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

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?

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.

good article:

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