The Problem With James Randi

In summary: "Randi says what he thinks, I don't like it."



Too much reliance on qualifications, completely underplaying some of the things Randi's "attacked" (like Josephson's 'interests'), doesn't bother to actually find out whether scepticism has made a contribution to anything, confuses the 'movement' and the 'approach' of scepticism, and fails to realise the role of this approach within the scientific method.

Otherwise, she spelt 'Randi' right.
 
Let's see.


Charismatic psychic Uri Geller, whose abilities have been tested by a number of prestigious laboratories, has probably been Randi's biggest target.
Click to expand...

Randi, that persecuting bastard!

Ray Hyman, a leading Fellow of CSICOP, has pointed out that Randi's challenge is illegitimate from a scientific standpoint. "Scientists don't settle issues with a single test ... Proof in science happens through replication." If Randi's challenge was legitimate, he would set up a double-blind experiment which he himself wouldn't judge. But considering his hostility toward scientists receptive to paranormal phenomena, this doesn't seem likely. His "challenge" is rigged, yet he can crow that his prize goes unclaimed because paranormal phenomena simply does not exist.
Click to expand...

Whose account of the challenge rules is this? Sylvia Browne's?

"In and of itself," says a man once denigrated by the skeptical movement, "skepticism has made no actual contribution to science, just as music reviews in the newspaper make no contribution to the art of composition."
Click to expand...

Although music and science are hardly comparative, there is a similarity. Music critics seldom make music, and skeptics science, yes* - but both serve the purpose of extracting chaff from the grain in their field of work.

* doesn't prevent scientists from being skeptics or musicians music critics.
 
...If Randi's challenge was legitimate, he would set up a double-blind experiment which he himself wouldn't judge. But considering his hostility toward scientists receptive to paranormal phenomena, this doesn't seem likely....
Click to expand...

If the author actually researched the challenge, then this alone is enough to call "liar". If he/she didn't, then the best you could call them is utterly incompetent. And that's being nice.
 
"Otherwise, she spelt 'Randi' right"

Yes, but she doesn't know "phenomenon" is singular and "phenomena" plural.

She mentions up front that scientists have falsified data and "overlooked inconvenient phenomenon (sic) to maintain status quo in their field" then goes on to name several shining examples of scientists who overlook things (like keeping a sufficiently tight eye on Uri "Bend ma spoons, baby!" Geller) as eminent scientists. Does eminence equate with infallibility? I doubt it.

All Randi has asked for for years is for just one person to come up with a solid inexplicable phenomenon that is sufficiently reproducible for science to pick up on it and measure it. The fact that the same paranormal drivel has gone on for hundreds of years without anyone being able to produce something capable of proper scientific investigation is bound to result in a degree of closure of open minds.
 
Horribly slanted article, full of all the usual canards, half truths, and misrepresentations we've seen time and time again. Bottom-of-the-birdcage material. An ad hominem extravaganza. Probably hopes to get a mention in Randi's Weekly Commentary...would be good for their career, maybe.

A reporter worth the title would have attended TAM and would have at least tried to write a balanced piece.

Evidence for the factual existence of "the paranormal" is still lacking. There's still a million-dollar prize for anyone who can prove their paranormal powers under proper conditions. We wait...
 
The article as a whole simply comes across as another one of those "Keep an open mind!" sorts of arguments. It doesn't provide any real evidence that anything paranormal actually occurs, it doesn't refute any evidence that claims that paranormal things don't occur, they just want you to "Keep an open mind" dispite damning evidence to the contrary.
After all, while it's true that opportunists profit from the murky worlds of the paranormal and the unknown, and that some people will believe anything, it's also true that scientists have falsified data to get grants or overlooked inconvenient phenomenon to maintain the status quo in their field.
Click to expand...
Oh man! Scientists are just like psychics, she sure got us there!:rolleyes:
What's more beneficial to scientific inquiry, an open mind or a sense of self-importance?
Click to expand...
"In and of itself," says a man once denigrated by the skeptical movement, "skepticism has made no actual contribution to science, just as music reviews in the newspaper make no contribution to the art of composition."
Click to expand...
I don't think she understands that skepticism is more like a science filter, rather than science itself. By filtering out woo, it keeps us focused on science that has a reasonable chance at producing positive results. It's not a matter of having an open mind, its a matter of recognizing that the vast majority of scientific work on the paranormal has shown that dispite people's best efforts, they can not actually communicate with the dead.
If Randi's challenge was legitimate, he would set up a double-blind experiment which he himself wouldn't judge.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the point of a double blinded test to eliminate all bias on the account of both the person being tested and the tester? The term "double blind" referring to the fact that both parties are blind to what the results of a particular response will be until after all the data is compiled and the test is complete? If that is so, why would it matter if Randi judges? Wouldn't the results be the same as if anyone judged, since neither party knows how to sway the results during the test?

