Bigfoot Search Illegal, comment thread archive
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:23 pm
The NWA Times had an article entitled:
Bigfoot search illegal, say U.S. park rangers
Guide fined for expedition without permit
It's located here (the article is now in the archive and you can't read it). A fellow was organizing paid tours looking for Bigfoot, in a national park without a permit. Not a real big deal.
I made the following comment at the top of the thread:
The main "psychic" in this thread has now flamed out and is reduced to threats of filing a "restraining order" if any more comments are directed to him (I actually, literally, had to catch my breath and I slightly strained a muscle in my side on that one). So in the interest of preserving the good data in that thread (before the censors at NWA might hack it up because of Phillip's bad behavior), I will archive all of my posts in this thread. Others are welcome to join in or post theirs as well, of course.
*** ***
PH: My days of snarking people who believe... paranormal activity ended when I experienced it.">>
Phillip, my offer of a house as bounty for a Bigfoot (preferably alive) is bona fide, and entirely serious. I don't say things I don't mean and I don't make offers that I will not back up, with binding contract if required.
About ten years ago when there was a string of reports (six) on the local TV news regarding sightings of Bigfoot (he was going around banging on people's mobile homes and then running off, which is very rude), I drew up an oversize check and went on the 40/29 evening news and offered $50,000 to anyone who could bring this annoying fellow in. Then bear season ended and the news reports kind of fizzled. If we are going to get to the bottom of this, there is nothing wrong with offering a considerable incentive to people so they can bring one of these undocumented rapscallions in.
Regarding "paranormal experiences," I "had some" nice ones myself and I've been studying the issue since about 1980. For the last 12 years or so, through the Fayetteville Freethinkers, I have offered rewards for $1,000 - $10,000 for a demonstration of paranormal activity under proper observing test conditions. We have conducted hundreds of tests. All of them fail, no exceptions. Whether I personally believe something paranormal is or could be going on (ESP, levitation, prediction, astral travel, telekinesis, whatever), is immaterial (I don't). I am interested in having my beliefs inline with what is true, and if there is a tribe of Bigfoot living in Arkansas, I very much want to believe that. If someone believes they have a paranormal ability, I am very much interested in helping them confirm it, or not, if the case may be. Of course, regarding unexplained "just so" stories, we all have those.
I spent years invested in belief in these things (and had a huge library) but then stumbled upon methods of critical thinking and how to examine these things rigorously, skeptically, to see if they are actually true or if perhaps we could be fooling ourselves. While magicians have known for centuries how easy it is to fool other people, folks often don't realize it is even easier to fool yourself. Magicians have been at the forefront of helping people to learn how this happens, for a very long time (i.e. Houdini).
cont...
Posted by: fayfreethinker
March 29, 2012
***
PH: "I don't know all there is to know, but I know I don't know all that isn't.">>
We can't confirm all that is not, but that doesn't mean we should hold back from confirming what is. One can't prove the negative that something has not or cannot occur, but one can show that when a certain claim is tested, it fails, every time. After awhile it starts to look like the claim is not correct, and may be an error in thinking or an illusion. After over a century of careful testing, this is the current case with paranormal claims. Consider for instance, the example of Susan Blackmore:
viewtopic.php?p=22967#p22967
PH: "Have you ever tried to find a Bigfoot?">>
The notion that there is an undiscovered hominid running around North America, is preposterous and I make no apology for saying this plainly. Produce a Bigfoot, receive a nice home in Fayetteville on .75 acre, clear title. If you think you have a paranormal power/gift that can be replicated in any way shape or form, I would be pleased to discuss how we could go about confirming it and advancing our understanding of the world while simultaneously becoming famous.
D.
-----------
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
Posted by: fayfreethinker
March 29, 2012
***
CORALIE: "Sharks can detect electrical fields in the water, and butterflies can navigate for 100s of miles over land and sea...">>
Forgive me if I am misunderstanding what you are saying but... you need new examples if this is the God of the Gaps argument (the precise name for this fallacy is: argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance"). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument...
When we have a gap in knowledge, it has always been tempting to stuff a god or a supernatural sprite of some sort into that gap. But this is not useful in a search for truth for two reasons:
a) a supernatural "explanation" has no explanatory power and thus explains nothing
b) it retards progress and gives a false illusion of answering something when it doesn't
All supernatural "explanations" are intellectual dead ends and only create a bigger mystery. If a child at a magic show asks how a trick is done, is it an answer to say "magic?" No, because "magic" isn't an answer, it's an evasion that contains no explanatory power.
Regarding your examples: That sharks can detect electrical fields in water isn't too surprising, how birds and butterflies can navigate for thousands of miles is a much more interesting mystery (now apparently solved).
Now imagine if we had just sat back and went with the "right-brain" thinkers who postulated it was something mysterious? We did that for thousands of years, and we let the priests tell us how the world works. And all of their answers, were wrong. Better, scientists went to work on this interesting puzzle and it was in just December's issue of Scientific American that our current progress is explained:
"Magnetic Sense Shows Many Animals the Way to Go" [Preview]
Animals' magnetic sense is real. Scientists are zeroing in on how it works
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ass-within
Want to see a nice magic trick? Enjoy: http://www.flashlightcreative.net/swf/mindreader/
Posted by: fayfreethinker
March 29, 2012
***
Phillip: " I hate to group you with James Randi,">
Please do. Our prize has always been patterned after his. He knows of our offer and I have talked with him regarding specifics of our tests.
PH: "he made the same bet:">
Not a bet, not past tense, currently does. He has offered a reward since 1964, and the current $1 million offer has been in place for over a decade. See: http://tinyurl.com/lv4a88
PH: "prove under laboratory conditions that paranormal phenomenon exists... pay $1M">>
No laboratory required, just basic, common sense observing conditions agreed upon by both parties in advance.
PH: "Several... with psychic talents spoke to him about the offer">>
Hundreds of people have come forward to be tested under contract, not "talked with him." The process is straightforward and easy to understand. Applications are here:
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
PH: "each time he made modifications to his requirements">>
You are repeating unsubstantiated nonsense you've heard on the internet. There are no modifications to the contracts which are signed and legally binding. Here's how it goes:
The claimant with some asserted paranormal ability describes what they think they can do. This is the hard part, since those with claims of paranormal powers are often extraordinarily vague about what they can do.
