MrDarwin

Yet you have also rejected the writings of James Randi, whom many of us would consider an authority on the subject. He's certainly studied and investigated a lot more of these claims than any of the rest of us have. I'm curious as to what criteria you might use to accord somebody some measure of credible authority on a subject.

infidelchic

Name calling? I posted an article on "Pet Psychics" written by James Randi and this was your response:

Then you proceeded to say these things:
?

Jayhawker Soule

And you seem to have a bit of difficulty avoiding cheap shots. Why not put it to rest and re-focus on the topic?

In my opinion, the topic is a good one. I, for one, particularly appreciate scigirl's comment: "when the claim seems to defy known scientific principles ..., it should be rejected (until data proves the original known scientific principles are incorrect)."

Corwin

So do I.... but you don't see me treating all of Veil's posts as a single topic, and introducing posts from other threads that people following this one may not have read.

Personally I think Sci & Co. are being quite reasonable here.... especially in the face of Veil's unmitigated hysterical mindless extreme skepticism. (OOOOO we can't actually KNOW anything...)

DMB

When I was a young woman I was rather more "open-minded" (=gullible) than I have become in the light of experience. I sometimes took the "there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy" line. But age has increased my scepticism. Too often claims are made on behalf of the latest perpetual motion machine or wonder panacea, and I simply sigh, "Here we go again".

I endorse everything that Arrowman has said above. In fact IMO one of the biggest harms done by religion is to divert attention, time and resources away from solving the real problems of humanity. Quackery also causes harm in many ways and we cannot spare the time and resources constantly to keep proving that the earth is not flat.

When presented with any claim, we need, if we are to be able to lead a normal life, to be able to decide fairly quickly whether it is likely to be worthwhile or not. We do this based on past experience of snake-oil sellers and on a basic understanding of science. If on this rough-and-ready basis we decide something looks like a silly waste of time, we put it aside.

Such practical judgements should never preclude the possibility of a later change of opinion, but we are not obliged to pay it further attention unless and until some startling and compelling evidence in favour of the claim is forthcoming.

With regard to "pet psychics", a lot of people on this board have explained why there is a general problem about psychics in general. In a recent edition of Skeptical Inquirer someone made the good point that no psychic gave a clear and unambiguous warning of the events of 11th September 2001 (although, of course, we quickly got some spurious Nostradamus verses).

One of the things that has been mentioned above is that claims we don't take seriously do not normally supply any scientific basis for the claimed phenomena. From my experience of quacks and snake-oil sellers, I would go further and say that very often they give what is obviously a pseudoscientific explanation. My own mother claims to be a psychic and her explanation is that she picks up "waves in the ether", without any ability to specify a receptor in her body to register these waves.

Similarly, when I asked a reiki practitioner how his stuff was supposed to work, he claimed that waving his hands over people focused energy on them. He couldn't say what sort of energy and got very angry when pressed, saying that everyone knows that the universe is made of energy. Yippee! We don't need power stations any more; just gather a lot of reiki adepts to focus the energy of the universe where we need it!

I would have a bit more respect for some of these people if they said something along the lines of, "I don't know how it works, but I do sometimes get positive results."

For anyone who is interested in the whole topic of quackery and con-artistry, I would recommend two plays from the early 17th century by Ben Jonson: The Alchemist and Volpone. The former, in particular, is all about con-artists and is very funny. Although the particular spurious claims made in Jonson's plays may differ slightly from those made by, say, Yuri Geller, there is a strong family resemblance. The eager gulls are much as nowadays.

There is a difference between scepticism and blank denial. Scepticism is largely a protective stance. We do not believe that anyone is going to win Randi's $1 million any time soon, but we would be interested and intrigued if anyone did. The sceptic should be prepared to modify his/her initial disbelief in the light of solid evidence.

Veil of Fire

echidna:
True. But I see nothing to validate it either. Which is my whole point. If I can't validate or invalidate based on the evidence I have, I don't make a conclusion. Making a conclusion based on something that also wouldn't meet my conclusion criteria doesn't make much sense to me.

Darwin:
That's a good point. I'll have to think about it. My personal (and unverifiable as of yet) feelings about Mr. Randi could be clouding my judgement in that regard... however, I still take issue with his frequent use of what *appears to be* appeal to ridicule. It might not be, as you've explained already, but it seems to provide just as many conclusions.

DMB:
I could agree with all that. However, my beef is not with the validity of the reasoning that leads someone to reject a claim. My beef is with people who refuse to elaborate on their reasoning for rejecting a claim.

If I don't know what they object to, I can't very well engage them in a discussion around it, can I?

Secular Pinoy

Why can't you validate it? Biased against skepticism perhaps? What makes something valid for you? If it confirms your prior beliefs and background (wiccan/pagan right?)? Open minded? Yeah right!!! (In case you're dense VoF, that last one was sarcastic.)

Jayhawker Soule

That didn't even make sense.

Veil of Fire

What's there to validate? I can't look up his references, because he didn't supply any. I can't examine his anecdotes, because he didn't supply any.

What in that paragraph is in any way verifiable? Am I missing something?

echidna

VoF is correct though, that these types of responses are completely unnecessary & unconstructive. Really I couldn’t give a toss if VoF also uses a similar style or not.

I don’t give a toss who does it, when or why. This type is response is a waste of bandwidth.