People

Sylvia Browne

Login Form






Lost Password?
No account yet? Register

Syndicate

Featured Item

A Secret of the Universe
A Secret of the Universe

Add to Cart

TAM 5.5 DVD Set
TAM 5.5 DVD Set

Add to Cart

Events Calendar

« < May 2008 > »
S M T W T F S
27 28 29 30 1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Event Registration

Jun 19 2008 - Jun 22 2008 The Amaz!ng Meeting 6, Flamingo Hotel & Casino, Las Vegas

SWIFT May 2, 2008 Print E-mail
Written by James Randi   
Thursday, 01 May 2008
Table of Contents
  1. Could Astrology Be Bunk?

  2. Another Devastating Video

  3. A Revelation

  4. Sniff the Woo-Woo

  5. Three Weeks to Go

  6. A presumption

  7. More UK Woo-Woo

  8. More Unfounded Hysteria

  9. In Closing…



COULD ASTROLOGY BE BUNK?

deankelly

Perish the thought! How could it be that a belief thousands of years old might be erroneous? No, don’t hand me that tired old the-Earth-isn’t-flat parallel. Belief in astrology is very well established, and astrologers are wealthy and in demand. Even India, one of our centers of philosophical and mathematical genius, has astrology as an intimate part of its day-to-day life!

Well, we’re now informed that serious researchers have – beyond any reasonable doubt – tossed astrology on the scrap-pile, as a result of the completion of the most thorough scientific study ever made into it. You see, they have been tracking more than 2,000 persons, most of whom were born within minutes of each other. Now, according to classical astrology, these subjects should have had very similar traits, since birth-time is a very important factor in this ancient “science,” and should be a particularly decisive element in the fortunes of humans. Astrology has always insisted that its central claim, that human characteristics are molded by the influence of the Sun, Moon and planets at the exact time of birth, is a valid item to be examined in order to test this “science.” Up until now, they have simply pointed out whatever similarities they could find between what they call, “time-twins,” a process which to the serious investigator is categorized as “data-searching,” or looking for corroborative data rather than examining all available data.

This current finding came about as a result of a totally different data-base study. Birth data on more than 2,000 babies had been originally gathered as part of a medical study begun in London in 1958, a study into how the circumstances of birth might affect their future health conditions. Babies born in early March that year were registered, and for the next half-century, their subsequent development was monitored at regular intervals. Researchers looked at more than one hundred different characteristics: eventual occupation, anxiety levels, marital status, aggressiveness, marriage partners, sociability, IQ levels, as well as abilities in art, sport, mathematics and reading – all were recorded. And, co-incidentally, of these happened to be factors which astrologers claim can be evaluated from the “birth charts” they draw up for their gullible clients.

So, a legitimate, proper, study of how the early influences of birth factors could change or mold adults who developed from those basic elemental babies, turned out to be what is now seen as a definitive blow against the presumptions of the star-gazing early sooth-sayers – whose sooth now appears to be very faulty: no significant evidence of similarities between the "time twins" was found. The researchers reported this in a recent issue of the “Journal of Consciousness Studies,” saying:

The test conditions could hardly have been more conducive to success… but the results are uniformly negative.

Analysis of this research was carried out by Dr. Geoffrey Dean, a scientist and former astrologer - now thoroughly reformed - based in Perth, Australia, and Professor Ivan Kelly, a psychologist at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada. Dr. Dean has an interesting history: he was once a professional astrologer, but upon examining his “art” more carefully and testing its claims, he discovered that it was an invalid premise, and ever since then he has continued to question its claims, using his knowledge of the inner world of the trade and how it promotes its flummery. In examining this new data-base, he commented on one of the fallacies of the practitioners:

[The astrologers] sometimes argue that times of birth just a minute apart can make all the difference by altering what they call the “house cusps,” but in their work, they are happy to take whatever time they can get from a client.

Think about it: how many persons are likely to know the exact time of their own births? Not many, and yet the 50-year study cited here only accepted “time-twins” about whom an exact time was recorded, so this was an excellent chance to test astrology – a chance that astrologers themselves should have been eager to embrace.

But the findings caused alarm and anger in astrological circles – no surprise at all to us. Astrologer Roy Gillett, the president of the Astrological Association of Great Britain, bristled that the study's findings should be treated "with extreme caution," and accused Geoffrey Dean of seeking to "discredit astrology." How that conclusion could be reached, when Dean and Kelly both accepted – in advance – to examine the data from this independent source as a test of the validity of astrology, is yet another mystery, this time of how astrologers think - if, indeed, they do.

Now, the Association of Professional Astrologers claims that 80 per cent of Britons read star columns, and other studies have found that 60 per cent regularly read their horoscopes. This new research will have next-to-zero impact on such faithfully self-deluded individuals, who value their fantasies much more than any facts of reality. Astrology is a huge international business, fueling thousands of telephone lines, internet sites and horoscope columns in newspapers and magazines. Even more frightening, a recent survey found that one-third of science students subscribed to some aspects of astrology, while some supposedly hard-headed businessmen now support a thriving market in "financial astrology," paying for predictions of trends such as the rise and fall of the stock market. Mind you, as we reported in SWIFT previously, we know of businesses that subscribe to astrologers services because they want to know in what direction their opposition – who seriously follow astrological horoscopes – are likely to go… Weird…

The time-twins study is only the start of the bad news for astrologers, however. Dr. Dean and Professor Kelly also sought to determine whether stargazers could match a birth chart to the personality profile of a person among a random selection. They reviewed the evidence from more than 40 studies involving over 700 astrologers, but found the results turned out no better than guesswork.

And the Dean/Kelly team has only met the initial onslaught…!




ANOTHER DEVASTATING VIDEO

We at JREF are celebrating the fact that 103,000+ (at this moment) viewers have clicked in on our 95 different videos which are on our JREF YouTube channel. That’s very satisfying, indeed. But reader “Jurek” directs us to something even more devastating than the item of last week at tinyurl.com/57h4no:

In Swift from April 11, 2008, you showed a video where two proselytizers were brainwashing children about evolution...The title of this item was "Disturbing." It was indeed disturbing, but I think that it pales in comparison with this – tinyurl.com/2ur2ur. And it was shown to kids! This is an unforgivable crime. THAT'S disturbing. I wish those people who doubt that Christianity is child abuse, would see it... And these are the ones responsible – http://www.tbfduncan.org.

I sincerely warn you on this one, as I did in the previous video. It's very disturbing...

And from reader Hank Hammer comes this comment on the same item:

Here is a copy of the email I sent to the Denver Museum of Nature and Science on 4/12/08. It’s almost 3 weeks later and still no reply: it's a good thing I'm great at holding my breath.

I must commend you on your open-mindedness in allowing creationists to host a tour of your museum for children. I have no problem with such a tour if done professionally. But, I watched the video of the tour and I would like to tell you why I am disturbed by what I observed. What I saw was two docents using brain-washing techniques on little kids. As evidence, let me list some of the things that I observed. “TG” means, Tour Guide:

TG: What is the J-word?

The children obediently answered "Jesus."

TG: Everybody look at me and say, "no." Try that with me, "no."

The children obediently echoed "No."

TG: Are you seeing any signs of scientific evidence here? No. What are you seeing? Artwork.

Can you imagine how loudly these docents would scream bloody murder if the other guides said that about the creationist tour? Very unprofessional to attack the other museum tours.

TG: Is evolution a religion? Yes. It is a religious belief.

That is easily proven to be wrong. And what if the other guides said that the creationist tour was a "fantasy"? These two docents would accuse the museum of religious discrimination, yet it is okay for them to attack and ridicule the other tours.

TG: I come here for good science; not somebody's science fiction.

I come here for facts; not somebody's fantasy.

TG: This is a fairy tale.

Can you imagine their reaction if this had been said about their tour by the other docents? Yet they are allowed to say this to impressionable young children.

TG: Everybody try that with me in unison – How do they know?

The children obediently repeat it.

TG: Let's try that again in unison – How do they know?

After the children obediently repeat it again the docents reward them by saying "Very well done." Talk about Nazi brain-washing techniques – that's right out of “Mein Kampf.”

If there were a tape of a “regular” tour, I'm sure we'd find that those docents would be teaching the kids about the exhibits in the museum, but I doubt that they would be attacking and ridiculing the “creationist” tour in such an unprofessional manner. If you want to allow them to present a creationist tour, that is fine. But I think you need to either re-train the two docents on this video and teach them to understand that while presenting history from their perspective is fine, using brain-washing techniques on little kids is not; or replace these two very unprofessional guides with Christians who can do their job professionally and in the best interests of the children.

I would appreciate a reply that I can post on web sites that are interested in, and are waiting for, your response.

Randi, before you castigate me, I would like to say that I was slightly disingenuous when I told them that I had no problem with the museum allowing a “creationist” tour. I put that in there only because I thought it would be more likely that they would read the whole email and maybe even send back a response. Either they saw through my veiled attempt or they simply want the clamor to just die away and they think it will if they just ignore it.

Hank, ignoring it is always safe. You’ve nowhere to go, to re-state your complaint, and just ignoring such material is always safe. The Denver Museum seems to specialize in remaining ignorant. But that may be too harsh a judgment; next week, we’ll hear from a fan who explains the reasons behind the museum’s stance…




A REVELATION

Reader Aaron Drabbit, in Canada:

It's been some time since I last wrote, but I've been enjoying the weekly SWIFT as usual. I've been busy; I live just outside of Victoria BC, the "garden city" of the Pacific Northwest, and it’s spring....and I'm a gardener. So as I dig, plant, fertilize and inspect every emerging shoot in my landscape I'm also researching new and improved ways to make my garden grow. Imagine my delight when my favorite hobby and a healthy dose of skepticism collided this week when I discovered this website: tinyurl.com/6j6ang. It's like MythBusters and HGTV had a love child and christened it in the Church of Reason. Not only has it exposed many myths that I have – ignorantly – been promoting (who would ever have thought that using bone meal during transplanting could be BAD for root development?!), but there are some excellent articles even a non-gardener can appreciate such as: "If it's published it must be true": tinyurl.com/5vuylo

Randi notes: Go ahead, open the file. It’s safe…

For somebody like me this was a very exciting find – and one I just had to share. Interestingly, in a discussion with my wife, it brought up the profound difference between the scientific approach to life, and the religious one. When I was faced with new information, well researched and expertly presented, data that immediately dispelled beliefs that I had wholeheartedly accepted, my world didn't come crashing down. Quite the contrary! I found new energy and excitement at the prospect that I had been "doing it wrong" all these years, but I now had the knowledge I needed to put things right. It made me realize that I love being proven wrong! That, it seems, is perhaps the biggest difference between the religious and scientific approach. I don't know many "believers" who relish the idea that they might be wrong....




SNIFF THE WOO-WOO

mkn

Reader Martino Ciaramidaro of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, alerts us to startling news. As if we needed evidence against the myth that merely sniffing nice flavors and/or fragrances could produce healing – or even a physical boost of any sort – a nearly $374,000 grant from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the National Institutes of Health has just been consumed in a comprehensive two-year experiment at Ohio State University to assess the claims of “aromatherapy,” a charming New Age notion that will – I’m sure – continue to sail right on as if nothing happened to disturb its reign in the woo-woo world.

Such eager customers as Continental Airlines, British Airways (as part of their “Well Being in the Air” program), Virgin Atlantic, Malaysia Airlines, Air New Zealand, Lufthansa and Aero Mexico have embraced aromatherapy as a special service for their above-tourist-class passengers. They seem to believe that it “motivates the body, mind and the spirit” via “essential oils used in combination with carrier oils like apricot kernel, jojoba, sweet almond and grape seed” which are

…applied on the body for massaging. Aromatherapy is now used to treat a whole range of conditions and is believed to work on people both physically and psychologically… when you smell an essential oil, it triggers the limbic system – the part of the brain that controls emotions and stores and retrieves learned memories – and relaxes you. [It also] combats the effects of jet-lag and travel fatigue, alleviating symptoms of dry pressurized cabin air and creating a general feeling of well-being.

Well, that’s now been seriously questioned by tests performed on two of the “heavy hitters” in the world of “smell good”: lemon and lavender. The Ohio State University researchers – Ronald Glaser and Janice K. Kiecolt-Glaser – conducted what they say is the most scientifically rigorous test of physical changes caused by smelling these two popular scents – and came up with nothing. Their report appeared in the March issue of the journal “Psychoneuroendocrinology,” which all by itself calls for special training in pronunciation…

Properly randomized and controlled trials that tested heart rate, blood pressure, stress hormones and immune functions, showed no significant changes before and after the big sniff. In fact, some of the 56 men and women in the two-year study actually showed a stronger reaction to distilled water than to either of the identified aromas.

The issue of specific sense-priority, I think, can enter in here. We all know of persons who assign different strengths to the senses of touch, smell, taste, vision, and hearing – though those are not the only senses we experience. Motion, acceleration, pressure, temperature change, and other “senses” seem to have been ignored or devalued when that list was drawn up. For example, a good friend of mine is color-blind to red, but his senses of smell and of change of intensity of color-hue, are very well-developed, to a point of inconvenience.

Yes, the OSU tests showed that certain scents did seem to affect mood, but didn’t do anything physiologically, which had been an expectation of adherents to the idea. The study subjected volunteers to mild stress agencies and then measured how quickly they recovered. There was no significant response to lavender and lemon, which figure prominently in essential oils, lotions and sprays marketed as remedies for a range of ailments by the multi-million-dollar aromatherapy industry. The physiological indications didn’t change, even when some of the truly-believing volunteers – people who attested to the power of aromatherapy and regularly bought good-smelling products to soothe themselves – were told what scents they were sniffing, and what pleasant side effects they should expect to experience.

