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

Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

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

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby Arouet » 16 Jul 2013, 05:30

NinjaPuppy wrote:But isn't the recollection of the experience all you have? It's not like you get a post card from the deity when the helmet is removed. There is no caller ID to trace the source of the experience.



Exactly- there is no caller ID: can we accept that there are multiple possibilities for the cause of the experience, some possibilities which involve actual deities, and some that don't?

The memory of the experience is not what is in question, it is the interpretation of the experience that is in question.

It obviously does exist, at least in regard to the experience of the victim of this experiment.


Yes, the experience was a real experience - no-one is questioning that. But that's not what I'm talking about. It's about the correct interpretation of the experience.

You even ask this: do you think it possible to have a sensation of a feeling of a presence without there being an actual presence? It's kind of hard to try and explain this to give an answer to this question as the deity in question does not necessarily have any actual presence.


We can go with that example sure. Let's say that the deity does exist but does not have an actual presence. What do you say to someone who believes they had an experience of that deities's presence?

At least not from any teaching that I've known. We have artist renderings and many different interpretations but no physical proof. We do have plenty of unexplained things that humans attribute to assorted deities and of course those not so qualifying personal experiences.


I'm only talking about people's actual experiences. And I'm sure I've seen reports of people feeling like there was a presence of some kind of spiritual entity in the room with them.

Really it doesn't matter the example: the question is does having an experience mean automatically that we correct interpret it or know the cause of it?

You mean like a placebo effect?


That's not a bad analogy: I may take a pill and feel my pain go down and interpret my pain going down as because of the medicinal effect of the pill. But I may be wrong in that there was no medical effect of the pill because there was no medical ingredient in the pill. It may have been a purely psychological reduction in pain.


Since the actual experiment has nothing more than personal memory as it's outcome, it has EVERYTHING to do about memory. Without further study and experimentation we can never expect to find or understand the root cause. I mean you have to start somewhere.


I'm not sure what to say other than that I disagree. The experiment shows a machine stimulating a part of the brain and producing a spiritual feeling. I believe that one conclusion of that is that no matter what the feeling makes the person feel, it is a significant possibility that the cause of the feeling was the brain stimulation and not an actual spirit. It has nothing to do with memory - they asked the person to describe the experience immediately after having it.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07






Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby NinjaPuppy » 16 Jul 2013, 10:34

Arouet wrote:]Exactly- there is no caller ID: can we accept that there are multiple possibilities for the cause of the experience, some possibilities which involve actual deities, and some that don't?

The memory of the experience is not what is in question, it is the interpretation of the experience that is in question.

Oh, totally agree with you that it is the interpretation of the experience that is in question. However, if you don't do the work to get the individual interpretations you can never find so much as an educated guess as to the source.

Now that's the thing that I can't understand about skeptics (pseudo-skeptics actually). Since no one can prove that any deity actually exists, any and all research in this area is supposedly nonsense. So many scientific discoveries have been made purely by accident. Why not see what develops before poo-pooing an entire area of subjects?
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby NinjaPuppy » 16 Jul 2013, 10:38

JT wrote:Carl Sagan continued to smoke pot for over 30 years and never once admitted he actually saw aliens.

I've smoked pot twice and I never saw aliens either. I do recall afterwards eating the most delicious cookies EVER. Even if they were the same ones that didn't taste so great before smoking. :lol: Do you think Arouet may think that my memory of those delicious cookies is flawed?
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby Arouet » 16 Jul 2013, 11:50

NinjaPuppy wrote:Oh, totally agree with you that it is the interpretation of the experience that is in question. However, if you don't do the work to get the individual interpretations you can never find so much as an educated guess as to the source.


Sure, but that's a different question and not really relevant to the god helmet discussion. Remember, this started by Justin troll-posting that having an experience of a spirit or deity in the god helmet demonstrates that those spirits or deities exist. I don't think that's the case.

Now that's the thing that I can't understand about skeptics (pseudo-skeptics actually). Since no one can prove that any deity actually exists


Not sure why that would be the case. One can't prove that no deity exists, but if deities exist one might very well find plenty of evidence for it.

, any and all research in this area is supposedly nonsense.


I think you're putting words in people's mouths here.

