Skeptic group offers $500,000 for proof of paranormal abilities

[openozy]

15 minutes ago, openozy said:

As fred mc says the events can't be reproduced at will,

There is one exception, sort of. I have created visible tulpas with witnesses to this. I don't believe these are paranormal though and I really don't even know how I did it but it was the state of mind I was in I'm sure.

Edited January 9 by openozy

[psyche101]

34 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Hmmm.....is everyone that disagrees with your positions a charlatan or incompetent fool. I've noticed a pattern.

That's just a personal attack. I've noticed a pattern too. You change subject then leave when your sources are exposed. 

Go ahead and explain why Radin should be considered a universal unbiased source. He's an electrical engineer by trade. And I doubt that's a current title. No more qualified than I am. Qualified scientist's much more accomplished than Radin and myself have illustrated his work to be a sham. Why aren't they superior sources? 

[psyche101]

31 minutes ago, Cho Jinn said:

Excellent.  Now do critical race theory, climate doomsaying, and adolescent sexual reassignment.

WTF is wrong with you? 

Do you ever stay on topic? 

[openozy]

I must add that truly spiritual people, the ones that experience this stuff are not money orientated, so even if they could reproduce this on command they wouldn't. Well not for a measly $500 000 when the scientists would make billions. For twenty mill I'd give the tulpa thing a go and set up the kids for life 

[esoteric_toad]

3 hours ago, openozy said:

I must add that truly spiritual people, the ones that experience this stuff are not money orientated, so even if they could reproduce this on command they wouldn't. Well not for a measly $500 000 when the scientists would make billions. For twenty mill I'd give the tulpa thing a go and set up the kids for life 

This is an excuse for not being able to produce real results. 

"It doesn't work that way because [insert_reason_here]"

500,000 dollars could last a lifetime and then some in certain parts of the world.  You'd think someone would do whatever it takes to be set up to use their powers for the good of mankind. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

21 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

The problem with this (and Randi's prize) is that the final judges are people determined not to lose and antagonistic to the paranormal in attitude.

Does that make the paranormal not work or something, people being around who don't believe in it or are antagonistic?

Have you ever looked at these challenges and the agreements?  At least when Randi was involved the whole point of the agreement was to define it in a way that it was objective whether it was passed or not; if you can detect 80% of the correct water-flowing pipes with your magic dowsing rod you win, unless there was cheating or something.  I understand that it is more comforting for believers to instead claim it is rigged or biased since no one has ever won these challenges in decades though.

14 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Dr. Dean Radin Parapsychologist

Still not getting why arguments from authority are fallacious?  Especially when the person you quote is not an authority on what they are discussing?

[+Liquid Gardens]

3 hours ago, openozy said:

I must add that truly spiritual people, the ones that experience this stuff are not money orientated, so even if they could reproduce this on command they wouldn't. Well not for a measly $500 000 when the scientists would make billions.

I didn't realize that 'truly spiritual people' are so concerned about how much personal profit they'd make and are jealous that others may make more, I always thought they were enlightened and beyond such a focus on the material.

[papageorge1]

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Does that make the paranormal not work or something, people being around who don't believe in it or are antagonistic?

IMO, a negative mental atmosphere can affect things. However, those with stronger abilities can still pass a test.

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Have you ever looked at these challenges and the agreements?  At least when Randi was involved the whole point of the agreement was to define it in a way that it was objective whether it was passed or not; if you can detect 80% of the correct water-flowing pipes with your magic dowsing rod you win, unless there was cheating or something.  I understand that it is more comforting for believers to instead claim it is rigged or biased since no one has ever won these challenges in decades though.

IMO: Randi was a conman and quite intelligent. He preferred accepting cases where thought he could show a legitimate failure. Better people stayed away from the show knowing he was not going to lose when he had final control or it would never get past an intermediate stage because he knew they might pass. I remember one of his quotes was 'I always have an out'. He is of course controversial, and I am giving you my honest considered take.

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Still not getting why arguments from authority are fallacious?  Especially when the person you quote is not an authority on what they are discussing?

Dean Radin's Biography

Sounds like someone worthy of my consideration. And his work is generally one of the most highly respected in the field of parapsychology. 

I'm lost as to how you can say he is not an authority on parapsychology.

In the end it becomes a judgment call for each of us as to who is more interested in being fair and honest with the evidence.

