The 26th Skeptics Circle (blog carnival of skeptic posts) has been posted at Skeptic rant. My blog entry about The War On Science is featured there.
About Bad Astronomy
If you went to BadAstronomy.com and found yourself here, never fear: the BA Blog has moved to its new home at Discover Blogs. The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking and all that) is still online, too.
Phil Plait, the creator of Bad Astronomy, is an astronomer, lecturer, and author. After ten years working on Hubble Space Telescope and six more working on astronomy education, he struck out on his own as a writer. He has written two books, dozens of magazine articles, and 12 bazillion blog articles. He is a skeptic, and fights misuses of science as well as praising the wonder of real science.
Contact me: The Bad Astronomer "at" gmail "dot" com
Bad Astronomy is a Wikio Top Blog! Clearly, Wikio has excellent taste. 
Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009. Subscribe to BA using an RSS Feed
Death from the Skies!
Order a copy of Death from the Skies! from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, or Borders.
"If things worked the way I wanted them to, any reporter about to do another 'sensational' story on deadly meteors would consult this volume, and bang! common sense would find its way into the news. How strange would that world be?"
-- Adam Savage, Mythbusters"Reading this book is like getting punched in the face by Carl Sagan. Frightening, but oddly exhilarating."
-- Daniel H. Wilson, author of How to Survive a Robot UprisingSocial/Networking/Cool Stuff
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space- Will Our Universe Collide With a Neighboring One?
- Visual Science: Polishing a Cosmic Spyglass
- Visual Science: NASA Unveils Its New Rocket
- Is Jupiter's Bizarre Moon Our Best Hope for Finding Extraterrestrial Life?
- Reviews: Clashes With Aliens, America vs. Science, and Really Horrible Sci-Fi: The Best in Science Culture
- DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
January 21st, 2006 at 2:55 am
There are a lot of lucid, well-educated and critical thinkers out there, constantly battling the forces of ignorance and superstition.
If science is to survive into the next century in the west, then we need to pass these critical thinking skills onto the next generation and the current round of legislators seem to be actively trying to suppress this vital skill.
Scientists and critical thinkers can be partially held to blame for the rise of superstitious leaders, as we have not done a good enough job of ensuring that we are well represented in government; we have become self-confident and, you could argue, almost arrogant and over confident in our knowledge, allowing people who should not be deciding what our children are taught, into positions where they can force their superstitions onto our children.
People like the Discovery Institue are actively trying to get their members into school boards and other places of power, we should be doing the same.
January 21st, 2006 at 7:44 am
vbloke said: “Scientists and critical thinkers can be partially held to blame for the rise of superstitious leaders, as we have not done a good enough job of ensuring that we are well represented in government”
The search for truth does not go well hand in hand with the half truths and the poppycock of political correctness that is the fashion in politics nowaday.
January 21st, 2006 at 1:07 pm
There has been some recent success with the ongoing struggle with Intelligent Design (ID). A court in USA has judged that ID is not a valid scientific theory and has been dissalowed in the science curriculum. I see this as a vote for rationalism and intelligence winning over religious dogmatism which is trying to put forward the idea that ID is a valid alternative to evolution. See http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-11-09-pennsylvania-intelligent-design_x.htm
January 21st, 2006 at 2:06 pm
I think the critical thing to communicate is that there is no conflict between science and religion: they operate on two different domains. Scientific theories may be proven lacking and amended or discarded. Religion makes no such falsifiable predicitions.
I also think that the idea of scientific consensus needs to be presented often and correctly to the public. Unfortunately with mainly the Republican assault on science, scientists must become more forceful and open to the public.
January 21st, 2006 at 2:21 pm
Yes, i beleive i heard this idea on one of Phils web-cast interviews:
People who feel their faith in something like say, The Bible, can be shaken by it being proved scientificly innacurate are simply demonstraiting how little faith in their God they actually have.
It should make no diffrence to a beleiver in god that their spiritual writings are not scientific documents, in fact if they have real faith, they should take this in stride!
If these people only beleive in God so long as the Bible is accurate scientifically, then these people have no real faith, and have no place “beleiving” in God in the first place.
