Discussions about the James Randi Educational Foundation and its Million Dollar Challenge.
by highflyertoo » 30 Jan 2010, 15:21
Randi was no researcher of the paranormal even though he tried half heartedly.... Shows over.
-
highflyertoo
-
- Posts: 400
- Joined: 26 Jul 2009, 09:57
by ciscop » 31 Jan 2010, 09:52
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)
-

ciscop
-
- Posts: 1423
- Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04
by Kevin Kane » 04 Feb 2010, 05:44
What does it take for a skeptic to be convinced that everything that Uri Geller has done in his life has been a trick, a fraud?
Not much. A half a second of video tape on an Israeli TV program of what appears to be fraud, appears to be a slip-up by Uri Geller is enough.
What about controlled experiments performed by credible scientists at prestigious science clinics? Not good enough for skeptics, but TV entertainment shows are?
Before skeptics lecture anyone about "confirmation bias", just remember:
Uri Geller has never been scientifically debunked. Uri Geller has never been credibly debunked in public performances. Uri Geller has only been debunked in the minds and imaginations of skeptic believers.
-

Kevin Kane
-
- Posts: 377
- Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18
by ProfWag » 04 Feb 2010, 05:51
-

ProfWag
-
- Posts: 3847
- Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54
by ProfWag » 04 Feb 2010, 05:57
Just curious Kevin, why do you seem to "worship," for lack of a better word, this person? Is he the best mentalist a non-skeptics can throw out for us to review? Why don't you discuss Kreskin? Edward? Cayce? Dionne Warwick?
-

ProfWag
-
- Posts: 3847
- Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54
by ciscop » 04 Feb 2010, 06:26
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)
-

ciscop
-
- Posts: 1423
- Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04
by ProfWag » 04 Feb 2010, 06:30
-

ProfWag
-
- Posts: 3847
- Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54
by ciscop » 04 Feb 2010, 07:45
not sure how i feel about kreskin i read his books in some books he even teaches real strong feats of mental magic making it seem like he does accept ¨is all a trick¨ then.. he ruins it by puting up a picture of him on the same book that says ¨Here is me, reading from somebody´s mind a 8number serial number.. to this day i dont know how i did it¨ what the hell?  didnt know that about Warwick.. how about Shirley Ghostman??
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)
-

ciscop
-
- Posts: 1423
- Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04
by ProfWag » 04 Feb 2010, 07:58
-

ProfWag
-
- Posts: 3847
- Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54
by Kevin Kane » 04 Feb 2010, 08:10
James Randi and other skeptics have chosen a Sisyphean task in debunking Uri Geller.
Does every performance of Uri Geller have to be proven as a stage trick for Uri to be fully debunked?
No, but a statistically significant (> 50%) amount would be required for it be scientifically sound. For a reasonable debunking, it would require a reasonable amount of debunking. To my mind, Uri is far .. far .. far from being reasonably debunked.
Plus, a methodology for debunking Uri .. every time.
Plus a method of exact or near exact replication of Uri's tricks.
Skeptics should have simply enjoyed the entertainment Uri provided instead of attempting to debunk him.
-

Kevin Kane
-
- Posts: 377
- Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18
by ciscop » 04 Feb 2010, 08:17
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)
-

ciscop
-
- Posts: 1423
- Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04
by Kevin Kane » 04 Feb 2010, 08:29
Magic performers see the world as some sort of manual trick. Everything they don't understand must be a trick. Everything they do understand is a trick.
Thankfully Stephen Hawking can't perform magic tricks.
-

Kevin Kane
-
- Posts: 377
- Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18
by ProfWag » 04 Feb 2010, 09:32
You're asking if we can prove the impossible. That is not using critical thinking Kevin. All I can do is remind people that Uri accepted a magicians award and the 2008 International Magic Convention. During his question/answer session, he expressed "regret" for labeling himself as a psychic during his youth and now prefers the term "mystifier."
Of course I cannot prove those things you mentioned up there, but here's the kicker Kevin. I am stating emphatically that I am not psychic. However, I cannot prove that I have never used psychic abilities. Hopefully, looking at it that way, you can see why I believe that your statements are off the mark.
-

ProfWag
-
- Posts: 3847
- Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54
by highflyertoo » 04 Feb 2010, 10:13
Randi was no researcher of the paranormal even though he tried half heartedly.... Shows over.
-
highflyertoo
-
- Posts: 400
- Joined: 26 Jul 2009, 09:57
Return to JREF / Randi Challenge
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
|
|