|
|
Re: SKEPTICS SHOULD HAVE LABOTAMIES NOT LABORATORIES !!!
Posted:
Apr 8, 2011 6:24 PM
|
|
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:00:47 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BruceS
<bruces42@hotmail.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?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
|
|
