|
Attention: Year 2009 is here
Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
R_Nelson
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 583
Location: West of the North Pole
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2004 8:13 pm Post subject: James Randi's rebuttal of What it Takes to be a Rationalist |
 |
|
This is in response to James Randi's rebuttal of "What it Takes to be a Rationalist" and Ali Sina's response.
| James Randi wrote: |
| We offer the million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate or prove any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or ability under proper observing conditions. Those observing conditions are decided upon by both the claimant and the JREF, and to their mutual satisfaction. The tests are NOT done by the JREF, but by an independent party or parties mutually agreed upon by the claimant and the JREF. All the details are defined on our web page: www.randi.org |
------------On Remote Viewing
| Ali Sina wrote: |
Paranormal is not my field of interest. But luckily a couple of nights ago the Discovery Channel of Canada aired a program called The Ten Ultimate Mysteries. What a coincidence! It was a show about Crop Circles, ESP, UFO, Bigfoot, Faith Healing, Spontaneous Human Combustion, After Life and other related subjects known as mysteries. It also talked about clairvoyance or "Remote Viewing". It said that the U.S. government expended 20 million dollars on this project during the Cold War to spy on the Soviets and to counter a similar project that the Soviets had. One of the persons working for this project was Joseph McMoneagle. http://www.mceagle.com McMoneagle claims that in 1981 the American General James Dozier, was kidnapped by the Italian terrorist group Red Brigades. He claims to have zeroed down on the floor, the street and the city (without being able to read the house number) and saw the General chained to a wall heater. This information arrived to the right person in charge of the search one day after the General was found exactly in the same city, street, floor and condition as seen by McMoneagle. http://www.mceagle.com/remote-viewing/pub/news/96dec30-wp.html
By all means I think this would be quite extraordinary. All you have to do is to verify this claim. It is possible that McMoneagle is lying. But if you can verify through independent sources that he actually was able to see all that while General Dozier was still in captivity, you must comply with your promise and pay the million dollars. |
The McMoneagle claim is for an anecdote from long ago and far away as reported on a infotainment TV show and on McMoneagle's own web page. Note also that the remote viewing information "arrived to the right person in charge of the search one day after the General was found exactly in the same city, street, floor and condition as seen by McMoneagle." -- The prediction arrived after the event being predicted. This could not possibly qualify for the million dollar paranormal challenge.
However - the phenomena of remote viewing is easily testable in the here and now under controlled conditions. James Randi, on this web page, describes an example of how remote viewing could be tested.
| James Randi wrote: |
(1) We at the JREF chose — by random means we already use — an object with specified limits of size and weight. Between 20 grams and 1000 grams, and can fit into a container 40 cm. square, for example. A light-bulb, a butter-knife, an egg, sunglasses, a hammer, book, etc., would fit those parameters and 50 such would constitute our target-pool.
(2) We list all the items in our target-pool, and supply that list to the "psychic."
(3) We package the chosen item in a box which has been weighted — if needed — so that the package weighs 1000 grams or more. The "viewer" is informed what that weighting might consist of, if used.
(4) The "remote viewer" and the JREF agree on an independent person/party who will hold the exhibit. The packaged selected object is given to that trusted individual to retain.
(5) The "psychic" makes his/her guess and declares it in written form, signed and sealed, without revealing the guess to any other person.
(6) The person holding the packaged item meets with the "psychic" and the package and the sealed guess are placed in full view of approved witnesses.
(7) The sealed guess is opened and revealed, and then the package is opened. A comparison is made, with the target-pool list being displayed.
( The results are obvious and evident. (Rule #4: "Tests will be designed in such a way that no "judging" procedure is required.") The test is repeated as often as needed. Our statistician would decide that. |
Also, in this commentary James Randi writes about the history of remote viewing within US intelligence agencies.
Finally, consider that remote viewing has not located Ben Laden. Perhaps this is because remote viewing doesn't work?
------------On the Million Dollar Paranormal Prize
| Ali Sina wrote: |
| Or perhaps you really did not mean to pay that money and your main goal is to attract some propaganda. |
In this commentary James Randi addresses this issue.
| James Randi wrote: |
We are legally and ethically committed to paying that sum to anyone who passes the agreed-upon test. We have no possible escape from that obligation. They put up nothing, we put up a million. That million is in a special investment account, clearly designated as the "James Randi Educational Foundation Prize Account," held by Goldman-Sachs. It cannot, by the terms of the account, be used for any purpose other than the awarding of the prize, though we may — and we do — periodically withdraw the interest that is paid on that account, to assist in covering the operating expenses of the JREF. The base sum never drops below one million dollars.
. . . .
If the JREF were to issue falsified documents in that regard, the legal penalties would be severe, and the 501(c)3 status of the Foundation would surely be revoked. We are, and always have been, frank and honest about the nature of the challenge. |
------------On Telepathy
| Ali Sina wrote: |
The same program talked about an experiment of telepathy. One person was placed in a room and his associate in another room. The person sitting in room A was shown various images one at the time, the person in room B was given four choices to pick the right image shown to the person in room A each time. Only one of the images was correct. If telepathy did not exist at all, then the chances of the person in room B picking up the right answers should not have been more than 25%. However test after test showed that the answers were correct 34% to 35% of the time.
I would say this experiment is enough to prove that there is something to telepathy and it should not be dismissed as hoax. |
From this commentary from James Randi's web page:
| Reader Peter in the UK wrote: |
With sadness I had to accept that my psychic powers would never make me a professional wrestler ... but I soon forgot all about it when I heard that I was about to see how utterly simple it is to communicate telepathically. Provided of course, that your watch has a second hand?
The lead-in to the second demonstration gave some background on how tests using Zener cards had, in the past, produced seemingly irrefutable evidence of telepathy. Impressively, such notable figures as Chris French were there to explain that all most of these tests had achieved was to show how important it is to ensure strict controls are in place when conducting them. The voiceover added "but surely today's academics could not be fooled so easily?"
Cut to Alistair Cook and an associate at a university psychology department. They had come to give a demonstration of genuine telepathy to some observers (credentials not given) who were instructed to keep a very careful eye on everything to ensure no cheating was taking place. Cook and his associate were then placed in two separate rooms and proceeded to telepathically transmit Zener cards with a success rate which could not be achieved by pure chance. Everyone seemed convinced — I was on the very point canceling my phone service altogether when the voiceover rained on the parade again, telling us how it had been done. I won't go into details save to say it involved no psychic powers, a clock, and a group of people who couldn't apply appropriate controls. Crucially, it was also stated that this was just one way to achieve the effect, and that a competent "psychic" could think of many more.
The first segment ended with a comment from Chris French suggesting that we shouldn't fully accept paranormal claims until we are sure that non-paranormal methods aren't somehow in use. In thirteen minutes we'd had the entertainment of people being fooled, the intrigue of being let in on the secret and the education of how paranormal research should be conducted. |
By synchronizing their behavior to the position of the second hands on their watches, they could send clues about which card was being viewed.
The million dollars is still waiting for a telepathic performance that can withstand scrutiny of trained magicians.
