|
| Home > Science > |
| sci.skeptic FAQ: The Frequently Questioned Answers |
Section 2 of 6 - Prev - Next
All sections - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6
the Book of Revelation.
Grand conspiracy theories divide the world into three groups. The
Conspirators, the Investigators, and the Dupes. Conspirators have a
vast secret. The Investigators have revealed parts of the conspiracy,
but much is still secret. Investigators are always in great danger of
being silenced by Conspirators. Dupes are just the rest of us. Often
the Conspirators show a mixture of incredible subtlety and stunning
stupidity.
Evidence produced by the Investigators is always either circumstantial
or evaporates when looked at carefully. The theories can never be
disproved, since any evidence to the contrary can be dismissed as
having been planted by the Conspirators. If you spend any time or
effort digging into the evidence produced by Investigators then you
will be labelled a Conspirator yourself. Of course, nothing a
Conspirator says can be believed.
Petty conspiracy theories are smaller than the Grand variety, and
sometimes turn out to be true. Watergate and "Arms for Hostages"
episodes both started life as Petty conspiracy theories. Just because
a theory involves a conspiracy does not make that theory false. The
main difference between Grand and Petty Conspiracy Theories is the
number of alleged conspirators. Grand Conspiracy Theories require
thousands or even millions.
People sometimes use the word "conspiracy" about their opponents
without really thinking about what they are suggesting. If you find
yourself tempted to refer to the "X conspiracy" where X is merely a
group of people who disagree with you, then pick another word.
Otherwise you will be asked for evidence that this conspiracy actually
exists.
[Since this FAQ was first posted I have heard that the Beast computer
is in Holland and that you can be saved by converting to a particular
cult. In addition the cult claims that every product bar code
includes three 6 digits as frame markers, hence 666, the number of the
beast. In fact this is not true, and even if it were it would not
fulfill the prophecy in Revelation. Meanwhile the cult members were
*meant* to rise up to heaven on 29/10/92 but very embarrassingly
didn't. The Korean founder was also discovered to have bought millions
of $ worth of stocks and bonds which didn't mature until 1995, and was
convicted of fraud.]
0.9: What is "cold reading"?
----------------------------
[From a posting by Pope Charles ]
Cold reading is the technique of saying little general things and
watching a persons reactions. As one goes from very general to more
specific things, one notes the reaction and uses it as a guide to find
out what to say. Also there are stock phrases that sound like
statements but are really questions. If these subtle questions evoke
answers, these answers are used as a basis for the next round of
statements.
Many people get involved in various things like this because of their
interest in the usual things, health, love, sex, etc. One can
develop a set of stock questions and statements that will elicit
positive responses from 90% of your 'clients'.
In the hands of an expert, these simple techniques can be frightening
almost. But they are simple things. Of course a paintbrush and a
canvass are simple things too. It all depends on skill and talent for
these things.
One can learn these things coldbloodedly knowing them as the tricks
they are, or as probably most use them, learned at the feet of other
practitioners as it were by rote, and developed by practice and
adapted to the tastes of the reader and his or her sitters. As
skeptics have pointed out, it is the best cold readers that make the
best Tarot Readers, Astrologers, Palm Readers, or what have you.
If your library is lucky enough to have it, Check The Zetetic, (later
renamed Skeptical Inquirer), Vol. 1, #2 Summer 1977 "Cold Reading: How
to convince strangers you know all about them" by Ray Hyman. This was
later republished in _The Elusive Quarry_, which should be quite a bit
easier to find.
These techniques are not confined to the occult world by any means.
Religious workers, salesmen and the like use the principles to build
rapport with people.
0.10: Is there a list of logical fallacies?
-------------------------------------------
A complete list of formal and informal logical fallacies is posted by
Mathew as part of his excellent talk.atheism FAQ
file series. This should be read carefully by anyone wishing to
construct a logical argument to support their position on any group.
