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

He was too busy, man! 300 people a day! Besides, the old rusty one worked just fine. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

-- Supernatural Man (asd...), November 4th, 2004.

taught the incas everything they know, man.

I believe because it happened several hundred times over. He pulled tumors out of people's nutsack using a dirty knife. Do I need to know how he did that? Or isn't it enough just to know that he did that? Is the alternative believing that he had a sleight of hand trick in which he secretly had a bunch of tumors up his sleeve?

Chariot of the Gods is crap. I don't know who taught the Incas, but I suppose it could be aliens.

I think it's cool that they found ancient carvings of corn in Asia, though. Corn was a new discovery that came with the discovery of America. I suppose there could have been an Asian kind of corn that just died out over time.

I have a knife to stab you!

His list of accomplishments is phenomenal. Researchers and people of the medical profession studied him and not only observed but photographed his opera tions. Skeptics turned believers.

In 1956 Arlgo was charged with practicing medicine illegally. Many would testify that there was no evidence of infection or harm from Arlgo's treatment of thousands. His crime was healing, without credentials. He was found guilty and sentenced to fifteen months in jail, plus a fine.

Following an appeal, the sentence was reduced to eight months. Before he served his time he received an official presidential pardon from President Kubitschek.

I was quoting "john carpenter's the thing". 'twas a joke.

Hi Giro. I could get into that - the rational behind the "why," the model underlying the "how" - but I was just starting to go there a few months ago on that star sign thread ( I missed you there! Kenan & oops & Caitlin kept me from getting lonely though), and it wouldn't do any good. Why? Since all of the models, methods, cosmology, even the terminology behind that cosmology (an infuriating matter of semantics...is your "science" different from Babylonian "science" which is related to Hindu "science," et al): etheric bodies, astral bodies, causal bodies, karma, soul, chakra, chi/prana, etc.... all of that is irrevelent regarding empiricism, since it's supposedly to be first accepted as a matter of principle, until it IS subjectively experienced. Is there really an Objective to begin with? Here is where the civilizational/cultural/you name it world-views' schism enters the area of insurmountability...[[[IMO, first the West was wayyy too over on one extreme, leading everything up to Faith but one based on institutionalized societal dogma ie, the Church, as opposed to one that varied based on subjective exoerience, as in the East ((Hinduism, Tibetan Buddhim, Taoism, etc)). NOW, in a very gradual reaction to that extreme, the Western pendulum since the "Enlightenment" has swung wayyy too far to the polar opposite, not leaving anything upto principles that by _definition_ cannot provide an observable and, to respect the SM, copyable manifestation as beholden to empiricism.]]]]

So you can very easily "disprove," or disregard these suspension-of-disbelief-requiring rationals and basic terms/entities, or claim that since they cannot be proven (via the five senses / empiricism), that it's all outside the realm of (Modern/Westen) Science, and therefore in the domain of Faith. Which I think I'm fine with, on one level...

...until I remember that this "domain of Faith" motel room I'm locked in is really nasty, as I'm sharing company numerous people (whom the rest of the West looks upon with disdain! see innumerable election threads!) who believed it's close to End Times, Jesus is returning, and therefore voted for Bush II last night. I hate being here!! It's fucking with my self-identification!

I think the key difference separarating teh Me from Tehm (a new meme?) would be the "personal experience" clause, which even Caitlin expressed above. BUT that gets me in even more trouble, as now I am a) veering dangerously close to the "Other Ppl's 'Irrational' beliefs Are Teh Suck; Mine R00l" stance, and b) skirting (but not unconsciously! after all I'm bringin' it up) the conflation between subjective experience and mental illness/"hallucination," for surely a lot of the people in this room _have_ "experienced" Jesus on a peronal level, and I'm not above doubting that X amount are k-k-krazy.

How do I get out of this room?!?

Basically, I think you have to answer one question yourself before you ask me any others: are there any limits or exceptions to empiricism, or is it irrefutable, and if the former, when and why ?

I didn't think you were for serious.

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.

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.

(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?

This thread is hilarious! Wow!