------------On Crop Circles
| Ali Sina wrote: |
| However, the science of today cannot explain them [paranormal phenomena] and that is something undeniable. If you do not agree, then please explain the crop circles and if you are sure they are hoax, I will pay you to create something similar to them overnight without anyone seeing you and do it on thin ice. |
Here's a wonderful web page about people who make crop circles. You could spend hours exploring it.
Here's a report about a crop circle made by three 17-year-olds and one 18-year-old in California.
------------On Dogma and Science
| Ali Sina wrote: |
| Science is not dogma, but the belief that anything that cannot be explained by science is not true, is dogma. |
This is true, but the opposite belief "that something that cannot be explained by science is true" is also dogma.
The only way to avoid falling into dogma is to proudly stand up and say "I don't know", and when appropriate "I was wrong." These two phrases are essential to all scientific progress. Saying "I don't know" allows us the freedom to go out and explore. Saying "I was wrong" frees us from getting stuck in dead end theories.
Michael Shermer talks about this in his article in Scientific American titled I Was Wrong -- Those three words often separate the scientific pros from the posers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
marky
Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Posts: 2947
Location: England - the world's oldest democracy
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2004 11:58 pm Post subject: Explanation, not proof |
|
|
I suspect that many people would not submit to such a test because they feel no reason to. When you know you have an ability, you know. There is no reason to validate yourself to anybody else in order to validate yourself.
What science should be doing is not some stupid sensationalist test to prove that somebody or other has a specific ability. Rather, science should be attempting to model how this "stuff" (remote viewing, esp, healing, oob's etc) actually operates.
_________________
No need to hide behind slogans of deceit, Claiming that you're a religion of peace, We just don't believe you, We can clearly see through, The madness that you're feeding your people, Jihad ... (Stuck Mojo - Open Season) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ali Sina
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 4607
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2004 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I wrote a response to James Randi here:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina40314.htm
| Quote: |
| This is true, but the opposite belief "that something that cannot be explained by science is true" is also dogma. |
Believing that something that cannot be explained by science is therefore true is ludicrous. Not even the most close minded religionists believe in things just because the science cannot prove them.
The point that I made is that science is not the ultimate measure of things. There may be explanations of mysterious phenomena that are not explainable by science.
My beef with the pseudo rationalists is that their response to all unexplainable phenomena is denial. They only deny that any paranormal activity ever took place. All the evidences accumulated are false, tricks, imagination of anecdotal. Their dogmatism and their arrogance is such that they even question your sanity if you claim having witnessed a strange and unexplainable phenomena.
My father often dreams if anything is going to happen to me or any of my siblings. We do not know what the dream means but we know we should expect something not quite usual. He lives in another country and cannot possibly know what we are going through. If there is some problem he dreams and calls to find out how we are doing. I cannot disregard this as irrelevant. The pathetic “explanation” of the pseudo rationalists only demonstrates that they are just as close minded and irrational as the Islamists.
| Quote: |
| The only way to avoid falling into dogma is to proudly stand up and say "I don't know", and when appropriate "I was wrong." These two phrases are essential to all scientific progress. Saying "I don't know" allows us the freedom to go out and explore. Saying "I was wrong" frees us from getting stuck in dead end theories. |
That is my whole point. If you don’t know, say I don’t know. But this is not what the pseudo rationalists do. Their position is to deny the occurrence of the paranormal. Show me one admission of ignorance made by the pseudo rationalists. There is none. They attack you, question your sanity, mock you and even insult you. They want to bully you into silence. That is why I say pseudo rationalism is a religion. It is a belief system that worships matter in lieu of God.
A true skeptic is one who would admit he does not know and it is also possible that what he knows of science may not be able to explain some phenomena. He is humble enough to acknowledge that he is just a small creature in this vast Universe and just as a worm in an apple cannot understand the Universe he too cannot understand every thing.
If the possibility of the existence of another world beyond the matter is presented to him, he will not say no, that is not true. But rather with humility accepts that since he does not know everything, it is possible that there could be universes made of a substance that is not matter at all. This does not mean that he knows such universe exists, but rather he admits that it might exist. As long as a theory is not contrary to reason and science, it is possible. Possible does not mean probable.
This is the difference between a true skeptic and an arrogant pseudo skeptic. I have even received a letter full of insults from one such obnoxious believer in pseudo rationality that quite resembles the comments I receive from Muslims.
The following is a mail I received from someone. I hide the name and share the content. You can say it is anecdotal until the cows come home. To this person his experience is real just as to me my experience was real.
| Quote: |
Dear Ali,
I read your writings and found myself wanting to share with you my own beliefs.
I was brought up in the Christian (Baptist) Faith and found throughout my life that the teachers at my church acted rather hypocritically. I was a Christian, I believe, from a very young age but I believe it necessary to encourage youngsters to develop a taste for learning in all religious teachings rather than to press views upon youngsters.
I have worked since I was very young on and off a variety of cases for the police force. I am what some would call a psychic but I call myself gifted. A gift from my God. It tormented me being able to see scenes from horrific events which I knew I had to act upon and share my knowledge from such a young age (around 4yrs).
My father was very much in support of me but I found it gradually becoming more and more testing - scenes I would see and would inform the police about were so difficult to handle. How could a god grant me such a gift? A gift of such torment and anguish, scenes playing over of murders and bombings and other such terrible sights? How could this be a gift?
I decided at around 13yrs of age to seek advice from those in my church and ask them how this could be? Why did I become burdened in such a way by our god?
I was chastised and cast a liar. I was told that all psychics are liars and that there is never such a skill (despite my being highly regarded by now both the police force in NW and Scotland). I left the subject to lie and wrangled with my own conscience; these people teaching me just do not, could not understand.
Around 14yrs of age, I found that an elder member of my classes at the church (she was about 26yrs of age) had become pregnant. She was out of wedlock. She was a lovely girl with such friendly compassionate ways and was cast out of the church for being a sinner. She was disregarded by the Pastor for being in such a sinful state and he could not allow her to continue her membership. They all gave her such a hard time.
I left the church. I decided I still had my faith but that these people had it wrong. The god I had grew to love was forgiving, compassionate, always there, never changing. These people were so hypocritical? I got more and more hassle for not turning up on a Sunday and not attending the usual services. I believed more and more that although my gift was difficult to cope with I would gradually learn to handle my forsight within myself.
I have spent years analysing all kinds of areas of faith as my own personal interest begs me to find out more. If you look at the teachers of faith and religion, they are all human. They could not possibly fully understand the context and importance of the bigger picture. How could my Pastor recognise and understand my psychic abilities if he had never experienced such a gift? He is only human.
Same for all religous teachers - sometimes they do get it wrong. Sometimes they need to be forgiven, as everyone of us do.
I now believe that god does exist, call him what you will. There is a bigger picture. I know that for a fact because if there was not, how would I see bits of that picture before anyone else does?
I find it so frightening to be me sometimes, yet so enlightening because I have my faith. God says that you dont need all of these churches and cathedrals guilded in gold to pray. Lift a rock and you will find me, split a piece of wood and I am there.
