Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

James Randi Garbage Disposal #2

Expand Messages
  • raptor_omicron
    Actually this is #5, but it s #2 on this board...anyway, here it is: *** 4.11.03 More Attacks/Lies Launched, Megalogophobia, Einstein Wrong, Ephedrine Bombed,
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 14, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Actually this is #5, but it's #2 on this board...anyway, here it is:

      ***

      4.11.03 "More Attacks/Lies Launched, Megalogophobia, Einstein Wrong,
      Ephedrine Bombed, The Guardian & Science, Bogustry, More Fish,
      Remenance, 666=393, and 'Dowser Brand' Water..."

      www.randi.org/jr/041103.html

      Randi starts by addressing some anti-Randi stuff, and regarding
      the "Mars Effect" scandal he says this:

      "In any case, the entire Gauquelin matter has faded into obscurity
      with the other bits of pseudoscience, having failed attempts at
      replication."

      What attempts? Why is it the habit of all pseudoskeptics to
      cite "attempts" and "studies" and "investigations" but give no
      details of any of these?

      Randi then writes about Professor Gary Schwartz:

      "Why, oh why, would Schwartz think that his exalted position as a
      PhD at Harvard would make him any more convincing to me? Hey,
      Harvard has John Mack, too; that should put an end to that notion!
      And research results of a 'legitimate scientist' are now
      automatically 'facts'?"

      Well, I tend to find PhDs more convincing than magicians with no
      scientific expertise. And the research results of a legitimate
      scientist are far more likely to be factual than those presented by
      a magician who likes to play scientist.

      In response to an accusation, Randi writes:

      "As for that canard that I have 'rigged scientific tests,' though
      I've repeatedly asked anyone to supply just one example of that,
      I've never been offered any. That doesn't stop the claim being made,
      because it's something that the believers dearly want to be true,
      though they can't find a case to cite…."

      Well considering Randi has never made ANY scientific test, I can see
      why finding such a case would be difficult. All of his "scientific"
      tests are either impromptu or pre-preliminary. Also that fact that
      JREF refuses to release the details of any of their tests upon
      request makes it difficult to find any examples of anything.

      Randi flaunts the million dollar challenge again, writing:

      "When it became clear that Schwartz's promise was empty, I then
      offered our million-dollar prize to the U of A if (a) they would
      supply the data that Schwartz had promised us, and if (b) that data
      provided evidence that Schwartz's case was legitimate. As we all
      know, the University simply said that they were not interested in
      the offer, which suggests that they knew just how bad the Schwartz
      claim was..."

      ...Or that they didn't want to get involved with a known fraud.

      Randi then writes:

      "I am not a 'member' of CSICOP, though I am one of the original
      founders. We separated years ago when I was told that I could no
      longer mention Uri Geller in my writings on behalf of CSICOP, so I
      opted not to go along with that admonition."

      So even CSICOP got sick of Randi. Big surprise.

      Randi then denies any evidence of wrongdoing on his part:

      "As for those 'dirty tricks,' and the 'less-than-savory' activities,
      where are the examples? Again, I've asked time and time again for
      the evidence, but they of course can't find any, preferring to
      accept tales they've heard because that serves their needs. That
      lack of proof doesn't stop them because it's something that they
      desperately want to be true, though they can't find a single case to
      hold up as evidence."

      There are many examples and evidences of Randi's shenanigans, which
      I can present to anyone who is interested.

      Randi then dismisses a website about faster than light signal
      propogation (even though it has already been done). Again a proven
      fact is dismissed by Randi. Add that to the chiropractors, mars
      meteorites, and lie detectors that Randi has also chosen to
      disbelieve.

      The rest of the commentary is mostly boring and pointless, and I
      won't burden the reader by discussing any of it. See ya next week!

      ***
    • Ruby Honey
      Oh, Randi just loves to get on Dr. Schwartz. It s ridiculous. You re right= about Randi s shennanigans the old hooligan, lol. As you say, the sadly obvious
      Message 2 of 2 , Apr 14, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Oh, Randi just loves to get on Dr. Schwartz. It's ridiculous. You're right=
        about Randi's "shennanigans" the old
        hooligan, lol. As you say, the sadly obvious and devious sneaky tactics use=
        d by Randi in dealing with Schwartz --
        as others -- are clear and available.

        I'm sick with some flu crud and too tired to dig up links, but I'll post so=
        me as soon as I can.

        ~ ruby


        --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, "raptor_omicron" <raptor_omicron=
        @y...> wrote:
        > Actually this is #5, but it's #2 on this board...anyway, here it is:
        >
        > ***
        >
        > 4.11.03 "More Attacks/Lies Launched, Megalogophobia, Einstein Wrong,
        > Ephedrine Bombed, The Guardian & Science, Bogustry, More Fish,
        > Remenance, 666=393, and 'Dowser Brand' Water..."
        >
        > www.randi.org/jr/041103.html
        >
        > Randi starts by addressing some anti-Randi stuff, and regarding
        > the "Mars Effect" scandal he says this:
        >
        > "In any case, the entire Gauquelin matter has faded into obscurity
        > with the other bits of pseudoscience, having failed attempts at
        > replication."
        >
        > What attempts? Why is it the habit of all pseudoskeptics to
        > cite "attempts" and "studies" and "investigations" but give no
        > details of any of these?
        >
        > Randi then writes about Professor Gary Schwartz:
        >
        > "Why, oh why, would Schwartz think that his exalted position as a
        > PhD at Harvard would make him any more convincing to me? Hey,
        > Harvard has John Mack, too; that should put an end to that notion!
        > And research results of a 'legitimate scientist' are now
        > automatically 'facts'?"
        >
        > Well, I tend to find PhDs more convincing than magicians with no
        > scientific expertise. And the research results of a legitimate
        > scientist are far more likely to be factual than those presented by
        > a magician who likes to play scientist.
        >
        > In response to an accusation, Randi writes:
        >
        > "As for that canard that I have 'rigged scientific tests,' though
        > I've repeatedly asked anyone to supply just one example of that,
        > I've never been offered any. That doesn't stop the claim being made,
        > because it's something that the believers dearly want to be true,
        > though they can't find a case to cite…."
        >
        > Well considering Randi has never made ANY scientific test, I can see
        > why finding such a case would be difficult. All of his "scientific"
        > tests are either impromptu or pre-preliminary. Also that fact that
        > JREF refuses to release the details of any of their tests upon
        > request makes it difficult to find any examples of anything.
        >
        > Randi flaunts the million dollar challenge again, writing:
        >
        > "When it became clear that Schwartz's promise was empty, I then
        > offered our million-dollar prize to the U of A if (a) they would
        > supply the data that Schwartz had promised us, and if (b) that data
        > provided evidence that Schwartz's case was legitimate. As we all
        > know, the University simply said that they were not interested in
        > the offer, which suggests that they knew just how bad the Schwartz
        > claim was..."
        >
        > ...Or that they didn't want to get involved with a known fraud.
        >
        > Randi then writes:
        >
        > "I am not a 'member' of CSICOP, though I am one of the original
        > founders. We separated years ago when I was told that I could no
        > longer mention Uri Geller in my writings on behalf of CSICOP, so I
        > opted not to go along with that admonition."
        >
        > So even CSICOP got sick of Randi. Big surprise.
        >
        > Randi then denies any evidence of wrongdoing on his part:
        >
        > "As for those 'dirty tricks,' and the 'less-than-savory' activities,
        > where are the examples? Again, I've asked time and time again for
        > the evidence, but they of course can't find any, preferring to
        > accept tales they've heard because that serves their needs. That
        > lack of proof doesn't stop them because it's something that they
        > desperately want to be true, though they can't find a single case to
        > hold up as evidence."
        >
        > There are many examples and evidences of Randi's shenanigans, which
        > I can present to anyone who is interested.
        >
        > Randi then dismisses a website about faster than light signal
        > propogation (even though it has already been done). Again a proven
        > fact is dismissed by Randi. Add that to the chiropractors, mars
        > meteorites, and lie detectors that Randi has also chosen to
        > disbelieve.
        >
        > The rest of the commentary is mostly boring and pointless, and I
        > won't burden the reader by discussing any of it. See ya next week!
        >
        > ***
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.