As we would expect, the results of the study didn’t alter the convictions of Kathy Keville, a noted aromatherapist and author of a dozen books on the subject, including “Aromatherapy for Dummies.” Though Kathy didn’t dispute the science behind the Glasers’ work, she said that any of the more than 200 essential oils she uses regularly might have led to different results – and we must agree that she has a point. Also, she said, applying the essential oils topically instead of simply sniffing might also have produced different effects. Aromatherapy, said Ms. Keville, may not be a cure for specific illnesses or pain, but it’s a great adjunct therapy, she said. Yes, feeling good is – good – but as always, the question is whether a consumer only wants to feel better, or wants to be better…

The Glasers say they would have been happy to report that a whiff of lavender or lemon cures what ails you – if it were true. OSU officials said – in my view, so as not to completely discourage the True Believers – the small exploratory study offers “a good basis for future research.”

Duh.




THREE WEEKS TO GO

truth

Well, you all recall the Steorn & Orbo farces that we handled here on SWIFT. Now we learn that the entire world is going to change on June 20th, but not due to some unforeseen problem with these devices. Just go to freeenergytruth.blogspot.com/2008/04/free-energy-on-june-20th-fe-truth-world.html. I’m told that a link to the website is at the very end of the interview here. The illustration shows the current state of the “free energy” logo…




A PRESUMPTION

The latest in presumptive farces has been laying rational folks in the aisles and bringing devout believers to shout hosannahs. A choir director who believes that prayer can bring down high gas prices is trying out his approach at some of the costliest pumps in the country. A 59-year-old man named Rocky Twyman of Washington, D.C., went to San Francisco last weekend to stage a pray-in at a Chevron station. Why Chevron was chosen, isn’t revealed. Twyman is also calling on churchgoers across the nation to ask for God's intervention where he says politicians have failed. He wants God to provide cheaper gasoline to the faithful! Our Dale Lockwood comments:

It seems that if the delusional economics of certain presidential candidates are not sufficient – giving tax breaks for gas to encourage demand in a tight supply situation – we just have to move up the org chart another level or two and ask the big man. I don't seem to remember where in the Bible it says that God is concerned about our ability to access cheap gas and continue pouring out greenhouse gases. I suppose the appeal to the supernatural could just be considered "Intelligent Economics" and the Dismal Science will be next to face religion in the classroom.

But Jay Leno had the most appropriate observation on this matter. Said he:

I think perhaps this appeal should have been made to Allah, not to God.




MORE UK WOO-WOO

liverpool

It appears that I have a lot of work to do in the UK. Reader Marcus Hill tells us:

I was skimming through the internal news bulletin of Liverpool John Moores University, my esteemed employers. My skeptical eye was naturally caught by the word "Reiki", so I read more closely:

LJMU is Celebrating Learning at Work in 2008. As part of this we are running the following events: Reiki

Diversity Matters UK is offering Taster Sessions of Reiki at a fee of £10 per person. Reiki is a technique for stress reduction and relaxation that also promotes healing. It gives feelings of peace, tranquillity and positive wellbeing.

[date, venue and booking details]

This was followed by

Tai Chi

These sessions introduce the Chinese health regime, which has been practiced for around 4000 years. The benefits are that it helps participants gain peace of mind and longevity. It is also a great stress buster and a means of keeping fit. [Provider's name] is offering free one hour sessions on the following dates.

[date, venue and booking details]

I spotted a couple of huge claims in there, so I emailed the following to the staff development person listed as the booking contact:

I was interested to see the claims in the session descriptions for Reiki and Tai Chi in the latest LJMU bulletin that the former “promotes healing” and the latter “helps participants gain … longevity”. These are interesting and quite extraordinary medical claims. Since LJMU is an institution of learning with an international reputation, I know we wouldn’t be promulgating unfounded medical claims, so I’d be really interested if you would point me towards the peer reviewed publications of double-blind placebo controlled trials (i.e. the standard level of evidence required for such medical claims) which prove the efficacy of Reiki in promoting healing and Tai Chi in increasing lifespan. If no such evidence exists (and I’m pretty sure you’ll find it doesn’t), you really should add disclaimers or phrases such as “whose practitioners claim” to any future promotion of scientifically unproven so-called “healing” or “health regimes.”

 

I'll let you know if there is any kind of interesting reply!




MORE UNFOUNDED HYSTERIA

Reader Avital Pilpel comments on the item last week at randi.org/joom/swift/swift/swift-april-25-2008-2.html#i4:

As you correctly note, mass hysteria – something odd or unwanted occurred, so it MUST BE a conspiracy by the people of the BAD group, let's get 'em! – is hardly limited to the Congolese people. Here’s one recent example from Israel, as reported by the biggest newspaper in the country, "Yediot Aharonot":

In a small, mostly Jewish, village (which shall remain here unnamed), the pharmacist of the village's drug store is an Arab. He was accused of "poisoning his Jewish patients." The evidence? As the newspaper reported, one woman "felt sick" after she took the medicine he prescribed, and she asked around. Two or three of her neighbors, when interrogated by her (in a completely objective manner, I'm sure) recalled a similar experience!

What more evidence do you need? It might seem odd that the pharmacist, of all people, is such an inefficient poisoner that all he could manage was to make a few of his dozens of patients slightly nauseated, but that just proves how SECRET the poisoning conspiracy was, you see.

To its credit, the paper gave ample space to the pharmacist to reply (he was flabbergasted, understandably), noted the weakness of the evidence, and strongly implied that he's innocent. Since then I've heard nothing; if he were arrested or, for that matter, lynched, it would surely have been reported. The matter was probably dropped after the police, to whom the "poisoned" patients complained, found no evidence to prosecute.

What have we learned? The importance of the rule of law, and of a free press. The police and courts are, among other things, necessary, exactly in order to make sure those who "everybody knows" are guilty –usually members of a disliked group – do not get the lynching they "deserve," and the free press can call attention to such issues and allow criticism.




IN CLOSING…

If you need any more proof of the inanity of scientology and the rantings of its founder, L. Ron Hubbard, go to file.sunshinepress.org:54445/scientology-ot-levels.pdf. As usual, just go to any page, any paragraph, and try to make sense of the drivel...

And go to www.nycskeptics.org/darwin08 to see the coolest T-shirt…! See! Buy!

Our associate Jeff Wagg writes about an individual who uses the name “Mabus” – taken from a fictitious name found in the Nostradamus ravings – who has sent us – literally – hundreds and hundreds of spam items, and copies to many hundreds of others, as well. He’s a used-computer salesman somewhere in the wilds of Quebec, where he appears to be – at least temporarily – unemployed, and has a lot of time on his hands. Though we’ve effectively cut him off via a sophisticated spam filtering system, we’ve also decided to fight fire with fire. Says Jeff:

Sorry to spam the list. This rather confused individual's name is Dennis Markuze. His regular e-mail address is sales@usedcomputershop.com. He can also be found at markuze@usedcomputershop.com. He might enjoy getting some e-mail from his admirers.

I’m sure you get the message…

Finally, go to tinyurl.com/5gw54z, download and save the powerful FrontLine program that expresses so well the long-standing battle that SWIFT - along with many others - has had with the advocates of the ridiculous pseudoscientific notion known as “Facilitated Communication.” Get it quickly, before the zealots who support this farce can get it taken down – and they will try to do that, I guarantee you…

We have received an official notice from Ms. Susan Ferrell, Attorney at Law, who writes:

I am the Student's Legal Advisor at the University of Arizona. I am writing on behalf of Anastasia Gorbunova, who is the subject of an article in the March 16, 2007 edition of "Swift." The article states that Ms.Gorbunova is a research assistant for Gary Schwartz. Ms. Gorbunova most emphatically denies that she has ever been a graduate researcher for Dr. Schwartz. I understand that the contributor, whose anecdote was the basis for the article, has already unsuccessfully asked you to take it down. Ms. Gorbunova is asking again that you take the article down or at the very least remove her name. She is prepared to take legal action if she cannot prevail upon you to take it down voluntarily.

I hope that will not be necessary.

The mention from 2007 can be found at http://www.randi.org/joom/swift/swift/swift-march-16-2007.html#i3. Note that Ms. Gorbunova only denies that she was “a graduate researcher for Dr. [Gary] Schwartz,” not that she wasn’t “shaken up” by the “psychic energy” that the magician was seemingly putting out... Imagination is a strong force among the naive.

We hereby comply with this urgent request...


Signature





Reddit!Del.icio.us!Google!Technorati!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites! title=
Comments (58)Add Comment
...
written by Kimpatsu, May 02, 2008
Even India, one of our centers of philosophical and mathematical genius, has astrology as an intimate part of it’s day-to-day life!

..."has atstrology sa part of IT IS day-to-day-life", Randi? Surely not!
...
written by Osmwon, May 02, 2008
Regarding beliefs. With the tragic incident in Vancouver last week at a Christian rock concert inside a church hall it amazes me that some people still maintain the belief of the "presence" of God during such tradegies. Newspapers carried statements from concert goers that they could feel God was in the hall looking out for them making sure nobidy died (full reports can be found in the Vancouver Sun). 70 people were hurt! some of them very seriously, 1 is still in ICU. It is strange that God only appears after the event to look after the survivors and not protect the healthy who are only to eager to give thanks for not getting crushed. Surely he must have seen this one coming - I mean it was in a church hall!! Maybe the omnipotent one had popped out for some bottled holy water!
...
written by Skeptico, May 02, 2008
Surely that Dean astrology study is five years old? Published in the Journal of Consciousness Studies, August 2003:

http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf

Not that it isn't a good study. But it's hardly news.
...
written by Skeptico, May 02, 2008
Sorry - wrong link above. 2003 newspaper article about it here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...wrong.html
...
written by monstrmac1, May 02, 2008
I tried to comment on the "Letter from hell" video but for some reason it wouldn't let me. I don't know if there was a content filter on or it had been capped from posting, so here was what I tried to post.

"If god is all-knowing, and he made us, he knows if we will go to heaven or hell before we're even born, which means if hell is real, then he creates people with the foreknowledge that they will be eternally tortured. Why would a "righteous" entity create humans for the sole purpose of torturing them? It seems to me that either the "God" of christians is evil, apathetic, or simply non-existent. Doesn't mean you shouldn't believe in a creator or afterlife, but certainly shouldn't dismiss facts, science, and reason for things that have no evidence of existing. I don't want my children growing up in a church telling them there friends/parents/syblings will be tortured eternally for no reason other than not believing. Innocense means nothing to christians because its not the standard by which you enter heaven. In a christian sense you'd be better off being a born-again child-rapist than an atheist humanitarian. PLEASE people make your decisions based on available data rather than some guy in a robe being paid to tell you how to think and believe."

Also, I am from Virginia where there were recently some tornados that destroyed many homes. All the residents there went on the news and said "God got me through it" becaue they weren't killed in the storm. I was really hoping one of them would say, "God put me throught it" instead. Its amazing how people always find a way to shift blame on nature for the tragedy and cite god for helping them through. Oh well, but still we persist.....
...
written by RobT, May 02, 2008
oh their god, I watched the FC video. How on earth can you take FC seriously. The facilitator was so clearly guiding the hand of many of the students, while they looked elsewhere. That if I had not known it was a serious documentary, I would have assumed it was a spoof. OBviously if the random movement or shaking was what held them back in communicatiing, a damped frame for their arm would seem to be the answer. Not a facilitator with a vice like grip on the wrist.
...
written by GusGus, May 02, 2008
In all fairness to the museum, the docents appeared to me to be the children's Sunday school teachers - not museum employees. Anybody can guide their own groups through any museum.
...
written by aaronsher, May 02, 2008
I think that the claims of longevity for Tai Chi (or, more properly, taiji) are fairly incontrovertible. Leaving aside any spiritual claims, just standing up and waving your arms will extend your life, as will any other form of exercise. Done properly, taiji is an extremely good form of exercise, extremely low-impact and aerobic.

Now reiki, on the other hand...
...
written by jonlindsay, May 02, 2008
Hank Hammer's comment says that the tour guides for the creationist tours of the Denver Museum of Natural Science are actually docents of the museum. However, it was my understanding when I first heard of these creationist tours years ago that the tour guides were not official guides of the museum. Instead, they were from outside the museum, and they simply brought in their own private tour groups, which the museum can't stop. Is this not still the case?

Peace, Love and Chocolate,
Jon
...
written by jbspry, May 02, 2008
Regarding the item on Astrology De-bunked:
Dr Geoffrey Dean is described as a scientist and former astrologer. Although I'm sure he truly is reformed as regards astrology, I doubt that a grown man who is gullible enough to ever be convinced of something as specious as astrology could become completely cured of his "believing mind syndrome". Does it really take overwhelming logical persuasion to debunk something as patently absurd as astrology?
...
written by ladolphus, May 02, 2008
There is some mounting evidence that Tai Chi has positive health benefits - particularly for the eldery (better balance, for one - you remain healthier if you fall less!)
Reiki, on the other hand, indeed. I'm amazed how many people I've meant who incidently have one of the 3 levels of "attunement." Such initiations used to literally cost thousands of dollars. Now you can accessorize them with bargain "remote" attunements from eBay (including the "Merlin," "Isis Blue Moon," "Thor's Hammer" and the ever-popular "Aquamarine Dolphin Healing Ray")!
...
written by brianfaux, May 02, 2008
How do you define " time of birth"? When baby`s head (or feet) first appear? When baby makes first squeal? I have only been present at two births but even those two had very different timtables.
...
written by Mr. Science, May 02, 2008
It's not often I'll say this, but... Mr. Randi, you don't know what you're talking about. And that goes for reader "Hank Hammer", too.