So many scientific discoveries have been made purely by accident. Why not see what develops before poo-pooing an entire area of subjects?


Some skeptics do, some don't. Personally I think its good to have researchers with varied interests.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby really? » 16 Jul 2013, 19:28

NinjaPuppy wrote:
JT wrote:Carl Sagan continued to smoke pot for over 30 years and never once admitted he actually saw aliens.

I've smoked pot twice and I never saw aliens either. I do recall afterwards eating the most delicious cookies EVER. Even if they were the same ones that didn't taste so great before smoking. :lol: Do you think Arouet may think that my memory of those delicious cookies is flawed?

I think the question is flawed or better yet, unanswerable because there is no way to examine the experience at this time. However, your experience shows how malleable memory can be.

NinjaPuppy wrote:So many scientific discoveries have been made purely by accident. Why not see what develops before poo-pooing an entire area of subjects?

Accidental scientific discovery's are factually based otherwise they would not be true. They also stand upon the knowledge base of what is known. I'd like to know, have you ever wonder why these topics get more, to use your words poo-poo than serious consideration? Have you thought about it like that?
NinjaPuppy wrote:Now that's the thing that I can't understand about skeptics (pseudo-skeptics actually). Since no one can prove that any deity actually exists...


Let me finish this sentence. ...why argue as if there is a mountain of supporting evidence. Skeptics wonder why too. Why argue something, anything is factual when it clearly isn't. People that argue the psi interpretation are arguing possibilities and no matter how much one would argue a possibility that never makes any possibility true.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby NinjaPuppy » 17 Jul 2013, 02:41

really? wrote:
NinjaPuppy wrote:
JT wrote:Carl Sagan continued to smoke pot for over 30 years and never once admitted he actually saw aliens.

I've smoked pot twice and I never saw aliens either. I do recall afterwards eating the most delicious cookies EVER. Even if they were the same ones that didn't taste so great before smoking. :lol: Do you think Arouet may think that my memory of those delicious cookies is flawed?

I think the question is flawed or better yet, unanswerable because there is no way to examine the experience at this time. However, your experience shows how malleable memory can be.

Malleable? My memory is very distinct and accurate of this particular experience. My taste buds or ability to taste was more likely heightened or influenced. Not a pliable or influenced memory. The cookies were unbelievably delicious.
Malleable / Adjective
Able to be hammered or pressed permanently out of shape without breaking or cracking. Easily influenced; pliable.


really? wrote:I'd like to know, have you ever wonder why these topics get more, to use your words poo-poo than serious consideration? Have you thought about it like that?

Yup. Because known facts don't require much rebuttal or get much interest for debate. If I were to post that "I am a woman", it's a fact. Everyone would pretty much read that and not have much to say about it. Now if I were to post that "I am a woman who seems to have what others call psychic ability", you guys would be all over that claim. A skeptic would start off with wanting to suggest proper scientific testing be applied because psychic ability is not know to actually exist. Then it's all yada, yada after that.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby NinjaPuppy » 17 Jul 2013, 02:46

really? wrote:Let me finish this sentence. ...why argue as if there is a mountain of supporting evidence. Skeptics wonder why too. Why argue something, anything is factual when it clearly isn't. People that argue the psi interpretation are arguing possibilities and no matter how much one would argue a possibility that never makes any possibility true.

You can't argue someone's personal experience or the quality of their memory. To the individual, it is, what it is. I still say that the problem is with language and perception rather than the facts behind an experience.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby really? » 17 Jul 2013, 10:56

JT wrote:Carl Sagan continued to smoke pot for over 30 years and never once admitted he actually saw aliens.

NinjaPuppy wrote:I've smoked pot twice and I never saw aliens either. I do recall afterwards eating the most delicious cookies EVER. Even if they were the same ones that didn't taste so great before smoking. :lol: Do you think Arouet may think that my memory of those delicious cookies is flawed?

really? wrote:I think the question is flawed or better yet, unanswerable because there is no way to examine the experience at this time. However, your experience shows how malleable memory can be.

NinjaPuppy wrote:Malleable? My memory is very distinct and accurate of this particular experience. My taste buds or ability to taste was more likely heightened or influenced. Not a pliable or influenced memory. The cookies were unbelievably delicious.
Malleable / Adjective
Able to be hammered or pressed permanently out of shape without breaking or cracking. Easily influenced; pliable.


