James Randi: fails to explain away Arigo, the surgeon with the rusty knife

There is no way to reply adequately to Mr. Fuller short of writing a book on scientific method, the ethics of medical journalism, and how to distinguish anecdotes from facts.

This sounds like the kneejerk / cop-out WE-CAN'T-REPLY-SO-THERE-IS-NO-REPLY-U-IZ-WRONG; "SCIENCE" WINNS!! reaction that seems a bit familiar. I'm very skeptical about the knifing-eyeball thing, regardless.

I _have_ been wanting to post somewhere ( where?? on a new thread?) , however, a few vedic astrological prognostications concerning the election, and am wondering if the two gentlemen named above, along with Tuomas and caitlin and Girolamo etc (completing the "NO BS" contingent) would be so kind and gracious enough to indulge this insufferable "irrationalist" in this indignant regard ?

Kenan, I'm presuming silence is a way of saying "SHUT THE FUCK UP," so I guess your answer is no. But I kinda want to now; mixed feelings, really. At least I promise I'll keep it on this thread-hijack, k?

Randi's b.s. does not sound reasonable at all because he has fixated wrongly on one thing he believes he can debunk and he also lied about the man and painted him in the worst possible light: Arigo didn't take people's money.

What it is you would like to happen, re: this man?

I would just like to show that James Randi is full of shit.

Arigo is definitely intriguing; I've heard of him before, but don't know enough about him to say anything either way.

The bit you seemed most sceptical about, the eyeball thing, is oddly enough the part I'm least sceptical about, because it's well-documented that medieval physicians treated cataracts in a pretty similar way (basically, pushing the cloudy lens aside with a blunt stick).

(you probably have a slightly skewed opinion of me based on the astrology threads; I'm not just you average SCIENCE IS RIGHT ALWAYS skeptic. I *want* to believe that things like this can happen, and I *do* believe in "paranormal" phenomena that I've personally experienced)

If you want to believe the capsized version presented by Randi, that's your choice, but it should be obvious just by what's been cited thus far that he's full of shit on this matter. His description of Arigo is flatly at odds with everything else's, including scientific investigation.

Of course, it is only natural for a rationalist to believe there is some rational explanation for something like this, but that doesn't mean Randi isn't full of shit in his dismissal.

I am gonna cease the proposed idea of my thread-hiack for the time being, and give Supernatural Man his space; maybe I'll post the planetary stuff foretelling a Bush victory (and going into America's problematic natat chart) elsewhere. But I am glad to have encountered you again, since I had once gotten your AIM name from Ned, before forgotting it - and now I can just email you. =)

That's all.

Hi hubby ;-)

Well, no, not high pain threshold but anaesthesia. Compare this to Jonn Mumford (aka Swami Somethingorother) jamming a hat pin through an unsuspecting student's lower lip before they know what's up. It's really the same thing only Mumford isn't trying to heal anyone. So, that takes care of the "no pain" part of it.

As for how he "sees" what's wrong with someone, I have no idea, but Arigo isn't the only person that did stuff like this.

Chariot of the Gods? Nah, that's crap.

He was too busy, man! 300 people a day! Besides, the old rusty one worked just fine. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

-- Supernatural Man (asd...), November 4th, 2004.

taught the incas everything they know, man.

I believe because it happened several hundred times over. He pulled tumors out of people's nutsack using a dirty knife. Do I need to know how he did that? Or isn't it enough just to know that he did that? Is the alternative believing that he had a sleight of hand trick in which he secretly had a bunch of tumors up his sleeve?

Chariot of the Gods is crap. I don't know who taught the Incas, but I suppose it could be aliens.

I think it's cool that they found ancient carvings of corn in Asia, though. Corn was a new discovery that came with the discovery of America. I suppose there could have been an Asian kind of corn that just died out over time.

I have a knife to stab you!

His list of accomplishments is phenomenal. Researchers and people of the medical profession studied him and not only observed but photographed his opera tions. Skeptics turned believers.

In 1956 Arlgo was charged with practicing medicine illegally. Many would testify that there was no evidence of infection or harm from Arlgo's treatment of thousands. His crime was healing, without credentials. He was found guilty and sentenced to fifteen months in jail, plus a fine.

Following an appeal, the sentence was reduced to eight months. Before he served his time he received an official presidential pardon from President Kubitschek.

I was quoting "john carpenter's the thing". 'twas a joke.