Also, a quick google search of the authors name revealed that she is a free lance journalist who has written news releases for "Conspiracy Con", and has an upcoming book called "Wierd Nevada" about UFOs. I would say she has good reason to be biased against Randi.
 
After all, while it's true that opportunists profit from the murky worlds of the paranormal and the unknown, and that some people will believe anything, it's also true that scientists have falsified data to get grants or overlooked inconvenient phenomenon to maintain the status quo in their field.
Click to expand...
A very cheap "tu quoque". And when scientists falsified data, who caught them? Scientists, that's who. Have you ever heard of a psychic declaring another psychic to be wrong? No, they know that their livelihoods depend on unquestioning belief.

Randi can be eloquent and is quite the showman; he is also wildly intelligent—he got a MacArthur genius grant in 1986. But according to his detractors, Randi's main qualities are his malice and hypocrisy. He's hell-bent on tearing apart anyone he deems a kook, including distinguished scientists and Nobel Prize-winners. This is amusing, as Randi has no scientific credentials whatsoever .
Click to expand...
Yes, very amusing, considering that on scientific questions, Randi asks scientists for advice. I'm actually on his panel. You can be too if you speak with Kramer.

Funny, the author doesn't mention this though. Do you think perhaps he has an axe to grind?


In 1997, Randi threatened to fly to Sri Lanka to persuade Arthur C. Clarke to stop advocating cold fusion. (Clarke, a genuine scientific visionary, inventor of the communication satellite and award-winning author, received degrees, with honors, in physics and mathematics.) In 2001, on a BBC Radio program, Randi attacked Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize-winner and professor of physics at Cambridge University.
Click to expand...
And it turns out Randi was right about Cold Fusion, a fact that Clarke has since admitted.

But the weasel worded "attack" by Randi on Brian Josephson provides very little info. Good scientists have been wrong before. Since we are not told why Randi "attacked" him, except that Josephson was working on "quantum physics and consciousness". While BJ might be a good physicist, this does not mean he knows anything about neurology, so it could be that Randi was perfectly correct to point out his misstatements. This anecdote by the author is another logical fallacy called "argument from authority".
Ray Hyman, a leading Fellow of CSICOP, has pointed out that Randi's challenge is illegitimate from a scientific standpoint. "Scientists don't settle issues with a single test ... Proof in science happens through replication."
Click to expand...
Total misdirection. Randi has never claimed that the challenge was scientific. Indeed, it is much less rigorous than science. That should make it easer to win, not harder. But it is also true that depending on the test, the challenge does require replication. Dowsers must hit their target a statistically significant number of times. Psychics must guess the right card a significant number of times. It may not be science, but remember, one of the key rules is that the tester agree that it is a fair test. I suspect that few applicants can demonstrate that it is an unfair test because "it is not scientific enough". Usually it is far too scientific for their tastes.