In re your statement: "Hank, ignoring it is always safe. You’ve nowhere to go, to re-state your complaint, and just ignoring such material is always safe. The Denver Museum seems to specialize in remaining ignorant." It can best be summed up by Penn & Teller: "Bulls--t!"

I know people who work at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. Their exhibits and programs do a superb job of educating the public about science, including evolution.

The "tour guides" and "docents" doing the hateful "creationist tour" of the museum are NOT DMNS employees, they're creationist church-goers who are simply spewing their own commentary to the hapless kids.

And what exactly would you have the museum do in response? Do the best job they can to counter such faith-based tomfoolery? They already do that, and as you certainly know, such rational arguments will have no effect on these zealots. Ban these groups from the museum? That would be a foolish move. Ban people who criticize exhibits? Yeah, right. That'll go over well, as will the media tempest when such groups file lawsuits claiming descimination. And, by the way, doing so would do nothing to assist these children in getting a better understanding of science, their adult minders will simply feed them this creationist nonsense elsewhere.

Ignoring such groups is indeed the best (if not great) method. Call it accepting what you cannot change.

Mr. Hammer is owed no apologies, but DMNS apparently is.
...
written by emonk, May 02, 2008
I understand a call for retaliation against spammers, but I'm wary of Joe Jobbing anybody:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_job
...
written by Die Anyway, May 02, 2008
re: the devastating video (ie The Letter from Hell)

Apparently God failed to teach them spelling. In the poem at the end of the video is the line "I have my on agenda" (rather than "my own agenda"). Tsk, tsk. They should have prayed for guidance. That would have worked. ;-)
I read through a bunch of the responses. Such a sorry lot but I have to say that many of them looked faked. Too many "Wow"s and "Powerful"s.

Eat well, stay fit, Die Anyway.
...
written by borealys, May 02, 2008
I agree with the people above who pointed out that Tai Chi is not necessarily woo. It's an exercise program, derived from a martial art, that promotes balance and body awareness, and can be very relaxing, all things that are likely to have health benefits.

It does, unfortunately, tends to attract a certain proportion of woo-woo types. True believers in energy healing and the like. It's a little like yoga that way -- an exercise program with a spiritual component that can be de-emphasized or played up to the extreme, depending on who's running the class.
...
written by Griz, May 02, 2008
It's extremely juvenile and unethical for Randi to call for his followers to mount a spam attack on an annoying correspondant. I tell you, in spite of all the good information found here, between the ceaseless negativity, smug sarcasm, and the tendancy to jump to knee jerk conclusions without proper research, I'm about done with this web site.

I'm sure Randi's "true believers" will "crucify" me for that comment, but it needs to be said.

Added by Jeff Wagg:
Just to clarify, this "annoying correspondent" has spammed not only the JREF, but just about every skeptical organization there is for weeks. Since he uses an alias and switches throw away accounts often, I wanted to be sure people knew who we were dealing with.
...
written by Perseus, May 02, 2008
Griz: By no means am I about to abandon reading Swift and supporting the JREF. I agree with you that there is a tendency towards this smug sarcasm and knee-jerk conclusions, as well as some mob mentality. To impress Randi, readers send in comments that are smug, sarcastic, and often just nasty. Randi keeps up his usual attitude, perhaps on some level to satisfy what the readers expect.
However, I've always had the sense that this is a newsletter by skeptics for skeptics. The in-crowd attitude and 'smugness' should be more akin to the playful other-attacking attitude one has in a circle of one's friends. In other words, there is no reason for this newsletter to be incorrect and fawningly tolerant. Amongst fellow skeptics, we should feel free to be as smug and sarcastic as gives us pleasure. It's our way of praying for the believers to find not-Jesus.
On that note, Why can't Christians put in lightbulbs? Because they keep looking to the Bible for instructions.
...
written by Perseus, May 02, 2008
Correction: "there is no reason for this newsletter to be incorrect" should read "...to be politically correct."
This gives me the opportunity for another rude joke, though: What do you call a Christian between two atheists? A mental block.
...
written by StarTrekLivz, May 02, 2008
I'm amazed it requires contemporary researchers to determine that astrology is bunk.

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354-430 CE) wrote not only elegant philosophical proofs that astrology is bunk: he reported an episode of an experiment, where 2 wealthy astrology believers in Hippo were expecting births in their households, one of a slave, the other the son & heir. They planned to track the children's biography as a proof of the astrological predictions. Both children were born as near to simultaneously as could be reckoned in those days, so it was obvious they could not have the same future in spite of the same astrological chart. I am searching desperately for the reference, Augustine wrote a LOT, and I threw out some of my Christian books when I embraced Secular Humanism.
...
written by Griz, May 02, 2008
Perseus: so like many religious and academic institutions where non-conformity is violently squelched, you think the JREF should become an association of folks who shout down and squash by whatever tools necessary those who do not toe the line? Sure you can voice a dissenting opinion, but all those who are threatened by the possibility that this place does not have all the answers will call down the ire of the group on your head who will fire blindly parroted terms like "woo woo" and "bright" at you until you take cover.

What do you call an athiest that is indistinguishable from a christian in blindly defending their faith? I don't know, we need a word for that because I see it more and more.

Among fellow skeptics is where we should be MOST careful to be respectful and objective. Why should we want to bring more pain and suffering to this world than religion and superstition already have?
...
written by StarTrekLivz, May 02, 2008
The Hell video illustrates 2 significant points:

a major incentive for people to believe in god is to avoid fear of death. Not that that works very well, but there it is. People fear their death, they will do anything to cling to a belief that they are immortal in some way or sense. Some christian groups or organizations may insist that the important thing is love,or compassion, or relationship, but that is false. It's fear of death is the motivation.

Some christian groups, to maintain their power, prestige, influence, number of supporters (and contributors) will do anything, no matter how abhorrent, to maintain their "market share," including this cruel and manipulative video. These people have no ethics and are beneath contempt.

...
written by Perseus, May 02, 2008
Griz: Whoah, don't put words in my mouth (or textbox). My post was descriptive, not prescriptive.
If you want objective, pick up an issue of Skeptic magazine. This is a different type of publication. We here all recognize that Randi was crucified for our woo-woo and rose again on the third day with a craving for deviled eggs. It's all in the Book of Athe, from which we get the name atheism.
...
written by vent, May 02, 2008
Griz:
I agree with you on the smug, condescending attitude being a turn-off, and I would never support a spam attack, or take part in one - that's just petty. I think people (Christians) have this sterotype of an atheist as a plotting, scheming, evil-doer... and that only supports that bias. I'm not like that. I'm typically pretty easy-going. I'm really don't care what other people believe and I'm not on a crusade to convert them. BUT I will lead by example, carry myself in a dignified manner, and do what I feel is the right thing to do - at all times.