January 21st, 2006 at 10:58 pm
When scientists and professional skeptics learn the depth of the truth in the simple words of Jesus when He said to “remove first the beam from thyne own eye, then you can see clearly to remove it from others” perhaps then some honest progress will be made. When you have a professional skeptic like Michael Shermer proudly proclaiming a publicity hungry dealer in half truths like James Randi as his “inspiration” his “hero” and his “spiritual leader” and when scientist and other seekers of true understanding remain silent and don’t speak out against such blatant nonsense then we can only blame ourselves for stunted progress.
January 22nd, 2006 at 1:26 am
Bil Perron, please give me a few examples of half truths from James Randi.
I read his weekly commentary on the JREF website http://www.randi.org/ and I only find statements that can be confirmed as true. Sometimes he does make a mistake, but if someone points it out to him, he is perfectly happy to correct it.
January 22nd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Why is it some in the scientific fields seem to think Christianity and the scientific comunity have to go head to head???
It isn’t either /or , I might remind some of you some of the most influential people you can think of down the line in history were believers in a higher power starting with Einstein.
I am kind of sick to death of athiests masquerading as defenders of logic in society.
I have no problem with creation and evolution going hand in hand there is no scientific way to say creation didn’t happen. Call it big bang if you want, there is no difference.
When it comes to the progression of life and how it changed who is to say God had no role to play in it? You cannot prove otherwise, by saying this amounts to fantasy when the theory of evolution has so many gaps in it that have not been bridged and may never. Just tells me that faith can be many things, mine just happens to be a little different to yours, or to put it more succinctly, I am a little more open minded than the average athiest calling Science his God.
January 22nd, 2006 at 10:25 pm
Allen Lipscomp said: “Why is it some in the scientific fields seem to think Christianity and the scientific comunity have to go head to head???”
It’s the other way around pal!
January 22nd, 2006 at 10:33 pm
Allen Lipscomp said:
“I am kind of sick to death of athiests masquerading as defenders of logic in society.”
Logic is the reason for being an atheist.
Allen Lipscomp said:
“I am a little more open minded than the average athiest calling Science his God.”
You are not open minded and science is not the god of an atheist, the tools that make up science is as close to prayers the atheist will come.
January 23rd, 2006 at 10:17 am
Bill Perron Said:
>When you have a professional skeptic like Michael Shermer proudly proclaiming a publicity hungry dealer in half truths like James Randi as his “inspiration†his “hero†and his “spiritual leader†and when scientist and other seekers of true understanding remain silent and don’t speak out against such blatant nonsense then we can only blame ourselves for stunted progress.
I, too, would like to see some justification for the description of Randi as “dealer in half-truths”. “Publicity hungry” I’m willing to accept, because I think Randi would love publicity for his cause and his ideas. Just like Phil would love people to check this blog and buy his book. And I’d much rather give Randi all the publicity rather than the cranks and nuts and phonies he exposes.
As for Shermer, I have no qualm with him admiring whomever he likes. I may agree or disagree, but that applies to pretty much anyone else, too. I don’t see how that is “blatant nonsense” that “scientists and other seekers of true understanding” need to have any say about. Shermer being inspired by Randi is a personal issue and not relevant to “truth”.
January 23rd, 2006 at 10:55 am
Gentlemen, thank you for confirming exactly what I ment. To so quickly reply in such a defensive tone indicares that you yourselves have to remove your beams. Randi and CSICOP participated in the Gauquelin scandal or have you so easily forgotten that? Also at his site he only puts up negative postings about such things as astrology, totally ignoring the fact that the financial newspaper “Barrons” has printed several very positive articles on financial astrology and it’s practioners. He even went so far as to atteack personally and posted libelous articles on Karen Boesen a financial astrologer. Only after she threatened to sue him did he most quickly print a retraction. But he was not man enough to apologize for all the anguish he caused her. Personally I find males who attack women extremely offensive. Bill Perron
January 23rd, 2006 at 11:55 am
eh…. Bill, I find women speaking nonsense extremely offensive.
Astrology is nonsense, can I express myself any clearer?
Ok Scotty, Beam me up!
