On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:00:47 -0700 (PDT), the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BruceS <email@example.com>:
>On Apr 8, 2:30 am, camgi...@hush.com wrote: >> On Apr 8, 6:27 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On 4/04/2011 12:29 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: >> >> > > James Randi's new book coming out... >> >> > > THE MAGICIAN IN THE LABORATORY! >> >> > > I'm going to write my own >> >> > > THE UNTESTED MINDREADER >> > > Cherry Picking Applications Is Not "Good Science" Randi! >> >> > > ------------------------------ >> >> > > Actually if Skeptics all had labotamies I would have passed a psychic >> > > test 10 years ago! >> >> > > All they have to do is listen to the applicants and follow the test >> > > instructions, but none of them do, the $1,000,000 and $100,000AU >> > > competition prizes are actually for a DEBATING COMPETITION! You have >> > > to prove your claim is worthy, i.e. make a legallly tight contract of >> > > the unprovable being provable! >> >> > Graham, your original claim to Randi was manifestly untestable. Despite >> > multiple attempts online, you have failed to construct a testable claim >> > which you can then substantiate. Why should Randi listen to you? >> >> > Sylvia >> >> stop lying. >> >> standard placebo test, which I detailed to aus skeptics. >> >> subjective is a mole hill, not a 10 year mountain. > >So come up with an objectively measurable protocol to demonstrate your >magic powers---one which shows a significant, repeatable deviation >from random effects.
Need I (ahem!) predict that the response will at some point involve the deity (or possibly weather satellites; see my other post) and dice? --
"Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless