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.
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.
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
www.randi.org
Konnichiwa,
Hmmm. From his stated rules for the 1M challenge it would appear that he could (and would) refuse to pay up on ANY sucessfull Audio Demonstration simply because we are NOT dealing with (from his challenge rules): "psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability".
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
sam9 said:
Hmmm. From his stated rules for the 1M challenge it would appear that he could (and would) refuse to pay up on ANY sucessfull Audio Demonstration simply because we are NOT dealing with (from his challenge rules): "psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability".
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
If you search his site a little further you will find the actual letter he sent the reviewers and manufacturers. He does not leave himself that out for the Shakti stones. He states the requirements quite clearly. It doesn't matter whether the claimed functionality of the stones derives from the paranormal or quantum physics.
So far as I know Randi doesn't play word games. It does not depend on "what the meaning of 'is' is".
It's useful to read his protocols and experiences with a close analogy to goo-goo high end audio, dowsing (Randi says that, alone among paranormalists he deals with, dowsers tend to be quite honest and sincere). He set up a very fair trial in cooperation with the dowsers and had them run through it unblinded. He then blinded the tests, the dowsers did their thing, and before scoring, heasked each of them how they thought they did. They were all quite confident in their results. Unfortunately, the results were just as random as one might predict based on the known laws of physics.
He is less kind to the spoon-benders and card-trick guys.
He is less kind to the spoon-benders and card-trick guys.
I am surprised that Randi has chosen 'Shakti Stones' as an example. As SY knows, I have a small collection of Shakti Stones here in my lab. I have found that they appear to be ineffective at audio and near audio frequencies. I tried to use them for shielding, but tin foil, suggested by SY, actually worked.
However, the Shakti Stones have measured performance characteristics at RF frequencies. Is this important? Apparently in some situations.
However, let me give you my impression of Randi, from 'Right Where You Are Sitting Now' by Robert Anton Wilson pp 81-82: "You see, The Amazing Randi is of that school of thought which holds that he and his friends have the only 'real' reality-labyrinth on the planet. All proponents of alternative reality-labyrinths are therefore, BY DEFINITION, a bunch of SNEAKS, CHEATS, AND LIARS." ... " Randi's presentation consisted of saying five different ways that the heretics are a bunch of dishonest *******s who lie morning, noon and night, and lie in their sleep just to keep in practice."
Do you want audio evaluated by this guy?
However, the Shakti Stones have measured performance characteristics at RF frequencies. Is this important? Apparently in some situations.
However, let me give you my impression of Randi, from 'Right Where You Are Sitting Now' by Robert Anton Wilson pp 81-82: "You see, The Amazing Randi is of that school of thought which holds that he and his friends have the only 'real' reality-labyrinth on the planet. All proponents of alternative reality-labyrinths are therefore, BY DEFINITION, a bunch of SNEAKS, CHEATS, AND LIARS." ... " Randi's presentation consisted of saying five different ways that the heretics are a bunch of dishonest *******s who lie morning, noon and night, and lie in their sleep just to keep in practice."
Do you want audio evaluated by this guy?
Konnichiwa,
Maybe, maybe not. Why don't you round up the people. The main reason why I would not bother with Charlatans of the ilk of Randi, Nousiane and the ABX people is that they already set out to prove me wrong and will do so by any means available. I don't need that sort of proverbial.
I have better things to do with my time than to convince people who are convinced their illusion is the only true one of their error. i gave that up after an encounter with the spanish inquisition. Even comfy chairs get boring over time.
Hmm, I don't know.... Let's see what webster has to say.
"Webster's 1913 Dictionary
Definition: \Char"la*tan\, n. [F. charlatan, fr. It. ciarlatano,
fr. ciarlare to chartter, prate; of imitative origin; cf. It.
zirlare to whistle like a thrush.]
One who prates much in his own favor, and makes unwarrantable
pretensions; a quack; an impostor; an empiric; a mountebank
I think the shoe fits, based on "One who prates much in his own favor, and makes unwarrantable pretensions".
Sayonara
sam9 said:
Maybe, maybe not. Why don't you round up the people. The main reason why I would not bother with Charlatans of the ilk of Randi, Nousiane and the ABX people is that they already set out to prove me wrong and will do so by any means available. I don't need that sort of proverbial.
I have better things to do with my time than to convince people who are convinced their illusion is the only true one of their error. i gave that up after an encounter with the spanish inquisition. Even comfy chairs get boring over time.
sam9 said:
Hmm, I don't know.... Let's see what webster has to say.
"Webster's 1913 Dictionary
Definition: \Char"la*tan\, n. [F. charlatan, fr. It. ciarlatano,
fr. ciarlare to chartter, prate; of imitative origin; cf. It.
zirlare to whistle like a thrush.]
One who prates much in his own favor, and makes unwarrantable
pretensions; a quack; an impostor; an empiric; a mountebank
I think the shoe fits, based on "One who prates much in his own favor, and makes unwarrantable pretensions".
Sayonara
Don't ask me, ask Randi ! If you've seen his website you know how to contact him. I sense a reluctance (on AA as well as here) to risk an approach - as far as I can tell he is respectful, polite and physically harmless. He has lecture tours all over the world. I'm sure he will be passing your way before long. I think he is Europre this summer/autum and I know he has travelled extensively in Russia on tour as well.
Just for the sake of discussion, and to move this thread away from what is clearly a head-on collision, I wonder is anyone is willing to own up to believing in something that many other people would label hocus-pocus.
For instance, I am not averse to the concept of ESP, in fact sometimes I think I sense an idea sweeping around a room. Maybe it's just a lot of people making the same deduction simultaneously, but it doesn't seem like it.
For another, considering that there were several early versions of manlike creatures, if I had to wager I would say that there really are a few left over which we call Bigfoot. They say two competing species cannot coexist for long, but the Neanderthals just died out 30,000 years ago-why couldn't there be declining numbers of a similar species? 30,000 years is really an instant in the general scheme of things.
For instance, I am not averse to the concept of ESP, in fact sometimes I think I sense an idea sweeping around a room. Maybe it's just a lot of people making the same deduction simultaneously, but it doesn't seem like it.
For another, considering that there were several early versions of manlike creatures, if I had to wager I would say that there really are a few left over which we call Bigfoot. They say two competing species cannot coexist for long, but the Neanderthals just died out 30,000 years ago-why couldn't there be declining numbers of a similar species? 30,000 years is really an instant in the general scheme of things.
Wodgy said:
That turns out not to be the case.
From the prize rules:
Randi has given details for anyone who wishes to verify this account and, in special circumstances like the challenge to the repugnant Sylvia Browne, put it into an escrow account. A few minutes browsing through his archive of weekly columns will satisfy the curious.
kelticwizard said:
Nor am I. I'd just like to see one piece of hard evidence.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.