My faith is that there is so much more than teachers could teach us. Even they go on the wayward road. I believe now that my faith is more human, more accepting. I try to be more considerate of others, how they are, how they feel. I love people. Call that whatever type of religion you can, but my faith in people is more of a positive religion than religion. No hypocrisy. Just understanding. And forever learning to understand |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atheist
Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2004 2:13 pm Post subject: Randi vs. Ali |
|
|
| Quote: |
| To this person his experience is real just as to me my experience was real. |
Insisting on anecdotes as proof of occurrence is invalid indeed. One may believe you are susceptible to hallucinations. Again there might have some other reasons. Your sincerity and confidence is well known, however, the fact remains that brain induced visions are as real as observations of REAL events. There are enough brain induced experiences simulated in the lab, which appears real to true skeptics. Aparthib already pointed out that.
If you think someone's' personal experience is accountable, How about Muhammad's Meeraj then? How about his moon-spliting! Ofcourse Ali has aready been used his skeptic mind successfully! But in case of to paranormal! :-) ??
Ali To James randi:[/b]
| Quote: |
Or perhaps you really did not mean to pay that money and your main goal is to attract some propaganda. Muhammad also has a challenge. His challenge is “produce a surah like this”. Many people have produced better surahs but none of that satisfies the followers of this prophet of tricks. What satisfies you as proof?
|
Well Ali also has a challenge that he would delete his web-site if proven wrong! Is it a propaganda as well? Of course some Mullahs (ffi dot com) repeatedly accusing Ali that they have defeated Ali several times! Then why dont Ali dlete his site, one might wonder :-)
Challenge of Randi is rather more specific than Ali. Randi started the James Randi Educational Foundation in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in 1996 with a goal to "promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today." Randi was the first to put up a sizable sum of money to anyone who could prove the existence of the supernatural. He said, "I was offering ten thousand dollars to any psychic who could do what they said they could do. Then a gentleman came along and said, 'Hey, that's not much money nowadays... I tell you what, I'll give you enough money to start an actual foundation.' I had to think about that for quite a while -- like twenty seconds -- and I decided that was a good offer."
Randi's $10,000 prize turned into $1 million, and he began taking his dare to the streets. He has challenged psychics such as Sylvia Browne on Larry King Live, and he has issued his challenge to the world on programs like Dateline and 20/20. He has been an out-spoken critic of homeopathic medicine, faith healing, ghosts, ESP, remote viewers, and religion -- especially in regards to mixing church and state.
Randi's foundation receives an average of 150 applications for the challenge each year. So what does it take to win the million dollars? Randi said, "All they have to do is what they say they can do. It's that simple. They have to define what they can do, and it has to match the description of being paranormal, or occult, or supernatural -- that's a problem they all have. They can't define it. They can't say what they can do, under what circumstances, so they negotiate literally for years."
questions to Ali:
..
[b]Randi's million-dollar bet forces the suggestion that many of these high-profile psychics may be fakes. If they were for real, why wouldn't they go pick up an easy million bucks? This is a strong argument that needs to be taken seriously
If Remote viewing is possible why any of the famous psyciks are not able to tell us where is Bin Laden?
If prediction/telepathy/astrology be true then why any of the famous astrologers/psycicks could not predict 9/11 incident successfully?
There's nothing wrong to demand a proof of the existence of the supernatural or psycik power, and Randi's willing to put up a million dollars for that proof!!! Isn't it a fair game? If you say you can float in the air, then let's see you do it. If you say you can bend spoons by mental power alone, let's test the claim. Why should I belive someone's claim without having some evidence? People who promotes belief without any evidence are dangerous. isn't it?
Ali To Randi:
| Quote: |
| You expressed your surprise that I did not know the term of the JREF challenge. I do not know what is JREF. But if you are talking about your “million dollar” challenge, I had heard it here and there but was not familiar with your site and had never heard of you prior to you writing to me. |
Here is some details of Randi:
MacArthur "genius award" recipient James Randi is a professional magician, author, lecturer, and investigator of unusual claims. His books include The Mask of Nostradamus, The Faith Healers, Flim-Flam!, The Truth About Uri Geller, and Houdini--His Life and Art. He is one of the founders of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) and belongs to numerous humanist and scientific organizations. Mr. Randi has logged over 100,000 miles a year in his research into pseudoscience. Isaac Asimov called Randi "a national treasure," and Carl Sagan said of him: "We may disagree with Randi on specific points but we ignore him at our peril."
Asteroid 3163 Randi was discovered on 28 August 1981 by C. T. Kowal at Palomar Observatory, California. It has an orbital period of 3 years, 257 days. It is named after famous James Randi.
Ali Sina should not take Randi as a Mullah. Imagine the gullible world we would live in if there were no CSICOP, Randi, Prabir Ghosh, Dr. Abraham Kovoor!!! Imagine a world if there were no skeptic like Ali Sina or Ibn Warraq!!!!
Randi and Ali - i have enough respect for both u two guys!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ali Sina
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 4607
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2004 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Insisting on anecdotes as proof of occurrence is invalid indeed. One may believe you are susceptible to hallucinations. Again there might have some other reasons. Your sincerity and confidence is well known, however, the fact remains that brain induced visions are as real as observations of REAL events. There are enough brain induced experiences simulated in the lab, which appears real to true skeptics. Aparthib already pointed out that. |
This is exactly the religious attitude I claimed the pseudo rationalists share with the religionists.
This is what I wrote above:
"Their position is to deny the occurrence of the paranormal. Show me one admission of ignorance made by the pseudo rationalists. There is none. They attack you, question your sanity, mock you and even insult you. They want to bully you into silence. That is why I say pseudo rationalism is a religion. It is a belief system that worships matter in lieu of God."
The problem with all believers is that they run out of arguments soon and they repeat themselves at nauseam believing by repeating a lie it becomes truth.
Say my experience was hallucination. As I said I never had such hallucinations before or after. What about the experience of this person who did not want even to write in this forum fearing to become subject of further attacks? He even collaborated with police to solve some cases. I have no reason to believe this person is making up this story when he is reluctant even to talk about his experience to others and chooses carefully to write only to those whom he feels will not pillory him.
Now why I write about this? I predicted in my very first article on this subject what would be the reaction of the pseudo rationalist folk (May be I am a psychic after all). So why bother? The reason is I give a damn what others think. Everyone knows I am the most politically incorrect person around. Despite the fact that I never claim to be right, and always give the chance of being proven wrong, I never shun from saying what I think.
The pseudo rationalist folk who wrongly call themselves skeptics “know” that all these claims are not true. They “know” these are all anecdotal, imagined or fake. Obviously MOST of these claims ARE anecdotal, imagined or fake. But are all of them? Are you sure? If you are so sure then why you call yourselves skeptics. That assurance tells me you are believers.
| Quote: |
| If you think someone's' personal experience is accountable, How about Muhammad's Meeraj then? How about his moon-spliting! Of course Ali has aready been used his skeptic mind successfully! But in case of to paranormal! :-) ?? |
Muhammad was a schizophrenic, his mother and wet nurse suspected he was demon possessed when he was just a child. This man had many bizarre hallucinations like wrestling with Satan or being entertained by Jinns. He was a clear case of mental insanity. The experiences of a mentally sick man do not invalidate the experiences of millions of others who are perfectly sane.
