6 ms·

I like Randi and I went to see his presentation when he came to my college campus years ago. I've never felt in much danger from the types of spoon-benders and

I like Randi and I went to see his presentation when he came to my college campus years ago. I've never felt in much danger from the types of spoon-benders and various charlatans he targets, though. Maybe I'm just naive, but somehow I can't imagine those types of folks gaining an appreciable number of followers, even if never formally debunked. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of successful charlatans and frauds out there. But those ones aren't fools. It's those that worry me.

dhimes 12y ago
It would be nice to believe that, but from time to time they have had the ear of Congress. There were, apparently, believers among them who thought we could build 'thought shields' against missiles. Also, they apparently funded "remote viewers" for intelligence operations.
- pyronite 12y ago
  The Reagan White House was advised by an astrologer. Pseudoscience is something many people are susceptible to regardless of their position.
  - rmason 12y ago
    Actually it was Nancy Reagan who employed the astrologer. Supposedly he approved travel dates for Reagan. I've always believed, though I can't prove it, that his assassination attempt so rattled his wife that the President went along with the whole astrologer recommendations to humor her.
- dwc 12y ago
  Dowsing for bombs. Yeah, it really happened.
  - rumcajz 12y ago
    Interesting. Are these people so confident that they are willing to risk they lives searching for mines or did they somehow done it from a safe distance?
    - jdietrich 12y ago
      The Iraqi government spent $85m on bogus bomb detectors that were just dowsing rods in a fancy box. Nobody at the interior ministry bothered to do any testing, or even to take the devices apart - they contained no electronics that could possibly have detected anything. Several other governments have purchased similar devices. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651
    - moreati 12y ago
      I believe 'dowsing for bombs' is a reference to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22380368 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22380368. In which case the perpetrators sold the kits to governments/agencies i.e. third parties were being exposed to the bombs.
- A_COMPUTER 12y ago
  >they apparently funded "remote viewers" for intelligence operations. This was done in part because it was believed that the Russians were doing this, and administrators didn't want a "remove viewing gap." But it was stopped because it was tried and didn't work. If anything the fact that the program was ended is a good sign.
sampo 12y ago
GMO food is effectively forbidden in Europe, even though the scientific consensus is that GMO crops are no more dangerous than non-GMO crops. The politicians just don't listen to the scientists.
- jokoon 12y ago
  I think it's more complex than that. Europe don't want to be a victim of lobbies and predatory companies, and doesn't want to try to regulate something that's complex enough already. I think it's just politics as usual, it's a way to not be dependent on US techs, just another way to do things differently. Europe doesn't have the same kind of free speech and democracy too that relies on government image. Europe has more strict and more authoritative rulings, EU doesn't take risks like the US does. In US it's much more loose. > The politicians just don't listen to the scientists There's the same problem anywhere you go.
- consideranon 12y ago
  While I agree that GMO crops are no more dangerous from a human health perspective, there is a very real concern that the rapid introduction of entirely new varieties of crop, that under cultivation would take hundreds or thousands of years to develop and introduce, can have negative and unforeseen ecological effects. This more reasonable side of the anti-GMO argument tends to get drowned out and dismissed when people see the pseudoscience 'natural' health arguments brought out front and center. It's pretty evident that arguments for restraint for reasons of long-term sustainability take a lot of effort to get any traction, especially when fighting profitability. All this to say, the GMO debate, like everything in life, is not as simple as most people tend believe. It is something that should be proceeded with caution, but certainly continued. This I think is where I think the almost religious anti-GMO fervor really causes harm, in the same way anti embryonic stem cell research causes harm. Move fast and break things is a great slogan when the systems you're moving are relatively simple and the consequences of breaking them are relatively minor. Global ecology is an extraordinarily complex system that we don't fully understand, and breaking it can cause real and life threatening damage to the people of the world. Not to mention the fact that reverting negative changes operates on the same time scale as the original negative change. If it happens that GMO breaks shit, you can't just submit a patch and have things working again in a couple hours.
wpietri 12y ago
Part of the reason these folks aren't popular these days is because of Randi. There was a giant wave of paranormal enthusiasm in the 1970s. Skepticism and debunking are the vaccine that helps keep the disease from becoming an epidemic.
vidarh 12y ago
> but somehow I can't imagine those types of folks gaining an appreciable number of followers Uri Geller for example did. There are still people today that refuse to accept that he's a fraud.
RogerL 12y ago
* Psychics that tell parents their missing child is in heaven and happy. Do I have to enumerate the problems this has? * Breatharians that recommend not eating. * People that stare into the sun for energy. * People that recommend 'natural' cures or other inanities rather than science based treatments. * dowsers that take your money to wave around a stick. Sure, spoon bending is silly. Going to Mexico to 'cure' your cancer against the advice of your doctor? It happens every day, and it is anything but silly. These are the people he targets, not just the Uri Geller's of the world.