Hi Giro. I could get into that - the rational behind the "why," the model underlying the "how" - but I was just starting to go there a few months ago on that star sign thread ( I missed you there! Kenan & oops & Caitlin kept me from getting lonely though), and it wouldn't do any good. Why? Since all of the models, methods, cosmology, even the terminology behind that cosmology (an infuriating matter of semantics...is your "science" different from Babylonian "science" which is related to Hindu "science," et al): etheric bodies, astral bodies, causal bodies, karma, soul, chakra, chi/prana, etc.... all of that is irrevelent regarding empiricism, since it's supposedly to be first accepted as a matter of principle, until it IS subjectively experienced. Is there really an Objective to begin with? Here is where the civilizational/cultural/you name it world-views' schism enters the area of insurmountability...[[[IMO, first the West was wayyy too over on one extreme, leading everything up to Faith but one based on institutionalized societal dogma ie, the Church, as opposed to one that varied based on subjective exoerience, as in the East ((Hinduism, Tibetan Buddhim, Taoism, etc)). NOW, in a very gradual reaction to that extreme, the Western pendulum since the "Enlightenment" has swung wayyy too far to the polar opposite, not leaving anything upto principles that by _definition_ cannot provide an observable and, to respect the SM, copyable manifestation as beholden to empiricism.]]]]

So you can very easily "disprove," or disregard these suspension-of-disbelief-requiring rationals and basic terms/entities, or claim that since they cannot be proven (via the five senses / empiricism), that it's all outside the realm of (Modern/Westen) Science, and therefore in the domain of Faith. Which I think I'm fine with, on one level...

...until I remember that this "domain of Faith" motel room I'm locked in is really nasty, as I'm sharing company numerous people (whom the rest of the West looks upon with disdain! see innumerable election threads!) who believed it's close to End Times, Jesus is returning, and therefore voted for Bush II last night. I hate being here!! It's fucking with my self-identification!

I think the key difference separarating teh Me from Tehm (a new meme?) would be the "personal experience" clause, which even Caitlin expressed above. BUT that gets me in even more trouble, as now I am a) veering dangerously close to the "Other Ppl's 'Irrational' beliefs Are Teh Suck; Mine R00l" stance, and b) skirting (but not unconsciously! after all I'm bringin' it up) the conflation between subjective experience and mental illness/"hallucination," for surely a lot of the people in this room _have_ "experienced" Jesus on a peronal level, and I'm not above doubting that X amount are k-k-krazy.

How do I get out of this room?!?

Basically, I think you have to answer one question yourself before you ask me any others: are there any limits or exceptions to empiricism, or is it irrefutable, and if the former, when and why ?

I didn't think you were for serious.

You can't measure something like creativity or passion b/c it is not inherently physical, although it may leave physical evidence indirectly. That doesn't mean that those things don't exist. However, if you're going to talk about physical things (like surgery, election outcomes) and the like, then yes, I demand empiricism. If you want to talk about emotions, ideas, and other intangibles, then certainly we can at least partially liberate ourselves from empiricism.

I also think that a bit of Occam's Law usually is worth consideration.

The book! The film! The simple fact that no proof of fraud was ever found researching Arigo. The work of no other so-called "psychic surgeon" has ever been documented as thoroughly as that of Arigo.

(xpost)
Quoting the Wikipedia article:
Some people have oversimplified Occam's Razor as "The simplest explanation is the best (or true) one".

Yes, and I said that some people over-stated the principle. Occam's Razor is so prevelant that to say a theory is simpler means to state that it has the fewest number of assumptions. Occam's Razor makes no claims about Truth.

And yes, I demand physical "accountability" from physical acts. As we've established.

Furthermore, please show me what you'd define as overstating it.

Check out skepdic's pathetic attempt to classify Chi and note the lump-it-all-together strategy of the article they link to. Chinatown practitioners also call Falun Dafa "quack medicine" just as readily as anyone from the AMA.

That James Randi is a dipshit, skepdic was created by a dipshit and debunkers who use the lump-it-together technique are dipshits. If there is not conclusive evidence to debunk something, it should not be casually dismissed by citing Occam's Razor.

SM, if you have no other explanation for something, it's pretty well worthless in practical terms. Occam's Razor requires a counter-argument to weigh against. There may be a simpler explanation for the surgery, but until it can be provided for the phenomenon is merely an anecdote of no worth.

Example: I come up with a proof for cold fusion. However, I do not write it down before I die, nor do I pass it along. I only announce that I have figured it out. Whether or not I have or haven't actually done this is irrelevant, because it has no practical value in that it can no be reproduced until someone else comes along and shows an empirical solution to the problem.

Face it - you need empiricism for the physical realm.

Thank you.

Redfez, would you let him operate on you?

On the one side we can assume that this was a case of fraud. On the other side, we can assume that there are multiple disciplines of psychic science yet to be fully documented.