I am skeptic. That is the point of this argument. Why aren’t you? Why this much assurance? That is not skepticism?
| Quote: |
| Randi's million-dollar bet forces the suggestion that many of these high-profile psychics may be fakes. If they were for real, why wouldn't they go pick up an easy million bucks? This is a strong argument that needs to be taken seriously |
If Randi says MANY of these high profile psychics MAY be fakes, I have no problem with that at all. That is what I believe too. However, Randi is not saying this. He is saying psychic power does not exist and ALL those who claim to have psychic power are fake or hallucinating things. Randi’s position is not that of skepticism but of faith. His million dolalre offer is proof that he is denying such thing exists at all. I have no problem with his doubts. I have problem with his faith.
Also Randi’s challenge is not a strong argument at all. It goes to say that Randi has no clue about the nature of psychic power. In my last article Rational Spirituality I wrote about an experience of enlightenment that I had while showering many years ago. I would love to repeat that but it never occurred again. It was not triggered by me at all. I was an expectator and an observer. That experience could not have been hallucination when I did not hear or saw anything but suddenly learned a lot of things. The information I got were not about the winning numbers of a lottery. I do not think that is the kind of information you gain from such experiences, but rather about the essence and the meaning of Being and Nonbeing. This is not something that can be shown is an experiment.
In my article Rational Spirituality I mentioned about a dozen of other cases where scientists have claimed their discoveries had come to them in a dream. Now if you listen to what they dreamed you would not see any relationship between the dream and their discovery or invention. But the dream gave them the inspiration or the clue and put them in the right track.
Take the example of Elias Howe who dreamed a group of savages holding spears, with holes near their tips attacking him. When he woke, he realized that putting the hole near the tip of the needle would make a working sewing machine. Only he could relate that strange dream to what occupied his mind. That dream was a message just for him and if you and I dream the same thing we will not have a clue what it means. Is that something that can be proven under Randi’s condition?
You may say that message came from his subconscious mind. That is okay. The question is where from his subconscious mind got that information? This filibustring response only delays the answer. It is like saying every thing is created by God. The inevitable question is who created God.
Randi’s offer is a testimony of his inability to grasp the nature of psychic power. It is not proof that the psychic power does not exist.
Psychic power is a misnomer. The psychic does not have any power at all. We are all psychics. I dream of things without understating them and then when something happens I suddenly realize I had experienced the same feeling in a dream. Dreams are about feelings. The American natives interpret the dreams by the feelings that it causes. If the dream is fearful, they interpret it as something not quite pleasant is going to happen to them. If they felt relieved in their dream, they interpret it as may be overcoming a problem that bothers them in real life. Our dreams tell us something. But they are not what Randi can test.
Why no one predicted 9/11?
Many actually did. Except that they did not know what is the meaning of those feelings that they experience. It becomes clear to them only afterwards.
Are they useful?
May be not! We are not talking about the usefulness of the psychic ability. We are talking about their existence as a phenomenon.
This is another logical fallacy often used in rejecting the psychic phenomenon. The truth of something cannot be determined by its usefulness. This is the ultimate proof used often by religionists. Religions must be true because they are useful.
Why no one can say where is Bin Laden hiding?
All a good psychic can do is may be get a feeling of the interior walls of the house where this criminal is residing, a glimpse of the kind of scenery or things like that, which may not help the search crew. Psychics are not in control of what they see, just as you and I are not in control of what we dream.
You also wrote about James Randi’s credential. He might be famous (I do not claim to know all the famous people). I have a hunch that his million dollar mental stunt had something to do with his fame. However the fact that he is famous does not make him right. This is a logical fallacy and is called “appeal to authority”. Because X is an authority, it does not mean X is right all the time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PeaceOnEarth
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 1564
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ali Sina wrote:
| Quote: |
| The point that I made is that science is not the ultimate measure of things. There may be explanations of mysterious phenomena that are not explainable by science. |
So true.
Godel proved the "Incompleteness Theorem" that brings humility to those wanting everything to be proved. In one form, it basically says that "all consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions".
Thus, there will always be things that will be beyond science to prove or disprove. There will be some Truths that are beyond proof.
If mathematical systems cannot be complete, what hope is there for science to be complete? None.
| Quote: |
| Believing that something that cannot be explained by science is therefore true is ludicrous. |
Knowing that there are certain statements that cannot be proved or disproved in any mathematical system, what can we conclude? I am afraid not anymore than that very statement.
One cannot say that a statement is true because it cannot be disproved anymore than one can say that it is false because it cannot be proved.
Trying to read more than that takes us outside the realms of science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
piggy
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 6372
Location: Godwana
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2004 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Believe it or not, makes no difference.
Ali Sina mentioned "elan vital" which prompted me to re-call this event and report as follows.
[I have witness to the following account.]
Back in 1980 I woke from sleep to a voice repeatedly saying "elan" repeatedly, over and over, it sounded like the voice of a female.
I awoke thinking it was my wife and I woke her asking her what she was doing, she assured me it was not her, so I asked her to remind me in the morning, so that I would be sure I was not dreaming that I had even woke and spoke to her.
She reminded me the next morning and we both looked up the meaning of the word "elan".
Having done that, we let the matter pass until some days later I was casually browsing through a horse-race form-guide for a race meeting that was in a few days on the following Wednesday.
It was not my usual habit to read through race-form-guides and I was not a regular horse-race goer or punter, although I had ocassionally browsed through race form-guides and had the odd singular bet, usually on Saturdays.
In the race form-guide there was a horse in a race named "Elan" and I had never before over all the years, heard of or seen such a name.
I decided to place a bet on the horse and gave my wife $200 to place the bet on my behalf, $100 to win and $100 for a place.
This was on the Wednesday morning, the day of the race.
I came home from work at the end of the day and did not have the race on my mind, until I sat back to relax and the sports results came up on the TV which sparked my memory of the bet I had entrusted my wife to place.
The horse won the race and paid $176 for each dollar bet and paid additional money at lesser odds for the place.
I excitedly told my wife about the horse winning the race and asked her for the betting-slip at which time she told me that she had not placed the bet, thinking that the race was to be run on the Saturday following, as this was the day she had expected the race was to be run and was consistent with my ocassional saturday-bet.
I calculated that the winnings I would have gained would be in excess of $25,000 dollars.
The night that I had the "dream" and heard the voice saying "Elan" was the very night that we happily conceived our first son.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another experience:
I went to see and listen to a band playing in a Hotel.
I had not seen this band before and heard many reports that the band was a good band to see.
The name of the main performer in the band was "Williams", and I had previously seen a performer on TV and heard a performer on record and radio named "Williams".
I expected the performer that I was going to see at the hotel was to be the same "Williams" that i had seen on TV, etc.
Upon going to the hotel to see this performer, I was surprised to find out that the performer at the hotel was not the same "Williams" as I had previously seen on TV, etc.
The hotel performer's name was Doug Williams.
At that point I asked my friends if they new the first name of the other performer called "Williams" that had TV and radio exposure, stating that it was not the same "Williams" that we were watching at the hotel.
My friends knew of the TV and radio performer, but could not re-call his full name.
A couple of weeks later I went to the Australia Day festivities in the city of Sydney; free out-door concerts, street-stalls, markets, exhibitions etc.
The population of Sydney is approximately 5 million, and on the particular day that I went to the Australia Day festivities, there was an estimated 1 million people roaming the streets of Sydney, enjoying the activities.
The city was crowded on that day.
