Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

The Spore Depot
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
James Randi falsifies Data
    #10259149 -

CSICOP, the organization behind the infamous million dollar psychic challenge, founded by the Amazing James Randi, had been caught falsifying data in order to disprove stuff.

http://cura.free.fr/xv/14starbb.html

I'm posting this on the philosophy forum to have some neutral points of view on this. Why would he need to falsify data?

Edited by Diaboleros (04/29/09 10:45 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: James Randi falsifies Data [Re: Diaboleros]
    #10259182 -

Quote:
From the former CSICOP member who disclosed this info:

I now believe that if a flying saucer landed in the backyard of a leading anti-UFO spokesman, he might hide the incident from the public (for the public's own good, of course). He might swiftly convince himself that the landing was a hoax, a delusion or an "unfortunate" interpretation of mundane phenomena that could be explained away with "further research."


Relevance?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: James Randi falsifies Data [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10259207 -

No relevance, just extra extra.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: James Randi falsifies Data [Re: Diaboleros]
    #10259274 -

If you are sincerely trying to make a case, adding meaningless noise instantly kills much credibility.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: James Randi falsifies Data [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10259289 -

LOL. Maybe if I make too much noise, the website will magically dissapear? Not my website, I just copy/pasted the link.

I'm not trying to make a case here, I'm just interested in your opinion on this as I do not know what to think of it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: James Randi falsifies Data [Re: Diaboleros]
    #10259314 -

I didn't mean you as much as the author. The fact that he sees a need to make up some future hypothetical tells me his case is either quite weak or non-existent.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: James Randi falsifies Data [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10259334 -

Ahhhhh, of course, because the author makes up a future hypothetical, suddenly, James Randi doesn't falsify data anymore! Why didn't I see that myself? LOL!

Nah, I think the author did it because most people are too lazy to read the website.

Anyway, good point, I edited the topic and I removed this part:
Quote:
From the former CSICOP member who disclosed this info:

I now believe that if a flying saucer landed in the backyard of a leading anti-UFO spokesman, he might hide the incident from the public (for the public's own good, of course). He might swiftly convince himself that the landing was a hoax, a delusion or an "unfortunate" interpretation of mundane phenomena that could be explained away with "further research."




Is it now more credible? Or do you think the guy who claims James Randi is falsifiying data is falsifying data?

Edited by Diaboleros (04/29/09 10:49 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: James Randi falsifies Data [Re: Diaboleros]
    #10259390 -

The Randi Challenge is quite simple really and not open to interpretation. State what you can do that appears to be paranormal under a controlled setting and do it or don't. It is a legal contract. If this guy had a case, he would be in the courts and not whining on a website.

Let's say I claim to be able to tell a random person's astrology sign by looking at them and the agreed protocol is to get 18 out of 20 correct for the 1 million. The claimant either passes or fails. No interpretation needed.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: James Randi falsifies Data [Re: Diaboleros]
    #10259428 -

Quote:
Is it now more credible?


No. Do you see that there was no valid reason to add this superfluous emotional nonsense? This fallacy is called poisoning the well.

This is very much in line with an illogical mind. I am sure that where there is one flaw, there are others.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: James Randi falsifies Data [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10259506 -

Ok, so your opinion is the guy who claims James Randi is falsifying data, is falsifying data? Correct?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: James Randi falsifies Data [Re: Diaboleros]
    #10259642 -

I just was reading about this guy the other day.  He was attributed with saying that he'll never have to pay out.  I haven't followed your link, but I guess I can figure out why he was so assured.


--------------------
Let that which doesn't matter truly not matter.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: James Randi falsifies Data [Re: Diaboleros]
    #10260226 -

because nobody
Diaboleros said:
Ok, so your opinion is the guy who claims James Randi is falsifying data, is falsifying data? Correct?





Could you posit particular ideas and show that they are true?  I'm not really wanting to read that whole thing to see if it claims what you say it claims.  Maybe narrow it down a bit to what your trying to show?  i.e. Randi falsifies data at some point in his life



All I know is that the first maybe one fifth of hte article is just about the astrological claim and was frustrating to read cause its long winded and doesn't present any data nor assure us that the effect was actually well established to be independant of obvious terrestrial influences on births or births among stable households likely to produce succesful children. They also don't mention the probabilities the correlation was coincedental nor how they know the sample population was or representative of the relevant population.


i.e. Does mars rising and falling correlate to any particular time of year or other conditions on earth that may explain the phenomena during the relevant time periods (I'm guessing the sports stars were young so maybe a 20 year time frame if that?)


Its an intersting claim but could you support it?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: James Randi falsifies Data [Re: johnm214]
    #10260276 -

How about the moon cycle being the exact same as the womens menstruation cycle. The sun cycle causing winter depression. The earth cycle causing day and night, waking and sleeping. The planets obviously influence our behavior and our hormones.

The skeptics answer: coincidence. LOL. Little does the skeptic realize that they use the answer "coincidence" for everything, while at the same time, the first axiom of science is that nothing is coincidence, everything is governed by laws, the universe is order, not chaos. Coincidence, is not an answer. As a matter of fact, if you are truly a skeptic, you would calculate the odds for coincidence. As the amount of variables to take into account is infinite, the chance of something being coincidence is 1 against infinity.