Which seems the smaller assumption? Remember, if you only provide some plausible empirical explanation for #2, you reduce the assumptions.

Which seems the smaller assumption? Remember, if you only provide some plausible empirical explanation for #2, you reduce the assumptions.

On the one hand you have several examples of fraud that hint at fraud and on the other hand you have several pieces of evidence that suggest a singular aspect of science which has yet to be fully documented-- you can't just lump them together when you feel like it and seperate them when you feel like it. You've purposely used the term "multiple disciplines" of psychic science to add a tone of impossibility to the whole thing, rather than recognizing the obvious similarity and ease of singular classification as one aspect of reality. Yet, these "multiple disciplines" are often lumped together to discredit each other when one case is found to be fraud.

Maybe they used a Cold Fusion Detector to tell?

On the other hand, if the inventor at least left behind his equipment, then that could be used to analyse some of the methods used for the experiment.

The point is that empiricism in science is based upon being able to reproduce the result independently given certain standard conditions, based upon understanding of what methods must be used and why they must be used.

If you don't have that, you just have a good story to tell around the campfire and nothing more.

No. (And ?!)

This is an unusual thread.

This was my favorite thread ever. It gets my "best of the web" award:

http://www.ronandjoe.com/cheese/silly/red_fez.jpg

Is it completely pointless for me to ask for some cites here? By verifiable, I assume you mean "verifiable by people without some vested interest in believing he can do that".

http://www.firstscience.com/SITE/factfile/factfile1421_1440.asp
Weird Science fact # 1422/ It has been demonstrated that humans are able to control their body temperatures to an amazing degree. In one experiment involving skilled yoga practitioners, the yogi was able to change the temperature of two areas of skin just two inches apart by a difference of ten degrees fahrenheit.

http://health.discovery.com/centers/fitness/runsmart/runsmart3.html
This article shows that you can not only use your mind to change your body, but that you can use your body to change your mind, which is exactly what Tantra/Yoga is all about.

http://www.newscientist.com/conferences/confarticle.jsp?conf=soneu200011&id=ns9999154
This article reaffirms this, specifically citing Yoga.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,106356-1,00.html
This article shows that scientific analysis of Yoga is about as controversial as eggs. One study shows one thing, someone else says it's inconclusive. Do you eat the yolks or not?

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/health/HealthRepublish_41237.htm
Scientists at the Medical College of Georgia examined how transcendental meditation decreases constriction of blood vessels and affects the heart’s output.  They found that transcendental meditation decreases blood pressure by reducing constriction of the blood vessels and thereby decreases the risk of heart disease.  This is yet another study that shows evidence of mind-body connections.  While clearing one’s mind and concentrating upon soothing images, one can ease the physical condition of high blood pressure by allowing the body’s blood vessels to dilate.  This is not a conscious process in that you are thinking, “please blood vessels dilate” but an awareness process of recognizing the stressors of your everyday life.  By becoming aware of your need to take time to relax and release tension you are able to transfer this healthy awareness to your body.

....And here's a whole bunch of articles on Yoga related to physical and mental health:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/search/?keyword=yoga&topic=all&sort=relevance

I'M BEING SARCASTIC

My argument does not have to prove the unproveable. For an unsolved mystery to be solved, it has be proved. Otherwise, it is not solved. For it to remain unsolved, all we have to do is admit the evidence for the mystery and the lack of evidence for its solution.

They actually cut the guy in half. Of course, there are frauds who use various tricks to create a similar illusion.

Well, fine, then what about this book?

http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opbooks.jsp?id=ns24122

"...Psi Wars begins with a look at the sheer strangeness of paranormal phenomena and their implications. Then lead editor James Alcock of the University of Toronto argues cogently for scepticism based on evidence rather than ignorance. And as the bulk of the book shows, the evidence is far more extensive than you might think. Furthermore, some of it, notably in studies of telepathy, is strongly positive...

Far from being the flaky obsession of nutcases, paranormal phenomena emerge as a valuable test bed for techniques whose reliability too often goes unquestioned. Anyone seeking something more sophisticated than the usual mud-slinging should buy this book."

"...Cue the ritual slanging match between the wide-eyed credulist ("Well, it works for me") and the sceptic ("There's not a shred of scientific evidence").

Those who loathe such exchanges because of their sterile predictability now have a powerful antidote in this authoritative and accessible review of the state of scientific research into paranormal phenomena, based on a special issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies. Almost all of the pieces are written by university academics with a track record of peer-reviewed research, and they cover paranormal phenomena thought by some to cast light on human consciousness, primarily telepathy (communication between minds), psychokinesis (affecting objects with the mind) and astrology (celestial effects on the mind)."

you should find another bulletin board. really.