January 23rd, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Hey Thomas S
Logic – The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
Nowhere does atheism pop up. If you want to really debunk God, try explaining the origin of life. No matter what chemicals in different combinations you try using, any amount of electricity you want, you will not create life. The closest has been a few amino acids, nowhere near enough for the complexity of life of the most basic single celled organism. Tell you what, I will give you an ameoba, kill it , then have you reanimate it. That way you have the complete package no need to build anything from scrap. What do you say??
Now, read my first post again. This time without trying to raise your own blood pressure.
January 23rd, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Logic – “1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning; 2. a. A system of reasoning. b. A mode of reasoning.”
http://www3.sympatico.ca/saburns/pg0102.htm
Please don’t quote online dictionaries, make up your own sentences, it’s so much more fun.
Don’t tell me you are referring to the Miller-Urey experiment performed in the 50’s. No I’m not gonna try to improve on it, I don’t have the necessary millions of years and an earth sized ocean at my disposal to try a more realistic experiment
I can’t reanimate your amoeba, but neither can prayers.
January 23rd, 2006 at 2:18 pm
Come on, Thomas, try and get it ,or at least stay with the argument.
I never said prayers could reanimate anything, and you still did not answer my question .
Lastly, you still need to reread my first post and try to understand what I said. It should be fairly simple for one with such deductive reasoning as yourself.
January 23rd, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Allen L: “Why is it some in the scientific fields seem to think Christianity and the scientific comunity have to go head to head???”
TS: Where does science butt into churches to teach their ideas?
ID try to break into the classroom saying all you need is faith.
And which science is dedicated to disprove a god anyway?
—————————————————–
Allen L:It isn’t either /or , I might remind some of you some of the most influential people you can think of down the line in history were believers in a higher power starting with Einstein.
TS Wrong person for the argument, Einstein was an atheist.
—————————————————
Allen L: I am kind of sick to death of athiests masquerading as defenders of logic in society.
TS: This simply does not make any sense to me.
————————————————-
Allen L: I have no problem with creation and evolution going hand in hand there is no scientific way to say creation didn’t happen. Call it big bang if you want, there is no difference.
TS: So how do you know how the whole shebang was created?
————————————————–
Allen L:When it comes to the progression of life and how it changed who is to say God had no role to play in it? You cannot prove otherwise, by saying this amounts to fantasy when the theory of evolution has so many gaps in it that have not been bridged and may never. Just tells me that faith can be many things, mine just happens to be a little different to yours, or to put it more succinctly, I am a little more open minded than the average athiest calling Science his God.
TS: And you cannot prove that a god is involved. By coming up with two explantions for the “gaps” would I then be more open minded than you then?
In that case I will invoke FSM (I realise this could be seen as playing the god card, but I know for a fact that he is real).
——————————————-
Arrrrggg you made stay up late, I’m going to work early you know.
Say maybe we could settle it over a game of Cube?
http://www.cubeengine.com/
January 23rd, 2006 at 4:57 pm
Thomas Seifert by his own believes it is just fine to attack a woman just because she has a different view. Once again you prove my point, you are part of the problem Thomas. You must be a very manly man and I’m sure your wife, mother, and/or daughters (all who certainly never spoken nonsense) must be very proud of you….. I notice you didn’t have any comment on the Barrons articles or the CSICOP/Randi Gauquelin scandal. Bill Perron
January 23rd, 2006 at 10:35 pm
Bill, we are not talking physical violence here and we are talking about a women taking money from other gulible people.
Just because a journalist belives in astrology and writes a favourable article about it, doesn’t make it any more real.
Honestly about the CSICOP/Randi Gauquelin “scandal”, why don’t they just sue? and prove once and for all that astrogoly really work?
January 24th, 2006 at 8:54 am
Bill Perron Says:
When scientists and professional skeptics learn the depth of the truth in the simple words of Jesus when He said to “remove first the beam from thyne own eye, then you can see clearly to remove it from others†perhaps then some honest progress will be made.
Bill, may I suggest that’s perhaps not the IDEAL Bible verse to invoke when criticizing others?
