I’ve made it to St Paul and am sucking down some caffeine before strolling over to the venue for my talk this afternoon, and I’ve got a few minutes for a quickie link dump from the mailbag. Digest these for a while…
- There’s a great new response to the Randi paranormal challenge. Unfortunately, while I think her power is real and immense, it isn’t paranormal.
- This settles it. The war of the annoying you-tube videos has gone too far—now we’ve got singing Christian pirate puppets.
- They say Nelson’s Column is being renovated—I say it’s being used as a clandestine staging platform for the invasion of the Elder Gods.
- If you think scientists are obnoxious freethinkers, we’ve got nothin’ on the damned poets. “I am expelled for Atheism.”
- This could be a popular new ride at Sea World: take a ride on a Great White Shark.
- Uh-oh. It runs in the family…now my daughter is arguing with some creationist friends. (She’s a tough cookie, too—she won’t let me help at all, and is going to fight it out herself.)
- Well, I’m safely ensconced in a coffee shop in the worldly big city of St Paul. Do you think I should surprise the wife and come home with something like this?
You could have it too’d on your glutes. Then only she could see it, presumably.
Yea, but try to get the tattoo removed.
Arguing with creationists is a heritable condition? You know, that would actually explain a lot…
Corkscrew: Remember that insanity is heritary – you get it from your kids …
The Shame of the Sea wrote: “I sin by being alive.”
I think that sums up the creationism movement pretty well. Theology don’t get any deeper than that, folks.
“… surprise the wife and come home with something like this?”
The ear lobe plugs? The cherry-flavored/-scented halter top?
They don’t got nothin on The Pirates who Don’t Do Anything.
Your wife might not mind the tatoo, but she probably would not be pleased with your coming back with the person wearing it.
Professor Myers: Glad you made it to old Pig’s Eye. I’m over at Walter Library waiting for a response to the emails I sent you. haha.
Anyway I’ve been mentioned a couple times on the Magic Randi forum and just for the record I think Randi is a blowhard.
Here’s why: 1) Dr. Jules Eisenbud took Randi up on his “dare me to prove that your for real” nonsense a few decades ago!! Eisenbud had signed statements from 25 scientists verifying the veracity of experiments proving the paranormal capabilities of Ted Serios. The only online “debunking” of Eisenbud does not even mention the signed statements. It’s sad really.
2) It would appear that Magic Randi does not even use the ISI Web of Science database aka the science citation index. For example I recently debated Professor John W. Hoopes since he dared me to take up Magic Randi’s $1 million claim. I began listing experiments that prove paranormal capabilities — all from peer-reviewed journals — and Hoopes just stated he didn’t have time to review them all. Hoopes also doesn’t use science citation index — is the fact that professors don’t wanna hang in the libraries really going to destroy their research capabilites?
3) The biophoton research of Dr. Alfred-Fritz Popp, by itself, should be recipient of Magic Randi’s money. But then he’s been verified by half a dozen other scientists.
What do you know about biophotons vis a vis paranormal studies?
drew hempel, MA
Here’s where I list many abstracts for scientists who demonstrate the truth of paranormal powers and all of them should get the million bucks from the old blowhard Magic Randi. You’ll also get links to my other blog entries which give further abstracts and links, etc.
http://2012.tribe.net/thread/1d6876ff-e6cf-4f9b-9628-aa815116d28b
Drew:
Who gives a crap about “signed statements”? If I can get a hundred people to sign a statement saying that they’ve seen me shit ice cream, does that mean that I do, in fact, shit ice cream? What if I also show you a grainy photo of a toilet filled with what just might be rocky-road, if you look at it in the right light?
I’ve been doing two styles of Tai Chi and several other internal martial arts (the practice of which includes most of the exercises collectively known as “chi-gung”) for going on ten years now. The only noticeable result that I’ve had is that now it’s marginally easier for me to kill people with my bare hands. I don’t feel healthier, I don’t feel smarter, I don’t feel taller or more attractive, nor am I able to shoot deadly laser beams from my fingertips. I’m just a more efficient killer.
Do you want to tell me that I’m doing it wrong, or that my teacher is no good? You do, don’t you?
Who’s really the arrogant asshole, here, Drew? Being a credulous schmuck doesn’t make you an undiscovered genius, it just makes you a credulous schmuck. I actually laughed out loud when you implied in the Tribe thread that skepticism is a bad thing. Right out loud, a full belly-laugh, in the lobby of a hotel in Albuquerque.
Take my advice, big guy: don’t be a demented fuckwit.
And how many of those dear Hempel are repeatable, haven’t been debunked or when looked at closely don’t prove to have been either faked or conducted in much the same fashion as cold fusion or the one Randi “did” get involved in, where they thought they might have proven homeopathy, but it turned out to be nothing but too small a sample size, over too little time, with no valid controls? Strangely, to date, every one of the “scientific” studies ever actually examined, which claims to have proven these things, has had one or more of the same fatal errors, when they where not made up to fake the evidence from the on set.
Or to put it another way, maybe Hoopes isn’t interested in digging through a mass of documents by people no one has heard from, because he has an even larger stack of debunked claims and defective experiments that are identical, which prove the exact opposite. I mean, we have been fiddling with this goofy idea for what, two centuries now, and at absolute best, the half way legitimate ones **maybe** show a consistent 1% deviation from chance results? What do we do with that? Track down 10,000 people that *can* cause an “occational” 1% drift in reality, and hope they have a good day, so that we get a more or less 100% result? How about 20,000, just to hedge the bet? And the real rub is that the experiment that showed that 1% shift, and was based on valid science, which most don’t do properly at all, **has yet to be duplicated**.
Give me a fracking break!
Why do I think “N-rays” every time I hear about “biophotons”?
Such claims should be taken with a tall glass of polywater.
“Biophotons” seem to be emitted by some rather dim bulbs. . . .
It appears that Hempel is guilty of moranity.
A little more weirdness, courtesy of me:
See the Great Zombie Jesus!
Hey, PZ, are you a comic-readin’ man? If so, I think you’d like Doc Frankenstein ( http://www.burlymanentertainment.com/ ). Thrill to the adventures of the Lazarus of Electricity, as he champions Science against the Darkness of Religious Superstition. Allegedly, it was supposed to be bi-monthly, but it’s fallen seriously behind. Still, you’d find it amusing.
Dan — you’re being quite emotional for a Tai Chi person! How long can you sit in full-lotus with your feet over your hips — comfortably — while flexing your pineal gland?
20 minutes of full-lotus equals 4 hours of any other exercise. So your practice sounds great — just not that intense.
Me — I went 8 days with next to no water nor any food and then healed my mom of a significant disease. Yes, it’s called “bigu” — or energy fasting and some people in China are on record for going 8 years with no food. Yes there was an academic study on bigu at a State University by a professor in California and there was an academic conference by chemistry professor Rustom Roy.
My teacher went 28 days with no food and water and INCREASED his energy while doing this and he currently teaches the Mayo clinic doctors, among other experts:
http://springforestqigong.com
Now let’s respond to your comments.
“Drew:
Who gives a crap about “signed statements”?”
OK Dan — that’s a good one but these are controlled experiments supervised by scientists and the statements were details about the protocol. These were University experiments and Magic Randi was asked to do his little spiel about testing them. Randi refused therefore his whole “prove to me your real” schtick is just that — a psychological problem.