But this brings up a funny paradox. The challenge is criticized on both ends, by people like Hyman who say it is not scientific enough and by paranormal believers who say that science "can't prove everything". So make up your minds, critics. Is it too scientific or not scientific enough?
"In and of itself," says a man once denigrated by the skeptical movement, "skepticism has made no actual contribution to science, just as music reviews in the newspaper make no contribution to the art of composition."
Click to expand...
This is the most absolute BS statement in the whole article. Skepticism is without a doubt the most important aspect of science. Skepticism demands evidence, just like science. This idiot obviously knows nothing of science.
The universe is full of mystery, as well as charlatans. It is up to the individual to weigh evidence objectively. Just don't use your intuition to do so, or you could be the skeptics' next target.
Click to expand...
Use intuition if you like. But if you are going to use intuition to try to make a scientific or paranormal claim, then you'd best have a little evidence too.
Intuition, by the way, is not at all unscientific. It often refers to signals we receive below the conscious level, such as reading body language. A trained scientist may understand things and not even realize why he understands them, because the body of his knowledge is not always at the surface. He may make the correct connections precisely because he is trained to do so, even if he may not recall the specific training at the time. However, if he follows up his "intuition", he's likely to find the support that was just intuitive before.
 
hgc said:
A skillfully written hatchet job.
Click to expand...
Sillfully written? Ummm.....no.

Hatchet job? Yes.

Just the fact that she thinks Randi is a "judge" of the challenge speaks volumes about how little the author understands about it.

Plus, she calls Targ and Puthoff eminent scientists. Hah!
 
Also by Skylaire Alfvegren: This article, in which reptilians are mentioned.

From this link: "Skylaire Alfvegren reports form the 50th anniversary event at Area 51"

Lots of other links to paranormal stuff if you google her name.

I call :woo
 
HappyCat said:
Oh man! Scientists are just like psychics, she sure got us there!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Bet you didn't know that shortly before first documenting his theory of relativity, Einstein consulted a deck of tarot cards, and drew the Sun (energy), the Tower (mass), and the Chariot (speed of light). After that, all he had to do was connect the dots. True story! ;)
 
JLam said:
Lots of other links to paranormal stuff if you google her name.

I call :woo[/SIZE]
Click to expand...

Good research. Obviously wanting to sound objective judging Randi, she doesn't mention any of this in her article. :rolleyes:
 
Bet you didn't know that shortly before first documenting his theory of relativity, Einstein consulted a deck of tarot cards, and drew the Sun (energy), the Tower (mass), and the Chariot (speed of light). After that, all he had to do was connect the dots. True story!
Click to expand...
Then remarked: "God does not play dice".

The full version continued "... He plays cards. And I've just won."
 
Over on the Welcome to Vegas thread, people are tracking down her selective Hyman quote.
 
while it's true that opportunists profit from the murky worlds of the paranormal and the unknown, and that some people will believe anything, it's also true that scientists have falsified data to get grants or overlooked inconvenient phenomenon to maintain the status quo in their field.
Click to expand...

What in the hell does one have to do with the other??? Yes, there have been "less than honest" scientists, but they are in very short order exposed because of how the scientific method "works". The same can NOT be said for paranormal "practitioners".

...as iconoclastic writer Charles Fort once noted, "Witchcraft always has a hard time, until it becomes established and changes its name."
Click to expand...

Quoteing Fort is really silly. Does the author understand exactly "what" Fort was all about?...

But according to his detractors, Randi's main qualities are his malice and hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

So what? Is that suppose to be some kind of "objective" viewpoint??

Charismatic psychic Uri Geller, whose abilities have been tested by a number of prestigious laboratories...
Click to expand...

What a joke...

"In and of itself," says a man once denigrated by the skeptical movement, "skepticism has made no actual contribution to science, just as music reviews in the newspaper make no contribution to the art of composition."
Click to expand...

Which demonstrates that this "fellow" has absolutely no understanding about "how' science works. Yet this reporter thinks that the argument made is a "good" one. What does that say about this reporter??

Skepticism is the underlying basis of any new idea. A person declares they have "found" a new scientific "law" and the very first thing the scientific community says is "that's very nice, now prove it". That is skepticism...

Why is it that I get the impression that this particular reporter doesn't usually write about science related subjects.
 
At the time, author Robert Anton Wilson wryly observed, "Randi was not there, yet he claims to know what was going on [during the experiment] better than the two scientists who were supervising it. The only way he could know better ... is if he had 100 percent accurate telepathy."
Click to expand...