Why? Because a skeptic walks into a room with a psychic and says, "Read my mind-- can't do it? Okay, you're full of shit." Even when overall telepathy studies overwhelmingly favor the existence of telepathy over all other possible explanations, the skeptic says, "Well, they did not do it every time and some studies failed miserably," completely discounting the majority of studies, the methods of analysis and experimentation in each study and the nature of PSI, in general, which nobody claims to be 100%, anyway. It is not like putting cells in a petri dish and getting a predictable result.

it is a waste of effort to investigate every crazy claim that anyone comes out with. if the claim is similar to stuff that has been debunked before, then it is totally rational to not immediately go "OH REALLY, WOW SHOW ME". THis is your "lumping in" thing. there's nothing wrong with it.

the onus is on a claimant to shore up intially unlikely claims with persuasive evidence.

in this case, and others no doubt, you think that persuasive evidence is in. i don't. especially when such claims are so easily explained in other ways.

And don't forget, this Randi is the same guy who resorted to comparing Arigo to other frauds to discredit him when Arigo could be proven fraudulent no other way. He reduced the man to a one-trick pony (knife eye guy) and linked him with exposed frauds who flung animal parts on the ground. The reason Arigo was so much more of an interest was exactly BECAUSE he was not like these other frauds and was not a one-trick pony flinging animal parts on the ground. But, that doesn't matter to Randi.

This is why you get offended by "this Randi" because, like him, you are a hardcore avowed skeptic. You would have me offer you proof for ages and if you even bothered to look at the evidence and the proof began to add up, you would resort to some tactic like this "this Randi" copout.

And though i don't know you, i do know that nutters keep popping up with hobby horses to waste my time. and i'm just not interested. post a picture of a kitten.

"When we pick up a book on science and the paranormal, the first thing we generally want to know is whether the author is arguing for the reality of anomalies or against them. When it comes to a true scientific controversy, many of the best treatments are neccessarily the ones where you don't quite know which side is being argued because the facts are being presented as far as practical for you to evaluate. That's a difficult posture to take in a book on scientific anomalies because the term itself is somewhat of an oxymoron to many people.

If it is an anomaly, how can it be scientific? Isn't science supposed to be about things we can measure and "prove?" Parapsychology relentlessly tests our attitude and philosophy toward how science works by presenting us with what are potentially very significant anomalies to the way we understand nature.

"Psi Wars" is a particularly good treatment of the general topic of the paranomal and its investigation by science. It begins by showing clearly why putative psi phenomena are so threatening to our understanding, by virtue of their sheer bizarreness. It then reviews the evidence for certain phenomena, such as telepathy, and shows it to be, (as parapsychologists have long contended, often against ridicule and accusations), remarkably strong.

A unique aspect of this book is that while reviewing the strength of the evidence for psi phenomena is an unusually balanced way, it also presents well-reasoned articles explaining why skepticism is still the most useful approach for scientists to take toward certain kinds of anomalies. Standard statistical methods can show intrinsic weaknesses when used to analyze highly unusual results. Scientific protocols have some unavoidable difficulties dealing with results that are so unreliably replicated in a laboratory.

This book stands out as an excellent case study of methdological issues of particularly difficult scientific investigations and a good way to examine tricky issues of philosophy of science. Could it be that the phenomena are real and our understanding of nature has some disturbing holes in it, or could it be that our methods of understanding nature have limits yet to be fully recognized?

Psi Wars stands out for me as an unusually serious and responsible treatment of anomalous science in a field all to easy to dismiss or pass off as a joke."

"As for Turoff, he was one of those I looked into on my TV series for Granada, in the UK. He's a promoter of Sai Baba, says he operates through the spirits of the Brazilian fraud Arigo, and a very dead German doctor he calls, "Kahn". I leave you to your own conclusions. "

I believe the piece I was looking at before is in his book "Flim-Flam," in which he also mentions him only briefly and compares him with other proven frauds.

Alex in SF, James Randi fellated Arigo back in the '70's. The point is what he DOES say about him, which is false. He calls him a fraud flat-out when he was anything BUT proven to be a fraud. That's not science to say, "Well, he claimed this. What do you think? He's a fraud."

The long ones, I know.

Hijacked Hearse.

The very few professionals who actually have studied the subject we are discussing in controlled settings and through broad analysis of multiple results data in a scientific and skeptical manner are exactly what the skeptics on this thread are not interested in looking at. I wonder, what other data have the skeptics on this thread even BOTHERED to look at? My guess is zero.

