| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 116360 | 2011-02-28 18:57:00 | Ken Ring on Campbell Live last night | Colpol (444) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1182287 | 2011-03-01 09:37:00 | If we go back to post #1 it was a complaint about journalism or the lack of it. John Campbell has apologised ( so I hear ) and invited Ken Ring back for another interview. I have also heard that Ken Ring has declined the offer. |
Snorkbox (15764) | ||
| 1182288 | 2011-03-01 09:42:00 | Yep, here (www.3news.co.nz)is his apology. | wratterus (105) | ||
| 1182289 | 2011-03-01 10:03:00 | Just watched the interview, Campbell didn't do a great job but Ring appears to be a guy who gives himself three days either side of every prediction (well four because he acknowledged being outside the three day window and still claimed a success). Given he makes a lot of predictions, changes his mind and gives new dates, and gives himself a eight day window for each prediction, it is hardly surprising he can claim a success after the fact. Clear signs of subjective validation in the interview, the recalulation of dates (widening the chance of a hit), the window either side of predictions, the volume of predictions, and the lack of acknowledgement he ever gets it wrong. Seems a genuinely deluded man though, like James Randi found with water diviners, they often really beleive they can do but can never replicate the claimed ability under controlled conditions. Where did you get clear signs of subjective validation from during the interview? It was not an interview, as such, anyway. Hence the apology from John Campbell. Keep throwing the herrings of a red colour. |
Snorkbox (15764) | ||
| 1182290 | 2011-03-01 10:12:00 | Can you give me the reference where you learned this "fact"? Perhaps it's from Mr Ring himself? Because it's certainly not from orthodox science. AFAIK, providing you flex a material within its elastic range, it will not "weaken and ultimately fracture". What do you call metal fatigue? |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 1182291 | 2011-03-01 10:17:00 | On a lighter note, saw this comment pop up (either TM forums or JC facebook can't remember now) from someone who was upset with the interview, and I still find it bloody hilarious. "John Campbell is biased towards science" |
--Wolf-- (128) | ||
| 1182292 | 2011-03-01 10:18:00 | If we go back to post #1 it was a complaint about journalism or the lack of it. John Campbell has apologised ( so I hear ) and invited Ken Ring back for another interview. I have also heard that Ken Ring has declined the offer. Too late for an apology when you have behaved like a pratt. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 1182293 | 2011-03-01 10:26:00 | Too late for an apology when you have behaved like a pratt. Possibly. But then it's usually better than no apology in my opinion. |
Snorkbox (15764) | ||
| 1182294 | 2011-03-01 10:31:00 | I think JC was too easy on this charlatan and should not have apologized. By apologizing some dumb people are going to believe in this moon goon. |
prefect (6291) | ||
| 1182295 | 2011-03-01 10:31:00 | Where did you get clear signs of subjective validation from during the interview? It was not an interview, as such, anyway. Hence the apology from John Campbell. Keep throwing the herrings of a red colour. I already indicated what the signs were. Campbell did a bad job, I agree he should have let the guy speak if he went to the trouble of inviting him on. |
Twelvevolts (5457) | ||
| 1182296 | 2011-03-01 10:41:00 | I will never forget that it took a Hungarian doctor 40 years back in about the 1700's to convince other doctors not to go from the autopsy room to the delivery room without disinfecting their hands. Women would have been safer giving birth in the gutter. It pays to keep an open mind |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 | |||||