• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

...At The James Randi Educational Foundation

Status
Not open for further replies.
OK assessment posted (although I wasn't sure what the Match Judging invovled as there didn't appear to be much info).

If Lucianarchy is interested in further testing (with less background noise - it was tricky enough keeping track of things in this mess of a thread so I doubt it could have been conducive to experimentation) then we can draw up a better experimental procedure and dedicate a thread wholey to this (both over in the Parapsychology forum). If people have any ideas or thoughts they can send them to Alexius or jot them down and throw them into the procedure thread. The results may have some bearing on the procedure so we'll wait until they are posted.

Emps
 
Yes indeedy - let's take another run at this, only this time in a more controlled environment with an established procedure.

I wonder Emps - would you like to post the link to the image so that Lucian can take a look?

One control in - three to go :)
 
Better still, could you pm it to Lucian - let's keep it off the thread till the votes are in :)
 
Alexius: Come on - keep the tension going ;)

When you post the results attach the image to the thread (that way its not 'lost' but kept with results).

Emps
 
Sceptics are the normal, logical folk who tend not to believe stuff that's out of the ordinary, but will accept proof if furnished. Skeptics, on the other hand, are people who actively disbelieve in weird stuff, and have the mindset that even if proof is furnished they will still not believe it, and will instead turn to challenging the authenticity of the proof. Basically, sceptics are still open-minded, skeptics aren't.
 
stu neville said:
Sceptics are the normal, logical folk who tend not to believe stuff that's out of the ordinary, but will accept proof if furnished. Skeptics, on the other hand, are people who actively disbelieve in weird stuff, and have the mindset that even if proof is furnished they will still not believe it, and will instead turn to challenging the authenticity of the proof. Basically, sceptics are still open-minded, skeptics aren't.
Click to expand...

Excellent definitions there, Stu - the problem is that this definition is largely denied by many of the Skeptics I've come across, who have called themselves 'healthy sceptics', 'open minded sceptics' -when showing all the signs of being the opposite. I always feel that Skeptics give sceptics a bad name, but that's only an opinion.

The problem with 'reputations' is that they are often created by interested parties and are based on opinion, rather than fact. For example, I noted that Randi had a reputation as a charlatan and a fraud - I did not state that he was and cannot say this for sure. This is merely an accusation which has been levelled at him, not a fact.

I hope I didn't offend Randi (and JamesM) too much and am sorry if I did.

I am interested in why the web site we were discussing calls itself an 'Educational Foundation' - I wonder does it offer training (for Skeptics in fraud busting for example) and research facilities or is it more like the kind of educational facility one would expect from someone selling a product (such as learning materials or degrees by post) or is it the kind of educational facility associated with the Scientologists or the Alpha Course? I did notice that some of the site is devoted to regular press statements issued by Randi which seem to target various detractors and dissentors for a particular kind of Randi invective.

Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to the educational side of the Foundation?
 
Originally posted by lordshiva
I hope I didn't offend Randi (and JamesM) too much
Click to expand...

I'm not his dad or anything, I'm not even a skeptic, you can say what you like about him (or me) and it's unlikely to bother me.

Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to the educational side of the Foundation?
Click to expand...

Point your browser here - there are scholarships and awards and such like, for the promotion of that much-vaunted 'critical thinking'. I don't find it very sinister. These are not exclusively pro-skeptic tools, in fact, it makes spotting the rhetorical excesses of any side in an argument easier.
 
sceptics are still open-minded, skeptics aren't
Click to expand...

Isn't this definition (which I agree with) confused somewhat by the spelling skeptic being in more common usage in america and sceptic being more frequently used in the uk as the generic term for suspicious/cynical type people?
 
lizard23 said:
Isn't this definition (which I agree with) confused somewhat by the spelling skeptic being in more common usage in america and sceptic being more frequently used here as the generic term for suspicious/cynical type people?
Click to expand...
You could capitalise the S. Also, only Forteans make this particular linguistic distinction and I was suprised by how little is known about Forteans or Charles Fort by many skeptics. If they do know anything about Forteanism, it generally comes from Martin Gardner's chapter on The Fortean Society in 'Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science' - obviously, entirely outdated and positively misleading compared to what Forteanism has become.
 
I think you're right, yes - certainly in Fortean terms, the definition I gave is pretty accurate, but in more general parlance scepticism, skepticism and cynicism are often confused. Scepticism is doubting a proposition until proven, skepticism is actively disbelieving a proposition regardless of evidence, and cyncism is doubting the motive behind the proposition as well as the proposition itself. In that respect, one could define a skeptic as more cynic than sceptic.
 
Critical Reasoning....thing is, dear hearts, I've noticed that skeptics tend to claim to employ logic scienetifically when in fact they are employing it rhetorically - which suggests either bad faith or ignorance.

Of course, that some are a little vague in this area doesn't mean all are - but it is a tendency I pick up again and again...

