v2 SCEPCOP Debunks Pseudoskeptics - James Randi, Michael Shermer, CSICOP, etc.

[vdst1]

People can say anything. But if you can't prove that something works under controlled conditions. That thing is most likely false. Even if there are some phenomena that remain not debunked. 90% of what is out there is.

Also, people want to believe. They are suckers!

The thing that I don't like is that people who believe, are fearful and judgmental of atheists or non-believers in magic often. It can lead to them saying or assuming terrible things about you the nonbeliever.

[Starcrash6984]

@AnduinX There was a story about a journal about an ESP paper that is peer-reviewed but is "recent", or in other words hasn't been peer-reviewed yet? Every claim has its evidence, but is it stronger than the evidence against it?

I didn't refer to studies... I specifically mentioned looking up Randi's debunks, which are posted here on YouTube. He tested these claims with controls, and they've all failed. A scientific test provides stronger evidence than quotes from "authority".

[Starcrash6984]

I don't understand what the evidence is against the skeptics. I see quotes, and... nothing. It's easy to look up any of Randi's debunks and see a psychic/paranormal expert put into a condition with controls (otherwise known as a scientific experiment) and none of them pass. They ALL claim, even after failing, that they were never wrong. Randi also duplicates many of the tricks, showing that someone without these "powers" can do them. An essay cannot demonstrate anything scientific.

[AnduinX]

@Starcrash6984: They all fail? Really? I don't think so. What studies are you referring too? The societies for psychical research for example have been publishing peer reviewed material with positive results in scientific journals for decades. Very recently there was a story about a highly-respected psychology journal publishing an ESP paper (with positive results) that sparked 'outrage' in the materialist community.

[AnduinX]

@Starcrash6984: Being an open minded skeptic is a good thing - but the modern 'materialist' skeptic community is not open minded. They ignore and dismiss everything that goes against their outdated materialist model. These psuedo-skeptics behave exactly as theists in this regard.

[COAKD1]

We're all from the same infinite source.

[Theyallfloatdownhere]

I like how they pressure us more and more, it is simply going to be their downfall. Eventually sense psychic powers do exist and they can be very powerful especially when controlled. There will be a time when a person will rise up and pretty much lay to rest their convictions that we don't exist. You can't take away what I have done and what I can sometimes do. You can't take away my evidence you can't do anything you are powerless you people will eventually lose. There is no other way.

[bennyboii82]

This is a joke, so sad how pathetic you have to become to justify your believe in Woo woo.

[rjhrjh3]

Very funny SCEPCOP. You do not know that a cheap book published for the masses is not SOLID PROOF of anything. Almost any idiot can produce such a book. Many have been written.

There are too many fakes out there for it to be real.

[SCEPCOP]

hi everyone, I will be uploading my own rant against pseudoskeptics later today. be sure to look for it in my channel!

[politas]

What a load of nonsense.

[andrewcholmes]

He, he, he. This is funny. You crazy woo-woos are always so funny when you try to be serious.

[rkzenrage]

This is going to be hilarious

[jloiterer]

I had to rate this a bit low just because it doesn't have a voiceover. I agree CSICOP does not appear to live up to it's acronyms meaning. They seem to spend their time claiming that Randi's test is bogus, because he won't let THEM do the testing. CSICOP realizes that if Randi's foundation tests someone and finds true proof of a "power" that the foundation would gain a great deal of prestige and money, and CSICOP would be left out. Nothing stopping CSICOP from issuing it's own challenge though.

[SCEPCOP]

@jloiterer I think you are referring to SCEPCOP, not CSICOP. you guys make a lot of silly blunders. lol. CSICOP is not against JREF.

[calabyau]

Hi everyone! I think this is just a great website, best thing I've seen regarding the debate between materialistic science and religion/paranormal. I've been on a long debate with the materialist-reductionist extremists. You might be interested in seeing some of those. It is on the Youtube "CBC Sunday News -Richard Dawkins -High Quality" site.

[ProudToBLoud]

great video winston.

[gerontodon]

As a fan of Sheldrake and Watts, I share your sentiments. A lot of 'skeptics' are intelligent, but they don't seem open-minded when it comes to what I consider an extraordinary claim - that the brain creates the mind, and that we'll soon be making other sentient machines. They generally love that idea, and assume it's true. At least people like Dennett give arguments. I find it more irritating when people take 'skepticism' as a way to seem well-informed on someone else's coat-tails.

[gerontodon]

I don't know what you think about Victor Zammit though, and perhaps it's unfair to ask. The 'materialisations' on his site seem like a gift to Randi. The 'swooshing noise' that supposedly accompanies them sounds like a kid imitating a missile strike. Don't want to be rude, he might have been had. We all make mistakes. Mr Zammit seems a volatile character also, so even if he's in Australia, I don't want to be an internet tough guy! Just think that that 'evidence' doesn't help your cause.

