02 Jun 2009, 19:20
02 Jun 2009, 19:44
16 Jun 2009, 17:09
21 Jul 2009, 09:50
22 Jul 2009, 09:57
23 Jul 2009, 02:46
Franc28 wrote:Even when I posted on the JREF board, I always thought that this rejection by Randi was pretty strange. They said it was due to the legalities of the act, that because he might die, the JREF might be exposed to legal penalties or somesuch. I'm not a legal expert, but I'm pretty sure you could conduct the experiment without killing him anyway.
23 Jul 2009, 02:51
23 Jul 2009, 06:30
Scepcop wrote:What exactly is Randi asserting when he writes: "We only respond to responsible claims." Is Sylvia Browne's claim that she can talk to the dead a "responsible" one? What about Uri Geller's assertion that he can bend spoons with the power of his mind? Would Randi have use believe that he views the "abilities" of Browne and Geller as more "plausible" than Kolodzey's? Again, we must remember, it is Randi's assertion that there is NO VALID EVIDENCE of any paranormal or supernatural phenomena, so there really can be no such thing as "degrees of plausibility" in this field. But even more importantly, if Kolodzey IS a liar and a fraud (which he may very well be), then one would think that JREF has all the more reason to accept his application. Isn't that the whole point of the Randi Challenge - to expose dangerous hucksters and/or "self-deluded frauds?"
23 Jul 2009, 06:40
General Zod wrote:It would be irresponsible to ask a claimant to put their health or life at risk to claim the prize. I might claim that I can jump off a 30 story building without any special equipment and float in the air- which would certainly win the prize, if I could demonstrate my ability. But I doubt that Randi would accept the challenge, and encourage me to plummet to certain death.
So assuming for the moment that we had a way to verify a claimant could survive for years on nothing but water (would we lock him in a room and keep him under surveillance at all times?) I would find it irresponsible to make a bet with someone that essentially says, "If you can manage to starve yourself for long enough without dying or going to the hospital, I'll pay you a million dollars. By the way, I'm sure enough that you'll harm yourself that I don't consider the money to be at risk."
General Zod wrote:In contrast, it would be very easy to put Sylvia Browne's claims to an objective test that would harm no one, if she was unable to prove herself.
23 Jul 2009, 11:35
Eteponge wrote:I find this to be a very reasonable explanation to not test such claims. However, they could possibly agree to having a medical doctor examine the person every day of the experiment to make sure their health is not seriously suffering in the attempt, to be able call it off if it looks like it will seriously harm the person's health. If the days pass, and the person is doing fine, it could continue. If the person's health starts to deteriorate, it would be called off.
Eteponge wrote:Sylvia Browne doesn't have a very good track record. As I've stated on another forum regarding her...
"The thing about Sylvia Brown is, I don't think I can recall ANY substantial hits she's had at all, in ANY particular case (beyond typical general information that can be chalked up to cold reading and lucky guesses). On the Montel Williams Show, she spouts stuff off to people, and you don't generally get to hear from these people again later to see if the information turned out to be correct.
I haven't heard of her contributing anything worthwhile at all to Psychic Detective work either. Just those few cases where she got things totally ridiculously embarrassingly wrong. I haven't heard of ANY substantial hits of hers in those types of cases.
I've read plenty of skeptic articles and skeptic websites presenting her worst blunders, but I haven't seen ANY websites defending her with valid counter information, or presenting ANY good hits she's had on significant cases.
That masses of people can be convinced someone is Psychic without any interesting substantial hits, and mountains of embarrassing misses, and nothing really defending the person, just shows the level of gullibility prevalent today."
23 Jul 2009, 12:05
General Zod wrote:Eteponge wrote:I find this to be a very reasonable explanation to not test such claims. However, they could possibly agree to having a medical doctor examine the person every day of the experiment to make sure their health is not seriously suffering in the attempt, to be able call it off if it looks like it will seriously harm the person's health. If the days pass, and the person is doing fine, it could continue. If the person's health starts to deteriorate, it would be called off.
Perhaps. Let's say that a qualified medical doctor, whose credentials and neutrality were accepted by both sides, were to monitor the situation. Let's also say there's a way to keep continual surveillance on the subject, to eliminate the possibility of cheating. If the subject agreed to halt the experiment immediately on the doctor's recommendation, I suppose that would alleviate the risk. This would be an expensive (and in my opinion pointless) undertaking, and of course the subject would have to pay for it.
Since I don't speak for the JREF, I couldn't say if this arrangement would be agreeable to them.
23 Jul 2009, 21:54
24 Jul 2009, 01:00
Scepcop wrote:Even with a doctor, there is still risk, as the doctor could make a mistake in his diagnosis. Not all bodies are the same. Some are more sensitive and unstable than others. Doctors may be qualified, but they are not infallible.
Eteponge, what do you think of George Anderson? He is considered undebunked and gets highly specific hits that cold reading or lucky guesses can not get.
What about Jonathan Edwards? He gets some highly specific hits, but also misses sometimes either. We cannot expect them to be 100 percent accurate, can we?
24 Jul 2009, 03:39
Scepcop wrote:Eteponge, what do you think of George Anderson? He is considered undebunked and gets highly specific hits that cold reading or lucky guesses can not get.
Scepcop wrote:What about Jonathan Edwards? He gets some highly specific hits, but also misses sometimes either. We cannot expect them to be 100 percent accurate, can we?
24 Jul 2009, 06:02