Then, a simple straightforward test, so simply a child could understand it, is put together. The test is done in such a way that the outcome/result is objectively true or false, providing an outcome that does not require subjective interpretation. You either get the word right x amount of times, or not. You either find the under ground water pipe x amount of times, or not.
Both parties agree to the test under written, signed binding contract. I have done many of these myself.
PH: "...[Randi] basically made it impossible for him to lose.">>
Wrong. Again, you are repeating gossip and nonsense spread by those made furious by Randi's offer to pay people if they can do what they claim they can do.
PH: "I'm not saying you're devious in your offer like James Randi,">>
There is nothing devious about his offer. You don't know what you are talking about. Avoid smearing people with claims you can't back up.
PH: "people who challenge someone to force them to believe in...">>
No one is forced to believe in anything. People are given the opportunity to confirm their extraordinary claims and offered a large reward if they can. So far, no one, without exception, can.
PH: "[they]... they want to prove the challenger wrong.">>
"Want" is irrelevant. A claim is made, tested, the outcome is what it is. If someone can indeed do something paranormal, I want to confirm it.
PH: "Save your money for... when a UFO lands on your front lawn...">>
For confirmation of alien contact, with physical evidence, I offer two houses, clear title.
***
PH: "I see dead people. Tell me how you're going to develop a testing protocol to prove that.">>
Hence the problem I already referred to, claims too vague to be falsifiable. There are ways to test this but it will require some specifics to differentiate between actually "seeing dead people" and an "active imagination." That people make unfalsifiable paranormal claims, is to be expected, and rather boring.
PH: "Here's the part that people I've talked to say...">>
Not interested in what you've heard "people say." Don't smear people with claims you can't back up.
PH: "he avoids paying out his offer: nothing is acceptable as proof.">>
You are confused. What is "acceptable as proof," and successful completion of a test, is clearly laid out in the contract in advance. You don't know what you are talking about.
PH: "Who are your "experts" who have specialized knowledge of my claim?">>
"...statisticians, magicians, and others with specialized knowledge relevant to the claim."
Your claim is laid out in the contract you sign before any testing occurs. Make sure it comports exactly with the ability you think you have. Hundreds of examples of these specific exchanges, over the years, are posted here: http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43
PH: "What evidence will you accept,">>
Plainly stated in the agreement, as per your unique claimed abilities.
PH: "what are the proper observing conditons?">
Ditto.
PH: "Tell me how to prove to you that I can see dead people.">>
Tell me how your ability to see dead people differs from a hallucination or active imagination. If your claim is so vague (as you are clearly attempting to make it) as to be unfalsifiable and veridically worthless, it's unlikely your claim is likely to be of interest to adults. Children however, may find them very interesting to hear about when sitting around the campfire.
Posted by: fayfreethinker
March 29, 2012
***
Carl Sagan's example is instructive here:
THE CLAIM: "A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage."
'Show me,' you say.
I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle - but no dragon.
'Where's the dragon?' you ask.
'Oh, she's right here,' I reply, waving vaguely. 'I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon.'
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
'Good idea,' I say, 'but this dragon floats in the air.'
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
'Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless.'
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
'Good idea, except she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick.'
And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work. Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exits? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so."
--Carl Sagan's *The Demon-Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark* (pg. 171)
Posted by: fayfreethinker
March 29, 2012
***
I said: "Hence the problem I referred to, claims too vague to be falsifiable.">>
PH: "Already wiggling out of it?>>
You really shouldn't be impressed that you are capable of concocting unfalsifiable claims. They are extremely easy to make and accomplish exactly zero. Observe:
"Planets move because invisible angels push them"
"Everyone has 4,000 invisible elves on their shoulders at all times"
"You see dead people but they don't interact with the world in any way."
Boring. Most people who claim to see dead people are also smart enough to give them attributes that interact with the world in some way. If you can't think of any examples I provide some below.
PH: "What part of 'see dead people' don't you understand?">>
All of it. But unless your dead people pass along information or can interact with the world in some way, your claim is unfalsifiable and you are simply making Sagan dragons. Boring.
PH: "I've been told that people who applied for the challenge...">>
That someone told you something accomplishes nothing for your claim. Turn your gullibility knob down just a touch.
PH: "were never able to offer proof that was acceptable,">>
They were mistaken or lying, and passing along misinformation as you are doing now.
PH: "regardless of what was agreed on in advance.">>
What is agreed upon in advance is a legally binding contract and enforceable by law. You can't back up your anecdote because it isn't true.
PH: "That's not a smear, that's a fact.">>
It doesn't follow that something is "a fact" because someone "told you" something. Good grief.
PH: "How does one differentiate between seeing dead people and having an active imagination?">>
By conducting a test.
1) Can you speak with these dead people?
2) Can they communicate with other dead people and pass along privy information?
3) Can they go in a sealed box and identify information?
4) Can they interact with a physical object in any way?
Etc. There are lots of ways. Or you can be obtuse and just keep moving the goal posts for the purpose of making your claim a worthless Sagan dragon.
"...statisticians, magicians, and others with specialized knowledge."
Ph: "Name them.">>
When I put a test together to test a local dowser, I called in U. of A. Psychologist Brian Bolton to calculate the 1/1000 odds for the test. I also talked to Randi, magician, for help on making sure trickery wouldn't be involved.
Claimants can of course engage their own experts to add input as an agreeable proper test is established. This really isn't a mystery just because you haven't thought about these things.
cont...
[FFT said: "Your claim is laid out in the contract... before any testing occurs. Make sure it comports exactly with the ability you think you have."]
PH: "I see how this works.">>
It's pretty clear you don't. Perhaps you should think about these things before you go on about them in public.
PH: "The degree of specificity is set to make sure it can't be achieved.">>
Wrong. The claimant agrees ahead of time that it in fact can, or the test does not occur. You don't know what you are talking about.
PH: "Tell me the proper phrasing... so you know what I mean when I say "I see dead people.">>
The phrasing is perfectly fine. What is needed is some meat on the bone. Some beef in the burger. Again: do these dead people in interact with the world in any way shape or form? If so, a test can be put together to see if your claim can be established. If they do not, then the utter vapidity of your claim is not only not interesting to others, it's probably not even interesting to you. Get your vision checked.
PH: "You set up the proof so it can't possibly be applied,">>
Actually, that is the role you are trying to play right now, rather lamely. So you have understood the Sagan example exactly backwards.
The claim is made and if it is falsifiable (learn about this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiable )
then the test will show that the claim is, in this instance, true.
