User talk:Grizzly

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

I don't know what your beef with Randi or the challenge is, but don't put up links about him or the challenge that contain obviously untrue information. It is obvious that the authors of the link you added either had an agenda against him or didn't understand that challenge-- either way most of what was written was largely inaccurate. As such, I have removed the link until you can find one that adequately addresses the challenge and what it is without lying or exaggerations. Lord Kenneth

From all that I can tell from reading his screeds and what has been written about him, Jame$ Randi seems to be nothing more than a windbag who has made himself a nice little living selling alarmist books about pseudoscience and soliciting contributions for his supposedly "educational" foundation. There are plenty of people who are concerned about pseudoscience, providing no shortage of sheep for him to shear. To his credit, he does not claim to be scientist. Good thing, since anyone has yet to see a shred of scientific work from him. I doubt he really understands anything about science, though he obviously knows a lot about deception, being a magician and all. I'm sure that like any accomplished escape artist, he'll see to it that he never has to put his investor's money at risk in his "challenge". As he himself has said, he always has an out. It's showmanship in the best (or worst) tradition of P.T. Barnum.

Now I appreciate an honest skeptic. I have far more respect for, say, Ray Hyman (though he has a few foibles). Dr. Hyman has actually provided specific scientific criticisms of those things he criticizes, at least in the area of parapsychology, and has even been willing to work with parapsychologists upon occasion in helping to design experiments. Similarly, I have more respect for Richard Wiseman or Chris French. These guys act and talk like scientists. Unlike Randi, they don't try to build their case on vitriol, ad hominem, and grandstanding.

Since you seem to be brainwashed into believing in Randi and his holy mission, I suspect you would see any criticism of him as "lies and exaggeration". Well, I don't feel like battling this one, so I will leave out the link. Your point that leaving in the link to his JREF site is reasonable just as a link to the KKK website (if they have one) in an article on the KKK would be reasonable is well taken. And most apropos. Grizzly 08:29, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Coin toss probability
I just read your comments on Talk:Telepathy about the coin toss and I'm a little confused. I haven't studied probability much since high school but from what I remember (and what makes perfect sense to me) the outcome of an experiment have nothing whatsoever to do with earlier identical experiments (read; toosses) so each toss is independent of the previous ones. That said, why would a coin not be as likely to land on heads every time as it is to land 50-50?  B. Mearns * , KSC 18:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)