Randy Wright
February 29th, 2008
From staff reports
Rowlett Fire Chief Larry Wright is leaving the department after nine years in the post. His last day will be March 7. Assistant Fire Chief Randy Howell will serve as acting fire chief.
During Chief Wright’s tenure, the city constructed two fire stations and brought EMS services and trained personnel to the department’s fire engines.
Chief Wright oversaw four fire stations and 69 firefighters. He is leaving to take a job as fire chief in Marble Falls, near his Central Texas ranch.
Tags: randy, wright
March 16th, 2008 at 11:35 am
That’s some pretty heavy stuff, and some great comments, its odd that people “Rubbish Psychics” yet the military/government agencies spend millions on them, and on their research.I think, lots of confidence tricksters, but there may well be real psycics.http://www.eco2you.co.uk
March 16th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
People who engage in science aren’t perfect, no. But it’s not a faith. It’s a system. Some people think that scientists are blindered, but that’s not the case for the most part. HUMANS do have limitations, yes, on that we agree, and because even our perception of simple things is flawed, getting to the real, actual truth presents challenges.All the time, we discover new ways that we mislead ourselves. But nobody is saying that scienTISTS are totally impartial and objective — just that they generally strive to be.Also, I have to say again, the person who is taking the test decides what the test will be. Do you see? He works WITH the JREF to design the challenge. Then a third party administrates.Also, seriously, I think that putting your “faith” in science doesn’t risk dogmatism. Because science is not faith. Science is a set of methods, where if you’re doing it right, you keep in mind that the view of things is just the current best guess, that you’ve arrived at through testing and refining. You have to be willing to throw out the things you’ve been considering true, if it becomes evident that they are probably not true. In science, nothing is impossible. Just unlikely to a very strong degree.People who don’t understand science think that a scientist cherishes his pet hypotheses, and can’t listen to any critcism. But really, that’s the opposite of science. That’s more what the anti-science people tend to do.
March 16th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Deacon, you mean they should have to agree to be bound by whatever anybody else decides is fair?They base their agreement on whether something would show that the result must actually not be chance. So, if I decide that guessing 50 out of 100 coin tosses is ‘fair,’ that doesn’t mean that the JREF has to agree.If someone REALLY thinks they have a special ability, then it’s on them to prove something about it. But if they come up with a valid test, and the JREF agrees, then the JREF has no recourse if the person manages it. They have to fork over the cash.
March 16th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
James Randi is my hero.
March 16th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
This was a very good and articulate comment. And I just want to add that, if science were performed by robots, it would always be perfectly impartial. Any activity engaged in by humans risks the taint of partiality or favoritism. Comes with the human condition.
March 16th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
You deserve the million. Too bad I don’t have a stack of them laying around right now or I’d float you one for that great bit of reverse engineering.
March 16th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Send a few million dollars my way toohttp://www.cupargardencentre.co.uk
March 16th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
He owes me a few million too, hahahttp://www.oyuncan.comhttp://www.online-garden-centre.com
March 16th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Do you realize how sick you are?
March 16th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
don’t make your own crypto if you’re trying to protect a million bucks…
March 16th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
better than trusting some loon who claims to be psychic
March 16th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
They sign a contract, you airhead.Like, Ms Psychic says she can call the flip of a coin 75 out of 100 times. They write it down and sign it.There’s no ‘decider’ involved.
March 16th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Human opinion isn’t perfect. But you have to start somewhere. We know that human perception is highly flawed. But you work with what you have.With the JREF, it’s not up to human opinion. If Bob the psychic believes that he can predict coin tosses 80 times out of 100, he makes the offer to the JREF. If the JREF agrees that his success would definitely mean there’s something besides chance at work, then they agree to test it.You decide what’s scientific by whether or not it follows the rules of scientific investigation. You know… Double-blind tests, for example, so that the person being tested doesn’t know which cup has Pepsi, and YOU don’t know which cup has Pepsi. So you can’t give them body language cues without knowing it.Tests! Rational, thought-out tests. Why do you think it’s not scientific? If you think science is not objective, then perhaps you’ve been prejudiced by reports of scientists who have skewed their results to seem successful, or been prejudiced by some media outlets that rush to announce every seeming breakthrough and blow it up into more than it is for the sake of ratings. But legitimate, respected scientists strive for objectivity, and the best way to lose face in the scientific community is to try to make the data fit their preconceptions.
March 16th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
I’ve thought about this, and if the people setting up the test truly are independent, then I think the test would be fair. But science, as a human activity, cannot help but be contaminated by human influence to some degree. All human activities are. It’s folly to suggest that science is totally impartial and objective–although those are admirable goals to strive for.I just think that science is stubbornly unaware of its own limitations and blind spots. In that respect, it is no different from any other “faith.” If you put your “faith” in science, you risk dogmatism and the insistence that your way has a corner on trutgh to the exclusion of all other ways–which is precisely what science deplores in religious fundamentalism.