PH: "Penn has Teller as a mute midget for a sidekick,">>
Raymond Tellor, (who I have met and is a very close friend to Randi), is neither mute (when not acting) nor is he a midget. He's 5 foot 9 inches. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teller_%28entertainer
You're not much of a detail person, are you Phillip?
PH: "do you have anything [for a sidekick]?">>
Apparently we are doing a ventriloquist bit right now, and you are the puppet on my knee flapping your gums.
Posted by: fayfreethinker
March 29, 2012
***
Phillip is trying to pretend these testing issues are not honest or need be overly complex. That's not true at all. Here is a little review of the history our local reward offers.
For over a decade the Fayetteville Freethinkers have offered various rewards (and advertised them in this paper), all of them legitimate and backed by money in the bank.
1) I already mentioned the spat of Bigfoot sightings and our offer of a $50,000 reward to anyone that could bring him in. Bring in this new hominid, get the money.
2) At our Springfest booth we (meaning me) regularly offer a $5,000 cash reward, on the spot, to anyone who can move a little Styrofoam ball three inches (under a glass cover), using only the power of their mind. This is a legitimate offer, move the ball, get the money. We have had people from New Age schools where they supposedly *teach* this skill, give a 15 minute serious attempt.
3) Also, at our booth we offer a $1,000 cash reward to anyone that can discern a word that is hidden in an envelope in a box. Pick your word, write it on the form, I sign to confirm, we open the box, if it's the right word, you get the money (we've had several hundred attempts, new word loaded each time).
4) We have long offered (more than a decade) $1,000 standing reward to anyone who can perform a supernatural/paranormal event under proper observing conditions (as determined by all parties involved, in advance). We had a lady go for this prize based upon her claimed ability to identify the gender of a corpse in a grave using her dowsing rods. We went to a cemetery and she tried her skills on 20 graves where we temporarily hid the gender from her. She claimed 90% accuracy (as most dowsers do) but we only required her to get 16 out of the 20 right (80% accuracy) for her to win the $1,000 which would be handed to her on the spot. Chance along would predict about ten right. She got 9 out of 20 right, less than chance.
I think any one can see that these are rather simple, fair and straightforward tests of paranormal claims people regularly claim to have.
Posted by: fayfreethinker
March 29, 2012
***
PH: Finally you gave me something solid to work with">>
You are the one making the claimed supernatural ability, and thus it is you who needs to come up with something solid to work with (if you are interested in making your claims sound plausible to others).
"1) Can you speak with these dead people?"
PH: "Yes."
Lots of people talk to dead people, the question is, do they talk back? What would make this claim interesting is if it could be shown to differ from just a personal mental experience. Saying something is occurring in your head doesn't show something is going on outside of your head.
PH: "many times there are groups of people from different families...">>
Same as above.
"3) Can they go in a sealed box and identify information?"
PH: "If it was up to me I'd say no."
Scratch that one.
PH: "whether they will or not is impossible for me to say beforehand.">>
Of course.
PH: "I find it insulting,">>
There is probably a good chance "they" will too then.
"4) Can they interact with a physical object in any way?"
PH: "Generally, the answer to your question is yes.">>
Why "generally?" You already said they have, so the answer, is yes.
PH: "I have seen objects move, which proves it can be done,">>
Well, not exactly. People misapprehend nature very, very, often. Especially when the lights are down a bit.
PH: "they're generally indisposed to someone trying to make them prove they exist.">>
But of course.
PH: "I have many friends and acquaintances who have received...">>
Anecdotes and ghost stories have always been very popular and most religions are founded on them, but they don't actually provide anything verifiable, which is perhaps why they are so popular. I can say that yesterday I said the words "ice cream" and a tasty ice cream cone appeared before me, but this would be a claim that is conveniently not testable in anyway. All anecdotes suffer from this. About 250 years ago Hume pointed this out:
"no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish;...
When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weight the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion."
--David Hume
cont...
PH: "Two examples:...">>
Anecdotes are not going to demonstrate anything to someone wanting to confirm something. Ever.
PH: "two examples of literally hundreds.">>
Of course. Numbers don't help here. Humans are very imaginative and prolific with their stories. Always have been.
PH: "If you were open to the possibility...">>
I am open to any possibility that can be demonstrated, but as I said, I have been looking at these things carefully for 32 years. After a while, a pattern emerges. And it is very consistent. Later on I learned that these seance type claims are ancient and how people trick themselves into believing in them has been well understood for centuries.
PH: "it sounds like you're a die-hard skeptic.">>
I'll follow the truth where ever it leads. Anecdotes aside, you might notice you haven't specifically claimed an ability that differs from a person having an internal mental experience. And these other entities you claim to experience are rather uncooperative in any specific interaction.
PH: "Your mind is already made up,">>
My opinion is not irrelevant. Either one can show they are having an experience going on with something outside of their head, or their claims are vague enough to go in the garage with Sagan's Dragon. It's looking like the latter, but perhaps you will think of something specific that would be falsifiable (falsifiable is a good thing).
PH: "I wouldn't take your house from you...">>
The house was never offered for spooks confirmed. But Mr. Randi will certainly give you his million. Your claim is very popular, ancient and how you have set it up with lack of specificity, entirely normal.
Posted by: fayfreethinker
March 29, 2012
***
PH: "You and Randi are more alike than I realized.">>
Thank you for the compliment (although you've revealed you don't know anything about Randi other than anonymous smears you can't support).
PH: "You both pretend to be open to the concept of paranormal phenomenon,">>
No, we both offer substantial rewards to people who will demonstrate the ability to do, what they already claim they can do. This is appropriate.
PH: "every single example given to you is dismissively waved away.">>
Anecdotes are not demonstration. See my ice cream example, see the David Hume reference.
PH: "You demand proof...">>
Not at all. We simply offer the *opportunity* to back up claimed abilities, with demonstration. Participation is voluntary, and free.
PH: "[you] never seem to find an acceptable level of it,">>
Not true. The "acceptable level" is easy enough for a child to understand and agreed upon in advance.
--For the discern the word test, discern the word.
--For the move the ball test: move the ball.
--For the bring in Bigfoot challenge, bring in Bigfoot.
It's not clear how this could be made more simple.
PH: "ensuring you'll never find it and suffer the humiliation of [being] wrong.">>
Not true. And again, opinion is irrelevant. The science doesn't care what you believe or what I believe. Honest people go with the test results. Feynman put it this way:
"If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_...