Except that those same "professionals" have been proven in other instances to be gullible dorkuses who let their subjects run amok and allow their "controls" to be tampered with.

-- Tep (icaneatglas...), November 4th, 2004. (ktepi) (later)

Wow.

Quite a rational and tolerant response. Simply checking: by these ILX standards I wouldn't just be forced onto this bus, but driving it, I hope ?

So are the sceptics wrong? Not necessarily, and one of the strengths of this book lies in showing why scepticism is such a useful approach. For example, the strength of evidence is typically assessed using standard statistical methods, but as some authors make clear, these can begin to creak under the strain of unconventional results. Then there is the problem of replicability: paranormal effects have proved hard to reproduce reliably in different laboratories. Some think this reflects their inherent weakness, but certainly some now widely attested "orthodox" effects, such as the efficacy of clot-buster drugs, initially proved dismally unreplicable. Sceptics, however, insist it proves they are non-existent.

Rational, objective, and doesn't prove one iota of what you're trying to say.

Jackass, read that again. The book is not one-sided.

Rational, objective, and doesn't prove one iota of what you're trying to say.

Jackass, read that again. The book is not one-sided.

Like the other reviewer said:

"A unique aspect of this book is that while reviewing the strength of the evidence for psi phenomena is an unusually balanced way, it also presents well-reasoned articles explaining why skepticism is still the most useful approach for scientists to take toward certain kinds of anomalies. Standard statistical methods can show intrinsic weaknesses when used to analyze highly unusual results. Scientific protocols have some unavoidable difficulties dealing with results that are so unreliably replicated in a laboratory. "

Bullshit. You're using the Randi approach. These same professionals? Eh? You don't even know what you're talking about.

What you MEAN to say is "other professionals that I have heard about in passing and assume to exist in a large quantity, have been proven to be gullible dorkuses and therefore I have decided to predetermine this is the category in which I shal place all others that strike me as similar."

What, in gratitude for removing tumors?!!!

It's just part of his routine testing.

This other book, Psi Wars, is completely different.

FELLATIO is part of his routine testing? Errrrrrr, any cites for that?

(Now has really disturbing porno running in head oh noes)

There are pictures over at Randi.org. It all started with certain tribes in which the younger males believed swallowing the manjuice of the elder males would make them stronger. James Randi set out to prove that this was not true and hasn't stopped since. His repeated claim, "If sperm has the ability to pass on any traits from its originator, then why am I not getting stronger and more psychic everyday?"

In June 1999, a Mr Rico Kolodzey of Germany wrote to James Randi and challenged for the reputed $1 million prize. Mr Kolodzey is one of several thousand people who believe and claim that they can live on water alone, absorbing 'prana' or life energy from space around them.

Now this claim is, to say the least, extraordinary. It is perhaps even more extraordinary that an individual should offer to prove this claim by submitting himself to a controlled test.

The claim is one that most people would treat with great skepticism, and might well run a mile from. But James Randi is not most people -- he is the person who has publicly claimed that he has $1 million on offer to all comers who challenge him and are willing to submit to rigorous testing, as Mr Kolodzey has offered to do.

It should not be very difficult to arrange a test of Mr Kolodzey's claim. All that is needed is to lock him in a police cell, under CCTV observation, with only water to drink. If he experiences significant measurable weight loss, or asks for food, then his claim is false. If, on the other hand, he does somehow survive on water alone, then Randi is wrong, conventional science is wrong, and Mr Kolodzey has won $1 million.

It ought therefore to have been a very simple matter for Randi to offer to lock Mr Kolodzey up for a week or two. But that is not what Randi did. Instead he ignored Mr Kolodzey entirely. When Mr Kolodzey wrote again to Randi asking about his challenge, he received the following email from Randi (later confirmed with a hard copy):-

Date: 6/18/99 12:03 PM

Mr. Kolodzey:

Don't treat us like children. We only respond to responsible claims.

Are you actually claiming that you have not consumed any food products except water, since the end of 1998? If this is what you are saying, did you think for one moment that we would believe it?

If this is actually your claim, you're a liar and a fraud. We are not interested in pursuing this further, nor will we exchange correspondence with you on the matter.

Signed, James Randi.
(A hard-copy of this letter will be sent by post to you, today.)

James Randi Educational Foundation
201 S.E. 12th Street (Davie Blvd.)
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316-1815

So, now we know exactly how much confidence can be placed in James Randi's "challenge" and exactly how Randi behaves when confronted by a real challenger, willing to submit to rigorous scientific testing of his claims.

