 |
Duration: 10:43 minutes Upload Time: 2007-11-03 11:13:24 User: michaelmapes :::: Favorites :::: Top Videos of Day |
|
Description: This is my response to James Randi. This is the second part of my response to skeptics. In my view there is one person we should be skeptical of and that is James Randi. Michael Mapes http://www.michaelmapes.org |
|
Comments | |
| skaggio ::: Favorites 2007-12-30 04:30:55 Last time I checked we learned abou dependents in 6th....7th....8th....9th....10th.....all the way though 12th. Everytime there was a math or science related class we talked about it. WAIT........Did James Randi graduate high school...I don't recall Michael saying anything about it..just that he was a magician...hmmm?? __________________________________________________ | |
| skaggio ::: Favorites 2007-12-30 04:27:22 This isn't about what's real and what's fake. Most of us who care to do the research know that you have devoted tons of your time trying to deal with psychic fraud. But what Michael is saying here I believe is that first there will always be those who are skeptical, it is simply a matter of credibility, qualifications, and a way to test skeptics. You point out that in fact it seem to be more bias to disproving psychics rather then a scientific study. Did James Randi pass 6th grade? __________________________________________________ | |
| Desertphile ::: Favorites 2007-12-20 19:10:43 "...take the Randi Challenge." He does not dare do so, and you know why. Anyone and every one with a working brain also knows why. And you are wrong about him being a gutless coward--- his refusal to take Randi's money has to do with his lack of honesty, not his lack of courage. __________________________________________________ | |
| messiahjonz ::: Favorites 2007-12-18 19:03:49 Can we all say it together......FABULOUS! __________________________________________________ | |
| TheWiccanBitch ::: Favorites 2007-12-16 15:23:27 Hey you GUTLESS COWARD: stop making excuses--- take the Randi Challenge. __________________________________________________ | |
| notevenkodak ::: Favorites 2007-12-15 23:39:26 Well michael, question i do belive in pshychics and i probably spelled it wrong but shouldn't you be able to know things like "peoples name" if you know everything else about them, and like once i saw a dog runnning out this pshychics place and she was running after it and like shouldnt she have seen that coming?, just a question __________________________________________________ | |
| michaelmapes ::: Favorites 2007-12-14 15:41:40 I have never one said controlled environments to test psychics are bad. I support them. What I do not support is scientists who have a vested or monetary interest in interpreting the results in a particular way. For instance, I don't trust studies on global warming done by oil companies... __________________________________________________ | |
| pedroac ::: Favorites 2007-12-14 15:08:24 What is wrong with the Randi challenge? You're talking about he's credentials, but scientists evaluate the results. And you don't need to be a scientist to make good controlled tests. Everyone is biased - scientists are biased -, and that's why controlled environments are necessary. __________________________________________________ | |
| flanders ::: Favorites 2007-12-12 02:13:04 thats fine. ill read it. what is it called? __________________________________________________ | |
| michaelmapes ::: Favorites 2007-12-11 21:37:43 I'd appreciate it if you'd reserve comment until you have read the research. It makes sense. __________________________________________________ | |
| flanders ::: Favorites 2007-12-11 19:31:30 cont. and gary schwartz is a professor of Psychology. i havent read any of his work but id imagine that he could not (and did not) physically explain how a psycic is able to work as a medium. __________________________________________________ | |
| flanders ::: Favorites 2007-12-11 19:30:57 but you see, the truth is not democratic. debating whether psycics are real is pointless. proving that real pysics exist through the scientific method is the only real way for that to happen. how hard could it be for any psycic to show us UNDER CONTROLLED CONDITIONS that they are for real? wouldnt it be like proving i can hear my roommate talking to me and telling everyone what i hear? __________________________________________________ | |
| kabalahman ::: Favorites 2007-12-11 16:56:22 hmm - scientific inquiry, the ultimate source for TRUTH in the universe?? okay, scientifically prove GOD - scientifically prove LOVE... quantum physicists are breaking down the evidentiary barrier where sensorial stimuli serve as prima facia to "reality" scientific inquiry sets a gross border on the extent of man's ignorance only - it is the fence limiting what is BELIEVED to be because of "evidence" from what truly EXISTS __________________________________________________ | |
| michaelmapes ::: Favorites 2007-12-02 23:01:13 That would be completely awesome. Keep in touch. I hope to hear everything that has been going on! Happy Holidays to you as well :) __________________________________________________ | |
| michaelmapes ::: Favorites 2007-11-30 14:56:04 There are a lot of frauds I agree. Not everyone is a fraud. __________________________________________________ | |
No comments:
Post a Comment