known in the trade) doesn't exist? You don't need any qualifications, though it helps if you have a degree in psychology, Just stick to these guidelines:

Make it clear that psi (which includes telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis and precognition) doesn't exist, because it is impossible. It is "bad science" to claim that it does. You can quote such respectable authorities as the following:
Professor Peter Atkins. "Serious scientists have got real things to think about - we don't have time to waste on claims which we know both in our hearts and heads must be nonsense." ( Counterblast, BBC2, 23 April 1998).
Dr Susan Blackmore. "I think we have strange experiences we can't explain and jump to the conclusion they're paranormal." ( Desert Island Discs, BBC Radio 4, 3 May 1998).
Professor Richard Dawkins. "The paranormal is bunk. Those who try to sell it to us are fakes and charlatans." ( Sunday Mirror, 8 February 1998).
Professor David Deutsch. " The evidence for the existence of telepathy is appalling...Telepathy simply does not exist." ( The Observer, 30 September 2001).
Professor Nicholas Humphrey. "The idea that quantum physics explains the paranormal is an unnecessary idea, because there's nothing to explain... We haven't got any evidence." ( Today, BBC Radio 4, 2 October 2001).
James Randi (a conjuror). "There is no firm evidence for the existence of telepathy, ESP or whatever we want to call it." ( ibid. )

* * *

Explain, as patronisingly as you can, that although there is a lot of what might be mistaken for evidence for telepathy and other psi phenomena, it isn't "real" evidence. Point out that "more careful researchers" have challenged it. Never mind who, where, on what grounds, or how convincingly. In skeptic-speak, challenging or questioning the evidence equals disproving it conclusively.

(In fact, as has been shown on numerous occasions, "more careful" psi researchers have questioned the sayings or writings of skeptical debunkers and torn them to pieces. Examples will be given on this website in due course)

Avoid any actual discussion of the evidence for psi if you possibly can, but if you can't avoid it,, concentrate on the weakest or the craziest you can find, such as the latest alien abduction, crop circle, Californian channeller, pop astrologer or Bigfoot sighting.


* * *

There are some researchers, such as J.B.Rhine, whose work is not so easy to dismiss. Neither Rhine's personal integrity nor the reliability of his statistical methods have ever been seriously challenged, So what should you do? Simple. Explain that he "might have been hoodwinked" by all those clever magicians who were disguised as his laboratory subjects. There's no evidence that he was, but it sounds good to suggest that he might have been, and of course nobody can disprove this. Read the classic of skeptical revisionist non-explanation, C.E.M.Hansel's error-riddled book ESP and Parapsychology: A critical reevaluation (New York: Prometheus, 1980) to see just how bizarre criticisms can be - Hansel even has one of Rhine's card-guessers clambering up to the attic and peering through a non-existent trap door at the card! You can learn a lot from Hansel, a master of the mud-slinging school. Never mind if there is no evidence at all that such-and-such an individual misbehaved in any way. If you need some damning evidence and there isn't any, just make some up.

* * *

If you're a magician, as many hard-line skeptics are, state that psi experiments are worthless unless they are supervised by a magician. You should give the impression that magicians are too smart to be fooled, which of course is not true. If it was, why would they pay each other such large sums of money for the secrets of their tricks?

If somebody mentions Uri Geller, claim that magicians can duplicate his entire repertoire. This is not true, but it sounds good. At least twenty professional magicians have stated that they cannot explain what they saw Uri do. One has even issued a public challenge (BBC Radio 5, 14 December 1993) to any of his colleagues who can repeat what he witnessed. No takers as yet.

Keep your fingers crossed and hope that nobody points out that Geller has pulled off one feat that few magicians, if any, have ever duplicated. He has become a millionaire.


* * *

If somebody mentions all those distinguished scientists and academics from Crookes, Lodge, Richet, the Curies, Bergson, Jung, McDougall, William James and Lord Rayleigh to contemporaries like Brian Josephson, Bernard Carr and Donald West, point out as patronisingly as you can that an expert in one field is not necessarily an expert in another field, such as psi research.


Skeptics, on the other hand are by implication experts on everything


* * *

Don't forget that old "desperate will to believe" argument, which applies to anybody who has ever reported positive results of a psi experiment. The implication should be that they have fiddled the data to make the results look positive, whereas "more careful" skeptics (more often than not Dr Susan Blackmore or Dr Richard Wiseman) have shown that in fact they are negative.

Avoid any suggestion that skeptics have a desperate will not to believe, as is clearly the case with some. In an exchange of letters with Henry Bauer, editor of the excellent Journal of Scientific Exploration, Kendrick Frazier, editor of the Skeptical Inquirer has candidly admitted that (in Bauer's words) "the magazine's purpose is not to consider what the best evidence for anmalous claims might be but to argue against them". ( JSE, vol. 3 no. 1, 1989).


* * *

Adopt the combine-harvester approach to reports of any kind of psi phenomenon, or indeed to any kind of inexplicable or anomalous one, and keep it simple, as in this pronouncement by authors Simon Hoggart and Mike Hutchinson, from their book Bizarre Beliefs


"The terrible truth is that there are no ghosts, no poltergeists, and no hauntings. They are all mistaken, imaginary, or fakes."

* * *

You can get away with the most massive whoppers, especially on TV, if you manage to sound as if you know what you're talking about when you don't. A perfect example was provided by the narrator of Channel 4's Secrets of the Psychics (24 August 1997), which included examples of all the guidelines listed here:


"With one exception, all practising mediums were exposed as frauds or confessed."

The narrator forgot to mention who the one exception was. Among mediums who never confessed to anything and were not exposed as frauds were D.D.Home, Lenora Piper, Mrs Willett, Eileen Garrett, Rudi Schneider, Franek Kluski, the half-dozen members of the Cross Correspondence team, Stefan Ossowiecki, Pamela Curran and Chico Xavier.


* * *

It is a good idea to pretend that you are an honest, open-minded seeker after the truth but be careful not to go too far, as Professor Richard Dawkins did in his Richard Dimbleby Lecture (BBC1, 12 November 1996):


"The popularity of the paranormal, oddly enough, might even be grounds for encouragement. I think that the appetite for mystery, the enthusiasm for that which we don't understand, are healthy and to be fostered. It's the same appetite which drives the best of true science."

There could not be a clearer summary of what drives the great majority of parapsychologists.


* * *

Finally, you can always win some popular sympathy with the good old "dangers of dabbling in the occult" ploy. Suggest that actually doing any research into psi phenomena or other anomalies can only lead to another Jonestown massacre, Heaven's Gate mass suicide, or Third Reich.

Put all this sound advice into practice, and you'll be media superstars, my son and daughter.

Seems like he's describing the typical naysayer on AR.

The great Randi doesn't seem to certain as to the details of his test:

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0106/05/lkl.00.html

Of interest also:

http://www.rense.com/general32/telep.htm

http://www.marius.net/challenge.html

You love sites such as randi.org

I'm sure as the "objective" engineer that you are, you have fully investigated the other side:

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org

[Monstrous Mike]

Maybe Mtrycrafts is James Randi?

I'm more and more beginning to take the stance of "so what?". Just like the guy in my post. Even if the Uri can bend a spoon with his mind, so what? If Aunt Edna can talk with her dead relatives, so what? Two guys can talk telepathically, so what? Somebody can turn a rock over with his mind, so what?

You know what would be useful? If a guy like Uri Gellar could free a guy from a car wreck before the firemen got there with the jaws of life. Or if John Edwards could talk with Jonas Salk to see if he has any ideas for an AIDs vaccine. That would be useful. Teach me how to communicate with my wife telepathically so I can get rid of my goddamn cellphone. That would be useful. Get a guy who can read minds to work in airport security. That would be useful.

So there you have my warped view of the world. Either it's useful or it's entertainment. Spend your time and money accordingly.

Although, it would be nice if somebody published a guide which distinguishes reality from fantasy entertainment but who could really trust a guy like that?

[Pat D]

You love humor. What about this:

Secrets of the Skeptics

How to Become a Media Skeptic

by Guy Lyon Playfair

Need a second income? Then why not become a Media Skeptic, one of those who pop up on our screens almost daily to assure us that "the paranormal" (or psi, as it is known in the trade) doesn't exist? You don't need any qualifications, though it helps if you have a degree in psychology, Just stick to these guidelines:

Make it clear that psi (which includes telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis and precognition) doesn't exist, because it is impossible. It is "bad science" to claim that it does. You can quote such respectable authorities as the following:
Professor Peter Atkins. "Serious scientists have got real things to think about - we don't have time to waste on claims which we know both in our hearts and heads must be nonsense." ( Counterblast, BBC2, 23 April 1998).
Dr Susan Blackmore. "I think we have strange experiences we can't explain and jump to the conclusion they're paranormal." ( Desert Island Discs, BBC Radio 4, 3 May 1998).
Professor Richard Dawkins. "The paranormal is bunk. Those who try to sell it to us are fakes and charlatans." ( Sunday Mirror, 8 February 1998).
Professor David Deutsch. " The evidence for the existence of telepathy is appalling...Telepathy simply does not exist." ( The Observer, 30 September 2001).
Professor Nicholas Humphrey. "The idea that quantum physics explains the paranormal is an unnecessary idea, because there's nothing to explain... We haven't got any evidence." ( Today, BBC Radio 4, 2 October 2001).
James Randi (a conjuror). "There is no firm evidence for the existence of telepathy, ESP or whatever we want to call it." ( ibid. )

* * *

Explain, as patronisingly as you can, that although there is a lot of what might be mistaken for evidence for telepathy and other psi phenomena, it isn't "real" evidence. Point out that "more careful researchers" have challenged it. Never mind who, where, on what grounds, or how convincingly. In skeptic-speak, challenging or questioning the evidence equals disproving it conclusively.

(In fact, as has been shown on numerous occasions, "more careful" psi researchers have questioned the sayings or writings of skeptical debunkers and torn them to pieces. Examples will be given on this website in due course)

Avoid any actual discussion of the evidence for psi if you possibly can, but if you can't avoid it,, concentrate on the weakest or the craziest you can find, such as the latest alien abduction, crop circle, Californian channeller, pop astrologer or Bigfoot sighting.


