Lane was over the top here but Randi has turned out to be such a cynical shithead in other areas of 'debated' political discussion that aren't as easily 'debunked', I'm glad Don Lane gave him a hard time here.
I was only a kid at the time, but I remember seeing this clip years after the fact... and it always made me mortally ashamed to be Australian. To be fair Lane and Randi made peace some time after, but Don Lane still behaved like a dumb fuck.
@DrIdaho - remember, not all of them are frauds. At a guess, I'd say the vast majority truly believe in themselves. There's a LOT of confirmation bias going on. If you haven't seen it already, look up orson Welles cold reading (YouTube) he explains it well.
@DrIdaho - I may have been a little hasty in my comment. I apologize for calling you a goose, and for not properly reading your comments. But please take care not to step from skepticism into cynicism.
Thanks for clearing that up. I fully accept your apology :) You've pointed out my tendency to be very cynical. It's easy to be cynical when the public continue to be tricked by unethical illusionists (i.e. illusionists telling everyone they have actual supernatural abilities).
@DrIdaho - I'm a skeptic. I disagree with AnduinX, but you are a goose. Be respectful and factual in your arguments, and provide evidence. Then you will earn the respect of skeptics and believers alike...
@coomzi1984 "Be respectful and factual in your arguments, and provide evidence."
Apparently citing Wiseman, Hyman, French et al is not being factual. I have cited skeptical academics and thinkers and their evidence-based arguments over and over again. How is that not being factual?
As for being disrespectful, in what way? All I did was point out to AnduinX that parapsychology and similar disciplines aren't science.
Don Lane was a lovely person, and a wonderful entertainer. Unfortunately, he was also gullible. James Randi - whether you like him or loathe him - is a soldier for truth and reason. He'll be the first to admit he's wrong, if it is so proven. R.I.P. Mr Lane.
It's funny how believers will continue to believe even though skeptics like James Randi continue to disprove supernatural abilities over and over again.
Well AnduinX, you have problems when it comes to evidence. I've already explained that parapsychology and other supernatural theories don't fit the scientific consensus. You often respond by calling those who disagree with you "close-minded", "hypocritical", "one-sided" and so on. If that's all you've got then there's no point continuing an unproductive discussion. As for being close-minded that would describe you as you continue to scoff at the scientific consensus. P.S. Don Lane was a fool.
@Drldaho: According the wikipedia, the scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. The scientific consensus of those who actually study the phenomenon would surely be in favor of ESP. What you’re speaking of is not the scientific consensus, it's the general scientific attitude towards the field as a whole, which means as little to me as a physicist’s opinion on whale biology.
Daryl Bem's field is psychology. Richard Wiseman, Chris French, James Alcock, Ray Hyman, Susan Blackmore and Stuart Ritchie are also psychologists. Wiseman, French, Alcock, Hyman and Blackmore have continually disproved claims of ESP. You seem to be saying that Wiseman, French, Alcock, Hyman and Blackmore aren't part of the scientific consensus of psychology. By contradicting them you're effectively ignoring the psychological scientific consensus.
@DrIdaho: The overwhelming consensus of those who actually do study the field of ESP in a peer reviewed scientific method affirm ESP. Again, the Society for Psychical Research and the Institute for Noetic Sciences cannot be dismissed by a handful of 'debunkers' with an axe to grind.
@DrIdaho: I didn't say all skeptics had an axe to grind, although many do - I was specially talking about the small handful of debunkers you pointed out. Their bias is obvious, as if yours if you dismiss an entire branch of science because of a few debunkers of which you don't demand standards for their claims.
"I was specially talking about the small handful of debunkers you pointed out."
There are many skeptics I could mention but there are limits to how much I can type here. As for parapsychology, it's not a branch of science. It's had decades to show that it's scientific but it's failed to do so. Parapsychology is much a pseudoscience as "intelligent" design (a.k.a. creationism with a nose job).
You're belief is really ingrained to your mind isn't it? That's why you keep repeating the same trash over and over again. You'll might respond by saying I repeat myself but that's only because you keep repeating the discredited trash many times over :)
People who easily believe in the supernatural have a tendency to believe in the "benefits" of homeopathy and other unscientific therapies. James Randi was born before Don Lane. James Randi is still alive. It's plausible to think Don Lane initially used unscientific therapies whenever he got sick.
i have alot of respect for randi hes goes out there and debunks these frauds who prey on the weak and grieving and people like that don lane idiot go and give him this crap
Its a shame that people let themselves believe into frauds and trickery and then get upset when someone proves that they have indeed been fooled. Instead of being stubborn they should judge themselves without any bias or thought of their ego being hurt and accept the truth.
That psychic lady WAS harming people - giving them false sense of hope and unfounded closure, and a belief in something that isn't real. Why is it she can't hear anything USEFUL. Just that the dead love you.
So Randi is a skeptic, but he is open to correction! That is the key. The believers are NOT. They are so convinced that no one can tell them otherwise, as is mentioned countless times by Randi and others. Randi is accused of being unreasonable, but it is the BELIEVERS who are
Well said. Randi will only accept the supernatural IF there is evidence. So far there is none. That is why nobody has claimed Randi's $ 1 000 000 reward.
@DrIdaho: There's plenty of evidence, the society for psychical research has been publishing peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals for decades. Also, if you consider the 'afterlife' supernatural then there are documented NDEs where patients have observed things they could not have possibly known about, as well as documented cases of terminal lucidity where patients with severe brain damage transcend that damage and are about to think and speak clearly as their death nears.
@DrIdaho: Past life regression hypnotherapy has brought forth amazing things too, such as people speaking languages they did not know before. There's very strong evidence for reincarnation, especially among children, who can recall things about past lives more easily.
@DrIdaho: In one notable case, a Chinese woman who did not know any english, was able to speak english fluently during hypnotherapy. In another case, a woman fluently spoke a tribal language in South America (she found this out after sending a recording of her hypnotherapy out to see if it was just gibberish). It is not gibberish. There are children with past life experiences that their parents were able to correlate with the real world - they're not works of imagination.
@AnduinX can you prove that these people had no exposure to the language they were speaking?
Assuming you can, and we gave these people an FMRI brain scan to see which areas of the brain are being activated do you believe we would see the normal areas that are used in language light up? Because this would suggest that this knowledge is held within physical structures of the brain. If that is the case at what point did these structures come in to existence, during pregnancy in the womb? At what
stage of pregnancy. Because if we discover that we can observe changes being made to the brain by which this process of miraculous knowledge enters the brain. But no, I suspect anyone with such unfounded beliefs would be unwilling to go down a line of questioning that far or submit their beliefs to evidence, because you know as well as I do that your belief would not be supported.
@egokick: I currently hold the view of Cyril Burt: “The brain is not an organ that generates consciousness, but rather an instrument evolved to transmit and limit the processes of consciousness and of conscious attention so as to restrict them to those aspects of the material environment which at any moment are crucial for the terrestrial success of the individual”
@AnduinX What are you referring to when you say consciousness, it's a meaningless word to me that doesn't refer to anything, so when you say "consciousness is transmitted through the brain" it translates to me as "X is transmitted through the brain". Until you define things meaningfully what function is there in providing a mechanism for something undefined to come in to existence.
@AnduinX "the i of the hypothetical "cartesian theater". "
That sounds nice but what does that actually mean? you haven't explained anything and if you don't know what the meaning of the words you use are then how can you make any conclusions about where "consciousness" comes from, let alone be capable of communicating with anyone about it. I don't mean to insult you, but you don't know what you are talking about and you use words you do not understand the meaning of.
@egokick: I can break it down into a materialist view if that helps you. What a materialist believes gives rise to the 'illusion' of a self, the combined processes of the brain, is what I would call consciousness - the me within. The I that makes decisions, the I that guides my thoughts, the I that is aware.
@egokick: I think you’ve mistaken correlation for causation when you say that different parts of the brain lighting up suggests those parts of the brain cause the state. It could just as easily be the brain, as a regulating unit, responding to the mind.