The smugness aside, SWIFT does have a noble mission. I come here to stay informed.
...
written by CGHJ, May 02, 2008
The letter from hell video was horrifying and not in the way they intended for sure. I feel so sorry for those people, believing that angels of god drag souls off to holding cells before being cast into the Lake of Fire (along with some asbestos writing paper and non-flamable stamps I gather). What is heaven run by Hitler?! Showing this to children is freakin child abuse!
...
written by unpossible, May 02, 2008
as for the fc video and the good doctor. FC seems to have become faith based regardless of any kind of scientific or any other kind of evidense. It doesnt matter how obvious the facilitaters{?} are being controlling their movements , as shown by ALL the video clips, you will not shake their own belief that they are some kind of magical communicator, at the expense of the autistic individual. It was digusting to watch them treat these people like puppets, like a twisted vaudeville act.
...
written by Diverted Chrome, May 02, 2008
Time of Birth is usually assumed to mean the minute of first breath into the lungs. In reality, the doctor, nurse or other attendant "calls the time". Depends on the country/culture/hospital staff.

Agree about the negativity/smugness. What's the point in brow-lowering? It serves nothing.
...
written by Kezzy, May 02, 2008
Golly gee, if only those business astrologers were paid a little better, they would've warned us about the housing bubble and impending recession. We should definitely give them more money.
...
written by Kezzy, May 02, 2008
The aromatherapy piece reminded me of a couple of news stories about our sense of smell. First, an experiment found that with minimal training, humans can track scents much in the same way that dogs can. Second, humans retain the ability to associate a scent with danger, which is all kinds of cool.

It's a shame that some people have to cling to myths in order for them to feel like they can do extraordinary things, especially when there's plenty of stuff that we can do without making asses of ourselves.
...
written by Gravy, May 03, 2008
Readers who email a mentally ill attention-seeking spammer are merely adding their addresses to his mailing list. It isn't "fighting fire with fire," as Mr. Randi says: it's pouring gasoline on. I'm also on Dennis Markuze's list. My spam filter eliminates any temptation I might otherwise feel to engage in petty and unproductive behavior towards him.
...
written by RobertlewisIR, May 03, 2008
Regarding the creationist tours, Mr. Science is correct. They are in no way sponsored or endorsed by the Museum. The tour guides are not museum employees. They're tolerated because they have to be, for numerous reasons. For one thing, as Mr. Science pointed out, banning those groups from the museum simply wouldn't be a wise move, politically. Plus, since DMNS is partially funded through the Scientific & Cultural Facilities District (in other words, part of their funding comes through a one tenth of one percent sales tax the supports such facilities as the DMNS and the Denver Zoo), I'm sure there would be legal trouble if they did anything to present those groups from providing their tours.

Because of this public funding, it would be all but impossible to exclude anyone. That's why the Museum also has to offer a certain number of "free days" every year. I've seen those "BC Tours" in person, and I personally know many of the home-schooling families that support them (that's not to say I oppose home-schooling--I think that it's a valid alternative to public education, especially if proper science is presented, as is the case with many families). I guarantee that if the Museum didn't tolerate them, they'd cause even more of a problem.

But just because they're tolerated doesn't mean they're respected. I've seen the way museum volunteers look at those groups as they walk through, and had discussions with other volunteers. It's all anyone can do to avoid hijacking the tour and trying to debate with the guides.

We can't afford to ignore these groups, but the proper way to fight them is by doing what we're already doing. The Museum counters their claims with proper science, and organizations like the JREF and the NCSE fight these claims in other arenas.
...
written by Kittyclaws, May 03, 2008
After practicing martial arts (shito-ryu style karate) for 6 years in a dojo that was emphatically not woo-woo, I find it extremely irritating that some people insist on treating any martial art as primarily a spiritual practice. Look at the name: martial. These techniques were developed to fight and defeat an opponent and live to fight another day. There is nothing woo-woo about learning proper body mechanics and how to deliver force effectively whilst getting in some interesting exercise.
...
written by bsoft, May 03, 2008
Is it just me, or is the linked video (http://www.godtube.com/view_vi...34d00b4f73) hilarious - in a disturbing way.

To think that people actually believe this crap.

"You would have told me about this Jesus."
"I've heard of this Hell Zach."
"The angels are at the door! Oh No! No! They're coming in."
"We're coming closer."

It's like a bad horror movie.

Remember, God loves everyone. Well, except for Zach.

Religion sickens me.
...
written by RobertlewisIR, May 03, 2008
"It's like a bad horror movie."

No, give bad horror writers and directors their due. I only know of one horror writer who's as bad as that production, and he's certifiably insane and legally required to take medication so he doesn't try to kill anyone.
...
written by unpossible, May 03, 2008
the creationist tour guides and the people who made the god video have got to be kidding! these extremist god seekers seem to be getting more and more desperate. except for the fact that they're trying to corrupt young minds these two videos had me laughing.
...
written by Michieux, May 03, 2008
Regarding the FC video, if by "download" you meant "watch as it is streamed to your computer," good, I did that. As for "download" in the sense I use it -- as in save to my disk, there seems no facility for doing so at that site.

I wouldn't worry about it being taken down, however -- the video is 15 years old, and has probably been on the Web for nearly that long.

...
written by tonyp, May 03, 2008
On the Tai Chi point: There seems to be growing skepticism that exercise does people any good. If your heart beats more slowly it will last longer. So, an investment of an hour's a day exercise will more than pay for itself in terms of heart beats if it produces a drop in resting heart rate.
...
written by cic, May 04, 2008
Tai Chi (taiji) actually is a martial art, and a very effective one at that. The slow movements most associate with it are in reality slightly modified versions of very effective defensive and offensive movements that when preformed with speed and accuracy in dealing with physically aggressive behavior enhance the practitioner's chances of walking away from situations involving violence that might otherwise be detrimental to one's longevity.
...
written by cic, May 04, 2008
The "Hell" video only supports my contention that the ultimate message of the Bible is a very coercive message that can be summed up in three words, "Believe or boil."

I was giggling at it till it said, "I already can smell the burning sulfur and brimstone." and I then broke out in laughter. I guess the folks who put that thing together either never attended, or slept through, or most probably failed high school chemistry 101. Sulfur is brimstone, so that sentence is actually saying, "I already can smell the burning sulfur and sulfur." Their god needs to hire an editor with at least a GED.
...
written by tcave, May 04, 2008
Griz:

First, I agree that we should not be spamming other people (even a lowly spammer). The best defense to a spammer, for now, is simply not to read (or even see, if possible) their spam. Treat them just as you would treat a troll in a news group. The legal liability to the average law-abiding citizen for spamming is not worth it, and becoming a spammer to defend against a spammer doesn't sit well with me.

To the second part of your comment about smug sarcasm, etc., this forum is a place for skeptics to comment on the foolishness, or more commonly the fraudulent nature, of many in the world-at-large. So you have skeptics preaching to the choir, if you'll forgive the pun. This means that skeptics have to entertain themselves and other skeptics with commentary rather than trying to convince each other of some larger truth. For example: the average skeptic believes that there is no hell. To see people post, "hell isn't real" over and over might get boring. However, if we talk about hell's kitchen frying up some pretty delicious soul food in the endless fire and very hot flames of Satan's barbecue, though condescending to believers, some skeptics might think the read is a bit more interesting.