“Do you want to tell me that I’m doing it wrong, or that my teacher is no good? You do, don’t you?”
No — I don’t. Sorry.
“I actually laughed out loud when you implied in the Tribe thread that skepticism is a bad thing.”
Please cut and paste where I “implied” such a thing. I’m just MORE sceptical than others. I read one scholarly book a day to investigate all matters and I’ve done the experiments. The psicops are not really skeptics but just boring frauds.
Here’s a atheist singing puppet to counter the xtian pirates
“And how many of those dear Hempel are repeatable, haven’t been debunked or when looked at closely don’t prove to have been either faked or conducted in much the same fashion as cold fusion or the one Randi “did” get involved in, where they thought they might have proven homeopathy, but it turned out to be nothing but too small a sample size, over too little time, with no valid controls?”
Well that’s a run on sentence. The biophoton experiments have been repeated in several different countries — all by “certified” university lab scientists with results published in peer-reviewed academic journals. The same goes for the qigong experiments. Of course if you antagonize people or try to steal their equipment then it will probably effect the results of the experiment.
Both those types of paranormal experiments (qigong and biophoton) already PROVE the existence of consciousness beyond spacetime as a useable energy source through body-mind exercises.
Now there’s also the new “quantum electronic” experiments — superliminal SIGNALS are now sent in controlled lab experiments. These are not random results verified after the fact but: quasi-telepathy.
The links I already provided give the abstracts to those studies.
The principles of macro quantum chaos science also demonstrate the validity of homeopathy — as detailed in a recent cover-story article of New Scientist. I’ll find the link for you (just ‘cuz I’m a nice guy).
Here’s a link on cold fusion — recently completely verified and based on sound-current — the same principle that is the foundation for my masters thesis, freely readable online “Epicenters of Justice: music theory, sound-current nondualism and radical ecology” (U of Minnesota, 2000).
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/ColdFusion/Sonofusion/index.html
Strangely, to date, every one of the “scientific” studies ever actually examined, which claims to have proven these things, has had one or more of the same fatal errors, when they where not made up to fake the evidence from the on set.
Or to put it another way, maybe Hoopes isn’t interested in digging through a mass of documents by people no one has heard from, because he has an even larger stack of debunked claims and defective experiments that are identical, which prove the exact opposite. I mean, we have been fiddling with this goofy idea for what, two centuries now, and at absolute best, the half way legitimate ones **maybe** show a consistent 1% deviation from chance results? What do we do with that? Track down 10,000 people that *can* cause an “occational” 1% drift in reality, and hope they have a good day, so that we get a more or less 100% result? How about 20,000, just to hedge the bet? And the real rub is that the experiment that showed that 1% shift, and was based on valid science, which most don’t do properly at all, **has yet to be duplicated**.
Give me a fracking break!
“Why do I think “N-rays” every time I hear about “biophotons”?
Such claims should be taken with a tall glass of polywater.”
Actually the biophoton experiments are done with charged-coupled devices — a standard technology that revolutionized astronomy.
Is it my fault that other people choose to watch T.V. or waste their time doing other stupid stuff? Here’s some reading material about homeopathy and macro quantum chaos water:
Copyright 2006 Reed Business Information, UK, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.
All Rights Reserved
New Scientist
April 8, 2006
SECTION: FEATURES; Cover Story; Pg. 32
LENGTH: 2292 words
HEADLINE: The quantum elixir;
Water. It’s the foundation of life on Earth. But what is it about H2O that gives it this amazing ability, asks Robert Matthews
BYLINE: Robert Matthews.
Robert Matthews is visiting reader in science at Aston University, Birmingham, UK. His latest book, 25 Big Ideas: The science that’s changing our world , is published by Oneworld
BODY:
IN NEW AGE circles, everyone is talking about it: the magical properties of the colourless, tasteless liquid the rest of us blithely refer to as water. Between frequent gulps of the life-giving elixir, those initiated into its secrets talk reverently of the work of Masaru Emoto, who is said to have proved that water responds to the emotions of those around it. They describe how Emoto has demonstrated that ice crystals made from water blessed by a Zen monk look so much more beautiful than those exposed to messages of hate. Many have bought his best-selling book detailing his findings, and many more have seen his claims covered in last year’s New Age hit movie What the Bleep!? .
Many scientists view all this fuss about plain old H2O as standard hippy-trippy nonsense with about as much credibility as crystal therapy. Certainly Emoto’s findings don’t have much to do with the scientific method: they are hand-picked, ad hoc and impossible to replicate. Yet though these views are too far-out to take seriously, the findings of the latest bona fide research are equally bizarre.
It now seems that the effects of water on living organisms transcend mere chemistry: they are intimately linked to the most basic processes in the cosmos. Put bluntly, you owe your existence to quantum effects in water that make even the wackiest New Age ideas seem ho-hum.
If cornered, any scientist would have to concede that water does have some odd properties that are important for life. The fact that solid water – ice – defies convention by being less dense than its liquid state has stopped the oceans from freezing solid from the bottom up and killing all marine life. And the unusual reluctance of water to heat up has helped the oceans to iron out climatic swings, giving organisms time to adapt.
The simple chemical formula of water belies the subtleties behind its weirdness. The key to many of water’s properties is not the chemical bonds between the one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms that make up the molecule. It is the links between hydrogen atoms in different molecules. These hydrogen bonds are at least 10 times as weak as a typical chemical bond, which means that while they can bind molecules together, they also break easily at room temperature.
A single drop of water is therefore a seething melee of order and disorder, with structures constantly forming and breaking up within it. The result is a liquid with dozens of anomalous bulk properties, from a boiling point more than 150 °C higher than that of comparable liquids to a marked reluctance to being compressed.
All the bonds affecting water molecules are ultimately caused by quantum effects, but hydrogen bonds are the result of one of the strangest quantum phenomena: so-called zero-point vibrations. A consequence of Heisenberg’s famous uncertainty principle, these constant vibrations are a product of the impossibility of pinning down the total energy of a system with absolute precision at any given moment in time. Even if the universe itself froze over and its temperature plunged to absolute zero, zero-point vibrations would still be going strong, propelled by energy from empty space.
Quantum lifeline
In the case of water, these vibrations stretch the bonds between hydrogen atoms and their host oxygen atoms, enabling them to link up with neighbouring molecules more easily. The result is the highly cohesive liquid that keeps our planet alive.
Felix Franks of the University of Cambridge has a nice illustration of the vital role this quantum effect plays. Just take some water and swap the hydrogen for atoms of its heavier isotope deuterium. You end up with a liquid that is chemically identical, yet poisonous to all but the most primitive organisms. “The only difference is in the zero-point energy,” says Franks.
A growing number of researchers are now investigating the consequences of this deep link between quantum effects and life. Recent advances in theoretical methods, experimental techniques and brute computing power have allowed them to study how water interacts with DNA, proteins and cells in unprecedented detail.
The results are often unexpected, and challenge simplistic assumptions about how life works. Certainly the fashionable view that the secret of life can be summed up in a catalogue of genes and the proteins they code for looks risibly simplistic. It is becoming clear that they cannot carry out even their most basic functions without direct help from molecules of the colourless, odourless curiosity that comes out of the tap. “Without water, it is all just chemistry,” says Franks, “but add water and you get biology.”
