Corwin

Think 'Skeptical Enquirer' or James Rand. As much as I respect the man, he's notorious for selling human beings short as far as what we are actually capable of doing. As an example, while having dinner with Feynman he insisted that Feynman would never be able to figure out how he'd done a mentalist's trick he had performed.... Feynman thought about it for a second, looked straight at Rand and told him exactly how the trick worked. Rand went nuts.

Put simply, there's a substantial group within the 'professional skeptics' community that are just needlessly mean spirited and closed minded to any possibility they don't understand. While they insist that they're 'open minded' their approach to science is essentially that 'everything that can be known, is known.' The fact that they insist that exactly the opposite is true doesn't change the fact that this is the approach they use.

Mageth

Originally posted by Corwin
Think 'Skeptical Enquirer' or James Rand. As much as I respect the man, he's notorious for selling human beings short as far as what we are actually capable of doing.

It's James Randi.

Name one thing of which we are actually capable of doing that Randi "sells us short" on. I'm really curious.

As an example, while having dinner with Feynman he insisted that Feynman would never be able to figure out how he'd done a mentalist's trick he had performed.... Feynman thought about it for a second, looked straight at Rand and told him exactly how the trick worked. Rand went nuts.

BTW, Randi's response to Feynman was supposedly "You didn't fall off no apple cart! You didn't get that Swedish Prize for nothing!", upon which Feynman roared with laughter. Sounds like he was praising Feynman's ability to deconstruct the trick to me.

Put simply, there's a substantial group within the 'professional skeptics' community that are just needlessly mean spirited and closed minded to any possibility they don't understand.

It's not closed-mindedness to possibilities they don't understand, it's skepticism to possibilities that lie outside the realm of "understanding". Throw some solid evidence supporting such a possibility, or demonstrate conclusively such a "possibility", and the skeptic will perhaps be convinced. It's possibility claims that aren't supported by much if any evidence that they're skeptical about.

While they insist that they're 'open minded' their approach to science is essentially that 'everything that can be known, is known.'

I've never heard any skeptic make that incredible statement. In other words, I'm very skeptical that any skeptics believe that.

The fact that they insist that exactly the opposite is true doesn't change the fact that this is the approach they use.

The fact that you say that is the approach they use does not make it true, either.

Marduk

Corwin has a point, Randi can be annoying. I was paging through one of his books where he was debunking Pyramidiots (a simple task you’d think) He was ranting about how the claims that the Pyramids were built to such a tolerance that you can’t slip a razor blade between the stones were bogus. “here look! a gap of almost 4 inches!”
This was dishonest, he was measuring the outer walls which have fallen apart over the last 4000 years not the still intact inner walls which even serious Egyptologists still marvel at. It wasn’t even a Pyramidiot claim to start with.

Corwin

No, it's James Rand, AKA 'The Amazing Randi.' Randi is a stage name based on his real one.

When he finally regained his composure, yes.... this was his response. Prior to this he flipped out with 'there's no WAY you could have guessed that!!! You didn't have enough information!!!' (Ignoring the fact that as a physicist, Feynman was completely used to working with inadequate information.)

Refusal to accept findings that conflict with their preconceptions (such as with alternative medicine) or to even consider theories regarding phenomina they've already discounted, regardless of their merit, (such as the anthropological explanation for the various bigfoot/yeti myths) is nothing more than pseudointellectual snobbishness at its worst. (I was trying to be polite before.)

Read again, they don't make it and I specifically said they didn't. They do, however, act on that exact assumption, whether they voice it or not.

Try proposing something 'alternative' among such people. Go ahead and back yourself up with as much data as you like. It won't help.

Secular Pinoy

What is a skeptic? See A Skeptical Manifesto.

Jet Grind

I am a hardcore skeptic, plain and simple.

Mageth

Originally posted by Corwin
No, it's James Rand, AKA 'The Amazing Randi.' Randi is a stage name based on his real one.