This quote is interesting. I'm a huge fan of Robert Anton Wilson, and would consider him to be in line with the teaching of the JREF. Yet this quote just looks stupid (or misquoted or out of context.) Anyone know where it's from?
 
strathmeyer said:
This quote is interesting. I'm a huge fan of Robert Anton Wilson, and would consider him to be in line with the teaching of the JREF. Yet this quote just looks stupid (or misquoted or out of context.) Anyone know where it's from?
Click to expand...

Robert Anton Wilson said:
In The New Inquisition, Robert Anton Wilson rails against what he calls "Fundamentalist Materialism," a dogmatic skepticism that rejects paranormal claims a priori. In its place, he recommends a "liberal materialism" based on a principle of agnosticism which "refuses total belief or total denial and regards models as tools to be used only and always where appropriate and replaced (by other models) only and always where not appropriate."
Click to expand...
Robert Anton Wilson said:
James "The Amazing" Randi, as depicted by Wilson, is a pig-headed man who keeps his head buried in the sand. Each time Randi hears talk of something that "shouldn't" be, he just waves his arms and shouts to his followers that "it can't be," and they, like the blind fools they are, believe him.
Click to expand...
Somehow I don't think he shares the JREF's philosophy.
From http://www.debunker.com/texts/inquisit.html and http://www.discord.org/~lippard/wilson-review.html

Wilson's insipid analysis of the Randi-Geller-SRI matter, in its entirety, is this: "See especially the interminable diatribes of CSICOP's James Randi against Drs. Puthoff and Targ, physicists of Stanford Research Institute (Palo Alto [actually Menlo Park]) who allowed Uri Geller into their laboratory and then reported that which Mr. Randi, who was not there, knows passionately could not have happened."
Click to expand...

Edit: Actually, upon reading the first link further, it appears the quote you are looking for is some mutation of a quote from the book being reviewed.
 
Last edited:
Misleading and outright incorrect in parts.

In the process of attempting to discredit the psychic, Randi has also attacked institutions, like Stanford, intrigued by Geller's alleged abilities.
Click to expand...

She means Stanford Research Institute, not Stanford University. No connection between the two. I doubt the university would hire Targ.

Ray Hyman, a leading Fellow of CSICOP, has pointed out that Randi's challenge is illegitimate from a scientific standpoint. "Scientists don't settle issues with a single test ... Proof in science happens through replication." If Randi's challenge was legitimate, he would set up a double-blind experiment which he himself wouldn't judge.
Click to expand...

The challenge is set up in a way such that no judging is necessary; the outcome is self-evident. 4 out of 7? Thanks for playing. All challenges are set up to be doubled-blinded, and must be repeatable - the initial test doesn't win you the million, you have to be able to do it again.

After reading her Reptilian article, was anyone else thinking 'Rita Skeeter'? :D
 
natasha said:
Hmm, what was Fort "all about?"
Click to expand...

Fort considered all explanations of reality equally silly. He was not a supporter of "new age" beliefs, except insofar as they opposed the orthodoxy of the time.
 
Lets see.....Biased....Axe to grind..Poorly researched....Peeved that Randi actually use a brain.....
Maybe Randi exposed some woo that the author of this
article was a fan of? Geller would probably be a good guess.......
 
I’m beginning to wonder if there’s some kind of Q document from which all Randi detractors derive their gospel. Or do they just sit in some designated “back room” at the cold fusion conferences stretching their little brains to reckon up that elusive new smear... always just beyond reach... if only I could think harder... think, man... wait -- he dresses up as a woman! No good? All right, lessee ... something new... I know! -- he puts on women’s clothing, and, er... no again? Thinking... thinking... ladies garments? Something to do with ladies... I got it -- Pantyhose! No, wait -- a crossdresser!

Aw, booger, let’s just do the usual...
 
HappyCat said:
Somehow I don't think he shares the JREF's philosophy.
From http://www.debunker.com/texts/inquisit.html and http://www.discord.org/~lippard/wilson-review.html



Edit: Actually, upon reading the first link further, it appears the quote you are looking for is some mutation of a quote from the book being reviewed.
Click to expand...
IIRC, the RAW quote in question comes from one of his "Cosmic Trigger" books. I'm too lazy to reach behind me to look through them, so I'll leave it at that.