* * *

There are some researchers, such as J.B.Rhine, whose work is not so easy to dismiss. Neither Rhine's personal integrity nor the reliability of his statistical methods have ever been seriously challenged, So what should you do? Simple. Explain that he "might have been hoodwinked" by all those clever magicians who were disguised as his laboratory subjects. There's no evidence that he was, but it sounds good to suggest that he might have been, and of course nobody can disprove this. Read the classic of skeptical revisionist non-explanation, C.E.M.Hansel's error-riddled book ESP and Parapsychology: A critical reevaluation (New York: Prometheus, 1980) to see just how bizarre criticisms can be - Hansel even has one of Rhine's card-guessers clambering up to the attic and peering through a non-existent trap door at the card! You can learn a lot from Hansel, a master of the mud-slinging school. Never mind if there is no evidence at all that such-and-such an individual misbehaved in any way. If you need some damning evidence and there isn't any, just make some up.

* * *

If you're a magician, as many hard-line skeptics are, state that psi experiments are worthless unless they are supervised by a magician. You should give the impression that magicians are too smart to be fooled, which of course is not true. If it was, why would they pay each other such large sums of money for the secrets of their tricks?

If somebody mentions Uri Geller, claim that magicians can duplicate his entire repertoire. This is not true, but it sounds good. At least twenty professional magicians have stated that they cannot explain what they saw Uri do. One has even issued a public challenge (BBC Radio 5, 14 December 1993) to any of his colleagues who can repeat what he witnessed. No takers as yet.

Keep your fingers crossed and hope that nobody points out that Geller has pulled off one feat that few magicians, if any, have ever duplicated. He has become a millionaire.


* * *

If somebody mentions all those distinguished scientists and academics from Crookes, Lodge, Richet, the Curies, Bergson, Jung, McDougall, William James and Lord Rayleigh to contemporaries like Brian Josephson, Bernard Carr and Donald West, point out as patronisingly as you can that an expert in one field is not necessarily an expert in another field, such as psi research.


Skeptics, on the other hand are by implication experts on everything


* * *

Don't forget that old "desperate will to believe" argument, which applies to anybody who has ever reported positive results of a psi experiment. The implication should be that they have fiddled the data to make the results look positive, whereas "more careful" skeptics (more often than not Dr Susan Blackmore or Dr Richard Wiseman) have shown that in fact they are negative.

Avoid any suggestion that skeptics have a desperate will not to believe, as is clearly the case with some. In an exchange of letters with Henry Bauer, editor of the excellent Journal of Scientific Exploration, Kendrick Frazier, editor of the Skeptical Inquirer has candidly admitted that (in Bauer's words) "the magazine's purpose is not to consider what the best evidence for anmalous claims might be but to argue against them". ( JSE, vol. 3 no. 1, 1989).


* * *

Adopt the combine-harvester approach to reports of any kind of psi phenomenon, or indeed to any kind of inexplicable or anomalous one, and keep it simple, as in this pronouncement by authors Simon Hoggart and Mike Hutchinson, from their book Bizarre Beliefs


"The terrible truth is that there are no ghosts, no poltergeists, and no hauntings. They are all mistaken, imaginary, or fakes."

* * *

You can get away with the most massive whoppers, especially on TV, if you manage to sound as if you know what you're talking about when you don't. A perfect example was provided by the narrator of Channel 4's Secrets of the Psychics (24 August 1997), which included examples of all the guidelines listed here:


"With one exception, all practising mediums were exposed as frauds or confessed."

The narrator forgot to mention who the one exception was. Among mediums who never confessed to anything and were not exposed as frauds were D.D.Home, Lenora Piper, Mrs Willett, Eileen Garrett, Rudi Schneider, Franek Kluski, the half-dozen members of the Cross Correspondence team, Stefan Ossowiecki, Pamela Curran and Chico Xavier.


* * *

It is a good idea to pretend that you are an honest, open-minded seeker after the truth but be careful not to go too far, as Professor Richard Dawkins did in his Richard Dimbleby Lecture (BBC1, 12 November 1996):


"The popularity of the paranormal, oddly enough, might even be grounds for encouragement. I think that the appetite for mystery, the enthusiasm for that which we don't understand, are healthy and to be fostered. It's the same appetite which drives the best of true science."

There could not be a clearer summary of what drives the great majority of parapsychologists.


* * *

Finally, you can always win some popular sympathy with the good old "dangers of dabbling in the occult" ploy. Suggest that actually doing any research into psi phenomena or other anomalies can only lead to another Jonestown massacre, Heaven's Gate mass suicide, or Third Reich.

Put all this sound advice into practice, and you'll be media superstars, my son and daughter.

Seems like he's describing the typical naysayer on AR.

The great Randi doesn't seem to certain as to the details of his test:

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0106/05/lkl.00.html

Of interest also:

http://www.rense.com/general32/telep.htm

http://www.marius.net/challenge.html

You love sites such as randi.org

I'm sure as the "objective" engineer that you are, you have fully investigated the other side:

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org

Ho hum. If you want to investigate the "other side," we have to ask "The other side of what?" I presume the question is whether there is any good evidence for various things listed as paranorma phenomena. James Randi says there doesn't seem to be. Guy Lyon Playfair doesn't present any in that article.

As for Randi, he comes across as the perfect sceptic and nothing in the quotes Mr. Playfair provides from Blackmore and Humphrey does either. He does not attempt to prove the negative, nor does he attempt label people like Altea on Larry King as frauds. Altea proposes that herself, with a singular lack of logic, the particular fallacy being incomplete enumeration of the possibilites.

Actually, I can bend a spoon with my mind, too. Nothing in that formulation implies I can't use my own muscles or use tools to do so.

[pctower]

Ho hum. If you want to investigate the "other side," we have to ask "The other side of what?" I presume the question is whether there is any good evidence for various things listed as paranorma phenomena. James Randi says there doesn't seem to be. Guy Lyon Playfair doesn't present any in that article.

As for Randi, he comes across as the perfect sceptic and nothing in the quotes Mr. Playfair provides from Blackmore and Humphrey does either. He does not attempt to prove the negative, nor does he attempt label people like Altea on Larry King as frauds. Altea proposes that herself, with a singular lack of logic, the particular fallacy being incomplete enumeration of the possibilites.

Actually, I can bend a spoon with my mind, too. Nothing in that formulation implies I can't use my own muscles or use tools to do so.

Ho Hum is right. I'm not the one that started the thread, nor am I the one that loves to talk about that great man of science, Dr. Randi. I have no interest in investigating any of this.

But MM seems to have more than a passing interest and I just wondered if he swallowed everything on Randi's site, including the fairness and validity of his "challenge", hook, line and sinker - I suspect he has as it all comports with the way he has already made up his mind on the subject.

I don't recall claiming that Mr. Playfair cited any evidence, so you must be confused and responding to a different post, in a different thread, on a different board.

[pctower]

Maybe Mtrycrafts is James Randi?

I'm more and more beginning to take the stance of "so what?". Just like the guy in my post. Even if the Uri can bend a spoon with his mind, so what? If Aunt Edna can talk with her dead relatives, so what? Two guys can talk telepathically, so what? Somebody can turn a rock over with his mind, so what?

You know what would be useful? If a guy like Uri Gellar could free a guy from a car wreck before the firemen got there with the jaws of life. Or if John Edwards could talk with Jonas Salk to see if he has any ideas for an AIDs vaccine. That would be useful. Teach me how to communicate with my wife telepathically so I can get rid of my goddamn cellphone. That would be useful. Get a guy who can read minds to work in airport security. That would be useful.

So there you have my warped view of the world. Either it's useful or it's entertainment. Spend your time and money accordingly.

Although, it would be nice if somebody published a guide which distinguishes reality from fantasy entertainment but who could really trust a guy like that?

Here's your guide:

NOTHING ON TV IS REAL - ESPECIALLY THE "REALITY" SHOWS.

BTW, I fell in love with B.C. I'm ready to move to Salt Spring Island. Seems that they don't have a single lawyer living on the island.

[Pat D]

Ho Hum is right. I'm not the one that started the thread, nor am I the one that loves to talk about that great man of science, Dr. Randi. I have no interest in investigating any of this.

But MM seems to have more than a passing interest and I just wondered if he swallowed everything on Randi's site, including the fairness and validity of his "challenge", hook, line and sinker - I suspect he has as it all comports with the way he has already made up his mind on the subject.

I don't recall claiming that Mr. Playfair cited any evidence, so you must be confused and responding to a different post, in a different thread, on a different board.

You definitely implied there was another side to something or other. What is it?

You know very well that MM is more sceptical than you imply and that your "hook, line and sinker" has no basis.

[pctower]

You definitely implied there was another side to something or other. What is it?

You know very well that MM is more sceptical than you imply and that your "hook, line and sinker" has no basis.

You definitely implied there was another side to something or other. What is it?

I didn't imply - I was pretty express about it. There's always the "other side" to anything - that doesn't NECESSARILY mean the "other side" has any particular validity.

But in the real world where human's live, there's disagreement about almost everything. If one is interested in a particular subject and there are conflicting views on that particular subject, my education taught me to explore all views and evidence and not reject out of hand BEFORE INVESTIGATION information coming from a source that I just happen to "know" can't have any validity.

You want to know what the "other side" has to say. Peruse the entire site. I did. Come to your own conclusions. I've got my own views on the subject, which I have not shared or even hinted at in this thread.

There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is contempt prior to investigation.

Herbert Spencer

[Pat D]

You definitely implied there was another side to something or other. What is it?

I didn't imply - I was pretty express about it. There's always the "other side" to anything - that doesn't NECESSARILY mean the "other side" has any particular validity.

But in the real world where human's live, there's disagreement about almost everything. If one is interested in a particular subject and there are conflicting views on that particular subject, my education taught me to explore all views and evidence and not reject out of hand BEFORE INVESTIGATION information coming from a source that I just happen to "know" can't have any validity.

You want to know what the "other side" has to say. Peruse the entire site. I did. Come to your own conclusions. I've got my own views on the subject, which I have not shared or even hinted at in this thread.

There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is contempt prior to investigation.

Herbert Spencer

Oh, now we're falling back on generalities. But you said there is an "other side" to something or other, but you refuse to tell me what that something or other is. Since you seem to have no idea what that something or other might be, I have no idea what I might be looking for on that site. Hence, I see no reason to take an interest in. This is the age of information overload, Phil, so I have to have some reason to start investigating, and here I so far have nothing real to investigate.

You and Playfair so far have given me no issue to investigate on which Randi and Playfair are supposed to disagree. As I already pointed out, Randi doesn't think there is any evidence for a number of so-called psychic phenomena and Playfair doesn't offer any in his article. No disagreement there. Randi doesn't deny the existence of psychic phenomena. No disagreement there. Sounds like Playfair is out trying to manufacture spurious controversies, just like you do.

[pctower]

Oh, now we're falling back on generalities. But you said there is an "other side" to something or other, but you refuse to tell me what that something or other is. Since you seem to have no idea what that something or other might be, I have no idea what I might be looking for on that site. Hence, I see no reason to take an interest in. This is the age of information overload, Phil, so I have to have some reason to start investigating, and here I so far have nothing real to investigate.

You and Playfair so far have given me no issue to investigate on which Randi and Playfair are supposed to disagree. As I already pointed out, Randi doesn't think there is any evidence for a number of so-called psychic phenomena and Playfair doesn't offer any in his article. No disagreement there. Randi doesn't deny the existence of psychic phenomena. No disagreement there. Sounds like Playfair is out trying to manufacture spurious controversies, just like you do.

You and Playfair so far have given me no issue to investigate on which Randi and Playfair are supposed to disagree. As I already pointed out, Randi doesn't think there is any evidence for a number of so-called psychic phenomena and Playfair doesn't offer any in his article. No disagreement there. Randi doesn't deny the existence of psychic phenomena. No disagreement there. Sounds like Playfair is out trying to manufacture spurious controversies, just like you do.

I haven't even tried to give you an issue to investigate. If I cared to I'd suggest you investigate whether there is any credible evidence to suggest that psychic powers exist or investigate whether Randi's challenge is fair and legitimate.

I personally don't care about what evidence may or may not exist. I personally believe from what I know that the existence of psychic phenomena is inconsistent with the nature of our universe and in all likelihood doesn't exist. If someone wants to go out of his way to provide me with evidence to the contrary then I might listen, but in terms of life priorities the whole issue of physic phenomena ranks just above root canals.

Occasionally, I watch people such as John Edwards and find them entertaining. And if they can do what they appear to do through cold reading I find that almost more incredible than if they actually had psychic abilities.

I noticed an article this morning that said Hawkings has reversed his 20-year position that matter which enters black holes actually vanishes from the black hole and passess out of our universe into sort of a sub-universe. He apparently observed that his change of position would no doubt come as a disappointment to science fiction fans.

The article also pointed out the many prominent physicists still believe Hawkings was right in the first place.

The universe is a complex place and way beyond my ability to comprehend. So I don't really try much. I leave that up to people like Michael Hawkings and people like MM who apparently cares about whether evidence for physic phenomena really exist.

MM's original post was intended as humor. I responded with my own example of humor and decided to tweak MM a little, because I know he is absolutely convinced he is a very objective person. I merely suggested that I thought a truly objective person who cared about things like psychic phenomena would want to investigate what all people who think about and write about such things in more than a passing fashion have to say on the subject.

That's all. No more - no less; despite how much you love to try to make me out to be a flat earther.

You're really no different than the Neaderthals I'm dealing with at this thread:

http://www.audioasylum.com/scripts/t...critics&m=1437

who believe that if one questions a claim or position taken by someone on one side of the fence then the questioner of necessirty must be wholly in the opposite camp (when in fact the questioner eschews both camps as being primarily dogma--based). You just approach it from the opposite side of the fence from the religious zealots over at AA.

[skeptic]

"But in the real world where human's live, there's disagreement about almost everything."

So how do you know which side is right?

If you are an attorney or an expert witness, that's easy. It's the side that's paying your fee.

[pctower]

"But in the real world where human's live, there's disagreement about almost everything."

So how do you know which side is right?

If you are an attorney or an expert witness, that's easy. It's the side that's paying your fee.

So how do you know which side is right?

For those issues I care about, I take the unusual and revolutionary approach of examining the arguments and evidence on both sides of an issue, determine if there is sufficient weight to accept the argument of one side or another and then make up my own mind.

Frequently, I find that both sides are arguing more from dogma or ego and are attempting to oversimplify a complex subject for purposes having little to do with a fearless and dispassionate search for the truth. Accordingly, I generally form an opinion that is independent of both sides.

If you are an attorney or an expert witness, that's easy. It's the side that's paying your fee.

And the jury of ordinary citizens who serve for all intents and purposes for no pay decide which side is right.

