JREF Million Dollar Challenge

Julie Beischel and her team at Windbridge have been doing scientific analysis of mediums and their methods for several years. No prizes, no challenges, just patient research which is the proper scientific approach, isn't it? Then there's Gary Schwartz at the University of Arizona and Jim Tucker, Bruce Greyson and others carry on the work started by Ian Stevenson at Virginia University Division of Perceptual Studies. Indeed, we here are aware of many involved in serious study of these phenomena without resorting to headline catching gimmicks. 

Randi has always been a showman, a cheat and a self-confessed liar. I would have thought any serious-minded sceptics would have abandoned him and his stunts long ago but, just like with that other cheat and liar in the White House, people are willing to abandon reason when it comes to supporting their bias.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the lab is a poor environment for accurate assessment of these abilities. Replicability on demand is a requirement of science but probably impossible to achieve with such phenomena. These methods may well expose the fakes - and I am sure there are many fakes - but the demands of scientific rigour may well also consign genuine phenomena to the files marked "inconclusive" or "failed".

Julie Beischel and her team at Windbridge have been doing scientific analysis of mediums and their methods for several years. No prizes, no challenges, just patient research which is the proper scientific approach, isn't it? Then there's Gary Schwartz at the University of Arizona and Jim Tucker, Bruce Greyson and others carry on the work started by Ian Stevenson at Virginia University Division of Perceptual Studies. Indeed, we here are aware of many involved in serious study of these phenomena without resorting to headline catching gimmicks. 

Randi has always been a showman, a cheat and a self-confessed liar. I would have thought any serious-minded sceptics would have abandoned him and his stunts long ago but, just like with that other cheat and liar in the White House, people are willing to abandon reason when it comes to supporting their bias.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the lab is a poor environment for accurate assessment of these abilities. Replicability on demand is a requirement of science but probably impossible to achieve with such phenomena. These methods may well expose the fakes - and I am sure there are many fakes - but the demands of scientific rigour may well also consign genuine phenomena to the files marked "inconclusive" or "failed".

Ah yes, the woman who believes white spots aka orbs seen in photos taken by digital cameras are proof of spirits. Certainly she's a person with remarkable critical thinking skills.

Ah yes, the woman who believes white spots aka orbs seen in photos taken by digital cameras are proof of spirits. Certainly she's a person with remarkable critical thinking skills.

Would you hold Randi out as someone with "remarkable critical thinking skills"?

Would you hold Randi out as someone with "remarkable critical thinking skills"?

It seems a struck a nerve. You're free to opine about Randi, but it's no skin off my nose what you say, but you might want to validate that question. If you don't you're just shootin' blanks.

Ah yes, the woman who believes white spots aka orbs seen in photos taken by digital cameras are proof of spirits. Certainly she's a person with remarkable critical thinking skills.

Yeah you tell 'em Steve, blanket statements about poorly understood , uncommonly studied phenomena labelling all people who have opinion X as uncritical is the epitome of critical thought and analysis. Conclusions made with that approach have never been proven wrong and never will!

It seems a struck a nerve.

No it seems like he's asking a question actually.

You're free to opine about Randi, but it's no skin off my nose what you say, but you might want to validate that question. If you don't you're just shootin' blanks.

Ah yes the good ole' blanket statement with a "You're not my mom" question dodge followup with an extra intellectual threat added at the end for spice. Truly the mark of a reasonable, intelligent person.

Yeah you tell 'em Steve, blanket statements about poorly understood , uncommonly studied phenomena labelling all people who have opinion X as uncritical is the epitome of critical thought and analysis. Conclusions made with that approach have never been proven wrong and never will!

My reply insinuated no one else.

No it seems like he's asking a question actually.



Ah yes the good ole' blanket statement with a "You're not my mom" question dodge followup with an extra intellectual threat added at the end for spice. Truly the mark of a reasonable, intelligent person.

No he's not. Dante's jab was intended to get a rise from me. It will not. I don't care what Randi thinks or says.

Here's a wikipedia page of known paranormal prizes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pr...paranormal

My reply insinuated no one else.

Sure it did, it insinuated that anyone who thinks (like her) white dots on digital cameras are proof of spirits is uncritical (like her). Anyone, for any image. There really wasn't any wiggle room in there for anything.

No he's not. Dante's jab was intended to get a rise from me. It will not. I don't care what Randi thinks or says.

Got some proof for that or are you just claiming to be psychic?

Yeah you tell 'em Steve, blanket statements about poorly understood , uncommonly studied phenomena labelling all people who have opinion X as uncritical is the epitome of critical thought and analysis. Conclusions made with that approach have never been proven wrong and never will!

Here. There are more sites besides the link explaining how digital cameras specifically produce white spots: it is not a poorly understood artifact. https://www.prairieghosts.com/trouble.html 


 

Sure it did, it insinuated that anyone who thinks (like her) white dots on digital cameras are proof of spirits is uncritical (like her). Anyone, for any image. There really wasn't any wiggle room in there for anything.





Got some proof for that or are you just claiming to be psychic

That wasn't my intent, but on second thought I'll give you that one. Anyone who thinks white spots seen on digital photos are ghostly evidence is not being critical. If one still does after reading up on its artifactual nature than there's little hope for them.
Got any proof I have ever claimed psychic ability?