No one has ever taken the formal test. Not one person.
How many have taken the preliminary test? JREF doesn't know -- they're that badly organized.
There have been a few cases reported where JREF has killed applications by requesting changes to the protocol that effectively changing the nature of the claim made by the challenger. That makes for some great posts on the JREF forum, but otherwise hurts the reputation of the challenge itself.
In short: Randi is a fraud. He does a disservice to the skeptical co
That's my feeling, I admire his aims, but I don't respect the hypocrisy with which he aims to meet them. Ultimately, skepticism without an open mind is lacking in value. One must have an open mind when being skeptical because there's a ton of weird things over the years that have proven to be true, even though they seemed to be completely insane at the time.
The whole idea that cells are made up of even smaller particles would have seemed to be astonishing when it was first postulated, and scientists are sti
That's my feeling, I admire his aims, but I don't respect the hypocrisy with which he aims to meet them. Ultimately, skepticism without an open mind is lacking in value. One must have an open mind when being skeptical because there's a ton of weird things over the years that have proven to be true, even though they seemed to be completely insane at the time.
The whole idea that cells are made up of even smaller particles would have seemed to be astonishing when it was first postulated, and scientists are still finding smaller particles many decades later.
Or, perhaps those blind spots where the optic nerves prevent vision, I'm sure that seemed very strange when discovered. Or the ability of humans to see polarization in light, even now that seems relatively strange, even though it's true.
You are confusing discoveries which can be proven upon investigation with alleged discoveries for which no proof is ever offered.
No, I'm not. You seem to be under the impression that these ideas had proof prior to the experiments being done. Minds like Randi's are problematic because they sprout from the diea that there's nothing to it, rather than from the possibility that there's something to it. You can't do good science starting with the belief that there's nothing to it. You have to start from the point of view of, well, if this is real, what would it be like, and how can I test to see if that's the case. If you're view is that
" they sprout from the diea(sic) that there's nothing to it," yes, it's called the null hypothesis.
Learn what the fuck science is and how the fuck it works. BTW, I can find many peopel with degrees in a scientific field who don't actually know how science works. A degree doesn't not a scientist make.
" They have yet to come up with even one testable hypothesis in over 2 decades of work." actually, there are several. You sir, are an ignorant dope.
In fact, the LHC could very well find evidence to support it. But you go on with you ignorance in in how science and mathematics are used.
Fun fact (Score:0, Troll)
No one has ever taken the formal test. Not one person.
How many have taken the preliminary test? JREF doesn't know -- they're that badly organized.
There have been a few cases reported where JREF has killed applications by requesting changes to the protocol that effectively changing the nature of the claim made by the challenger. That makes for some great posts on the JREF forum, but otherwise hurts the reputation of the challenge itself.
In short: Randi is a fraud. He does a disservice to the skeptical co
Re: (Score:0)
That's my feeling, I admire his aims, but I don't respect the hypocrisy with which he aims to meet them. Ultimately, skepticism without an open mind is lacking in value. One must have an open mind when being skeptical because there's a ton of weird things over the years that have proven to be true, even though they seemed to be completely insane at the time.
The whole idea that cells are made up of even smaller particles would have seemed to be astonishing when it was first postulated, and scientists are sti
Re: (Score:2)
That's my feeling, I admire his aims, but I don't respect the hypocrisy with which he aims to meet them. Ultimately, skepticism without an open mind is lacking in value. One must have an open mind when being skeptical because there's a ton of weird things over the years that have proven to be true, even though they seemed to be completely insane at the time.
The whole idea that cells are made up of even smaller particles would have seemed to be astonishing when it was first postulated, and scientists are still finding smaller particles many decades later.
Or, perhaps those blind spots where the optic nerves prevent vision, I'm sure that seemed very strange when discovered. Or the ability of humans to see polarization in light, even now that seems relatively strange, even though it's true.
You are confusing discoveries which can be proven upon investigation with alleged discoveries for which no proof is ever offered.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm not. You seem to be under the impression that these ideas had proof prior to the experiments being done. Minds like Randi's are problematic because they sprout from the diea that there's nothing to it, rather than from the possibility that there's something to it. You can't do good science starting with the belief that there's nothing to it. You have to start from the point of view of, well, if this is real, what would it be like, and how can I test to see if that's the case. If you're view is that
Re:Fun fact (Score:2)
" they sprout from the diea(sic) that there's nothing to it,"
yes, it's called the null hypothesis.
Learn what the fuck science is and how the fuck it works.
BTW, I can find many peopel with degrees in a scientific field who don't actually know how science works. A degree doesn't not a scientist make.
" They have yet to come up with even one testable hypothesis in over 2 decades of work."
actually, there are several. You sir, are an ignorant dope.
In fact, the LHC could very well find evidence to support it. But you go on with you ignorance in in how science and mathematics are used.