Again, At The James Randi Educational Foundation

[Anonymous]

...

I genuinely feel that SkepticReport has said nothing wrong and cannot understand what the fuss is about.

I have to admit to being a bit underwhelmed by the evidence for Lucianarchy's predictions.

I do believe in the possibility of the existence of Extra Sensory Phenomena. I believe there is a certain amount of debatable statistical proof and that by their very nature, such phenomena are next to impossible to reproduce on cue.

I believe a certain amount of "suspension of disbelief" to be healthy, though. ES phenomena are squiggly, wriggly and unpredictable. One never knows when they might manifest.

However, even "brickwall" skepticism can be fun, provided it is polite and it allows for the fact that if a person claims that they experience such phenomena, that for them such phenomena are real, then they should be treated with respect, even though the skeptic might disagree with such beliefs.

If someone's being called out for being a fraud (as some have claimed of Uri Geller), or being delusional (as some have claimed of David Icke), then that is quite a serious matter and should be treated as such. Such claims should only be made, if one believes some serious distortion of the perceived truth, perhaps affecting others for example, is being made in the process.




As a semiotician, I'm always interested in what another's model of "reality" might look like.

 

[Anonymous]

I, for one, shall be waiting with baited breath to find out what this might mean.

It means we have someone who jumped fome the Randi forums just to be a troll... I heart is singing... :hmph:


Not exactly a Holmesian deduction but I fear accurate...

 

[Anonymous]

Other sites are outside the jurisdiction of the FTmb Moderators. Our concern is solely with the behaviour of the members of the forum within its confines. Vis-a-vis members flaming other members. If our members wish to criticise the members of other forums we have no remit to prevent them.

This means that it is OK, on this board, to attack people outside this board, but the people attacked have no means of defending themselves in the place they were attacked.

Kinda lopsided, wouldn't you say? Wouldn't it be more fair to allow people to defend themselves? Or simply forbid the attacks in the first place?

As a point of note (and I don't know what level of evidence referencing is required on the fora you're familiar with) it is advised that when making a declaritive statement (such as someone is mistaken) you back up your points with sufficient evidence to qualify them. Ergo provide links back to the source of your information or at least name your source so that other members can join the debate.

The onus is on the claimant, yes. That means Lucianarchy should provide evidence for his original claims, yes. I merely pointed out that his claims of precognition powers were unfounded.

However, if a statement is clarified as being an opinion ("I believe that...", "I think...", "IMHO", &etc...) then we will accept it without evidence; although many members may take it upon themselves to hunt out supporting and contradicting evidence. It's only polite to cherish someone's beliefs.

I agree.

As I stated above, the members who are interested in the facts are quite capable of following whatever links you are able to provide and form their own conclusions.

One might hope so. However, it is always good to summarize the facts, before unsubstantiated claims are repeated so often that they become accepted truths.

It means we have someone who jumped fome the Randi forums just to be a troll... I heart is singing... :hmph:

Not exactly a Holmesian deduction but I fear accurate...

You are quite right about the Holmesian deduction, because you are inaccurate. I found it worthwhile to sign up for this board, so Lucianarchy's false claims of paranormal powers would not stand unopposed.

But, if you consider stating facts as trolling...fine with me.

 

[Anonymous]

1) your entire tone is both accusatory and calculated to cause offence, therefore Trolling is as good a description of it since it is designed to get a visceral not a rational response.

2) you are clearly familiar with LA's oeuvre on the JREF board, therefore my assessment that you are member isn't wholly inaccurate, since to search it you have to be a member (as I am)

Therefore, I would cordially suggest you moderate your tone, since bouncing in and behaving like an ass-hole, even if you are expounding the secrets of the meaning of life, really impresses no-one

 

[Anonymous]

1) your entire tone is both accusatory and calculated to cause offence, therefore Trolling is as good a description of it since it is designed to get a visceral not a rational response.

Please do not lecture me on what "tone" I use. I write in a very direct manner, which should not be misinterpreted as "accusatory" or "calculated to cause offence". You should not judge a person on the very first post he writes anyway.

I can hardly see how a straight-forward correction of Lucianarchy's false claims can be viewed as either.

2) you are clearly familiar with LA's oeuvre on the JREF board, therefore my assessment that you are member isn't wholly inaccurate, since to search it you have to be a member (as I am)

I was pointing out that I was not trolling. I am very familiar with his oeuvre on JREF, which is why I find it important to point out where he is wrong.

Therefore, I would cordially suggest you moderate your tone, since bouncing in and behaving like an ass-hole, even if you are expounding the secrets of the meaning of life, really impresses no-one

Perhaps you could explain to me how else I should phrase a correction of Lucianarchy's false claims?