@egokick: If one views the brain this way it becomes easy to explain past life memories. The brain, which normally restricts consciousness to our material life, does not in their case. The memories were never ‘seeded’ in the womb in the first place. I find it laughable that you call my beliefs unfounded, then go on to make judgments about ‘my type’.
@DrIdaho: That is a really weak argument, to dismiss everything that conflicts with materialism because one man has a million dollar challenge. As a skeptic, I'm sure you dismiss anecdotes all the time. The person may be lying? Or the person may be mistaken? Why is Randi above this logic? For all you know, he could have an axe to grind and not intend to give the money to anybody. After all, if he so wishes nobody could pass the test, as he reserves the right to change the terms mid-test.
@AnduinX what are you referring to when you say "the mind", what are you referring to when you say "consciousness". If I say "the brain" and you ask me what I mean by that, I can point to what I am referring to in reality. I can take a brain and hold it in my hands and tell you this is what I am referring to. So when you are talking about consciousness and mind and saying they are qualities outside of the brain, what exactly are you referring to?
@egokick: When I speak of the mind I am not talking about something physical at all. Rather than mind=brain, I believe that mind=mind. I don't believe there is an object that produces mind or an object that is mind.
@AnduinX The word is meaningless then. If you can't explain the word and you're just referring to the word itself to try and explain it, you may as well be speaking gibberish. If I make up a word "vleshnop" and say "vleshnop=vleshnop", it's still completely meaningless. That's exactly what you are doing. If I'm wrong, prove me wrong.
@egokick: You have my description of consciousness - the I of the cartesian theater. What do you want? For me to describe to you what the experience of 'being' is like? You might as well ask me to describe the color red to somebody who has never seen red before. Would the inability to do so make the word red meaningless? Would that invalidate the experience of redness?
@Drldaho: Severe hydrocephalus is mostly based on Lorber’s work, which was published in a leading medical journal in the 1980s. More recently an article circulated the news titled ‘tiny brain normal life’ which resurrected the subject. Unlike severe hydrocephalus, terminal lucidity is extremely common and a well known phenomenon, you should have no problem finding material on terminal lucidity.
@Drldaho: As for the societies for psychical research, you can dig through their stuff yourself, I’m not going link every single thing they’ve done. More recently a different supposedly ESP-affirming study is being published in a leading psychology journal, which is sparking ‘outrage’. You can find the link to this by googling ‘esp study outrage’.
You're not going to link anything because you don't have anything to link with! Ha! You're full of nonsense and James Randi is a legend for debunking charlatans like Doris Stokes.
@DrIdaho: You can't directly post links on youtube, so instead I posted information that you could enter in google to find this stuff. Nothing that I posted is false. 'john lorber' did work on severe hydrocephalus and published his findings in a leading medical journal, his findings were summarized well in the article 'where is consciousness? I've lost it', 'esp study outrage', 'terminal lucidity', are also search terms of interest that I'm guessing you didn't check out.
David Bowsher, Neurophysiology Professor and neurosurgeon Kenneth Till have pointed out Lorber was overdramatic with his claims. Lorber also made such claims during the final years of his life, that's often the age when people go crazy, even those who are educated. John Lorber himself later admitted he wasn't being serious.
It's funny you don't mention the names of the leading psychological and medical journals you cite.
@DrIdaho: I'm starting to think you don't really care about the substance of this debate at all, rather you just want to have the last word to make it appear as if you won the 'debate'? That's not how people who want to find the truth behave. Lorber did not make such claims during the 'final' years of his life. Roger Lewin published his work in 1980, of which Lorber had already been working on for years. Lorber died in 1996.
@DrIdaho: What evidence do you have that he lost his mind? I find this argument ridiculous. You do not like the conclusions he came to, so you theorizing that he went mad. Should we dismiss all research done by those 65 and older?
@DrIdaho: What the paper showed was that there are people with a small fraction of the brain mass of the average, and seemingly no cognitive deficits. For those who believe that mind is brain, I'm sure you can see how this is problematic.
@DrIdaho: Also, Lorber said he was overdramatic when he said the patient had 'virtually no brain', and admitted that reading brain scans can be tricky. He defended himself with "I can't say whether the mathematics student has a brain weighing 50 grams or 150 grams, but it is clear that it is nowhere near the normal 1.5 kilograms." - as you would have likely read if you looked at the article. Taking a snippet from the article out of context and not including his defense is shameful.
Please mention the journals Lorber cited his work. Perhaps you don't want to:)
Also, as I have said before, Lorber also made such claims during the final years of his life, that's often the age when people go crazy, even those who are educated. Even Isaac Newton went a bit loopy at his advanced years.
I have read the information you have cited. John Lorber's work only mentions the absence of brain matter. It did not mention the possibility of abilities like telepathy, telekinesis or any other extra-sensory perception. So please cite a peer-reviewed paper about extra-sensory perception.
@DrIdaho: Aside from the recent paper being published in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, there are many other psychic-affirming studies that have been published in the peer-reviewed Journal of the Society for Psychical Research (JSPR).
"recent paper being published in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology............."
I've heard of Daryl Bem. There are so many papers being sent to these journals for publication that occasionally a piece of nonsense will get published if it sounds convincing. That is why getting the paper published is the beginning of peer review. Psychologists Richard Wiseman and James Alcock noticed that Bem's experiments were flawed.
@DrIdaho: Nonsense in your own clearly biased opinion, and let me ask you, has the study which supposedly failed to replicate these results been peer reviewed? Also, Bern's work spanned years, and these people have supposedly replicated it already - I'd like to know the sample size.
@AnduinX: Flaws in Daryl Bem's experiments include combining the results of two or more different excercises. There was also no explanation of how the test participants went back to normal after seeing stimulating images.
Stuart Richie, Chris French and Richard Wiseman found no evidence of precognition while replicating Bem's experiment. Like I have said recently, getting a paper published is the beginning of peer review.
@DrIdaho: Explaining why they scored higher when it came to stimulating images is not necessary. The results are the results. The board that published this even stated that they accepted the paper despite not knowing 'how' it could be true, or how it could fit in with the current model.
@AnduinX: "Explaining why they scored higher when it came to stimulating images is not necessary."
Just like the charlatans you defend you've purposely misquoted. The test subjects didn't score higher when it came to stimulating images. James Alcock said there's no explanation of how it was determined that participants had 'settled down' after seeing stimulating images. When I said 'went back to normal' I was mentioning participants settling down (ie regaining normal heartbeat, breathing).
so AnduinX now you're misquoting. Obviously you're getting desperate, just like the charlatans when they're backed into a corner by the likes James Randi and Criss Angel :)
@DrIdaho: In the article, it flat out says 'The studies include more than 1,000 subjects'. It's not an exact number, but you know more than 1,000 people are involved - and second, they did score higher when it came to stimulating images. In that very same article it says "Still, the participants beat chance, by 53 percent to 50 percent, at least when the photos being posted were erotic ones. They did not do better than chance on negative or neutral photos."
@DrIdaho: Also, I did not misquote you, you said "There was also no explanation of how the test participants went back to normal after seeing stimulating images" - and given the fact that they DID score better when it came to stimulating images, I interpreted that to mean there's no explanation for why they would do no better than chance when it came to non-stimulating photos.
Stuart Ritchie, Chris French and Richard Wiseman have replicated Bem's experiments and did not find evidence of precognition. Yet you continue to ignore them. If Bem did his research properly then Ritchie, French and Wiseman would have yielded similar results when they replicated Bem's study. By accepting Bem while disputing Ritchie, French and Wiseman you are cherry-picking results.
@Drldaho: A small group claims to have replicated the study with negative results, and you seemingly have no specific data on said study (at least, that you have presented here), yet you’re willing to jump aboard and take their word for gospel. I view this as a perfect example of one-sided skepticism.
