|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 01/15/2006 : 02:12:42 [Permalink]
|
If you have true powers, I have a single tattoo somewhere on my body. Tell me where it is located and what is an image of.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 02:24:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Skepticpsychic wrote: "Randi's not RIGHT and all psychics WRONG." and on principle, this is exactly correct. Take the cyclops cat thread - Humbert saw that the eye was open, and knowing that kittens are normally born with eyes closed, he concluded that it was a photoshopped image. But he was wrong; the cyclops kitten was legit. Sometimes we are wrong. Sometimes we jump to a conclusion of rejection before we actually do know all the facts. I think that is all that skepticpsychic is getting at. She didn't say she was skeptical of skepticism, she said she was skeptical of skeptics! Look, I love Randi as much as the rest of you. Even met him and saw him speak once, and I think he's awesome. That's not the point. All people are suseptible to mistakes, arrogance, overconfidence, etc. Maybe it would do us some good to have some humility.
Indeed, it does do us some good. Which is why Randi doesn't present the challenge as him-versus-whoever, but instead offers people who claim paranormal abilities to show themselves to be correct. The challenge itself doesn't prove that such powers don't exist. The "Randi is right and psychics are wrong" thing is a false dichotomy. The million-buck prize hasn't yet been claimed because no psychic has been shown to be right, regardless of whether Randi is right or wrong about anything. In other words, Randi's views are irrelevant to the question of whether or not a psychic can pass a test for which they set the rules, themselves. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 04:02:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
If you have true powers, I have a single tattoo somewhere on my body. Tell me where it is located and what is an image of.
I'll go you one better H! I've picked a rational, real number greater than one and less than 1 million. I've "written" it down and saved it as a text file on my computer. I've created an Md5 hash of the file, given below:
MD5 (Second.txt) = b7f189fcf7a03bc403c3d107b7d245b0
(This is the MD5 hash of the file describing the number you should be determining by whatever paranormal/otherworldly means you have at your disposal.)
An example that will please the Douglas Adams fans.
Contents of "First.txt": 42. Forty tWo. That's two more than forty!
MD5 (First.txt) = 172cf4e412fed95f9af4076f764e264a
For those that are unsure of what MD5 is, Google or Wikipedia will sort you out pretty quickly. Essentially the idea is, I can't change the "answer" after someone correctly (or incorrectly) guesses it. I know MD5 is no longer considered entirely un-crackable, but a brute force attack is going to be pretty difficult considering there's some text in the file. I figure a week ought to be long enough for someone truly gifted to get the number from my mind, or have their associate spirit/angel/ghost/maginary friend get it for them.
A million to one odds aren't too bad if anyone wants to have a go. Remember, you don't have to re-produce the actual contents of my text file, just the number it represents.
I'm afraid I don't have the resources to offer a Randi-style reward, but anyone who can pull it off will get much more credibilty here I'm sure, and perhaps allow us to proceed to a re-producibility phase of experimentation.
This may be a little nerdy, but, well, if the shoe fits! Plus, I don't have any tats!
[Edit note, the FN on-line editor stripped an extra space I had in my text file, so I re-ran the md5 algorithm with a text file as you'd get if you cut and pasted the bold characters into a text editor and saved that as a file. I also fixed a typo.] |
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 01/15/2006 04:11:49 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 04:09:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
A million to one odds aren't too bad if anyone wants to have a go. Remember, you don't have to re-produce the actual contents of my text file, just the number it represents.
Ok, what the hell. I say....
592,404. (Although my first guess was 7.  )
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 01/15/2006 04:11:23 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 04:17:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
A million to one odds aren't too bad if anyone wants to have a go. Remember, you don't have to re-produce the actual contents of my text file, just the number it represents.
Ok, what the hell. I say....
592,404. (Although my first guess was 7. )
I like it. With the sneaky ability of attempting to get 2 guesses for the price of one, you could have a future in this business. I'm afraid you're wrong though. All evidence would suggest, however, that having no psychic ability will not affect your future in the business at all ;)
Anyone else? The odds are now marginally better 1 in 999 996 (Remember I said greater than 1 and less than 1 million, so those two numbers are out!)
[Edit: Might someone more familiar with the editing system suggest why my body text is in the "quote" font size? I've checked the code and the two quote's are properly matched by /quote's.] |
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 01/15/2006 04:55:52 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 05:24:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
[Edit: Might someone more familiar with the editing system suggest why my body text is in the "quote" font size? I've checked the code and the two quote's are properly matched by /quote's.]
It seems to be a browser thing. When I first read this post, your font was indeed small. I hit refresh and the text popped back up to normal size. Dunno what that means, it it does happen to me from time to time I've noticed.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
skepticpsychic
New Member
USA
21 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 06:12:09 [Permalink]
|
Review of the “amazing” Randi
First, again, thanks for your feedback and insights. I did go to Randi's website and read the conditions of his $1,000,000 challenge, as well as some of the applications from the, ah, psychic hopefuls. This perusal has been very enlightening, on many levels.