Edited January 9 by papageorge1

[Abramelin]

17 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Dr. Dean Radin Parapsychologist

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Radin

[papageorge1]

11 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Radin

Next previously done subject here Skeptical of Skeptics; Wikipedia captured by Skeptics

 

Excerpt:

Wikipedia currently is the area in which dogmatic skeptics are most successful and influential. One of these activist groups is called Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia, founded by Susan Gerbic. Another leader of the online skeptical movement is Tim Farley, who runs the website Skeptical Software Tools.

The situation is particularly bad in any areas to do with parapsychology, alternative and complementary medicine, and on the biography pages of scientists involved in investigating these areas.

The Wikipedia skeptics work in teams (contrary to Wikipedia rules) and most are well trained. They generally operate under pseudonyms. It is not necessary to have any particular skill or expertise to become an editor. Anyone can edit. But it is necessary to understand the complex rules of Wikipedia. The skeptical activists are well versed in the rules, and are able to bully and outwit editors who are trying to ensure that articles are balanced and fair. When fair-minded editors oppose the skeptic teams, they are accused of defying the skeptical consensus, and warned that they will be banned from editing. If they persist they are indeed banned. Many such editors have been driven away, to the detriment of Wikipedia and its users. For a detailed case study, see Wikipedia, We Have a Problem.

Edited January 9 by papageorge1

[+Liquid Gardens]

20 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

He preferred accepting cases where thought he could show a legitimate failure. Better people stayed away from the show knowing he was not going to lose when he had final control or it would never get past an intermediate stage because he knew they might pass.

I believe you that this is your honest take, but I don't think it's very considered since, as I told you, the conditions of what is considered to be 'passing' was in an agreement, not the decision of Randi.  Is your thesis now that this skeptic group is also 'conning' since Randi is dead?  Sounds like a convenient excuse.

25 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

And his work is generally one of the most highly respected in the field of parapsychology.

It hardly counts as a 'field'.  What scientific truth has 'the field of parapsychology' discovered?  What progress has been made?

27 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

In the end it becomes a judgment call for each of us as to who is more interested in being fair and honest with the evidence.

No, it really doesn't.  If the evidence was decent we wouldn't even be going to this irrelevancy of who is most 'fair and honest' with it, it would speak for itself.  Why are Radin's critics wrong?  They are not wrong because of your judgment call.

[papageorge1]

Here we go again, lol, bit I can't control myself.

22 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I believe you that this is your honest take, but I don't think it's very considered since, as I told you, the conditions of what is considered to be 'passing' was in an agreement, not the decision of Randi. 

IMO: Randi would take challenges for which he was sure he was going to keep his prize money. For the better psychics he'd obfuscate. 

26 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 Is your thesis now that this skeptic group is also 'conning' since Randi is dead?  Sounds like a convenient excuse.

At this point it sounds like Randi wannabees. 

27 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 

It hardly counts as a 'field'.  What scientific truth has 'the field of parapsychology' discovered?  What progress has been made?

 

For one they have shown that things do occur under controlled experiments that cannot be explained at this time by mainstream science that strongly suggest things we colloquially call 'psychic abilities'. That's highly important to fair thinkers like myself. And then there's a mountain of work on other very interesting subjects including serious analysis of so-called anecdotal experiences.

32 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 

No, it really doesn't.  If the evidence was decent we wouldn't even be going to this irrelevancy of who is most 'fair and honest' with it, it would speak for itself.  Why are Radin's critics wrong?  They are not wrong because of your judgment call.

Who judged that the evidence isn't decent? I think the contrary is led by dogmatic skeptics giving resistance with a developed irrational resistance to the paranormal. That's my personal assessment on the subject of who is most fair and honest on the subject. And that won't be solved by argumentation as we know by now. 

The two sides will continue on with their quite different beliefs on the subject. IMO: I think the future will favor people like Radin over Randi.

[+Liquid Gardens]

15 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

For the better psychics he'd obfuscate. 

There are no better psychics. Way to beg the question.

16 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

For one they have shown that things do occur under controlled experiments that cannot be explained at this time by mainstream science that strongly suggest things we colloquially call 'psychic abilities'.

They have never shown any such thing.  Science isn't based on the conclusions of one person or study, and mainstream science already incorporates ideas such as 'not all studies are well designed, conducted or accurate'.  That's why replication is important, where are all these repeated studies in science journals? Remember, Nobel Prize is on the line.