Putting specific data on Youtube's comments section is difficult with the limit on the number of characters I can type in.
You're also willing to jump aboard onto a paper that has been negated by peer review by highly respected psychologists such as Alcock, Wiseman, French and Ritchie This is a perfect example of one-sided believing. Wiseman is also collecting data from others replicating Bem's experiment, the data collected will be analysed later this year.
@DrIdaho: I could fill this page with small studies validating parapsychology, but most have never been published in a journal or went through a peer-review process. Had I brought these up, you would have just called them woo because of this fact - yet you're citing small studies that have NOT underwent the peer-review process and using them as 'evidence' that Bern's study is false. Again, this is what I mean by one-sided skepticism
@Drldaho: Furthermore, do you actually know anything about these studies you’re citing? Because I have not been able to find any details about these studies whatsoever. For all I know, they may have had a sample size of 10 people. If you’re just ‘taking their word for it’, then all you’ve shown is that you’re closed-minded and a hypocrite.
@DrIdaho: As far as I'm aware, his supposed replication has never been published in a journal, or even online for the public to see. In short - prove it, because it seems like you're jumping to the conclusion you want based entirely on the word of these skeptics who have yet to release anything about what they did.
Wiseman, Ritchie, French and Alcock have been disproving ESP for years. They've been publishing many papers for many years. As for Bem's recent paper Wiseman, Ritchie, French and Alcock have each replicated it only once. They will publish their papers when they repeat the replication several times over because unlike foolish believers like you Wiseman, Ritchie, French and Alcock will not jump to conclusions.
@DrIdaho: The Society for Psychical Research and the Institute of Noetic Sciences have done far more on the subject than the handful of people you've listed. You keep saying that they've replicated the experiment, but do you have any evidence that they in fact did replicate the experiment beyond word of mouth? As they still have not published their paper, and as their work has still not been accepted into a journal, you are in fact the one jumping to conclusion here.
"done far more on the subject than the handful of people you've listed" I can't list everyone single one because there are limits to how much I can type in the comments.
"do you have any evidence that they in fact did replicate the experiment beyond word of mouth"
Like I said over and over again Wiseman, and many others will not publish their work until the replication has been done many more times. The repeated experiment replication is still continuing and unlike believers the analysis of the replication will begin later this year. The analysis itself will take time so the results of the replications will be published next year.
@DrIdaho: They don't have higher standards, they TRIED to publish their work in the same journal immediately, and their work was rejected. No data essentially means you know NOTHING about the replicated experiment beyond word of mouth. Right now, at this moment it is nothing more than an anecdote, yet you hold it up as if it's proof that ESP is false. Ridiculous.
"but do you have any evidence that they in fact did replicate the experiment beyond word of mouth? "
Wiseman, Alcock, Hyman and others have been discrediting the believers throughout their careers. You seem to insist that all their life's work is nonsense. Well, that's the typical attitude of a foolish believer.
@DrIdaho: Foolish behavior is dismissing an entire branch of science that has yielded positive results time and again because of a handful of debunkers who supposedly got conflicting results.
@DrIdaho: By the way this is a quote from Wiseman about the evidence of ESP: "I think that they do meet the usual standards for a normal claim, but are not convincing enough for an extraordinary claim." Essentially admitting that the evidence for ESP is there, but he refuses to acknowledge it because it goes against the paradigm.
Extra Sensory Perception is an extraordinary claim. As Carl Sagan said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." So you've totally misunderstood Richard Wiseman, of course misunderstanding assumes you're not misquoting. No surprise though, quote-mining is common when arguing against the scientific consensus which parapsychology has failed to join.
@DrIdaho: I know that, and I think 'extraordinary claims' is a bad excuse. He essentially admitted that if ESP were not considered 'extraordinary' he would have accepted the evidence. Why should we require a much steeper degree of evidence for ESP? Because it goes against physicalism? For that matter, maybe you could define what an extraordinary claim is, and what constitutes extraordinary evidence, because without definition it's a license to dismiss anything out of hand.
@Drldaho: For starters, has Wiseman’s replicated study undergone the same peer-review process that Bern's was subjected too? If not, then why are you treating it as gospel?
You continue to dispute the experiments done by Stuart Ritchie, Chris French and Richard Wiseman. When they replicated Bem's study their results were different. Ritchie, French and Wiseman found no evidence for precognition.
@Drldaho: Not only that, but you’re dismissing a great deal of work from the peer reviewed JSPR, because of two people (James Alcock and Richard Wiseman). One of which you also cite as a reason to disbelieve Bern. It sounds like you're 'cherry picking' to maintain your belief system.
@AnduinX: You're the cherry picker. I didn't just cite James Alcock and Richard Wiseman. I also cited Stuart Ritchie and Chris French. I would cite more but Youtube has limits. If parapsychology was scientifically valid it would've already been part of the scientific consensus in various branches of science. It had two centuries to do this. Parapsychology hasn't survived the peer review of the scientific community. As for JSPR, getting published in a journal is the start of peer review.
You have left so many comments that I don't have the time to respond to every single one. Unlike some people I don't spend all my time time behind the computer. As for the Society for Psychical Research their main focus is parapsychology. For the past two centuries parapsychology has failed to be accepted by the scientific consensus because constant peer review from the likes of James Alcock and Richard Wiseman continue to contradict their "research".
@Drldaho: It’s comical that you should resort to personal attacks because you disagree with somebody on youtube. If you don’t have time to properly debate then why are you engaging in debate?
@Drldaho: ‘It comical that you resort to information that hasn't been accepted by the scientific community.’ – What do you mean by the scientific community? If you mean underwent peer-review process, then it certainly has been accepted by the scientific community.
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research (JSPR). This journal is published by the Society for Psychical Research. This society has included members with non-scientific backgrounds.
@DrIdaho: That is entirely irrelevant. The society for psychical research has many members, that doesn't mean they're all writing scientific papers. Show me something they've published in their journal that has not been peer-reviewed by those with scientific backgrounds.
@Drldaho: You just ignored the entire part about why it was weak, then asserted your opinion. Again, it’s a weak argument because it’s centered around one man, Randi, who may or may not have an agenda. I find it comical that ‘skeptics’ will dismiss anecdotes by the thousands but they don’t apply the same critique to Randi. In short, can you prove that the reason nobody has passed his challenge was because they could not ‘prove’ their abilities?
James Randi may be correct about a lot of things, but I don't think he's right about everything. There are things I've experienced that I can't explain, but that are proof enough to me that there is something beyond here.
So why don't you jump off a cliff to see if the scientific "theory" of gravity works, mystic resistence ... (p.s.: by the way, it should be spelled "resistance" according to the "theory" of English language.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I do not believe in the paranormal or even in science, but I know how science should work and Randi is no scientist. He is a highschool dropout who makes up his mind before the experiment, which is completely unscientific, and only allows his challenge to happen against those people whom he is almost 100% sure are frauds anyway.
@mysticresistence OK.. so all you can do is call Randi names? What is your proof that Randi "...only allows his challenge to happen against those people whom he is almost 100% sure are frauds anyway." ? Come on, I have been more than fair but you have failed thus far.
@skepticzonepodcast Like I said, twice, Dr. Bierman challenged Randi to a fair test using objective scientist not affiliated with the JREF, and yet Randi backed down AFTER he said the test could go on. In other words, when he saw his fraud might fail, he pulled out. Also, Randi has a video calling the "starving Yogi" in India names without any proof against his claims, after a team of Indian scientists with real PHDs and some Americans studied him and said he was legit. So, has Randi failed? YES
@mysticresistence You have repeatedly made this claim about Dr. Bierman. It's a claim also posed by just about everybody who doesn't like Randi. Unfortunately, almost nobody can support the claim with any documentation or proof. Randi has stated repeatedly that the testing scientists be agreed upon by both parties. Show me where or when Randi agreed to test Dr. Bierman, then backed off inexplicably. I'm willing to listen, but thus far you've made nothing more than an unsubstantiated claim.