Those claiming to be spirit mediums usually know better than to go near tests of their claims, and it can make them furious to consider it. This is the demonstration we are seeing now.
PH: "I don't think.... you are so motivated by curiosity...">>
The motivation is to educate people about how the world works and increase our knowledge. A side benefit is to educate people how to not get ripped off or have their emotions yanked around by a person pretending to talk to their dead relatives while peddling a centuries old table tipping, toe tapping, spirit medium trick. How spirit mediums "work" has been know for a very long time.
cont...
PH: "[I don't think] you'd be willing to give away large sums of money or property...">>
Well, as usual, you're wrong. The contracts I refer to are legally binding. Let me know if you would like to enter into one today (go to fayfreethinkers.com). Perhaps you can find a spirit who can cooperate to discern a simple word in a box and win a $1,000 for a worthy cause. Or perhaps something more simple. Randi once did his word test with a professional psychic for the $1M prize. The fellow discerned "intuition," the answer was "black." I've done this test, under contract, in public, over many years, perhaps 200 times. Sometimes the truth is just really simple. People can't magically discern a word hidden in a box. Big surprise!
PH: "skeptics motivations have nothing to do with proving anything,">>
Not true.
PH: "superior their intellect">>
One doesn't need a superior intellect to put together straightforward tests. I have a high school education with no formal science training. What one needs is the courage to consider whether their beliefs, usually based upon emotions, may not be true.
PH: "compared to "those ignorant people and their supersititions.">>
You could always try making up words that I didn't say and putting them in my mouth. But that wouldn't be honest. Would it be safe to say, when you do your performance, you have some experience with putting words in other peoples mouths? Yes I think so.
PH: "Your schtick is no different than the ring toss at a county fair,">>
Now you are projecting. I think readers are well aware the spirit medium "schtick" has long been a favorite at the country fair. Perhaps you should have picked an insult that doesn't line up so perfectly with your gig.
PH: "the rings are made to just the right size so they won't drop...">>
Yes, but that doesn't apply to our tests. Discern the word, as per the contract, in front of dozens of witnesses, win the prize. How is that test a dishonest trick Phillip? I know how your trick works. Should I tell?
PH: "Take your hustle somewhere else - we're on to you.">>
The hustler here is the one pretending to have special powers that conveniently evaporate and become invisible weightless dragons when someone comes along with the unmitigated audacity ask for evidence.
Talking to dead people, one of the oldest carnival tricks of all. It was really big in the 1840's. See a little background here: http://www.skepdic.com/spiritul.html
Posted by: fayfreethinker
March 30, 2012
***
PH: "No amount of logic, bluster, bravado,">>
You've provided lots of bluster and bravado, but where is the "logic" in accepting your extraordinary claims upon no evidence beyond your mere say so? There is none.
PH: "the only reason you're doing this is to promote your ego,...">>
Let's see, you are the one claiming to have the superpower of being a human receiver for the entire spiritual realm of dead people, and a person who who has the audacity, the unmitigated gall to not accept this without some evidence, is the person with an "ego?" You have it backwards.
PH: I can think of two things that would cause [this]">>
Then you don't have much of an imagination. We're not in a seance where you can just make things up and people will go "woooooo....".
[snip psychological analysis of my childhood based upon imaginary, false, strawman assertions].
PH: "abusive father who never acknowledged his son...">>
I have a great relationship with my father, always have. So a swing and a miss. If you make enough guesses, you'll get something right. Just like when you perform.
PH: [Randi] was a frequent guest [on shows].">>
He still is. When I was chatting with him at his The Amazing Meeting 8 a few years ago (1,300 in attendance), he had to step away to do a media interview.
PH: "He's very seldom seen these days, however.">>
For an 83 year old fellow who recently recovered from abdominal cancer, he keeps a very busy schedule of lectures, articles (each issue of Skeptic magazine) and media appearances. To complain that a person in their eighties slows down a bit, is a rather shallow shot but I am sure you can go lower.
PH: "His contorted attempts to explain away sightings of things like UFOs">>
As usual, you forget to back up your claim with any substance whatsoever. The UFO community has been on life support for years, and for very good reason. I'll let Sagan explain why (course, you could ask him directly):
"I would love it if there were aliens here, even if they are a little short, sullen, grumpy, and sexually preoccupied. So, if they are harbingers of an advanced civilization and they're here for heaven's sake, let's find out about them. My mind is open.
...People make mistakes, people misapprehend natural phenomena, people look for attention, money, or fame. People sometimes experience alternative states of consciousness--hallucinations are very common in all human beings, including normal people. And with that as the background, to really believe one of these cases you need really good physical evidence. And there is none." --Carl Sagan, March/April '95 issue of Skeptical Inquirer. (pg.52).
cont...
***
PH: "now people don't call on James Randi much anymore.">>
As usual, you speak about things you have no knowledge of. I can provide you many examples refuting your claim if you like. But it's not really relevant to anything other than [the fact that] skeptics, people who ask for evidence, annoy you.
PH: "Pardon me if I seem impolite,">>
Not at all, if you had something of substance to say about these things you would be able to address points directly and put together a post of something besides made up insults.
PH: "you share a lot more with James Randi than you acknowledge.">>
Thanks again.
PH: "Have you considered putting up a booth at the county fair?">>
Had you been paying attention to the comments in this thread you would already know that I have made reference to this several times.
PH: "midget... Like a Penn and Teller.">>
Raymond Teller is 5 foot 9 inch. It really would be a breath of fresh air if when you make a mistake you would acknowledge your error, so one can see that you can learn new things.
PH: "people would see [what you do] it for what it is.">>
What we have done at our Springfest booth for nigh a decade, is teach the kiddies and public how to do simple straightforward scientific tests of paranormal claims so they don't grow up and not be swindled by the legion of people who, for instance, claim to be able to speak to their dead relatives.
If you want to get the mean old skeptic, and you know you do, there is only one way to do it. It's the one thing you would dearly like to do but cannot: show your claims are something other than simple, well understood, antique parlor tricks and self-deception.
Posted by: fayfreethinker
March 30, 2012
***
Continued...
Bigfoot search illegal, say U.S. park rangers
Guide fined for expedition without permit
It's located here (the article is now in the archive and you can't read it). A fellow was organizing paid tours looking for Bigfoot, in a national park without a permit. Not a real big deal.
