|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Rules | Articles | Store | Gallery | Blogs | Register | Donations | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Search |
| Everything Else Anything related to audio / video / electronics etc) BUT remember- we have many new forums where your thread may now fit! .... Parts, Equipment & Tools, Construction Tips, Software Tools...... |
|
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.
Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving |
|
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Left Coast
|
There is a post on AA that says The Great Randi has offered $1,000,000 to certain reviewers of Shakti Stones who can demonstrate an audible effect of the stones. This is posted as an FYI to anyone who may be interested. Randi's website is www.randi.org - do a site search for Shakti.
For those who have never heard of The Great Randi (I first read about him from Issac Asimov), do not dismiss the man lightly. He has fools of many in the course of a long career and has yet to pay out a cent. I've only seen him on TV but find him very entertaining and nobody's fool. |
|
|
|
#2 |
|
diyAudio Editor
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: San Francisco, USA
|
I'm afraid my ears aren't "golden" enough to win
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
diyAudio Moderator
|
Randi will pay the $1MM to anyone, not just reviewers, who can demonstrate any sort of paranormal ability under conditions which do not allow cheating. I'd recommend his book "Flim-Flam" to anyone interested in how charlatans fool us and help us fool ourselves.
www.randi.org
__________________
If there's a sucker born every minute, where do the rest of them come from? |
|
|
|
#4 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
|
This is a sad case of: "Throwing the baby out with the bathwater" Randi is a professional naysayer. Yes, he makes a living from debunking. He often goes overboard in his criticism. It gets tedious, after awhile.
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Charlotte,NC,USA
|
Mr. Curl,
You mean like .............Steve Eddy?
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Left Coast
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
diyAudio Member
|
Quote:
John, That may be the case, but does he normally get it right? I don't think you can get too tedious debunking frauds that take advantage of other people's misplaced trust. Jan Didden
__________________
/Yes! Its out: Linear Audio Vol 5! I'm not an "accademic", just a plodder who loves a challenge - Ian Hegglun |
|
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
Previously: Kuei Yang Wang
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Somewhere nice on planet earth where censorship of Ideas is frowned upon
|
Konnichiwa,
Quote:
It can be easily demonstrated that placing a shakti brick on most speakers enclosures will change the resonance signature of the cabient and quite possibly to an audible degree. The same will be harder, but still not impossible to illustrate with source electronics. Equally, when changing mains cables in audio systems it is quite triviual to demonstrate changes in EMI suceptibility and the like. The only thing really debatable and debated is if such usually quite small variations are audible or not. So, where does that leave us? With another professional charlatan and pseudoscientist who deliberatly postulates rules and excemptions that allow him off the hook, incidently just in line with the other side (those who claim effects) who also always seem to have exist clauses. Clearly either side (be it in audio or in other areas) is represented BOTH primarily by professional deceivers with a clear agenda and no attempt is made to actually research anything. For arguments sake, some of David Blaines more extreme stunts (or those by some other performers) clearly seem to exceed accepted limits for human endurance. Does that mean their source is "supernatural"? Depends upon your definition of natural. We have too many movable goal posts and too much intent to deceive (deceive - as in to make observable facts or their absence to appear to provide proof of a given position) on either side as to get anywhere. At least there is little mention of the dreaded "ABX" test, which when performed in the usal fashion has a statistically assured ability to reliably return null results regardless of the actual facts, unless performed with sample sizes considerably (like by a factor 20 - 100) exceeding those commonly used in the audio related published test. Hell, who ever heard of a serious clinical trial with one, two or three paricipants (never mind controls and test of the actual experiment for sensitivity to start with). Sayonara |
|
|
|
|
#9 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Left Coast
|
Quote:
So far as I know Randi doesn't play word games. It does not depend on "what the meaning of 'is' is". |
|
|
|
|
#10 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Left Coast
|
Quote:
BTW, calling Randi a "charlatan" is, in my mind, a bit like calling Elliot Ness a bootlegger. |
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
| New To Site? | Need Help? |