View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Was Randi Wrong about Uri Geller?

Discussions about the James Randi Educational Foundation and its Million Dollar Challenge.

Re: Was Randi Wrong about Uri Geller?

Postby Kevin Kane » 28 Jan 2010, 10:41

You know, whan I see a stage magician, I see an amusing con artist, a trickster, someone who likes to decieve people. But others see an expert on science. :lol:

From a behavioral psychology perspective, what is the motivation for a person such as James Randi to be honest? He is rewarded (money, acclaim) for his ability to trick people. He makes a living at it. Such a reinforcement is a powerful incentive to continue tricking people. And even when he's apparently being honest and forthright, the behavioral training is still in effect. He may even believe himself to forthright and honest, but the pattern is set. Once a con, always a con.
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18






Re: Was Randi Wrong about Uri Geller?

Postby highflyertoo » 28 Jan 2010, 10:48

ciscop wrote:
Kevin Kane wrote:I'm not answering because skeptics ignore stuff more than I do. Like, logic.



no.. you dont even have logic, since you are a believe, you are not rational and show a obvious lack of inteligence
you want people to accept URI fooling a couple of scientists tha believe in Parapsychology to be admited as true
when evidence tells you that he has faked and failed in some other tests

you already admited that Uri has cheated
dont you get it?
thats it
GAME OVER

he cheated
a psychic shouldnt cheat, why would he?
oh wait.. he isnt a psychic anymore
he is a MYSTIFIER


ciscop please read this carefully

some pyschics do deliberately cheat,
it protects their true identity
Randi was no researcher of the paranormal even though he tried half heartedly.... Shows over.
highflyertoo
 
Posts: 400
Joined: 26 Jul 2009, 09:57

Re: Was Randi Wrong about Uri Geller?

Postby highflyertoo » 28 Jan 2010, 10:56

Kevin Kane wrote:
highflyertoo wrote:
I've seen people use ''real paranormal magic'' , and then later they pretended to use real magic, showing how fake they were. Now that's heavy mind games.


Uri has never changed his story. How many times has Randi changed his? He used to say Uri had 11 (if I recall, but it was more) basic tricks. Later, that was reduced to 5. It's possible Randi has a well founded reason for changing his statements, but probably he's just bullshitting.

Based on the claims made of nearly everyone who cites an instance of the paranormal, indicates that the phenomena is anomalistic. Anomoly, by definition, falls outside the scope of the principles of science. It's not reproducable or measurable in any scientific manner. It doesn't mean it doesn't occur, it just doesn't occur like science would want it to.

And we know Uri is faking it sometimes. He has to be. But is he faking it all the time? Is he faking most of the time, or least of the time?

If you wish to believe he's faking it all the time, science does not validate such an opinion.


Yes Kevin,you are exactly correct........ the paranormal doesn't OCCUR like science would want it to.... paranormal is anomalistic...

Finally someone on a forum who can call it as it is....... yippee :D
Randi was no researcher of the paranormal even though he tried half heartedly.... Shows over.
highflyertoo
 
Posts: 400
Joined: 26 Jul 2009, 09:57

Re: Was Randi Wrong about Uri Geller?

Postby ProfWag » 28 Jan 2010, 21:59

Kevin Kane wrote:It's entirely possible that Uri Geller is a complete fraud.

But that's not what the science shows.

Science performed without any apparent fault by respectable scientists.

In a court of science, Uri Geller should be regarded as a psychic until the evidence suggest otherwise.

Sorry Kevin, this is wrong information. First, the science does not show Uri is genuine. For that to happen, his paranormal abilities have to be replicated. This hasn't happened. If it has, please direct me to the case study.
Second, scientific experiments are conducted based on a hypothesis and then proven wrong, right, or other. One is NOT regarded as a psychic and then proven untrue, they are regarded as a possibility (i.e. hypthosis) and then tested and reconfirmed. As mentioned, this has not happened and it won't.
Finally, what information are you basing your assumption that Targ and Puthoff are respectable scientists? I am not saying they are or aren't, I'm asking if that's an opinion, fact, or if you've read something other than Wikipedia.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Was Randi Wrong about Uri Geller?

Postby Kevin Kane » 28 Jan 2010, 22:20

ProfWag wrote:
Kevin Kane wrote:It's entirely possible that Uri Geller is a complete fraud.

But that's not what the science shows.

Science performed without any apparent fault by respectable scientists.

In a court of science, Uri Geller should be regarded as a psychic until the evidence suggest otherwise.