Some of the most impressive evidence is emerging from studies of proteins. Created from chains of amino acids linked up according to the instructions of DNA, proteins are the workhorse molecules of life. They perform a host of key functions, from fighting off invaders to catalysing reactions and building fresh cells. Their precise action depends largely on their physical shape, and water molecules have long been known to be vital in ensuring amino acids curl up in the right way. Only now are researchers discovering the mechanism.
What they are finding is an astonishingly delicate interplay of proteins and water molecules, orchestrated by those all-important hydrogen bonds. In January, Florian Garczarek and Klaus Gerwert at the department of biophysics at the Ruhr University of Bochum, Germany, reported on the role water molecules play in a protein called bacteriorhodopsin, which is found in the outer walls of primitive life forms (Nature , vol 439, p 109).
Bacteriorhodopsin undergoes a simple form of photosynthesis, using light to create a source of chemical energy. Researchers have long suspected that this process relies on the incoming light shifting protons around the molecule, creating a charge difference that acts rather like a battery. An obvious source of protons is the hydrogen nuclei of the water trapped within the protein’s structure, but no one had shown how this could work.
Enter Garczarek and Gerwert. They exposed bacteriorhodopsin to infrared light, and found that the behaviour of the water molecules trapped within it was far from that of idle captives. Once struck by photons of light, the shape of the protein changed, breaking some of the hydrogen bonds between the trapped water molecules. The pair found that this triggered a chain of events in which fragments of some water molecules and clusters of others interacted to move protons through the protein.
This sophisticated process is all made possible by the quantum behaviour of the hydrogen bonds in water. “Having bonds that can easily be formed but are not too difficult to break is a big advantage,” says Garczarek. The results suggest that it is no accident that chains of amino acids trap water molecules as they fold up to form a protein.
Hydrogen bonds are also turning out to have a profound role in the functioning of that other key constituent of life, DNA. As with proteins, new findings suggest it is time for a rethink of the familiar thumbnail sketch of DNA as a double helix of four chemical bases.
To perform its biological functions, DNA has to carry out various manoeuvres, twisting, turning and docking with proteins at just the right place. No problem for a metre-long stringy molecule like DNA, one might think. Yet on the far smaller scale where the real action takes place – typically a few hundred bases – DNA is pretty rigid. And then there’s the mystery of how proteins meet up with just the right parts of the double helix.
Biochemists have long suspected water molecules are important: concentrations of them around DNA appear to correlate with biological activity. It turns out that water undergoes radical changes as it approaches the surface of DNA. As the molecules draw near the double helix, the seething network of hydrogen bonds within bulk water becomes disrupted, and the motion of individual molecules becomes more and more sluggish.
The latest research focuses on what happens around the “troughs” in the double helix formed by specific base pairs. It seems that water molecules linger longer and rotate more slowly around some base pairs than others. Suddenly that link between hydration levels and biological activity doesn’t seem so perplexing. After all, the base pairs on DNA are the building blocks of genes, and their sequence dictates the order in which amino acids are stitched together to make proteins. If water molecules linger longer around some base pairs than others, the level of hydration will mirror the sequence of base pairs.
Monika Fuxreiter of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Biological Research Centre in Budapest believes that this explains how proteins and DNA interact. She and her colleagues at BRC’s Institute of Enzymology created a computer simulation of DNA and a protein called BamHI, which uses water molecules to cut DNA at very specific points.
They saw that adding virtual water molecules to the mix had a dramatic effect. “The water molecules report the DNA sequence to the protein while it is still some distance away,” says Fuxreiter. “Then as the protein gets closer, the water molecules are ejected from the site until it binds tightly to the DNA.”
According to Fuxreiter the water molecules relay messages to the protein via electrostatic forces, which reflect the varying levels of hydration on the DNA. They can even warn the approaching protein about potential problems with the DNA before it arrives. “If the DNA is distorted due to some defect it becomes more hydrated and the protein can’t make proper contact,” says Fuxreiter. “Instead, it moves to another site – which is very good biologically.” Fuxreiter’s team is now planning to test just how effective water molecules are in determining where and when proteins bind to DNA.
That there is more to water than hydrogen and oxygen is something many researchers welcome. But Rustum Roy, a materials scientist at Pennsylvania State University in University Park goes further. He thinks it is time for a radical overhaul of the scientific view of water – one which, he believes, has been dominated by chemistry for too long. “It’s absurd to say that chemical composition dictates everything,” he says. “Take carbon, for example – the same atoms can give you graphite or diamond.” In a review paper published in Materials Research Innovations in December, Roy and a team of collaborators called for a re-examination of the case against the most controversial of all claims made for water: that it has a “memory”.
The idea that water can retain some kind of imprint of compounds dissolved in it has long been cited as a possible mechanism for homeopathy, which claims to treat ailments using solutions of certain compounds. Some homeopathic remedies are so dilute they no longer contain a single molecule of the original compound – prompting many scientists to dismiss homeopathic effects as imaginary. For how can water with nothing in it act as anything other than water?
Roy believes this is too simplistic: “It is a naive, chemistry-schoolbook argument.” He argues that water has proved itself capable of effects that go beyond simple chemistry, and these may imbue water with a memory. One way this may occur, he says, is through an effect known as epitaxy: using the atomic structure of one compound as a template to induce the same structure in others.
Hidden depths
Epitaxy is routinely used in the microprocessor industry to create perfect semiconductor crystals. And according to Roy, water already exhibits epitaxial effects. “The ‘seeding’ of clouds is the growth of crystalline ice on a substrate of silver iodide, which has the same crystal structure,” he says. “No chemical transfer whatsoever occurs.”
Roy and his colleagues also point to another effect they believe has been overlooked by mainstream scientists in their rush to dismiss homeopathy: the vigorous shaking of the mixtures used, a process called succussion. The team estimates that shock waves generated by the shaking can cause localised pressures inside the water to reach over 10,000 atmospheres, which may trigger fundamental changes in the properties of the water molecules.
Roy believes that by taking homeopathy seriously scientists may find out more about water’s fundamental properties. “The problem is that much more research needs to be done to find the right techniques to probe the properties of water reliably,” he says.
However, many scientists question the very idea of taking homeopathy seriously. The most recent review of the medical evidence found that homeopathic remedies were no better than a placebo in all but a handful of cases (Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine , vol 11, p 813). That is likely to put the brakes on research into this aspect of water. “Rigorous experiments need to be done to provide support for all scientific claims,” says theoretical chemist David Clary at the University of Oxford. “I don’t think it is worth spending time on this.” Chemist Martin Chaplin of London South Bank University is more sympathetic: “I think there may be something in it, but we need good experiments – and the best researchers won’t go near the subject.”
The latest discoveries about the role of water in living processes may change that, however. After decades of research, Franks sums up his view of the simple little molecule we call H2O in terms that will put a smile on the face of New Age hippies everywhere: “It’s the magic ingredient that turns lifeless powders on laboratory shelves into living things.”
Robert Matthews is visiting reader in science at Aston University, Birmingham, UK. His latest book, 25 Big Ideas: The science that’s changing our world , is published by Oneworld
LOAD-DATE: April 8, 2006
Wow! Water is good for you!