@mysticresistence Simple questions here. When did all this happen? Who was the scientist that Randi initially agreed to, then backed off from? What is the specific paranormal claim being made by Dr. Bierman? As for the "Starving Yogi," it is an incredible claim that should require incredible proof. Having a group of scientists watch him via closed circuit video that allows for a certain amount of privacy (ie: out of sight) is anything but incredible proof.
@TheEvolutionDude Actually, if you watch the special on it, they did not give him any privacy with water or food anywhere nearby and the closed circuit TV monitors were in the next room over, and yet Randi goes after him, despite that the Randi website says that they will not test "breatharians" in section 2.3. Not only that, but there is also a banner about the size of Chicago on the JREF website's homepage saying "donate $50 NOW" wonder what he dose with the money? *cough*McMansion*cough*
@mysticresistence I did read up on this and I watched. They allowed him privacy to bathe. Was there no water in the bathtub? Was it impossible for him to urinate in the tub as it drained? Breatharians have been tested by other groups on several occasions and they have always proven to be self deluded people who end up nearly starving to death as soon as they are under surveillance for long enough. Until there's some evidence that this is even remotely possible, I don't blame the JREF.
@TheEvolutionDude Actually, they measured all the water before and after he bathed, and recorded everything. He was under surveillance for days and days with real scientist, not high school drop-outs who learned how to pull a rabbit out of a hat, and they came to the conclusion that they could not explain it, much like monks who western scientist found generated alpha waves when meditating, something they thought only happened in REM sleep. Science does not have all the answers and never will.
@mysticresistence Science is a method by which we continually learn more. Your assessment that science "doesn't know everything" is like saying that no person can drink an ocean. Um, yeah. If science knew everything, we'd be done with it. Randi was able to outwit a team of well funded scientists for 3 years with Project Alpha. He eventually had to come clean, as they were convinced that Randi's guys were the real deal. Fooling a "scientist" is easy. Fooling a conjurer is much harder.
@mysticresistence People have survived on only water for much longer than this guy did. Put him under watch by people who are actually skeptical and let it run for 120 days. If he has truly lived as long as he has on no food or water, this shouldn't be a problem for him and it'd turn the scientific community on its head. Instead, they cut off the study before he started starving. I wonder why. Isn't it funny how everyone with supernatural powers cuts off the test just before proof is concrete?
lol @ the rage quit
Brushles83 4 days ago
Randi was right and polite. Don Lane just plain pathetic.
Baalinooo 1 week ago
@ anthonyjthorne. Don Lane, as the host, is supposed to be impartial. He should not have been so aggressive towards James Randi.
DrIdaho 1 month ago
Lane was over the top here but Randi has turned out to be such a cynical shithead in other areas of 'debated' political discussion that aren't as easily 'debunked', I'm glad Don Lane gave him a hard time here.
anthonyjthorne 1 month ago
What was up with the guy who almost passed out?
shinehouse 1 month ago
I was only a kid at the time, but I remember seeing this clip years after the fact... and it always made me mortally ashamed to be Australian. To be fair Lane and Randi made peace some time after, but Don Lane still behaved like a dumb fuck.
jq747 1 month ago
Don Lane is a cockhead. Randi was right
somo84 2 months ago 6
Comment removed
cseils 2 months ago
@DrIdaho - remember, not all of them are frauds. At a guess, I'd say the vast majority truly believe in themselves. There's a LOT of confirmation bias going on. If you haven't seen it already, look up orson Welles cold reading (YouTube) he explains it well.
coomzi1984 3 months ago
@coomzi1984
Good point, many alleged psychics truly believe they have a gift despite evidence to the contrary.
I have already seen the Orson Welles video about cold reading and various videos about confirmation bias. More should watch the Orson Welles video.
DrIdaho 3 months ago
@DrIdaho - I may have been a little hasty in my comment. I apologize for calling you a goose, and for not properly reading your comments. But please take care not to step from skepticism into cynicism.
coomzi1984 3 months ago
@coomzi1984
Thanks for clearing that up. I fully accept your apology :) You've pointed out my tendency to be very cynical. It's easy to be cynical when the public continue to be tricked by unethical illusionists (i.e. illusionists telling everyone they have actual supernatural abilities).
DrIdaho 3 months ago
@DrIdaho - I'm a skeptic. I disagree with AnduinX, but you are a goose. Be respectful and factual in your arguments, and provide evidence. Then you will earn the respect of skeptics and believers alike...
coomzi1984 3 months ago
@coomzi1984 "Be respectful and factual in your arguments, and provide evidence."
Apparently citing Wiseman, Hyman, French et al is not being factual. I have cited skeptical academics and thinkers and their evidence-based arguments over and over again. How is that not being factual?
As for being disrespectful, in what way? All I did was point out to AnduinX that parapsychology and similar disciplines aren't science.
DrIdaho 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@coomzi1984 "I disagree with AnduinX, but you are a goose. Be respectful and factual in your arguments, and provide evidence."
It's quite clear that all you've done is skimmed through my comments without actually reading them properly.
DrIdaho 3 months ago
@coomzi1984 "Be respectful"
I did not attack AnduinX personally. All I did was point out that his arguments weren't based on evidence.
DrIdaho 3 months ago
Don Lane was a lovely person, and a wonderful entertainer. Unfortunately, he was also gullible. James Randi - whether you like him or loathe him - is a soldier for truth and reason. He'll be the first to admit he's wrong, if it is so proven. R.I.P. Mr Lane.
coomzi1984 3 months ago
Doris Stokes never harmed anyone? Lying to people is harmful.
DrIdaho 3 months ago
Don Lane, what a fool
DrIdaho 4 months ago
Don Lane, what a cunt.
JesusSuckedGayPenis 4 months ago
It's funny how believers will continue to believe even though skeptics like James Randi continue to disprove supernatural abilities over and over again.
DrIdaho 5 months ago
Don Lane couldn't even be bothered to listen to James Randi. So much for Lane's hosting "abilities".
DrIdaho 5 months ago
Well AnduinX, you have problems when it comes to evidence. I've already explained that parapsychology and other supernatural theories don't fit the scientific consensus. You often respond by calling those who disagree with you "close-minded", "hypocritical", "one-sided" and so on. If that's all you've got then there's no point continuing an unproductive discussion. As for being close-minded that would describe you as you continue to scoff at the scientific consensus. P.S. Don Lane was a fool.
DrIdaho 5 months ago
@Drldaho: According the wikipedia, the scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. The scientific consensus of those who actually study the phenomenon would surely be in favor of ESP. What you’re speaking of is not the scientific consensus, it's the general scientific attitude towards the field as a whole, which means as little to me as a physicist’s opinion on whale biology.
AnduinX 5 months ago
@AnduinX
Daryl Bem's field is psychology. Richard Wiseman, Chris French, James Alcock, Ray Hyman, Susan Blackmore and Stuart Ritchie are also psychologists. Wiseman, French, Alcock, Hyman and Blackmore have continually disproved claims of ESP. You seem to be saying that Wiseman, French, Alcock, Hyman and Blackmore aren't part of the scientific consensus of psychology. By contradicting them you're effectively ignoring the psychological scientific consensus.
DrIdaho 5 months ago
@DrIdaho: The overwhelming consensus of those who actually do study the field of ESP in a peer reviewed scientific method affirm ESP. Again, the Society for Psychical Research and the Institute for Noetic Sciences cannot be dismissed by a handful of 'debunkers' with an axe to grind.
AnduinX 5 months ago
@AnduinX
" The overwhelming consensus of those who actually do study the field of ESP"
You're assuming that parapsychology and similar "disciplines" are actual sciences.
"a handful of 'debunkers' with an axe to grind."
In what way do skeptics have an "axe to grind"?