19 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

And then there's a mountain of work on other very interesting subjects including serious analysis of so-called anecdotal experiences.

Really?  Where is this mountain of work being done?  What are they studying and what have they discovered about so-called anecdotal experiences?

21 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

At this point it sounds like Randi wannabees. 

Ah, so 'sound like' is sufficient for you to draw considered conclusions, who cares about evidence and the strength of it.  Since I think this is your approach to the case for the paranormal itself, the best I can say is at least you're consistent.

24 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

That's my personal assessment on the subject of who is most fair and honest on the subject.

I think you're being absurd.  The reason that no one will win this prize is because no one has powers that are reliable and consistent, and you yourself have offered up your beliefs about why that is so (bad vibes from skeptics, you think it's unreasonable for these powers to consistently work, etc).  You have to resort to one statistician doing a questionable meta-analysis of previous studies to find a supposed psi effect because any statistical anomalies in the source studies was so weak; that would be utterly unnecessary if you had just one good psychic.

[+Liquid Gardens]

31 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

IMO: Randi would take challenges for which he was sure he was going to keep his prize money.

It wasn't 'his' prize money.  If you're suggesting that people are incentivized by money to be unfair or misleading then apply that potentially corrupting influence to Radin, author of a few popular books now.

[psyche101]

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

IMO, a negative mental atmosphere can affect things. However, those with stronger abilities can still pass a test.

And yet I posted such a test with water divining which is more accepted than most aspects of paranormal claims 

They failed. The outcome clearly indicated the odds were those of chance. 

No negativity there at all. 

This is the sort of observation you claim to factor in but you don't. That's just a lie you say. 

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

IMO: Randi was a conman and quite intelligent.

But as illustrated above, your opinion is heavily biased and unreasonable. So why should your opinion matter at all? 

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

He preferred accepting cases where thought he could show a legitimate failure. Better people stayed away from the show knowing he was not going to lose when he had final control or it would never get past an intermediate stage because he knew they might pass. I remember one of his quotes was 'I always have an out'. He is of course controversial, and I am giving you my honest considered take.

Except that in Randi's challenge the challengers got to make the rules. All they had to do was use common items to display alleged claims not ones they had brought along themselves which had not been inspected for trickery. 

If there was a genuine paranormal applicant, that person would have passed the test. 

You are just showing yourself to be a bad sport when it comes to rules. You don't feel they apply the the paranormal. Which is 100% a charlatans view. 

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Dean Radin's Biography

Sounds like someone worthy of my consideration. And his work is generally one of the most highly respected in the field of parapsychology. 

I'm lost as to how you can say he is not an authority on parapsychology.

In the end it becomes a judgment call for each of us as to who is more interested in being fair and honest with the evidence.

He is an electrical engineer. So am I. 

Belonging to a fan club like noetic isn't an actual qualification. It's a BS titie.

 

[psyche101]

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Next previously done subject here Skeptical of Skeptics; Wikipedia captured by Skeptics

 

Excerpt:

Wikipedia currently is the area in which dogmatic skeptics are most successful and influential. One of these activist groups is called Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia, founded by Susan Gerbic. Another leader of the online skeptical movement is Tim Farley, who runs the website Skeptical Software Tools.

The situation is particularly bad in any areas to do with parapsychology, alternative and complementary medicine, and on the biography pages of scientists involved in investigating these areas.

The Wikipedia skeptics work in teams (contrary to Wikipedia rules) and most are well trained. They generally operate under pseudonyms. It is not necessary to have any particular skill or expertise to become an editor. Anyone can edit. But it is necessary to understand the complex rules of Wikipedia. The skeptical activists are well versed in the rules, and are able to bully and outwit editors who are trying to ensure that articles are balanced and fair. When fair-minded editors oppose the skeptic teams, they are accused of defying the skeptical consensus, and warned that they will be banned from editing. If they persist they are indeed banned. Many such editors have been driven away, to the detriment of Wikipedia and its users. For a detailed case study, see Wikipedia, We Have a Problem.

This is why you are so terrible at promoting the paranormal.

You're true agenda is to attack a critical thinker. The skeptics.

One probably embarrassed you greatly at some point. Perhaps in person. Maybe online . I suspect someone made a tremendous fool of you at some point leading to your vigilante crusade. Now you have an axe to grind. 