Now, as to whether RAW is pro-JREF or not. In spirit, he prolly is. I do know (from being an avid RAW reader for years) that he's a true agnostic. He repeatedly states that in his Cosmic Trigger (which are mostly autobiographical) books. He has some problems with what he sees as an "atheistic/anti-paranormal bias" in Skepticism. He railed against Randi and Sagan for seemingly poo-pooing any strange cliam that they came across.

I don't know if it's still in existance, but RAW and a couple of his buddies started CSICON (Committee for Surrealist Investigation of Claims of the Normal), as a counter to CSICOP. They challenge CSICOP et al to produce anything that's perfectly "normal" (aka statistically average).

I still like RAW, especially for the issues he raises. If I took nothing else from him, I took an understanding that I can be wrong.

Hail Eris

Edited to fix my stupid mistake
 
Last edited:
kmortis said:
I don't know if it's still in existance, but RAW and a couple of his buddies started CSICON (Committee for Surrealist Investigation of Claims of the Normal), as a counter to CSICOP. They challenge CSICOP et al to produce anything that's perfectly "normal" (aka statistically average).
Click to expand...

I didn't know this! In your opinion, how serious is CSICON? How active as an organization?
 
Last edited:
:yahoo
Cool! free publicity! Nobody expected a place like Las Vegas to encourage skeptical thinking did they? The casinos would be empty.

A good shake-em up and ask questions article from a "who cares what they think?" LV street rag that has porn articles every other week as a leader.
 
blutoski said:
I didn't know this! In your opinion, how serious is CSICON? How active as an organization?
Click to expand...
I really couldn't tell you. The one thing about Wilson is that he's an amazing trickster. I know that his site has the link to it, and he does definatly write stories and books with CSICON-esque philosophy in mind.

Look, RAW's the Discordian's Discordian. He likes to poke holes in everyone's Sacred Chaos and skip away giggling madly. If you're asking if CSICON is a "serious" threat, I'd say no. In fact, I'd encourage us all to take a part of it to heart, let's not take ourselves too seriously. He's another, along with Rev. Ivan Stang, who has elevated humor to demi-god status.
 
Pyrrho said:
Horribly slanted article, full of all the usual canards, half truths, and misrepresentations ... Bottom-of-the-birdcage material. An ad hominem extravaganza...


...
Click to expand...

Gee, this sounds soooo familiar!
 
mayday said:
Gee, this sounds soooo familiar!
Click to expand...
Indeed. There's a lot of liars out there, and it eventually gets repetitive as their dishonesty's revealed time and time again. Oh well, perhaps they will one day start to, you know, for example read Randi's Challenge, instead of creating a strawman version that they think they can knock down.
 
I see the article was written by Skylaire Alfvegren.
That looks a bit like one of those unfortunate 70s names.
Skypoop Woo-woo Alf-vegan.

The article contains a huge amount of crapola. Just a small selection -

"Charismatic psychic Uri Geller, whose abilities have been tested by a number of prestigious laboratories, has probably been Randi's biggest target."

Geller is only charismatic in the eyes of the deluded.
He has been tested by some prestigiuous and some non-prestigious bodies.
So what? This is a poor attempt at argument from authority.

"In the process of attempting to discredit the psychic, Randi has also attacked institutions, like Stanford, intrigued by Geller's alleged abilities."

Geller is not a phychic, and Geller was successfully discredited.
So what if Stanford was intrigued? Another argument from authority.
 
Ray Hyman, a leading Fellow of CSICOP, has pointed out that Randi's challenge is illegitimate from a scientific standpoint. "Scientists don't settle issues with a single test ... Proof in science happens through replication."
Click to expand...

Doesn't the JREF ask for just ONE measurable double blind test to work in order to claim the prize? So, if the woos can not produce one what hope is there of replicating positive results?
 
Huh-What? said:
Doesn't the JREF ask for just ONE measurable double blind test to work in order to claim the prize? So, if the woos can not produce one what hope is there of replicating positive results?
Click to expand...
Actually, two, depending on the type of test. There is a rather informal primary test and if they pass that one, they do exactly the same thing, but with either tighter controls or a more statistically significant number of tests. But so far, nobody's passed the primary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom