It seems that in most people's eyes, apologies not made simply and gracefully are not worth much. That's why this thread is still active. Both of Randi's responses contained the phrase "mea culpa", Latin for "my fault." However the phrase was buried under excuses phrased with flippancy, condescension and resentment.
I have never met Randi, but because some of the posters here have and because they have a good opinion of him, I suppose it's possible that the flippancy, condescension and resentment was misdirected embarrassment.
I don't think there was anything to be embarrassed about --everyone makes mistakes. Mistakes are not what defines us, its what we do after we figure out (or have it pointed out to us!
) that we've made a mistake. His "apology" left a lot to be desired and the next time he's in a situation where he decides to apologize, I suggest he keep it short and simple. I also suggest he run it by some friends first.
Randi has done the world a significant service. As most of you probably know, in the 1970s many intelligent people, even scientists with degrees from reputable universities (including Stanford and Columbia Universities), believed in Uri Geller's cons. Thousands of people saw Geller's acts live and on TV shows and believed his supernatural explanation. Scientists at Stanford Research Institute* confirmed his abilities. Also, at around this time, two large governments, the USA and the former USSR were spending millions on research in ESP. It's not illogical to suppose that this belief could have festered and eventually damaged one of the most successful philosophies that has ever been shared by many cultures throughout the world. That is science: an evidence-based philosophy that took centuries to develop and has improved people's lives immeasurably and in multiple ways. A serious and widespread belief in a Geller-like concept of the world could have brought many nations and people back to a time where superstitions ruled and personalities under the guise of being "psychics" and "wizards" had political power. I've seen some of those old Geller videos on the net. Viewing them while being aware of the badly designed Stanford Research Institute's experiments with Geller and a knowledge of what the two largest superpowers in the world had included in their national budgets at the time is, quite frankly, a disturbing experience. Randi debunked Geller on a 1973 Johnny Carson show and he designed Project Alpha which took place at the McDonnell Laboratory, thus exposing the poor design controls on paranormal experiments.
However, Randi is definitely not perfect and based on my self-admittedly very limited knowledge of him, he seems to have a blind spot when it comes to himself.
Randi has a JREF board. He also has a team of moderators who, by virtue of both their personalities and also how they spend so much time volunteering on this forum, are probably plugged into how many people think. He also has the option to simply ask some people to form an "informal advisory PR cabinet." I'm sure he could easily get people from various walks of life -- academic, media, legal, the arts, business, IT, and etc. who would be more than happy to assist him in this way. I suggest that in the future Randi take advantage of this and run his PR issues through them.
The world is better off for what Randi has done, particularly in the 1970s, but often when it comes to basic interacting with the public, particularly with the subset that doesn't already know him well and aren't adoring "love-is-blind" type fans, -- he just doesn't get it.
*Stanford Research Institute was affiliated with Stanford University until 1970, and is currently known as Stanford Research International (SRI).
I have never met Randi, but because some of the posters here have and because they have a good opinion of him, I suppose it's possible that the flippancy, condescension and resentment was misdirected embarrassment.
I don't think there was anything to be embarrassed about --everyone makes mistakes. Mistakes are not what defines us, its what we do after we figure out (or have it pointed out to us!
) that we've made a mistake. His "apology" left a lot to be desired and the next time he's in a situation where he decides to apologize, I suggest he keep it short and simple. I also suggest he run it by some friends first.Randi has done the world a significant service. As most of you probably know, in the 1970s many intelligent people, even scientists with degrees from reputable universities (including Stanford and Columbia Universities), believed in Uri Geller's cons. Thousands of people saw Geller's acts live and on TV shows and believed his supernatural explanation. Scientists at Stanford Research Institute* confirmed his abilities. Also, at around this time, two large governments, the USA and the former USSR were spending millions on research in ESP. It's not illogical to suppose that this belief could have festered and eventually damaged one of the most successful philosophies that has ever been shared by many cultures throughout the world. That is science: an evidence-based philosophy that took centuries to develop and has improved people's lives immeasurably and in multiple ways. A serious and widespread belief in a Geller-like concept of the world could have brought many nations and people back to a time where superstitions ruled and personalities under the guise of being "psychics" and "wizards" had political power. I've seen some of those old Geller videos on the net. Viewing them while being aware of the badly designed Stanford Research Institute's experiments with Geller and a knowledge of what the two largest superpowers in the world had included in their national budgets at the time is, quite frankly, a disturbing experience. Randi debunked Geller on a 1973 Johnny Carson show and he designed Project Alpha which took place at the McDonnell Laboratory, thus exposing the poor design controls on paranormal experiments.
However, Randi is definitely not perfect and based on my self-admittedly very limited knowledge of him, he seems to have a blind spot when it comes to himself.
Randi has a JREF board. He also has a team of moderators who, by virtue of both their personalities and also how they spend so much time volunteering on this forum, are probably plugged into how many people think. He also has the option to simply ask some people to form an "informal advisory PR cabinet." I'm sure he could easily get people from various walks of life -- academic, media, legal, the arts, business, IT, and etc. who would be more than happy to assist him in this way. I suggest that in the future Randi take advantage of this and run his PR issues through them.
The world is better off for what Randi has done, particularly in the 1970s, but often when it comes to basic interacting with the public, particularly with the subset that doesn't already know him well and aren't adoring "love-is-blind" type fans, -- he just doesn't get it.
*Stanford Research Institute was affiliated with Stanford University until 1970, and is currently known as Stanford Research International (SRI).
Last edited:
