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

(xpost)
Quoting the Wikipedia article:
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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Redfez, would you let him operate on you?

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.

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.

Maybe they used a Cold Fusion Detector to tell?

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.

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

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".

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

I'M BEING SARCASTIC

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.

They actually cut the guy in half. Of course, there are frauds who use various tricks to create a similar illusion.

Well, fine, then what about this book?

http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opbooks.jsp?id=ns24122

"...Psi Wars begins with a look at the sheer strangeness of paranormal phenomena and their implications. Then lead editor James Alcock of the University of Toronto argues cogently for scepticism based on evidence rather than ignorance. And as the bulk of the book shows, the evidence is far more extensive than you might think. Furthermore, some of it, notably in studies of telepathy, is strongly positive...

Far from being the flaky obsession of nutcases, paranormal phenomena emerge as a valuable test bed for techniques whose reliability too often goes unquestioned. Anyone seeking something more sophisticated than the usual mud-slinging should buy this book."

"...Cue the ritual slanging match between the wide-eyed credulist ("Well, it works for me") and the sceptic ("There's not a shred of scientific evidence").

Those who loathe such exchanges because of their sterile predictability now have a powerful antidote in this authoritative and accessible review of the state of scientific research into paranormal phenomena, based on a special issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies. Almost all of the pieces are written by university academics with a track record of peer-reviewed research, and they cover paranormal phenomena thought by some to cast light on human consciousness, primarily telepathy (communication between minds), psychokinesis (affecting objects with the mind) and astrology (celestial effects on the mind)."

you should find another bulletin board. really.

Why? Because a skeptic walks into a room with a psychic and says, "Read my mind-- can't do it? Okay, you're full of shit." Even when overall telepathy studies overwhelmingly favor the existence of telepathy over all other possible explanations, the skeptic says, "Well, they did not do it every time and some studies failed miserably," completely discounting the majority of studies, the methods of analysis and experimentation in each study and the nature of PSI, in general, which nobody claims to be 100%, anyway. It is not like putting cells in a petri dish and getting a predictable result.

it is a waste of effort to investigate every crazy claim that anyone comes out with. if the claim is similar to stuff that has been debunked before, then it is totally rational to not immediately go "OH REALLY, WOW SHOW ME". THis is your "lumping in" thing. there's nothing wrong with it.

the onus is on a claimant to shore up intially unlikely claims with persuasive evidence.

in this case, and others no doubt, you think that persuasive evidence is in. i don't. especially when such claims are so easily explained in other ways.