Dean Radin's spoon

debunking spoon bending by skeptics is off limits in this forum... it's in the rules... you already know this... it's in black and white. That's why you posted it here.

No Max, what I wrote above  is the truth.

If you want to call me a liar on the basis of your own speculation about what was in my mind, you can, but I think everyone can see how foolish and discourteous you are being.

As for what's in "black and white," here it is:
"The skeptic/proponent divide question. This forum is open to both proponents and those who are traditionally called "skeptics". Said skeptics are allowed to participate on all the forums and sub-forums. However, when an individual does not accept the anomalous nature of any of the various phenomena in the Extended Consciousness Phenomena (ECP) forum, and when the intent is strictly to "debunk", that type of post should be reserved for the Skeptic vs Proponent Discussions sub-forum (or at least kept out of the ECP forum), so that proponents can have space to have discussions that extend beyond the "is it real or not real?" variety without unwanted and derailing interventions.
To be a bit more specific: in general, if a skeptic wants to engage a discussion at a “proponent vs. skeptic level”, then it would be better to do so in the Skeptic vs. Proponent Discussions sub-forum. Again, that does not mean "skeptics" cannot post on the ECP forum, for example to discuss a specific case or article, but not if the discussion's objective - let's say it's about NDEs - is to argue from there that extended consciousness is not involved in NDEs in the first place. That kind of post would best be suited to the Skeptic vs. Proponent Discussions sub-forum."
https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-f...109#pid109

To say that sceptics aren't allowed to post here is simply untrue.

In fact, the rules specifically say that sceptics can post here to discuss a particular case, but not to debunk a whole class of phenomena. Admittedly that might apply to some of Raf999's comments about macro-PK - were he not such a thorough-going believer in NDEs!

Raf999

As a matter of courtesy, it would be nice if you could note people's responses to the suggestions you make, rather than simply ignoring them and posting the same thing again.

Regarding the question of whether Radin's spoon was a "prop," I've already given details of the maker's name and design. Here is the photograph of the maker's name from his website:

http://www.deanradin.com/spoon.htm

I don't believe that's a prop. If you want to suggest it's a prop, you need a better argument, not just an assertion.

As for the suggestion that it was a "magician's spoon" made of gallium, I've already quoted what Radin said in a comment on his blog:
"People have previously asked if it might have been a trick spoon. I don't think so. If it were setup to become soft after reaching skin temperature, then it would immediately fall apart or bend or melt when stuck in boiling water. It doesn't."
http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2006/06/do...spoon.html

And of course, the point of posting a link to Joe Nickell's comments was that he didn't suggest at all that there was anything pre-prepared about the cutlery he bent (at an event not organised by the same person who organised the parties Michael Shermer and Dean Radin attended). Nor did Michael Shermer suggest that about the spoon he bent. Both of them suggested unconscious force was the explanation.

That's what I am saying would be remarkable, if true.

Please can you try to engage with the evidence people are discussing, rather than spouting one-liners that sound as though they come straight out of the pseudo-sceptics' handbook?

A prop can be either prepared before the show (bending it multiple times to weaken the structure, Randi has shown how to do it) or simply forged. You can take a mold, then forge a fake spoon with the label on it.

Skeptics are allowed to post everywhere, as stated in the rules: "Said skeptics are allowed to participate on all the forums and sub-forums."

Skeptics are not, however, allowed to post in Extended Consciousness Phenomena (ECP) forums where the intent is solely to debunk an entire phenomenon. The rules give the example of NDEs but in this case it would be spoon-bending.

However, skeptics may post critical comments in ECP forums "to discuss a specific case or article".

Since this thread refers to a specific case (Dean Radin's spoon), it would be OK for skeptics to post comments critical of that case, but not if that extended into "So, you see, the whole phenomenon of spoon-bending can be debunked as fraud".

Since that seems likely to happen, perhaps you might like us to move this thread to SvP, Chris?

No, I would not.

[Ninshub]

Skeptics are allowed to post everywhere, as stated in the rules: "Said skeptics are allowed to participate on all the forums and sub-forums."

Skeptics are not, however, allowed to post in Extended Consciousness Phenomena (ECP) forums where the intent is solely to debunk an entire phenomenon. The rules give the example of NDEs but in this case it would be spoon-bending.

However, skeptics may post critical comments in ECP forums "to discuss a specific case or article".

Since this thread refers to a specific case (Dean Radin's spoon), it would be OK for skeptics to post comments critical of that case, but not if that extended into "So, you see, the whole phenomenon of spoon-bending can be debunked as fraud".

Since that seems likely to happen, perhaps you might like us to move this thread to SvP, Chris?

I agree with Laird's interpretation.

I'm reading the last-line as a suggestion to Chris, but not a demand. The onus is on the skeptics who wish to criticize or "debunk" a case in these sub-forums to discipline themselves and refrain from getting into a generalization to all cases.

[Laird]

I'm reading the last-line as a suggestion to Chris, but not a demand.

Yes, and since Chris prefers to keep the thread here, then we can simply delete skeptical posts which stray into generalised debunking.

I agree with Laird's interpretation.

I'm reading the last-line as a suggestion to Chris, but not a demand. The onus is on the skeptics who wish to criticize or "debunk" a case in these sub-forums to discipline themselves and refrain from getting into a generalization to all cases.

Thank you. It would also be nice if people refrained from repeatedly posting false information about the site rules, while accusing other people of behaving dishonestly!

A prop can be either prepared before the show (bending it multiple times to weaken the structure, Randi has shown how to do it) or simply forged. You can take a mold, then forge a fake spoon with the label on it.

The problem is that in effect you're just saying "Never mind about the details, it must have been faked in some way."

Regarding your first suggestion, you don't explain how it would have been possible to bend the bowl of the spoon repeatedly without leaving any sign of it having been done, and you don't explain why - after having been bent repeatedly to make it soft - the bowl of the spoon should suddenly have become rigid again immediately after Radin bent it himself.

Regarding your second suggestion, it seems pretty far-fetched to me. But the really fatal flaw is that you can't suggest what could have been poured into the hypothetical mould that would have behaved in the way that was observed. Previously you suggested gallium, but I did go to the trouble of quoting above what Radin said about the possibility of its being a "trick spoon," and it's not consistent with the idea it was gallium. Apparently you just ignored that.

I do find it notable that both of the sceptics who were successful in this spoon-bending themselves, Shermer and Nickell, suggested a quite different explanation, that was nothing to do with the spoons having been tampered with beforehand.

[Ninshub]

Please don’t post on this duplicate thread, it concerns a subject, and is on a sub-forum that skeptics cannot contribute to without falling foul of the forums rules.

Yes they can, as Laird and I have just elaborated. You asked for moderator input, and now you have it.

You can go on expressing your views about the forum rules, Max, but I'm sorry to say they don't carry any weight. Raf, Chris, you, anybody is free to post wherever they want, duplicate a thread, etc. etc.

The problem is that in effect you're just saying "Never mind about the details, it must have been faked in some way."

Regarding your first suggestion, you don't explain how it would have been possible to bend the bowl of the spoon repeatedly without leaving any sign of it having been done, and you don't explain why - after having been bent repeatedly to make it soft - the bowl of the spoon should suddenly have become rigid again immediately after Radin bent it himself.

Regarding your second suggestion, it seems pretty far-fetched to me. But the really fatal flaw is that you can't suggest what could have been poured into the hypothetical mould that would have behaved in the way that was observed. Previously you suggested gallium, but I did go to the trouble of quoting above what Radin said about the possibility of its being a "trick spoon," and it's not consistent with the idea it was gallium. Apparently you just ignored that.

I do find it notable that both of the sceptics who were successful in this spoon-bending themselves, Shermer and Nickell, suggested a quite different explanation, that was nothing to do with the spoons having been tampered with beforehand.

It shouldn't be any more difficult to make a copy of a spoon than a key. But surely there's a lab somewhere that could tell you what a spoon was made of, and so rule out trick material explanations. From your links, Radin appears to have tried to test for some trickery, but if he still has the spoon, he could easily turn it over to a blind third party.