James Randi by Napolean_70
Randi, James (1928-)
Canadian born American citizen known for his skepticism, apparent critical thinking and zealous debunking of paranormal truth claims.
While Randi certainly does have something important to offer, especially when exposing actual frauds, he seems to emphasize only the naturalistic side of spiritual and paranormal issues.
Moreover, Randi demands scientific evidence of ESP and spiritual powers using science as he defines it, as evident in his rather circumscribed “$1,000,000 Paranormal Challenge.”
But there are alternate ways of viewing science, its meaning and appropriate methods. In fact, some postmodern thinkers, philosophers of science and theologians say that science is a kind of religion or myth–i.e. that these conceptual distinctions are not mutually exclusive.
Add to this, report errors, suggest edits or voice your opinion
I appreciate that you want to look at this issue from more than one perspective, but I have to say I think what he does is invaluable. People tend to be EXTREMELY credulous. I have personally had experiences that I would classify as “paranormal” and could not be duplicated under scientific conditions, but I also know there are a lot of frauds and crooks out there who prey on the gullible.
I’m not sure what you mean by “other ways of viewing science, its meaning and appropriate methods.”
Comment by Digital Dame — November 6, 2009 @ 3:41 pm |
Hi… thanks for your comments. I guess I’m just hinting at the idea that there could be a scientific approach to spirituality, parapsychology and the paranormal but that it would probably be a different kind of science than that which Randi stipulates in his challenge.
Carl Jung and others have hinted at this ‘new’ kind of science. I guess it’s the science of mysticism, when you get right down to it.
Comment by Earthpages.ca — November 6, 2009 @ 3:57 pm |
I think that’s bending the definition of “science.” The scientific method requires forming a hypothesis, then experimenting in a controlled fashion which either results in empirical validation of the hypothesis, or modification of the hypothesis. The key here is the controlled fashion. When it starts coming down to “belief” or “feelings” (mysticism) it is by definition no longer “science.” People are free to believe whatever they like, but belief alone doesn’t make something true. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.
I’ve read the rigorous testing model Randi lays out on his site. It’s extremely well thought out, as something of that nature needs to be.
Comment by Digital Dame — November 6, 2009 @ 5:20 pm |
Well, when you get into the sociology, philosophy and theology of science I believe things become a bit less clear cut:
http://earthpages.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/science/
In religion there’s this notion of discernment, which I think can be a kind of science especially when it involves drawing upon life experience, learning from mistakes and communicating with other people (in Catholicism, for instance, a spiritual director).
http://earthpages.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/discernment/
Comment by Earthpages.ca — November 8, 2009 @ 7:52 am |