My new video: Why Pseudoskeptics are NOT Real Skeptics

[ProfWag]

[Indigo Child]

[ProfWag]

[Indigo Child]

[ProfWag]

[ProfWag]

[Indigo Child]

[ProfWag]

[Indigo Child]

Project alpha does not prove anything other than one particular researcher was deceived by a magician. This is
like the show Randi did, where he would expose psychics on his stage show. It involves selecting somebody who
you know is going to fail.

Here is another thing we do not do in science: generalization. Just because some people can be mistaken, it
does not mean all are mistaken. Every experiment is going to be unique.

Puthoff and Targ's experiments were unique, unlike the experiments that Randi exposed, and they controlled
for all normal variables, eliminating normal conditions. Again, in the double blind experiment Geller was able
to know which side of the dice was facing up inside the sealed box. How is it possible to do this by any normal
means? Simple, it is not. There is no trickery here. This is a scienctific experiment, not a stage show.

Your argument will only succeed if you can show me how it can be possible to know what side is facing up. However,
I know for a fact you cannot come up with any such explanation.

[Indigo Child]

I did some further research on project alpha and other than Randi, JREF and his followers,
there is no evidence that he fooled the Washington University parapsychologists. In fact,
based on their report, they were not fooled at all:

A research brief delivered at the Parapsychological Associ-
ation Annual Convention in August 1981, at Syracuse University, men-
tions several events that have occurred, including influence on standard
keys, Polaroid photographic film, and electronic fuses. However, ordinary
explanations exist for these effects, given the conditions under which they
have been observed. Thus, although several events of interest have tran-
spired, we do not claim that evidence conclusive of “psychic ability” has
yet been demonstrated in our research. We hope that in the future we and
others will be able to conduct tests under conditions which will allow us to
drawmore definite conclusions.
Peter R. Phillips
Mark Shafer
McDonnell Laboratory for Psychical Research

Randi is lying again. This man has lost all credibility in my eyes now.

[really?]

[Indigo Child]

It depends in which area. You should give examples where I could be wrong. I will admit,
however, that I have reconsidered my view that one must be an authority to discuss something,
realising that this is actually another human law, like your "extraordinary vs ordinary" evidence law,
and in fact anybody can speak on any matter, because everybody is allowed an opinion. I strongy
believe in freedom of expression, so I realised I was contradicting myself there. I will say this much,
however, if you are ignorant about something, you need to be more forthright about your ignorance,
because then you can learn. If I attended a business forum, I would be forthright about my ignorance,
and would allow mysef to be educated.

I have noted time and time again, that you guys choose to be ignorant on many matters, when you could
use that opportunity to learn something. I think, it would be very helpful for you, to drop your anti-paranormalist
agendas and simply enter a discussion on the paranormal to deny it, and actually allow yourself to learn about the
paranormal, it's adherants and its research.

I have never reconsidered any of the evidence I have seen for the paranormal, because the evidence is conclusive
for me. I would only reconsider the evidence if new information become available that forces me to review it. Until
that happens, I will continue to maintain it as conclusive.

[ProfWag]

I can honestly say that I joined this forum to learn. I have done that time and time again. I used to think that everything about the paranormal is bunk. Now, although I still don't believe in anything paranormal, I have changed my stance and believe that more and more solid research is needed. Experiments should be fool-proof and replicated. The results should be absolutely conclusive. There should be nothing open to interpretation. I simply don't understand why science won't re-open the unbiased vaults that have been shut for so many years.

[NinjaPuppy]

[ProfWag]

Just to be clear, noooooooo, I'm not going to the darkside. I'm just saying that it would help solve some riddles if experiments could be done and done correctly...
For example, there are obviously people out there who believe in Uri Geller's psychic abilities. A lot of learning has taken place in the past 35 years or so and I think protocols could now be set up to ensure the claimed psychic is not cheating. The experiments could then be handed over to another academic study who would replicate and then announce findings.
Forget Randi's MDC for a while and really focus on scientific study.