You have a suggestion of a better way for our society to settle disputes? Perhaps you would prefer to return to dueling? Better yet. Let's just do away with courts, the bill of rights, due process, judges and lawyers and just leave it up to the bureaucrats.

[Resident Loser]

...you know as well as I do that juries are made up of feebs who couldn't get out of it or pensioners who have nothing better to do(admittedly an over simplification)...in any case, most of 'em are idiots who are easily swayed by the new suit and haircut on the three-time loser and the glib tongue of some ambulance-chaser(present company excepted)...jury selection is like picking fruit a the greengrocer...looking for the ripe ones.

Why else do they do studies and have "advisors". It's more about psychology, demographics and such. Not to mention finding the place where the dumb@$$ law clerk didn't dot all the "i"s and cross all the "t"s...Justice! my foot...it's technicalities...a bigger pi$$ing match than this place...

"..do away with the lawyers..." and "...leave it up to the bureaucrats..."ROTFLMAO...Congress(the biggest buch of bureaucrats extant IMO) is full of lawyers...that's one of the reasons we're in the mess we are today.

jimHJJ(...and don't forget Slick Willie Esq. says : "..it all depends on what is is..."...)

[pctower]

...you know as well as I do that juries are made up of feebs who couldn't get out of it or pensioners who have nothing better to do(admittedly an over simplification)...in any case, most of 'em are idiots who are easily swayed by the new suit and haircut on the three-time loser and the glib tongue of some ambulance-chaser(present company excepted)...jury selection is like picking fruit a the greengrocer...looking for the ripe ones.

Why else do they do studies and have "advisors". It's more about psychology, demographics and such. Not to mention finding the place where the dumb@$$ law clerk didn't dot all the "i"s and cross all the "t"s...Justice! my foot...it's technicalities...a bigger pi$$ing match than this place...

"..do away with the lawyers..." and "...leave it up to the bureaucrats..."ROTFLMAO...Congress(the biggest buch of bureaucrats extant IMO) is full of lawyers...that's one of the reasons we're in the mess we are today.

jimHJJ(...and don't forget Slick Willie Esq. says : "..it all depends on what is is..."...)

that's one of the reasons we're in the mess we are today

There are only 1 or 2 lawyers in the Arizona legislature and they manage to create just as many, if not more, problems than does Congress.

Lawyers need clients. We're in trouble today because we live in a victim society and everyone rushes to the courts to solve problems that people used to solve on their own.

So it's obvious who is really to blame. The Democrats, of course.

[jneutron]

that's one of the reasons we're in the mess we are today

So it's obvious who is really to blame. The Democrats, of course.

Hee hee...good one, Phil. I don't agree, or disagree..but can still laugh..

Been a while..how ya been? We're doing very well, bicycling away....

Gonna head out that way in sept I think..details to come (meaning I'm not sure yet)

Saw the critics posts....thanks for stickin up for me..

Had John Leinhard here on the 11th...he gave a really interesting pair of talks..

First was the "boy genius" talk on sunday..he spoke of the Issue of pop mechanics showing a boy jumping off a cliff holding onto a hang glider (home made of course)...instructions on page 128 inside!!..and the various things in print that boy scientists could do...he lamented how todays society does not allow that to occur anymore..litigation vs. common sense..why would you print that vs. why would anyone jump off a cliff.

On Sunday, he spoke of the mind's eye and the eyes of the forehead..

Faraday was a mind's eye guy...he envisioned the e/m fields he drew of...

Maxwell was a forehead's eye guy...and he committed to math what he read from Faraday.

Interesting talks, both of them...

Psychics?....hmmm. John Edwards? I've watched him a few times...He's really amazed me...

I'm still trying to figure out why he'd make a good vice president, though...??? (he he)

Cheers, John

PS...is that I windmill I see??

[skeptic]

"We're in trouble today because we live in a victim society "

Ya know PC, if you're a lawyer, you really need to develop a thick skin. You love to play the victim yourself. Oh poor me, I'm just an honest attorney trying to make a living trying a case here and there and making a few comments once in a while and, here comes that guy from New Jersey who was born in the Bronx and raised in New York and every other day loves to poke his finger in my eye. How insensitive, how cruel, how inhumane. Hey Phil....poke poke poke. Consider yourself poked for today. I'll be back by Sunday.

[pctower]

"We're in trouble today because we live in a victim society "

Ya know PC, if you're a lawyer, you really need to develop a thick skin. You love to play the victim yourself. Oh poor me, I'm just an honest attorney trying to make a living trying a case here and there and making a few comments once in a while and, here comes that guy from New Jersey who was born in the Bronx and raised in New York and every other day loves to poke his finger in my eye. How insensitive, how cruel, how inhumane. Hey Phil....poke poke poke. Consider yourself poked for today. I'll be back by Sunday.

Boy, do you live in ego-centric fantasy world. You flatter yourself far too much.

No matter how much you may huff and puff and exert every effort you can muster to overcome your Bronx-bred ignorance and ill manners, you have not once landed a direct hit to either eye of this Arizona native - for that matter you have yet to even touch skin.

Come to think of it, you pretty much remind me of the old joke about the spastic trying to eat an ice cream cone.

