Can Scientific Methods Validate Glass Moving Séances?

[Davorak]

The first link is very much a crack pot site. The following quote is his against Randi.
"Authority does not rest with scientists, when emotion, need and desperation are involved. Scientists are human beings, too, and can be deceived and self-deceived."
What is wrong with that, scientist some times get too rapped up in their work and can self-deceive themselves.

"He is not afraid to attack scientists who take an interest in subjects like telepathy, like Brian Josephson, Professor of Physics at Cambridge University."
Should he be afraid to do just this if the research does not hold up?

The arguments on this sight do not hold water or offer no hard proof of the paranormal or the debunking of Randi. I did not waste my time with any of the other articles.

 

[PIT2]

The arguments on this sight do not hold water or offer no hard proof of the paranormal or the debunking of Randi. I did not waste my time with any of the other articles.

In other words, u picked 2 sentences from the first link, and ignored the second link. Great job

If u didnt read the other articles, then how do u know if the site didnt debunk Randi?


Here Randi (the non-scientist) is debunked by a scientist:

http://www.sheldrake.org/controversies/randi.html

Conclusion: Randi is a liar.

 

[Davorak]

I do not have to read the other articles to know that it does not debunk Randi, since those articles do not deal with Randi!

I read that link too since there since they lined it under the heading " Randi's dishonest claims." Randi admitted that he made a rash decision. This is not a debunk, but rather a person admitting he mad a mistake. This is not proof that he lies on a regular basis, in fact that(new website) article does not even claim that.

Conclusion: Randi is a liar.

A conclusion from a one time event that he admitted to being rash about? I think you are jumping a few steps here. Now Randi, has admitted to making a mistake, perhaps he has made other mistakes, and this should perhaps be investigated. The article does not claim to have started our or completed such an investigation, the article leaves it simple at Randi admits making a mistake. This is not proof, a solid conclusion can not be taken from it. It is an emotional argument, and if that is you only reason for believing Randi is a liar then you fell for it.

 

[PIT2]

Technically, he is a liar. Nothing emotional about that.

Clearly, he will not (or cannot) debunk Sheldrakes scientific research of telepathy and other 'paranormal' phenomena.
It seems to me either he should hand over the million dollar to Sheldrake (or that blind guy Ivan Seeking mentioned), or drop his offer altogether.

 

[Davorak]

Is everyone who has lied once in their life a liar? If yes it not a very useful definition then. The article does not show that he did it intentionally either, or that it was malicious. He may have been misinformed we can not tell, and the article does not try to either.

Clearly, he will not (or cannot) debunk Sheldrakes scientific research of telepathy and other 'paranormal' phenomena.

How do you get this from the article on Randi, it only talks about one case where he admits he was wrong. It does not say if has tried in other areas or not. You can not draw the conclusion that "he can not or will not" if you do not know if he has or not tried before.

Sheldrake needs apply and meet the requirements of Randi's prize, I see no reason for him just to hand it over without Sheldrake first providing observable proof.

Did you read the article about the blind guy? I just skimmed it myself, however the blind mans ability has nothing to do with what is normally consider paranormal. The information from his eyes are still being processed by his brain, that is how he able to tell emotions a significant amount of time. This is not an extra sensory perception, only a rewiring of what already exists.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If our testing methods don’t work we can always make new ones. The phenomena have to be controlled or consistent enough to obtain statistically significant data though, otherwise no progress can be made on the subject. If no progress is possible or if there is very little chance of progress then it makes sense that very little resources should be put forth to study the elusive and rare phenomena.

I agree completely. On one hand, I think we need the small percentage of people who are willing to explore the bleeding edge, but, most such efforts must be expected to fail. I do think that new options might emerge with the age of technology. For one, an effective lie detector test might help. For now any such technology is subject to interpretation and, AFAIK, not really reliable or helpful. But the day may come when we can check the truthfulness of claims with a reliable test. Also, anyone who believes that they have had a paranormal experience needs no further justification.

 

[cybermonsters]

I read Sheldrakes info on the "dog" experiments but it seems pretty sketchy.

I have been in contact with Mr. Randi. He has specifically offered the prize to Dr. Emoto and his water experiments if he can simply duplicate his alleged experiments in a double-blind environment. Seems very reasonable to me.

The offer to Dr. Emoto is on Randi's website.