FWD [SK] Re: A Field Guide to Skepticism (3 of 3)

From: Terry W. Colvin (fortean1@mindspring.com)
Date: Fri Jun 06 2003 - 23:24:02 MDT

  • Next message: Rafal Smigrodzki: "Let it burn!"

    >You'd think so, but Randi is a slippery customer, and besides his target
    >seems to be those palpable frauds or self-deluded ninnies who are easily
    >unmasked, dowsers who can't dowse and aura-readers who can't tell if
    >anyone's standing behind a screen although they swear they can see colorful
    >auras poking over the top. Presented with a probabilistic phenomenon, his
    >methods of assessment are too coarse. That would be equally true, I think,
    >if he were trying to evaluate neutrino flavor shifting en route from the
    >Sun to the Earth. `Hey, c'morn, I can't *see* these little buggers, and you
    >say most of them just zip right through lead, I want to see eight out of
    >ten on this meter here RIGHT NOW, I'm mean, WHO ARE YOU KIDDING?'
    >
    >Damien Broderick

    Can't speak for Randi (though I suspect his motivation is much the same),
    but as far as Oz Skeptics is concerned our challenge is very much directed
    at charlatans who rip-off the public. Of course they know better than to
    take the challenge, so we are largely left with the well-meaning but self
    deluded folk who are probably quite pleasant people at heart. I always try
    to talk them out of taking on the challenge.

    As for people who want to study this stuff seriously at universities, they
    don't bother us at all. It's their time and they can spend it how they
    like as long as their colleagues don't mind. It's not as though this is the
    only pointless thing that is studied at unis these days (Business
    Management springs to mind, so do assorted "Alternative" therapies). We do
    tend to get a bit cranky when these folk blame others (including Skeptics)
    for their lack of success and that they are not taken seriously.

    Barry Williams
    the Skeptic of Oz

    --------------------------

    At 09:25 AM 6/6/2003, you wrote:

    <Lee>
    Yeah, and this guy's example (below) is bogus..
    </Lee>

    >`Hey, c'morn, I can't *see* these little buggers, and you
    > >say most of them just zip right through lead, I want to see eight out of
    > >ten on this meter here RIGHT NOW, I'm mean, WHO ARE YOU KIDDING?'

    <Lee>
    Randi isn't making such a 'demand'. The testee is required to specify
    in advance what he/she can demonstrate and under what conditions.
    Randi or his staff do not configure tests without the testee's input.

    Scientists claiming neutrinos are real, CAN help devise tests to
    demonstrate their existence in a way that satisfies both parties and
    not on some arbitrary 'meter' handed to them out of the blue.

    "Here, show me you can make gold out of straw. Blow into this breathalyzer."
    </Lee>
    LWP
    The Skeptical Maine-iac

    -- 
    Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@mindspring.com >
         Alternate: < fortean1@msn.com >
    Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
    Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
          U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
    ------------
    Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
       TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Vietnam veterans,
    Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 06 2003 - 23:34:28 MDT