[pctower]

Hee hee...good one, Phil. I don't agree, or disagree..but can still laugh..

Been a while..how ya been? We're doing very well, bicycling away....

Gonna head out that way in sept I think..details to come (meaning I'm not sure yet)

Saw the critics posts....thanks for stickin up for me..

Had John Leinhard here on the 11th...he gave a really interesting pair of talks..

First was the "boy genius" talk on sunday..he spoke of the Issue of pop mechanics showing a boy jumping off a cliff holding onto a hang glider (home made of course)...instructions on page 128 inside!!..and the various things in print that boy scientists could do...he lamented how todays society does not allow that to occur anymore..litigation vs. common sense..why would you print that vs. why would anyone jump off a cliff.

On Sunday, he spoke of the mind's eye and the eyes of the forehead..

Faraday was a mind's eye guy...he envisioned the e/m fields he drew of...

Maxwell was a forehead's eye guy...and he committed to math what he read from Faraday.

Interesting talks, both of them...

Psychics?....hmmm. John Edwards? I've watched him a few times...He's really amazed me...

I'm still trying to figure out why he'd make a good vice president, though...??? (he he)

Cheers, John

PS...is that I windmill I see??

Hi John:

Be sure and let me know if and when you might be in Phoenix. Would love to get together. Maybe I can locate a good palm reader for us to visit while you're here.

We just returned from a magical 10-day vacation in the Northwest. Started in Seattle, then in order: Orcas (San Juan Islands); Salt Spring Island (B.C.); Tofino (west coast of Vancouver Island; a quick tour of Victoria; and ended up spending the last night in Port Townsend back in Washington and our last lunch on a glorious day on Bainbridge Island looking across the bay at the incomparable Seattle skyline. One trip I will always remember.

I'll leave the bi-cycling to your imagination.

When I got your last e-mail I was about to respond by saying that AA was simply a lost cause and I just didn't have the stomach right now to keep up the battle. And then I saw that gushing post at Critic's Corner and couldn't resist. It never ceases to amaze me that people who obviously spent enough time in school learning the rudiments of constructing sentences and tying a few of them together could have so completely missed the thinking part of the school experience.

[Pat D]

You and Playfair so far have given me no issue to investigate on which Randi and Playfair are supposed to disagree. As I already pointed out, Randi doesn't think there is any evidence for a number of so-called psychic phenomena and Playfair doesn't offer any in his article. No disagreement there. Randi doesn't deny the existence of psychic phenomena. No disagreement there. Sounds like Playfair is out trying to manufacture spurious controversies, just like you do.

I haven't even tried to give you an issue to investigate. If I cared to I'd suggest you investigate whether there is any credible evidence to suggest that psychic powers exist or investigate whether Randi's challenge is fair and legitimate.

I personally don't care about what evidence may or may not exist. I personally believe from what I know that the existence of psychic phenomena is inconsistent with the nature of our universe and in all likelihood doesn't exist. If someone wants to go out of his way to provide me with evidence to the contrary then I might listen, but in terms of life priorities the whole issue of physic phenomena ranks just above root canals.

Occasionally, I watch people such as John Edwards and find them entertaining. And if they can do what they appear to do through cold reading I find that almost more incredible than if they actually had psychic abilities.

I noticed an article this morning that said Hawkings has reversed his 20-year position that matter which enters black holes actually vanishes from the black hole and passess out of our universe into sort of a sub-universe. He apparently observed that his change of position would no doubt come as a disappointment to science fiction fans.

The article also pointed out the many prominent physicists still believe Hawkings was right in the first place.

The universe is a complex place and way beyond my ability to comprehend. So I don't really try much. I leave that up to people like Michael Hawkings and people like MM who apparently cares about whether evidence for physic phenomena really exist.

MM's original post was intended as humor. I responded with my own example of humor and decided to tweak MM a little, because I know he is absolutely convinced he is a very objective person. I merely suggested that I thought a truly objective person who cared about things like psychic phenomena would want to investigate what all people who think about and write about such things in more than a passing fashion have to say on the subject.

That's all. No more - no less; despite how much you love to try to make me out to be a flat earther.

You're really no different than the Neaderthals I'm dealing with at this thread:

http://www.audioasylum.com/scripts/t...critics&m=1437

who believe that if one questions a claim or position taken by someone on one side of the fence then the questioner of necessirty must be wholly in the opposite camp (when in fact the questioner eschews both camps as being primarily dogma--based). You just approach it from the opposite side of the fence from the religious zealots over at AA.

You keep changing ground, Phil. I asked what it was that you thought Randi and Playfair disagreed with, what it was that they were taking a different position on. Now you have proposed a bunch of other things I should investigate. You are too confusing.

As for wanting to know everything people say about any topic, even just those with more than a "passing interest," well, I'm sorry Phil, that's an impossible, No one can do that, there is too much information too assimilate. I am not a bit sorry for not being able to comply with an impossible suggestion.

Again, the many of the folks at AA take the position that various unlikely things make for audible differences. Many assert a result, I ask about methodology. You, among others, illogically interpret that as asserting a negative result. Part of this may be that you think in black and white logic, that there are two sides to every issue, whereas really there can be more than two.