For those who want more information, "The Book of the Fallacy" by
Madsen Pirie covers the same ground in more detail.
Formal and informal statistical fallacies are dealt with in the book
"How To Lie With Statistics" by Darrell Huff. I strongly recommend
this one.
0.11: What national and local skeptics organisations are there?
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following addresses are not guaranteed correct. Please check the
addresses you know, and send in any updates and corrections.
Argentina: CAIRP, Director, Ladislao Enrique Maiquez, Jose Marti, 35
dep C, 1406 Buenos Aires. Email sebastian@sicoar1.satlink.net.
Australia: Australian Skeptics Inc., P.O.Box E324, St. James NSW 2000,
Australia
Belgium: Committee Para, J. Dommanget, Observatoire Royal de Belgique,
Avenue Circulaire 3, B-1180 Brussels
SKEPP, W. Betz, Laarbeklaan 105, B-1090 Brussels
Canada: James E. Alcock, Chairman, Glendon College, York University,
2275 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario
Finland: Skepsis, Lauri Groehn (o Umlaut!), Ojahaapolku 8 B 17,
SF-01600 Vantaa
France: Comit'e Francais pour l'Etude des Ph'enom`enes Paranormaux,
Dr. Claude Benski, General Secretary, Merlin Gerin, RGE/A2,
F-38050 Grenoble Cedex
Germany: Gesellschaft zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von
Parawissenschaften e.V. (GWUP) Postfach 1222 64374 Rossdorf
Germany. Tel: +49-6154-8946, Fax: +49-6154-81912
Great Britain: British Committee, Michael J. Hutchinson, Secretary, 10
Crescent View, Loughton, Essex IG10 4PZ
"The Skeptic", P.O. Box 475, Manchester, M60 2TH, UK.
India: B. Premanand, Chairman, 10 Chettipalayam Road, Podanur, 641-023
Coimbatur, Tamil Nadu
Ireland: Irish Skeptics, Peter O'Hara, Dept. of Psychiatry, Airedale
General Hospital, Steeton, Keighly, West Yorkshire,
UK BD20 6TD
Italy: Comitato Italiano per il Controllo delle Affermazioni sul
Paranormale (CICAP), Lorenzo Montali, Via Ozanam 3, I-20129
Milano
Mexico: SOMIE, Mario Mendez-Acosta, Apartado Postal 19-546, Mexico
03900, D.F.
New Zealand: Vicki Hyde, Chairperson, NZCSICOP, New Zealand Science
Monthly, PO Box 19-760, Christchurch 5, New Zealand. Tel:
(NZ)-3-384-5137, Fax: (NZ)-3-384-5138,
email: nzsm@spis.equinox.gen.nz
Netherlands: Stichting Skepsis, Rob Nanninga, Westerkade 20, NL-9718
AS Groningen
Norway: K. Stenodegard, NIVFO, P.O.Box 2119, N-7001 Trondheim
Skepsis, St Olavs gate 27 N-0166 OSLO (phone: + 47 22 20 35 33)
Russia: Science & Religion, Ulyanovskaya 43, kor. 4, 109004 Moscow,
Russia
South Africa: Assn. for the Rational Investigation of the Paranormal
(ARIP), Marian Laserson, Secretary, 4 Wales Street,
Sandringham 2192
Spain: Alternativa Racional a las Pseudosciencias (ARP), Mercedes
Quintana, Apartado de Correos 17.026, E-28080 Madrid
Sweden: Vetenskap och folkbildning, Box 185, S-101 23 Stockholm,
Sweden.
USA: Skeptical Inquirer, Box 703, Buffalo, NY 14226-9973. Tel:
716-636-1425, Fax: 716-636-1733
Center for Scientific Anomalies Research, P.O. Box 1052, Ann
Arbor, MI 48106
Prometheus Books, 59 John Glenn Drive, Buffalo, NY 14215-9918
Skeptics Society 2761 N. Marengo Ave. Altadena, CA 91001
0.12: Where can I get books on paranormal phenomena?