 

[Anonymous]

Now now gentlemen. No need to fall out - the issue here surely concerns being polite - as SkepticReport rightly states reality is harsh and the harsh reality is that nobody has acussed you of anything SkepticReport, you therefore have nothing to defend, surely.

Live with it - you cannot claim to represent the entire JREF forum, especially not if you two members cannot even agree with one abother. Therefore why would you want to take it upon yourself to behave in this manner? Unless you are in fact........ Randi himself - there you go - a bit of Holmesian decuction (although what a now deceased porn star has to do with this I just cannot fathom).

Seriously though - I don't like crusaders as they tend to justify nastiness in their quest for truth. Any chance you can simply accept that you don't agree and be a bit more polite? There would be nothing wrong with asking Luci (a women, by the way - slight slip of the old critical reasoning there methinks) some probing, yet polite questions about her alleged abilities. She is perfectly entitled to believe whatever she wants about herself, surely, without being put down for those beliefs. Or are you at one with the creationists on the power of your own beliefs?



:madeyes:

 

[Anonymous]

lordshiva,

It is not a question of agreeing to disagree. It's a question of finding the facts. People can believe what they want, but if they claim something that is demonstrably false, then it needs to be pointed out.

If that is seen as rude, then I cannot help it.

Incidentally, Lucianarchy is male.

 

[mejane]

What is demonstately false about Luci's prediction? I agree that it is not the most persausive of results - as I've already said, I would have expected something out of the ordinary for the date to imprint itself so powerfully in Luci's mind.

But then, I don't claim to know everything

Jane
(also a FTMB mod)

 

[Anonymous]

mejane,

It is demonstrably false that Lucianarchy did not predict either the Ladybrook terrorist attack (which was neither in Ladybrook, nor was it an attack), or the Falluja attack.

In the first example, Lucianarchy posted a word "ladybrook" with no explanation whatsoever. There were also very serious doubts about the time he posted it.

In the second example, Lucianarchy was wrong on all accounts.

Now, I would love to hear (again) his arguments why these two were real predictions. Experience tells me that, when asked for evidence, Lucianarchy disappears.

 

[Anonymous]

The fact is, all I am doing here is presenting some examples of perceptions I seem to be able to pick up. Non local. At distance.

'Ladybrook' was significant It became a terrorist target within hours of my presentation of it in my opening post in a JREF thread which was, specifically, about my remote viewing ability.

'Feb 14th attack on a western target' was significant. It was the date that there was an attack on the US backed police HQ in Falluja. It was an awful attack 70+ casualties, 27 of which died. I really hoped this one wouldn't happen, as at the time of the perception I felt there could be over 100 casualties.

'The Face / Bowl' (Alexius) was significantn, given that I only described a few words.

'The FTMB vr experiment was significant

None are spot on direct hits, sure. These are the only perceptions I have presented, and collectively, they show a pattern of significance.

I would like to explore this further.

 

[Anonymous]

mejane,

It is demonstrably false that Lucianarchy did not predict either the Ladybrook terrorist attack (which was neither in Ladybrook, nor was it an attack), or the Falluja attack.

Sorry Lucianarchy! Tee hee. :blush:

So you're saying that he did predict either attack?

I would argue that the words 'critical' (as opposed to criticism), 'objective' or 'demonstrable truth' or 'falsehood' and 'reasoning' would need further examination before you can go accusing people on the basis of your understanding of any of them. I would greatly doubt that it is possible for any one like yourself (or myself) to state categorically that their 'truth' is anymore real than any one elses, or that they can claim to represent an objective reality - perhaps you could repackage your opinions for us? Are we talking about current scientific thinking here? Then the phrase could be something along the lines of 'according to current scientific thought, it should be possible to demonstrate the faslehood of Lucianarchy's claims', or 'skeptics would argue otherwise'.

Not that I'm claiming any high ground here, nor am I telling you how to think or what to say - but you're expecting us to have faith in your beliefs, aren't you? That in itself may be considered quite rude, don't you think?

Would you really want to bear Julia Sweeney's babies? Was she OK with that remark? A lot of people I know would be quite offended by what they consider to be quite a sexist remark (sorry - off topic, refers to your web site - but the question has been preying on my mind, I have a lot of respect for her, you see after all she's been through). I am sure that she took the comment in the spirit of the event as she seems like a good sport.

Amazing Meeting Notes

 

[Anonymous]

For the record

Septic,

I replied to your posts after 3 data points had been given. 1 is chance, 2 coincidence but 3 is a pattern. I have never judged a poster on their first post alone, since its devoid of context. I think that its apparent what your context is. However, far be it from me to attempt to teach you any form of diplomacy... life is far, far too short.