I made the following comment at the top of the thread:
That a person would offer a house for Bigfoot very much bothered some friends of his and started off a thread that has now reached 275 posts. Some of them rather long and containing interesting data/research etc. It is the comments in this thread that have inspired our legally binding affidavit backing up our offer, and also our $10,000 Reward Psychic Test which will be conducted April 22.(quote article)"...he’d rank Arkansas in the top three for Sasquatch activity.
“There were certainly things that happened that convinced me that there are Sasquatches in the Buffalo River area,” said Pruitt. “We definitely heard sounds that were indicative of Sasquatch. Characteristic vocalizations. Very compelling observations.”>>
Yes, because there is an entire species of large unknown hominid running around North America, especially Arkansas, and no one seems to be able to catch one or even an unblurry photo of one (never mind a patch of hair, a den, or a bit of poop). If only we had a few hunters out there looking, or people in helicopters!
First person to bring me a Bigfoot gets my house.
The main "psychic" in this thread has now flamed out and is reduced to threats of filing a "restraining order" if any more comments are directed to him (I actually, literally, had to catch my breath and I slightly strained a muscle in my side on that one). So in the interest of preserving the good data in that thread (before the censors at NWA might hack it up because of Phillip's bad behavior), I will archive all of my posts in this thread. Others are welcome to join in or post theirs as well, of course.
*** ***
PH: My days of snarking people who believe... paranormal activity ended when I experienced it.">>
Phillip, my offer of a house as bounty for a Bigfoot (preferably alive) is bona fide, and entirely serious. I don't say things I don't mean and I don't make offers that I will not back up, with binding contract if required.
About ten years ago when there was a string of reports (six) on the local TV news regarding sightings of Bigfoot (he was going around banging on people's mobile homes and then running off, which is very rude), I drew up an oversize check and went on the 40/29 evening news and offered $50,000 to anyone who could bring this annoying fellow in. Then bear season ended and the news reports kind of fizzled. If we are going to get to the bottom of this, there is nothing wrong with offering a considerable incentive to people so they can bring one of these undocumented rapscallions in.
Regarding "paranormal experiences," I "had some" nice ones myself and I've been studying the issue since about 1980. For the last 12 years or so, through the Fayetteville Freethinkers, I have offered rewards for $1,000 - $10,000 for a demonstration of paranormal activity under proper observing test conditions. We have conducted hundreds of tests. All of them fail, no exceptions. Whether I personally believe something paranormal is or could be going on (ESP, levitation, prediction, astral travel, telekinesis, whatever), is immaterial (I don't). I am interested in having my beliefs inline with what is true, and if there is a tribe of Bigfoot living in Arkansas, I very much want to believe that. If someone believes they have a paranormal ability, I am very much interested in helping them confirm it, or not, if the case may be. Of course, regarding unexplained "just so" stories, we all have those.
I spent years invested in belief in these things (and had a huge library) but then stumbled upon methods of critical thinking and how to examine these things rigorously, skeptically, to see if they are actually true or if perhaps we could be fooling ourselves. While magicians have known for centuries how easy it is to fool other people, folks often don't realize it is even easier to fool yourself. Magicians have been at the forefront of helping people to learn how this happens, for a very long time (i.e. Houdini).
cont...
Posted by: fayfreethinker
March 29, 2012
***
PH: "I don't know all there is to know, but I know I don't know all that isn't.">>
We can't confirm all that is not, but that doesn't mean we should hold back from confirming what is. One can't prove the negative that something has not or cannot occur, but one can show that when a certain claim is tested, it fails, every time. After awhile it starts to look like the claim is not correct, and may be an error in thinking or an illusion. After over a century of careful testing, this is the current case with paranormal claims. Consider for instance, the example of Susan Blackmore:
viewtopic.php?p=22967#p22967
PH: "Have you ever tried to find a Bigfoot?">>
The notion that there is an undiscovered hominid running around North America, is preposterous and I make no apology for saying this plainly. Produce a Bigfoot, receive a nice home in Fayetteville on .75 acre, clear title. If you think you have a paranormal power/gift that can be replicated in any way shape or form, I would be pleased to discuss how we could go about confirming it and advancing our understanding of the world while simultaneously becoming famous.
D.
-----------
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
Posted by: fayfreethinker
March 29, 2012
***
CORALIE: "Sharks can detect electrical fields in the water, and butterflies can navigate for 100s of miles over land and sea...">>
Forgive me if I am misunderstanding what you are saying but... you need new examples if this is the God of the Gaps argument (the precise name for this fallacy is: argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance"). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument...
When we have a gap in knowledge, it has always been tempting to stuff a god or a supernatural sprite of some sort into that gap. But this is not useful in a search for truth for two reasons:
a) a supernatural "explanation" has no explanatory power and thus explains nothing
b) it retards progress and gives a false illusion of answering something when it doesn't
All supernatural "explanations" are intellectual dead ends and only create a bigger mystery. If a child at a magic show asks how a trick is done, is it an answer to say "magic?" No, because "magic" isn't an answer, it's an evasion that contains no explanatory power.
Regarding your examples: That sharks can detect electrical fields in water isn't too surprising, how birds and butterflies can navigate for thousands of miles is a much more interesting mystery (now apparently solved).
Now imagine if we had just sat back and went with the "right-brain" thinkers who postulated it was something mysterious? We did that for thousands of years, and we let the priests tell us how the world works. And all of their answers, were wrong. Better, scientists went to work on this interesting puzzle and it was in just December's issue of Scientific American that our current progress is explained:
"Magnetic Sense Shows Many Animals the Way to Go" [Preview]
Animals' magnetic sense is real. Scientists are zeroing in on how it works
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ass-within
Want to see a nice magic trick? Enjoy: http://www.flashlightcreative.net/swf/mindreader/
Posted by: fayfreethinker
March 29, 2012
***
Phillip: " I hate to group you with James Randi,">
Please do. Our prize has always been patterned after his. He knows of our offer and I have talked with him regarding specifics of our tests.
PH: "he made the same bet:">
Not a bet, not past tense, currently does. He has offered a reward since 1964, and the current $1 million offer has been in place for over a decade. See: http://tinyurl.com/lv4a88
PH: "prove under laboratory conditions that paranormal phenomenon exists... pay $1M">>
No laboratory required, just basic, common sense observing conditions agreed upon by both parties in advance.