I'd like to know, have you ever wonder why these topics get more, to use your words poo-poo than serious consideration? Have you thought about it like that?

NinjaPuppy wrote:Yup. Because known facts don't require much rebuttal or get much interest for debate. If I were to post that "I am a woman", it's a fact. Everyone would pretty much read that and not have much to say about it. Now if I were to post that "I am a woman who seems to have what others call psychic ability", you guys would be all over that claim. A skeptic would start off with wanting to suggest proper scientific testing be applied because psychic ability is not know to actually exist. Then it's all yada, yada after that.

Endless debate isn't productive. What seems to separate us from believers is, believers are content to believe their experience is true, skeptics are not, we want to know if something is true. This skeptic isn't the least bit interested with what people believe is true. [I]We only care about facts.

Upon reflection I'll restate what I said. Your experience of eating cookies after smoking pot shows how easy it is to change perceptions. Instead of stating your memory unlike the rest of us isn't influenced, I suggest, if you have not done so, you should peruse the web for articles how memory works and why it is easily influenced and not as precise as you think it is.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby NinjaPuppy » 18 Jul 2013, 02:28

Yes, JT- That all makes sense to me. Well put.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby really? » 18 Jul 2013, 05:33

You have it all wrong, both of you. Humans created a methodology that is known as science to remove as much as possible uncertainty about how nature works. Humans are part of nature.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby BillPerron » 18 Jul 2013, 05:33

After accepting my challenge for the Randi publicity stunt million dollars I suggested we video tape the whole procedure in case I had to take Randi to court to collect after completing successfully my challenge. Randi blatantly lied to weasel out from my challenge by saying" Perron wants no photos taken so he is disqualified." Video takes approximately 30 photos a second so in truth I wanted many hundreds of photos taken. Professional pseudo skeptics fear the exposure of their guru as a liar so they refuse to even look at the evidence of Randi being a liar. Randi is a liar and his devotees know it but his exposure blows up their whole agenda so they have threatened me with defamation and label lawsuits of which I have taunted back "Do it, I dare you." But none dare, cowards all of them, I have nothing but contempt for anyone who calls themselves a "skeptic" because to me that is just another way of saying they are narrow minded cowardly fools.
User avatar
BillPerron
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 18 Jun 2012, 04:01

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby NinjaPuppy » 18 Jul 2013, 05:41

really? wrote:You have it all wrong, both of you.

I can't speak for JT but I don't have it "all wrong". What I have is a different perspective of reality than you do.

really? wrote:Humans created a methodology that is known as science to remove as much as possible uncertainty about how nature works.

Then why is the science behind the nature of weather always wrong?

really? wrote:Humans are part of nature.

I agree.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby really? » 18 Jul 2013, 05:49

really? wrote:You have it all wrong, both of you.

NinjaPuppy wrote:I can't speak for JT but I don't have it "all wrong". What I have is a different perspective of reality than you do.

What is that perspective?

really? wrote:Humans created a methodology that is known as science to remove as much as possible uncertainty about how nature works.

NinjaPuppy wrote:Then why is the science behind the nature of weather always wrong?

I think you are conflating predicting what the weather will do with understanding what the processes are that create weather.

really? wrote:Humans are part of nature.

NinjaPuppy wrote:I agree.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby NinjaPuppy » 18 Jul 2013, 06:11

really? wrote:What is that perspective?

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” - Socrates
I enjoy listening to other's ideas on the world and life as I feel I may learn something from it.

Really? wrote:I think you are conflating predicting what the weather will do with understanding what the processes are that create weather.

Is a meteorologist, not a scientist? Is meteorology not considered a science? If scientists know facts about the processes of what creates weather, then why are they not able to "predict" accurately the outcome of that process? Could it be because nature is unpredictable or the science is flawed or not fully understood?
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby Arouet » 18 Jul 2013, 08:40

NinjaPuppy wrote:Yes, JT- That all makes sense to me. Well put.


Wait what? really? Are you going to make me have to actually go through that point by point? You first: what exactly do you think in all of that was well put?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

PreviousNext

Return to JREF / Randi Challenge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest