Commoner
Headache
I think you've got a bit of a conspiracy theorist in you. You know, that's not very compatible with skepticism even though a lot of people seem to think it is.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yogi 'Survives Without Food' For 70 Years
- Thread starter Ben Dhyan
- Start date
I think you've got a bit of a conspiracy theorist in you. You know, that's not very compatible with skepticism even though a lot of people seem to think it is.
In the vid' Dr. Sudhir V Shah claims there was "not a single loophole"...?! Now even if Jani didn't eat food on the sly, 10 days of fasting is impressive but not miraculous- he even lost weight so there's nothing particularly impressive about that feat. But going without water for 10 days is amazing. But did he? Were these "loopholes" really covered? At 2:00 on the vid' the narrator claims Jani was not allowed any food or water, yet then shows Jani taking a bath. Then the narrator states that the "quantity of water was measured before and after to make sure nothing was lost". Really? How is it possible to measure the water precisely given the scene in the clip where Jani is in a large bowl pouring water over his head? A lot of the water would be soaked into his hair and beard- how did the investigators cover the loophole of Jani taking a few surreptitious sips to sustain himself for a couple of days? How could that possibly be measured? And as the vid' also describes, Jani could easily have urinated small amounts with no detection. Just based on the video alone any claims of a scientifically rigorous trial here is ludicrous.
[youtube]ewoDVPCLnt0[/youtube]
[youtube]ewoDVPCLnt0[/youtube]
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Actual quote from your first link:
Now, I'm not a fan of Randi, but the claims of the Yellow Bamboo organization don't seem very strong to me.
In other words, he supports Randi.
Well, I'm old-fashioned. I don't trust its accuracy because none of my teachers trusted its accuracy.
Reminders, at best, for me.
Now, THERE'S some good information that does shed some new light for me, and helps me lean far more towards hoax. I take it this is from a classroom? (I haven't really taken a health class since high school, and I don't remember back then too well.)
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
OK, but then you're just following what someone else says because they say it.
It's actually from my life recently. Over the past 4 months I've lost about 25 pounds by changing my diet and exercising after doing a bit of research.
A pound is equal to 3,500 calories. A man weighing around 180 pounds generally burns about 2,000 calories a day on average. So, if that man doesn't take in any calories at all over the course of 10 days, he burns about 20,000 calories, or 5.7 pounds. It also depends on his level of exercise, his body type and other factors, of course. It could be that he only burns 1,700 calories a day, if he's 140-150 pounds, or his metabolism slows down from not eating, etc.
This gives me an excuse to post a Yellow Bamboo YT video. :biglaugh: If I didn't know better I'd think it was a parody... but it isn't.
[youtube]WhnvETs4F6Q[/youtube]
Teachers aren't your Average Joe. They may be forced to teach stuff that isn't necessarily true, but they aren't idiots. These are people who have spent YEARS in college learning everything they can about their field of choice, and know more about their fields than I ever will. They've done research before the internet existed, and know the difference between a credible source and a non-credible source.
Yes, I trust their words on this matter.
And yogis don't generally do a lot of exercise.
This new knowledge definitely helps a lot in deciding. Thanks.
With this new knowledge, I'm pretty much now forced to call hoax.
This gives me an excuse to post a Yellow Bamboo YT video. :biglaugh: If I didn't know better I'd think it was a parody... but it isn't.
[youtube]WhnvETs4F6Q[/youtube]
lol That was funny. ^_^
Isn't the placebo effect just awesome?
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
OK, well, I tend to not trust just one source, especially one that doesn't really know the subject. I'll trust studies that have been done before I trust a teacher who probably doesn't trust Wiki because of the reputation it has from 7 years ago.
Glad I could help.
I haven't heard of any changes, and it wasn't just one teacher.
Wikis reputation hasn't improved. It's offshoots (i.e., Wookiepedia) are fine, but the core one is still ridiculed.
Perhaps those who ridicule it don't understand how to best use it. One must recognize the limitations of user editing, & check the cited sources
where important or when the article sounds fishy. I haven't found a superior alternative to Wikipedia for a quick reference. Has anyone?
Sure, it may be ok for quick reference, but that's not saying much.
Commoner
Headache
No, no - what it's really useful for are its references. Wikipedia is the best source of sources ever. Any teacher who wouldn't encourage you to use them is not worth a dime imo.
AxisMundi
E Pluribus Unum!!!
One fo the reasons that wiki is more trustworthy than the Encyclopedia Britanica is exactly becasue anyone can edit it.
Instead of a select group of editors (you may be too young to remember that the EB treated the Noah's Ark myth as fact up until the 1960's), we have an untold number of editors.
However, you are correct, many educators do not consider wiki a valid, citable source. However, my college profs consider it TOO easy of a source, and disallow wiki for that reason.
However, any credibility of wiki is pretty moot to this debate.
Sciences for many centuries prove this guy a fraud. Biological beings, such as we, require a caloric intake to survive, along with water.
The idea that this guy is being substained "by a hole in his palet placed there by a goddess dripping water into his mouth" is simply laughable.
And that's all it's ever been good for.
I trust those teachers, because they know what research is. Besides, the bibliographies of wiki pale in comparison to those of actual books.
I don't care if it's more credible than EB. I said that that's not saying much.
Like I said, the new information about weight and how it works has forced me to call hoax, not his explanation. I already know that his explanation is bogus, but that doesn't mean something else isn't happening.
The difference is that I'm not claiming that he pays people off. It's something that people do and Randi happens to be a person. It's all fine to say 'fraud' to someone who proclaims to have supernatural abilities and assume the worse but someone like Randi must be legitimate, right?
I may have been worng to say he is a fraud but I'm definitely skeptical.
This gives me an excuse to post a Yellow Bamboo YT video. :biglaugh: If I didn't know better I'd think it was a parody... but it isn't.
[youtube]WhnvETs4F6Q[/youtube]
Ok, that was kind of funny..
A quick reference is a very valuable thing, for me anyway. It would be burdensome indeed if every time we wanted a question answered we could only do in depth research using authoritative sources.
Wikipedia has other advantages over competing sources.
- It's free.
- You can correct errors.
- Click on the discussion tab to see where disputed areas in an article exist.
- It's gigantic, & more comprehensive.
- It has that cute globey logo.
- It's free.
- It doesn't cost anything.
The library's free, too, so that argument is kinda moot. (I've gotten a lot more from a simple trip to the library.) Sure, you can correct errors, but you can be erroneous yourself without realizing it, so your "correction" could turn out to be completely wrong.
The only advantage it has is it's size, which you bring up. But the internet is about that size, anyway.