January 24th, 2006 at 9:47 am
Thank you again for cotinuing to prove my point, Thomas Siefert requested examples of Randi’s half truths and I gave them. His response is the predictable shallow rationalizing of dishonesty because it fits his smug little myopic agenda. The Bible verse invoked is the perfect verse for Siefert, if he could do that he could grasp the power of humility, his mind would open, and he wouldn’t embarrass himself by saying such obviously agenda filled Randibot hyperbol. You never read the Barrons articles so your comment is based on ignorance of the subject matter. How scientific is that? The woman attacked by Randi you know nothing about but because she is an astrologer you assume she takes money from gullible people. Excuse me sir but it is Randi who takes money from gullible people, people like yourself. Bill Perron
January 24th, 2006 at 10:26 am
Bill, At least you got my name right this time round
January 24th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
Thomas, will you please read this, if you have the time.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/science.html
Perhaps this will help you to understand.
I have only a little time today, I will check back tomorrow.
January 24th, 2006 at 9:37 pm
I just had to add this.
Einstein’s belief system did not include the existence of a personal God. In his writings on religion, Einstein emphasized a “cosmic religious feeling,” the essential beauty and mystery of the universe, and a metaphorical deity “who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists.” He tried repeatedly to explain his views, but they were often poorly understood and were by turns co-opted in support of or in opposition to different religious creeds. For example, in an attempt to defend Einstein’s theory of relativity against the claim that it was atheistic, Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue in New York cabled the professor in 1929 and asked him to clarify his views on God. Einstein replied that he believed in a God who “reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind
January 24th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
Allen L, I made the mistake of beating a dead horse when I claimed that Einstein was an atheist. Interpreting quotes from a dead man can lead to anything. I really do think he was an atheist. The quote you used: “Einstein replied that he believed in a God who “reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind”" I interpret that as he sees God as the rules of the universe.
I don’t think we will agree on the finer details of our individual beliefs. After seeing your arguments, I don’t think your beliefs comes head to head with science. You really should be arguing on the side of science as the two sides in the argument really isn’t science vs. religion but rather common sense vs. literal fundamentalism.
See you around friend.
January 25th, 2006 at 11:03 am
Thanks again Thomas Siefert, your smug catty reply only confirms your lack of forthrightness and mature honesty. Randis lackey Shermer humiliated himself the other night on the Coast to Coast radio program, it was a disaster for him as he proved himself woefully ignorant of the subject matter that he has been trying to pass himself off as an expert on. Ironically earlier that day he sent out his e-skeptic bulletin criticizing another for not doing proper research on his subject matter, and then that night he reveals his own similar short coming. Thomas, take note that it is wise to “remove the beam from thyne own eye first.” When you make charges against someone or something as you have done you should be able to back them up with more than smart aleck childish nonsense. It makes you appear both lacking in intelligence and cowardly Bill Perron
January 25th, 2006 at 7:29 pm
Thomas,
I have to say this, I never was arguing against science, that is what I have tried to tell you from the beginning.
I just think God should have His place as well, I think society as a whole benefits.
I am glad you can see it from my point of view now. I feel better for it.
I hope you have a nice day ,
Allen
January 25th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
Bill Perron Said:
>Gentlemen, thank you for confirming exactly what I ment. To so quickly reply in such a defensive tone indicares that you yourselves have to remove your beams.
No, it means you made a claim and I asked for the evidence.
>Randi and CSICOP participated in the Gauquelin scandal or have you so easily forgotten that?
I’ve read some stuff on the Gauquelin scandal. From what I gather there were conflicting personalities getting in the way of the analysis, but the results were inconclusive at best. There was some hints in the data to support the claim, but more analysis has shown that to be in question.
>Also at his site he only puts up negative postings about such things as astrology, totally ignoring the fact that the financial newspaper “Barrons†has printed several very positive articles on financial astrology and it’s practioners.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but I fail to see how a “Barrons” article or two is proof of anything but the media catering to a credulous public. Feed them what they want so they will buy the paper.
>He even went so far as to atteack personally and posted libelous articles on Karen Boesen a financial astrologer. Only after she threatened to sue him did he most quickly print a retraction. But he was not man enough to apologize for all the anguish he caused her. Personally I find males who attack women extremely offensive.
I guess I’m from another generation, where we treat women as equals and let them stand on their own merits, rather than coddling them from negative criticism. Next you’ll be saying Randi is a misogynist because of his Sylvia Browne clock.
>Thomas Seifert by his own believes it is just fine to attack a woman just because she has a different view.
