werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner) (08/02/88)
In article <5826@dasys1.UUCP>, tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: > But sending Randi was an insult. The man is a macrophage. He makes > his living from charlatanism as surely as Madame Zolana and her > palmistry shop down the street. Are you sure Randi isn't a Basophil? I can't understand the animosity people have against James Randi. For one, he could probably make just as much money, if not more, sticking to his first calling as a professional stage magician. Secondly, in almost every instance where he set out to expose charlatanism, there turned out to be charlantanism to expose. Are people just envious of his success rate, or is there something more sinister? Now this Basophil degranulation thing is different than Peter Popoff. Popoff was using the voice of God (actually his wife on AM radio) to rip off the poor, elderly, and gullible. Uri Geller's book sold millions before Randi exposed him (and probably quite a few afterwards as well.) I doubt Beneviste's intentions were nearly as malevolent nor opportunistic. He merely ended up as the center of a clash of beliefs. (Hey look: I recently had the same problem. I had a case of Fosters' bet on a particular genetic arrangement. I said it wasn't there. Someone else said it was. Over a period of three months, every well-designed experiment I did said that I was wrong and he was right. But I KNEW I was right, and eventually designed and performed the ultimate definitive experiment that proved that reality agreed with my interpretation of it. That's Science. Frankly, I didn't really care whether I was right or wrong. I just wanted to know for sure whether I was right or wrong.) Maybe its me, but why does it seem that nearly everybody in sci.bio/sci.misc seems to believe in astrology, telekinesis, miracle cures, mythical creatures, and whatever fad is hot, and only a handful seem to believe in evolution, relativity, and the scientific method. -- Craig Werner (future MD/PhD, 4 years down, 3 to go) werner@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517) "I just won't sleep, that's all."
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (08/03/88)
In article <1935@aecom.YU.EDU> werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner) writes: } I can't understand the animosity people have against James Randi. }For one, he could probably make just as much money, if not more, sticking }to his first calling as a professional stage magician. Secondly, in almost }every instance where he set out to expose charlatanism, there turned out }to be charlantanism to expose. Are people just envious of his success rate, }or is there something more sinister? Randi goes around destroying illusions and cherished beliefs used to nourish hopes and excuse failings. He offers only cold reality as substitute. You expect people to thank him? } Maybe its me, but why does it seem that nearly everybody in }sci.bio/sci.misc seems to believe in astrology, telekinesis, miracle }cures, mythical creatures, and whatever fad is hot, and only a handful }seem to believe in evolution, relativity, and the scientific method. No everybody. Just the more vocal ones. Those of us who _understand_ evolution, relativity and scientific method (as opposed to merely believing in them) consider them so obvious as to not merit repeated explanation. We've also noticed that no amount of logic, debate and/or explanation will convince the mystics, romantics and vitamin pushers. I once posted a 150 line condensation of a graduate text chapter on experimental design. It was ignored. It's too much work to do it again. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Illegitimati Nil Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) (08/04/88)
In article <3014@ttidca.TTI.COM> hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath) writes: > [On "Randi Bashing"] >Randi goes around destroying illusions and cherished beliefs used to >nourish hopes and excuse failings. He offers only cold reality as >substitute. You expect people to thank him? I don't think that questioning a persons credentials before believing what he has to say is all that outrageous. Randi is an expert on fraud. He has been very successful at pointing out stuff like the radio transmissions used by Peter Popov to prompt him during his "faith healing." If Benveniste or one of his associates was perpetrating an out-and-out fraud, sleight of hand or something akin to this, Randi would be the one to detect it. I remain unconvinced that he is qualified to comment on the validity of an honest experiment. Noone has mentioned the other investigators. Does anyone know who they are and if they are qualified? One assumes the original reviewers were fairly competent scientists. I think that there are sufficient differences between a faith healer and what Benveniste is saying to warrent a different attitude. I have no "illusion or cherished belief" reguarding the dilution experiments. I would not be hurt at all if they were proved an artifact. So far, however, I have seen only vague and unimportant attacks on the method used, no "cold hard facts" disproving it. If I have a "cherished belief" in this reguard, it would be that the best way to test a scientific hypothesis is with the scientific method. The best way to do that is to let other scientists test the idea. That is one of the main reasons for publication. In the end, the correct explanation will be discovered if _free_ inquiry is permitted. > > >No everybody. Just the more vocal ones [believe in astrology etc.]. >Those of us who _understand_ >evolution, relativity and scientific method (as opposed to merely >believing in them) consider them so obvious as to not merit repeated >explanation. We've also noticed that no amount of logic, debate and/or >explanation will convince the mystics, romantics and vitamin pushers. I >once posted a 150 line condensation of a graduate text chapter on >experimental design. It was ignored. I think you are missing a possible explanation for this. Perhaps it was pompous and boring. I've certainly been guilty of the same. -tony