----------------------------------------------------
Skeptics who want to obtain books on paranormal allegations are faced
with a minor ethical dilemma, in that they want the books but do not
want to hand money to the purveyors of flummery and nonsense. One
solution is to buy the books second hand. In addition to your local
second hand bookshop, Richard Trott has
volunteered to provide a free referral service for sellers and seekers
of such second hand books. This service is now on the Web. Point
your browser at:
A huge annotated bibliography of books on paranormal and skeptical
issues is available by email or FTP.
1. Through mail: Send "get skeptic biblio" to
LISTSERV@JHUVM.HCF.JHU.EDU or @JHUVM.BITNET.
2. Anonymous ftp: connect to "jhuvm.hcf.jhu.edu", log on with
"skeptic" and use any non-blank password, do "get skeptic.biblio".
0.13: Where can I find skeptical information on-line?
-----------------------------------------------------
Web pages:
CSICOP and "Skeptical Inquirer":
http://www.csicop.org/
James Randi:
http://www.best.com/~ragaisis/randi/randi.html
http://pc1502.geographie.uni-regensburg.de/html/randi.htm
(German)
General
See the "Yahoo" Web directory at Stanford, under
http://www.yahoo.com/Science/Alternative/
Mailing Lists:
CSICOP:
Barry Karr .
0.14: Where can I find paranormal information on-line?
------------------------------------------------------
Web pages:
General
See the "Yahoo" Web directory at Stanford, under
http://www.yahoo.com/Science/Alternative/
Mailing lists:
Send a message to mailbase@mailbase.ac.uk with no subject line and
the command
join paranormal {Your name}.
Send messages to paranormal@mailbase.ac.uk.
The Scientific Method
=====================
1.1: What is the "scientific method"?
-------------------------------------
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing
the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something
like this:
1: Observe some aspect of the universe.
2: Invent a theory that is consistent with what you have
observed.
3: Use the theory to make predictions.
4: Test those predictions by experiments or further
observations.
5: Modify the theory in the light of your results.
6: Go to step 3.
This leaves out the co-operation between scientists in building
theories, and the fact that it is impossible for every scientist to
independently do every experiment to confirm every theory. Because
life is short, scientists have to trust other scientists. So a
scientist who claims to have done an experiment and obtained certain
results will usually be believed, and most people will not bother to
repeat the experiment.
Experiments do get repeated as part of other experiments. Most
scientific papers contain suggestions for other scientists to follow
up. Usually the first step in doing this is to repeat the earlier
work. So if a theory is the starting point for a significant amount
of work then the initial experiments will get replicated a number of
times.
Some people talk about "Kuhnian paradigm shifts". This refers to the
observed pattern of the slow extension of scientific knowledge with
occasional sudden revolutions. This does happen, but it still follows
the steps above.
Many philosophers of science would argue that there is no such thing
as *the* scientific method.
1.2: What is the difference between a fact, a theory and a hypothesis?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In popular usage, a theory is just a vague and fuzzy sort of fact.
But to a scientist a theory is a conceptual framework that *explains*
existing facts and predicts new ones. For instance, today I saw the
Sun rise. This is a fact. This fact is explained by the theory that
the Earth is round and spins on its axis while orbiting the sun. This
theory also explains other facts, such as the seasons and the phases
of the moon, and allows me to make predictions about what will happen
tomorrow.
This means that in some ways the words "fact" and "theory" are
interchangeable. The organisation of the solar system, which I used as
a simple example of a theory, is normally considered to be a fact that
is explained by Newton's theory of gravity. And so on.
A hypothesis is a tentative theory that has not yet been tested.
Typically, a scientist devises a hypothesis and then sees if it "holds
water" by testing it against available data. If the hypothesis does
hold water, the scientist declares it to be a theory.