Stephen Hawking comes up with a new theory on something, contradicting something he thought before. Many physicists think he was right before. So what? That's to be expected in science. They will have to see how convincing the evidence and reasoning are. That's the way knowledge progresses.

[skeptic]

Go on Phil, even though it's only Saturday, tell us all your joke. Poke yourself in the eye for once. Maybe you already have.

[skeptic]

Phil, you said;

"Come to think of it, you pretty much remind me of the old joke about the spastic trying to eat an ice cream cone."

You really didn't have to try to convince me that you could be so crude. You're preaching to the choir. Personally, had I thoughtlessly posted such a boorish comment, I'd have deleted it as soon as I'd realized my gaff. However, now that it's preserved on my posting, it won't go away unless Chris decides to delete the entire thread which might not be such a bad idea.

Hey remember when you posted a couple of years ago that the rest of us on this board were so stupid and boring that the people on Cable Asylum posted more interesting and intelligent discussions in a week than we post here is a year? That's still in the archives too.

It seems nothing ever really changes. Not even for someone intelligent enough to become a successful attorney. I hope for your sake, you are more reserved and prudent in court. What a shame.

[pctower]

Phil, you said;

"Come to think of it, you pretty much remind me of the old joke about the spastic trying to eat an ice cream cone."

You really didn't have to try to convince me that you could be so crude. You're preaching to the choir. Personally, had I thoughtlessly posted such a boorish comment, I'd have deleted it as soon as I'd realized my gaff. However, now that it's preserved on my posting, it won't go away unless Chris decides to delete the entire thread which might not be such a bad idea.

Hey remember when you posted a couple of years ago that the rest of us on this board were so stupid and boring that the people on Cable Asylum posted more interesting and intelligent discussions in a week than we post here is a year? That's still in the archives too.

It seems nothing ever really changes. Not even for someone intelligent enough to become a successful attorney. I hope for your sake, you are more reserved and prudent in court. What a shame.

Hey. Just call me irresponsible.....

And to all spastics who hang out at this board, I sincerely apologize.

[skeptic]

And to think I just got thrown out of Audio Kharma for calling the guy who bought a perfectly good subwoofer for $10 a jackass because he wrote a three page thread on getting cheated because he had to replace the line cord. Then I called the AM a jackass for defending him and the top dog a jackass for defending the AM. Of course that was the most excitement I've ever had there but what would you expect from a group that gets excited about finding a small cache in a warehouse of busted up 19 inch black and white 1960s TV sets?

Phil, you wouldn't last at AudioKharma 5 minutes.

[pctower]

And to think I just got thrown out of Audio Kharma for calling the guy who bought a perfectly good subwoofer for $10 a jackass because he wrote a three page thread on getting cheated because he had to replace the line cord. Then I called the AM a jackass for defending him and the top dog a jackass for defending the AM. Of course that was the most excitement I've ever had there but what would you expect from a group that gets excited about finding a small cache in a warehouse of busted up 19 inch black and white 1960s TV sets?

Phil, you wouldn't last at AudioKharma 5 minutes.

I'll tell you what. I'll agree to issue a sincere apology if you agree to apologize to all visually impaired people and particularly those who have lost sight in an eye resulting from having it poked out. Also, while we're at it, I would also expect you to apologize to all those people who were born with rear ends that are less than flatering.

[skeptic]

OK, I'll start by apologizing to someone who through no fault of his own (mostly) resembles an equine derriere....Phil, I appologize. Being god, I never should have made you that way. It was my very first mistake (since the beginning of time-I swear.)

As for the visually impaired, while I cannot do anything to improve your sight, I can console you with the thought that there are some things you really don't want to see. BTW, to those who have an expanded waistline, middle age spread, and find it more difficult to rise out of a chair than they used to because they have spent too much time in the house listening to music or amused by the internet and too little time practicing to climb the Matterhorn, I feel your pain. OK, Phil, I guess you read those posts of mine about Rectilinear V on AK as well. They weren't amused by that either. Sheesh. Boy those guys are touchy. No sense of humor at all, none whatsoever.

I'm not apologozing to the Aussie AM who claims he doesn't drink Fosters. I don't believe him for one scond. I'm still reporting him to the Aussie Department of Commerce. Let them investigate it and see if it's true. If it is, he may have to be sent to a reorientation camp....for sessons in remedial beer drinking.

Next, I apologize for having made fun of guys whose greatest amusement in life is to fix up old 1967 vintage Admiral and Philco 19 inch black and white television sets rescued from old warehouses before they found a friendly dumpster to crawl into. Whatever floats your boat.

Finally, to guys who buy old used subwoofers for $10 on e-bay that function perfectly except for a bad 39 cent line cord which needed replacing which they didn't tell you about and who got you angry about it that they felt compelled to vent for three pages on a message board about how they cheated you, I have only one thing to say.....GET A LIFE!

Boy could you imagine how they would have gone ballistic if I had posted some of the things I wrote about Jon Risch here on their board? fergedaboudit!