James Randi: fails to explain away Arigo, the surgeon with the rusty knife

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (227 of them)
Stabby!

Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 4 November 2004 01:47 (nineteen years ago) link

This reminds me: I have to get back to that Kundalini thread, and its questions about Chi/Prana; bookmarked it a few weeks ago. But hey, one soul can't do everything 'round here. Maybe Supernatural Man can take that one on.

Vic (Vic), Thursday, 4 November 2004 01:52 (nineteen years ago) link

It is my professional opinion that this fellow is correct. Arigo was Superman.

Ong's Hat, Thursday, 4 November 2004 01:53 (nineteen years ago) link

I believe that physical things should be given physical measure.

You can't measure something like creativity or passion b/c it is not inherently physical, although it may leave physical evidence indirectly. That doesn't mean that those things don't exist. However, if you're going to talk about physical things (like surgery, election outcomes) and the like, then yes, I demand empiricism. If you want to talk about emotions, ideas, and other intangibles, then certainly we can at least partially liberate ourselves from empiricism.

I also think that a bit of Occam's Law usually is worth consideration.

Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 4 November 2004 01:53 (nineteen years ago) link

Giro, is the removal of a tumor empirical? Carrying home your tumor in a jar? Being filmed and examined by doctors and scientists who concluded that something was going on that was not debunked?

Supernatural Man, Thursday, 4 November 2004 01:56 (nineteen years ago) link

Nice post, Vic, I enjoyed it. Occam's Razor is over-rated.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 01:57 (nineteen years ago) link

Being as those things are empirical, I demand some empirical attempts to explain them, instead of just saying that they happened. Yes.

Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 4 November 2004 01:58 (nineteen years ago) link

How is Occam's Razor overrated?

Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 4 November 2004 01:58 (nineteen years ago) link

Well, over-rated by some. Saying that the simplest explaination is most likely to be true doesn't mean it is true, or that any other explainations are false.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 02:01 (nineteen years ago) link

You clearly don't understand it, then.

Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 4 November 2004 02:02 (nineteen years ago) link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 4 November 2004 02:02 (nineteen years ago) link

Being as those things are empirical, I demand some empirical attempts to explain them, instead of just saying that they happened. Yes.

The book! The film! The simple fact that no proof of fraud was ever found researching Arigo. The work of no other so-called "psychic surgeon" has ever been documented as thoroughly as that of Arigo.

Supernatural Man, Thursday, 4 November 2004 02:03 (nineteen years ago) link

Explain, not document.

Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 4 November 2004 02:03 (nineteen years ago) link

Excuse me? I understand it just fine.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 02:03 (nineteen years ago) link

And I'm asking this b/c if you can't replicate this, and the man is dead, what is the point exactly?

(xpost)
Quoting the Wikipedia article:
Some people have oversimplified Occam's Razor as "The simplest explanation is the best (or true) one".

Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 4 November 2004 02:05 (nineteen years ago) link

http://skepdic.com/occam.html

latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 4 November 2004 02:12 (nineteen years ago) link

Oh, I get what you're saying. If you see something, it isn't real to you unless you can explain how and why. Otherwise, it is illogical and therefore an illusion until further notice. Okay. Let's call it a theory, then. I have a theory that Arigo's gifts were similar to Tantra, which has been well-documented as well. How does Tantra work? How does the brain work? What is reality? Tantra allows the brain to recognize portions of reality the brain normally does not recognize, perhaps? And by recognizing that portion of reality, the brain is then able to work within that framework of reality.

Supernatural Man, Thursday, 4 November 2004 02:12 (nineteen years ago) link

Some people have oversimplified Occam's Razor as "The simplest explanation is the best (or true) one".

Yes, and I said that some people over-stated the principle. Occam's Razor is so prevelant that to say a theory is simpler means to state that it has the fewest number of assumptions. Occam's Razor makes no claims about Truth.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 02:12 (nineteen years ago) link

You still haven't answered the question, SM. What can we possibly learn from this, given that it's not reproducible, has no valid empirical explanation? So again I ask you, what is the point?

And yes, I demand physical "accountability" from physical acts. As we've established.

Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 4 November 2004 02:17 (nineteen years ago) link

And Kevin, please show me where I over-stated Occam's Razor or tell me how it's not relevant to this discussion, please.

Furthermore, please show me what you'd define as overstating it.

Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 4 November 2004 02:18 (nineteen years ago) link

them's fightin' words

Orbit (Orbit), Thursday, 4 November 2004 02:19 (nineteen years ago) link

(Funnily enough, I'm feeling pretty calm.)

Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 4 November 2004 02:19 (nineteen years ago) link

I didn't say you overstated Occam's Razor, I said that some people did. Occam's Razor is useful to such discussion, but it can't find truth. People think it can. People think that the simplest (or if you'd prefer, the explaination with the fewest number of assumptions) is the truth. To use the Wikipedia example, finding a tree knocked over is more attributable to wind, but that doesn't mean it wasn't actually knocked over by aliend. People who don't understand Occam's Razor use it as a test for truth, whereas it is mostly a guide. You perhaps misunderstood my post, and then accused me of ignorance, which I wouldn't mind, but I'm a philosophy graduate - you learn about Occam's Razor your first week.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 02:22 (nineteen years ago) link

In this particular case, Occam's Razor seems futile. Arigo never came close to being proven a fraud. The "simplest explanation" could be either he's a fraud or that there's something we don't understand. Since we know we don't understand everything, including the brain, consciousness and Tantra or prana, why is fraud "more likely to be true" with total lack of evidence to make this case?

Check out skepdic's pathetic attempt to classify Chi and note the lump-it-all-together strategy of the article they link to. Chinatown practitioners also call Falun Dafa "quack medicine" just as readily as anyone from the AMA.

Supernatural Man, Thursday, 4 November 2004 02:24 (nineteen years ago) link

You still haven't answered the question, SM. What can we possibly learn from this, given that it's not reproducible, has no valid empirical explanation? So again I ask you, what is the point?

That James Randi is a dipshit, skepdic was created by a dipshit and debunkers who use the lump-it-together technique are dipshits. If there is not conclusive evidence to debunk something, it should not be casually dismissed by citing Occam's Razor.

Supernatural Man, Thursday, 4 November 2004 02:27 (nineteen years ago) link

Kevin, fair enough. Sorry if I came on a bit strong there.

SM, if you have no other explanation for something, it's pretty well worthless in practical terms. Occam's Razor requires a counter-argument to weigh against. There may be a simpler explanation for the surgery, but until it can be provided for the phenomenon is merely an anecdote of no worth.

Example: I come up with a proof for cold fusion. However, I do not write it down before I die, nor do I pass it along. I only announce that I have figured it out. Whether or not I have or haven't actually done this is irrelevant, because it has no practical value in that it can no be reproduced until someone else comes along and shows an empirical solution to the problem.

Face it - you need empiricism for the physical realm.

Thank you.

Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 4 November 2004 02:33 (nineteen years ago) link

Hey no problem Giralamo - I shouldn't butt into arguments with my philosophical pet-hates.

Redfez, would you let him operate on you?

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 02:36 (nineteen years ago) link

Another thing is that Occam's Razor provides that you should side with what has the least assumptions.

On the one side we can assume that this was a case of fraud. On the other side, we can assume that there are multiple disciplines of psychic science yet to be fully documented.

Which seems the smaller assumption? Remember, if you only provide some plausible empirical explanation for #2, you reduce the assumptions.

Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 4 November 2004 02:38 (nineteen years ago) link

Giro, what if someone had created cold fusion and this was witnessed and verified by thousands of people, but the inventor died from a heart attack after accidentally setting his notes on fire? Same thing.

Super Guy, Thursday, 4 November 2004 02:58 (nineteen years ago) link

Another thing is that Occam's Razor provides that you should side with what has the least assumptions.

On the one side we can assume that this was a case of fraud. On the other side, we can assume that there are multiple disciplines of psychic science yet to be fully documented.

Which seems the smaller assumption? Remember, if you only provide some plausible empirical explanation for #2, you reduce the assumptions.

On the one hand you have several examples of fraud that hint at fraud and on the other hand you have several pieces of evidence that suggest a singular aspect of science which has yet to be fully documented-- you can't just lump them together when you feel like it and seperate them when you feel like it. You've purposely used the term "multiple disciplines" of psychic science to add a tone of impossibility to the whole thing, rather than recognizing the obvious similarity and ease of singular classification as one aspect of reality. Yet, these "multiple disciplines" are often lumped together to discredit each other when one case is found to be fraud.

Supernatural Man, Thursday, 4 November 2004 03:05 (nineteen years ago) link

Super Guy, how would you know if it was actually cold fusion?

Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 4 November 2004 03:07 (nineteen years ago) link

What is cold fusion?

Super Guy, Thursday, 4 November 2004 03:08 (nineteen years ago) link

http://www.synchronizeduniverse.com/CASE-COLD%20FUSION.jpg

Maybe they used a Cold Fusion Detector to tell?

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 03:11 (nineteen years ago) link

Right. Cold fusion is hypothetical. So, if, as I said, thousands of witnessed and verified this was "cold fusion" (science community included, of course), then how does the ill-timed loss of the formula and inventor disprove it?

Super dude, Thursday, 4 November 2004 03:15 (nineteen years ago) link

Well, if the inventor died and burned all his notes and equipment, and we had no way of repeating the experiment, it's essentially fruitless and pointless. Someone will have to start all over again to repeat it, so the first experiment might as well have not existed.

On the other hand, if the inventor at least left behind his equipment, then that could be used to analyse some of the methods used for the experiment.

The point is that empiricism in science is based upon being able to reproduce the result independently given certain standard conditions, based upon understanding of what methods must be used and why they must be used.

If you don't have that, you just have a good story to tell around the campfire and nothing more.

Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 4 November 2004 03:19 (nineteen years ago) link

Yeah, I guess you're right. In the case of cold fusion, for it to be verified by anyone it would have to be more than witnessed. But still-- HEY-- what about my other point I was trying to annoy you with? The one about fraud vs. "multiple disciplines" of psychic science?

Super Corrector, Thursday, 4 November 2004 03:20 (nineteen years ago) link

Until you have some empirical evidence for psychic science, it's still the larger assumption.

Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 4 November 2004 03:22 (nineteen years ago) link

How do you obtain empirical evidence for a process that is invisible beyond its observable results? Is there empirical evidence for hypnosis, for instance? If you mean you wish to replicate psychic surgery like Arigo, you need look no further than Tantra. How many replications would you like? How many do you need? What is the percentage rate of success necessary to be convincing?

The Super, Thursday, 4 November 2004 03:29 (nineteen years ago) link

http://www.anni80.info/musica/images/george.jpg
'Cause ya gotta faith...

Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 4 November 2004 03:48 (nineteen years ago) link

have it, even

Super, Thursday, 4 November 2004 03:50 (nineteen years ago) link

For instance, a Yogi can change his brainwaves -- verifiable.A Yogi can stop his heart -- verifiable. A Yogi can stop breathing for over 5 minutes -- verifiable. A Yogi can go without eating for ridiculous periods of time -- verifiable. A Yogi can walk over hot coals, lick a white hot rod and somehow heal himself and others -- observable, at least, but how do we "verify" such things? Because he does it repeatedly and teach others to do the same? To me, that is verification. To you, apparently, he is teaching legions of frauds?

Super, Thursday, 4 November 2004 03:51 (nineteen years ago) link

Er, substitute "stop heartbeat" for "slow pulse to nada."

Super, Thursday, 4 November 2004 03:54 (nineteen years ago) link

This is an unusual thread.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 4 November 2004 04:21 (nineteen years ago) link

Redfez, would you let him operate on you?

No. (And ?!)

This is an unusual thread.

This was my favorite thread ever. It gets my "best of the web" award:

http://www.ronandjoe.com/cheese/silly/red_fez.jpg

redfez, Thursday, 4 November 2004 04:52 (nineteen years ago) link

For instance, a Yogi can change his brainwaves -- verifiable.A Yogi can stop his heart -- verifiable. A Yogi can stop breathing for over 5 minutes -- verifiable. A Yogi can go without eating for ridiculous periods of time -- verifiable.