dhimes 12y ago

It would be nice to believe that, but from time to time they have had the ear of Congress. There were, apparently, believers among them who thought we could build 'thought shields' against missiles. Also, they apparently funded "remote viewers" for intelligence operations.

pyronite 12y ago
The Reagan White House was advised by an astrologer. Pseudoscience is something many people are susceptible to regardless of their position.
- rmason 12y ago
  Actually it was Nancy Reagan who employed the astrologer. Supposedly he approved travel dates for Reagan. I've always believed, though I can't prove it, that his assassination attempt so rattled his wife that the President went along with the whole astrologer recommendations to humor her.
dwc 12y ago
Dowsing for bombs. Yeah, it really happened.
- rumcajz 12y ago
  Interesting. Are these people so confident that they are willing to risk they lives searching for mines or did they somehow done it from a safe distance?
  - jdietrich 12y ago
    The Iraqi government spent $85m on bogus bomb detectors that were just dowsing rods in a fancy box. Nobody at the interior ministry bothered to do any testing, or even to take the devices apart - they contained no electronics that could possibly have detected anything. Several other governments have purchased similar devices. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651
  - moreati 12y ago
    I believe 'dowsing for bombs' is a reference to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22380368 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22380368. In which case the perpetrators sold the kits to governments/agencies i.e. third parties were being exposed to the bombs.
A_COMPUTER 12y ago
>they apparently funded "remote viewers" for intelligence operations. This was done in part because it was believed that the Russians were doing this, and administrators didn't want a "remove viewing gap." But it was stopped because it was tried and didn't work. If anything the fact that the program was ended is a good sign.

sampo 12y ago

GMO food is effectively forbidden in Europe, even though the scientific consensus is that GMO crops are no more dangerous than non-GMO crops. The politicians just don't listen to the scientists.

jokoon 12y ago
I think it's more complex than that. Europe don't want to be a victim of lobbies and predatory companies, and doesn't want to try to regulate something that's complex enough already. I think it's just politics as usual, it's a way to not be dependent on US techs, just another way to do things differently. Europe doesn't have the same kind of free speech and democracy too that relies on government image. Europe has more strict and more authoritative rulings, EU doesn't take risks like the US does. In US it's much more loose. > The politicians just don't listen to the scientists There's the same problem anywhere you go.
consideranon 12y ago
While I agree that GMO crops are no more dangerous from a human health perspective, there is a very real concern that the rapid introduction of entirely new varieties of crop, that under cultivation would take hundreds or thousands of years to develop and introduce, can have negative and unforeseen ecological effects. This more reasonable side of the anti-GMO argument tends to get drowned out and dismissed when people see the pseudoscience 'natural' health arguments brought out front and center. It's pretty evident that arguments for restraint for reasons of long-term sustainability take a lot of effort to get any traction, especially when fighting profitability. All this to say, the GMO debate, like everything in life, is not as simple as most people tend believe. It is something that should be proceeded with caution, but certainly continued. This I think is where I think the almost religious anti-GMO fervor really causes harm, in the same way anti embryonic stem cell research causes harm. Move fast and break things is a great slogan when the systems you're moving are relatively simple and the consequences of breaking them are relatively minor. Global ecology is an extraordinarily complex system that we don't fully understand, and breaking it can cause real and life threatening damage to the people of the world. Not to mention the fact that reverting negative changes operates on the same time scale as the original negative change. If it happens that GMO breaks shit, you can't just submit a patch and have things working again in a couple hours.

wpietri 12y ago

Part of the reason these folks aren't popular these days is because of Randi. There was a giant wave of paranormal enthusiasm in the 1970s. Skepticism and debunking are the vaccine that helps keep the disease from becoming an epidemic.

vidarh 12y ago

> but somehow I can't imagine those types of folks gaining an appreciable number of followers Uri Geller for example did. There are still people today that refuse to accept that he's a fraud.

RogerL 12y ago

* Psychics that tell parents their missing child is in heaven and happy. Do I have to enumerate the problems this has? * Breatharians that recommend not eating. * People that stare into the sun for energy. * People that recommend 'natural' cures or other inanities rather than science based treatments. * dowsers that take your money to wave around a stick. Sure, spoon bending is silly. Going to Mexico to 'cure' your cancer against the advice of your doctor? It happens every day, and it is anything but silly. These are the people he targets, not just the Uri Geller's of the world.