thespike at satx.rr.com
Thu Sep 11 23:59:12 UTC 2008
At 07:31 PM 9/11/2008 -0400, JKC wrote:
>>almost all of what is shown amid the usual Penn and Teller antics
>>and outbursts is BULLSHIT, a child could see that.
>I ... can not fined one FUCKING error in what Penn and Teller were
>say, not one God damn fuckinnm error!
Calm down. Your grammar is out of control. The fuckinnm BULLSHIT is
what I was pointing at: that is, almost everything they showed
gloatingly in between their antics: the grab-it-in-your-fists
spoonbending and the animal spirits or whatever it was and the
grotesque unblinded stupidity masquerading as remote viewing, all the
ridiculously childish nonsense they so bravely set out to debunk.
Those "psychic" morons with their obvious crude fakery were almost
exactly on a par with that blustering fool blithering about the Large
Hadron Collider on the CNET page you url'd earlier. If P&T spent ten
minutes laughing at him, would you conclude that they had thereby
shown the errors of particle physics? You've heard of shooting fish
in a barrel? P&T were blasting at dead sardines in a can.
There were, of course, errors in the very few claims they made about
real parapsychology. For example, Hyman got in his couple of
sentences about how he showed there was nothing at all happening in
STAR GATE, having apparently forgotten what he actually wrote in his
official report. From my book:
<Professor Jessica Utts and Professor Ray Hyman, both of whom had
previously assessed psi for the military in 1988, were contracted
in 1995 by American Institutes for Research (AIR) to evaluate the
Star Gate program. Under Pentagon pressure, the multi-decade program
was then terminated late in 1995; one might suppose that these
evaluators had examined the best results from the various wings of
the long project and found them wanting. Not so, or not quite.
Curiously, Utts's report had concluded: "It is clear to this author
that anomalous cognition is possible and has been demonstrated. This
conclusion is not based on belief, but rather on commonly accepted
scientific criteria" (my italics).
Hyman, a well-known skeptic, predictably disagreed, but admitted: "I
tend to agree with Professor Utts that real effects are occurring in
these experiments." Irritatingly, the assessors were not given the
"operational" remote viewing material, just laboratory results from
the last three years of government-sponsored research done from 1989
to 1994 at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC),
after the program had moved from SRI. Most of the real material,
according to Utts, remains classified (personal communication)...>
That is, Professor Hyman was obliged to acknowledge that the effects
were real, and unexplained, even if he thought it was due to some *as
yet unknown* flaw in the methodology.
More information about the extropy-chat