There is a line between being 'direct' and being rude.

Also, jumping in to simply attack a poster is, I believe within terms of the Guidelines (actually they're more of a code than guidelines... with apologies to Helen for paraphrasing her Pirate's Sig) is 'Ad hominem' insult.

However... if things are 'demonstrably false' then demonstrate away dear chap, but less of the purple fulminating prose and a little more of the 'fact' that you're so fond of invoking like a latter-day Van Helsing with a crucifix...

 

[Anonymous]

The fact is, all I am doing here is presenting some examples of perceptions I seem to be able to pick up. Non local. At distance.

But those "perceptions" are so vague that anything will fit.

'Ladybrook' was significant It became a terrorist target within hours of my presentation of it in my opening post in a JREF thread which was, specifically, about my remote viewing ability.

See, this is a good example of how you deliberately change your claim. Now, it is a terrorist "target", instead of a terrorist "attack".

'Feb 14th attack on a western target' was significant. It was the date that there was an attack on the US backed police HQ in Falluja. It was an awful attack 70+ casualties, 27 of which died. I really hoped this one wouldn't happen, as at the time of the perception I felt there could be over 100 casualties.

Backtracking again: It was not a "Western" target. You were wrong about the number of casualties.

'The Face / Bowl' (Alexius) was significantn, given that I only described a few words.

'The FTMB vr experiment was significant

What are you talking about?

None are spot on direct hits, sure. These are the only perceptions I have presented, and collectively, they show a pattern of significance.

"None are spot on direct hits"? Then you have not predicted these events.

I would like to explore this further.

Let the world know when you get a real prediction.

So you're saying that he did predict either attack?

Hehe...oops. Leave out the "not". It is false that he predicted the events.

I would argue that the words 'critical' (as opposed to criticism), 'objective' or 'demonstrable truth' or 'falsehood' and 'reasoning' would need further examination before you can go accusing people on the basis of your understanding of any of them. I would greatly doubt that it is possible for any one like yourself (or myself) to state categorically that their 'truth' is anymore real than any one elses, or that they can claim to represent an objective reality - perhaps you could repackage your opinions for us? Are we talking about current scientific thinking here? Then the phrase could be something along the lines of 'according to current scientific thought, it should be possible to demonstrate the faslehood of Lucianarchy's claims'.

Please, let's not redefine commonly known terms, only to avoid facing the facts. I am not basing my "understanding" of the validity of these "predictions" based on subjective interpretations of the terms you mention. I am using the commonly known definitions. If we are to reinterpret commonly known terms, then we end up with total confusion. We are not getting nearer an understanding.

No word games, please.

Lucianarchy did not predict these two events. It's as simple as that.

 

[Anonymous]

Not that I'm claiming any high ground here, nor am I telling you how to think or what to say - but you're expecting us to have faith in your beliefs, aren't you? That in itself may be considered quite rude, don't you think?

It's not beliefs. It's facts. It's backed by evidence. These events were not predicted by Lucianarchy.

Would you really want to bear Julia Sweeney's babies? Was she OK with that remark? A lot of people I know would be quite offended by what they consider to be quite a sexist remark (sorry - off topic, refers to your web site - but the question has been preying on my mind, I have a lot of respect for her, you see after all she's been through). I am sure that she took the comment in the spirit of the event as she seems like a good sport.

It's a joke. A humorous remark. She was extremely charming.


Hugo Cornwall,

If you want to lecture people about being rude, perhaps you should refrain from the snide nicknames.

I have demonstrated why Lucianarchy did not predict the two events. Feel free to pick my argumentation apart. It will hold up to scrutiny.

 

[Anonymous]

But those "perceptions" are so vague that anything will fit.

See, this is a good example of how you deliberately change your claim. Now, it is a terrorist "target", instead of a terrorist "attack".

Backtracking again: It was not a "Western" target. You were wrong about the number of casualties.

What are you talking about?

"None are spot on direct hits"? Then you have not predicted these events.

Let the world know when you get a real prediction.

Hehe...oops. Leave out the "not". It is false that he predicted the events.

Please, let's not redefine commonly known terms, only to avoid facing the facts. I am not basing my "understanding" of the validity of these "predictions" based on subjective interpretations of the terms you mention. I am using the commonly known definitions. If we are to reinterpret commonly known terms, then we end up with total confusion. We are not getting nearer an understanding.

No word games, please.

Lucianarchy did not predict these two events. It's as simple as that.

Excuse me?