Who knew?
Drew, how about you try actually demonstrating this stuff in front of Randi, rather than rambling on about it, here? That’s what the JREF Challenge is about.
Additional note: For homeopathy to be taken seriously, it has to obtain verifiable results. So far, it’s just a bunch of anecdotes that can easily be attributed to other causes mixed with poorly performed studies that are never independently replicated.
I’m not normally one to make an appeal to motive, but the only positive homeopathy studies I’m aware of have horridly flawed controls as well as experimenters with a commercial interest.
Slightly off topic…
Any thoughts on what drives a person to so much self-inflicted pain? A little butterfly on your ass is one thing, but that tentacled creature–while it looks way cool!–it must’ve really freakin’ hurt!
Boy we seem to have a bunch of real wowos here ready to believe anything. First off, scientists are notoriously bad at examining claims of the paranormal, and their signed statements are worth no more than toilet paper. Most of them are easily fooled by a good magician. Randi proved this, years ago, when he sent two magicians in to scientific test and they were certified to have paranormal powers. He has a link to an old video of his showing this. It was hilarious (www.randi.org). The million dollar prize is excellent, you state what you can do, help design a situation in which you can show you can do it, and go ahead and win the million. It is open to all. No on has yet succeeded. So if you really believe in all this wonderful stuff – just go ahead and prove it, and win a cool million. It is unlikely to happen because we live in a very orderly universe. In the meantime don’t bother to fill up the internet tubes with absurd claims.
“Drew, how about you try actually demonstrating this stuff in front of Randi, rather than rambling on about it, here? That’s what the JREF Challenge is about.”
Now my experience with blogging and forums, etc., thus far, is that it’s all about people’s
“special needs.”
Have you tried reading the links I gave?
Well it doesn’t appear so.
Anyway I will go over it AGAIN — just for your personal special needs (and Randi’s as well).
1) Replicated experiments have ALREADY proven paranormal powers therefore Magic James Randi should be paying those scientists already. Quasi-telepathy is SIGNALS BEYOND SPACETIME. Repeatable signals done in quantum electronics. Qigong experiments have been conducted hundreds of times in double-blinded tests. There’s a whole hospital in China that ONLY uses qigong to successfully heal cancer — against based on resonating signals beyond spacetime. Biophoton tests demonstrate information transfer changing the molecular properties, in alignment with the meridian lines of traditional nonWestern medicine. Those tests have already been repeated in several labs. Sonofusion has already been repeated — free energy created by the resonance of crystals.
2) Sitting in a corner, whining, and demanding that scientists go to meet the special needs of Magic James Randi (and if successful he promises to pay them) is NOT science. That’s just stupidity. People who lap up that stuff need help.
3) Dr. Jules Eisnbud already took Magic James Randi up on his claim and Magic James Randi backed down. Therefore Magic James Randi has already proven himself to be not sincere in his “quest” to “investigate” the truth of paranormal powers. That was some 25 years ago and Magic Randi probably doesn’t want people to know about it.
4) Magic James Randi has already attacked the person I studied with, Master Chunyi Lin, even though Master Lin has already been endorsed by a doctor from the Mayo Clinic and other doctors. Why doesn’t Magic James Randi go and test Master Chunyi Lin — is Magic James Randi afraid he might find something out that he doesn’t want to deal with? The fact that Magic Randi has attacked a paranormal healer ALREADY (before he even considers his work) demonstrates that Magic Randi is not an “objective” researcher. How is someone not supposed to be affected by the conditions of the experiment if they are being hassled and abused? THAT’S NOT SCIENCE (at least not how we are taught to think of science).
5) Professor Harry M. Collins, in his philosophy of science books (M.I.T. Golem series) and the book “Changing Order,” details the equivalence of paranormal experiments and science experiments (laser and gravity wave and theory of relativity tests, etc.) Professor Collins in a recent essay details how negative results are only useable for experiments predicted on empirical-based technology. In otherwords paranormal powers using body-mind techniques are based on a philosophy of infinity not being an empirical logarithmic-based measurement. You can not explain the results in terms of Western science therefore the results are INHERENTLY unproveable by the techniques of western science. Does that stop the CIA from using them? No, because they work. Dr. Isabelle Stengers has made the same point and she co-wrote books with Nobel physicist Ilya Prigogene, the creator of the new chaos science. Stengers notes how Mesmerism worked it’s just that its results could not be explained. It should be pointed out that Benjamin Franklin, who supposedly disproved Mesmerism, was a leader in the The Nine Sisters secret society, and the other leader was one of the main Mesmerists!
Science and religion have always been interdependent. Just read Professor David F. Noble’s book “The Religion of Technology.” (1996)
drew hempel, MA
“Most of them are easily fooled by a good magician. Randi proved this, years ago, when he sent two magicians in to scientific test and they were certified to have paranormal powers”
Proving that you can dupe people has nothing to do with disproving paranormal powers!
Anyone can be an asshole and deliberately go around attacking people through deception and fraud.
That’s not at all contigent on detailed, controlled experiments to rule out such fraud, as was the case with Dr. Jules Eisenbud’s results.
Drew attempted to shift the burden of proof… and failed!
SMAAAAAAAAASH!
Drew took 362 points of mortal damage.
It’s not the skeptic’s job to disprove paranormal powers. All we have to do is introduce reasonable doubt. If there’s a simpler explanation (like trickery), that’s all we need to show. It’s the claimant’s job to prove that he can do what he says he can do.
I can fly like Superman. Prove that I can’t.
Everyone, get ready for a retaliation of double-standards.
“Nelson’s Column”
Now there’s an original double entendre!
This is really sad. On a “science” blog no less.
“Drew attempted to shift the burden of proof… and failed!”
OK — Magic James Randi shows up into town, invites a bunch of scientists for a display of magic, the scientists are nice people, cooperate and are fooled.
That doesn’t prove anything!
“It’s not the skeptic’s job to disprove paranormal powers.”
That’s great! But plenty of scientists have already PROVEN paranormal powers — all the examples I just listed: superliminal quantum electronics, biophotons, and qigong.
“All we have to do is introduce reasonable doubt.”
Tricking someone and then stating that’s reasonable doubt is just stupid. For example, as I’ve stated, Dr. Jules Eisenbud had 25 scientists test Ted Serios in controlled experiments specifically designed to rule out fraud. Magic James Randi was invited by Dr. Jules Eisenbud to disprove those experiments and he turned it down. The skeptics then stated that magicians around the turn of the century could fake photographs and that one of the skeptics then demonstrated to scientists that he could fake photographs.
Sorry but turn of the century magic — from the late 1800s — is not anything compared to tightly controlled, sophisticated experiments verified by 25 scientists from a wide variety of fields.
In otherwords there was no “reasonable doubt” introduced.
“If there’s a simpler explanation (like trickery), that’s all we need to show. It’s the claimant’s job to prove that he can do what he says he can do.”
As I already stated Dr. Jules Eisenbud already proved the case, some 25 years ago, and Magic James Randi attacked Dr. Jules Eisenbud. Then Magic James Randi refused to investigate Dr. Jules Eisenbud’s claim AFTER Dr. Jules Eisenbud invited Magic James Randi to test his claims.