An important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypotheis is
that it be "falsifiable". This means that there must be some
experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue.
For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about
the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced
results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is)
falsifiable.
On the other hand the theory that "there is an invisible snorg reading
this over your shoulder" is not falsifiable. There is no experiment
or possible evidence that could prove that invisible snorgs do not
exist. So the Snorg Hypothesis is not scientific. On the other hand,
the "Negative Snorg Hypothesis" (that they do not exist) is
scientific. You can disprove it by catching one. Similar arguments
apply to yetis, UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster. See also question 5.2
on the age of the Universe.
1.3: Can science ever really prove anything?
--------------------------------------------
Yes and no. It depends on what you mean by "prove".
For instance, there is little doubt that an object thrown into the air
will come back down (ignoring spacecraft for the moment). One could
make a scientific observation that "Things fall down". I am about to
throw a stone into the air. I use my observation of past events to
predict that the stone will come back down. Wow - it did!
But next time I throw a stone, it might not come down. It might
hover, or go shooting off upwards. So not even this simple fact has
been really proved. But you would have to be very perverse to claim
that the next thrown stone will not come back down. So for ordinary
everyday use, we can say that the theory is true.
You can think of facts and theories (not just scientific ones, but
ordinary everyday ones) as being on a scale of certainty, from
certainly false to certainly true. Up at the top end we have facts
like "things fall down". Down at the bottom we have "the Earth is
flat". In the middle we have "I will die of heart disease". Some
scientific theories are nearer the top than others, but none of them
ever actually reach it. Skepticism is usually directed at claims that
contradict facts and theories that are very near the top of the scale.
If you want to discuss ideas nearer the middle of the scale (that is,
things about which there is real debate in the scientific community)
then you would be better off asking on the appropriate specialist
group.
1.4: If scientific theories keep changing, where is the Truth?
--------------------------------------------------------------
In 1686 Isaac Newton proposed his theory of gravitation. This was one
of the greatest intellectual feats of all time. The theory explained
all the observed facts, and made predictions that were later tested
and found to be correct within the accuracy of the instruments being
used. As far as anyone could see, Newton's theory was the Truth.
During the nineteenth century, more accurate instruments were used to
test Newton's theory, and found some slight discrepancies (for
instance, the orbit of Mercury wasn't quite right). Albert Einstein
proposed his theories of Relativity, which explained the newly
observed facts and made more predictions. Those predictions have now
been tested and found to be correct within the accuracy of the
instruments being used. As far as anyone can see, Einstein's theory
is the Truth.
So how can the Truth change? Well the answer is that it hasn't. The
Universe is still the same as it ever was, and Newton's theory is as
true as it ever was. If you take a course in physics today, you will
be taught Newton's Laws. They can be used to make predictions, and
those predictions are still correct. Only if you are dealing with
things that move close to the speed of light do you need to use
Einstein's theories. If you are working at ordinary speeds outside of
very strong gravitational fields and use Einstein, you will get
(almost) exactly the same answer as you would with Newton. It just
takes longer because using Einstein involves rather more maths.
One other note about truth: science does not make moral judgements.
Anyone who tries to draw moral lessons from the laws of nature is on
very dangerous ground. Evolution in particular seems to suffer from
this. At one time or another it seems to have been used to justify
Nazism, Communism, and every other -ism in between. These
justifications are all completely bogus. Similarly, anyone who says
"evolution theory is evil because it is used to support Communism" (or
any other -ism) has also strayed from the path of Logic.
1.5: "Extraordinary evidence is needed for an extraordinary claim"
------------------------------------------------------------------
An extraordinary claim is one that contradicts a fact that is close
to the top of the certainty scale discussed above. So if you are
trying to contradict such a fact, you had better have facts available
that are even higher up the certainty scale.
1.6: What is Occam's Razor?