PH: "Several... with psychic talents spoke to him about the offer">>
Hundreds of people have come forward to be tested under contract, not "talked with him." The process is straightforward and easy to understand. Applications are here:
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
PH: "each time he made modifications to his requirements">>
You are repeating unsubstantiated nonsense you've heard on the internet. There are no modifications to the contracts which are signed and legally binding. Here's how it goes:
The claimant with some asserted paranormal ability describes what they think they can do. This is the hard part, since those with claims of paranormal powers are often extraordinarily vague about what they can do.
Then, a simple straightforward test, so simply a child could understand it, is put together. The test is done in such a way that the outcome/result is objectively true or false, providing an outcome that does not require subjective interpretation. You either get the word right x amount of times, or not. You either find the under ground water pipe x amount of times, or not.
Both parties agree to the test under written, signed binding contract. I have done many of these myself.
PH: "...[Randi] basically made it impossible for him to lose.">>
Wrong. Again, you are repeating gossip and nonsense spread by those made furious by Randi's offer to pay people if they can do what they claim they can do.
PH: "I'm not saying you're devious in your offer like James Randi,">>
There is nothing devious about his offer. You don't know what you are talking about. Avoid smearing people with claims you can't back up.
PH: "people who challenge someone to force them to believe in...">>
No one is forced to believe in anything. People are given the opportunity to confirm their extraordinary claims and offered a large reward if they can. So far, no one, without exception, can.
PH: "[they]... they want to prove the challenger wrong.">>
"Want" is irrelevant. A claim is made, tested, the outcome is what it is. If someone can indeed do something paranormal, I want to confirm it.
PH: "Save your money for... when a UFO lands on your front lawn...">>
For confirmation of alien contact, with physical evidence, I offer two houses, clear title.
***
PH: "I see dead people. Tell me how you're going to develop a testing protocol to prove that.">>
Hence the problem I already referred to, claims too vague to be falsifiable. There are ways to test this but it will require some specifics to differentiate between actually "seeing dead people" and an "active imagination." That people make unfalsifiable paranormal claims, is to be expected, and rather boring.
PH: "Here's the part that people I've talked to say...">>
Not interested in what you've heard "people say." Don't smear people with claims you can't back up.
PH: "he avoids paying out his offer: nothing is acceptable as proof.">>
You are confused. What is "acceptable as proof," and successful completion of a test, is clearly laid out in the contract in advance. You don't know what you are talking about.
PH: "Who are your "experts" who have specialized knowledge of my claim?">>
"...statisticians, magicians, and others with specialized knowledge relevant to the claim."
Your claim is laid out in the contract you sign before any testing occurs. Make sure it comports exactly with the ability you think you have. Hundreds of examples of these specific exchanges, over the years, are posted here: http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43
PH: "What evidence will you accept,">>
Plainly stated in the agreement, as per your unique claimed abilities.
PH: "what are the proper observing conditons?">
Ditto.
PH: "Tell me how to prove to you that I can see dead people.">>
Tell me how your ability to see dead people differs from a hallucination or active imagination. If your claim is so vague (as you are clearly attempting to make it) as to be unfalsifiable and veridically worthless, it's unlikely your claim is likely to be of interest to adults. Children however, may find them very interesting to hear about when sitting around the campfire.
Posted by: fayfreethinker
March 29, 2012
***
Carl Sagan's example is instructive here:
THE CLAIM: "A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage."
'Show me,' you say.
I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle - but no dragon.
'Where's the dragon?' you ask.
'Oh, she's right here,' I reply, waving vaguely. 'I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon.'
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
'Good idea,' I say, 'but this dragon floats in the air.'
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
'Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless.'
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
'Good idea, except she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick.'
And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work. Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exits? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so."
--Carl Sagan's *The Demon-Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark* (pg. 171)
Posted by: fayfreethinker
March 29, 2012
***
I said: "Hence the problem I referred to, claims too vague to be falsifiable.">>
PH: "Already wiggling out of it?>>
You really shouldn't be impressed that you are capable of concocting unfalsifiable claims. They are extremely easy to make and accomplish exactly zero. Observe:
"Planets move because invisible angels push them"
"Everyone has 4,000 invisible elves on their shoulders at all times"
"You see dead people but they don't interact with the world in any way."
Boring. Most people who claim to see dead people are also smart enough to give them attributes that interact with the world in some way. If you can't think of any examples I provide some below.
PH: "What part of 'see dead people' don't you understand?">>
All of it. But unless your dead people pass along information or can interact with the world in some way, your claim is unfalsifiable and you are simply making Sagan dragons. Boring.
PH: "I've been told that people who applied for the challenge...">>
That someone told you something accomplishes nothing for your claim. Turn your gullibility knob down just a touch.
PH: "were never able to offer proof that was acceptable,">>
They were mistaken or lying, and passing along misinformation as you are doing now.
PH: "regardless of what was agreed on in advance.">>
What is agreed upon in advance is a legally binding contract and enforceable by law. You can't back up your anecdote because it isn't true.
PH: "That's not a smear, that's a fact.">>
It doesn't follow that something is "a fact" because someone "told you" something. Good grief.
PH: "How does one differentiate between seeing dead people and having an active imagination?">>
By conducting a test.
1) Can you speak with these dead people?
2) Can they communicate with other dead people and pass along privy information?
3) Can they go in a sealed box and identify information?
4) Can they interact with a physical object in any way?
Etc. There are lots of ways. Or you can be obtuse and just keep moving the goal posts for the purpose of making your claim a worthless Sagan dragon.
"...statisticians, magicians, and others with specialized knowledge."
Ph: "Name them.">>
When I put a test together to test a local dowser, I called in U. of A. Psychologist Brian Bolton to calculate the 1/1000 odds for the test. I also talked to Randi, magician, for help on making sure trickery wouldn't be involved.
Claimants can of course engage their own experts to add input as an agreeable proper test is established. This really isn't a mystery just because you haven't thought about these things.
cont...
[FFT said: "Your claim is laid out in the contract... before any testing occurs. Make sure it comports exactly with the ability you think you have."]
PH: "I see how this works.">>
It's pretty clear you don't. Perhaps you should think about these things before you go on about them in public.
PH: "The degree of specificity is set to make sure it can't be achieved.">>
Wrong. The claimant agrees ahead of time that it in fact can, or the test does not occur. You don't know what you are talking about.
PH: "Tell me the proper phrasing... so you know what I mean when I say "I see dead people.">>
The phrasing is perfectly fine. What is needed is some meat on the bone. Some beef in the burger. Again: do these dead people in interact with the world in any way shape or form? If so, a test can be put together to see if your claim can be established. If they do not, then the utter vapidity of your claim is not only not interesting to others, it's probably not even interesting to you. Get your vision checked.