First, I do have new respect for the challenge itself. I could find nothing objectionable to the methodology. Being “adversarial,” however, I can understand why someone like myself would not be interested in participating. The perception of being an enemy (yes, I know, he says “adversarial but not enemies” but unfortunately according to my American Heritage Bible, adversary = enemy) might frighten away people like myself who have experienced the adversarial attitudes of both Christians and skeptics alike. Lest we forget people like me were burned at the stake not too long ago?
I myself would prefer a platform that isn't adversarial. John Edward, for example, was part of an extensive study done at the University of Tuscan. I haven't read the entire study yet, but the fact that he was willing to submit to these blind tests tells me is he willing to be scrutinized. I can understand why he would prefer an atmosphere that was not adversarial to begin with.
Reading through some of the applications though, was amusing, sad and enlightening. Haven't we all at one time thought we could control the streetlights?
As I read the challenge, I was not sure what I would try and prove. First the money doesn't motivate me. And because I am on the fence about what the source of my experiences really is, I don't think I could come up with anything “paranormal” to be tested on. That I can close my eyes, talk spontaneously and extemporaneously, and produce highly evolved information about of a process that resolves conflict on root levels? Doesn't really sound very paranormal. Unusual perhaps, but paranormal? Could I just be some kind of idiot savant genius type? I'm ok with that.
I suppose I could put my predictions to the test. But for me that would need to be a longer-term study over the course of several years. Inspired by my conversations with you all, I think I will begin my own study on that.
www.barbarawith.com/plumpredictions.html
That I think I talk to 12 famous dead people working in Afterlife for World Peace? Now that's just nutty. Honestly, who in their right mind would believe they talk to dead people, much less famous ones? I am willing to concede that my Party is a figment of my imagination. I am not, however, willing to give up my relationship to them. Even if they are the product of a mild case of schizophrenia induced by early childhood sexual and physical abuse, the work I do with “them” is fascinating (I never knew there really was a “Friends of Vietnam” consortium in the 50s until I interviewed JFK) and productive (Conflict Revolution® has been proven to be a powerful process to eradicate conflict and is used as an effective tool by many people). My own participation with Con Rev® has contributed greatly to my healthy and happy life. This is why I am beginning a research study of it (which is free to anyone who wants to participate in it).
However, I did not find any evidence that Randi was not doing this for anything other than PR and to sell his books. The truth is that he has at least 4 books he wants to sell and he advertises for people to hire him to lecture. On this issue, I see no difference between him and Sylvia. There was no definitive evidence that his motives are truly scientific, if he is motivated by PR sensationalism, or a combination of the both.
In conclusion, thank you! I loved the investigation and applying critical thinking through all the information. And I welcome any constructive critical feedback.
|
The Skeptic Psychic
www.writingup.com/blog/skepticpsychic |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 07:05:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I myself would prefer a platform that isn't adversarial.
Why? Seems to me that if you are able to prove under adverse conditions that this would make your case even stronger. It is how our justice system is constructed (not necessarily applied however) I think you are taking the word adversarial and using the harshest definition to excuse yourself from a challenge.
For example, I have an extensive test of some software/hardware that I designed coming up soon. This test is not being done by persons friendly or unfriendly, but by persons who truly want to see if it works and what capacities it has. Therefore the test will not be slanted to be more forgiving to my system.
I welcome the test.
quote:
However, I did not find any evidence that Randi was not doing this for anything other than PR and to sell his books. The truth is that he has at least 4 books he wants to sell and he advertises for people to hire him to lecture. On this issue, I see no difference between him and Sylvia. There was no definitive evidence that his motives are truly scientific, if he is motivated by PR sensationalism, or a combination of the both.
What evidence is there that he does this only to sell books and PR?
Perhaps a bit of bias is slanting your view? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 01/15/2006 07:45:05 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 07:23:04 [Permalink]
|
If I may:
quote:
(yes, I know, he says “adversarial but not enemies” but unfortunately according to my American Heritage Bible, adversary = enemy)
This is incorrect. 'Adversary' is better defined as:'opponent.' An opponent is not necessarly an enemy. Never forget that the various versions of the Bible were written by people with their own, ulterior motives; notably that of furthering the authority of the Church, or at least their branch of it.
Heh, here you find yourself swaller deep in adversaries, but no enemies.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 09:57:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
First, I do have new respect for the challenge itself. I could find nothing objectionable to the methodology. Being “adversarial,” however, I can understand why someone like myself would not be interested in participating.
Just makes excuses so you don't have to stand up and go prove yourself wrong to yourself....