The simpler explanation is CONSCIOUSNESS — found by basic inference. From where does the I-thought arise? The I-thought is the foundation for all thought and just by repeating I-I-I-I over again as a LOGICAL experiment you discover it’s source as nonlocal consciousness.
Trickery is a less simple explanation than the simple fact that the source of the I-thought is the source of magic.
Basic inference is all that is needed. No belief is necessary.
Who ever said that doing Tai Chi prevents you from being emotional? Seriously, what kind of hippy-dippy, new-agey bullshit is that? The Chen family didn’t come up with Tai Chi as an exercise program for soccer moms, old people, and yuppies to feel good about themselves. It’s a skill-set designed for quick and efficient killing. That’s all. It certainly doesn’t preclude its practicioners from having emotions.
But thanks for backhandedly insulting my intelligence, anyway. I really appreciate that.
And there’s so much wrong with your second sentence that I don’t even know where to begin.
Again, Drew, who’s the arrogant asshole, here? In my experience, 20 minutes of full lotus equals little more than hip cramps, but in your case, it equals dumbass pontifications and a superiority complex bordering on megalomania.
Honestly, I don’t think you’re telling the truth. Do you have any proof that events happened as you describe them? Who conducted these “experiments,” and what is their reputation among real scientists? Where are these “signed statements,” who signed them, and why?
But the heart of the matter is this: What makes you think that 25 “scientists” (of an as yet unknown reputation) signing a sheet of paper four decades ago means fuck-all to anyone? I’d bet that if I were clever, I could get 25 scientists to sign a paper saying that they supported pretty much anything I wanted. It’s just not that hard. It’s as easy as writing a “30 Helens Agree” sketch.
“Hoopes how many times do I have to tell you to LEAVE the skeptics cult yet you won’t listen…Stop being so naive!”
Shorter Drew: “Skepticism is bad, Hoopes! Don’t be a skeptic! Be like me! I believe in all kinds of crap, and I’m happy as a clam!”
In these two little sentences, you’ve followed the pseudoscientist’s script to a T. First, set up a shady ad hoc conspiracy (the “skeptics cult,” in this case) who are dedicated to keeping your allegedly legitimate “research” out of the public eye. That such a thing is complete and utter fantasy matters not in the slightest, naturally. Second, imply that you are fighting a great cause when you “expose” this alleged conspiracy, and that you and your ilk are the only ones who really know what’s going on. Whine about it, if you have to. Third, throw a backhanded insult at the putative member of this alleged conspiracy who calls you out for the chocolate-covered goober you clearly are.
Do you really think you’re doing something that none of us have seen before? Seriously, Drew, at some point you have to realize that when pretty much everyone out in the real world is telling you that you’re an asshole, the chances are pretty good that you’re actually an asshole.
And that’s why you believe whole-heartedly in a bunch of pseudo-mystical nonsense, is it? You’re “just more skeptical than others,” my left nut. The only think you’re skeptical of is reasoned skepticism. That’s why you feel compelled to demonize it (“Magic Randi,” “the skeptics cult,” “stop being so naïve”). Because if you don’t, your entire worldview will collapse under the weight of its own abject stupidity, and you just can’t let that happen.
Come on, Drew, who do you think you’re fooling? You asked Hoopes to “leave the skeptics cult,” yet you have the audacity to claim that you’re the more skeptical one?
Define “scholarly.”
How many of those “scholarly books” that you read are self-published? How many have been roundly debunked or just flat-out ignored by real scientists? Would you know if they were? For that matter, would you care?
I have yet to meet a hopelessly credulous believer in obvious pseudoscience who says otherwise. You’ll forgive me, of course, if I don’t think you’re as fantastic as you do. Call me a skeptic.
I get it now, Drew.
Your problem is that you don’t have the sligtest blinking clue how scientists actually conduct science. It’s just not a part of what I’ll generously call your dialectical process. On the kook-o-meter, you read exactly the same as IDiots, YECcers, and UFOlogists.
Simply saying “I-I-I-I” over and over again neither logical nor is it an experiment, it’s just naked self-obsession.
I love watching pompous asshats use Occam’s razor to cut their own throats.
You have it exactly backwards, Drew. Trickery is clearly the simpler explanation, because it requires no silly, fantastical suppositions about the “I-thought” and “nonlocal consciousness,” things that only crystal-waving juice-bar owners believe in, anyway. All trickery needs is the laws of physics and someone who’s good with their hands, plus a credulous audience (that’s you, Drew, in case you were wondering).
In short, you’re confusing the “simple” answer (trickery) with the “pat” answer (magic). Here’s a handy chart, in case you’re having trouble with the concepts:
Simple:
— I hid the coin between my fingers.
— I hid the flowers up my sleeve.
— I stuck the edge of my thumb between the cards.
— The lion dropped through a hole in the stage.
— The guy that they drag out of the audience at Cirque du Soleil is actually a plant.
Pat:
— It’s magic!
— God did it!
— It’s supernatural!
— You’re just part of the skeptics cult!
— We’re all a part of the Magical Mystery Tourâ¢!
Hand-waving away objective reality isn’t simple. In fact, all of our intellectual efforts over (at least) the last five centuries have found that it’s quite impossible.
Once again, Drew: don’t be a demented fuckwit.
Dan — it’s highly ironic that the philosophy book “Self-Alerity” is written by Dan Zahavi. (well his first name is Dan for sure, I’d have to confirm his last name and the book title but that’s close)
See philosophy is LOGIC not phantasical banter.
Inference is Logic and as DAN Zahavi — Professor Zahavi — points out:
Only the I-thought is self-transcending because it does not signify anything — what does “I” refer to?
That’s the logical question. Again spend some time investigating it — if you’re a philosopher. It couldn’t be simpler: I-I-I-I-I. If you do that as a career I assure you it will be most fascinating.
As far as my experience with science — well that seems to be ad hominem.
Science isn’t based on “personal experience” is it? Or maybe that’s just what Magic Randi thinks.
Sure I have a masters degree and have done plenty of science research, in biology labs, in the field, etc. but more importantly I’ve passed policy changes with the people who CONTROL SCIENCE.
The lawyer at the U of Minnesota, Marc Rotenberg, controls science.
The regents of the U of Minnesota every year have to sign Title XXII stating that they will cooperate with the lawyer that runs the U and his superiors in Washington D.C. to promote
IMPERIALISM.
I’ve researched the whole history of the corporate-state elite control of science.
Consider Oppenheimer. He was commanded to state who wanted to pass on nuclear secrets to the Ruskies. He was told that he would not be tortured since we live in a democracy.
OK — who cares? Oppenheimer was creating apocalyptic technology! So he told the name because he was “commanded” by the military that controls science and that professor who wanted to share the technology was immediately fired without being told why.
Democracy. What a total joke but for those who want to play along and not
“test” to see whether it’s true or not — it would appear to be true. And of course we tortured people — we massacred civilians as well.
So it is with science.
Two words: Quantum chaos. Learn about it.
James Randi — the boy in a bubble.
haha
Dan — seriously I’m enjoying our virtual debate thus far. Quantum chaos — it’s the top discipline in science yet neither Hoopes, nor you nor Professor Myers seems to know much about it!
OK — You want to keep on talking about Dr. Jules Eisenbud’s experiments. You want to keep on creating some simplistic fantasy world.