DrIdaho 5 months ago
@DrIdaho: I didn't say all skeptics had an axe to grind, although many do - I was specially talking about the small handful of debunkers you pointed out. Their bias is obvious, as if yours if you dismiss an entire branch of science because of a few debunkers of which you don't demand standards for their claims.
AnduinX 5 months ago
@AnduinX
"I was specially talking about the small handful of debunkers you pointed out."
There are many skeptics I could mention but there are limits to how much I can type here. As for parapsychology, it's not a branch of science. It's had decades to show that it's scientific but it's failed to do so. Parapsychology is much a pseudoscience as "intelligent" design (a.k.a. creationism with a nose job).
DrIdaho 5 months ago
@DrIdaho
Well AnduinX, you proven to be much of a pseudoscience fanboy as the late Don Lane. The proof is your increasingly, ridiculous comments.
DrIdaho 5 months ago
@AnduinX
You're belief is really ingrained to your mind isn't it? That's why you keep repeating the same trash over and over again. You'll might respond by saying I repeat myself but that's only because you keep repeating the discredited trash many times over :)
Heehee :)
DrIdaho 5 months ago
@DrIdaho: If by ingrained in my mind you mean supported by logic and reason, then yes.
AnduinX 5 months ago
Don Lane = Fool.
DrIdaho 6 months ago
Lorber's work was published in the academic journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, FYI.
AnduinX 6 months ago
Baby want his baba? Is the mean man cutting into your key demographic? Awwww.
TheCraich 6 months ago
"We're going to a commercial break and you can PISS OFF!" *smash*
MuzzDrifter94 7 months ago
People who easily believe in the supernatural have a tendency to believe in the "benefits" of homeopathy and other unscientific therapies. James Randi was born before Don Lane. James Randi is still alive. It's plausible to think Don Lane initially used unscientific therapies whenever he got sick.
DrIdaho 7 months ago
I remember that. Don Lane was an idiot. Doris Stokes was a fraud. Wonder if she is still kicking.
stevjen1 7 months ago
Mediums are fake but Randi is just a nasty atheist bully poof.
Travixius 7 months ago
i have alot of respect for randi hes goes out there and debunks these frauds who prey on the weak and grieving and people like that don lane idiot go and give him this crap
blues9934 7 months ago
WOW that was real professional cry throw a tantrum then storm off ... way to win a debate.
3ron 8 months ago
Comment removed
blues9934 8 months ago
James Randi lives and prospers and Don Lane is dead and marked as a pseudo science fan boy, lesson don´t be a dick on camera.
Sarakastiker 8 months ago 6
@Sarakastiker
Well said. Don Lane was foolish.
DrIdaho 5 months ago
What an idiot!
anonynaw 9 months ago
Its a shame that people let themselves believe into frauds and trickery and then get upset when someone proves that they have indeed been fooled. Instead of being stubborn they should judge themselves without any bias or thought of their ego being hurt and accept the truth.
ShashiKanary 9 months ago
The truth hurts. Well done, Mr. Randi!
loszhor 9 months ago 5
@loszhor
Hopefully more magicians will continue to follow James Randi's lead.
DrIdaho 5 months ago
Don shouldn't have let Randi wind him up.
benthejrporter 9 months ago
That psychic lady WAS harming people - giving them false sense of hope and unfounded closure, and a belief in something that isn't real. Why is it she can't hear anything USEFUL. Just that the dead love you.
So Randi is a skeptic, but he is open to correction! That is the key. The believers are NOT. They are so convinced that no one can tell them otherwise, as is mentioned countless times by Randi and others. Randi is accused of being unreasonable, but it is the BELIEVERS who are
ffgew22 10 months ago
@ffgew22 I should say hasn't been PROVEN / has supporting evidence to be real above.
ffgew22 10 months ago
@ffgew22
Well said. Randi will only accept the supernatural IF there is evidence. So far there is none. That is why nobody has claimed Randi's $ 1 000 000 reward.
DrIdaho 7 months ago
@DrIdaho: There's plenty of evidence, the society for psychical research has been publishing peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals for decades. Also, if you consider the 'afterlife' supernatural then there are documented NDEs where patients have observed things they could not have possibly known about, as well as documented cases of terminal lucidity where patients with severe brain damage transcend that damage and are about to think and speak clearly as their death nears.
AnduinX 6 months ago
@DrIdaho: Past life regression hypnotherapy has brought forth amazing things too, such as people speaking languages they did not know before. There's very strong evidence for reincarnation, especially among children, who can recall things about past lives more easily.
AnduinX 6 months ago
@AnduinX
It's very easy to perceive gibberish as a "language".
Children have powerful imaginations which are often mistaken for "past lives".
DrIdaho 6 months ago
@DrIdaho: In one notable case, a Chinese woman who did not know any english, was able to speak english fluently during hypnotherapy. In another case, a woman fluently spoke a tribal language in South America (she found this out after sending a recording of her hypnotherapy out to see if it was just gibberish). It is not gibberish. There are children with past life experiences that their parents were able to correlate with the real world - they're not works of imagination.
AnduinX 6 months ago
@AnduinX can you prove that these people had no exposure to the language they were speaking?
Assuming you can, and we gave these people an FMRI brain scan to see which areas of the brain are being activated do you believe we would see the normal areas that are used in language light up? Because this would suggest that this knowledge is held within physical structures of the brain. If that is the case at what point did these structures come in to existence, during pregnancy in the womb? At what
egokick 6 months ago
stage of pregnancy. Because if we discover that we can observe changes being made to the brain by which this process of miraculous knowledge enters the brain. But no, I suspect anyone with such unfounded beliefs would be unwilling to go down a line of questioning that far or submit their beliefs to evidence, because you know as well as I do that your belief would not be supported.
egokick 6 months ago
@egokick: I currently hold the view of Cyril Burt: “The brain is not an organ that generates consciousness, but rather an instrument evolved to transmit and limit the processes of consciousness and of conscious attention so as to restrict them to those aspects of the material environment which at any moment are crucial for the terrestrial success of the individual”
AnduinX 6 months ago
@AnduinX What are you referring to when you say consciousness, it's a meaningless word to me that doesn't refer to anything, so when you say "consciousness is transmitted through the brain" it translates to me as "X is transmitted through the brain". Until you define things meaningfully what function is there in providing a mechanism for something undefined to come in to existence.
egokick 6 months ago
@egokick: Simply the I of the hypothetical "cartesian theater".
AnduinX 6 months ago
@AnduinX "the i of the hypothetical "cartesian theater". "
That sounds nice but what does that actually mean? you haven't explained anything and if you don't know what the meaning of the words you use are then how can you make any conclusions about where "consciousness" comes from, let alone be capable of communicating with anyone about it. I don't mean to insult you, but you don't know what you are talking about and you use words you do not understand the meaning of.
egokick 6 months ago
@egokick: I can break it down into a materialist view if that helps you. What a materialist believes gives rise to the 'illusion' of a self, the combined processes of the brain, is what I would call consciousness - the me within. The I that makes decisions, the I that guides my thoughts, the I that is aware.
AnduinX 6 months ago
@egokick: I think you’ve mistaken correlation for causation when you say that different parts of the brain lighting up suggests those parts of the brain cause the state. It could just as easily be the brain, as a regulating unit, responding to the mind.
AnduinX 6 months ago
@egokick: If one views the brain this way it becomes easy to explain past life memories. The brain, which normally restricts consciousness to our material life, does not in their case. The memories were never ‘seeded’ in the womb in the first place. I find it laughable that you call my beliefs unfounded, then go on to make judgments about ‘my type’.
AnduinX 6 months ago
@AnduinX
Pfffft
DrIdaho 6 months ago
@AnduinX
If there is "evidence" how come they have been unable to get the financial reward (now $ 1 000 000) offered by James Randi?
