Comments for I AM NOT "DENYING" ANYTHING at http://www.randi.org/site , comment 1 to 353 out of 20 comments http://www.randi.org/site Sun, 21 Mar 2010 09:25:21 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html#comment-15179 [url]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece[/url] - Son of Rea Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:24:19 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html#comment-14648 Oh, give me a break. Sure, there have been some understandable confusions about certain things, as they are better understood. But, most of it has been driven not by scientists, but the fracking diet industry. Some scientist says, "Certain kinds of fats are bad, but we are not sure how much *is* bad yet. Its probably a good idea to avoid too much of them.", and the next day 50 new products are relabeled as, "Healthier for you, because they don't contain fat X." There was even a joke about that a while back. Some guy researching something finds there is a clear connection between A and B, but **only** when C is present, he makes the mistake of telling the press about it, and by the time he gets home the TV news is announcing that its the end of the world as we know it, and his mother is telling him, I stopped taking A, because its going to kill me. Or, something to that effect. Part of the problem is simply that scientists, even when they are *good* communicators, can't communicate clear details to someone that doesn't understand what is being described, or how much impact it really has, or, possibly, may not even care *if* their version is right. There have been more than a few cases, lamented by the people interviewed, where the scientist in question flat out said, "X magazine didn't just get it wrong, they somehow managed to get it 180 degrees backwards." And, those are just the ones doing in unintentionally. Some *intentionally* distort the science, to promote their own agendas, and don't care if that promotion contradicts their *own* inane gibberish. A good example, some clown that shops where I work came in, who is a homeopath. He spent several minutes babbling to a cashier about taking "huge" doses of Vitamin D, which, "Is actually a hormone, not a vitamin, and regulates everything." I should have asked the nut, "If its such a great thing, why don't you sell homeopathic versions, instead of telling people to take *more* than normal?" After all, that is the whole point of homeopathy, right? Less = more? Yeah, lets not confuse what the huge number of nitwits selling diet aids, and the popular press, say with with science does. You are likely to find that they *never* told people to entirely stop eating eggs, that the majority never supported all the other arguments over what you should or shouldn't eat, and that nearly **all** of those recommendations where made *by* fringe people, some of whom may be *partially* right, in a very limited scope, but most of which are just in it to sell their own crap, not to promote good health and scientific examination of what that means. Interestingly, BTW, we do know something about what does and doesn't work, with respect to weight loss, and health, and the problem is, no one in the US would *ever* consider following them. They would have to get off their asses, exercise, eat about half what they normally do, almost entirely give up junk food, eat 10 times more fish than they do, and a whole host of other things that the average American wouldn't be caught dead actually following. Most of the stuff, like "eggs are not so good for you", falls under, "If you are eating like a stupid American, and therefor take in 50 times what you need already, making those eggs a bad addition." But, in the end, we have a culture of, "Cure me now!! Where every diet has to work instantly, over night, and with minimum, or no, effort. And, there is a multi-billion dollar industry based on this BS lie, which sifts the scientific journalism on a daily basis, looking for things they can misunderstand, misinterpret, quote mine for their own uses, or just flat out claim, without justification, supports their latest, 'lose pounds by hitting your head on our magic rock of 5 minutes a day!', nonsense." Guess who the popular press is interviewing? Is it the stodgy scientist, who noted that some obscure tribe banged their heads on rocks, but where otherwise healthy, or the wacko selling 3,000 rocks to idiots every day via, "www.dietrock.scam"? - Kagehi Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:02:39 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html#comment-14640 "Sumpn ain't right here." That would be your total destruction of the English language. That is FAR from 'right'. I notice you still have nothing but retard insults that you think bother me. Let me fill you in on a little secret. Your 'insults' are like trophies. They prove that I thoroughly destroyed your argument and left you with nothing but schoolyard taunts. Every time you speak, you confirm that you are a retard. - Karmakaze Thu, 07 Jan 2010 08:57:27 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html#comment-14639 "Again, you see this with the non-religious too. But the non-religious are not likely to have hundreds of millions of other fools cheering them on when they make the mistake, while not understanding the science, or what the scientist got dead wrong, at all." Are you kidding? The diet fads alone show that that is not true. The weight loss industry is HUGE, and is full of exactly what you are talking about, and as far as I have seen there is no religious component at work. Human beings are pack animals - even though we are loathe to admit it, we act just like any other pack animal