Define “attack”. I think it is totally valid to criticize even a woman if she makes faulty claims and pushes nonsense. I also find it difficult to find fault with someone for reaching a conclusion about a person based upon her actions. I may or may not agree, but they aren’t my conclusions, they’re his.
>His response is the predictable shallow rationalizing of dishonesty because it fits his smug little myopic agenda. The Bible verse invoked is the perfect verse for Siefert, if he could do that he could grasp the power of humility,…
Those are strong words. Pretty ironic coming from someone preaching humility.
>…saying such obviously agenda filled Randibot hyperbol.
Um, what? Because he hasn’t blindly agreed with your position, he’s pushing “agenda filled Randibot hyperbol”? It seems to me the one with a Randi agenda here is you. And the hyperbole is certainly coming from you.
January 26th, 2006 at 9:15 am
Thanks Irishman, you are so much more eloquent than me.
January 26th, 2006 at 11:06 am
Irishman, you have obviously fallen off the wagon again. When you sober up re-read what you wrote, it is full of supposition, uneducated opinion on the subject matter, and shameful distortion of fact. But it does support my contention that pseudo skeptic intellectuals stand in the way of real progress. Your account of the Gauquelin events distorts the real truth of the matter, fraud was committed by Randi and CSICOP that is why Dennis Rawlins quit that group in disgust and wrote about the shameful events in sTARBABY. In that article he also quotes Randi when he asked him if he was concerned about ever having to give up his award he replied “No, because I always have a way out.” His award is just a publicity stunt and you pseudo skeptic intelectuals blindly buy into it. C’mon guys open minds. ….Irishman, the facts are that the history of successful astrological financial investing is way beyond that of chance and that is what the articles were about. Go on line and read and learn, you only display your ignorance by stating opinion rather than fact. Your attitude that it is O.K .to attack a woman because you are from a different generation is downright stupid! When did defamation of character become a generational thing? Lying intentionally and libel are not criticizing someone, be they male or female, it is painful rude cowardice. You have this shameful distorted view of women, are you a homosexual? Bill Perron
January 26th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Bill, ease up a little there, of coarse its a publicity stunt. Why doesn’t an astrologer prove him wrong then? Because they know astrology is a money making stunt, and people blindly buy into it. I have an open mind to astrology, I shut it because its a bunch of deceitful crap used to make money off people. If it were true they would always be right and there are actually hardly ever right unless their “predictions” are so vague they can fit into a variety of out comes. Ever read your horoscope and find it true? no. Why don’t phycis predict the weather? They don’t talk to dead people, Stars and planets don’t predict our future. Actually a pretty good debunking of astrology is found right here on the front page, check it out.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:54 pm
>you have obviously fallen off the wagon again. When you sober up re-read what you wrote…
>You have this shameful distorted view of women, are you a homosexual?
These types of comments don’t reflect well on you. I would also suggest that you tone it down, you’re violating Phil’s rules for behavior on this board.
>Your account of the Gauquelin events distorts the real truth of the matter, fraud was committed by Randi and CSICOP that is why Dennis Rawlins quit that group in disgust and wrote about the shameful events in sTARBABY.
I have read the sTARBABY account, though admittedly it has been a while. I have also read other material on the topic. I prefer to make up my own mind. I give Randi a conditional approval. I like what I see, and like what he’s doing to further critical thinking and skepticism. I don’t claim he’s perfect, and don’t expect him to be.
>In that article he also quotes Randi when he asked him if he was concerned about ever having to give up his award he replied “No, because I always have a way out.†His award is just a publicity stunt and you pseudo skeptic intelectuals blindly buy into it.
If it’s just a publicity stunt and he has no intent of ever paying out, then prove it. If I were going to try to prove that, I would apply for the prize with a claim I was certain was real, then document every step of the negotiations. I would save emails, record conversations, have documents notorized and duplicated. And when I concluded the test and won, because the claim was real, and Randi refused to pay, then I would reveal all the evidence and sue him for breach of contract – hit him on two fronts, the courts and publicity. But I don’t see anyone doing that. They blithely refuse to participate with lame excuses. I have to wonder if the real problem is that they can’t find a real claim so that they could stand a chance of winning a fair test.