The dynamic (the 5th one for you Scientologists) is different from a forum where you're actually trying to communicate with "believers" to present evidence to them. I would never ask a believer a question such as: if Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit got in a spirit-fist fight who would win? They're all all-powerful after all, which would imply that all of them would win, which would be impossible because that would mean that they all lost but they all won and... Nor would I ask them what line God used with Mary to get into her pants. But I might make such comment in this forum. On second thought, I'd never write that. Anyway, you get the point.

The bottom line is that the sarcasm and humor is what keeps the skeptics reading. Otherwise, this would just be a boring iteration of what we already know. So lighten up, enjoy the sarcasm, and blast anyone who comes up with something that is a knee-jerk response that isn't based in fact: we'll all read your comments.

By the way, I did think the comments made a few weeks ago about a topless Sylvia Browne were way off-base. After all, Sylvia's one of the hottest guys in the psychic world right now. I don't think even James Van Praagh's rugged good looks come close.
...
written by tcave, May 04, 2008
Tonyp: Who is debating the efficacy of exercise? Excercise has been solidly and scientifically demonstrated to help lower cholesterol, lower chances of getting diabetes, lower weight, lower blood pressure, lower rates of heart disease, lower susceptibility to various forms of mental illnesses such as depression...the list goes on.

Your statement that the heart beats slower so will last longer doesn't make sense. Pair two lab mice, one that has exercised regularly and one that never exercises, then run them until one of their hearts give out. Which of those hearts, on average, do you think will give out first? By your logic, the one that doesn't exercise should last longer since its heart hasn't been worn out as much.

Excercise reinforces the human body as a whole (immune, muscle, metabolism, blood flow, etc.) and helps protect existing cells from sustaining damage, extending the life of those cells. If the cells last longer before dying, the end result is not that the heart has only so many beats to beat but that, other heart diseases notwithstanding, the healthiness of the heart and its ability to function efficiently are increased and extended. The number of beats has more to do with the health of the heart rather than the reverse.

By the way, the person who exercises regularly, tends to have a lower heart rate on average (except when exercising), than a person who doesn't exercise at all.
...
written by tonyp, May 04, 2008
Tcave:

I'm not sure why you're attacking me - you're saying exactly what I said.
...
written by tonyp, May 04, 2008
Tcave:

In fact I'm less than impressed at being told my statements make no sense only to have you go on and prove that they do! I recommend that you go back and read my original post carefully. I don't state that I don't think exercise is effective but I do state that an hour's a day exercise will more than pay for itself in terms of a lower resting heart rate. I didn't think I needed to explain to people that this was a good thing.

But since the causality obviously eludes people here goes:

There is an argument that exercise does you no good because your heart will last for a certain number of beats and that's that. This argument is apparently supported by the findings of a recent study, I have heard this from people with post-graduate training who ought to have enough mathematical and medical training to know better. Therefore, the argument goes, you can skip the exercise and die without having to go to any undue effort.

The glaring flaw with this argument is that regular exercise, apart from possessing myriad other health benefits that Tcave has alluded to, will lower your resting heart rate. So that even if the heart does last a specific number of beats, you will use up those beats more slowly if you have a lower resting heart rate.

I don't like the implication that I speak nonsense. I think it's rude, especially when that opinion is based on things I simply did not say, or misinterpretation or misrepresentation of what I did say. I'm getting sick and tired of people on this list trying to put words in my mouth and then attacking me for them.
...
written by tcave, May 04, 2008
"There seems to be growing skepticism that exercise does people any good."

That is a direct quote from you, and you write as though you are one of those skeptics. There is no question that in study after study - and you might want to show your postgrad friends these in various articles in JAMA, and studies at Johns Hopkins and Harvard - that exercise does people a lot of good.

I wrote both that exercise should increase the functional longevity of the heart, barring other disease, etc. and it lowers the heart rate on average in its normal state. And there is good evidence to show that a healthy heart will beat longer than an unhealthy heart (read # of beats).

Ignoring the first part of what I said while saying the second part backs up what your contention is precisely the tactic used by various quack groups to prove a false point while ignoring the real meat of the evidence. Sure, less beats with a healthy heart will help you live longer than more beats with the same healthy heart, but your contention was that exercise didn't do anyone any good - that is patently and provably false.

Not an attack, just reality.
...
written by tcave, May 04, 2008
TonyP, as I re-read your post, it could be taken in one of two ways:

1. "There seems to be growing skepticism that exercise does people any good."

2. You're promoting an hour of exercise a day.

The problem is that in your post the statements seem to be in conflict with one another and the first statement is the one that appears, at first glance, to be your primary point (at least to me).

If you are saying that there are skeptics who would say that there is no benefit to exercise but you are not one of them, then I would tend to agree with your post. If, on the other hand, you are stating both of your points as truths or possible truths, then I strongly disagree.

:)
...
written by tonyp, May 05, 2008
Tcave:

Then we are in agreement: Exercise is GOOD for people overall.

If I approved of the skepticism about exercise I would hardly be introducing counter-arguments or expressing a contradictory stance. I take a contradictory stance BECAUSE I disagree with the skepticism. I could have expressed this more clearly I realise, I was at the time striving to be concise.

The statement that there seems to be growing skepticism about exercise is a declarative statement that does not reflect my point of view. If I thought exercise was not good for people I would actually say as much. But I suppose the confusion is understandable.

Your first post above that I use typical flame war tactics is in fact a little offensive. I am not, and at no time did I ever, suggest that exercise is not good for people. So I never disagreed with your position. Except that you seem to be saying I'm wrong, self-contradictory, and speaking 'nonsense' (to use your adjective). None of which I agree with.

All I said was that there seems to be growing skepticism about the benefits of exercise. This is an observation, it says nothing about my opinion of exercise but my perception of the opinion of others. I then proceeded to explain why I thought such skepticism was ill-founded. I was presenting a hypothesis I disagreed with and then explaining why I considered it false.

Tai Chi is a form of exercise. Exercise is good for people and generally speaking allows people to achieve longer lifespans. The skepticism that Tai Chi would do this was, to my mind, linked to what seems to be a growing trend to refute the benefits of exercise.

To re-iterate, I NEVER contended or stated that exercise is not good for people and in fact I thought that pointing out why this belief was a nonsense would make it clear that I didn't believe it. Perhaps I was too brief, I shan't make that mistake again.
...
written by bosco, May 05, 2008
re: The "Letter from Hell" video.

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I love the part where a "huge angel" drags the kid off to a "holding cell". Apparently, god has goon angels who do his "enforcing"...

And these zealots have the nerve to put up a disclaimer that says, "This is not meant as a scare tactic"! So let me get this straight... You tell kids that people go to hell if they don't "know" Jesus. You tell them that hell is a lake of fire where you burn for all eternity. You also tell them that their friends will end up here unless you tell them about Jesus. And you tell them that their friends will cry out your name for eternity because YOU didn't tell them about Jesus! You see, it's ALL YOUR FAULT that your friends are burning in hell!