by looking up to our 'Alphas' as if they can do no wrong. Whether they be celebrities, priests, or scientists, we assume THEY are better than US, and pretty much follow them anywhere - even to our own detriment. Over and over again this has occured in every field of human endeavour (politics, science, religion etc) and there is nothing wrong with it - it is what allowed us to become the dominant species on this planet - except when you think THEY do it and YOU don't. You do it too, but in your opinion you are right and they are wrong. I have simply tried to show that. "They are less likely to be corrected, if some "majority" agrees with them out of shear ignorance and an identical bias." I have shown there is plenty of ignorance around here, and yet you all seem to think you have the "one truth" and as such any other view is insane. That last sentence of yours pretty much describes everyone who has responded to me here. Over and over I have shown information from SCIENCE that contradicts your assertions, and yet not one of you has come close to conceding that you may not have the full answer - you REFUSE to accept you may be wrong. By the way... should I be eating more carbs or less? More protein or less? More eggs or less?.. In my lifetime the answers to those questions, coming from scientists, have changed more than once, and every time a whole new fad built up around the 'findings'. In the last 6 months I've lost 30kgs (66lbs for you guys still stuck in the dark ages :) ). I didn't go on a special diet, I didn't take any special supplements or attend meetings. I ate less and exercised more, and it didn't cost me a cent. But try to explain that to other people trying to lose weight! They simply can't believe that I didn't use some secret program to make my weight drop so rapidly. They've been bombarded with scientific information that was announced with a level of certainty it couldn't really claim. Eggs are bad! Oh wait... eggs are good! And each time that happens another load of people comes to the conclusion that scientists have no clue. That is why I am pushing the concept that science is never certain, that more information can easily overturn our current view, and as such we should ALWAYS be looking to do exactly that, because THAT is the way science evolves - and I am a big fan of evolution. :) - Karmakaze Thu, 07 Jan 2010 08:53:03 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html#comment-14472 Most won't say you can't be religious and a scientists, just that the combination creates issues, a bit like being "Libertarian" and pro-government intervention. Scientists managed, for a long time, to be both. They also spent a long time ignoring artifacts at digs that they didn't think where "important", even when they where mentioned as part of the mythology, burning mummies, because they where not considered important in and of themselves, and any number of other stupid things. The problem isn't *if* its possible, but that some of us see a bit more clearly how such faith can, and sometimes does, obscure certain corners of their investigation, and lead them to rejecting hypothesis, or accepting others, based not on the evidence, but where they want the evidence to lead them. And, while this isn't impossible for non-believers, religion has some clearly distinct concepts that ***very specifically*** contradict some evidence, and lead to a specific category of bias. You can see this in everyone from the physicist who derailed his carrier by ignoring all the biologists, who already had both a) and explanation for and b) investigated, but found nothing significant about, small amounts of light being emitted by cells. His *hypothesis* - that psychic phenomena was real, and cells communicate via these "flashes of light", rather than chemical and electrical signals. His subjects? John Edward, the paramount *worst* cold reader in the business, and some poor dupe that he "talked to the dead" for. Another example is the guy that headed, but didn't do any specific research himself on, the human genome project, who took the work of hundreds of others, and even "borrowed" the work of another group, who where initially ahead of them, to accelerate his own project, then, when it was all over, embarrassed most of the scientific community by babbling a bunch of stuff that was borderline creationist about the project (or at least ID like in how he described it), in contradiction to the evidence. Religion, in the opinion of a lot of people, how ever mild, creates a blind spot. A wall, if you will, beyond which a person won't look, conjecture, or examine their own evidence, with the same level of critical thinking applied to the rest of their field. And, sometimes it leads good scientists to pontificate outside their field of expertise, and fall for ideas outside their expertise, for which they fail to apply the same logic, and careful examination. Again, you see this with the non-religious too. But the non-religious are not likely to have hundreds of millions of other fools cheering them on when they make the mistake, while not understanding the science, or what the scientist got dead wrong, at all. That makes such errors more problematic. They are less likely to be corrected, if some "majority" agrees with them out of shear ignorance and an identical bias. - Kagehi Sun, 03 Jan 2010 05:51:22 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html#comment-14469 Sumpn ain't right here. - Human Person Jr Sun, 03 Jan 2010 05:04:39 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html#comment-14449 Remember when I said: "Who in the history of the Internet has EVER changed their mind based on a forum argument?" Thanks for proving my point. You had your say, ignored my responses, then declare me a troll and leave. Just as expected. - Karmakaze Sat, 02 Jan 2010 18:19:33 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html#comment-14447 Oh I see.. I'm a troll? Even though I provided far more ACCURATE information to the conversation than YOU did? You win! I'm a troll so you MUST be right... - Karmakaze Sat, 02 Jan 2010 18:16:42 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html#comment-14445 Have fun being a troll then. Good bye. - stevekelner Sat, 02 Jan 2010 16:31:36 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html#comment-14440 [i]"Don't expect to win any converts to your crusade with this influence strategy."