PH: "You set up the proof so it can't possibly be applied,">>
Actually, that is the role you are trying to play right now, rather lamely. So you have understood the Sagan example exactly backwards.
The claim is made and if it is falsifiable (learn about this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiable )
then the test will show that the claim is, in this instance, true.
PH: "Penn has Teller as a mute midget for a sidekick,">>
Raymond Tellor, (who I have met and is a very close friend to Randi), is neither mute (when not acting) nor is he a midget. He's 5 foot 9 inches. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teller_%28entertainer
You're not much of a detail person, are you Phillip?
PH: "do you have anything [for a sidekick]?">>
Apparently we are doing a ventriloquist bit right now, and you are the puppet on my knee flapping your gums.
Posted by: fayfreethinker
March 29, 2012
***
Phillip is trying to pretend these testing issues are not honest or need be overly complex. That's not true at all. Here is a little review of the history our local reward offers.
For over a decade the Fayetteville Freethinkers have offered various rewards (and advertised them in this paper), all of them legitimate and backed by money in the bank.
1) I already mentioned the spat of Bigfoot sightings and our offer of a $50,000 reward to anyone that could bring him in. Bring in this new hominid, get the money.
2) At our Springfest booth we (meaning me) regularly offer a $5,000 cash reward, on the spot, to anyone who can move a little Styrofoam ball three inches (under a glass cover), using only the power of their mind. This is a legitimate offer, move the ball, get the money. We have had people from New Age schools where they supposedly *teach* this skill, give a 15 minute serious attempt.
3) Also, at our booth we offer a $1,000 cash reward to anyone that can discern a word that is hidden in an envelope in a box. Pick your word, write it on the form, I sign to confirm, we open the box, if it's the right word, you get the money (we've had several hundred attempts, new word loaded each time).
4) We have long offered (more than a decade) $1,000 standing reward to anyone who can perform a supernatural/paranormal event under proper observing conditions (as determined by all parties involved, in advance). We had a lady go for this prize based upon her claimed ability to identify the gender of a corpse in a grave using her dowsing rods. We went to a cemetery and she tried her skills on 20 graves where we temporarily hid the gender from her. She claimed 90% accuracy (as most dowsers do) but we only required her to get 16 out of the 20 right (80% accuracy) for her to win the $1,000 which would be handed to her on the spot. Chance along would predict about ten right. She got 9 out of 20 right, less than chance.
I think any one can see that these are rather simple, fair and straightforward tests of paranormal claims people regularly claim to have.
Posted by: fayfreethinker
March 29, 2012
***
PH: Finally you gave me something solid to work with">>
You are the one making the claimed supernatural ability, and thus it is you who needs to come up with something solid to work with (if you are interested in making your claims sound plausible to others).
"1) Can you speak with these dead people?"
PH: "Yes."
Lots of people talk to dead people, the question is, do they talk back? What would make this claim interesting is if it could be shown to differ from just a personal mental experience. Saying something is occurring in your head doesn't show something is going on outside of your head.
PH: "many times there are groups of people from different families...">>
Same as above.
"3) Can they go in a sealed box and identify information?"
PH: "If it was up to me I'd say no."
Scratch that one.
PH: "whether they will or not is impossible for me to say beforehand.">>
Of course.
PH: "I find it insulting,">>
There is probably a good chance "they" will too then.
"4) Can they interact with a physical object in any way?"
PH: "Generally, the answer to your question is yes.">>
Why "generally?" You already said they have, so the answer, is yes.
PH: "I have seen objects move, which proves it can be done,">>
Well, not exactly. People misapprehend nature very, very, often. Especially when the lights are down a bit.
PH: "they're generally indisposed to someone trying to make them prove they exist.">>
But of course.
PH: "I have many friends and acquaintances who have received...">>
Anecdotes and ghost stories have always been very popular and most religions are founded on them, but they don't actually provide anything verifiable, which is perhaps why they are so popular. I can say that yesterday I said the words "ice cream" and a tasty ice cream cone appeared before me, but this would be a claim that is conveniently not testable in anyway. All anecdotes suffer from this. About 250 years ago Hume pointed this out:
"no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish;...
When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weight the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion."
--David Hume
cont...
PH: "Two examples:...">>
Anecdotes are not going to demonstrate anything to someone wanting to confirm something. Ever.
PH: "two examples of literally hundreds.">>
Of course. Numbers don't help here. Humans are very imaginative and prolific with their stories. Always have been.
PH: "If you were open to the possibility...">>
I am open to any possibility that can be demonstrated, but as I said, I have been looking at these things carefully for 32 years. After a while, a pattern emerges. And it is very consistent. Later on I learned that these seance type claims are ancient and how people trick themselves into believing in them has been well understood for centuries.
PH: "it sounds like you're a die-hard skeptic.">>
I'll follow the truth where ever it leads. Anecdotes aside, you might notice you haven't specifically claimed an ability that differs from a person having an internal mental experience. And these other entities you claim to experience are rather uncooperative in any specific interaction.
PH: "Your mind is already made up,">>
My opinion is not irrelevant. Either one can show they are having an experience going on with something outside of their head, or their claims are vague enough to go in the garage with Sagan's Dragon. It's looking like the latter, but perhaps you will think of something specific that would be falsifiable (falsifiable is a good thing).
PH: "I wouldn't take your house from you...">>
The house was never offered for spooks confirmed. But Mr. Randi will certainly give you his million. Your claim is very popular, ancient and how you have set it up with lack of specificity, entirely normal.
Posted by: fayfreethinker
March 29, 2012
***
PH: "You and Randi are more alike than I realized.">>
Thank you for the compliment (although you've revealed you don't know anything about Randi other than anonymous smears you can't support).
PH: "You both pretend to be open to the concept of paranormal phenomenon,">>
No, we both offer substantial rewards to people who will demonstrate the ability to do, what they already claim they can do. This is appropriate.
PH: "every single example given to you is dismissively waved away.">>
Anecdotes are not demonstration. See my ice cream example, see the David Hume reference.
PH: "You demand proof...">>
Not at all. We simply offer the *opportunity* to back up claimed abilities, with demonstration. Participation is voluntary, and free.
PH: "[you] never seem to find an acceptable level of it,">>
Not true. The "acceptable level" is easy enough for a child to understand and agreed upon in advance.
--For the discern the word test, discern the word.
--For the move the ball test: move the ball.