Well, at Sébastian's request, I dug up an old thread about Randi (this appears to be the only one), to say he's a carny and the Randi prize is a publicity stunt by a has-been pseudo-skeptic flim-flam. If you are clearly a fraud, Randi will be glad to "test" you. But, for those with the remotest possibility of being able to provide evidence of "paranormal activity," Randi has a history of lying and avoiding these cases entirely. Randi himself has even admitted it when confronted with the fact that his methods are dishonest. He gets away with it, of course, because his audience wants him to succeed and doesn't really care how he does it. If the prize ever was given away, most likely all the pseudo-skeptics in his audience would think he was slipping or in cahoots with the prize-winner.

See first two posts on this thread, if bored:
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=50207&hl=

But, I wouldn't trust a guy with a rusty knife to stab me in the balls LOL.

Man, I love this guy for being such a ranty, insane little gnome man. The world of skeptics is just as weird as the world of the people they're railing against.

Randi vs Global Warming

Oh, it must be Christmas. As I mentioned in Wednesday's news briefs, James Randi has come under fire from all quarters this week, after posting his thoughts about global warming to his blog:

-----
An unfortunate fact is that scientists are just as human as the rest of us, in that they are strongly influenced by the need to be accepted, to kowtow to peer opinion, and to "belong" in the scientific community. Why do I find this "unfortunate"? Because the media and the hoi polloi increasingly depend upon and accept ideas or principles that are proclaimed loudly enough by academics who are often more driven by "politically correct" survival principles than by those given them by Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and Bohr. (Granted, it's reassuring that they're listening to academics at all -- but how to tell the competent from the incompetent?) Religious and other emotional convictions drive scientists, despite what they may think their motivations are.

...It's easy enough to believe that drought, floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes are signs of a coming catastrophe from global warming, but these are normal variations of any climate that we -- and other forms of life -- have survived. Earth has undergone many serious changes in climate, from the Ice Ages to periods of heavily increased plant growth from their high levels of CO2, yet the biosphere has survived. We're adaptable, stubborn, and persistent -- and we have what other life forms don't have: we can manipulate our environment. Show me an Inuit who can survive in his habitat without warm clothing... Humans will continue to infest Earth because we're smart.

In my amateur opinion, more attention to disease control, better hygienic conditions for food production and clean water supplies, as well as controlling the filth that we breathe from fossil fuel use, are problems that should distract us from fretting about baking in Global Warming.
-----

Given that Randi's skeptical peers and scientific admirers have spent the last couple of months attacking 'Global Warming Deniers', Randi found himself in the unlikely spot of being attacked for his 'pseudo-scientific' opinion piece. Blog posts decrying Randi's statement appeared quickly on Pharyngula, The Quackometer, Cosmic Variance, Greg Laden's Blog and Respectful Insolence. Even more vicious were the comments threads (lead, as it would be expected, by more than 500 Pharyngula comments) in which it was suggested that Randi was suffering from dementia and so on (although you'd have to say there may have been some karmic retribution for Randi in the meanness of it all...with friends like those, who needs 'woo-woo' enemies!) And, in a wonderful bit of timing, Randi managed to post his piece on the same day that a fund-raising drive for the James Randi Educational Foundation kicked into gear. Oops.

The back-pedaling was swift - the next day, Randi posted a new statement, "I'm Not 'Denying' Anything" (which P.Z. Myers labeled a 'not-pology', leading to some fun exchanges between Myers' minions and Randi's followers in comments threads.) And then the back-patting, with plenty of 'skeptics' saying that the criticism of Randi showed how healthy the modern skeptical movement is.

But this is nonsense. Randi took a position which was diametrically opposed to the current scientific consensus, and furthermore one that was absolutely contrary to the argument being put forth on a regular basis by other skeptics such as Phil Plait and P.Z. Myers. There was no other option for them but to criticise Randi – it was either that or be hypocrites. What would be a better test of the health of modern skepticism is if other skeptics pulled Randi up for speaking nonsense about more fringe topics. Which he does on a regular basis. And the silence is deafening. The real truth of modern skepticism as a dogmatic faith is revealed in those particular moments.

In the comments threads, many people seemed shocked that their great beacon of truth was spreading misinformation. But the only reason was because Randi took on a topic which didn't allow his sheeple to nod their head in agreement. Randi often posts rubbish and misinformation on his blog - I've criticised him before in the comments section to his blog (asking for references for dubious claims etc) only to be attacked by other 'skeptics'. For instance, as I mentioned recently, Randi once attacked parapsychologist Dr Dean Radin by saying that he had recently moved into researching presentiment after his other research had failed - in truth, Radin has been publishing successful results on presentiment for more than a decade, in addition to his other research. On another occasion with which I was personally involved, Randi deliberately misled his readers to suit his own personal ends. Randi also often states his dislike (or at least distrust) of the 'ivory tower' of academia, perhaps a result of his own lack of education.