>Irishman, the facts are that the history of successful astrological financial investing is way beyond that of chance and that is what the articles were about. Go on line and read and learn, you only display your ignorance by stating opinion rather than fact.
Perhaps if you would link the articles so I don’t have to go hunting for them. How do I know which ones you mean?
>Your attitude that it is O.K .to attack a woman because you are from a different generation is downright stupid! When did defamation of character become a generational thing? Lying intentionally and libel are not criticizing someone, be they male or female, it is painful rude cowardice.
Again, it would help if you would provide evidence. If I am ignorant of the truth, yelling at me doesn’t educate me, it just makes me blow you off as an irate jerk. Can you give me a link or two to the examples of lying, defamation of character, and libel? Is this something I can look up online? Why don’t you calm down and post information instead of screaming insults? You might be received better.
Bill, you came on this thread and posted some strong statements about Randi. Several people in this thread are familiar with Randi and his website, and asked for more information. Your response was to take that as a personal attack and throw more accusations, rather than provide the information requested. Vague hints about situations and your brief personal interpretation of the events is not strong evidence, and hardly convincing. If I have an impression of Randi from a lengthy exposure, and then I have one derogatory comment at odds with my own impression, am I to immediately blow off my own impression just because some stranger is posting vague comments? You post some generic comment about looking up articles in “Barrons”, as if I’m supposed to recognize what “Barrons” is and be able to find it, and then find the particular articles you mean. If my descriptions of events are mischaracterizations, then demonstrate that with evidence, not yelling and name-calling.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:33 am
IRISHMAN, you Randi and Seifert are the ones who made those shameful and distorted claims against a woman, don’t you folks read your own postings? You and every other pseudo skeptic I have ever encountered say you’re in favor of critical thinking, that is until the critical thinking is pointed in the direction of skeptics, then the critical thinking is called an attack. Rather hypocrital of skeptics wouldn’t you say, or is that observation also an attack?….. Your comments on the falseness of the Randi award totally ignores the reality of his tactics and his wording in his offer. The offer is to be given for proof of para-normal ability but all he has to say is that whatever is demonstrated is not a paranormal ability. As he already admited to Rawlins in “sTARBABY” he always has a way out. I don’t claim any para-normal ability so please don’t tell me to prove his offer is only a publicity stunt, if you really are a critical thinker then think about the actually wording of his offer in writing, not his rhetoric…..”BARRONS” is a very well respected publication, as well respected as the “WALL STREET JOURNAL” in financial circles. To read the articles just go to Google put in ‘Barrons astrology articles’, it ain’t that difficult…… As for the Randi attacks on Karen just go to his site and put her name in, see how easy it is. He attacked her all summer long two years ago until she was going to sue him then he printed just enough of a retraction to save his ass legally, but he didn’t apologze for the rotten distoration of the truth. In my opinion he is an unmanly coward, to Seifert he is a hero. I have known Karen for sometime now and this woman is a very decent loving family woman. She is a human being who just happens to find some validity in astrology. His relentless attacks on a woman he never met caused her great distress, she is not “fair game to attack” as Seifert seems to view her. ….You guys call yourselves critical thinkers, then why aren’t you? Irishman you request evidence and thru out this blog I have been giving evidence that you all choose to ignore. I know it is very difficult to see yorselves as others see you, but until you guys can open your minds beyond what appears to be some sort of brainwashed agenda and question rationally your own views and that of guys like Randi and Shermer you will never grow, and, as I said in the beginning you will remain part of the problem. In a previous posting I related that a few nights ago Shermer humiliated himself on the Coast To Coast radio show when it became apparent that his statements and positions were based on assumption and opinion rather than researched facts. Somehow this dosen’t seem to bother any of you, please ask yourselves why. Bill Perron
January 28th, 2006 at 1:02 am
Bill, you got my name wrong again.
I never said that James Randi was my hero.
I never used the word “attack” you did and I agree 100% with Randi on his views on astrology, so I think his criticism of someone making a living of it is fair.
I have used “Barrons astrology articles” as keywords in google and all that comes up is astrology websites vaguely refering to Barrons. If I search for astrology on the Barrons website it only comes up with two articles that I can’t read witout a subscription. What about posting some links that works?
