Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ben Radford
#1
Anybody heard of this character, Ben Radford? He seems to be acclaimed (by materialists) as a top paranormal researcher, but he is also part of CSI/CSICOP, which is notorious for it's bias against psi and so forth. Judging from his reviews and articles about people, he rides alot on rhetoric and emotion as many big time skeptical writers with a position to hold do. 

I know a couple years ago he got called out in a lie on Skeptiko, and plenty of people have pointed out he has a tendency of cherry picking data. Seems his strong suit is "debunking" urban legends and folklore, two things serious parapsychologists and others convinced of non materialist phenomenon are far from defending yet he seems to treat them as if that is all their research amounts too. He goes for the low hanging fruit of paranormal cases. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Radford
[-] The following 1 user Likes Desperado's post:
  • darkcheese
Reply
#2
So he's a skeptic/debunker masquerading as a researcher. No wonder they like him.
[-] The following 1 user Likes darkcheese's post:
  • Desperado
Reply
#3
(01-21-2018, 12:38 AM)darkcheese Wrote: So he's a skeptic/debunker masquerading as a researcher. No wonder they like him.

Well, I'll hand it to him, he's right to say not all that is claimed to be paranormal is paranormal. He goes around and busts "videos" of ghosts and so forth, but they are the easy cases. He's usually the first person to seriously investigate the cases, and acts like that all paranormal cases can be as easily explained and that's the drive of debunkers. But it's a flat out lie. 

Videos are one thing, but the range of paranormal activity and phenomenon he tries to discredit in the meantime are another. Proponents don't think all cases are ghosts or the like, and would be the first to admit that the ones Radford debunks and uses as examples are indeed probably not. It's the other stuff that has them raising their eyebrows
Reply
#4
Can't say that I follow trendy debunkers, so my opinion about him may be wrong, but the one time that his name crossed my daily readings was when he tried to debunk the Chupacabra creature (???). And, IDK, his attempts to label the eyewitness as, well, batshit insane and trying to raise his speculation that the whole episode was imagined after seeing a movie (I believe it was Species, may be wrong) rubbed me the wrong way. Mind that I'm still not convinced that the Chupacabra exists, but his arrogance towards this person was mind blowing, especially because I don't think that he actually speaks Spanish... Which actually convinces me that he went down there with a set of pre-written questions, found a translator and voila, confirmation bias at its finest.
"Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before..."
[-] The following 1 user Likes E. Flowers's post:
  • Desperado
Reply
#5
(01-21-2018, 12:12 AM)Desperado Wrote: Anybody heard of this character, Ben Radford? He seems to be acclaimed (by materialists) as a top paranormal researcher, but he is also part of CSI/CSICOP, which is notorious for it's bias against psi and so forth. Judging from his reviews and articles about people, he rides alot on rhetoric and emotion as many big time skeptical writers with a position to hold do. 

I know a couple years ago he got called out in a lie on Skeptiko, and plenty of people have pointed out he has a tendency of cherry picking data. Seems his strong suit is "debunking" urban legends and folklore, two things serious parapsychologists and others convinced of non materialist phenomenon are far from defending yet he seems to treat them as if that is all their research amounts too. He goes for the low hanging fruit of paranormal cases. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Radford
If you want the poop on Ben Radford go over to skeptiko and put his name in the search. Alex does a great job of exposing him
[-] The following 1 user Likes Larry's post:
  • Doug
Reply
#6
His stuff is aimed at the skeptical echo-chamber, which makes it easy to get lazy, which he seems to be more often than not.
Reply
#7
(01-21-2018, 06:23 AM)Larry Wrote: If you want the poop on Ben Radford go over to skeptiko and put his name in the search. Alex does a great job of exposing him

Unfortunately it’s not that easy. I eventually found one show that featured him on Skeptiko only to have it say something like ‘this is no longer available’. I had listened to one or two Skeptiko shows that highlighted his blatant dishonesty before, probably including the one that wasn’t available. The one where the real detective is on the line and totally refutes Radford’s version of things - amazing! Yet he appears somewhere a few months later spouting the same shit. How can you defeat that sort of dishonesty?
Oh my God, I hate all this.   Surprise
[-] The following 2 users Like Stan Woolley's post:
  • Larry, Oleo
Reply
#8
(02-01-2018, 10:32 AM)Stan Woolley Wrote: Unfortunately it’s not that easy. I eventually found one show that featured him on Skeptiko only to have it say something like ‘this is no longer available’. I had listened to one or two Skeptiko shows that highlighted his blatant dishonesty before, probably including the one that wasn’t available. The one where the real detective is on the line and totally refutes Radford’s version of things - amazing! Yet he appears somewhere a few months later spouting the same shit. How can you defeat that sort of dishonesty?

Seems like there is a lot of that going around these days!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)