[gerontodon]

I'd respect Victor Zammit more if he enabled comments though.

I haven't actually attended any seances, but the audio is given as proof, and it just does not sound convincing to me. Clever tricks, at best imo.

I think it's better to accept Randi's views, if you find them convincing, than clutch at straws. I think that, in a way, we might be 'meant' to find 'hard-headed' reductionism convincing, at least at some level. I agree with Alan Watts that it's ultimately mere cloth anyway.

[SCEPCOP]

@gerontodon I agree with you. No one is above criticism. No one is infallible. But pseudoskeptics like to insert false explanations that do not fit the data, rather than any paranormal one. For instance, Randi claims that Geller's performance at SRI was due ot lack of controls. he is just guessing and wasn't there. the controls were air tight according to Targ and Puthoff. So Randi inserts a false explanation simply cause he cannot accept a paranormal one. that is jumping the gun.

[accidentsinspace]

Great stuff!

[TheCrackpotkiller]

Inquiring science is great, but if proof isn't found then it's time to move onto the next thing

[SCEPCOP]

@TheCrackpotkiller Read the books by Dean Radin, Chris Carter, and Charles Tart. They have new ones that just came out. They are listed on my home page on the right sidebar. Have a look. They will show you that there is lots of SOLID PROOF for psychic phenomena. skeptics just ignore it though and continue to blab on that there's no proof.

[TheMathGuy]

.Lots of misrepresentations here. Skeptics have been anything BUT unchallenged by the media and society in general. We've been a minority group trying to speak out against a larger backdrop of unreason and gullibility. Can skeptics become cynical and arrogant? Sure they can. They are humans just like everyone else. But does that mean highly implausible claims should not be questioned and critiqued thoroughly and scientific rigor not be applied to them? No.

[calabyau]

There is an excellent streaming audio file on Rupert Sheldrake's website, called "How Skeptics Work". It is about an hour long and well-worth listening to.

[SCEPCOP]

@TheMathGuy Read the books by Dean Radin, Chris Carter, and Charles Tart. They have new ones that just came out. They are listed on my home page on the right sidebar. Have a look. They will show you that there is lots of SOLID PROOF for psychic phenomena. skeptics just ignore it though and continue to blab on that there's no proof.

[KatakisUploader]

No. It means highly implausible claims should be treated by so called skeptics by the same scientific standards which apply to other fields. "Skeptics" have a history of ignoring these standards as soon as the evidence points into directions inconceivable by established models.

[coolerthanyou23]

Winston Wu is a self admitted schizophrenic. Just google his name and you will see his other sites and posts where he talks about his mental illness.

[SCEPCOP]

@coolerthanyou23 I never had schizophrenia. I said I was MISDIAGNOSED with schizophrenia, cause I could not tolerate all the bullying and persecution and emptiness I experienced in school life. so I began to exhibit OCD behavior. I am acutely sensitive yeah. but many bright people are like that. the whole story you refer to is on my SCEPCOP site. go to it at the link above, click on Articles and then Christian Story. It's all explained. STOP LYING or I will ban you!

[rjhrjh3]

Yes I have seen your board. So I know what I am talking about.

This video is even worse. It is nothing more than an attack on other people. I cannot see anything to back it up. It does not offer any alternative view on skepticism with evidence that view is correct..

And I have seen your essays. They are no better than this video.

[stefanmuth]

you must be blind. I've posted a ton of scientific evidence. it's annoying that you just choose to pretend that it doesn't exist. Ever heard of Ganzfeld? Or Dr. Gary Schwartz's controlled experiments with mediums? They are published and scientific evidence. But even without that, the overwhelming anecdotal evidence is more than enough proof.

[rjhrjh3]

Just had a look at Ganzfeld. What a pathetic result the experiments were. Many errors were made and the results are only marginally above chance. Only a minor error needs to be made to account for the results.

As for anecdotal evidence, unless it can be reproduced it is nothing.

[SCEPCOP]

@rjhrjh3 what errors? the ganzfeld was under controlled conditions. the errors were in susan blackmore's MIND, not in objective reality. you guys are only seeing what you want to see. Read the recent books by Dean Radin, Chris Carter, and Charles Tart. They are listed on my home page on the right sidebar. Have a look. They will show you that there is lots of SOLID PROOF for psychic phenomena. skeptics just ignore it though and continue to blab on that there's no proof.

[dgdfhfghgfhgfgffjhj]

Ah yes, bigotry. You can always throw that one into the mix when you feel like you are coming up short on arguments.

[rjhrjh3]

Your forum has been taken over by people just throwing insults at each other. It has not even come up with any evidence of anything important.

[kimbo99]

Well done Winston ! You could fire that video at pskeps. I will. Save typing.