January 28th, 2006 at 10:54 am
You guys want me to do your research for you ? If you are going to criticize something long ago you should have researched the subject matter first yourselves. I am far to busy to tarry here any longer with narrow minded dogmatics. You’re a strange bunch, certainly puerile in your reasoning, hopefully in time you will mature. I just stopped by to say goodbye, my work here is done. Thanks to all of you for proving the shallowness of blind uncritical thinking, and the truth of the words, “first remove the beam from thyne own eyes” ……… Bill Perron
January 30th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Bill Perron Said:
>IRISHMAN, you Randi and Seifert are the ones who made those shameful and distorted claims against a woman, don’t you folks read your own postings?
Shameful and distorted claims against a woman?
Thomas Siefert Said: “Bill, we are not talking physical violence here and we are talking about a women taking money from other gulible people.”
TS called her gullible.
TS said: “Bill, I find women speaking nonsense extremely offensive.
Astrology is nonsense, can I express myself any clearer?”
TS said she was “speaking nonsense”. That’s a description of her behavior, not of her.
I said: “I guess I’m from another generation, where we treat women as equals and let them stand on their own merits, rather than coddling them from negative criticism.”
I called her my “equal”.
That is the extent of descriptions of Ms. Boesen by Thomas Siefert and me. I don’t see how those could be shameful or distorted. You characterized Randi’s comments about Ms. Boesen as “defamation of character”, “Lying intentionally”, and “libel”. Neither Thomas Siefert nor me agreed with that description, though neither of us directly refuted it either. We asked you to justify that description, which you have yet to do. You have not quoted Randi’s defaming and libelous remarks, nor linked to them. You have told us to look it up ourselves.
That’s a rather poor debating form. You made a claim, back it up. I don’t have to agree with your assessment and how can I if you don’t show me the evidence? You claim it’s easily available, but Thomas says he can’t find it. I intend to go back through Randi’s page and perhaps dig a little myself, but it’s not like this is the only thing I do all day. I have been a little busy with other things. It simply isn’t reasonable to expect instant agreement with your personal assessment of what happened, even if you do know her personally.
Furthermore, if Randi or Thomas or I or anyone else feels that someone, even a woman, is ripping people off, either consciously or even unconsciously, why is it wrong for us to say so? Now I will agree that to make that assertion, one would have to justify it as well. Note that I have not made that assertion. However, I don’t believe there to be any validity to astrology, and so I think that at a minimum Ms. Boesen is deluding herself along with her clients. Is that fraud? I haven’t made that judgment. But it is not defamation of character if I state that I think astrology is bunk, so astrologers are practicing bunk. It is my personal judgement. If that hurts the feelings of astrologers, too bad. They can call engineering a load of bunk and insult my profession, we’ll be even.
>You and every other pseudo skeptic I have ever encountered say you’re in favor of critical thinking, that is until the critical thinking is pointed in the direction of skeptics, then the critical thinking is called an attack. Rather hypocrital of skeptics wouldn’t you say, or is that observation also an attack?…..
Not at all, apply critical thinking to skeptics as well. Just don’t expect people to take your word for anything, whether it’s a glowing statement or a critique. That applies to both astrologers and skeptics.
As for it being an attack, you said:
“a publicity hungry dealer in half truths like James Randi”.
“When did defamation of character become a generational thing? Lying intentionally and libel are not criticizing someone, be they male or female, it is painful rude cowardice.”
You call Randi a liar and a defamer of character. That would be an attack in my book.
You also said:
>Thank you again for cotinuing to prove my point, Thomas Siefert requested examples of Randi’s half truths and I gave them. His response is the predictable shallow rationalizing of dishonesty because it fits his smug little myopic agenda.
>Thanks again Thomas Siefert, your smug catty reply only confirms your lack of forthrightness and mature honesty.
>Irishman, you have obviously fallen off the wagon again. When you sober up re-read what you wrote,… You have this shameful distorted view of women, are you a homosexual?
>I am far to busy to tarry here any longer with narrow minded dogmatics.
So apparently you are not above the occassional name-calling and insult-hurling. And you’re questioning our maturity? To quote someone: “first remove the beam from thyne own eyesâ€
January 31st, 2006 at 11:46 am
And then there’s this argument.