This is why people with personal experiences get soooooo much more respect than you ever will. Personal beliefs are fine, personal facts are not.

Get a hold of your phobias and move forward. 

[openozy]

8 hours ago, esoteric_toad said:

This is an excuse for not being able to produce real results. 

"It doesn't work that way because [insert_reason_here]"

500,000 dollars could last a lifetime and then some in certain parts of the world.  You'd think someone would do whatever it takes to be set up to use their powers for the good of mankind. 

If you read my previous posts on this thread I explained that these things can't be duplicated. I was joking about reproducing the tulpas, it can't be done and even if I could I can't see how this would benefit anyone except the scientists pockets. How about I conjure up superman for you if you think the world needs saving because I'm not interested 🤣.

[openozy]

8 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I didn't realize that 'truly spiritual people' are so concerned about how much personal profit they'd make and are jealous that others may make more, I always thought they were enlightened and beyond such a focus on the material.

The paranormal to me and many others is our religion of sorts, it would be like Catholics auctioning off God. Bringing forth unknown entities is a very dangerous idea in my belief, I did it twice years ago and I won't do it again. Even disturbing these things as ghost hunters do is wrong and why I'm against ghost hunters, most of whom have little idea or insight.

[Alex_Rogan]

What constitutes "paranormal abilities"? Seems a bit vague.

Would a well-witcher with dowsing rods qualify? Seems there are people who make a living finding water underground for wells with their practice of "divination".

Edited January 10 by Alex_Rogan
typo

[+Liquid Gardens]

5 hours ago, openozy said:

The paranormal to me and many others is our religion of sorts, it would be like Catholics auctioning off God.

I appreciate your honesty about it.  However people don't usually believe in religions for 100% rational reasons or based on a strong evidential case.  Which would make sense as a strong evidential case does not exist for the paranormal currently.

5 hours ago, openozy said:

Bringing forth unknown entities is a very dangerous idea in my belief, I did it twice years ago and I won't do it again. Even disturbing these things as ghost hunters do is wrong and why I'm against ghost hunters, most of whom have little idea or insight.

Since we're being honest all I can tell you is that there are few things I'm less afraid of than ghosts or demons.  I'm not scared of things there's no evidence to think exist. And even if I did we're all now mostly armed with the strongest paranormal defense weapon:  a simple camera; given the lack of evidence we have nothing seems to work better at sending them running.

[openozy]

26 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

appreciate your honesty about it.  However people don't usually believe in religions for 100% rational reasons or based on a strong evidential case.  Which would make sense as a strong evidential case does not exist for the paranormal currently.

5 hours ago, openozy said:

True and that's why people call me a believer. I have personal proof though unlike people in set religions.

[openozy]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Since we're being honest all I can tell you is that there are few things I'm less afraid of than ghosts or demons.  I'm not scared of things there's no evidence to think exist. And even if I did we're all now mostly armed with the strongest paranormal defense weapon:  a simple camera; given the lack of evidence we have nothing seems to work better at sending them running.

Well that's good but you haven't been thrown upside down against a wall by an entity. I don't believe the paranormal can be filmed so a camera is nothing to whatever these things are. I've seen people delving into this and their lives spiraling downwards, it's the negativity that comes with it, not the physical part that does the damage.

[Alchopwn]

I am skeptical that the CFIIG would pay out even if someone levitated the CFIIG, building and every member separately.

[ChrLzs]

On 1/8/2024 at 5:11 AM, fred_mc said:

such events don't follow scientific requirements

?  Fred, do elaborate.  Can you discuss why, then, do ghost hunters and the like, use EM devices, cameras (inc IR and UV) and other tech?

[ChrLzs]

On 1/9/2024 at 3:42 AM, papageorge1 said:

The problem with this (and Randi's prize) is that the final judges are people determined not to lose and antagonistic to the paranormal in attitude. It's a publicity stunt. And UM is giving them a little publicity here.

Any meaningful real test requires neutral and independent final judges. I believe there are people that could win such tests.

That's absolute bull****E.  The Randi prize worked on the basis the judge/s had to be acceptable to BOTH parties, and the participants were even invited to submit how they should be tested.  Ie fairly, and in such a way they could not cheat.  How could it have been fairer, just accept the claims and hand over the money?

Please don't soil this forum with more of your deceit.