Please don't patronise me, nor dismiss perfectly reasonable lines of enquiry as ‘word games’. These are not games, mate. You seem intent to make a point about Lucianarchy ulitising the words and terms he's posted on this forum - yet you rebuff the issue of semantics yourself as if it flies in the face of the much vaunted critical reasoning.

I'm not sure that there are any 'facts' to avoid here. Are we to assume that because you state that something is a 'fact', then we should tug our forelocks and accept you as an Expert in 'critical reasoning' - you could be anyone, mate. This is the internet after all.

I tried my best not to patronise you, but your understanding of critical reasoning seems flawed and appears to relate only to your own stance vis a vis the world. But commonly know terms? My point is that they are not commonly know but commonly constructed or understood definitions - are you saying that we should never venture to reassess commonly accepted ideas? That would serve only to prevent progress, surely. At the risk of being accused of patronising you in turn, wasn't scientific method used once to prove that the earth was flat? Oh, no that was flawed science wasn't it - unlike the perfect critical methodologies used in science today. Or is that 'critical reasoning' confined only to people who spell sceptics in a special way of their own?

I do agree that the evidence is not strong - but your implication that Lucianarchy is deliberate in changing her claim or backtracking implies more than critical reasoning at work.

I feel that this says more about your prejudices than it does Lucianarchy's motives.

 

[Anonymous]

It's not beliefs. It's facts. It's backed by evidence. These events were not predicted by Lucianarchy.



It's a joke. A humorous remark. She was extremely charming.


Hugo Cornwall,

If you want to lecture people about being rude, perhaps you should refrain from the snide nicknames.

I have demonstrated why Lucianarchy did not predict the two events. Feel free to pick my argumentation apart. It will hold up to scrutiny.

And so you felt OK about makinga joke about her then? She a good friend of yours I assume, or do you often make jokes about charming women? Do you feel threatened by them? When I find someone charming I pass pleasant comments about them, I do not feel the need to comment on their suitability or otherwise for procreation.

 

[Anonymous]

Excuse me?

Please don't patronise me, nor dismiss perfectly reasonable lines of enquiry as ‘word games’. These are not games, mate. You seem intent to make a point about Lucianarchy ulitising the words and terms he's posted on this forum - yet you rebuff the issue of semantics yourself as if it flies in the face of the much vaunted critical reasoning.

I am focusing on his claims and how they measure up to the actual events. Can I ask you to do the same?

I'm not sure that there are any 'facts' to avoid here. Are we to assume that because you state that something is a 'fact', then we should tug our forelocks and accept you as an Expert in 'critical reasoning' - you could be anyone, mate. This is the internet after all.

Again, why don't you try to focus on the claims instead of the persons? Examine the claims that Lucianarchy made, then compare them to what really happened.

Am I wrong, when I say that Lucianarchy did not predict these events?

I tried my best not to patronise you, but your understanding of critical reasoning seems flawed and appears to relate only to your own stance vis a vis the world. But commonly know terms? My point is that they are not commonly know but commonly constructed or understood definitions - are you saying that we should never venture to reassess commonly accepted ideas? That would serve only to prevent progress, surely.

I said "terms", not "ideas".

At the risk of being accused of patronising you in turn, wasn't scientific method used once to prove that the earth was flat? Oh, no that was flawed science wasn't it - unlike the perfect critical methodologies used in science today. Or is that 'critical reasoning' confined only to people who spell sceptics in a special way of their own?

Critical reasoning - or thinking, if you like, is not confined to a special group of people. It is for everyone.

Calling something "scientific" does not make it so. Science thrives on its own mistakes, because it learns from them, and move on.

I do agree that the evidence is not strong - but your implication that Lucianarchy is deliberate in changing her claim or backtracking implies more than critical reasoning at work.

I am not implying that Lucianarchy is deliberate in changing his claim (L is male). I am stating it. Find evidence in his own thread about Ladybrook. I point out where he changes his claim.

I feel that this says more about your prejudices than it does Lucianarchy's motives.

You are most welcome to show - not claim - that I am wrong.

And so you felt OK about makinga joke about her then? She a good friend of yours I assume, or do you often make jokes about charming women? Do you feel threatened by them? When I find someone charming I pass pleasant comments about them, I do not feel the need to comment on their suitability or otherwise for procreation.

People without a sense of humor are at the mercy of the rest of us.

 

[Anonymous]

Some general comments:

Tone is usually overlooked when people post, which ought not to be the case as it is very important indeed. People should always take this into consideration when drafting responses. If what you're about to post is something you wouldn't dream of saying face to face with a seven foot nightclub bouncer, then rephrase it. A simple, and yet reasonable, exercising of communication skills. It's flexibility, not backing down. And it's not always the sentiments being expressed that may be objectionable, but how they're expressed. Everyone should kindly take this on board, as 99.9% of the posters here have managed to do so.