I was sitting with a friend watching an out-door performance and asked my friend if she could re-call the name of the "Williams" that was the TV and radio performer, with the view of satisfying my quandry.
She knew of this performer, but his full name also eluded her.
I then left my seat to go to an out-door coffee-kiosk to get a drink.
I walked through the crowd heading straight for the kiosk which was approximately 50 metres away, still searching my memory for the full name of the TV performer, it was occupying my mind and I was adamant that I would eventually remember his name.
At a point about about half-way to the kiosk I walked head-on into a person who I immediately recognized as the very TV performer that was at that very time troubling my mind, and immediately as we bumped into each other and I saw his face, I remembered his name, it was Mark Williams.
In a crowd of 1 million people, I ran head-on into the very person, whose identity had been the subject of my thoughts on and off for some weeks and who I was thinking of at the very time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have had a few other experiences siumilar to this, and I will write and post them shortly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atheist
Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2004 7:36 am Post subject: Two letters!!! |
|
|
This two letters came to my account; I think the letters are relavant with the topic under discussion
================================
First Letter:
| Quote: |
Ali:
With regards to your latest article...
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina40313.htm
> This should sever as a waking call to the pseudo
"serve".
> rationalists who cannot see beyond their nose and
> deny the existence of any reality that does not fall
> within their limited understanding of the matter.
I don't know ANY skeptics who deny the POSSIBILITY
that <xyz> exists. To a man, they demand evidence of
anyone claiming that <xyz> exists.
I don't even deny the POSSIBILITY that a God or Gods
(of some sort) exist.
Perhaps you should spend more time questioning yourself,
making up your own reality when you have no evidence of
such things?
> There is no dispute over the brain's function as
> the processor of thoughts. What the Western
> science has no understanding of is the function
> of the brain as the receiver of thoughts.
You can't start the process of understanding something,
until you actually have some evidence it even exists.
> If our brain was nothing more than an advanced
> computer, then there would be no ways for human
> knowledge to grow.
Incorrect. Even computers gain knowledge. An airline
reservation system now "knows" that Mr Smith just
boarded a plane leaving Chicago, en-route to Michigan.
That is knowledge. Growing knowledge.
> dreams
The same physical brain that is responsible for concious
thought is also responsible for the dreaming.
Most scientific discoveries are found while concious.
There is no evidence of any paranormal phenomena in
this, any more than in the Grand Canyon.
> The information we receive through intuition cannot
> come from our mind.
Wrong. You are DENYING that the mind could be
working away at this in your subconcious. Denial,
denial, denial.
> These are new information that were not available
> to us before.
That's exactly what logical deductions are.
> They most likely, come form an external source.
Guided by Occam's Razor, the most likely explanation
is that they came from the same place that logical
deductions normally come from - your own brain.
It's a great pity that this "external knowledge" never gives
something that couldn't otherwise have been a logical
deduction, e.g. the knowledge of lottery numbers, or the
colour of the shirt that I am wearing at the moment, etc etc,
something that we can easily see couldn't possibly be a
simple logical deduction, or some knowledge learnt long
ago and semi-forgotten that has come to the fore. You can
see this with remember people's names from school.
> That must be The Source of all being. It must be the
> same Principle that is the cause of creation. All
> existence, all knowledge, all laws and all being
> derive from this Single Source.
And so now, we've gone from the scantest of evidence, to
wild and absolute "truths" with the "must". This is dogmatic
belief, no matter how much you like to DENY it.
> Everything depends on this Principle while it is
> oblivious of everything.
More wild speculation about things that we don't even
have evidence even exist at this stage.
> The Principles cannot be broken without impunity.
Bizarre. You can't break something you have not even
shown to exist.
> Just as breaking the law of gravity has consequences,
> breaking spiritual laws applying to human sphere is
> not without consequence.
As far as I can tell, what you are trying to say is "human
psychology is an important branch of science". It may
not sound as mystical though.
> As humans, we are also spiritual beings. It is, only
> through understanding this aspect of our humanity
> that we can understand the strange and "illogical"
> willingness of man to sacrifice his own life for the
> sake of his fellow human.
In human psychology, some have a more well-developed
sense of empathy than others. The development of
empathy has a lot to do with the environment.
Nothing mystical.
> Perfection is unlimited and evolution is the matter's
> way to gain perfection. In our evolutionary trajectory
> we pass through different stages of existence. In each
> stage we gain more existence and more awareness.
> This is what we called the creative force or the élan
> vital. As we evolve we become more sophisticated
> instruments and can receive more of this creative force.
This is what is called "human psychology being influenced
by societal norms". Doesn't sound nearly as mystical,
but nevermind.
> Chinese call this force Qi (pronounced chi).
They are welcome to call the universe obeying physical
principles anything they want.
> Qi must be real, because the entire Chinese medicine,
> acupuncture, Qigong, Tai qi and even their herbal
> medicine is based on manipulation of this Qi and the
> Chinese medicine works. It works even in cases
> where the modern medicine fails.
Please be precise. Show me the double-blind
placebo-controlled experiment that shows that <some
medicine> does <something> and I will ask my local
doctor why it hasn't been incorporated into western
medicine.
> Even in our western idiom we have expressions
> such as "I feel run down", "I am low in energy",
> "I need to recharge my batteries", "I feel energized"
> and similar expressions that show, at a subconscious
> level, we are aware of this life energy within us.
Or, they could just show that humans get tired, and
that's why we sleep.
> This creative impulse is independent from our body.
Either that, or it is generated from our brain.
> It is reflected in the body.
Or generated in the brain.
> If so, it can survive our body and it can continue to
> evolve after our death.
Wild speculation with no evidence.
> It is important to note that the creative impulse is
> not a function of our body but rather the force behind it.
It is important to note that you just completely made this
up without evidence, because you can't bear the thought
of living in a world with no mysticism.
> If this vital energy exists, and we know that it does
> because we see its effect like in Qi
Effects like WHAT? What specific phenomenan do
you claim we KNOW (your word) can't possibly be
generated from within our own body by normal
physical means.
> In the western world we call this "soul".
Or "conscious thought" as the case may be.
> Interestingly all cultures from all parts of the world
> have a name for it and acknowledge its existence.
Most people acknowledge concious thought, including
the culture of atheism, that is correct.
> The Hindus believe in many gods and the Chinese
> do not believe in any god.
Chinese race or Chinese country? In either case, the
Chinese do not speak with one voice.
> When the earthly experience is over, the soul will
> continue its evolution in other worlds -worlds that
> are of different dimensions distinct from this world
> but not separate from it.
In other words, "I'm sh!t-scared of dying and ending
up as nothing more than worm-food".
> It is time that we stop believing in religions that
> deny reason, stop believing in gods that are man's
> own figments of imagination and stop believing in
> pseudo rationalists who deny human spirituality.
Or stop believing in people fabricating magic spirits
without a shred of evidence.
Ali, you are making up your own religion. It is *exactly*
the same dogmatic religion as every other religion. You
insist that these things are "beyond doubt" even when there
is not a shred of evidence. You're not questioning your
own religion. That's why it is a religion.
This is completely obvious to anyone who is not part of
your religion. You can insist that they are all wrong if
you want, that's what all other religions do.
Ask Avijit if he's planning on hopping on board your new
religion, which I will dub "Sinality" after it's founder.