Randi runs away.

"It is an attempt to attain informed, balanced dialogue about the many controversies in the field, in this case concerning parapsychology. The editors struggled with how to deal with the parapsychology papers, which arise outside mainstream science. The decision was made to allow the parapsychologists to express the "standard view" of parapsychology. This would expose readers equally to parapsychologists' and skeptics' views of the field, letting them judge the merits of each side."

So, even if the editors of have, for fairness' sake, put articles by parapsychologists in the book, the fact that they're there doesn't automatically make them objective. Studies by non-parapsycholgists, ie. people who don't have a vested interest in the subject, usually reach different conclusions. Believe or not, credible scientists have made quite an effort to study claims regarding ESP and other such phenomena, and have come up with nothing. So it's not a case of sceptics dismissing these claims straight away without putting any thought to them.

It would be easier to write these people off as harmless kooks if it wasn't for the fact that several people have died trying to follow their lead.

From that link: "In 1983, most of the leadership of the cult in California resigned when Wiley Brooks, its 47-year-old leader, who claimed not to have eaten for 19 years, was caught sneaking into a hotel and ordering a chicken pie."

(you really think this is Calum? If so, then sort of props, as it's his most intellectually rigorous thread yet, albeit one where he can't actually conprehend anything other than a single, narrow-minded and almost-certainly-wrong approach)

(actually I don't know if I will because you're an insufferable buffoon and I don't want to talk to you)

The funny thing is nobody here has even looked at PSI research, let alone an actual research paper or experimental data on the topic and carefully analyzed it. And certainly nobody here has carefully analyzed all the experimental data as a whole.

There are a handful of books on the subject and the only one here mentioned is Psi Wars, which nobody has read obviously.

My socks get smelly.

"Jaunty, and HOW DOES IT WORK? What is the empirical evidence for the placebo effect? It is invisible aside from the result, correct?

The funny thing is nobody here has even looked at PSI research, let alone an actual research paper or experimental data on the topic and carefully analyzed it. And certainly nobody here has carefully analyzed all the experimental data as a whole.

There are a handful of books on the subject and the only one here mentioned is Psi Wars, which nobody has read obviously."

you should go away and read about the placebo effect.

Posting pics of trolls doesn't do say for Giro, either.

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:BFtCHuMO390J:www.speedqueen.com/vend/images/big_gold_medal.jpg

You should go away and read about PSI research.

http://www.kathleengiordano.com/ilxdebate.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True-believer_syndrome

The true-believer syndrome is a term coined by the reformed psychic fraud M. Lamar Keene to refer to an irrational belief in the paranormal. Skeptics see this as a form of self-deception caused by wishful thinking in which a believer continues to accept paranormal explanations for phenomena or events, or denies the relevance of scientific findings, even after the believer has been confronted with abundant evidence that the phenomena or events have natural causes. The term is mainly used by skeptics in the debate over the existence of certain sorts of paranormal phenomena and the persistence of belief in these phenomena.

For example, skeptics generally agree there is sufficient proof to conclude that the alleged miracles of Uri Geller, Sathya Sai Baba and Jim Jones are or were false; they therefore have often reasoned that believers who have been given the extant evidence of fraud in these cases, and yet continue to believe in these men, are described by this condition. Some ex-followers of Sathya Sai Baba accept this syndrome as an explanation of what has happened to them.[1] (http://www.saiguru.net/english/sai_org/14oclery.htm), [2] (http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex_baba/engels/articles/p_holbach/eng/trueb_e.htm?FACTNet)

Robert T. Carroll, the webmaster of the skeptic's dictionary, sees some similarity with a cognitive disorder. However, this syndrome is not used in the scientific literature, has not been included in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and no clinical evidence has been provided for its links with demonstrable cognitive impairment or psychopathology.

The true-believer syndrome seems similar in many ways to belief processes identified by Thomas Kuhn in his study on the sociology of science, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn demonstrated that scientists can hold onto beliefs in scientific theories despite overwhelming prevailing counter-evidence, and suggested that social forces, as much as ones purely concerned with rationality, are a strong influence on the beliefs we hold. This is an area studied by the sociology of knowledge where the social function of paranormal beliefs has been a focus of research.

The term was not coined by mainstream psychologists nor is it used by them and hence the term could be classified as popular psychology. Though unlike many concepts in popular psychology, there is some empirical proof for its existence.

http://www.kathleengiordano.com/ilxdebate.jpg

http://www.creativelightworldwide.com/pages/buyers/featurefilm/superguy/images/superguy-main.jpg +
http://www.sirbacon.org/graphics/arigo.jpg +
http://www.monalisa-prod.com/vi/images/catalogue/science/traqueurs/fantomes03.jpg +
http://www.journals.apa.org/prevention/volume1/pre0010002afig2a.gif =
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:xr1aLypy54YJ:www.eso.org/seaspace/img/superprize.gif
http://www.uneedaenterprises.com/ilxdebate.jpg

This thread is hilarious! Wow!