[/i] I don't. Who in the history of the Internet has EVER changed their mind based on a forum argument? Like I said somewhere, I do this for fun, not because I think anyone will actually go "Oh snap! I see where I went wrong..." Pretty much the same reason all you lot come here (unless you think cheerleading Randi on his forum is making a blind bit of difference to the "believers"?) [i]"If you want to examine some more sophisticated techniques, you might want to look at this for inspiration:"[/i] LOL: "Hay Group combined these studies with 15 years of its own applied research to identify the most common and effective strategies for influencing others. These are the specific behaviors that help us influence most successfully." "Coercion: using threats or pressure to get others to do what you want." Well shit, they needed 15 years of study to figure out what man has known since the dawn of time? However, what I have been doing is propaganda. I haven't been trying to influence YOU (remember how I said I was using you as an example?). So go look up the most effective propaganda tactics, and see how many I was employing :) In fact: Ad hominem - check Ad nauseam - check Appeal to authority - partial check Appeal to fear - not so much (unless fear of being labeled a retard counts) Black-and-white fallacy - check Labeling - big check Name-calling - double ditto Oversimplification - you pointed it out yourself. Quotes out of context - its embarrasing that no one else noticed what I was doing Red herring - ! Repetition - For sure Transfer - (skeptics are no different to true believers!) But once again, I was holding up a mirror to show what I feel has gone wrong with the "skeptic" movement - and I place a lot of blame for that on Randi's self-aggrandisement. These are the same tactics he uses. - Karmakaze Sat, 02 Jan 2010 15:56:07 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html#comment-14439 [i]"You are not entitled to dismiss him (or anyone else) across the board absolutely"[/i] I'm not? Why is he allowed to do it to 'psychics', but I can't do it to 'skeptics'? Hmm? Ever think that might have been another concept I was trying to illustrate? [i]"That is a far too simplistic an approach to discussing any person."[/i] Tell that to Randi. [i]"The problem with a "crusade" is that it can give the distinct impression that you are arrogant, immature, and immovable, and further that when someone disagrees with you, you will merely shout all the louder."[/i] Oh my! You mean you picked that up? Notice how when I do it, it's wrong... but when Randi does it then "he has some expertise"! Bollocks. As I said, what I have been doing is an exaggerated version of what the 'skeptics' do. Have a look at that Science-Based Medicine article I was talking about before (or was that another thread?): "“Alternative” health practitioners are nothing more than quacks and charlatans and their “remedies” are nothing more than snake oil. The fact that anyone in this day and age still believes in such crackpot theories is a tribute to the power of ignorance and superstition." How is that kind of retarded arrogance any different from what I have been doing? Remember this is in an article saying that "toxins are imaginary"! Maybe I should change my name to "The Mirror"... Will that make it a little more obvious? But just to really drive the point home: "''If Tart thinks I did this to stifle research, he is crazy. I brought this type of research into the 20th century, whereas he is in the woods." How can you call that anything but arrogant? Remember this was after he intentionally tried to ruin a scientific study, and then when it didn't go as planned (the scientists didn't publish, they consulted him, and then exposed the fraud) he races to the media and says that! You see, you have been reading Randi's books. Do you really think Randi will tell you about all the times he's been caught in lies designed to make himself look better? Do you really think Randi's books would in anyway disagree with Randi's methods? Do you really think randi's books represent REALITY, rather than Randi's VERSION of it? No, what you get is an editted view where his successes are magnified beyond their real effect, and his failures disappear. Sound familiar? [i]"It was and is insulting for you to lecture me based on an inadequate basis of fact"[/i] Hmm funny that. Care to go back and look at what you said about why psychokinesis is impossible? Care to comment as to how Dark Energy is equally impossible based on your criteria... and yet it exists. Who was lecturing who based on an inadequate basis of fact? [i]"when you know little or nothing about me"[/i] I don't need to know anything about you to read what you wrote. I don't give a shit whether you're a scientist or a plumber. It makes no difference. Why do you think it does? [i]"and misread some of the things I did put in this thread."