Bill Perron Said:
>Your comments on the falseness of the Randi award totally ignores the reality of his tactics and his wording in his offer. The offer is to be given for proof of para-normal ability but all he has to say is that whatever is demonstrated is not a paranormal ability. As he already admited to Rawlins in “sTARBABY†he always has a way out.
That’s a red herring. Sure he calls it the paranormal challenge. That’s to categorize the types of things the challenge is for. “Hey, my dog can bark the National Anthem. Can I apply?” “No, it’s not the Talented Dog Challenge.” But regardless of what Randi calls the challenge, the claimants apply by describing what they can do and under what conditions, with what levels of success. Once those terms are spelled out, Randi develops with the applicant a test protocol. When both sides agree to the protocol, they both sign a contract. That contract is a legally binding document that says, “If I do X, Randi pays me money.” Any good lawyer will able to defend that contract against quibbling over whether X is really “paranormal” or not. Randi’s signing the contract is his consent that X is “Paranormal” by the standards of the challenge.
Randi may have an out, but it won’t be over such a trivial and easily contested point. And if he tried that, he would definitely loose points with us “psuedo skeptics”.
February 15th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
In the interest of due diligence, I did some digging and review.
I tried to find Barron’s online – they want me to subscribe for $79 to read the old articles. No thanks.
I also looked up all of Randi’s articles mentioning Karen Boesen on his website. The most relevant comments concern his appearance on a Danish TV show, Øjvind Kyrø’s TV series, “Fornemmelse for snyd” (”A Sense of Deceit”). I haven’t actually seen the show or transcripts, so I don’t know what was actually said. Karen Boesen contends that Randi called her and the International Society of Business Astrologers “criminals” and “mentally deviants”. These appear to be the comments most upsetting to her, prompting her to consult her attorney about suing Randi for slander.
Randi claims that he reviewed the tapes of the program to confirm that he never called her or her associates criminals. I do suspect that he wondered aloud why astrologers were not prosecuted for fraud. But saying that astrology is bunk and it’s practitioners are either deliberate frauds or deluded is not slanderous. In order for it to be slander, at a minimum there would need to be solid scientific evidence for the efficacy of astrology. Also, she would need to prove that Randi is aware of the evidence that astrology works. And even with those conditions, Randi is expressing his opinion, which is different that statements of fact.
However, Ms. Boesen makes several unsubstantiated claims that come a lot closer to slander than anything said by Randi:
“But James Randi is notorious in the USA, not just among so-called alternative and astrologers, but also in the academic world, where he is excluded from several fora because of his unethical behavior and cheating with data. His tactics, when people pass his tests, are also well known.”
No evidence provided for Randi being excluded from academic fora or for his unethical behavior and cheating with data. That particular claim is slanderous. Also is the assertion that people pass the tests, which is unsupported.
Info obtained from here:
http://www.randi.org/jr/050203.html
Regarding the rest of the mentions of Karen Boesen on the JREF pages:
Randi likens “business astrology” with “consulting bird entrails”. The analogy is apt.
He summarizes her inane justifications for the results of one test, where they asked her to pick the best candidate for a hypothetical travel agency, but the birth data provided was from a list of convicted felons. Her response was that murderers and top managers often have the same planetary constellations in their horoscopes. Rather than question the validity of the test conditions themselves, she says she was mistaken because good managers and murderers are similar?
http://www.randi.org/jr/051603.html
On one page, Randi does say:
“she has a web site where the poor scam-artists who were blown away on Øjvind Kyrø’s TV show in Denmark, can complain.”
http://www.randi.org/jr/062003.html
So he does liken her to a scam artist (since she was on that show and was blown away). Still, that’s not much of an actionable claim.
On another page Randi lists some vague claim against him by Boesen from an unspecified person or event. She also makes some errors in her statements. Randi characterizes these statements as lies. Perhaps “lie” is too strong a word, incorrect statements being more appropriate, but that isn’t slanderous on his part.
http://www.randi.org/jr/062703.html
Bill Perron still hasn’t made any of his cases against Randi, or the rest of us for that matter. And we’re the narrow-minded dogmatics?
February 20th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
I’m actually surprised that she can do any business in Denmark, we normally have our feet set firmly on the ground.