Well, at Sébastian's request, I dug up an old thread about Randi (this appears to be the only one), to say he's a carny and the Randi prize is a publicity stunt by a has-been pseudo-skeptic flim-flam. If you are clearly a fraud, Randi will be glad to "test" you. But, for those with the remotest possibility of being able to provide evidence of "paranormal activity," Randi has a history of lying and avoiding these cases entirely. Randi himself has even admitted it when confronted with the fact that his methods are dishonest. He gets away with it, of course, because his audience wants him to succeed and doesn't really care how he does it. If the prize ever was given away, most likely all the pseudo-skeptics in his audience would think he was slipping or in cahoots with the prize-winner.

See first two posts on this thread, if bored:
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=50207&hl=

But, I wouldn't trust a guy with a rusty knife to stab me in the balls LOL.

Man, I love this guy for being such a ranty, insane little gnome man. The world of skeptics is just as weird as the world of the people they're railing against.

Randi vs Global Warming

Oh, it must be Christmas. As I mentioned in Wednesday's news briefs, James Randi has come under fire from all quarters this week, after posting his thoughts about global warming to his blog:

-----
An unfortunate fact is that scientists are just as human as the rest of us, in that they are strongly influenced by the need to be accepted, to kowtow to peer opinion, and to "belong" in the scientific community. Why do I find this "unfortunate"? Because the media and the hoi polloi increasingly depend upon and accept ideas or principles that are proclaimed loudly enough by academics who are often more driven by "politically correct" survival principles than by those given them by Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and Bohr. (Granted, it's reassuring that they're listening to academics at all -- but how to tell the competent from the incompetent?) Religious and other emotional convictions drive scientists, despite what they may think their motivations are.

...It's easy enough to believe that drought, floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes are signs of a coming catastrophe from global warming, but these are normal variations of any climate that we -- and other forms of life -- have survived. Earth has undergone many serious changes in climate, from the Ice Ages to periods of heavily increased plant growth from their high levels of CO2, yet the biosphere has survived. We're adaptable, stubborn, and persistent -- and we have what other life forms don't have: we can manipulate our environment. Show me an Inuit who can survive in his habitat without warm clothing... Humans will continue to infest Earth because we're smart.

In my amateur opinion, more attention to disease control, better hygienic conditions for food production and clean water supplies, as well as controlling the filth that we breathe from fossil fuel use, are problems that should distract us from fretting about baking in Global Warming.
-----

Given that Randi's skeptical peers and scientific admirers have spent the last couple of months attacking 'Global Warming Deniers', Randi found himself in the unlikely spot of being attacked for his 'pseudo-scientific' opinion piece. Blog posts decrying Randi's statement appeared quickly on Pharyngula, The Quackometer, Cosmic Variance, Greg Laden's Blog and Respectful Insolence. Even more vicious were the comments threads (lead, as it would be expected, by more than 500 Pharyngula comments) in which it was suggested that Randi was suffering from dementia and so on (although you'd have to say there may have been some karmic retribution for Randi in the meanness of it all...with friends like those, who needs 'woo-woo' enemies!) And, in a wonderful bit of timing, Randi managed to post his piece on the same day that a fund-raising drive for the James Randi Educational Foundation kicked into gear. Oops.

The back-pedaling was swift - the next day, Randi posted a new statement, "I'm Not 'Denying' Anything" (which P.Z. Myers labeled a 'not-pology', leading to some fun exchanges between Myers' minions and Randi's followers in comments threads.) And then the back-patting, with plenty of 'skeptics' saying that the criticism of Randi showed how healthy the modern skeptical movement is.

But this is nonsense. Randi took a position which was diametrically opposed to the current scientific consensus, and furthermore one that was absolutely contrary to the argument being put forth on a regular basis by other skeptics such as Phil Plait and P.Z. Myers. There was no other option for them but to criticise Randi – it was either that or be hypocrites. What would be a better test of the health of modern skepticism is if other skeptics pulled Randi up for speaking nonsense about more fringe topics. Which he does on a regular basis. And the silence is deafening. The real truth of modern skepticism as a dogmatic faith is revealed in those particular moments.

