Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Here's a link to a skeptic report about Uri Geller bending spoons.

Edit:
And a skeptic report for firewalking.
Posted by at

9 comments:

  1. Mr Wang Says SoJuly 28, 2005 at 9:24 PM

    You should trust your own senses, if nothing else. Hold a metal spoon in your own hands. Try to bend it.

    Then try to imagine how Uri Geller, that slender-looking fella, could have "cheated" the camera.

    I think that even a Mike Tyson or a Hulk Hogan would not have been able to hide their physical effort in bending a metal spoon. They might possibly succeed in bending it, but I don't think they would be able to hide the physical effort.

    Also, think of your 11-year-old Singaporean girl again. Somehow she just doesn't look like the kind with big, bulging biceps hidden under her pink dress, does she?

    ReplyDelete
  2. lbanditJuly 28, 2005 at 11:57 PM

    Ok... bad idea...

    - 1 good spoon.
    + 1 bent spoon.

    Uri Geller really is amazing. He bent the spoon i was holding from miles away... And i think i could even see him smile from where i'm seated : D

    I couldn't bend the spoon while smiling. Quite obviously it would take a strong man to do it effortlessly. But i could also imagine an accomplished actor doing it too.

    You may find it unbelievable that people like Uri Geller and our little girl Geller could pull such feats before live audience without using psychic powers. But magicians over the world has been able to fool live audience many times with distractions.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mr Wang Says SoJuly 31, 2005 at 7:46 PM

    In case you forgot, Uri Geller has performed his act several times under laboratory conditions controlled by your favourite people. Scientists. ;)

    By the way, the Time Life series recently published a new volume - this one dedicated to documenting psychic phenomena studied by proper scientists. You should check it out.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mr Wang Says SoJuly 31, 2005 at 7:56 PM

    You really should keep an open mind and google for yourself, you know.

    Geller has been quite willing to help out with scientists in their labs.

    Spoonbending is only one of the many unusual things he's done. He's been able to do quite a lot of other interesting things -

    for example, there are scientific instruments which measure magnetic fields, and Geller has been able to quite effortlessly deflect the needles on these instruments back and forth, just by looking at them and concentrating.

    It's as if he is mentally creating magnetic fields by his will, and not only that, reversing polarities at will, eg North Pole becomes South Pole, South Pole becomes North Pole, then North Pole becomes South Pole again.

    ReplyDelete
  5. lbanditJuly 31, 2005 at 11:50 PM

    I am having an open mind. If not i would not have searched for skeptic reports.

    The thing with paranormal is that it gets proven as fraud, misunderstanding etc time and again, but it simply does not die down. Somewhere sometime, there'll be another "science can't explain so paranormal explanation is true" case. And most surprisingly, people would readily believe disregarding any past unsuccessful cases.

    "Proper scientists" makes mistakes or have their own biases too. Sometimes its not just monetary motivation for wanting some results in an experiment.

    I mentioned project alpha previously. Project alpha is a case where skeptical scientists were fooled into believing.

    Bad science makes it through publications too. I hate to be talking about Elisabeth Targ since her story is rather tragic. But this is an example of double blind experiments being unblinded and reblind and still make it to publication.

    Once more, i would question the methodology of the scientists who experimented on Uri Geller. Did they allow optional start and optional stop? For Uri Geller himself says he can't do 'it' all the time.

    Mr Wang advises bandit to be keep a more open mind. If Mr Wang would allow, bandit would advise Mr Wang to keep a more skeptical mind : )

    A rather humourous take on Uri Geller.

    "If Uri Geller bends spoons with divine powers, then he's doing it the hard way.", James Randi

    ReplyDelete
  6. lbanditAugust 1, 2005 at 12:50 AM

    And doesn't it boggle the mind that there are so many true psychic happenings and no one wants to claim the rewards?

    I'm sure our little girl Geller won't mind collecting a few peanuts for bending spoons.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mr Wang Says SoAugust 1, 2005 at 4:48 PM

    There will always be frauds. You've heard of fake Viagra, of course? The fact that there is fake Viagra doesn't mean that real Viagra doesn't work.

    As for this:

    "If Uri Geller bends spoons with divine powers, then he's doing it the hard way.",

    as I mentioned before, a bent spoon in itself is quite meaningless. We're interested in the possibilities that it opens up. In the same way, when an apple falls on Isaac Newton's head, that in itself is quite meaningless. And painful. But we are interested in the possibilities that an understanding of gravity opens up.

    Also, on the failure analysis, I wonder what you're expecting? Possibly you feel that nothing short of a 100% success rate is sufficient. Personally, I disagree. To give you an example, Viagra works for many otherwise impotent men, but it does not work for all impotent men. Nevertheless I think it is correct to say that Viagra is scientifically proven to help impotent men.

    Same approach with many other scientific things - eg tests to detect cancer; or AIDs etc.

    The more appropriate kind of approach, I think, is whether the psychic experiment yields results which are consistently beyond what probability indicates should be the result, if everything was completely random. Eg I claim that I can foretell heads / taiils if you flip a coin. After 10000 flips, I get 9500 guesses right, instead of a figure closer to 5000.

    If your approach to psychic phenomena and science is to say -

    oh, whenever the scientists think they're witnessing something really psychic happening in their labs, they're probably just mistaken -

    well, common sense tells us that you should be extending this principle to everything else that scientists think they're witnessing in their labs -

    whether they are researching about cholesterol; or atoms; or bird flu; or marine life.

    Why is it that scientists should only tend to be overwhelmingly wrong when they study psychic phenomena and think they see "positive results"?

    Elizabeth Targ - which part of the story are you referring to? As I see it, the experiment became flawed because of the invention of the AIDS triple cocktail. It is like an experiment where halfway, an unplanned-for variable creeps into the experiment. Once that happens, the experiment is ruined - whatever the result (ie whether "positive" or "negative".

    By the way, I read Skepdic too. Generally it's quite good. However, it has its own biases. I recall Skepdic commenting on the work of Prof Raymond Moody (near-death experiences researcher). If you knew nothing more about RM's work, then after you read Skepdic, you'd surely think that RM is either a fraud, or a seriously mistaken fella. When you read more about RM's work, you get the unmistakeable feeling that Skepdic has intentionally skipped around the most compelling aspects of RM's work - because Skepdic simply finds no way to explain them away. So Skepdic chose to remain completely quiet about it. I was very disappointed. I think it shows a lot of prejudices in Skepdic.

    ReplyDelete
  8. lbanditAugust 1, 2005 at 6:43 PM

    Elisabeth Targ - When the unplanned-for variable creep ruined the experiment. The experiment had to be restarted, with new patients and new double blinding. But time ran out on her literally, and she resolved to reblinding the experiemnt. But nevertheless, her work made it to publication. My point here is that, bad science can be lauded as good science too and no one would know until they become skeptical and re-examine.

    You're wrong Mr Wang. Bending spoons with mental powers is not meaningless. It is miraculous and worth a great deal to investigate scientifically. But how can further experiments be conducted, when the truth of the act of bending spoons is at question in the first place?

    Like the guys Xiaxue wrote who claimed there are 18 planets. Do you believe them Mr Wang?

    Mr Wang could say, "18 planets in the system could be a possiblity. But i've got a feeling that they're wrong." So you see, its not just in psychic phenomenon that we should apply skeptism.

    Regarding the 100% success of experiments. I would be quite happy with a success rate of... actually, i do not really remember much about statistics. Suffice to say, i do not require 100% success. But i do question how high probabilities that seem unlikely to me in general are achieved.

    The point about the optional start and optional stop is not about 100% success. It is about proper controls. Someone says Viagra works, and we look at the test results, controls and thus methodology (Um... i not endorsing pharmaceutical companies' methodology here). Someone says fake Viagra works, and we do the same thing. But why the abandon when it comes to psychic phenomenon?

    Ok, time for another of my inane examples. Say i hypothesize that a piece of wood carved into an effigy of constipated looking gargoyle attracts lightning. And i perform the experiment. Nothing happens on day one and i say "Oh... the weather is not strong enough" (doesn't really matter what strong weather is)

    And given eternal lives, one million years later, lightning indeed strikes the piece of rotted wood [strike]out of sheer chance[/strike] according to my hypothesis. Wow, one day out of the total one day of strong weather, lightning would strike. The rest of the million years minus one day had weak weather.

    Good science? Or plain dishonest?

    So why does Uri Geller's supernatural powers seem more likely to be true than James Randi's tricks?

    Scientists who research psychic phenomenon tend to be overwhelmingly wrong, becuase a large majority of the psychics, if not all but i always allow for possibilities, are fraud.

    One cannot approach research of psychic phenomenon the same way one approaches research of cancer, AIDs, cholesterol, atoms, bird flu, marine life. Because people can lie. Ok, so some viruses mutate and employ stealth. But that hardly discounts fraudulent claims.

    I'll read up more on Prof Raymond Moody first.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mr Wang Says SoAugust 2, 2005 at 1:33 AM

    I might be distracting you with Raymond Moody. Because his area of research is not exactly what we would typically regard as "psychic phenomena". His area is more towards the existence of the soul and such.

    Even faith healing (of the Elizabeth Targ variety) isn't typically associated with psychic phenomena.

    Psychic phenomena are more along the lines of clairvoyance, telepathy, psychokinesis etc.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)