Part of the problem is that the Critical Reasoning courses being taught are usually exceedingly dilute and biased towards prosecutory debate - which tends to be rhetorical by nature.

I dearly love logic - the quantum theory of thought - and it pains me to see it being used as a blunt instrument.

An understanding of rhetoric is also a fine thing - but it helps to be able to know were the line between rhetoric and logic lies, and to respect that demarcation.
 
JamesM said:
I'm not his dad or anything, I'm not even a skeptic, you can say what you like about him (or me) and it's unlikely to bother me.


Point your browser here - there are scholarships and awards and such like, for the promotion of that much-vaunted 'critical thinking'. I don't find it very sinister. These are not exclusively pro-skeptic tools, in fact, it makes spotting the rhetorical excesses of any side in an argument easier.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that JamesM - It is interesting and even refreshing to see that the Foundation does indeed offer scholarships and awards both for research and the development of training. Most awards and scholarships are, by their nature biased in one way or another and a slant towards the promotion of 'critical thinking' is no bad thing.

Particularly useful and interesting is the work carried out by Dr. Epstein on the development of learning tools for Chemistry Students based on the study of such dodgy science such as Blondlot's N-Waves (covered in a recent issue of FT).

Using Pseudoscience as an Aid to Teaching General and Analytical Chemistry

However (as I am paranoid about the uses and abuses of education anyway) I did find something to worry about - not related to Randi, but to the statement of Richard Freedman, who received an award for his 'ongoing efforts to teach critical thinking/creative problem solving skills at the high school level. "The ability to think critically is what separates the scholar from the mediocre mind," '. I find that a little worrying. It is only a general statement, mind you and my worries say more about me than they do the awards.
 
Actually, I favour teaching informal logic to kids - younger the better - as it is, at the end of the day, about attaining clarity - which is an empowering & ennobling thing to possess. My reservation is that the critical reasoning tecniques being taught have an ideological slant.

Why not just promote the classics? And a good elementary course in real logic & semiotics? Imcomparable stuff - why monkey about with it?

Why not promote real erudition and sophistication rather than teaching this stuff as if it were a karate course?

Ba, hum bug....give me a class of bright eight-year olds and a copy of 'Cyrano de Bergerac' :)
 
Alexius said:
Ba, hum bug....give me a class of bright eight-year olds and a copy of 'Cyrano de Bergerac' :)
Click to expand...

Well, I'd think you'd have your work cut out :eek:
 
Imagine it though....ten or eleven minature Renaissance duelists....

In that there is hope :)
 
JamesM said:
You could capitalise the S. Also, only Forteans make this particular linguistic distinction and I was suprised by how little is known about Forteans or Charles Fort by many skeptics. If they do know anything about Forteanism, it generally comes from Martin Gardner's chapter on The Fortean Society in 'Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science' - obviously, entirely outdated and positively misleading compared to what Forteanism has become.
Click to expand...

I'm sinking in the quicksand of my thoughts here! Could you be good enough to take this over to the Randi thread? No more Bowie puns, promise. But I used that particular soundtrack for this positively hunky-dory exPeri/ence/ment.
 
Waiting on Big Stu to pm his remarks, then I'll post at about GMT (midnight here - spooky )

Have taken pity on Lucian and posted him the image. Should take the edge off her tention :)

So exciting!
 
Dr Poo said:
Well, I'd think you'd have your work cut out :eek:
Click to expand...

How about a class of bright attention deficit disorder/high on sweeties eight year olds and a copy of the beano?

I think I can arrange that for you if you'd like a challenge?

I'd prefer a group of undergraduates who gave a shit and who'd done some reading rather than pissing it up for six nights and truning up smelling of sick and poo. Still, we can't have it all, can we?

:rolleyes:
 
On that note from Lord Shiva, here are the results ?

Firstly, a note on our scoring system. The judges were asked the analyse the image into it?s elements, and grade Lucian according to the number of hits.

A five point system was used:

0 ? Nothing at all or something fuzzy
1 ? Partial but of undetermined significence
2 ? Partial, but of clear significence
3 ? Clear, direct and essentially complete image
4 ? Exceptionally accurate description of the image

So, darlings, here is the image:

(can be found below in Emp's next posting!)

Nice, isn?t it?

This is what Lucian posted:

01/02/04 11:51

?OK. Well the first impression I got, as an exploration, was not a Picture. It has the feeling of a bowl shaped (sic), it has the characteristic of being black and shiny.?

02/02/04 18:02

?Alexius, you gave me a ?face of innocence?. It was a young non-European. The face was lit by sunlight, and the skin was dark.?

Then naughty Dr. Poo asked whether it was male or female.

02/02/04 20:48

??The face appeared to be a young male?.

This is what Emps had to say:

?Here is a quick list of keywords I sketched down for that image:

Woman
Light Skin
Colourful Clothes
Long Hair
Writing
Bowl
Jug
Page

On the five point scale I ranked him 1 ? as his descriptions were incomplete but there was certainly correspondance with the image. However, the image had a lot of different details making a possible hit more likely and as a number of aspects (like the writing) weren?t addressed and there were some clear misses (dark skin) I can?t rank it higher.