DrIdaho 6 months ago
@DrIdaho: That is a really weak argument, to dismiss everything that conflicts with materialism because one man has a million dollar challenge. As a skeptic, I'm sure you dismiss anecdotes all the time. The person may be lying? Or the person may be mistaken? Why is Randi above this logic? For all you know, he could have an axe to grind and not intend to give the money to anybody. After all, if he so wishes nobody could pass the test, as he reserves the right to change the terms mid-test.
AnduinX 6 months ago
@AnduinX what are you referring to when you say "the mind", what are you referring to when you say "consciousness". If I say "the brain" and you ask me what I mean by that, I can point to what I am referring to in reality. I can take a brain and hold it in my hands and tell you this is what I am referring to. So when you are talking about consciousness and mind and saying they are qualities outside of the brain, what exactly are you referring to?
These words you are using are meaningless.
egokick 6 months ago
@egokick: When I speak of the mind I am not talking about something physical at all. Rather than mind=brain, I believe that mind=mind. I don't believe there is an object that produces mind or an object that is mind.
AnduinX 6 months ago
@AnduinX The word is meaningless then. If you can't explain the word and you're just referring to the word itself to try and explain it, you may as well be speaking gibberish. If I make up a word "vleshnop" and say "vleshnop=vleshnop", it's still completely meaningless. That's exactly what you are doing. If I'm wrong, prove me wrong.
egokick 6 months ago
@egokick: You have my description of consciousness - the I of the cartesian theater. What do you want? For me to describe to you what the experience of 'being' is like? You might as well ask me to describe the color red to somebody who has never seen red before. Would the inability to do so make the word red meaningless? Would that invalidate the experience of redness?
AnduinX 6 months ago
Comment removed
AnduinX 6 months ago
@AnduinX
Where do you get your "information"? Show me the links.
DrIdaho 6 months ago
@Drldaho: Severe hydrocephalus is mostly based on Lorber’s work, which was published in a leading medical journal in the 1980s. More recently an article circulated the news titled ‘tiny brain normal life’ which resurrected the subject. Unlike severe hydrocephalus, terminal lucidity is extremely common and a well known phenomenon, you should have no problem finding material on terminal lucidity.
AnduinX 6 months ago
@Drldaho: As for the societies for psychical research, you can dig through their stuff yourself, I’m not going link every single thing they’ve done. More recently a different supposedly ESP-affirming study is being published in a leading psychology journal, which is sparking ‘outrage’. You can find the link to this by googling ‘esp study outrage’.
AnduinX 6 months ago
@AnduinX
You're not going to link anything because you don't have anything to link with! Ha! You're full of nonsense and James Randi is a legend for debunking charlatans like Doris Stokes.
DrIdaho 6 months ago
@DrIdaho: You can't directly post links on youtube, so instead I posted information that you could enter in google to find this stuff. Nothing that I posted is false. 'john lorber' did work on severe hydrocephalus and published his findings in a leading medical journal, his findings were summarized well in the article 'where is consciousness? I've lost it', 'esp study outrage', 'terminal lucidity', are also search terms of interest that I'm guessing you didn't check out.
AnduinX 6 months ago
@AnduinX
David Bowsher, Neurophysiology Professor and neurosurgeon Kenneth Till have pointed out Lorber was overdramatic with his claims. Lorber also made such claims during the final years of his life, that's often the age when people go crazy, even those who are educated. John Lorber himself later admitted he wasn't being serious.
It's funny you don't mention the names of the leading psychological and medical journals you cite.
DrIdaho 6 months ago
@DrIdaho: I'm starting to think you don't really care about the substance of this debate at all, rather you just want to have the last word to make it appear as if you won the 'debate'? That's not how people who want to find the truth behave. Lorber did not make such claims during the 'final' years of his life. Roger Lewin published his work in 1980, of which Lorber had already been working on for years. Lorber died in 1996.
AnduinX 6 months ago
@AnduinX
John Lorber was born in 1915. So he published his "work" in at the age of 65. Many people often lose their minds at that age, even the educated ones.
DrIdaho 6 months ago
@DrIdaho: What evidence do you have that he lost his mind? I find this argument ridiculous. You do not like the conclusions he came to, so you theorizing that he went mad. Should we dismiss all research done by those 65 and older?
AnduinX 6 months ago
@AnduinX
The paper Lorber published does not mention anything about the supernatural.
DrIdaho 6 months ago
@DrIdaho: What the paper showed was that there are people with a small fraction of the brain mass of the average, and seemingly no cognitive deficits. For those who believe that mind is brain, I'm sure you can see how this is problematic.
AnduinX 6 months ago
@DrIdaho: Also, Lorber said he was overdramatic when he said the patient had 'virtually no brain', and admitted that reading brain scans can be tricky. He defended himself with "I can't say whether the mathematics student has a brain weighing 50 grams or 150 grams, but it is clear that it is nowhere near the normal 1.5 kilograms." - as you would have likely read if you looked at the article. Taking a snippet from the article out of context and not including his defense is shameful.
AnduinX 6 months ago
@AnduinX
Please mention the journals Lorber cited his work. Perhaps you don't want to:)
Also, as I have said before, Lorber also made such claims during the final years of his life, that's often the age when people go crazy, even those who are educated. Even Isaac Newton went a bit loopy at his advanced years.
DrIdaho 6 months ago
@AnduinX
I have read the information you have cited. John Lorber's work only mentions the absence of brain matter. It did not mention the possibility of abilities like telepathy, telekinesis or any other extra-sensory perception. So please cite a peer-reviewed paper about extra-sensory perception.
DrIdaho 6 months ago
@DrIdaho: I see you haven't taken the time to simply google 'outrage esp journal' yet.
AnduinX 6 months ago
@DrIdaho: Aside from the recent paper being published in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, there are many other psychic-affirming studies that have been published in the peer-reviewed Journal of the Society for Psychical Research (JSPR).
AnduinX 6 months ago
@AnduinX
Give the names of the psychologists.
DrIdaho 5 months ago
@AnduinX
"recent paper being published in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology............."
I've heard of Daryl Bem. There are so many papers being sent to these journals for publication that occasionally a piece of nonsense will get published if it sounds convincing. That is why getting the paper published is the beginning of peer review. Psychologists Richard Wiseman and James Alcock noticed that Bem's experiments were flawed.
DrIdaho 5 months ago
@DrIdaho: Nonsense in your own clearly biased opinion, and let me ask you, has the study which supposedly failed to replicate these results been peer reviewed? Also, Bern's work spanned years, and these people have supposedly replicated it already - I'd like to know the sample size.
AnduinX 5 months ago
@AnduinX
Speaking of sample size, James Alcock pointed out the amount of tests Bem did is unknown.
DrIdaho 5 months ago
@AnduinX: Flaws in Daryl Bem's experiments include combining the results of two or more different excercises. There was also no explanation of how the test participants went back to normal after seeing stimulating images.
Stuart Richie, Chris French and Richard Wiseman found no evidence of precognition while replicating Bem's experiment. Like I have said recently, getting a paper published is the beginning of peer review.
DrIdaho 5 months ago
@DrIdaho: Explaining why they scored higher when it came to stimulating images is not necessary. The results are the results. The board that published this even stated that they accepted the paper despite not knowing 'how' it could be true, or how it could fit in with the current model.
AnduinX 5 months ago
@AnduinX: "Explaining why they scored higher when it came to stimulating images is not necessary."
Just like the charlatans you defend you've purposely misquoted. The test subjects didn't score higher when it came to stimulating images. James Alcock said there's no explanation of how it was determined that participants had 'settled down' after seeing stimulating images. When I said 'went back to normal' I was mentioning participants settling down (ie regaining normal heartbeat, breathing).
DrIdaho 5 months ago
@DrIdaho:
so AnduinX now you're misquoting. Obviously you're getting desperate, just like the charlatans when they're backed into a corner by the likes James Randi and Criss Angel :)
DrIdaho 5 months ago
@DrIdaho: In the article, it flat out says 'The studies include more than 1,000 subjects'. It's not an exact number, but you know more than 1,000 people are involved - and second, they did score higher when it came to stimulating images. In that very same article it says "Still, the participants beat chance, by 53 percent to 50 percent, at least when the photos being posted were erotic ones. They did not do better than chance on negative or neutral photos."