[/i] What did I misread? Nice try. Disagreement with, does not imply I misread them. Show me where I misread what you wrote. If I did misread, I will retract heartily, but I fail to see it, so you'll have to point it out. See what this sounds like to me is a self-important scientist (why mention your Ph.D and Harvard? They are irrelevent) who got pissed off because I called him a fanboy, and now is scrambling to backtrack and find SOME footing to stand on, and acting righteously indignant in the process. Seriously, does it hurt your feelings so much that I called you a fanboy? Do you REALLY give a shit what I think? Why? - Karmakaze Sat, 02 Jan 2010 15:53:59 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html#comment-14438 [i]"No mind reading required. Search "stevekelner" and read my first comment, which was a follow-up to my comment on the original Randi post. It's not the first time I've referred to it, either."[/i] Why? should I always check the backgrounds of posters to ensure their words are what they meant? I don't care if you criticised Randi - you're missing the point. It was the fact you replied to me in order to defend him: "I was one of the first here to criticize Randi's inappropriate and ill-written criticism of AGW and his non-apology afterwards, but I must defend him against some of your comments, Karmakaze." Even though you were saying essentially the same things, but had not extended it to other issues. You seemed to think this was the ONLY time he had done such things. But remember, I did not even talk about you until you posted the above. That is what I was refering to when I called you a fanboy. You have in front of you evidence of the kind of stuff Randi does, you criticise it, then defend him? The ONLY reason you criticised was because this time he was making an idiot of himself in a subject YOU care about. Well that's what your posts lead me to believe. As I said, if I am wrong, I apologise - but I don't think I'm wrong. [i]"You were also mistaken in believing that I defended Randi on any basis but his established expertise in prestidigitation and debunking based on that skill"[/i] See, there you go again. What established evidence of his skill in debunking? The evidence HE claims is there? I've shown you (and you saw yourself) that he is NOT all that good at it, otherwise he wouldn't have fallen for the Petiton Project scam. He claims expertise. That is all. [i]"I've read most of his books."[/i] Your evidence is that Randi says he's good? Really? [i]"Frankly, you are oversimplifying, and have done so from the beginning, evidently in service of your crusade."[/i] Oh my god, you think? You think maybe I was (as I have said more than once) "giving you a dose of your own medicine"? I have shown over and over how the 'skeptics' oversimplify the science and then declare absolute certainty, based on that faulty 'knowledge'. The point is, Randi has become some sort of "skeptic god" yet he is just as bad as anyone else at avoiding being fooled. Hell the Petition Project wasn't even very subtle. All you had to do was go to their site, and you'd see it was full of shit. The fact is, this is NOT the only time he has acted like this - it's just the first time he attacked something that the 'skeptics' believe (as far as I am aware). [i]"I was defending his right to assert some expertise in debunking"[/i] And the evidence in this and the other article shows that "assertion" is unfounded. He either can debunk ALL bullshit, or he is NOT expert at debunking. Once again, prove to me a magician is better able to spot slight of hand than a non-magician. We are not talking about PERFORMING it, but SEEING it. Secondly, I never attacked his right to assert it - I attacked the TRUTH of it. He can say what he wants, and I will question it if I think it is bullshit. Isn't that what being skeptical means? [i]"and you never adequately responded to it."[/i] In your opinion. I said the same thing originally as I just said above - prove to me a magician is better, and NOT using a magician's word. (You wouldn't take a psychic's word that mind reading works, would you?) I also gave an example of why a magician might be worse at it (and it is the same one Randi uses) - he BELIEVES that it is all prestidigitation, so he is primed to see it, even if his subconcious has to fill in the gaps. Why is it that HE is immune to such unconcious self delusion? - Karmakaze Sat, 02 Jan 2010 15:51:13 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html#comment-14434 No mind reading required. Search "stevekelner" and read my first comment, which was a follow-up to my comment on the original Randi post. It's not the first time I've referred to it, either. You were also mistaken in believing that I defended Randi on any basis but his established expertise in prestidigitation and debunking based on that skill, and I said that, too, more than once. I've read most of his books. Have you? Frankly, you are oversimplifying, and have done so from the beginning, evidently in service of your crusade. I was not defending everything Randi has ever said and done (obviously, since I criticized him for this), I was defending his right to assert some expertise in debunking, and you never adequately responded to it. You are not entitled to dismiss him (or anyone else) across the board absolutely, any more than someone is entitled to defend him absolutely, certainly when the evidence disagrees with you. That is a far too simplistic an approach to discussing any person. The problem with a "crusade" is that it can give the distinct impression that you are arrogant, immature, and immovable, and further that when someone disagrees with you, you will merely shout all the louder. It was and is insulting for you to lecture me based on an inadequate basis of fact, when