But if 'skeptics' would like to dismiss what I say because it refers to fringe ideas, it should be asked why this GW statement caused such uproar, when Randi has posted scary social-Darwinism rants such as the following (regarding the 'beneficial' effects of drug legalisation on addicts) which perhaps deserved far more criticism:

-----
Those individuals who were stupid enough to rush into the arms of the mythical houris and/or Adonis's they would expect to greet them, would simply do so and die - by whatever chemical or biological fate would overcome them...the principle of Survival of the Fittest would draconically prove itself for a couple of years, after which Natural Selection would weed out those for whom there is no hope except through our forbearance, and I'm very, very, weary of supporting these losers with my tax dollars.

...Any weeping and wailing over the Poor Little Kids who would perish by immediately gobbling down pills and injecting poison, is summoning up crocodile tears, in my opinion. They would - and presently do - mature into grown-up idiots, and Darwin would be appalled that his lessons were ignored.
-----

So says the world's premiere defender of reason.

Much props to Randi, but I'd be major bummed to find out he was a Libertarian.

Mr. Randi has apparently just outed himself on his site (er, as gay, not as a fake psychic).

Hahah I was about to say.

amazing

What a weird story...

Jailed Plantation mystery artist reveals true identity in federal court

Jailed mystery artist Jose Alvarez and his longtime companion, magician and professional skeptic James "The Amazing" Randi, revealed Alvarez's true identity to a federal judge Friday so the artist could be released on a million-dollar bond after six weeks of incarceration.

For 24 years, Deyvi Pena used the name, date of birth and Social Security number of a New York man to travel the world on a United States passport first issued to him in 1987. During that time as Alvarez, he became a celebrated artist whose works have hung in exhibitions in New York, Miami and San Francisco.

Pena was arrested Sept. 8 at Randi's Plantation home under the name "John Doe" and charged with passport fraud and identity theft. A Sun Sentinel investigation revealed Pena's true identity earlier this week. The newspaper obtained the immigration visa he used in March 1984 to come to the United States from his native Venezuela to attend the Art Institute of Fort Lauderdale.

Pena, 49, and Randi, 83, have remained high-profile figures in the world of skepticism for decades, and Randi is famous around the world for debunking people who profess to have paranormal powers. He runs the James Randi Educational Foundation dedicated to skepticism.

The deal to get Pena — whose full name is Deyvi Orangel Pena Arteaga — out on bond was worked out at the last minute Thursday night by Assistant U.S. Attorney Bertha Mitrani and Pena's defense attorney, Susan Dmitrovsky.

U.S. Magistrate Barry Seltzer asked the attorneys if there was any paperwork — a passport or travel visas — to show Pena was who he said he was.

"Do we have anything to confirm this his true identity?" the judge asked. "I can't release a defendant unless I have some idea who he is."

Mitrani said she and the federal agents working on the case had not had time to check for immigration records, but that she was comfortable Pena was his actual identity and that he would not try to flee the country if released on bond.

"We are going to verify and vet the information he gave us," Mitrani told the judge.

The judge was satisfied only after hearing Pena and Randi testify under oath. Randi told the judge he had seen Pena's Venezuelan passport years ago. Pena said he used the fraudulent U.S. passport to travel Europe.

Seltzer set two bonds for Pena: One is a $1 million personal surety bond guaranteed by him and Randi, and the other is a cash bond of $50,000. Pena was released a few hours after the hearing, still wearing tan jail scrubs. He will wear an electronic monitor and be under house arrest.

Even with the disclosure of Pena's identity, another mystery persists. Neither he nor Randi disclosed why Pena had stolen someone else's identity.

"The government and the public will know how all this happened and snowballed," Dmitrovsky said after the hearing. "That's all going to be revealed. It's a very compelling story.

Hope nobody takes up Randi's million dollar challenge anytime soon.

good article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/09/magazine/the-unbelievable-skepticism-of-the-amazing-randi.html