---------------------------
Ockham's Razor ("Occam" is a Latinised variant) is the principle
proposed by William of Ockham in the fifteenth century that
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate", which translates as
"entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily". Various other
rephrasings have been incorrectly attributed to him. In more modern
terms, if you have two theories which both explain the observed facts
then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along. See
W.M. Thorburn, "The Myth of Occam's Razor," _Mind_ 27:345-353 (1918)
for a detailed study of what Ockham actually wrote and what others
wrote after him.
The reason behind the razor is that for any given set of facts there
are an infinite number of theories that could explain them. For
instance, if you have a graph with four points in a line then the
simplest theory that explains them is a linear relationship, but you
can draw an infinite number of different curves that all pass through
the four points. There is no evidence that the straight line is the
right one, but it is the simplest possible solution. So you might as
well use it until someone comes along with a point off the straight
line.
Also, if you have a few thousand points on the line and someone
suggests that there is a point that is off the line, it's a pretty
fair bet that they are wrong.
The following argument against Occam's Razor is sometime proposed:
This simple hypothesis was shown to be false; the truth was more
complicated. So Occam's Razor doesn't work.
This is a strawman argument. The Razor doesn't tell us anything about
the truth or otherwise of a hypothesis, but rather it tells us which
one to test first. The simpler the hypothesis, the easier it is to
shoot down.
A related rule, which can be used to slice open conspiracy theories,
is Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be
adequately explained by stupidity". This definition comes from "The
Jargon File" (edited by Eric Raymond), but one poster attributes it to
Robert Heinlein, in a 1941 story called "Logic of Empire".
1.7: Galileo was persecuted, just like researchers into today.
------------------------------------------------------------------
People putting forward extraordinary claims often refer to Galileo as
an example of a great genius being persecuted by the establishment for
heretical theories. They claim that the scientific establishment is
afraid of being proved wrong, and hence is trying to suppress the
truth.
This is a classic conspiracy theory. The Conspirators are all those
scientists who have bothered to point out flaws in the claims put
forward by the researchers.
The usual rejoinder to someone who says "They laughed at Columbus,
they laughed at Galileo" is to say "But they also laughed at Bozo the
Clown". (From Carl Sagan, "Broca's Brain", Coronet 1980, p79).
Incidentally, stories about the persecution of Galileo Galilei and the
ridicule Christopher Columbus had to endure should be taken with a
grain of salt.
During the early days of Galileo's theory church officials were
interested and sometimes supportive, even though they had yet to find
a way to incorporate it into theology. His main adversaries were
established scientists - since he was unable to provide HARD proofs
they didn't accept his model. Galileo became more agitated, declared
them ignorant fools and publicly stated that his model was the correct
one, thus coming in conflict with the church.
When Columbus proposed to take the "Western Route" the spherical
nature of the Earth was common knowledge, even though the diameter was
still debatable. Columbus simply believed that the Earth was a lot
smaller, while his adversaries claimed that the Western Route would be
too long. If America hadn't been in his way, he most likely would have
failed. The myth that "he was laughed at for believing that the Earth
was a globe" stems from an American author who intentionally
adulterated history.
1.8: What is the "Experimenter effect"?
---------------------------------------
It is unconscious bias introduced into an experiment by the
experimenter. It can occur in one of two ways:
o Scientists doing experiments often have to look for small effects
or differences between the things being experimented on.
o Experiments require many samples to be treated in exactly the same
way in order to get consistent results.
Note that neither of these sources of bias require deliberate fraud.
A classic example of the first kind of bias was the "N-ray",
discovered early this century. Detecting them required the
investigator to look for very faint flashes of light on a
scintillator. Many scientists reported detecting these rays. They
were fooling themselves. For more details, see "The Mutations of
Science" in "Science since Babylon" by Derek Price (Yale Univ. Press).
