Comments on: Skepticalapalooza http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/04/25/skepticalapalooza/ I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog. Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:34:20 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Dave Simpson http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/04/25/skepticalapalooza/comment-page-1/#comment-14496 Dave Simpson Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:38:51 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/04/25/skepticalapalooza/#comment-14496 More on Klass - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_J._Klass the "talk" section was rather pointed. More on Klass -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_J._Klass

the “talk” section was rather pointed.

]]> By: Dave Simpson http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/04/25/skepticalapalooza/comment-page-1/#comment-14497 Dave Simpson Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:26:24 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/04/25/skepticalapalooza/#comment-14497 ...but another vote for Rawlins, by another fellow who resigned.... http://www.discord.org/~lippard/kammann.html Guess I'll never know. …but another vote for Rawlins, by another fellow who resigned….

http://www.discord.org/~lippard/kammann.html

Guess I’ll never know.

]]> By: Dave Simpson http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/04/25/skepticalapalooza/comment-page-1/#comment-14499 Dave Simpson Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:12:20 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/04/25/skepticalapalooza/#comment-14499 Found an interesting rebuttal, but it took quite a bit of fishing. http://www.matarese.com/matarese-files/3782/crybaby-philip-klass/index.html Found an interesting rebuttal, but it took quite a bit of fishing.

http://www.matarese.com/matarese-files/3782/crybaby-philip-klass/index.html

]]> By: Dave Simpson http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/04/25/skepticalapalooza/comment-page-1/#comment-14498 Dave Simpson Sun, 30 Apr 2006 21:59:07 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/04/25/skepticalapalooza/#comment-14498 Thanks for the info on PEARL; I guess I'll have to talk to some stats people here (UIC) to find out what the weak links are specifically. (When I get time.) But I won't be mentioning it again until I do. When you say one source of evidence, do you mean Rawlins? I'm open to reading what anyone has said in defense of CSICOP regarding his arguments... Thanks for the info on PEARL; I guess I’ll have to talk to some stats people here (UIC) to find out what the weak links are specifically. (When I get time.) But I won’t be mentioning it again until I do.

When you say one source of evidence, do you mean Rawlins? I’m open to reading what anyone has said in defense of CSICOP regarding his arguments…

]]> By: Thomas Siefert http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/04/25/skepticalapalooza/comment-page-1/#comment-14501 Thomas Siefert Sun, 30 Apr 2006 18:50:21 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/04/25/skepticalapalooza/#comment-14501 Ha ha, just checked above link to JREF site and saw he had an entry on PEAR. http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-04/042806boots.html#i2 Ha ha, just checked above link to JREF site and saw he had an entry on PEAR.
http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-04/042806boots.html#i2

]]> By: Thomas Siefert http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/04/25/skepticalapalooza/comment-page-1/#comment-14500 Thomas Siefert Sun, 30 Apr 2006 18:48:02 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/04/25/skepticalapalooza/#comment-14500 PEAR have been at it for 27 years and only produced data that show a minor (their word) impact of the human mind on a graph. There does not appear to be any detailed description of exactly how these data was produced. My opinion is: of around 6 billion people living on earth now, not one have produced any evidence of being able to control anything other than her/his body with the mind, unaided by technology. Again, you only use one source of evidence. Have you looked through the commentary archive on the JREF site? http://www.randi.org/ I recommend it, he is truly going after people who is trying to con other people. PEAR have been at it for 27 years and only produced data that show a minor (their word) impact of the human mind on a graph. There does not appear to be any detailed description of exactly how these data was produced.

My opinion is: of around 6 billion people living on earth now, not one have produced any evidence of being able to control anything other than her/his body with the mind, unaided by technology.

Again, you only use one source of evidence. Have you looked through the commentary archive on the JREF site?
http://www.randi.org/
I recommend it, he is truly going after people who is trying to con other people.

]]> By: Dave Simpson http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/04/25/skepticalapalooza/comment-page-1/#comment-14502 Dave Simpson Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:19:05 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/04/25/skepticalapalooza/#comment-14502 Well, at some level, is necessary for many people; else they wouldn't be employed. However, when the self-promotion takes precedence over truth, (as it certainly seems to have in the Starbaby saga) we usually say that the person involved isn't displaying a scientific attitude. I'm interested to find out why you said that about PEAR. Have I missed something? I'm truly interested, as it seemed that they had some fairly valid statistics. (Note: I'm studying pure math, not statistics, so it's entirely possible my impression is incorrect). The only reason I give Dr. Rawlins credence is his voluminous documentation, and the somewhat dispassionate way he relates the incidents. The sum of the incidents is clearly not an isolated instance of accidental happenings; it's a clear pattern of incompetent (at best) or egregious (at worst) behavior. It's clear to me that he's qualified to speak about the subject at hand, and unless Kurtz et al. have a really convincing explanation as to why all his requests and warnings were ignored, their behavior indicates the antithesis of a scientific attitude. Have they ever addressed these claims? If so, I'll peruse the reply immediately. I rather suspect not, since it would be very difficult for them to explain away his written documentation. But if so, please inform - I've been wrong before. Well, at some level, is necessary for many people; else they wouldn’t be employed. However, when the self-promotion takes precedence over truth, (as it certainly seems to have in the Starbaby saga) we usually say that the person involved isn’t displaying a scientific attitude.

I’m interested to find out why you said that about PEAR. Have I missed something? I’m truly interested, as it seemed that they had some fairly valid statistics. (Note: I’m studying pure math, not statistics, so it’s entirely possible my impression is incorrect).

The only reason I give Dr. Rawlins credence is his voluminous documentation, and the somewhat dispassionate way he relates the incidents. The sum of the incidents is clearly not an isolated instance of accidental happenings; it’s a clear pattern of incompetent (at best) or egregious (at worst) behavior. It’s clear to me that he’s qualified to speak about the subject at hand, and unless Kurtz et al. have a really convincing explanation as to why all his requests and warnings were ignored, their behavior indicates the antithesis of a scientific attitude. Have they ever addressed these claims? If so, I’ll peruse the reply immediately. I rather suspect not, since it would be very difficult for them to explain away his written documentation. But if so, please inform – I’ve been wrong before.

]]>