No, it's James Randi, aka "The Amazing Randi." Here's a list of books by the author James Randi. If his name ever was Rand (which I couldn't verify in a quick search), he now goes by James Randi, and that's the name people will recognize.

When he finally regained his composure, yes.... this was his response. Prior to this he flipped out with 'there's no WAY you could have guessed that!!! You didn't have enough information!!!' (Ignoring the fact that as a physicist, Feynman was completely used to working with inadequate information.)

Randi reportedly made the "not enough information" comment before Feynman solved the trick, to which Feynman responded "What do you mean? Physicists never have enough information". Here's a site that includes an account of the incident.

Refusal to accept findings that conflict with their preconceptions (such as with alternative medicine) or to even consider theories regarding phenomina they've already discounted, regardless of their merit, (such as the anthropological explanation for the various bigfoot/yeti myths) is nothing more than pseudointellectual snobbishness at its worst. (I was trying to be polite before.)

Once again, where's the friggin' evidence? If anyone ever came up with solid scientific research that supported some of the wilder alternative medicine claims, or came up with some real, solid, scientific evidence that any such thing as a bigfoot or yeti actually exists, then perhaps the skeptic could give the claims some serious consideration. Until then, seriously considering such frivoulous claims is a waste of time.

Claiming someone is exhibiting "pseudointellectual snobbishness at its worst" because they won't seriously consider half-assed claims supported by little or no solid research or evidence is a form of pseudointellectual snobbishness in and of itself.

Read again, they don't make it and I specifically said they didn't. They do, however, act on that exact assumption, whether they voice it or not.

So, I take it mind reading is one of the incredible possibilities you believe in? You have no idea what "assumptions" anyone is acting on if they don't honestly tell you.

Try proposing something 'alternative' among such people. Go ahead and back yourself up with as much data as you like. It won't help.

Bullshit. Produce a real, live Bigfoot (or even a recently dead one) and see how many skeptics refuse to accept them as extant.

Mageth

Corwin has a point, Randi can be annoying.

I agree, sometimes he can. But Corwin, with his "pseudointellectual snobbishness" etc., is taking it way too far.

Corwin

And the sheer invective comes out again.

I'll give you the name issue Mag... I've seen it the other way as well. It's secondary to the issue anyway.

Several other accounts, (which I don't have time to find again 15 minutes before I go home from work) have him making the statement in both places. Note also from your link,

It's THIS attitude that's the problem.

It's more important for him to be a bigshot 'debunker' than to get to the truth. He's not interested in figuring out HOW Feynman can do this, he's only interested in proving himself right.

Again... I have a lot of respect for him, and he does important work. But I have no particular illusions about him.

Any number of citations on any number of subjects have been brought up in this very forum.... and ignored by you and others like you. It doesn't fit your preconceptions.... so who cares if it works? It doesn't fit, so ergo it doesn't work. Hence there's no need to look for why it works because it doesn't work, QED. Cue the 'feeling smug and self-satisfied' bit.

I don't have to read their minds. I simply have to read the statements they make. When you provide a study (as has been done with accupuncture, for example) and see it brushed aside because 'it just can't work....' the intent becomes clearly obvious.

Produce a statement where we are saying we can actually find them, or are stating that giganto definitely is sasquatch? Oh that's right. Strawmen are the preferred tactic here.

Do you accept the possibility that there may in fact be extant specimens of gigantopithicus? Yes or no? The answer will be somewhat telling. Once we've discussed possibilities, we can discuss realities.... and hopefully we can avoid attributing statements to some people that they've never made. (For once.)

Actually I'd say the knee-jerk attack on anything outside the mainstream is 'taking it way too far.' But that's just me.... the rabid nutcase, right?

Skeptics are like Libertarians. Both have a marginalized community that fit the mold, and refuse to associate themselves with the idealogical fanatics who have attached themselves to the label.

Mageth

Originally posted by Corwin
And the sheer invective comes out again.

Umm, you're the one initiating the comments such as "pseudointellectual snobbishness".

Several other accounts, (which I don't have time to find again 15 minutes before I go home from work) have him making the statement in both places.