Now, back to some reasoned, civil discussion please.

 

[Anonymous]

Dark Detective,

It would be so nice if we could just focus on the facts.

 

[Anonymous]

[...] claim (L is male). I am stating it.

Your evidence for this is...?

For a 'skeptic', your prejudice / assumptions are a little strange.

I

 

[Anonymous]

Your evidence for this is...?

That you are male? I have no reason to believe you are female. But, I am willing to be shown wrong.

Are you male or female? A simple question. Let's see if you can answer.

For a 'skeptic', your prejudice / assumptions are a little strange.

Ahahahaaaa....Pot. Kettle. Black.

I

What, a new "prediction"? It would be nice to know in advance.

 

[Anonymous]

What has a poster's gender got to do with anything?

 

[Anonymous]

That you are male? I have no reason to believe you are female. But, I am willing to be shown wrong.

No need. I am a sceptic myself. You have made a precise claim. The burden of proof is on you.

Please show your evidence or retract your claim.

 

[NilesCalder]

It would be so nice if we could just focus on the facts.

When you establish some 'facts' we'll stick to them. Remember to back up your claims with evidence. If you have trouble posting links to your sources there are many here who'd gladly lend you some assistance.

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Dark Detective,

It would be so nice if we could just focus on the facts.

Righto as far as I'm concerned the facts are that Lucianarchy (Luci Anarchy or Lucian Archy? I care not a jot and struggle to see the relevance) made some intriguing claims and was game enough to let us test any 'unusual' skills they may have (not to any standard high enough to claim Randi's prize but enough that I am satisified the results are not tainted). The results so far have been mixed.

See these threads:

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13133

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13297

Emps

 

[Alexius4]

Ah!.....

.....The pain.....

.....My rapier has cramp.....I must exercise it........

Skeptic - welcome.

I know you pride yourself on your honed rationality - would you care to draw it as I have yet to see so much as a glint, let alone a flash. Thus far, we have been treated to a succession of ad hominem, invective and straw man slashing manoevers that leave me cold. Unsophisticated rhetoric. Unlettered bluster.

You assert your conclusion without adumbrating your propositions, assuming we will grasp the enthymeme and aplaud - assuming an argument to exist, as the force of your attack may reveal you to be guarding an enter set. You claim your directness to be honesty when it is employed to wound - dissimulation or artlessness, I cannot judge. You have attempted to pesuade us you are acting out of altruism - that we have been taken in by a fraud. I will do you the courtesy of granting your motives, as not to do so would be to show you to be a laughable hypocrite; however, your conduct and tone sit uncomfortably with your philanthropic soul.

In short, you seek to further the cause of Enlightenment Rationalism through boorishness & conceit.

Now, feel free to prove you are really worthy of respect by behaving with a modicum of decorum and discursive finesse - else leave the stage.

Ladies...Gentlemen...adieu *low hat sweep*

 

[Anonymous]

What has a poster's gender got to do with anything?

It doesn't. Lucianarchy likes to switch gender, that's all.

No need. I am a sceptic myself. You have made a precise claim. The burden of proof is on you.

Please show your evidence or retract your claim.

Like I said, I was willing to be shown wrong. I asked you a straight-forward question that would solve it.

Are you male or female?

When you establish some 'facts' we'll stick to them. Remember to back up your claims with evidence. If you have trouble posting links to your sources there are many here who'd gladly lend you some assistance.

I did. The "predictions" made by Lucianarchy did not happen. He did not predict the events.

Why is this hard to understand? I have invited you to pick it apart, but you seem most unwilling to.

Do you dispute that he did not predict the events?

 

[Anonymous]

One of my roles as Moderator is to protect the privacy of all users on this board. Personal questions as such, even regarding gender, are not encouraged. There are historical reasons why that is so, so please don't pose them.

Thanks.

 

[Alexius4]

Is Luci male or female?

Are you fish or fowl?

Now, you've beaten your drum - why are you still here? Maybe you count upon Luci's admirable tolerance of scorn to empower you as you beat upon he(r)?

Enough braying - back to the stable!

 

[Anonymous]

It doesn't. Lucianarchy likes to switch gender, that's all.

Like I said, I was willing to be shown wrong.

Now *two* claims, and yet, no evidence.

As a sceptic myself, I must remind you that the basis for any claim must be furnished by the claimiant. The claimant, Skeptic Report, is you.

It is sophestry to deflect with straw questions.

Do the decent thing.

Please.

Provide your evidence or retract your statement.