It is pronounced "senility".
You've gone from dumping Islam because it's a load of
crap, to starting Sinality, because you can't face the very
high probabilty that DEAD IS DEAD. This is obvious
to any skeptic/rationalist. You saw rebuttals to your
previous attempts at jumping on Praagh's bandwagon.
Did you actually get any rationalists at all supporting you?
You can believe that all the others are pseudo-rationalist,
and that you are the "one true rationalist". Everyone else
can see how you deny everything, no matter what evidence
is given to you, and what little evidence you have is
completely demolished with an analysis of cold-reading.
Denial, denial, denial. I know you don't like to think it is
denial, I know you don't like to think of yourself as dogmatic,
but even Blind Freddy can see it for what it is.
I hope one day you will manage to turn your back on Sinality,
in the same way you turned your back on Islam. It is difficult
to do, when you're scared shitless of being eaten by worms,
but, at least you will be free before death, which hopefully
counts for something.
Good luck with Sinality/worms/whatever.
Oh, one other thing. I would suggest you put these articles
on the Avijit's site, so that you can have a debate over
there, rather than draw attention away from the goal of
faithfreedom which should simply be to debunk Islam and
show the dangers. You will lose all credibility otherwise,
as the Muslims will be lining up to say "look, he's got this
bizarre interest in the occult and is trying to convert people
from Islam to Sinality", rather than simply "convert people
FROM Islam to ANYTHING ELSE".
B. P. |
And this is the second one:
| Quote: |
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina40314.htm
> Likewise we may never be able to prove the existence
> of the spiritual world. But it answers some questions.
> In order to prove that such world does not exist, the
> onus is on you.
Incorrect. You are making the claim that there is a
spiritual world, or evidence of a spiritual world, so
it is up to you to provide evidence of same.
No-one I know says that something like this cannot
possibly exist, in fact, you are the first person I know
who has ever BELIEVED that they can prove that
no god/gods exist. Of course it is not possible to prove
that, as I pointed out to you already, but you didn't
understand the explanation I gave.
> To me the spiritual world is a theory. It is a plausible
> and logical theory that answers many questions and
> mysteries.
Perhaps you could give the top 10 "questions and
mysteries" that are answered by the spirits, that don't
have a much more mundane possible explanation.
> If you categorically deny this theory it is up to you to
> prove this theory is not true.
No, the burden of proof is upon you.
> clock dial! Is that right?" The woman was standing,
> mouth open, nodding vigorously. She was awe-struck,
> and the applause was vigorous indeed. How was it
> done? A lucky guess? No. Planning."
> http://www.randi.org/library/coldreading/
Did you actually bother to read the links I gave you?
Even the one you quoted?
> Now, do you really think all your readers are gullible
> and fool?
No, just the people who are inclined to believe Praagh
talks to the dead.
> Let me tell you what is my educated guess of your story.
All 3 of your guesses were wrong.
If you'd bothered to read the link, you would have found
out the answer. I only quoted the bit that was Praagh-like.
The only bit I omitted was the same bit that Praagh omits,
ie, the secret behind his TRICK.
> Let me remind you Mr. Randi that you contacted me first.
Misunderstanding. I contacted him and asked him to
write a response to your article and send it to Avijit before
your pseudo-rationalist article was published on a rationalist
site unchallenged.
He did so.
I can see there is an R_Nelson who has adequately responded
on your forums, there is no need to pester Randi any further.
As he said, his $1 million still stands. If you've got
reproducible evidence of psychic ability, there's $1 million
waiting for you.
The Ouija board would be the easiest way for you to get
this $1 million for yourself. You are convinced that you
can speak to the dead at will. Do that under controlled
conditions, and you'll get the $1 million yourself. Imagine
what you could do with $1 million. Please don't turn the
money down. You've used the ouija board, you're
convinced it works, go for it! Don't use some lame excuse
about being "scared" to "talk to the dead". Praagh does it
without fear, so can you! Or admit it's a load of bollocks,
either is fine by me.
B. P. |
Also some relavent links:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Special_Event_/rationalist_day/rationalist_debate.htm#2nd
I have read Ali's last response to my post. I value his opinion, even though I disgree with him in a large extent. Anyway, I will give my response soon, hopefully today if time permits. I think the discussion is very important. Thanks Ali for giving us such opportunity !!
Piggy, I have also some sort of so-called abnormal experience, even more severe than urs. But I do not consider them miracle or supernatural. I found the logical explanations. Belive me, it works if you are truely skeptic. Yes what Ali really wanted- you have to question your own belief first to be a rationalist! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ali Sina
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 4607
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2004 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Atheist.
Did you send my response to James Randi?
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina40314.htm
I also did not see that response in you site.
I’ll respond to Aparthib’s message as soon as I get time.
I ignore Paul Edwards. I do not find his tone scholarly enough. He is the author of the above messages that you posted here. They sound much like the Muslim's rantings. He sounds like a hurt fanatic than a scholar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
piggy
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 6372
Location: Godwana
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2004 9:31 am Post subject: Re: Two letters!!! |
|
|
| atheist wrote: |
| Piggy, I have also some sort of so-called abnormal experience, even more severe than urs. But I do not consider them miracle or supernatural. I found the logical explanations. Belive me, it works if you are truely skeptic. Yes what Ali really wanted- you have to question your own belief first to be a rationalist! |
The point is the experiences that I report are evidence of an inter-connectedness of "mind" beyond the popular "normal" way of reckoning that tends to become limited by the scientific discoveries as being used as the bench-mark, which, in my opinion lags behind the actuals of life's experiences and phenomena in its attempts to explain that which may never be able to be explained.
It is my opinion that the inter-connectedness of mind is not limited or exclusive to this planet or humans or language as we know it.
I make no claims about these experiences being miracles or super-natural, in fact I think they are in fact natural.
What would be your "logical" explanations of the experiences that I have reported?
Please don't ask me to believe you, simply because you say so!
I will make this clear, I don't claim to be a skeptic or rationalist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atheist
Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2004 9:36 am Post subject: For Ali |
|
|
| Quote: |
Dear Atheist.
Did you send my response to James Randi? |
Yes Ali, I did. But I am afraid that he would not respond as he mentioned in his last piece.
| Quote: |
I also did not see that response in you site.
|
This will be soon updated. Dont worry. My academic work consumes lot of time. I have several reponse in pending list including urs and paul's one
Lastly, please do not keep any ill-feelings regarding our philosophical disagreement. It will make me uncomfortable in our future correspondence. I always value your thoughts, work and dedication. When I am in trouble I try to remember Voltaire's following quote:
| Quote: |
| "I may disagree of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." |
At least that will make me separate from those religionists, at least :-), I hope !!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
piggy
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 6372
Location: Godwana
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2004 9:56 am Post subject: Re: For Ali |
|
|
| atheist wrote: |
| At least that will make me separate from those religionists, at least :-), I hope !!! |
What do you mean by "separate"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ali Sina
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 4607
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2004 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Yes Ali, I did. But I am afraid that he would not respond as he mentioned in his last piece. |
Thank you for sending my response to Mr. Randi. I do not expect a response from him. I hardly see anything new he can add to what he already said. Now that I know his type, I do not expect him placing a link to our discussion either.
| Quote: |
| Lastly, please do not keep any ill-feelings regarding our philosophical disagreement. It will make me uncomfortable in our future correspondence. I always value your thoughts, work and dedication. When I am in trouble I try to remember Voltaire's following quote: |
That is a strange statement. Why should a scholarly debate cause ill-feeling? I do call myself skeptic and rationalist after all.