AnduinX 5 months ago
@DrIdaho: Also, I did not misquote you, you said "There was also no explanation of how the test participants went back to normal after seeing stimulating images" - and given the fact that they DID score better when it came to stimulating images, I interpreted that to mean there's no explanation for why they would do no better than chance when it came to non-stimulating photos.
AnduinX 5 months ago
@AnduinX
Stuart Ritchie, Chris French and Richard Wiseman have replicated Bem's experiments and did not find evidence of precognition. Yet you continue to ignore them. If Bem did his research properly then Ritchie, French and Wiseman would have yielded similar results when they replicated Bem's study. By accepting Bem while disputing Ritchie, French and Wiseman you are cherry-picking results.
DrIdaho 5 months ago
@Drldaho: A small group claims to have replicated the study with negative results, and you seemingly have no specific data on said study (at least, that you have presented here), yet you’re willing to jump aboard and take their word for gospel. I view this as a perfect example of one-sided skepticism.
AnduinX 5 months ago
@AnduinX: " A small group"
Those doing parapsychology "research" are the small group.
DrIdaho 5 months ago
@AnduinX:
Putting specific data on Youtube's comments section is difficult with the limit on the number of characters I can type in.
You're also willing to jump aboard onto a paper that has been negated by peer review by highly respected psychologists such as Alcock, Wiseman, French and Ritchie This is a perfect example of one-sided believing. Wiseman is also collecting data from others replicating Bem's experiment, the data collected will be analysed later this year.
DrIdaho 5 months ago
@DrIdaho: I could fill this page with small studies validating parapsychology, but most have never been published in a journal or went through a peer-review process. Had I brought these up, you would have just called them woo because of this fact - yet you're citing small studies that have NOT underwent the peer-review process and using them as 'evidence' that Bern's study is false. Again, this is what I mean by one-sided skepticism
AnduinX 5 months ago
@Drldaho: Furthermore, do you actually know anything about these studies you’re citing? Because I have not been able to find any details about these studies whatsoever. For all I know, they may have had a sample size of 10 people. If you’re just ‘taking their word for it’, then all you’ve shown is that you’re closed-minded and a hypocrite.
AnduinX 5 months ago
@AnduinX
Do you even know what experiment replication is? It does involve having a similar sample size to the first experiment.
DrIdaho 5 months ago
@DrIdaho: As far as I'm aware, his supposed replication has never been published in a journal, or even online for the public to see. In short - prove it, because it seems like you're jumping to the conclusion you want based entirely on the word of these skeptics who have yet to release anything about what they did.
AnduinX 5 months ago
@AnduinX
Wiseman, Ritchie, French and Alcock have been disproving ESP for years. They've been publishing many papers for many years. As for Bem's recent paper Wiseman, Ritchie, French and Alcock have each replicated it only once. They will publish their papers when they repeat the replication several times over because unlike foolish believers like you Wiseman, Ritchie, French and Alcock will not jump to conclusions.
DrIdaho 5 months ago
@DrIdaho: The Society for Psychical Research and the Institute of Noetic Sciences have done far more on the subject than the handful of people you've listed. You keep saying that they've replicated the experiment, but do you have any evidence that they in fact did replicate the experiment beyond word of mouth? As they still have not published their paper, and as their work has still not been accepted into a journal, you are in fact the one jumping to conclusion here.
AnduinX 5 months ago
@AnduinX
"done far more on the subject than the handful of people you've listed" I can't list everyone single one because there are limits to how much I can type in the comments.
DrIdaho 5 months ago
@AnduinX
"do you have any evidence that they in fact did replicate the experiment beyond word of mouth"
Like I said over and over again Wiseman, and many others will not publish their work until the replication has been done many more times. The repeated experiment replication is still continuing and unlike believers the analysis of the replication will begin later this year. The analysis itself will take time so the results of the replications will be published next year.
DrIdaho 5 months ago
@DrIdaho: They don't have higher standards, they TRIED to publish their work in the same journal immediately, and their work was rejected. No data essentially means you know NOTHING about the replicated experiment beyond word of mouth. Right now, at this moment it is nothing more than an anecdote, yet you hold it up as if it's proof that ESP is false. Ridiculous.
AnduinX 5 months ago
@AnduinX
" their work was rejected." Prove that their work was rejected.
Wiseman, French and Ritchie have higher standards. Now you are just saying random garbage. Yeah, you're the ridiculous one.
DrIdaho 5 months ago
@AnduinX
"but do you have any evidence that they in fact did replicate the experiment beyond word of mouth? "
Wiseman, Alcock, Hyman and others have been discrediting the believers throughout their careers. You seem to insist that all their life's work is nonsense. Well, that's the typical attitude of a foolish believer.
DrIdaho 5 months ago
@DrIdaho: Foolish behavior is dismissing an entire branch of science that has yielded positive results time and again because of a handful of debunkers who supposedly got conflicting results.
AnduinX 5 months ago
@AnduinX
Parapsychology is not science.
DrIdaho 5 months ago
@DrIdaho: By the way this is a quote from Wiseman about the evidence of ESP: "I think that they do meet the usual standards for a normal claim, but are not convincing enough for an extraordinary claim." Essentially admitting that the evidence for ESP is there, but he refuses to acknowledge it because it goes against the paradigm.
AnduinX 5 months ago
@AnduinX
Extra Sensory Perception is an extraordinary claim. As Carl Sagan said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." So you've totally misunderstood Richard Wiseman, of course misunderstanding assumes you're not misquoting. No surprise though, quote-mining is common when arguing against the scientific consensus which parapsychology has failed to join.
DrIdaho 5 months ago
@DrIdaho: I know that, and I think 'extraordinary claims' is a bad excuse. He essentially admitted that if ESP were not considered 'extraordinary' he would have accepted the evidence. Why should we require a much steeper degree of evidence for ESP? Because it goes against physicalism? For that matter, maybe you could define what an extraordinary claim is, and what constitutes extraordinary evidence, because without definition it's a license to dismiss anything out of hand.
AnduinX 5 months ago
@Drldaho: For starters, has Wiseman’s replicated study undergone the same peer-review process that Bern's was subjected too? If not, then why are you treating it as gospel?
AnduinX 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AnduinX: "For starters, has Wiseman’s replicated study undergone the same peer-review process that Bern's was subjected too?"
Wiseman and other psychologists I have cited let their papers be subjected to peer review. That's why they they're Professors.
DrIdaho 5 months ago
@AnduinX
You continue to dispute the experiments done by Stuart Ritchie, Chris French and Richard Wiseman. When they replicated Bem's study their results were different. Ritchie, French and Wiseman found no evidence for precognition.
DrIdaho 5 months ago
@Drldaho: Not only that, but you’re dismissing a great deal of work from the peer reviewed JSPR, because of two people (James Alcock and Richard Wiseman). One of which you also cite as a reason to disbelieve Bern. It sounds like you're 'cherry picking' to maintain your belief system.
AnduinX 5 months ago
@AnduinX: You're the cherry picker. I didn't just cite James Alcock and Richard Wiseman. I also cited Stuart Ritchie and Chris French. I would cite more but Youtube has limits. If parapsychology was scientifically valid it would've already been part of the scientific consensus in various branches of science. It had two centuries to do this. Parapsychology hasn't survived the peer review of the scientific community. As for JSPR, getting published in a journal is the start of peer review.
DrIdaho 5 months ago
@DrIdaho: What, no rebuttal? Are you backing down from your assertion about the JSPR being 'unscientific' then?
AnduinX 5 months ago
@AnduinX
You have left so many comments that I don't have the time to respond to every single one. Unlike some people I don't spend all my time time behind the computer. As for the Society for Psychical Research their main focus is parapsychology. For the past two centuries parapsychology has failed to be accepted by the scientific consensus because constant peer review from the likes of James Alcock and Richard Wiseman continue to contradict their "research".