Sorry Kevin, this is wrong information. First, the science does not show Uri is genuine. For that to happen, his paranormal abilities have to be replicated. This hasn't happened. If it has, please direct me to the case study.
Second, scientific experiments are conducted based on a hypothesis and then proven wrong, right, or other. One is NOT regarded as a psychic and then proven untrue, they are regarded as a possibility (i.e. hypthosis) and then tested and reconfirmed. As mentioned, this has not happened and it won't.
Finally, what information are you basing your assumption that Targ and Puthoff are respectable scientists? I am not saying they are or aren't, I'm asking if that's an opinion, fact, or if you've read something other than Wikipedia.



First .. the tests fail to disprove Uri's claim of psychic powers. And that's what I've stated.

Second ... semantic distortion. A claim was made, it was tested. The claim was not found false. Testing error was not found. The claim stands until proven otherwise. That's what I've stated.

Third. Targ and Puthoff are reputable scientists. Why would anyone doubt that .. unless .. skeptics were trying to challenge or slander their reputations?

Bingo.

Even skeptics concede that they can't find fault with the tests .. and we know how much that has got to hurt skeptics to concede such a thing.

The information I provided is correct. Your mischaracterization of the actual words I said is wrong. Perhaps your reading comprehension skills need improving.
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18

Re: Was Randi Wrong about Uri Geller?

Postby Kevin Kane » 28 Jan 2010, 22:38

The question I'm interested in is what motivates skeptics to be such slimey slanderers? Is it because skeptics want to be good scientists but lack the logic skills needed to be good at it? Or are they just habitual liars and slanderers? Or are they trying to prove that their hypnotism and prestidigitation skills can fool everyone including scientists?
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18

Re: Was Randi Wrong about Uri Geller?

Postby ProfWag » 28 Jan 2010, 22:54

Kevin Kane wrote:The question I'm interested in is what motivates skeptics to be such slimey slanderers? Is it because skeptics want to be good scientists but lack the logic skills needed to be good at it? Or are they just habitual liars and slanderers? Or are they trying to prove that their hypnotism and prestidigitation skills can fool everyone including scientists?

Most skeptics are not magicians. Most skeptics are not scientists (though most scientists are skeptical). I can't speak for any other skeptic but myself when it comes to motivation. I can tell you from my perspective, I don't like seeing people hurt, either physically, monetarily, or financially. Many people take what the see and read to be 100% truthful and they end up hurt in one of the ways I just mentioned. I'm not into telling people that what they see is not true, but rather that what they see probably has an alternate explanation. They should then use their own critical thinking to make a judgement on something that could potentially negatively alter their life.
I really got my start in being vocal on practicing skepticism when I heard and saw the Sylvia Browne episode where she told Shawn Hornbeck's parents that their son was dead, but was later found very much alive. I just can't imagine the unnecessary mental anguish that caused his parents. In fact, I think it was criminal and she should have had charges brought up against her, but that's just me. Does one wrong make the whole possibility of psychics wrong? Not necessarily, but people need to be aware that there are many frauds out there and more people than I can imagine don't know that simple fact.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Was Randi Wrong about Uri Geller?

Postby ProfWag » 28 Jan 2010, 23:38

I would also like to include the case of James McCormick who was just indicted on fraud charges that he was sellling bomb-sniffing dowsing rods. Imagine how many people this could have killed...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Was Randi Wrong about Uri Geller?

Postby NinjaPuppy » 29 Jan 2010, 00:33

ProfWag wrote:I would also like to include the case of James McCormick who was just indicted on fraud charges that he was sellling bomb-sniffing dowsing rods. Imagine how many people this could have killed...

Oy vey! Mr. McCormick should be made to navigate a live mine field to prove that his product works.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Was Randi Wrong about Uri Geller?

Postby ProfWag » 29 Jan 2010, 00:42

NinjaPuppy wrote:
ProfWag wrote:I would also like to include the case of James McCormick who was just indicted on fraud charges that he was sellling bomb-sniffing dowsing rods. Imagine how many people this could have killed...

Oy vey! Mr. McCormick should be made to navigate a live mine field to prove that his product works.

What a great idea! Ya' suppose he'd go for it?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Was Randi Wrong about Uri Geller?

Postby NinjaPuppy » 29 Jan 2010, 00:48

Just tell him it's a great marketing concept. :lol:
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Was Randi Wrong about Uri Geller?