--For the bring in Bigfoot challenge, bring in Bigfoot.
It's not clear how this could be made more simple.
PH: "ensuring you'll never find it and suffer the humiliation of [being] wrong.">>
Not true. And again, opinion is irrelevant. The science doesn't care what you believe or what I believe. Honest people go with the test results. Feynman put it this way:
"If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_...
Those claiming to be spirit mediums usually know better than to go near tests of their claims, and it can make them furious to consider it. This is the demonstration we are seeing now.
PH: "I don't think.... you are so motivated by curiosity...">>
The motivation is to educate people about how the world works and increase our knowledge. A side benefit is to educate people how to not get ripped off or have their emotions yanked around by a person pretending to talk to their dead relatives while peddling a centuries old table tipping, toe tapping, spirit medium trick. How spirit mediums "work" has been know for a very long time.
cont...
PH: "[I don't think] you'd be willing to give away large sums of money or property...">>
Well, as usual, you're wrong. The contracts I refer to are legally binding. Let me know if you would like to enter into one today (go to fayfreethinkers.com). Perhaps you can find a spirit who can cooperate to discern a simple word in a box and win a $1,000 for a worthy cause. Or perhaps something more simple. Randi once did his word test with a professional psychic for the $1M prize. The fellow discerned "intuition," the answer was "black." I've done this test, under contract, in public, over many years, perhaps 200 times. Sometimes the truth is just really simple. People can't magically discern a word hidden in a box. Big surprise!
PH: "skeptics motivations have nothing to do with proving anything,">>
Not true.
PH: "superior their intellect">>
One doesn't need a superior intellect to put together straightforward tests. I have a high school education with no formal science training. What one needs is the courage to consider whether their beliefs, usually based upon emotions, may not be true.
PH: "compared to "those ignorant people and their supersititions.">>
You could always try making up words that I didn't say and putting them in my mouth. But that wouldn't be honest. Would it be safe to say, when you do your performance, you have some experience with putting words in other peoples mouths? Yes I think so.
PH: "Your schtick is no different than the ring toss at a county fair,">>
Now you are projecting. I think readers are well aware the spirit medium "schtick" has long been a favorite at the country fair. Perhaps you should have picked an insult that doesn't line up so perfectly with your gig.
PH: "the rings are made to just the right size so they won't drop...">>
Yes, but that doesn't apply to our tests. Discern the word, as per the contract, in front of dozens of witnesses, win the prize. How is that test a dishonest trick Phillip? I know how your trick works. Should I tell?
PH: "Take your hustle somewhere else - we're on to you.">>
The hustler here is the one pretending to have special powers that conveniently evaporate and become invisible weightless dragons when someone comes along with the unmitigated audacity ask for evidence.
Talking to dead people, one of the oldest carnival tricks of all. It was really big in the 1840's. See a little background here: http://www.skepdic.com/spiritul.html
Posted by: fayfreethinker
March 30, 2012
***
PH: "No amount of logic, bluster, bravado,">>
You've provided lots of bluster and bravado, but where is the "logic" in accepting your extraordinary claims upon no evidence beyond your mere say so? There is none.
PH: "the only reason you're doing this is to promote your ego,...">>
Let's see, you are the one claiming to have the superpower of being a human receiver for the entire spiritual realm of dead people, and a person who who has the audacity, the unmitigated gall to not accept this without some evidence, is the person with an "ego?" You have it backwards.
PH: I can think of two things that would cause [this]">>
Then you don't have much of an imagination. We're not in a seance where you can just make things up and people will go "woooooo....".
[snip psychological analysis of my childhood based upon imaginary, false, strawman assertions].
PH: "abusive father who never acknowledged his son...">>
I have a great relationship with my father, always have. So a swing and a miss. If you make enough guesses, you'll get something right. Just like when you perform.
PH: [Randi] was a frequent guest [on shows].">>
He still is. When I was chatting with him at his The Amazing Meeting 8 a few years ago (1,300 in attendance), he had to step away to do a media interview.
PH: "He's very seldom seen these days, however.">>
For an 83 year old fellow who recently recovered from abdominal cancer, he keeps a very busy schedule of lectures, articles (each issue of Skeptic magazine) and media appearances. To complain that a person in their eighties slows down a bit, is a rather shallow shot but I am sure you can go lower.
PH: "His contorted attempts to explain away sightings of things like UFOs">>
As usual, you forget to back up your claim with any substance whatsoever. The UFO community has been on life support for years, and for very good reason. I'll let Sagan explain why (course, you could ask him directly):
"I would love it if there were aliens here, even if they are a little short, sullen, grumpy, and sexually preoccupied. So, if they are harbingers of an advanced civilization and they're here for heaven's sake, let's find out about them. My mind is open.
...People make mistakes, people misapprehend natural phenomena, people look for attention, money, or fame. People sometimes experience alternative states of consciousness--hallucinations are very common in all human beings, including normal people. And with that as the background, to really believe one of these cases you need really good physical evidence. And there is none." --Carl Sagan, March/April '95 issue of Skeptical Inquirer. (pg.52).
cont...
***
PH: "now people don't call on James Randi much anymore.">>
As usual, you speak about things you have no knowledge of. I can provide you many examples refuting your claim if you like. But it's not really relevant to anything other than [the fact that] skeptics, people who ask for evidence, annoy you.
PH: "Pardon me if I seem impolite,">>
Not at all, if you had something of substance to say about these things you would be able to address points directly and put together a post of something besides made up insults.
PH: "you share a lot more with James Randi than you acknowledge.">>
Thanks again.
PH: "Have you considered putting up a booth at the county fair?">>
Had you been paying attention to the comments in this thread you would already know that I have made reference to this several times.
PH: "midget... Like a Penn and Teller.">>
Raymond Teller is 5 foot 9 inch. It really would be a breath of fresh air if when you make a mistake you would acknowledge your error, so one can see that you can learn new things.
PH: "people would see [what you do] it for what it is.">>
What we have done at our Springfest booth for nigh a decade, is teach the kiddies and public how to do simple straightforward scientific tests of paranormal claims so they don't grow up and not be swindled by the legion of people who, for instance, claim to be able to speak to their dead relatives.
If you want to get the mean old skeptic, and you know you do, there is only one way to do it. It's the one thing you would dearly like to do but cannot: show your claims are something other than simple, well understood, antique parlor tricks and self-deception.
Posted by: fayfreethinker
March 30, 2012
***
Continued...