In the comments threads, many people seemed shocked that their great beacon of truth was spreading misinformation. But the only reason was because Randi took on a topic which didn't allow his sheeple to nod their head in agreement. Randi often posts rubbish and misinformation on his blog - I've criticised him before in the comments section to his blog (asking for references for dubious claims etc) only to be attacked by other 'skeptics'. For instance, as I mentioned recently, Randi once attacked parapsychologist Dr Dean Radin by saying that he had recently moved into researching presentiment after his other research had failed - in truth, Radin has been publishing successful results on presentiment for more than a decade, in addition to his other research. On another occasion with which I was personally involved, Randi deliberately misled his readers to suit his own personal ends. Randi also often states his dislike (or at least distrust) of the 'ivory tower' of academia, perhaps a result of his own lack of education.

But if 'skeptics' would like to dismiss what I say because it refers to fringe ideas, it should be asked why this GW statement caused such uproar, when Randi has posted scary social-Darwinism rants such as the following (regarding the 'beneficial' effects of drug legalisation on addicts) which perhaps deserved far more criticism:

-----
Those individuals who were stupid enough to rush into the arms of the mythical houris and/or Adonis's they would expect to greet them, would simply do so and die - by whatever chemical or biological fate would overcome them...the principle of Survival of the Fittest would draconically prove itself for a couple of years, after which Natural Selection would weed out those for whom there is no hope except through our forbearance, and I'm very, very, weary of supporting these losers with my tax dollars.

...Any weeping and wailing over the Poor Little Kids who would perish by immediately gobbling down pills and injecting poison, is summoning up crocodile tears, in my opinion. They would - and presently do - mature into grown-up idiots, and Darwin would be appalled that his lessons were ignored.
-----

So says the world's premiere defender of reason.

Much props to Randi, but I'd be major bummed to find out he was a Libertarian.

Mr. Randi has apparently just outed himself on his site (er, as gay, not as a fake psychic).

Hahah I was about to say.

amazing

What a weird story...

Jailed Plantation mystery artist reveals true identity in federal court

Jailed mystery artist Jose Alvarez and his longtime companion, magician and professional skeptic James "The Amazing" Randi, revealed Alvarez's true identity to a federal judge Friday so the artist could be released on a million-dollar bond after six weeks of incarceration.

For 24 years, Deyvi Pena used the name, date of birth and Social Security number of a New York man to travel the world on a United States passport first issued to him in 1987. During that time as Alvarez, he became a celebrated artist whose works have hung in exhibitions in New York, Miami and San Francisco.

Pena was arrested Sept. 8 at Randi's Plantation home under the name "John Doe" and charged with passport fraud and identity theft. A Sun Sentinel investigation revealed Pena's true identity earlier this week. The newspaper obtained the immigration visa he used in March 1984 to come to the United States from his native Venezuela to attend the Art Institute of Fort Lauderdale.

Pena, 49, and Randi, 83, have remained high-profile figures in the world of skepticism for decades, and Randi is famous around the world for debunking people who profess to have paranormal powers. He runs the James Randi Educational Foundation dedicated to skepticism.

The deal to get Pena — whose full name is Deyvi Orangel Pena Arteaga — out on bond was worked out at the last minute Thursday night by Assistant U.S. Attorney Bertha Mitrani and Pena's defense attorney, Susan Dmitrovsky.

U.S. Magistrate Barry Seltzer asked the attorneys if there was any paperwork — a passport or travel visas — to show Pena was who he said he was.

"Do we have anything to confirm this his true identity?" the judge asked. "I can't release a defendant unless I have some idea who he is."

Mitrani said she and the federal agents working on the case had not had time to check for immigration records, but that she was comfortable Pena was his actual identity and that he would not try to flee the country if released on bond.

"We are going to verify and vet the information he gave us," Mitrani told the judge.

The judge was satisfied only after hearing Pena and Randi testify under oath. Randi told the judge he had seen Pena's Venezuelan passport years ago. Pena said he used the fraudulent U.S. passport to travel Europe.

Seltzer set two bonds for Pena: One is a $1 million personal surety bond guaranteed by him and Randi, and the other is a cash bond of $50,000. Pena was released a few hours after the hearing, still wearing tan jail scrubs. He will wear an electronic monitor and be under house arrest.

Even with the disclosure of Pena's identity, another mystery persists. Neither he nor Randi disclosed why Pena had stolen someone else's identity.

"The government and the public will know how all this happened and snowballed," Dmitrovsky said after the hearing. "That's all going to be revealed. It's a very compelling story.

Hope nobody takes up Randi's million dollar challenge anytime soon.

good article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/09/magazine/the-unbelievable-skepticism-of-the-amazing-randi.html