People Twitter

7361 readers

2280 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

Mark NSFW content.
No doxxing people.
Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
No bullying or international politcs
Be excellent to each other.
Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

693

Mad Laddicus (lemmy.world)

submitted 6 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

215 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What I am saying is JREF and James Randi were not scientists they were showmen and that's very important to keep in mind.

Indeed. Randi said that a lot himself. He wasn't a scientist, but a magician. Magicians figure out how something seems to work, scientists work out how somehow works. He explained numerous times that those are very much not the same.

Sharing The idea that you can debunk a phenomenon by yelling "FAKE!" And doing a smug dance is something that offers more harm than good imho.

He didn't do that. He said "show me. Ok, now show me under controlled conditions".

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

He didn’t do that. He said “show me. Ok, now show me under controlled conditions”.

Except no he didn't. The challenge was heavily criticized for among other things, having overly strict standards (moreso than most studies reasonably have), Randi himself having final say (no impartial judge), faking his own research, and him downright refusing any participants that weren't using the same three stage tricks he debunked again and again.

I am not saying Psi is real or anything of the sort. I am saying that those who promote themselves as skeptics must be willing to be scientific or they're just kooks working "for the other team"

To pretend Randi was scientific about his approach in the slightest is an insult to the the scientific method itself.

While I do not endorse the views and research of parapsychologist Rupert Sheldrake, he was asked about why he didn't take on the challenge and what he had to say was deeply informative.

https://youtu.be/LLjUTvaKgdQ?

Now I'm not saying Sheldrake is anything amazing. I'm asking... why do we have a quack like Sheldrake sticking to the scientific method better than Randi? Why is Sheldrake the guy claiming dogs are psychic coming off as the guy talking sense?

How much ammo does that give woo peddlers?

It's not enough to yell "FAKE!" As loud as you can and talk like you're writing a rational wiki article. You need to actually stand for science and the scientific method otherwise you send horrible messages about what is and isn't evidence and give New Age whackjobs the floor to say "Well if Randi has to fake studies, something Sheldrake caught him doing, to debunk psychic powers, why are we still questioning psychic powers?"