You are a coward. You claim to be psychic, yet refuse to demonstrate this in a manner that would permanently silence your critics.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 11:12:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
First, I do have new respect for the challenge itself. I could find nothing objectionable to the methodology. Being “adversarial,” however, I can understand why someone like myself would not be interested in participating.
Just makes excuses so you don't have to stand up and go prove yourself wrong to yourself....
You are a coward. You claim to be psychic, yet refuse to demonstrate this in a manner that would permanently silence your critics.
Dude, since skepticpsychic admits that what she claims to be able to do may have a natural explanation, (and not a particularly tortured explanation ala Storm) I find your assessment of her reason to not want to be tested by Randi a bit on the harsh side. Randi is, after all, testing for things that can't be explained away by any known natural causes…
As to the question of skepticpsychic's claims of a high hit ratio and the accuracy of the predictions, we could test that here if skepticpsychic is willing to be tested on this forum. (I'm sure we could work something out that would be agreeable to all sides.) If not, we must remain skeptical of the claims. Oh well…
The Randi challenge is not the only game in town.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 11:33:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal:
Edwards hasn't shown he can do more than cold reading. I disagree with the others here, though, and do think he helps as well as other kinds of grief counselors. I thinks he helps people move on. After all, not many people think a priest telling someone they'll see their loved one in heaven some day is such a bad thing. And before anyone proclaims priests don't charge $300/hr, some of them take donations from the most vulnerable and some of them take BIG donations from those vulnerable people.
I think anybody, even with the best intentions, who tells a known untruth or claims knowledge they can't possibly have, is not helping anyone. "Moving on" based on lies or fantasy is not really moving on, its just moving sideways. Better to face up to the truth, especially when the truth is "We just don't know if Granny has a soul that survives physical death, and if she does we have absolutely no idea what happens to it". It will make you stronger and better in the long run. Better to honor and enjoy the memories of your loved ones than to be bamboozled by nonsense, even well-meaning nonsense. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 11:34:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
skepticpsychic:
I suppose I could put my predictions to the test. But for me that would need to be a longer-term study over the course of several years. Inspired by my conversations with you all, I think I will begin my own study on that.
SFN has been here a while and I don't see us going out of business anytime soon. So why not let us conduct a test? Or test with some other group of skeptics or scientists? If you choose to conduct your own study, it may convince you of your abilities but it will not go very far in convincing any of those who matter, in terms of being able to offer support for your claims. Convincing the skeptics is a major hurtle that must be jumped if you really want to be taken seriously…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 11:59:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal:
Edwards hasn't shown he can do more than cold reading. I disagree with the others here, though, and do think he helps as well as other kinds of grief counselors. I thinks he helps people move on. After all, not many people think a priest telling someone they'll see their loved one in heaven some day is such a bad thing. And before anyone proclaims priests don't charge $300/hr, some of them take donations from the most vulnerable and some of them take BIG donations from those vulnerable people.
Oh here we go again. If you really think it is a good thing to help people by selling them a bullshit last meeting with their loved one, created by a huckster who is stealing from them their true last memory of the person they are grieving for, what can I say that I already haven't said? The priest isn't taking from them their last memory of the person being grieved over. (My guess is that your animosity toward religion has clouded your ability to see how the analogy is a false one.) Edwards is telling them the loved on is still around. And from time to time, if they are willing to pay for it, they can talk to the dead loved one. With that information they will not have to go on with grieving process. And there is nothing good about that.
You are just plain wrong.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 13:14:06 [Permalink]
|
Certainly there a great number of very strange and coincidental things constantly happening to people. There is a great deal we don't know about both the universe and the nature of human perceptions. I've heard all sorts of first hand accounts. Here's one:
My Aunt – a Catholic – claims that while her brother was dying in the hospital and she was waiting for the call and washing dishes, her Easter reed cross fell from the wall at exactly 3:49, so when her sister-in-law called 20 minutes later to say my Uncle had died, my Aunt asked the exact time when, and it happened to be 3:49.
Was it a coincidence with no meaning? Could my Aunt have deluded herself about the actual time because she so badly wanted the coincidence to exist? Or could she have just been highly sensitized to the situation (knowing her brother was dying at that time), and as she washed dishes, perhaps done something to caused the (very lightweight) cross to fall at a time that is was likely he was passing away? We can never know the true answer, so as a skeptic, I'm not jumping to any conclusions. That said, I don't see any evidence in this situation that there is anything harmful that my Aunt believes this was her brother saying goodbye to her on his way to heaven. In fact, I think believing this has helped her deal with her grief. I agree with Kil that was Edwards does is damaging because people do not go forth into the process of grief. Instead, they hang on. That was not the case here.
People are going to believe extraordinary claims that are not backed up by hard evidence. It is just human nature. It is not beliefs that I condemn as a skeptic and a humanist. I only condemn that claim that a belief is knowledge, and I condemn those who would do harm to others in the name of a mere belief.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