However, given the ?background noise? and the fact that we hadn?t developed any procedures ahead of time I?d say that was a good enough match to be of definite interest ? ?

Now for me.

I noted the following as essential elements:
Girl
Oriental
Dancing
Bowl
Cup
Arabic Text
Gold leag background
Black hair

Lucian hit the bowl & certainly established that it was an image of a person. As the face is the focal point of the image (true of any portrait), reference to that is a hit. The Non-European reference was a hit.

Misses ? skin is of course not dark, and the image is not male (although the gender comment was in response to a slightly leading question, so it is up to you, gentle reader, as to whether or not to count it in. Personally, I count it out).

So, some hits on elements present in the image, but the test finished before they could be resolved into something more concrete. On those grounds, I can also only give it a 1.

However, I echo what Emps said ? definitely interesting, and a good effort given the circumstances.

Scooby Stu ? can you post your observations here when you can?

Once again, thank you very much to all who played ? who?s for another game?

Let the discussion begin! ?
 
Oh the link to the piccy doesn't seem to be working.

Emps - could you post up, as I am obviously too much of a t*** to do it myself. :)
 
Alexius: I'll attach the image to this post - could you edit out the URL or it'll generate 404s? ;)
 
Alexius & Lucianarchy: Thanks for putting in the work - as I said in my overview it certainly struck me as a hit but it wasn't clear how much of a hit (as I suspect the image was a bit too complex and the thread went running off in its own direction).

Once again, thank you very much to all who played ? who?s for another game?

Let the discussion begin! ?
Click to expand...

Well I know I'd be interested in exploring things further as that was certainly an interesting result worty of further investogation (to be honest even if it wasn't it woul be worth testing things further with a clearer experimental procedure and a calmer thread - pos. one we agree only the subject and the viewer post to).

I say start another thread in the Parapsychology forum to discuss ideas for the experimental procedure (I have sent Alexius some thoughts already) and once we are all happy we can start another thread over there to give this another shot - if people are interested that is ;)

Emps
 
Alexius said:
02/02/04 20:48

??The face appeared to be a young male?.
Click to expand...

The original impression seemed androgenous which is why I didn't put down the gender at first and she was wearing the trousers! ;)

Like I say, I tend to pick up perceptions, impressions, not often direct, clear 'pictures'. I feel I pretty much got a good rapport with what Alexius was creating in his own mind.

I thought it was interesting, and pretty representative of mundane type of 'psi' effects. Tanatalising.

I'd like to know about the 'knowledge' behind the image. What is the girl? Is this a Peri? What's the significance of the bowl.
 
How about including say, three people to do an RV on an object alongside Lucianarchy and then comparing the results? People with varying views on the subject from Skeptic to Believer, or would that be too much or already thought of?
 
Lucianarchy said:
The original impression seemed androgenous which is why I didn't put down the gender at first and she was wearing the trousers! ;)
Click to expand...

I must admit I didn't really take the attribution of sex into account as it wasn't too clear ;)

Emps
 
I agree with Emps - basicly, it was a hit, but the bits and pieces weren't related to each other. Maybe with time...

It definitely warrents another shot, though, and I love Quixote's idea of allowing in other volunteers to RV.

Anybody fancy a try?

I suggest myself and Emp's set about establishing the thread & the protocol - when we have got things ship-shape, we can start up again. Lucian I know is up for it - anybodyelse who would like to act as viewers or senders or judges, do please step forth onto this thread and make yourself known :)

About the image - it is a very modern looking repro of an Ottoman miniature, depicting a dancing serving girl (yep, definitely a chick). Her dress suggests either a harem scene, or a Greek, Armenian or Gypsy professional. Such imagery sometimes carries allegorical undertones - reference to paradisal houris is obvious, but also the wine is a symbol of spiritual intoxication, while the cup is the heart. It has been suggested that such figures may represent the soul of sufi (sometimes referred to as 'The Brides of God').

But sometimes a dancing girl is just a dancing girl :)
 
RE: Test Image

Blimey! You don't get many of them to the pound!

That Sufi philosophical stuff looks like loads of fun! :)

The outcome certainly seems to have been a reasonable success, anyway.

Although, I would suggest that the test subjects go into some form of purdah when they are in the process of contemplating the object of the experiment.

No posting, at all, as soon as they first see the object and while the experiment is being carried out, although it would probably help if they were known, at least slightly, to the intended receiver of their impressions.

Obviously, whoever chooses the experimental object should also desist from loose Thread chat that might contain subcoscious, or unconscious hints as to the subject matter.

Interesting though. :)
 
Whay Hey! *Eric Morecombe Spectacles Waggle*

Sage advice that, Andro - nice one. As we try to get this right, the more first class advice the better. Keep it coming, comrades!

Don't know how anybody could possibly have had any doubts about her gender....;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top