Skeptics are like religious people, the only difference is that they explain everything with coincidence instead of God. Anyway, I now finally realize that proof, reason, logic and maths can not convince people because they will always think and claim it's coincidence. Only seeing is believing. It's only when someone will be able to fly, that people will believe in the paranormal. Good luck with that.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: James Randi falsifies Data [Re: Diaboleros]
    #10260285 -

Isn't winter depression caused by certain vitamins sunlight provides not making it to our skin? That's what I always heard anyhow.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: James Randi falsifies Data [Re: Sventington]
    #10260290 -

Sure, but what causes the sunlight not making it to our skin? The cycle of the sun being changed. Think one step further.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: James Randi falsifies Data [Re: Diaboleros]
    #10260307 -

Food 4 thought:

"...perhaps there is a pattern set up in the heavens for one who desires to see it, and having seen it, to find one in himself" - Plato

"The very first thing which we would like to clarify is that both the Tarot and the Zodiac are not external phenomena. They are not "out there" and should be considered living essences or archetypes within each individual. You are a living, breathing zodiac." - M. Tsarion

"Know that the philosopher has power over the stars, and not the stars over him." - Paracelsus

"As long as you still experience the stars as something above the head you lack the eye of knowledge." - Fredrick Nietzsche

"...when the planets of the Solar System are named or symbolized...it must not be supposed that the planetary bodies themselves are referred to, except as types on a purely physical plane of the septenary nature of the psychic and spiritual worlds." - Madame Helena Petrovna Blavatsky

"It is an erroneous interpretation of astrology to opine that special forces emanate from the planets and the stars." - R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz

"As we all know science began with the stars, and mankind discovered in them the dominants of the unconscious, the "gods," as well as the curious psychological qualities of the Zodiac: a complete projected theory of human character." – Carl Gustav Jung

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: James Randi falsifies Data [Re: Diaboleros]
    #10260385 -

Diaboleros said:
How about the moon cycle being the exact same as the womens menstruation cycle. The sun cycle causing winter depression. The earth cycle causing day and night, waking and sleeping. The planets obviously influence our behavior and our hormones.

The skeptics answer: coincidence. LOL. Little does the skeptic realize that they use the answer "coincidence" for everything, while at the same time, the first axiom of science is that nothing is coincidence, everything is governed by laws, the universe is order, not chaos. Coincidence, is not an answer. As a matter of fact, if you are truly a skeptic, you would calculate the odds for coincidence. As the amount of variables to take into account is infinite, the chance of something being coincidence is 1 against infinity.


Skeptics are like religious people, the only difference is that they explain everything with coincidence instead of God. Anyway, I now finally realize that proof, reason, logic and maths can not convince people because they will always think and claim it's coincidence. Only seeing is believing. It's only when someone will be able to fly, that people will believe in the paranormal. Good luck with that.





Its not all a coincidence, though it doesn't all mean the correlating phenomena is causual.  And your going to have to explain how I'm behaving like a religious person.  I just refused to take on faith your claims and those of the author when neither submitted their data or clear descriptions of their claims.  What exactly is religious about not adopting undemonstrated claims?



The objection is to claiming that these other planets or stars cause human behavior or whatever when controlling for terrestrial conditions (i.e. that mars rising causes those born to be athletes rather than mars rising being correlated with seasonal birth increses  or planned pregnancy births et cet) which appears to be the claim of astrology.  If this is incorrect then please correct me in detail.

But this is kinda besides the point.  If you want to establish astrology as valid then claim with particularity what you can demonstrate, if it persists when correcting for known terrestrial conditions, and show the evidence for it.


All I was wondering was
a) what are you claiming in the original post,
b) what supports your claim/ where in the article is this established


I can't figure it out and I found the first part of that article frustrating for reasons I've stated.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* james randi spudamore 1,130 8 11/17/04 11:12 PM
by oceansize
* Amazing Randi's Letter to Psi Researcher Swami 1,056 2 06/23/03 03:03 PM
by Sclorch
* Psychics vs. skeptics on Larry King Live
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Jellric 8,430 72 01/01/06 04:26 PM
by MushmanTheManic
* The Randi Paranormal Challenge HypnoToad 1,281 10 05/19/04 06:50 AM
by Bodhi
* The fallacy of skepticism
( 1 2 3 all )		 Economist 4,845 43 07/20/07 03:52 PM
by figgusfiddus
* Criss Angel debunks Tarot & Astrology
( 1 2 all )		 OrgoneConclusion 13,857 37 08/04/07 08:59 AM
by Rhizoid
* Falsifying evolution?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 Mr. Mushrooms 5,520 102 05/06/09 12:45 PM
by Mr. Mushrooms
* Astrology
( 1 2 all )		 Adamist 4,666 38 07/25/02 12:43 PM
by Adamist

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
1,151 topic views. 2 members, 262 guests and 17 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.