you know little or nothing about me (though I am readily findable), and misread some of the things I did put in this thread. Don't expect to win any converts to your crusade with this influence strategy. If you want to examine some more sophisticated techniques, you might want to look at this for inspiration: http://tinyurl.com/ybxemnj - stevekelner Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:32:43 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html#comment-14422 [i]"Well, Karmakaze, I am a scientist and a skeptic, as it happens. I have my own criticisms of skepticism -- I think it has descended into contrarianism for many, with (as you note) unstated elements of faith, e.g., "you can't be religious and a scientist," and similar nonsense. I just objected to your including me in that group, especially since I started on this thread criticizing Randi."[/i] Unfortunately, I am not a mind reader. I do not know what you have said previously - I only know what you said in the comments I replied to. In them you seemed to be defending Randi based on nothing but HIS WORD that he was capable of doing what he claims (being a skeptic, rather than a contrarian). If I was wrong, then I was wrong, and I accept that. However, if you had legitimate criticisms as I did, why did you defend him? Or is he immune to the same criticism you give to others? But to be totally honest, you were being used as an example. I was trying to get you (and anyone else who is reading this thread) to really look at what you believe BEFORE you criticise other's beliefs. Randi doesn't. You didn't seem to be. If I was wrong, I'm sorry you got caught up in my "crusade". - Karmakaze Sat, 02 Jan 2010 11:08:59 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html#comment-14421 [i]"You're absolutely right. I can't comment on anyone's writing until I have surpassed it. I'll get right on that."[/i] No, I didn't say you can't comment. I said if you think his writing was so bad, show us how it's done. Obviously you must know how to do it better if you can be so sure HIS is bad... As it stands, I'll side with the millions of people who read/saw his writing and decided they liked it, as an indication of whether it was good or not. By the way, you're the one who listed the authors, not stevekelner, so why did you criticise him for what YOU did? You were simply trying to show off your 'intellectualism', and got called on it. Do you often interject bullshit into conversations just to show how clever you are? Do you think that might be a failing? - Karmakaze Sat, 02 Jan 2010 11:02:37 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html#comment-14420 [quote]latsot -- "You started it"? Huh? I made a statement, I didn't launch a literary argument. I do feel entitled to an opinion, however.[/quote] I realise I'm as guilty as anyone of perpetuating this thread, but can't we all just let it die before we all completely lose our sense of humour? - latsot Sat, 02 Jan 2010 10:59:36 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html#comment-14418 Well, Karmakaze, I am a scientist and a skeptic, as it happens. I have my own criticisms of skepticism -- I think it has descended into contrarianism for many, with (as you note) unstated elements of faith, e.g., "you can't be religious and a scientist," and similar nonsense. I just objected to your including me in that group, especially since I started on this thread criticizing Randi. latsot -- "You started it"? Huh? I made a statement, I didn't launch a literary argument. I do feel entitled to an opinion, however. In my view, Crichton was a very professionally slick thriller writer, who could take otherwise arcane issues and turn them into bestsellers. Whether you like them or not, that's definitely something few writers can carry off. Even when I knew his books were 100% wrong, e.g., [i]Rising Sun[/i], I still found myself reacting to them. I've re-read The Great Train Robbery any number of times, and I recommend it to others. Your list ranged from traditionally literary writers like Joyce and Austen to modern popular SF writers like Adams, Asimov, and Pratchett, and people who fall in between, like Vonnegut. I think Crichton certainly belongs in company with the modern popular SF writers, especially Asimov, as a craftsmanlike (rather than artistic) SF writer, and Crichton is better at thrillers than Asimov ever was, much as I liked him. Crichton was dishonest with his science sources, but he spun a good yarn. And that's one definition of a good writer, in my view. You may disagree. - stevekelner Sat, 02 Jan 2010 10:51:44 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html#comment-14417 @Karmakaze You're absolutely right. I can't comment on anyone's writing until I have surpassed it. I'll get right on that. - latsot Sat, 02 Jan 2010 10:48:55 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html#comment-14416 LOL, way to derail an argument :) Of course, it's a matter of taste. If you don't like him, that doesn't make it childish. But OK, why don't you show him how it's done? Get back to me when you have had at least ONE bestseller turned into a movie... until then, I will have to assume that he is a far better writer than you... - Karmakaze Sat, 02 Jan 2010 10:41:58 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html#comment-14414 stevekelner: > Let us not get into a literary argument You started it. I read the rest of your post and agreed with it in general. I don't agree that Crichton is an excellent writer, however. He's a childish writer at best. Thanks for correcting my spelling and describing the contents of your bookshelf though, it was very helpful. - latsot Sat, 02 Jan 2010 09:57:22 +0100