Remember that it was Randi who lost his temper.
Paul Edwards was claiming to be a fan and turned out insulting me after I critiqued materialism.
And Aparthib who was an ally wrote his last essay never addressing me in person.
So my dear Avi, I do not have ill-feelings. That is not what a rationalist would do. (Unless he is personally attacked). The ill feeling is coming from the other camp. Without me even addressing these people. That should speak volumes. I do not have ill feelings towards the Muslims either. But see how Muslims hate me? Why do you think it is so? Well the same thing here with the pseudo rationalists.
I do not give a hoot whether people agree with me or not. After all I could be wrong. I have no beliefs whatsoever. I do not believe in God or gods, I do not believe in religions, I do not believe in matter nor do I believe in the reality of this world. My philosophy is doubt, not belief. I doubt everything. Not only I doubt the existence of things, I also doubt their inexistence.
I have some theories and I have some facts that I share with others, but I do not have beliefs. I always state what part of my discussion is fact and what part is theory. The discussion about Islam is fact. I can prove all that. The discussion about Being and Nonbeing is a theory. It is a plausible and logical theory, much more convincing than the “denial” (It is all in your imagination, it is all anecdotal, you should not believe your logic and your eyes but rather believe in what we the materialists say, etc) but it is still a theory.
The attitude of the pseudo rationalists was worse than what I expected. This was a good exercise. This helped our readers to see the religious and dogmatic nature of pseudo rationalism.
Time permitting; I am always willing to discuss anything with anyone. (I.e. anything I know a thing or two about) and there is hardly anything anyone can say that would make me feel uncomfortable, short of insulting me. And when that happens I simply ignore the rude person. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atheist
Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2004 11:53 am Post subject: Rationalism by Ali Sina |
|
|
As Ali gives assurance that he would not possess any ill-feelings, so I wish to continue responding. Let's see where it takes us! And Peggy, just give some time, I will respose back soon.
Before starting I wish to tell Ali that I have updated the links here (I am also expecting some more responses from Mukto-Mona members.):
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Special_Event_/rationalist_day/rationalist_debate.htm
Please follow the response of Bryan Meeker:
| Quote: |
Re: - James Randi responds again to Ali Sina and Sina responds back.
By Brent Meeker
E-mail: meekerdb@rain.org
Ali Sina defines paranormal events as occurrences outside the scope of common experience and inexplicable by current science. By that definition, every discovery in science that leads to a new theory would count as paranormal. From Sina's examples, it is clear that he means more than this by 'paranormal'. He is not thinking of an experiment that shows general relativity is wrong or that there is an error in the standard model of elementary particles. He means a 'spiritual realm'. Someplace outside our experience where 'free will' and 'agency' do things. Where other intelligent beings dwell. Powers that can be exercised through pure thought. He objected to my explanation of the orange globe of light because he believed it 'behaved intelligently'.
He doesn't want us to dismiss this kind of paranormal realm unless we have proof. But what kind of proof is demanded? Obviously there cannot be deductive proof as in mathematics. That leaves empirical proof. Empirical proof cannot be certain, but it can provide high probabliity - as in the legal standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." So what we have in this debate is Sina saying you can't dismiss the paranormal unless you have proof that all the claims of paranormal events and powers are false. Randi is saying I'll believe in a paranormal event when it is demonstrated in a controlled environment to rule out cheating and lying. So which is the 'rational' position.
First, let us consider Sina's position. What does he mean by 'dismiss'? Does he mean 'not believe'? I don't think so; He writes, "This is no proof that paranormal is a reality that should be taken seriously. We have no evidence to make such claim." So he must consider it rational to withhold belief in the absence of evidence. So what else can he mean by "dismiss". I think he means not take the effort to investigate. He thinks that to be 'rational' we should investigate claims of the paranormal. But isn't that what Randi proposes to do? Isn't he offering a million dollars as an incentive for those who claim to have paranormal powers to come forward and confirm their claim.
Perhaps Sina has in mind the investigation of claims in the field as carried out by Ray Hyman, Joe Nickell, Ralph Estling and other members of the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. If he would read their publication, "The Skeptical Inquirer" he would find that dozens of claims are investigated every year. None however have been found to be beyond ordinary explanation. Fraud, mistakes, and self-delusion account for most of them. Are some of them unexplained in the sense that no single definite explanation is highly probable? - Certainly. But just because one cannot rule out all but one mundane explanation doesn't mean that a paranormal event has been found.
So when we hear a claim that, for example, "intricate forms can appear on thin ice where no human can walk" how should we rationally respond to it. My response would be:
Where is it? Do you have photos? How do you know that no one could walk on the ice? Could they lay on the ice? Could the pattern have been made when the ice was thicker? Could a child have done it? A small animal? Can such forms be the result of natural processes?
You see there are many possibilities quite consistent with known science. They all seem more probable to me than the action of a supernatural being. So, while I would be inclined to investigate such a phenomena if it were accessible to investigation, when it is merely a claim that can no longer be investigated, I see no reason to give any credence to the theory that it was paranormal.
I note that Ali Sina uses this same standard when it comes to the claims of a religion he dislikes. Muslims claim miraculous sights and paranormal events all the time. But Mr. Sina dismisses them without investigation. One might characterize this as bigotry; but I wouldn't want to stoop to Mr. Sina's tactic of calling my fellow debater names like liar, arrogant, bogus or insincere while flattering myself that I am not rude.
Now consider Randi's position. He doesn't credence reports of paranormal powers. He knows that people are easily fooled and, as Richard Feynman observed, the easiest person for you to fool is yourself. But he doesn't dismiss them either. He investigates them. Not just by trying to get those who claim paranormal powers to come and demonstrate them. He also travels all over the world to investigate such claims. He has tested water dowsers, psychics, aura readers, and magic healers all over the world. They have all failed. Their failures are documented on video tape - not just reported as antecdotes. Has Ali Sina investigated all those claims he says shouldn't be dismissed? - or has he simply settled comfortably into believing in a 'spirit realm' and not wanting to investigate lest the world prove less magical than he hopes. There are plenty of antecdotes to feed those who want to believe - religions make them up by the thousands.