Let me repeat the basics. See there’s a book in a library that anyone can read. It details a vast array of tightly controlled experiments that were supervised by 25 scientists — Ph.D.s working at a University. The statement they signed states that the results could not be explained by any theories in current science nor could the results be exposed as fraud.
Pretty straight forward stuff and yes their names and affiliation are listed in the book.
Sorry I’m not Ted Serios so I can’t reproduce their images for you to help you out with your special needs.
Now back to quantum chaos.
Here’s another two words that perhaps Professor Myers would like to consider:
1/f Noise.
I’m sure he’ll know enough to know that it transcends the whole I.D. versus Darwin debate.
No more “pop” science stuff.
I know what Quantum chaos is. It’s one of those catchy bywords that you pick up in a science mag and then spend days reading about on the net. Then you post some crap on a blog using pifered concepts in an attempt to fill the void inside your soul because you never actually became a scientist and yet you see all these other people talking smart talk and you just know deep inside you’re way better than them.
Get some fresh air man
That’s not irony, dumbass, that’s a coincidence. Learn the fucking language.
Logic in and of itself is completely worthless. It’s the means to the end, not the end itself. And if you’re full of shit to begin with (as you are gleefully demonstrating yourself to be), logic doesn’t do you a damn bit of good. All it does is allow you to rationalize your way out of facing up the fact that you’re full of shit.
No, it’ll be boring as all hell. But then again, I’m not a self-obsessed dimbulb with nothing better to do than stare lovingly at himself in a mirror.
Tough shit. You’re clearly a complete kook with absolutely no comprehension whatsoever of how actual scientists conduct their business. If you don’t like being called a demented fuckwit, don’t be a demented fuckwit.
Is there another kind of experience? I don’t know about you, but I’ve never had an experience that wasn’t personal.
So yes, in that sense, science, like everything else in our existence, is based on “personal experience.” The fundamental difference between science and your kooky little ideas is that everyone’s “personal experience” of a scientifically verifiable phenomenon will be exactly the same. Your kooky little ideas are just that, kooky little ideas.
Pseudoscience is like that character in Mystery Men who can only turn invisible when nobody is looking at him.
In what? Philosophy? I’ve got gas receipts under my passenger seat that are worth more than a master’s in philosophy.
Really? Marc Rotenberg personally controls science? All of it?
Is that part of his job description, or is he just some kind of semi-divine figure?
Woo-hooo! FULL-BLOWN CONSPIRACY THEORY! Yeah! There’s the money-shot, baby!
I sincerely doubt that. And I hate to break it to you, Drew, but making shit up on the spot doesn’t really count as “research.”
The way you use your credulity as a weapon in your war against objective reality would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
Maybe he was fired because he was trying to sell state secrets to the Russians?
No, couldn’t be. It was just so arbitrary. Oh, yeah, and it was all science’s fault.
Shorter Drew: “Democracy is false.”
Whatever the fuck that means. It looks like English. It smells like English. Those words are technically English. But when you put those words in that order, it just doesn’t make any sense at all.
Well, straw-science, anyway.
Buzz-word. Good for duping credulous schmucks, but it doesn’t really mean anything.
No, Drew, not simplistic. Simple. There’s a big difference. One you clearly aren’t mentally equipped to comprehend, given your laughably pathetic attempt to implement Occam’s razor in your last post.
That’s a bit like saying that because no one was ever caught or convicted for the Jack the Ripper murders, none of those women were really eviscerated.
Here’s what you don’t (can’t?) understand: “not explained” is in absolutely no way whatsoever equivalent to “paranormal”. Your argument is exactly identical to the “God of the Gaps” argument that creationists love so very, very much. The only difference is that your “god” is yourself.
That’s your only argument, Drew, and you know it just as well as I do. “I can’t explain it, therefore it must have been magic!!!!! Wooooo, I’m a scary ghost!!!!!”
In short, you’re a demented fuckwit.
And again, I have to ask: who gives a flying fuck what a bunch of as-yet unnamed signed or believed or saw or believed they saw forty years ago? And even more importantly now that Ted Serios is 15 years dead, what good was that “experiment” in the first place?
That’s your evidence for Serios’s alleged paranormal abilities?
“I can’t do it, therefore it must have been magic!!!”
Science requires those “special needs” in order to be science. If you can’t meet them, then you’re not doing science, by definition. Period, end of story. By whining about how all these mean old science people aren’t giving you a free pass on all this science stuff, you are flat-out admitting that you’re not doing science, that you’re not willing to do science, and that you’re not capable of doing science.
Here, I have an argument that is functionally equivalent to yours. Let me know how persuasive it is to you: I’m not Kobe Bryant, so I can’t reproduce his 81-point game. Yet I know that Kobe did indeed score 81 points in a game. There were lots of sports journalists who verified the fact that Kobe did indeed score 81 points in a game. Yet I still can’t do it myself, and I’ve never seen anyone else do it, despite their nearly constant attempts to do so. Therefore, Kobe’s 81 points must have come about by paranormal means.
It didn’t have anything at all to do with the fact that he was the only decent player on the team, and his teammates kept giving him the ball. He kept shooting it, and scored on a significant number of those shots. Furthermore, it couldn’t have been because the Raptors kept sending him to the foul line, and he’s a good free-throw shooter.
Nope, it must have been magic!!!
PZ I saw interesting on your daughters blog.
“Consider it this way: God does want followers, but He wishes for them to follow out of desire, not out of force. Who wants brainless followers?” – Compass
Do you realise what this means? Anyone of us can be god, all we need to do is to want followers who are not proud of being daft and we are all gods.
I cant really understand the benefits of having daft followers. I mean if I have to tell them how to do everything I might as well just do it all myself.
I also posit, that PZ Myers is god. He has followers, many are not daft, all of possess free will.
(Also fitting into the “Judeo-Christian” traditions, PZ is male, white and has a beard. Definate signs of godlyness)
So Prof, how does it feel to be Atheist God?
(Sorry about that, I bent my mind to understand the creationist viewpoint and it doesn’t want to bend back. To misquote “Oh my God, its full of stupid!”)
Let me repeat the basics. See there’s a book in a library that anyone can read. It details a vast array of tightly controlled experiments that were supervised by 25 scientists — Ph.D.s working at a University. The statement they signed states that the results could not be explained by any theories in current science nor could the results be exposed as fraud.
1. Most, if not all, of the “scientists” in question–Charles Tart, Gertrude Schmeidler, William Cox, et al.–were in fact parapsychologists. You may consider parapsychologists to be just as reliable as any conventional scientists, but not everyone shares that view, and it’s a bit disingenuous not to mention the fact. Although, as Dan said, even if they had been conventional physicists or chemists or what-have-you, that still wouldn’t really have proved anything.
2. The results were exposed as fraud. Forty years ago. In the October 1967 issue of Popular Photography. Whereupon Serios’s support all but vanished, and only a few diehards in denial continued to claim he had real powers.
Seems like somebody hasn’t done his homework.
I suppose the real mystery isn’t, “Why haven’t they won the JREF prize” but rather “Why hasn’t this been in the news”. I mean, conclusive scientific evidence of the paranormal would get a five minute slot in the Six O’Clock News, at least. Yet… nothing. I mean, this is the sort of thing the media would eat right up.
