Thread: No Evidence of the paranormal?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Because

I offer $1 million to anyone who can prove that your post's post's article disproves the trueness of the offer of $1 million to anyone who can prove paranormal truth.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I offer $1 million to anyone who can prove that your post's post's article disproves the trueness of the offer of $1 million to anyone who can prove paranormal truth.

I offer nothing for anyone who will read it - except, maybe, a more informed opinion.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I offer nothing for anyone who will read it - except, maybe, a more informed opinion.

Maybe I can be more informed about Dennis Rawlins' "sTARBABY" claims when we get past the "Who the Hell is Dennis Rawlins?" and "tl;dr" factors. Can you sum up the specifics of the claims? I don't feel like reading a book's worth of information that is posted on a cheap web page by a nobody. I get that the guy who offered the prize supposedly falsified data, but what did the data concern, and what is the evidence that the data was falsified? Also, who is Dennis Rawlins, other than what the astrology organization's page claims he is-- a former member of a skeptic organization? Does he coach P.E. at Boaz, Alabama Elementary? I can create a web page that looks like that, and I can claim that the Illuminati has copies of porno films Ronald Reagan and Elvis made with the brocholi people from Neptune.

Edit: By the way, I'm not making fun of you. I'm making fun of the sea of crazy web sites that are out there. Thanks for mentioning the article. It is relevant to this discussion because it at least brings up the idea that Randi has been altering evidence, which is a logical consideration concerning my question.

The million dollar challenge is just one way of illustrating what is a very strong argument.

We can also notice that despite live shows being aired all the time everywhere, someone displaying an obvious supernatural feat live has yet to be seen. Or that in all of the world's Universities and research labs no evidence of the paranormal has been discovered. Etc.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Maybe I can be more informed about Dennis Rawlins' "StarBaby" claims when we get past the "Who the Hell is StarBaby?" and "tl;dr" factors. Can you sum up the specifics of the claims?

Well...

DENNIS RAWLINS is a cofounder of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and served on CSICOP's Executive Council from 1976 to 1979. Until 1980 he was an Associate Editor of Skeptical Inquirer.
He holds degrees in physics from Harvard University (B.A.) and Boston University (M.A.). His researches have been published in Nature, Astronomical Journal, American Journal of Physics, U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings and other leading publications in the fields of astronomy, geophysics, geography and history of science. He is the author of Peary at the North Pole: Fact or Fiction? (1973) and was the first to release public news of a major ESP scandal (in 1974) at the laboratory of the late J.B. Rhine. Rawlins, 44, and his wife Barbara live in San Diego, Calif.

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Rawlins

The article is about:

EVER SINCE it came into being the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) has proudly proclaimed itself the scourge of the "new nonsense": astrology, ESP, UFOs and other phenomena of which it does not approve. Its pronouncements on these and other subjects have received widespread attention and uncritical acceptance in the news media.

Critics such as Fate, professional parapsychologists and moderate skeptics like former CSICOP cochairman Prof. Marcello Truzzi, sociologist at Eastern Michigan University, have questioned the Committee's commitment to objective, scientific investigation of paranormal claims and have accused some CSICOP spokesmen of misrepresenting issues and evidence. But such dissenting views were little noticed by media writers eager to headline sensational -- although frequently unsupported -- debunking claims.

The story that follows, written by a man who is himself skeptical of the paranormal, confirms what critics of CSICOP have long suspected: that the organization is committed to perpetuating a position, not to determining the truth.

A lot of it has to do with:

Originally Posted by The Mars Effect

The Mars effect is a name often used to refer to a reported statistical correlation between athletic eminence and the position of the planet Mars relative to the horizon at time and place of birth. This controversial finding was first reported by the French psychologist and statistician Michel Gauquelin who, in his book L'influence des astres ("The Influence of the Stars", 1955), the first rigorous study of astrological claims,[1] suggested that a statistically significant number of sports champions were born just after the planet Mars rises or culminates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_effect

As far as the Randi Challenge, itself; I question its validity, just as I do anything else. And I've come to almost welcome the undeniable fact that there is easily as much reason to doubt that Randi would be honest in his gimmick, as there is to believe that a person with ESP would have already won it.

The Randi Prize
Randi's main claim to fame is that he offers a million dollar prize to "any person or persons who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability of any kind under satisfactory observing conditions". According to the James Randi Educational Foundation web site, "JREF will not entertain any demand that the prize money be deposited in escrow, displayed in cash, or otherwise produced in advance of the test being performed."

The conditions for the prize are set out on the JREF web site Randi challenge

The rules are conceived by a showman not a scientist, and make little sense from a genuinely scientific point of view. The introduction to the rules states, "All tests must be designed in such a way that the results are self-evident, and no judging process is required." Most scientific research, including research in particle physics, clinical medicine, conventional psychology and parapsychology, depends on statistical results that need to be analysed by experts to judge the significance of what has happened. Practically all serious scientific research would fail to qualify for the Randi prize.

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.o...ics/index.html

The man's entire career has, and will be, dedicated to perpetuating the idea that the 'paranormal' doesn't exist. He has, arguably, more at stake than these hypothetical people accused of 'actually having powers and just not coming to take Randi's challenge.' All that Randi has at stake is immediately tangible. He's already based his livelyhood on it. I don't think neither one of us has to debate the power of greed; desire for status; an image; a reputation; etc. Not to immediately assume that Randi is guilty of this, by any means, but it's something to consider.

Just out of sheer curiosity, though; I'd like for you to tell me the worst case scenario, if you were a person with 'abilities' - quite possibly not full-fledged "powers" (on the scale that we think of with superheroes and whatnot), but say you could move something the size of a needle with your mind. Seriously, would you trade that annonymity for some - as yet, unconfirmed - money? What could you imagine (on a realistic level) your life would be like, after the world found out that 'superpowers' exist, and you're the only person known to man that has actually has one?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

The man's entire career has, and will be, dedicated to perpetuating the idea that the 'paranormal' doesn't exist. He has, arguably, more at stake than these hypothetical people accused of 'actually having powers and just not coming to take Randi's challenge.' All that Randi has at stake is immediately tangible. He's already based his livelyhood on it. I don't think neither one of us has to debate the power of greed; desire for status; an image; a reputation; etc. Not to immediately assume that Randi is guilty of this, by any means, but it's something to consider.

Thanks for the summary. Yeah, it is something to consider.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Just out of sheer curiosity, though; I'd like for you to tell me the worst case scenario, if you were a person with 'abilities' - quite possibly not full-fledged "powers" (on the scale that we think of with superheroes and whatnot), but say you could move something the size of a needle with your mind. Seriously, would you trade that annonymity for some - as yet, unconfirmed - money? What could you imagine (on a realistic level) your life would be like, after the world found out that 'superpowers' exist, and you're the only person known to man that has actually has one?

I would absolutely collect the million dollars and go celebrity. As far as things to do to win a million dollars in a very short amount of time, there really is not much I would not do. There is close to nothing. Some things would mess with my conscience too bad, and some things are too disgusting, but I don't think there are any limits beyond those. Pain and the threats of humiliation and loss of anonymity wouldn't have any chance of stopping me. I would speed down the interstate and sprint to where I could win $1 million for moving a needle with my mind. I would be seen as a freak or devil worshipper for the rest of my life by some people and would probably get hounded by obnoxious idiots every time I went out in public, but they can screw off. I want my money.