A classic example of the second kind of bias were the detailed
investigations into the relationship between race and brain capacity
in the last century. Skull capacity was measured by filling the empty
skull with lead shot or mustard seed, and then measuring the volume of
filling. A significant difference in the results could be obtained by
ensuring that the filling in some skulls was better settled than
others. For more details on this story, read Stephen Jay Gould's "The
Mismeasure of Man".
For more detail see:
T.X. Barber, "Pitfalls of Human Research", 1976.
Robert Rosenthal, "Pygmalion in the Classroom".
[These were recommended by a correspondent. Sorry I have no more
information.]
1.9: How much fraud is there in science?
----------------------------------------
In its simplest form this question is unanswerable, since undetected
fraud is by definition unmeasurable. Of course there are many known
cases of fraud in science. Some use this to argue that all scientific
findings (especially those they dislike) are worthless.
This ignores the replication of results which is routinely undertaken
by scientists. Any important result will be replicated many times by
many different people. So an assertion that (for instance) scientists
are lying about carbon-14 dating requires that a great many scientists
are engaging in a conspiracy. See the previous question.
In fact the existence of known and documented fraud is a good
illustration of the self-correcting nature of science. It does not
matter if a proportion of scientists are fraudsters because any
important work they do will not be taken seriously without independent
verification. Hence they must confine themselves to pedestrian work
which no-one is much interested in, and obtain only the expected
results. For anyone with the talent and ambition necessary to get a
Ph.D this is not going to be an enjoyable career.
Also, most scientists are idealists. They perceive beauty in
scientific truth and see its discovery as their vocation. Without
this most would have gone into something more lucrative.
These arguments suggest that undetected fraud in science is both rare
and unimportant.
The above arguments are weaker in medical research, where companies
frequently suppress or distort data in order to support their own
products. Tobacco companies regularly produce reports "proving" that
smoking is harmless, and drug companies have both faked and suppressed
data related to the safety or effectiveness or major products.
For more detail on more scientific frauds than you ever knew existed,
see "False Prophets" by Alexander Koln.
The standard textbook used in North America is "Betrayers of the
Truth: Fraud and Deceit in Science" by William Broad and Nicholas Wade
(Oxford 1982).
There is a mailing list SCIFRAUD for the discussion of fraud and
questionable behaviour in science. To subscribe, send
"sub scifraud " to "listserv@uacsc2.albany.edu".
1.9.1: Did Mendel fudge his results?
------------------------------------
Gregor Mendel was a 19th Century monk who discovered the laws of
inheritance (dominant and recessive genes etc.). More recent analysis
of his results suggest that they are "too good to be true". Mendelian
inheritance involves the random selection of possible traits from
parents, with particular probabilities of particular traits. It seems
from Mendel's raw data that chance played a smaller part in his
experiments than it should. This does not imply fraud on the part of
Mendel.
First, the experiments were not "blind" (see the questions about
double blind experiments and the experimenter effect). Deciding
whether a particular pea is wrinkled or not needs judgement, and this
could bias Mendel's results towards the expected. This is an example
of the "experimenter effect".
Second, Mendel's Laws are only approximations. In fact it does turn
out that in some cases inheritance is less random than his Laws state.
Third, Mendel might have neglected to publish the results of `failed'
experiments. It is interesting to note that all 7 of the
characteristics measured in his published work are controlled by
single genes. He did not report any experiments with more complicated
characteristics. Mendel later started experiments with a more complex
plant, hawkweed, could not interpret the results, got discouraged and
abandoned plant science.
See "The Human Blueprint" by Robert Shapiro (New York: St. Martin's,
1991) p. 17.
1.10: Are scientists wearing blinkers?
--------------------------------------
One of the commonest allegations against mainstream science is that
its practitioners only see what they expect to see. Scientists often
refuse to test fringe ideas because "science" tells them that this
will be a waste of time and effort. Hence they miss ideas which could
be very valuable.