Unless it were subject to poor experimental design, dodgy execution, or plain old fraud, rendering it totally invalid, at any rate.
Dan, you blithering idiot, you’ve got no idea what “reproducible” means in a scientific context, do you? I mean, if I’ve got rats running a maze, and the results have to be independently reproducible, I don’t get in the maze and run around myself. Myself, or preferable another researcher performs the same experiment. That’s reproducibility.
With your analogy this would be like another news network covering Kobe’s achievement. It provides independent confirmation. Whereas in your opinion, it’d be okay to accept nothing but a 30 second shaky-cam home movie shot from eighteen miles away as evidence of 81 points. Which is the standard of evidence most paranormal research has.
Sorry, Dan, just got the tail end of your argument there and got the wrong end of the stick totally. Apologies for the rant.
I vote that an anonymous coward above succesfully concluded this discussion.
First: Woo! I got PZ’d! All bow down before SquidNelson!
Second, re Drew:
I looked through a bunch of recruitment sites this morning, but I can’t find anyone who seems to want to hire people to sit around saying “I-I-I-I-I” all day long. Who should I send my resumé to? Does it pay well? Do you get dental coverage?
How do these things get ranked? Are there fights between bio-informaticists, quantum chromodynamicists and colloidal chemists to see who gets the title? Is it awared on a yearly basis, or just whenever a sexy new theory is published?
And why should an evo-devo expert be expected to be au fait with a bleeding-edge branch of physics, even if the International Science Cabal has ranked it at #1. Are you equally suspicious if your doctor doesn’t understand relativity? You see, ever since the days of Da Vinci (back when one man could be expected to understand the who body of human knowlegde) science has proressed by something called “specialisation”, whereby someone chooses a narrow field to study, and isn’t expected to be an expert on “science” as a whole.
Theis “Drew Hempel” guy tals really well, doesn’t he?
But… PUT UP OR SHUT UP – and get the million dollars from Randi.
Calling Randi names will have no effect.
Do the experiment, and replicate it, or go away – please!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nelson’s Column – in the centre of Trafalgar Square in London – I’ll take a look tomorow on the way past …..
One of the comments said “how did you get a sky that blue in London?” – I think they’re about 40 years out-of-date.
We have something called the “Clean Air Acts” that limit the amouint of atmospheric plooution you put out.
Passed originally as a Private Memebers’ Bill in the Commons in (I think) 1958, in response to the second great postwar smog of 1955 – the first was in 1952.
BTW don’t let anyone kid you that “only” 4000 people were killed in each smog – the true number is certainly over 100 000 each, and possibly over 12 0000.
As a result, Londons’ air is now cleaner than at any time since about 1550 – we can tell from tree-records.
The Thames, and its’ feeder-rivers (like the Lea) are clean as well – there are enough fish to feed the cormorants in docklands, and there are terns flying over the river in the centre of tow.
At the moment, we’re having a heatwave – the temperature is likely to reach 32 today and 33 tomorrow …..
And the sky out there is blue and brazen as I type this, and the cat is looking for somwhere cool to hide
The person who asked “how did you get a sky that blue in London?” has been a regular visitor to London over the last few years, and was almost certainly asking more about the level of cloud cover than pollution.
(scroll scroll scroll…)
Your daughter rocks :) Reminds me of me at that age, if blogs had been available then! I wrote letters to the editor instead. Good job on raising her, and good job on her for being herself.
See the problem with your listing of 3 scientists is that is a small percentage of the 25 plus scientists. You are using the same misleading, fraudelent tactics as the Csicops.
I’ve read the book by Dr. Jules Eisenbud. Almost all of the scientists are in the natural scientists — M.D.s or Ph.Ds in chemistry, etc.
Again anyone who doesn’t see the obvious is really stupid.
Anyone can see I’ll give you a million dollars if you prove to me whatever I accept as real.
That has nothing to do with science!!
But I’ve given all the links and abstracts and all of you have chosen to remain ignorant — to not read the information — and to hide in your little:
“1950’s Science Save Us” cult.
Well we all need a big daddy figure I guess.
Quantum chaos just happens to be the top research field at the top military labs in the U.S.: Sandia, Los Alamos, Brookhaven, Institute for Advanced Study, and the Santa Fe Institute.
Some great TECHNOSPIRITUAL science books on quantum chaos are:
George Johnson’s “Fire in the Mind.”
John Casti’s “One True Platonic Heaven.”
And the best-seller “Sync” by professor Steven Strogatz as well as the book he promotes:
“Stalking the Riemann Hypothesis” (2005).
Good luck with your new required reading and welcome to the real world.
drew hempel, MA
But..but.. Drew has a Master’s Degree – in SCIENCE!
See the problem with your listing of 3 scientists is that is a small percentage of the 25 plus scientists. You are using the same misleading, fraudelent tactics as the Csicops.
You see that “et al.”? And the fact that I explicitly said “Most, if not all, of the “scientists” in question…were in fact parapsychologists.” I didn’t name the only three parapsychologists out of the list of 25 “scientists”. They were all, or almost all, parapsychologists. I just didn’t see the need to list all 25 names.
I’ve read the book by Dr. Jules Eisenbud. Almost all of the scientists are in the natural scientists — M.D.s or Ph.Ds in chemistry, etc.
You mean almost all of them had at one point earned doctoral degrees, and put M.D. or PhD after their name. That doesn’t mean they were working in conventional scientific fields. Having a doctoral degree doesn’t make a person a scientist.
Though again, this is really a moot point; even if they had been conventional physicists, chemists, etc.–which they weren’t–their signing the statement still would have meant absolutely nothing.
Again it’s stupid to make stupid assumptions as the basis for your argument.
OK — if you read the book AS I ALREADY STATED these scientists WORKED AT THE UNIVERSITY WERE JULES EISENBUD WORKED.
Which is maybe why Magic Randi didn’t respond the Dr. Jules Eisenbud’s challenge to Magic Randi’s
$250,000 award. Oh I’m sorry that’s the Creationist Award.
It’s so easy to get them confused.
The below is a nice defense of Professor Myers but I’m talking about Richard Dawkins being the biggest name behind Synthetic Ecology and nanobiomotors.
Richard Dawkins — mr. Darwin himself.
Quantum chaos isn’t just limited to the semi-classical realm — it’s based on
MACRO QUANTUM MOLECULES — of which water and Buckyballs are the most prominent examples.
Just search NanoWater and you’ll know why David Rockefeller’s Godson — George Gilder — is a big supporter of
“the Privileged Planet” — i.e. the concept that scientists evolved to transform earth into a Silicon Astral Realm.
So is Robert Jastrow — one of top NASA engineers and promoters of SILICON EVOLUTION.
“And why should an evo-devo expert be expected to be au fait with a bleeding-edge branch of physics, even if the International Science Cabal has ranked it at #1.”
OK — if you read the book AS I ALREADY STATED these scientists WORKED AT THE UNIVERSITY WERE JULES EISENBUD WORKED.
Which has precisely what to do with anything? Why do you just keep spouting non sequiturs? Are you even reading what anything else is writing, or are you just throwing out random sentences?
It’s always good to throw some delcious word salad into the mix — it has lots of fiber (but it’s a bit low on substance, sadly).
An education doesn’t make you smarter. It just makes you educated.