DrIdaho 5 months ago
@Drldaho: It’s comical that you should resort to personal attacks because you disagree with somebody on youtube. If you don’t have time to properly debate then why are you engaging in debate?
AnduinX 5 months ago
@AnduinX: You said "It’s comical that you should resort to personal attacks because you disagree with somebody on youtube."
It comical that you resort to information that hasn't been accepted by the scientific community.
DrIdaho 5 months ago
@Drldaho: ‘It comical that you resort to information that hasn't been accepted by the scientific community.’ – What do you mean by the scientific community? If you mean underwent peer-review process, then it certainly has been accepted by the scientific community.
AnduinX 5 months ago
@AnduinX
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research (JSPR). This journal is published by the Society for Psychical Research. This society has included members with non-scientific backgrounds.
DrIdaho 5 months ago
@DrIdaho: That is entirely irrelevant. The society for psychical research has many members, that doesn't mean they're all writing scientific papers. Show me something they've published in their journal that has not been peer-reviewed by those with scientific backgrounds.
AnduinX 5 months ago
@AnduinX
Weak argument? No one has ever collected the $ 1 000 000 because of failure to prove their supernatural "abilities" under scientific conditions.
DrIdaho 6 months ago
@Drldaho: You just ignored the entire part about why it was weak, then asserted your opinion. Again, it’s a weak argument because it’s centered around one man, Randi, who may or may not have an agenda. I find it comical that ‘skeptics’ will dismiss anecdotes by the thousands but they don’t apply the same critique to Randi. In short, can you prove that the reason nobody has passed his challenge was because they could not ‘prove’ their abilities?
AnduinX 6 months ago
James Randi didn't deserve that at all...
19Tranc3r92 1 year ago 23
Typical response to James Randi. O, he loves to rile people up!
CoolidgeUSA 1 year ago
HAHA, Randi pissed off the host. Great. Love it!
rycka1983 1 year ago
he probably felt like a dumbass after he debunked geller - poor guy couldn't handle that he'd been duped by a guy that got exposed
causeandmistake 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
causeandmistake 1 year ago
I never got why Don Lane was ever in this country, OR on Australian television.
johnnyjayramone 1 year ago
Arg, why do we have to see Bert's pallid moon face? Couldn't you have cut that out of the video?
smegmadiver22 1 year ago
don lane = idiot
ClownWentSad3 1 year ago
the guy talking about Egypt is having a panic attack because he believes in the curse
lazygun14 1 year ago
the host was an idiot.
Uteko95 1 year ago
Glad Don Lane's dead. One less idiot polluting the Earth.
distressed3 1 year ago
Whyd u say god bless u randi?
Creedv17 1 year ago
James Randi may be correct about a lot of things, but I don't think he's right about everything. There are things I've experienced that I can't explain, but that are proof enough to me that there is something beyond here.
lumabi25 1 year ago
@lumabi25 Me too.
For me is more than sufficcient.
rey982 1 year ago
@lumabi25 HAHA. you dont understand, therefore, it must be unexplainable. thats called the personal incredulity argument. lol
duffman5800 1 year ago
Does Randi ever die? I mean hes been around forever... and he always looks the same...
junglemage666 1 year ago
Bad form Don, bad form. Just made himself look like an idiot :(
chype 1 year ago
oh my, the truth really hurts, doesn't it? GD bless you Mr. Randi, keep it up
KarStoLutMal 1 year ago
all they ever say is "he/she loves you very much"
ososturk 1 year ago
So why don't you jump off a cliff to see if the scientific "theory" of gravity works, mystic resistence ... (p.s.: by the way, it should be spelled "resistance" according to the "theory" of English language.
lovelandre 1 year ago
Lovely tantrum at the end. That don guy is a total dick.
DaManCallahan 1 year ago
Go Don...love ya!
ScottPhillips55 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I do not believe in the paranormal or even in science, but I know how science should work and Randi is no scientist. He is a highschool dropout who makes up his mind before the experiment, which is completely unscientific, and only allows his challenge to happen against those people whom he is almost 100% sure are frauds anyway.
mysticresistence 1 year ago
@mysticresistence OK.. so all you can do is call Randi names? What is your proof that Randi "...only allows his challenge to happen against those people whom he is almost 100% sure are frauds anyway." ? Come on, I have been more than fair but you have failed thus far.
skepticzonepodcast 1 year ago 8
@skepticzonepodcast Like I said, twice, Dr. Bierman challenged Randi to a fair test using objective scientist not affiliated with the JREF, and yet Randi backed down AFTER he said the test could go on. In other words, when he saw his fraud might fail, he pulled out. Also, Randi has a video calling the "starving Yogi" in India names without any proof against his claims, after a team of Indian scientists with real PHDs and some Americans studied him and said he was legit. So, has Randi failed? YES
mysticresistence 1 year ago
@mysticresistence You have repeatedly made this claim about Dr. Bierman. It's a claim also posed by just about everybody who doesn't like Randi. Unfortunately, almost nobody can support the claim with any documentation or proof. Randi has stated repeatedly that the testing scientists be agreed upon by both parties. Show me where or when Randi agreed to test Dr. Bierman, then backed off inexplicably. I'm willing to listen, but thus far you've made nothing more than an unsubstantiated claim.
TheEvolutionDude 1 year ago
@mysticresistence Simple questions here. When did all this happen? Who was the scientist that Randi initially agreed to, then backed off from? What is the specific paranormal claim being made by Dr. Bierman? As for the "Starving Yogi," it is an incredible claim that should require incredible proof. Having a group of scientists watch him via closed circuit video that allows for a certain amount of privacy (ie: out of sight) is anything but incredible proof.
TheEvolutionDude 1 year ago
@TheEvolutionDude Actually, if you watch the special on it, they did not give him any privacy with water or food anywhere nearby and the closed circuit TV monitors were in the next room over, and yet Randi goes after him, despite that the Randi website says that they will not test "breatharians" in section 2.3. Not only that, but there is also a banner about the size of Chicago on the JREF website's homepage saying "donate $50 NOW" wonder what he dose with the money? *cough*McMansion*cough*
mysticresistence 1 year ago
@mysticresistence I did read up on this and I watched. They allowed him privacy to bathe. Was there no water in the bathtub? Was it impossible for him to urinate in the tub as it drained? Breatharians have been tested by other groups on several occasions and they have always proven to be self deluded people who end up nearly starving to death as soon as they are under surveillance for long enough. Until there's some evidence that this is even remotely possible, I don't blame the JREF.
TheEvolutionDude 1 year ago
@TheEvolutionDude Actually, they measured all the water before and after he bathed, and recorded everything. He was under surveillance for days and days with real scientist, not high school drop-outs who learned how to pull a rabbit out of a hat, and they came to the conclusion that they could not explain it, much like monks who western scientist found generated alpha waves when meditating, something they thought only happened in REM sleep. Science does not have all the answers and never will.
mysticresistence 1 year ago
@mysticresistence Science is a method by which we continually learn more. Your assessment that science "doesn't know everything" is like saying that no person can drink an ocean. Um, yeah. If science knew everything, we'd be done with it. Randi was able to outwit a team of well funded scientists for 3 years with Project Alpha. He eventually had to come clean, as they were convinced that Randi's guys were the real deal. Fooling a "scientist" is easy. Fooling a conjurer is much harder.
TheEvolutionDude 1 year ago
@mysticresistence People have survived on only water for much longer than this guy did. Put him under watch by people who are actually skeptical and let it run for 120 days. If he has truly lived as long as he has on no food or water, this shouldn't be a problem for him and it'd turn the scientific community on its head. Instead, they cut off the study before he started starving. I wonder why. Isn't it funny how everyone with supernatural powers cuts off the test just before proof is concrete?
TheEvolutionDude 1 year ago