Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

Comment: Cheaper pennies is no pennies (Score 1) 818

by DrXym (#39073443) Attached to: Obama Pushes For Cheaper Pennies
Dump them for the nuisance they are to everyone and enact laws that dictate how rounding is performed to the nearest 5c. While at it, scrap $1 and $2 bills, and use coins for those.

Alternatively the US could do what places like Indonesia has done with virtually worthless small denominations. Shops give you sweets in your change. This would be the measure the powerful boiled sweet lobby would recommend.

Comment: Re:Just another Con Man (Score 5, Insightful) 489

by DrXym (#39072489) Attached to: James Randi's Latest Debunking Operation

Correct, but Randi has nothing to do with this. He hasn't shown anything general - e.g. cold-reading techniques - which hasn't already been shown by others before him, and where he's identified individual fraudsters he's used no more technological or detective skill than isn't employed, say, by an enthusiastic radio amateur. All Randi offers is a marketing machine plus...

Randi has very publicly debunked Uri Geller, Peter Popoff, Sai Baba, Sylvia Brown, John Edward, John of God and various others specifically as well as various other less prominent faith healers, psychics etc. He has also contributed enormously to the skeptical movement by his participation in CSI/CSICOP, the annual Amazing Meeting and so forth. To pretend he's done nothing or that his efforts are meaningless is complete nonsense. Even this documentary features interviews from some of the major speakers from the skeptic movement and they all acknowledge him for his efforts and as a leading figure. Even Carl Sagan when he was alive.

...the nonsense that argument X against person Y is any stronger just because Y cannot or will not disprove X under Z's terms after being offered $1,000,000 by Z.

Sorry but it's not under Z's terms. It's under mutually agreed terms. If I claim I can see pictures inside envelopes then I propose a test along those lines. This other person | has a million dollars riding on the result, so their interest is in ensuring that I cannot cheat but also ensuring the result is transparently obvious so there is no doubt which way it fell. So might require the contents cannot be picked up, held to the light, that a particular grade of paper be used etc. They might also suggest that the test is over 20 envelopes with a particular and obvious criteria for pass or fail. They might also provide me with the actual pictures to place over each envelope to relieve me of the ambiguity caused by drawing what I see. I might also have requirements of my own which can be reasonably accommodated (e.g. skeptics stay 50 meters back because of their negative brainwaves) or the colour of the room or distance that each envelope is space from the next or whatever. Eventually the terms of the test are defined and then mutually agreed upon. Then I perform what I say. Or don't.

You appear to think this is somehow unreasonable.

Please just spend a moment imagining what real science would be like if it were based on 1 and 2.

Who says it's science? It's a challenge with a substantial cash prize for the person who succeeds. The science can come later. Scientists would be falling over themselves to test the successful applicant.

Comment: Re:Just another Con Man (Score 4, Insightful) 489

by DrXym (#39072371) Attached to: James Randi's Latest Debunking Operation
I've said this elsewhere but it all boils down to this. If you claim that magic powers allow you to perform some feat and then someone else can perform the exact same feat without any magic at all, then the burden of proof is on you. If as a further incentive I offer you a million dollars you to perform your feat in a manner which prevents tricks (such as the way I just demonstrated) and you bluster, dodge, evade, make excuses, prevaricate, and otherwise attempt to run away from an easy test then any reasonable person might conclude you're cheating too.

And that's the fact of the matter. Randi and cohorts have more than an adequately exposed the tricks behind all kinds of so called psychic phenomena. Why isn't there a queue stretching down the road to take the million off him by demonstrating such phenomena are real? How is it that all these psychics, faith healers and all the rest who are clearly not shy of publicity or averse to making money cannot find a single half a day in their schedule to pick up the easiest million dollars they'll ever make?

Comment: Re:"a fraudulent religious organization" (Score 4, Insightful) 489

by DrXym (#39072247) Attached to: James Randi's Latest Debunking Operation
There are organizations such as Oxfam, The Samaritans, Trocaire etc which have religious origins but offer valuable, impartial, non judgemental aid to people regardless of race, creed or colour.

Sadly there are a lot of other organisations which are more interested in lining their own pockets or pushing Jesus and less in the whole helping people part. Scientology seems to specialize in such rackets.

Comment: Re:Just another Con Man (Score 5, Insightful) 489

by DrXym (#39072203) Attached to: James Randi's Latest Debunking Operation

All he does is recreate an event or phenomena and then make an unsubstantiated claim that it was done that way without actually proving it was done that way. (Sorry I want the smoking gun)

Well it's like this. One person demonstrates spoon bending powers which they say were bestowed by space aliens. Another person says "you bend the spoon when people are not looking" and demonstrates exactly the same effect by such means. So who is the burden of proof on? And then this second person offers the first person a million dollars to demonstrate their powers in a way that detects cheating (e.g. putting soot on the ends of the spoon) and the first person blusters, whines, prevaricates and ultimately refuses So who is making the unsubstantiated claim?

The simple fact is that Randi has satisfactorily debunked all manner of so called paranomal feats (spoon bending, cold reading, dowsing, miracle smoke, psychic healing etc.) and in some cases exposed outright fraud such as with Popoff. The burden of proof is squarely in the court of those who accept such things to demonstrate it. Extraordinary proof requires extraordinary evidence. Given that there is a million dollars on the table for a very simple demonstration of their powers you'd think Randi would have a queue going round the block.

Of what you see in books, believe 75%. Of newspapers, believe 50%. And of TV news, believe 25% -- make that 5% if the anchorman wears a blazer.

Working...