Postby Kevin Kane » 29 Jan 2010, 00:53

ProfWag wrote:
Kevin Kane wrote:The question I'm interested in is what motivates skeptics to be such slimey slanderers? Is it because skeptics want to be good scientists but lack the logic skills needed to be good at it? Or are they just habitual liars and slanderers? Or are they trying to prove that their hypnotism and prestidigitation skills can fool everyone including scientists?

Most skeptics are not magicians. Most skeptics are not scientists (though most scientists are skeptical). I can't speak for any other skeptic but myself when it comes to motivation. I can tell you from my perspective, I don't like seeing people hurt, either physically, monetarily, or financially. Many people take what the see and read to be 100% truthful and they end up hurt in one of the ways I just mentioned. I'm not into telling people that what they see is not true, but rather that what they see probably has an alternate explanation. They should then use their own critical thinking to make a judgement on something that could potentially negatively alter their life.
I really got my start in being vocal on practicing skepticism when I heard and saw the Sylvia Browne episode where she told Shawn Hornbeck's parents that their son was dead, but was later found very much alive. I just can't imagine the unnecessary mental anguish that caused his parents. In fact, I think it was criminal and she should have had charges brought up against her, but that's just me. Does one wrong make the whole possibility of psychics wrong? Not necessarily, but people need to be aware that there are many frauds out there and more people than I can imagine don't know that simple fact.



ProfWag, let me ask you; how does it feel to be on the side of someone such as ciscop? A snot-nosed, foul-mouth with an 8-bit mental capacity? How does it feel to have him speaking for you, for your causes, for skepticism? How does it feel to be on the side of pharmaceutical representitives, helping to poison and addict children, defrauding the public with false-alarms, exaggerated symptoms and hyped up claims of efficacy? And doing immense damage to health and society while skeptics worry about woo-woo. You've already see what "skeptical thinking" has done to ciscop. A "rationalist" who can't think straight? Is that how ProfWag will turn out? How does it feel, man?

Because I don't want to know. I don't care and I'd hate to be a skeptic. I'd hate to be a ProfWag.


Worrying about woo? Wtf .. How childish is that?

Let's call "Woo" what it really is ... FREE THOUGHT.

Woo is Free Thought.
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18

Re: Was Randi Wrong about Uri Geller?

Postby ciscop » 29 Jan 2010, 01:05

highflyertoo wrote:
Kevin Kane wrote:
highflyertoo wrote:
Yes Kevin,you are exactly correct........ the paranormal doesn't OCCUR like science would want it to.... paranormal is anomalistic...

Finally someone on a forum who can call it as it is....... yippee :D




Congratulations Kevin!!
you just made a new friend that is as insane as you are
[Edited by Moderator] or that he has appocalyptic dreams (none of them have came true btw)
hahaha one for another
[edited by Moderator]
well done
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: Was Randi Wrong about Uri Geller?

Postby ProfWag » 29 Jan 2010, 01:30

Hmmmm, let's look at this a little closer. Here's Kevin's comments from another thread:

Kevin Kane wrote:Let me explain something to you, ciscop. If you don't control yourself and behave in a civil manner, I am requesting that the board owners/operators do something to enforce the rules of this board so that civil discourse can occur.

Quote:

"This board is open for debates with the Skeptic Camps but please be civilized. No insults or personal attacks please."

Now, let's look again at this post from him.
Kevin Kane wrote:ProfWag, let me ask you; how does it feel to be on the side of someone such as ciscop? A snot-nosed, foul-mouth with an 8-bit mental capacity? How does it feel to have him speaking for you, for your causes, for skepticism? How does it feel to be on the side of pharmaceutical representitives, helping to poison and addict children, defrauding the public with false-alarms, exaggerated symptoms and hyped up claims of efficacy? And doing immense damage to health and society while skeptics worry about woo-woo. You've already see what "skeptical thinking" has done to ciscop. A "rationalist" who can't think straight? Is that how ProfWag will turn out? How does it feel, man?

Because I don't want to know. I don't care and I'd hate to be a skeptic. I'd hate to be a ProfWag.


Worrying about woo? Wtf .. How childish is that?

Let's call "Woo" what it really is ... FREE THOUGHT.

Woo is Free Thought.

Ninja, what say you?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Was Randi Wrong about Uri Geller?

Postby NinjaPuppy » 29 Jan 2010, 01:33

Who me?

You know I always have a lot to say. :D
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

PreviousNext

Return to JREF / Randi Challenge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests