Quote
Acid Reindeer
today I contemplated putting together a website that examined all of Randi's entries in that work of his, as far as the subject matter that I have more than glancing knowledge, and examining all of the half-truths and oversimplifications found there. I have other things to do.

Hi the whole text of the encyclopedia is here:-

[randi.org]

Randi writes - 'As with all of my books, I dropped in a few jokes. I had a hard time getting these jokes accepted by St. Martin's Press, the original publishers. However, now that it's on the Internet, I not only can make sure that the full force of my wit is felt, but I can add new ones in response to my latest whims. Seriously, if you find errors here, I urge you to notify me and they will be promptly corrected.'

So if you think there are errors in any particular entry which particularly annoy you, write to him :D
Love
Kath

Quote
The Anticult
All you have to do is PROVE ANY "paranormal" ability, and I will help you win the Million Dollar Challenge, and make you world famous.
If anyone can outline what they think is a real "paranormal" ability, I will help you set up the tests, in your city.
Its that easy.

Strangely 'professional' psychics who say they will prove their claims often vanish or back out, making excuses why not to take the test :D Might damage their income if people knew they had lost I suppose.

Quote
kath
Randi writes - 'As with all of my books, I dropped in a few jokes. I had a hard time getting these jokes accepted by St. Martin's Press, the original publishers. However, now that it's on the Internet, I not only can make sure that the full force of my wit is felt, but I can add new ones in response to my latest whims. Seriously, if you find errors here, I urge you to notify me and they will be promptly corrected.'

I noticed less factual errors than oversimplification and lack of comphrehension on his part.

for example the UFO entry (another one that I glanced at) bringing up the extraterrestrial hypothesis and omitting the others. making a straw man argument in other words.

as far as Crowley, the closest to an outright factual error comes down to Randi's assertion that Crowley took pride in his bad reputation in the press.
no doubt Randi will say words to the effect of, "well if he felt regret, why did he act that way?"

when I contacted the writer of the Skeptic's Dictionary he did change the word enough to leave some ambiguity. not outright lying , more adding spin.

anyway, yes, I guess I will contact Randi. I will probalby forward him the URL of this thread.

Quote
kath
Hi the whole text of the encyclopedia is here:-

[randi.org]

by the way, Kath, I did know where to find the encyclopedia (otherwise I couldn't have read from it). the part I don't feel justified in doing has to do with annotating his entries to show inaccuracy.

(I would also want to give the Skeptic's Dictionary the same treatment.)

Anti Cult,

I think that you should refrain from making sweeping generalisations. I posted a lot of information from skeptics sources which criticise Randi. You seem to think that these sources are valid and reputable enough when you have posted them to refute other topics ??

One of the persons refuting the value of the million dollar challenge was a fellow of CSICOP of which Randi was a co-founder.

None of this information attacked him personally but examined his 'research' and the 'facts' that he presented. These are valid criticisms. You have offerred no evidence of the authors of the links that I posted that show an agenda against Randi. It is a common defence that opponents have this agenda - my ex cult leader did this all the time. You have offerred no objective source to counteract any of the ideas advanced here simply posting and re-posting Randi's own site.

I have no agenda against Randi whatsoever, I have no links to any of the industries that he debunks and I do not know, nor do I have a personal interest in any of the people he criticises. You level such allegations at the same time as saying that you know Randi personally.

I totally support any anti cult initiative, I want to be a cult buster when I grow up :D and I belive that Rick Ross is the best anti cult organisation that there is. I do not aim to be any sort of trouble maker or starting arguments, but I do think that subjective examination of facts is a valid past time and I think that Randi's definition of cults is entirely unrealistic and not supported by any reputable cult awareness organisation, including to the best of my knowledge the definition that Rick Ross applies to cults and destructive groups.

Quote
kath
So if you think there are errors in any particular entry which particularly annoy you, write to him :D

I may as well write my own encyclopedia and save Randi from making any profit off my time and [i:d0d6c89719][b:d0d6c89719]research[/b:d0d6c89719][/i:d0d6c89719].

I really do see this as a weak argument Kath. If one is going to present themselves as an expert on anything they should know what they are talking about or simply not talk about it at all. I am sure Randi could specialise in several areas of critique, debunking and investigation without (over) extending himself to being the skeptic police on every conceivable phenomenom.

As for the pharma conspiracy if you read the links I posted you will see that a lot of the pharma companies own shares in vitamins and it is [b:d0d6c89719]not[/b:d0d6c89719] idle useless patent cures that are being challenged at all - but natural substances in general.

Magnesium, as an example is something which I have personal experience of and have researched extensively. Not only is it a natural substance, a mineral, that is found in every cell of the body, and available for sale in health food stores, and also by doctors via prescription. So it is in use in the medical profession, for one example in hospitals to halt seizures.

I have fibromyalgia with the rare side efffect of seizures. I take magnesium every day with my doctors approval but it is not prescribed to me because here it is not granted under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme (which sets limited criteria) for my diagnosis. So I have a choice of paying $17 a month or $150 a month for the exact same thing - although the $17 a month health fod store option allows me the choice of vege caps which are gelatin free and suit my vegetarian preference and does not contain any unnatural substances, wheras the pharmaceutical option has a base element that has been added for no apparent purpose and has a lower level of elemental magnesium per tablet - meaning I would have to take more to maintain the neccessary level for this medicine to have the same effect.

There is much research that magnesium helps a variety of conditions - doctors do not dispute this, for as I have already pointed out they prescribe it themselves. If the skeptic way of thinking that lumps all natural therapies together is effective in it's aims of having all branded as 'flim flam' and legislation in tune with this mindset is passed it will destroy the small quality of life that I do have living with a chronic and debilitating medical condition. Who really stands to profit from that? Eventhough I would not be able to afford the tablets if they were put onto PBS for the pharmacies still get the money through subsidy. I would cost the tax payers a fortune!

Objective thinking is all that I ask - not dismissing all things that are so called 'alternative' out of hand based on psudeo scientific and politically compromised principles.

I wanted to add to my last post, there is no way that I believe that Randi is 100% wrong or that he has not done some valuable work. This is a fact that has been pointed out and in a balanced view should not be discounted (unless of course it is disproven, although there is no indication that it is).

I think a point for consideration however is that there are a lot of people out there that who for skeptics are like shooting fish in a barrell - those who obviously use magicians techniques to emulate psychic phenomenom and 'cold readers' who are highly dubious. The world is still full of unexplained phenomenom and alternative medicine is a much broader field than it is made out to be through simplistic examination and wholesale dismissal. Just today I watched a documentary that scientists are exploring the Dandenong Rainforest here in Australia looking for cures for Cancer and AIDS - the basis of pharmaceuticals do not just appear you know - they are derived from nature.

Quote
cultreporter
Objective thinking is all that I ask - not dismissing all things that are so called 'alternative' out of hand based on psudeo scientific and politically compromised principles.

No kidding. Anyone who seriously suggests that supplements and herbs "do nothing" is NOT being objective. They are being reactive.

Marijuana is an herb. It's natural. You can grow it yourself and smoke it and then tell me that as a natural herb it does absolutely "nothing" for you.

PS And saying that all psychics are frauds because big name psychics are is not being objective either. There are plenty of psychics that work on a low profile, some of the better ones don't even give you a price, you just pay what you can, and they are usually much better than the ones seeking fame and fortune.

No "psychic" has objectively and scientifically proven their claims regarding ESP.

And there have been many complaints about "psychics" exploiting people.

This is an area that Randi has performed a public service.

Alternative medicine can be destructive if someone either delays or doesn't seek medical treatment in favor of an unproven alternative.

In this area Stephen Barrett has performed a public service by exposing quacks.

Quote
rrmoderator
Alternative medicine can be destructive if someone either delays or doesn't seek medical treatment in favor of an unproven alternative.

In this area Stephen Barrett has performed a public service by exposing quacks.

Look, if Stephen Barrett legitimately went after specific "quacks" who were actively harming people, then I might have more respect for him. Randi, at least, seems to focus on those people who are downright frauds.

But Stephen Barrett does not, nor has he ever, focused solely on frauds in the alternative health profession.

He has systematically run a disinformation campaign to discredit the entire alternative health profession. He is not about exposing specific frauds. He labels the entire alternative health movement "quackery."

Acupuncture is one of his big targets. Acupuncture is a respected treatment protocol from China that has been around for thousands of years. From a Chinese perspective, acupuncture is considered to be mainstream and sound.

To Stephen Barrett, it is simply quackery, and there's no value to it. He will conveniently ignore any studies that show acupuncture is effective (and YES, I did email him once to point out a study that was announced widely in the news heralding SCIENTIFIC PROOF that acupuncture helped alleviate urinary tract infections).

Barrett completely ignores this type of data.

As a person who has had certain health problems that were not helped by conventional medicine, acupuncture has been invaluable to me personally. I would swear by it. And no, it's not an instant cure-all.

And no, it's not a placebo effect either. The acupuncturist will stick a needle in your leg and you will literally feel the chi energy running up it sometimes. If you think I'm making this up, why don't you go experience it for yourself instead of just dismissing it?

I am interested in results. Personal results. I try certain alternative therapies and if they work, I continue to use them. If they don't, I won't.

It's that simple.

I am not a victim or blindly giving my money away to someone who is a fraud. And you know what? Even if I were, the "fraud" makes me feel better, even if it's just a placebo effect, and that has value to me.

In my mind, praising Barrett in the same breath as Randi does a discredit to Randi. Randi, at least, is open enough to ask for proof. Barrett will dismiss proof even when given to him. The two are not in the same league whatsoever.

PS As for Barrett's "CV," of course he'll post a great copy of his resume online. I don't care. The man is a close-minded mean-spirited person who wants to destroy people's careers. And getting into the "Who's Who" of anything is no big deal - those companies will add almost anyone to the guide just to sell it to you.