This is the "blinkers" argument, by analogy with the leather shields
placed over horses eyes so that they only see the road ahead. It is
often put forward by proponents of new-age beliefs and alternative
health.
It is certainly true that ideas from outside the mainstream of science
can have a hard time getting established. But on the other hand the
opportunity to create a scientific revolution is a very tempting one:
wealth, fame and Nobel prizes tend to follow from such work. So there
will always be one or two scientists who are willing to look at
anything new.
If you have such an idea, remember that the burden of proof is on you.
Posting an explanation of your idea to sci.skeptic is a good start.
Many readers of this group are professional scientists. They will be
willing to provide constructive criticism and pointers to relevant
literature (along with the occasional rasberry). Listen to them.
Then go away, read the articles, improve your theory in the light of
your new knowledge, and then ask again. Starting a scientific
revolution is a long, hard slog. Don't expect it to be easy. If it
was, we would have them every week.
Psychic Powers
==============
2.1: Is Uri Geller for real?
----------------------------
James "The Amazing" Randi has, through various demonstrations, cast
doubt on Geller's claims of psychic powers. Geller has sued Randi.
This case has now been completed, and Geller has lost. However
Skeptics are still advised to exercise extreme caution in addressing
this topic, given Geller's history of litigation.
One of Geller's more (in)famous claims is that he has made millions
by finding oil. The following was posted by James Randi on this
subject:
: Geller SAYS that he has made fortunes with mining companies. When
: CSICOP checked this out, it was found that only one mining company,
: ZANEX, ever paid Geller, and that was far far less than the million
: dollars he says he got from 11 mining companies. Dont always
: believe everything that he claims, or didn't you learn that already?
Geller's stage appearances feature a range of stage magic. For more
details on how he does his tricks, read books by James Randi,
especially "The Truth About Uri Geller". Here are some hilights:
* "Broken" watches are often just gummed up. Warm it, shake it, and
it will start ticking. Whether it carries on ticking or keeps
good time is another matter.
* Spoon bending is usually done by misdirection. Get everyone to
look away while you bend the spoon. Geller has even been known
to hold up a bent spoon and say "its bending, its bending" while
gradually revealing more of the bend between his fingers.
In a global agreement to the law suits involving James Randi, CSICOP,
Prometheus Books, Victor Stenger, Prometheus Books UK and Eddington Hook
Ltd. Uri Geller agreed to pay CSICOP $120,000. (He had already paid
Prometheus Books around $20,000 in legal fees for a case in Florida.)
In 'The Skeptical Inquirer' for May/June 1995 it was reported that Uri
Geller had paid the first $40,000 of the $120,000. He will pay $10,000 a
year for three years plus the first $50,000 of any sums recovered by him
in a new action he was to bring against his former attorneys.
CSICOP settled for less than the $150,000 awarded to them by the court.
Executive Director Barry Karr said: "Prior to filing suit, Geller, an
Israeli citizen living in England, placed his assets in trust, rendering
uncertain our ability to collect."
2.2: I have had a psychic experience.
-------------------------------------
That is pretty remarkable. But before you post to the Net, consider:-
* Could it just be coincidence? The human mind is good at
remembering odd things but tends to forget ordinary things, such as
premonitions that didn't happen. If psychic experiences happen to
you on a regular basis then try writing down the premonitions when
you have them and then comparing your record to later events.
* If you think you have a mental link with someone you know, try a
few tests with playing cards.
Until 1996, I had suggested the following:
* If you are receiving messages from elsewhere (e.g. UFOs), ask for
specific information that you can then check.
Previous versions of this FAQ suggested the complete prime
factorisation of 2^1024+1. However this has now been found.
However we now know the factors of this number.
Section 2 of 6 - Prev - Next
All sections - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6
| Back to category Science - Discuss "sci.skeptic FAQ: The Frequently Questioned Answers" |
| Home - Search - About the project - Forum - Feedback |
© 2005 allanswers.org | Terms of use