-Caveat Lector- -----Original Message----- From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, December 30, 1999 6:12 PM Subject: [LIFE-GAZETTE] Re: Dr. X's Files: Paranormal Phenomena...or "Miracles". >From: "Franklin Wayne Poley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >-----Original Message----- >From: James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; unknown ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Wednesday, December 29, 1999 8:10 PM >Subject: Fwd: Dr. X's Files: Paranormal Phenomena...or "Miracles". > > >>I've no idea who "FWP" is. >> >>The bi-location as scientifically demonstrated recently, does not qualify >>as paranormal, simply because it exists in reality, has ample explanation, >>and has been shown to be true. That takes it out of the "paranormal" >>definition. > >Gosh you ARE a Wizard. If it really happens etc. it can't be paranormal the >Wizard says. Therefore by decree, the Wizard has exorcized the demon of >psychic phenomena (and saved himself a million bucks). I recommend a >promotion from Wizard to Pope. Pope James has decreed that paranormal >phenomena can't exist in reality and therefore they don't exist in reality. > >>Whoever this "FWP" is, sounds a bit bewildered. > >Let us find out exactly how and we can end the bewildement. > > He/she writes: "It is >>very scientific to give definitions, don't you agree?" Yes, I certainly >>agree. One of the biggest problems we have with applicants re the >>million-dollar prize, is to get them to define what they think they can do, >>and under what conditions. Definitions are VERY important. But this >>person goes on to write: "Now, JR thinks that this is just `semantics' but >>any bona fide scientist is very careful about definitions." JR thinks no >>such thing. Please refrain from inventing attitudes, opinions, and >>statements for me. > >On Nov. 12, 1998 JR emailed me and said "Your reasoning is flawed, your >argument semantic". No argument was presented to show that my reasoning was >flawed but I agree that my argument is semantic. My Merriam-Webster gives >one definition of "semantic" and that is: "of or related to meaning". Words, >definitions, meanings...and it is here that the Psychic Challenge is indeed >challenged and we can provide "evidence that demands a verdict" to quote the >title of Josh McDowell's book on "the greatest story ever told". > >>Well, let's just look at the DEFINITION of "paranormal," shall we? Though >>I am unlettered and obviously incapable of handling such technical matters, >>I will give it a brave try. > >You have letters but you have inadequate comprehesion of their meaning. As >St. John's Gospel says, "The light shineth in the darkness and the darkness >comprehended it not." Let me go on to enlighten you.... > > My Webster's Dictionary defines (there's the >>operating word!) "paranormal" this way: " . . . of or pertaining to events >>or perceptions occurring without scientific explanation . . ." > >Given your understanding of this why even bother with the Psychic Challenge? >You have said it is impossible by definition for anyone to win it. It >doesn't matter what they attempt to demonstrate. Why even bother with >staging them as you do? > In ancient times, theology was said to be the queen of the sciences. >"Science" as the definition is narrowly understood by you is not the only >reality. Above you said "existing in reality" is the criterion of interest >to you. At one time established science said rocks could not fall from the >sky. Thus asteroids etc. were imposssible...by decree. Maybe if a rock falls >out of the sky onto your head you will "see the light". I prescribe standing >outdoors in the next meteorite shower. > Meanwhile, try this. The reason a genuine paranormal event is not >explained scientifically is because science has not yet expanded its >understanding enough to encompass it. Until science could encompass rocks >falling from the sky they were also outside the pale of science. Some >scientists would have called reports of these rocks bogus and some would I >expect have called them paranormal (ie alleged materializations). Thus what >Webster's MEANS by scientific is "current knowledge accepted by science". >Meaning, JR. Meaning. One must comprehend the words to become enlightened! > > Bi-location >>is quite well proven and explained in science. Ergo: by definition, it is >>NOT paranormal. > >Please explain in YOUR scientific terms how it is that A can be both A and >not-A. Doesn't your science say A is A and not not-A.? I can give a >satisfactory explanation of quantum bi-location but I want to hear your >answer. > >>He/she runs on: "I refer to James Randi's `naive rationalism' and >>pseudo-science repeatedly in Machine Psychology. He is prejudiced, ie he >>pre-judges what can and cannot happen in nature...and that is NOT SOUND >>SCIENCE." I would ask "FWP" who is prejudiced here. I have NEVER made any >>statement that something can or cannot happen. > >Ho ho ho, haw haw and a couple of guffaws. You just said above that >paranormal phenomena cannot happen, ie cannot "exist in reality". > > When approached by TIME >>Magazine years ago to examine the claim that a certain doctor could do >>something highly unlikely, I was asked, "Would you say that it's >>impossible, Mr. Randi?" I replied, "I will give it a probability of about >>15%, and a possibility of 25%. But I cannot, and will not, say that it is >>not possible." As it turned out, the good doctor could perform exactly as >>he claimed, and the ability was shown to be not only possible, but proven. >>My tests, double-blind, of course, showed that he could do it. > >If you keep going with tests like this you will, sooner or later get a false >positive in which some quack on your stage demonstrates psychic healing or >whatever and then what? Are you going to hand over a million bucks or say "I >decreed that paranormal phenomena couldn't happen in reality and therefore >it doesn't matter what the results are"? I think you will, by public >pressure be forced to part with your money. > >>"FWP" ends with: " . . . you need an "attitude adjustment". I suggest >>that he/she needs that adjustment. Try for an attitude that says, "I will >>pay more attention to what I write, lest I look like more of a fool than I >>already do." > >I have told you that you will in due course be fooled by using statistical >testing as you do. P<.05 is pretty standard in experimental sciences. Run 20 >such tests and odds are you will get one false positive. "A fool and his >money are soon apart". Soon = 20 runs. > > And: "The attitude required is one of honest acceptance of >>what reality tells you reality is." That sentence has me quite confounded. > >Of course it does because you live with the fantasy/delusion that you speak >for science now and forever. Science investigates reality or nature if you >prefer. Nature is full of mystery. Quantum phenomena would have been >ridiculed as scientifically impossible by earlier generations of scientists. >And I expect that some day there will be even greater puzzlements which >require a new theory beyond quantum theory. It's a big universe out there, >JR. Billions of stars x trillions of galaxies known to Earth's scientists so >far. Expand your mind! > >> Isn't this what is known as "using the answer to prove the answer....?" >>Or, "I wouldn't believe anything that isn't true. I believe this. >>Therefore, it must be true." > >Not at all. There are phenomena which are counter-intutive and appear to >defy science. Some of these are found in quantum theory. For example, isn't >the "Observer Effect" a PK phenomenon (by definition)? Why should an >observer (a psychological entity) alter an observation? Would an >"observation" by a machine have the same effect? > >>Just who IS "FWP"? > >Your Nemesis, JR. Repent!!!! >FWP. > > > >> James Randi >> >>James Randi Educational Foundation >>201 S.E. 12th Street (Davie Blvd.) >>Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316-1815 >> >>phone: (954) 467 1112 >>fax: (954) 467 1660 >>e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>http://www.randi.org > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > > GRAB THE GATOR! FREE SOFTWARE DOES ALL THE TYPING FOR YOU! >Tired of filling out forms and remembering passwords? Gator fills in >forms and passwords with just one click! Comes with $50 in free coupons! > <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/gator4 ">Click Here</a> > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >* Life Gazette chronicles the development of world cultures which have Constitutions recognizing the supremacy of God, from Liberian to Iranian to "Culture X" * > > DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