Brent Meeker
"What is needed is not the will to believe, but the will to find out." --- Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atheist
Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2004 2:50 pm Post subject: Ali sina |
|
|
| Quote: |
You also wrote about James Randi’s credential. He might be famous (I do not claim to know all the famous people). I have a hunch that his million dollar mental stunt had something to do with his fame. However the fact that he is famous does not make him right. This is a logical fallacy and is called “appeal to authority”. Because X is an authority, it does not mean X is right all the time. |
Actually I wrote about Randi because you said you did not hear his name. I just gave you some information about him and his work. Of course he may be wrong, just as you can be. That was not the point at that time. For me no one is the ultimate authority. So "appeal to authority" is misplaced here, in my opinion.
| Quote: |
| If Randi says MANY of these high profile psychics MAY be fakes, I have no problem with that at all. That is what I believe too. However, Randi is not saying this. He is saying psychic power does not exist and ALL those who claim to have psychic power are fake or hallucinating things. Randi’s position is not that of skepticism but of faith. His million dolalre offer is proof that he is denying such thing exists at all. I have no problem with his doubts. I have problem with his faith. |
This is the crux of the problem. Unfortunately I consider your position is more gullible than Randi's. Consider the following occurrences:
Psychics don't rely on psychics to warn them of impending disasters. All they do is like those finders of Quranic miracles: whenever the modern science find something, they hurriedly try to relate with ambiguous Quranic verses. Consider that Psychics cant even predict their own deaths or diseases. They go to the dentist or doctors like the rest of us. I know one famous Bangladeshi psychic healer went to USA for his better treatment of his disease. They're as surprised and disturbed as the rest of us when they have to call a plumber or an electrician to fix some defect at home. Their planes are delayed without their being able to anticipate the delays. If they want to know something about Abraham Lincoln, they go to the library; they don't try to talk to Abe's spirit. In short, psychics live by the known laws of nature except when they are playing the psychic game with people. Psychics aren't overly worried about other psychics reading their minds and revealing their innermost secrets to the world. No casino has ever banned psychics from the gaming room because there is no need. No lottery number is ever predicted by any psychic. How can we be sure that psychic power really exists?
Infact many a times we saw that the claim of accuracy of psychic predictions is grossly overrated. The belief in the accuracy of clairvoyants such as Edgar Cayce and Jeanne Dixon is due to several factors, including mass media error and hype. For example, it has been repeatedly reported in the mass media that Jeanne Dixon predicted the assassination of President Kennedy. Actually She did not. The New York Times at that time helped spread the myth that Edgar Cayce transformed from an illiterate into a healer when hypnotized. One of the more egregious cases of mass media complicity in promoting belief in psychics is the case of "psychic" Tamara Rand, producer Dick Maurice, and talk show host Gary Grecco of KNTV in Las Vegas. All conspired to deceive the public by claiming that a video tape of a "Dick Maurice Show," on which Rand predicts the assassination attempt by John Hinkley on Ronald Reagan, was done on January 6, 1981. The tape was actually made on March 31, 1991, a day after Hinkley shot Reagan (Steiner).
So what should we common people do? Believe those all charlatans who claims mystic power? Dont you think we should follow the path of skepticism rather than blind faith in abnormal phenomenon? In fact, I find it quite reasonable to use as a guide when an implausible, incredible claim the advice of David Hume and Thomas Huxley: ask yourself what is more likely, that the claim is true or that one making the claim deceived, in error or intentionally trying to deceive you? And another quote for you:
"When a confidential information leaks out of an Organization, people suspect a spy, not a psychic" - John Allen Paulos.
| Quote: |
| Also Randi’s challenge is not a strong argument at all. It goes to say that Randi has no clue about the nature of psychic power. |
Well I found it rather opposite. In this gullible world, Randi is making a significant and bold step towards rationalism. If you think that you are a mental spoon bender, you can't use your own spoons. If you are going to see auras, you will have to do so under controlled conditions. If you are going to do some remote viewing, you will not be given credit for coming close in some vague way. If you are going to demonstrate your dowsing powers, be prepared to be tested under controlled conditions. If you are going to do psychic surgery, expect to have cameras watching your every move. Don't you think those are the common rational steps one should follow instead of starting believing in a psychic power? Of course that wont disregard the possibility of existence of psychic power, but what is the problem if someone wants to test the claims before believing dogmatically? That's not what you also do when someone claims for "Quranic miracles" or Muhammad's unexplained journey to heaven thru meraj?
Why Randi' is important for us ? Because he is a famous magician. He knows the basic tricks of fake psychics better than us. He can see those events more critically (Just as Ali and his FFI folks sees Quranic miracles critically than common gullible Muslims) . Charlatans, fakirs, mystics, and dreamers alike, they are all too aware that James Randi's meticulously-devised tests can destroy their reputations, such as they are, and make fools of them all. It is easy to fool common people who does not have any expertise on tricks/magic, even famous scientists are also included! I know Indian Rationalist Association debunked one so-called Rusian psychic, who used to claim recognition of his power from some famous scientist community of his country.
Anyways, The following is a sampling of other grumblings in response to Randi's challenge:
-- I can't afford to be in a higher tax bracket.
-- I'm already rich.
-- I don't want the money; I'm totally spiritual.
-- You wouldn't pay me the money, anyway.
-- It's all a lie; there is no prize.
-- It's a trap by the CIA to identify and murder me.
-- The prize comes from the CIA (or from the communists).
-- God told me not to get into it.
-- If I win, you'll have me killed to save the money.
-- You'll put out negative vibes to inhibit my powers.
-- Since you're a trickster, you'll fool me somehow.
-- It's too much money.
-- It's not enough money.
-- I want the money in a pile, in cash, (or a certified check) before I try.
Any clue, why??? :-)
| Quote: |
| Psychic power is a misnomer. The psychic does not have any power at all. We are all psychics.... |
That's good. You are now approaching to reality. In fact, there are some "honest Psychics" who are at least honest about their deception and inability and call themselves mentalists and call their art magic or conjuring.. Yet, it is the "real psychics," not the mentalists, who are the darlings of the mass media. Thus, when the mass media promote "psychics" for their entertainment or news value, they are either promoting fraud or encouraging delusions. Perhaps the media think that because most parties in the psychic game are consenting adults, that makes it okay. Perhaps the police agree and that is why telepsychics like Miss Cleo can practice without fear of arrest for fraudulently claiming to have psychic powers. If you say psychic does not have any power to perform all the time, then it is contradictory to ur previous stand. You mentioned about Van Praagh's performance in Larry King TV show in favor of the existence of his psychic power. How Van Praagh was so sure that he could successfully perform in a TV show with some miraculous prediction regarding Larry King's father, but NOT in front of Randi? One may wonder...
Lastly, about one comment:
| Quote: |
| This is exactly the religious attitude I claimed the pseudo rationalists share with the religionists. |
We can go beyond such stereotyping, Ali. If someone challenges on something from his confidence and experience on a valid issue, it is not worthwhile to compare it with Muhammad's "Produce a sura...." on sole purpose to ridicule it. If someone disagrees with ur view it does not mean that he is talking like a Muslim or a religionist. You might be wrong too, just as everybody.
BTW, for interested general readers:
After collecting the million from Randi, successful psychics can also contact B. Premanand of the Indian Skeptic, another magician and debunker of paranormal who will pay 100,000 rupees (ca. $2,300) "to any person or persons who will demonstrate any psychic, supernatural of paranormal ability of any kind under satisfactory observing conditions." "Mr. Prabir Ghosh will pay 20,00,000 rupees to anyone who claims to possess supernatural power of any kind and proves the same without restoring to any trick in the location specified by Prabir Ghosh." Also, the Australian Skeptics will throw in an additional $100,000 (Australian), $80,000 for the psychic and $20,000 for anyone "who nominates a person who successfully completes the Australian Skeptics Challenge." Some good opportunities indeed!!! If you nominate yourself, and are successful, you get the whole hundred grand.
Take care.
Atheist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