Name dropping is meaningless if those names don’t provide convincing arguments. It’s an exercise in stroking other people’s egos, nothing more. A scientist is pretty much irrelevant to the science he does (or doesn’t do).
“That doesn’t mean they were working in conventional scientific fields. Having a doctoral degree doesn’t make a person a scientist.”
You wrote the ABOVE. I responded that YES they were working in CONVENTIONAL FIELDS AT A UNIVERSITY.
Direct Response.
Now please try to remember what you type.
I’ll go to the 4th floor of the Central downtown public library in Minneapolis and get the book and type out the details.
I’m on the 3rd floor currently. One moment please.
(jeopardy music is currently playing)
A partial list of signatories follows (that’s what Eisenbud writes)
Dr. Martin M. Alexander, M.D., Professor of Medicine, U of Colorado Medical School
Professor Ralph Baker, Botany, Colorado State University
Profesor of Physiology John L. Chapin, U of Colorado
Professor of Medicine, Harold Elrick U fo Colorado
Professor of Psychiatry James Galvin, U of Colorado
Chairman of Deprartmne tof PHysical Medicine, U of Colordao Jerome W. Gersten
Professor of Psychiatry, Luarenc B. Hall U of Colordao
Chief of Research Laboratory US Veterans Admin Hopsital, Denver, Charles J. Hllad, Jr.
Chief Engineering Physicist and Consulting Engineer, Gates Rubber Company, Denver
J. Allen Hynek, Professor and Chariman of Astronomy Dept, Northwestern University
Professor of Physics Mario Iona, U of Denver
L. J. Joshel, Ph.D Chemistry, Dow Chemical Co, Denver
Dr. Joseph H. Rush, Physicist, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
Ray M. Wainwright, Professor of Electrical Engineering, Colorado State U
Billie W. Wheeler, Director of Audio-visual Education U fo Colordao
Dr. H. Marie Wormington, Curator of Archeology, Denver Museum of Natural History
You wrote the ABOVE. I responded that YES they were working in CONVENTIONAL FIELDS AT A UNIVERSITY.
No. You wrote that they were working at a university. You did not say what they were working on. (And you still haven’t, actually. Listing what departments they were in doesn’t say what they were working on, either. Most universities don’t have a “Department of Parapsychology”, you know; parapsychologists are scientists who spend their time working on “paranormal research”, regardless of what university departments they may nominally belong to.) It wasn’t a “direct response”; it was a complete non sequitur. Your replies do not respond to the issues raised. Given the irrelevance of your replies, I’m not sure you understand the issues raised.
As I’ve said before, though, the matter of what the “scientists” whose signatures Eisenbud gathered were working on is really moot, since even if they weren’t parapsychologists their signatures would be meaningless. See Dan’s earlier post, and Bronze Dog’s post above. Also, I note you’ve said nothing with regard to the October 1967 Popular Photography article that exposed Serios as a fraud. I’m guessing you haven’t read that? Why is it that the only part of my comment you focus on is the part that I said myself wasn’t really important?
Look. While you’re busy recommending books, I’ve got a recommendation for you. Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus, by Martin Gardner. A few decades old, but still a worthwhile read. While I’m at it, Gardner’s Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science is good too.
As for me, I think I’m probably going to bow out of this comment thread. You’re apparently too stubborn and delusional to reason with, and nobody else is taking you seriously anyway. Feel free to rant at me further if you want, but don’t expect a reply.
Let’s try the most recent academic source so we can put all the shenigans to rest:
“The Perfect Medium: Photography and the Occult” (Yale University Press, 2004)
The essay is by Dr. Stephen E. Braude:
“Serios also liked to work with what he called a ‘gismo,’ a short open cylinder, about an inch in diameter, typically fashioned during the experimental sessions from the black paper packaged with Polaroid film. Serios often liked to place the gismo in front of the camera lens, holding it with his thumb and forefinger. He had apparently developed the habit of using a gismo during his early Chicago experiments, and now felt comfortable with it, as if it helped him to focus his thoughts on the task at hand. Not surprisingly, ciritcs often maintained that Serios used this device to conceal an image which could then be projected ono the film.” (see ref. number 2)
Ref. nbr 2: “The primary source of this skeptical allegation was the article “An amazing Weekend with the Amazing Ted Serios,” in the October 1967 issue of Popular Phhotography, written by David B. Eisendrath and Charles Reynolds. The criticsm then morphed into the unverified claim that Serios’s feats had been duplicated easily by the magician the Amazing Randi. See, for example, Martin Gardner, Science, Good, Bad and Bogus (Buffalo: Prometheus books, 1981), and Gardner’s claim in the journal Nature that Randi “demonstrates it regularly and with more skill” (vol. 300, no. 11 [1982:p. 119). It should be emphasized that Gardner’s claim is unsubstantiated. Randi has never even attempted to duplicate the Serios phenomena under conditions resembling those that prevailed during Serios’s tests. He, did, however, fail to duplicate the phenomena under the looser conditions prevailing on the television show Today on 4 October 1967.”
Main text, next paragraph:
“Critics frequently cited the gismo as grounds for dismissing the Serios case. In answer, it should be noted that Serios often produced multiple images in a single experimental session (for example, as many as fifty separate images during a series of sixty to eighty trials, or ten to twenty images in a shorter series of trials). Had he been concealing images in the gismo, he would have needed to replace those hidden images many times throughout the session, while avoiding the detection of observers who were watching him closely. The gismo was usually examined before, during, and after shooting, and no images or other devices were ever found inside. Second, the gismo was often held by experimenters until the photograph was taken, thus drastically reducing the time available for placing an image within the gismo, and making it all the more difficult for Serios’s alleged trickery to escape detection. And third, Serios sometimes produced images under conditions of complete darkness, as well as on unexposed, opaquely wrapped film. (Significantly, critics refrain from discussing this and other test conditions that would weaken their claims regarding hidden devices.)”
“But most importantly, Serios produced more than thirty-six images when he was positioned one to sixty-six feet away from the camera. These effects were observed on twelve occasions in different locations by witnesses who held and triggered the Polaroid camera. For the hidden-image-in-the-gismo hypothesis to have any credibility, Serios would have had to be located no more than a fraction of an inch from the camera lens. Eisenbud and his colleagues tried to duplicate Serios’s effects with tranparencies placed in the gismo, but could not. Moreover, for some trials Serios was dressed in clothes provided by the experimenter (thus eliminating the presumed hiding place for images to be inserted in the gismo), and in some cases he was separated from the camera and placed inside an electrically shield Faraday cage. The picture of three men, dated 22 February 1966 [cat. 72], is one of those shot while Serios was inside the Faraday cage, the camera held by an experimenter outside the cage. It should be also noted that the hidden-image-in-the-gismo hypothesis does not account for Serios’s ability to produce “blackies” and “whities.”
(pp. 156-7)
So I’m googling that list of professors to see what kind of research they did. Found some interesting stuff. Here’s one on the physics professor, Mario Iona from A SKEPTIC:
skeptic05-30-2005, 11:39 AM
I hate to break this to any naive kids out there, but school textbooks are full of rubbish. The late Mario Iona spent decades trying to have corrections made, and he was largely ignored by the authors and the publishers. Some people just want to run a printing press.
Now that’s funny.