And this isn't a "scare tactic"? Yeah, right.

This just exemplifies why I have no use for religion.
...
written by Andres Villarreal, May 05, 2008
I must disagree with some about the action to take against the creationist tours of the museums. We can ask them to prohibit those tours only if they are illegal, and they are not.

Whether we want the museum curators to do their work and ignore these creationists or make large, visible displays about the problems with creationism, both positions have pros and cons.

We have to take the responsibility of denouncing these guys ourselves. And we have to talk with our own kids to make sure they do not fall prey to fanatics like those.
...
written by abkaiser, May 05, 2008
Regarding the aromatherapy item:

I've had a few conversations with aromatherapists, and they indeed make some very specific claims. These involve claims about healing breast tumors and prostate PSA levels. They mention specific studies, and these studies quote actual "scientists". They also have a (very pseudo-scientific) explanation of how these helpful smells interact with our body. And they of course make the generic claim of "improving your
immune system".

I took the time to get a claim in writing, and analyze and research it. To my utter lack of astonishment, I've had feedback and criticism of my work, but no one has thought to debunk my debunking of the actual aromatherapy claims.

Just wanted to make you aware that I consider aromatherapy more dangerous than the touchy-feely stuff like Chi powers, and indeed there seem to be many proponents of these ridiculous claims.

Here is the aromatherapy debunk article I referenced:
http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/...-of-odors/
...
written by Giles, May 06, 2008
"If anyone you know dies and they're not a christian, its your fault that they end up in hell."

This message is brought to you in association with Pepsi Max... live life to the MAX!

Seriously, are Pepsi aware of the kind of videos their pop-up advertisments are appearing in?
...
written by Mr. Science, May 06, 2008
And you know, on the issue of the Denver Museum, there's further evidence that Hank Hammer (and, by association, Randi) is the ignorant one. The video from the 4/11/08 Swift that started this mess specifically states that the "BC Tour" folks are NOT museum employees.
...
written by Marcus Hill, May 07, 2008
If they hadn't separated the "stress buster and way of keeping fit" part of the Tai Chi description from the longevity part - implying these are separate effects - I wouldn't even have mentioned Tai Chi when I emailed the staff development guy. I was also a bit irked by the "it's old, so it must be good" implication.
...
written by tonyp, May 07, 2008
Marcus:

I take your point. And given the connection between martial arts and such vague and unsupported notions as 'chi' some amount of skepticism is certainly warranted. However, healthy skepticism should not be confused with hyper-sensitivity. We need to look carefully at what people say, and respond only to that rather than impose beliefs or positions on them that they never held.
...
written by jazzpotato, May 08, 2008
Those creationists blaspheming science in the museum should be charged with child abuse. Does that sound smug?
...
written by Mr. Science, May 08, 2008
I wouldn't say "smug", jazzpotato. I would say "offensive" and "stupid", though.

The creationists sounded really stupid when then claimed that evolution is a religion, not science. So why are you agreeing with them by saying it can be "blasphemed" against, or equating a museum with a church?

The lies that BC Tours tells are wrong. But comparing it to the horrific crime of child abuse shows a lack of intelligent perspective, demeans the tragic victims of real child abuse, and only reinforces (or even creates) the worst canards against people who do know that evolution is correct. If you're trying to educate and persuade, shouting "those who don't see it my way are in the same class as those who molest children!" is not a great way to achieve your goals. [Worse still is Hank Hammer's comparing the creationists to the Nazis. Hmm, lying about biological processes vs. murdering tens of millions of people. By what twisted mockery of rational thought do these two count as morally equivalent?]

Think of it this way: to paraphrase Asimov, "Creationism is wrong. Child abuse is wrong. But if you think they're equally wrong, you're more wrong than both of them." KnowhudI'msaying?
...
written by edgraham, May 08, 2008
Smug Sarcasm
I wasn't going to comment, but you guys have sucked me in again. In a society where just mentioning that you are not superstitious, can cause you to be laughed at and treated like a crazy person - - it's great to have a place where you can let off a little "smug sarcasm."

I really didn't notice the pervasive influence of God in our daily lives until I "saw the light." (Sorry, I couldn't resist that) I love old movies and music. Believe me, God is everywhere.

On television news, people constantly say, "It could have been a lot worse." In reality, it could have been a lot better. God saves a life, but could have stopped that tsunami and saved them all. I'm sick of people trying to make me believe the most ridiculous, unsupported nonsense. It happens EVERY day. Don't tell me that I can't have a little fun on this site.

I do think that we should pray for lower gas prices - - God could just reverse engineer the Earth and put a lot more oil in it. She could also do something about corporate greed.

I work with computer scientists every day, and today some of them were discussing the new free energy engine mentioned on this site. They were actually talking about it as if it is a great invention, but the oil companies will pay off the guy, so we'll never see it.

My wife believes there is a ghost in our house. She also thinks that the fabric of the universe will be torn if I open an umbrella in the house. If she rubs her beads on a scratch-off lottery ticket it will be a winner. She gets mad if I suggest that she would be changing the already printed numbers, if that were true.

So, I have to be quiet about my tendency to not believe delusional nonsense if I want to keep my job, or my wife. I really need that job.

I there were a God, it's doing a horrible job with this omnipotent thing, and should resign.

Ed Graham
...
written by Flowtation, May 08, 2008
hey, idk, it feels like i should at least be applying myself. i have raised myself and this body to conduct, control, and transfer energy as if there were a big use for it in the future. and i have a lot of cool reactions with people. and sometimes things that just aren't spoken of. i cant say i'm the power, or i am the one for the job, coming from myself "Drew." but then "I" cud say i am the one. coming from the "mind".. these things aren't be to taken accounted for as POWER for power can sometimes have the opposite effect on things. its a very mental process, as well as physical with the chii/energy. we are our own God, but we are "not" and i shall not state we ARE God. there is simply a mode for this, in which our reactions and abilities are hightened,
and at its fullest of performance. feel free to ask me questions. i may speak like im just an ordinary subject as people you may have come across before, but i assure you, i have a gift in this short life. and i intend to use to however i am destined to benefit and support this life i have been given.

-Disco Drew-
-www.myspace.com/flowborn
...
written by dcotler, May 09, 2008
Please do not consider Tai Chi in the same category as these other "energies." Although any responsible practitioner understands that "chi" doesn't actually "flow," this terminology is a usefull shorthand for a phenomenon that is best understood as a kind of neurological misdirection that, when mastered, confers extraordinary and easily demonstrable physical power. I know of no studies re longevity, but if good posture, better balance, a greater consciousness of effective physical function, and not breaking one's neck in a fall are good for survival, then Tai Chi promotes longevity.

Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment (login is on the left column under the PEOPLE section). Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy
 
Google
Web Randi.org

JREF Donations

Enter Amount:

Randi Videos

James Randi Bends a Spoon
James Randi and Richard Dawkins in 2005