> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 3:50 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: More Crap with John Edward
>
> On Dec 26, 2007 9:24 AM, Sean Corfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 23, 2007 7:35 PM, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > This is just so typical. You gain notoriety, rake in some bucks
> get a
> > > devoted following. You get cocky and get exposed as a fraud on a
> few
> > news
> > > shows and things start to go South.
> >
> > Hey Jim - can you provide some URLs for Edward being exposed as a
> > fraud? I'd be interested in reading more about that.
> >
>
> Heh. As the recent "new cat" thread has shown, there's argumentation
> supporting
> and denying X, "tweaking" X, etc....
>
> I was pointing out that even skeptics have agendas-- Uri Geller is a
> good
> example-
> at least one skeptic went as far as making up discrediting information.
I'd like to see that.
No self-respecting skeptic would ever make up false information when Geller
provides so very much of it on his own. There isn't a single one (not ONE)
of his powers that can't be recreated by a third-rate magician. He's never
submitted to quality testing (and never will by the looks of it) - oh, he'll
be tested if you give him complete control over the environment... but that
can't really count, can it?
Randi has offered (many times) to test him under controlled conditions. If
his powers are genuine (and ANY of his powers would do - just bending a
powered spoon without touching the powder would work) then there's no
downside for him:
1) He would force the world's most respected skeptic to accept his claims.
2) He would be able to write his own ticket as far as his powers go.
3) He would win a Million dollars. (Actually there are several million
dollars in prize money available throughout the world fronted by various
skeptical organizations... an honest-to-goodness psychic could rake it the
big bucks easy.)
But he won't. He's claimed that "he doesn't need the money" (so why not
give it to charity and accept the glory?) or that "he can't trust Randi"
(since both Randi AND the test subject have to agree to the parameters of
the test this is incredibly weak reasoning).
Truth is he can't do what he claims. It's just tricks (and bad tricks at
that). He's a fraud and a liar. A liar and a fraud.
All it would take for skeptics to shut the hell up is one high-quality
demonstration under controlled conditions.
And these tests aren't hard! As noted Randi insists that the full test
protocol is completely agreed upon by the two parties before starting. For
example in the last preliminary test (nobody's ever gotten past the
preliminaries) the medium was presented with 20 diaries. All they had to do
was determine the gender of the author (all deceased) correctly for 16 of
them. The Medium (before the test of course) claimed that her talent was
"100% accurate"... apparently not since she only got 12.
Again - if all these honest-to-goodness psychics are out there why hasn't
one of the them taken the money if for no other reason than to shut him up?!
> I loved the "loose change" short-- sure some of it was crap, but there
> were
> some
> interesting bits too. Not a good example of what I'm talking about,
> but
> hey.
Conspiracy theories are a whole 'nother ball of wax. "Loose Change" is a
great example: every single major question in that video has been addressed,
debunked and answered - but does the video change ("Popular Mechanics" did
one of the premier debunking of it)? No - there's no acceptance of new
facts (or facts that they just didn't bother looking up - like the effect of
high-heat on the strength of steel).
The main hallmark of a conspiracy theory is that it's self-defining and
self-inspiring. The ONLY acceptable outcome is the truth of the conspiracy.
Any evidence against the conspiracy is, you guessed it, PROOF of the
conspiracy (in the "you're in on it!" way).
9/11, the moon landing, JFK, etc - all completely self-sustaining with no
internal checks.
Creating a situation where no evidence can change your mind is the
definition of close-mindedness.
It's kind of the reverse of skeptics: we demand proof to believe. They
demand belief despite the proof.
Jim Davis
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Trial
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:249106
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