Note, the account I posted has this comment: "The next evening, Randi and Feynman were at my house for dinner." I think I'll stick with the veracity of this account.

Note also from your link,

"Later, on another visit to Caltech, Randi once again joined us for lunch. He did another trick for Feynman, this time a card trick. I DELIBERATELY misled you this time! Randi stated. Feynman paid him no attention. In less than three minutes, Feynman solved the trick. I'm never going to show you another trick again! declared a frustrated Randi."

It's THIS attitude that's the problem.

It's more important for him to be a bigshot 'debunker' than to get to the truth. He's not interested in figuring out HOW Feynman can do this, he's only interested in proving himself right."

I'm not sure you're reading Randi's response right. His frustration may simply be attributed to his inability for his magic trick to fool Feynman. Indeed, that sounds like the case to me.

Again... I have a lot of respect for him, and he does important work. But I have no particular illusions about him.

And neither do I.

Any number of citations on any number of subjects have been brought up in this very forum.... and ignored by you and others like you. It doesn't fit your preconceptions.... so who cares if it works? It doesn't fit, so ergo it doesn't work. Hence there's no need to look for why it works because it doesn't work, QED. Cue the 'feeling smug and self-satisfied' bit.

Well, that sounds a bit "invective" to me. Invective strawman, to boot.

Have you paused to think that my, and other's, hesitation in accepting such claims is that the citations posted are not of accepatble quality, are not verifiable, not repeatable? If real, repeatable, scientific evidence is presented to back a claim, if a subject is actually shown to work, I damn sure will seriously consider it in spite of any "preconceptions". BTW, you have absolutely no idea of any preconceptions I may or may not have.

I don't have to read their minds. I simply have to read the statements they make.

But you said they never said it. You claim to know they "act on that exact assumption". How can you know what assumptions anyone is acting on? So which is it?

When you provide a study (as has been done with accupuncture, for example) and see it brushed aside because 'it just can't work....' the intent becomes clearly obvious.

Umm, I happen to think accupuncture does work - it's called the placebo effect. One interesting study I saw involved doing double blind testing on subjects, treating some with real needles and some with "pseudoneedles" that didn't penetrate the skin. The results were fundamentally equivalent for both techniques. The effect is in the mind of the subject.

Produce a statement where we are saying we can actually find them, or are stating that giganto definitely is sasquatch? Oh that's right. Strawmen are the preferred tactic here.

WTF are you talking about? Honestly, I don't know what you mean by this. What strawman? If you want to see strawmen, look at some of your own stuff in this post.

I was responding to your statement: "Try proposing something 'alternative' among such people. Go ahead and back yourself up with as much data as you like. It won't help. "

"As much data as I would like" would include, for bigfoot, a real specimen. If one was produced and shown to be authentic, most if not all bigfoot skeptics would obviously change their mind. How the hell is that a strawman? If anything, your portrayal of "such people" as never accepting something "alternative" when "as much data as the believer would like" (i.e. conclusive proof) is presented is the strawman. A big, hairy, strawman with big feet.

Do you accept the possibility that there may in fact be extant specimens of gigantopithicus? Yes or no? The answer will be somewhat telling.

There's a possibility, but a very small one. And if you want to discuss it further, I'd suggest you open a new thread in this (the Science & Skepticism) forum.

Once we've discussed possibilities, we can discuss realities.... and hopefully we can avoid attributing statements to some people that they've never made. (For once.)

I have no idea what that comment's referring to. Once again, if you want to discuss the possibilities or "realities" of bigfoot/yeti, I'd suggest opening a new thread in the Science & Skepticism forum.

Actually I'd say the knee-jerk attack on anything outside the mainstream is 'taking it way too far.' But that's just me.... the rabid nutcase, right?

Did I say that? What was that about avoiding "attributing statements to some people that they've never made"?

Skeptics are like Libertarians. Both have a marginalized community that fit the mold, and refuse to associate themselves with the idealogical fanatics who have attached themselves to the label.

Oh, okay. Is that supposed to mean something?