Is it completely pointless for me to ask for some cites here? By verifiable, I assume you mean "verifiable by people without some vested interest in believing he can do that".

Layna Andersen (Layna Andersen), Thursday, 4 November 2004 05:38 (nineteen years ago) link

As you can imagine, it's not as easy to find free and readily available scientific studies online today about a subject that was of mainstream interest in the 1970's, but there are some I've found and listed below. Yoga is a popular form of Tantra, so you are likely to find much more on this particular subject in 2004. Eventually, for the reasons cited in Time article below, there will be nothing more to say about Yoga, either, and in 2030, skeptics will *still* be asking for proof that it does anything to promote healing. If you were interested in the subject and did your own research, you could find plenty more, including everything I've mentioned above. There are also frauds. Some people stick a lemon in their armpit to "stop" their pulse, just like some people throw animal organs on the ground to "perform" psychic surgery. But, they are not all frauds and it is wrong to use the lump-it-together method of dismissal.

http://www.firstscience.com/SITE/factfile/factfile1421_1440.asp
Weird Science fact # 1422/ It has been demonstrated that humans are able to control their body temperatures to an amazing degree. In one experiment involving skilled yoga practitioners, the yogi was able to change the temperature of two areas of skin just two inches apart by a difference of ten degrees fahrenheit.


http://health.discovery.com/centers/fitness/runsmart/runsmart3.html
This article shows that you can not only use your mind to change your body, but that you can use your body to change your mind, which is exactly what Tantra/Yoga is all about.

http://www.newscientist.com/conferences/confarticle.jsp?conf=soneu200011&id=ns9999154
This article reaffirms this, specifically citing Yoga.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,106356-1,00.html
This article shows that scientific analysis of Yoga is about as controversial as eggs. One study shows one thing, someone else says it's inconclusive. Do you eat the yolks or not?

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/health/HealthRepublish_41237.htm
Scientists at the Medical College of Georgia examined how transcendental meditation decreases constriction of blood vessels and affects the heart’s output.  They found that transcendental meditation decreases blood pressure by reducing constriction of the blood vessels and thereby decreases the risk of heart disease.  This is yet another study that shows evidence of mind-body connections.  While clearing one’s mind and concentrating upon soothing images, one can ease the physical condition of high blood pressure by allowing the body’s blood vessels to dilate.  This is not a conscious process in that you are thinking, “please blood vessels dilate” but an awareness process of recognizing the stressors of your everyday life.  By becoming aware of your need to take time to relax and release tension you are able to transfer this healthy awareness to your body.

....And here's a whole bunch of articles on Yoga related to physical and mental health:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/search/?keyword=yoga&topic=all&sort=relevance

Supernatural Man, Thursday, 4 November 2004 13:08 (nineteen years ago) link

How do they do that cuttting a guy in half thing? imagine the medical breakthroughs we could make if only we could understand how it's done.

I'M BEING SARCASTIC

Jaunty Alan (Alan), Thursday, 4 November 2004 13:32 (nineteen years ago) link

http://www.starchild-uk.com/

Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Thursday, 4 November 2004 13:53 (nineteen years ago) link

Dude, to win this argument you have to prove the unrpoveable. And you also have to apologise to Mr Randi because you're not capable of backing up your attacks on him. Best do it now, because then if you die and your computer is destroyed you'll have witnesses who can confirm you did it.

Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 4 November 2004 14:08 (nineteen years ago) link

Markelby, Mr. Randi is not capable of backing up his own statements and you are not capable of speaking on this subject honestly because you are obviously not aware of the staggering amount of research that supports these "'multiple disciplines' of psychic science".

My argument does not have to prove the unproveable. For an unsolved mystery to be solved, it has be proved. Otherwise, it is not solved. For it to remain unsolved, all we have to do is admit the evidence for the mystery and the lack of evidence for its solution.

Supernatural Man, Thursday, 4 November 2004 14:20 (nineteen years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.