• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Question regarding James Randi and Gary Schwartz

ExMinister

RSL Acolyte
E
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
2,982
Recently another thread was started which linked to a video and on the same page, this article by Dr. Gary Schwartz: http://dailygrail.com/node/1311

Basically Schwartz is saying that James Randi wrote to him claiming a certain committee, organized to review Schwartz's work, would include Dr. Stanley Krippner. According to Schwartz, when contacted by Schwartz, Krippner denied this and stated he would not have agreed to being part of such a committee.

I'm just interested to know if anyone here knows what really happened in this situation, especially from Mr. Randi's perspective. Gary Schwartz is indicating that James Randi had apparently intentionally mis-stated the facts here, and seems to be implying that James Randi has a history of this. That seems like a serious accusation to me. Does anyone know the story?
 
I will also be looking into these accusations. Perhaps a call to Randi will help?


"Mr. Randi’s recommendation of Dr. Krippner was certainly acceptable to me. However, when I contacted Dr. Krippner directly to see if Mr. Randi’s statement about him serving on the panel was correct, Dr. Krippner was concerned. Dr. Krippner explained that he had previously emailed Mr. Randi stating that he would not agree to serve on such a committee. The truth is, Dr. Krippner was not willing to serve on the panel, and he made this clear to Mr. Randi.

Given that Mr. Randi apparently misrepresented his purported “Independent Qualified Panel,” the Foundation wisely decided not to take any formal action on Mr. Randi’s request."
 
Last edited:
No doubt skeptics want to get to the bottom of this very badly. No doubt there are loads of skeptics investigating this as we speak...unwilling to merely assume blindly one way or another. That's not what skepticism is about. After all, skeptics are careful, fair-minded people and if Randi is a dishonest, manipulative, misleading person then they would want to know, in the interests of the truth, which to a skeptic is FAR more important than petty ideology and personal feelings.
 
Last edited:
fuelair said:
Wow! I'm impressed!! This absolutely proves something!!!!
Click to expand...

Right - not only does it not prove anything (that wasn't my intention for asking about this), but there are two sides to every story. Even if partly true, I would bet there is more to the story here. For example, there is perhaps more to the history between the two of them that we aren't privileged to know about.

At any rate, even if James Randi did for whatever reason mis-state the case to Schwartz, unless he (or someone close to him) feels it is worth coming forward to explain, then out of respect for Mr. Randi, I personally will assume he had reasons that seemed honorable enough at the time, which we just aren't aware of yet.

Again, though, I was just hoping that people here might know the full story.
 
We are not amused

Limbo said:
Nope...case closed, if it was ever truly open to begin with. Randi is assumed to be honest and honorable by his loyal followers. Lucky for him that skeptics are selective about where they aim their skepticism.

A Skeptical Look At James Randi

Skeptics duped by Fraudulent Skeptics
Click to expand...

A quote from a post in the second link above:

"I know psi is real because I've tested the previous psi researchers, informally, and I'm satisfied that they have a power. I'm also satisfied that the predictions they have given me in my personal life are real, and not just vague generalities - though they have been wrong sometimes, they are usually correct."

I have great sympathy for the person who wrote that, because as it happens, I am satisfied that I am the Queen of England. I'm also satisfied that my powers and privileges are those due to My Royal Highness.

The damn Bank of England, however, demands proof, even though I am thoroughly satisfied!
 
paiute said:
A quote from a post in the second link above:

"I know psi is real because I've tested the previous psi researchers, informally, and I'm satisfied that they have a power. I'm also satisfied that the predictions they have given me in my personal life are real, and not just vague generalities - though they have been wrong sometimes, they are usually correct."

I have great sympathy for the person who wrote that, because as it happens, I am satisfied that I am the Queen of England. I'm also satisfied that my powers and privileges are those due to My Royal Highness.

The damn Bank of England, however, demands proof, even though I am thoroughly satisfied!
Click to expand...

I at least believe you because I read it on the Internet! :boggled:
 
paiute said:
I have great sympathy for the person who wrote that, because as it happens, I am satisfied that I am the Queen of England. I'm also satisfied that my powers and privileges are those due to My Royal Highness.

The damn Bank of England, however, demands proof, even though I am thoroughly satisfied!
Click to expand...


Wow! I'm impressed!! This absolutely proves something!!!!
 
You may want to check the Swift archive for May 18, 2001 for Randi's side. Sorry, I can't cut and paste the URL.


Funny, he doesn't seem dishonest to me...
 
juryjone said:
You may want to check the Swift archive for May 18, 2001 for Randi's side. Sorry, I can't cut and paste the URL.


Funny, he doesn't seem dishonest to me...
Click to expand...

Thanks Juryjone! That's exactly what I was looking for. Here is the relevant part from the above-mentioned Swift for anyone who is interested:


"On Wed, 9 May 2001, an inquirer wrote to Dr. Gary Schwartz informing him that someone had posted a message on the Internet claiming that he (Schwartz) had contacted one of the people that I had suggested be used as a panelist for the million dollar "grant" to the University of Arizona, and that this un-named person had said that he was "not contacted by Randi, and if they were, would not participate in the test."
First, note that there was no "test" involved. It was merely a proposed examination of the Schwartz data already produced, upon which the widespread media attention was based. Schwartz responded:


'I did contact someone, and have email documentation that Randi lied about his conversation with this person. '

Pause to reflect. Note that Schwartz — remember, he's the one who has been bleating about being "forthcoming," "up-front," and "sharing" in these matters — doesn't tell us which of these four persons he contacted. I just ask you to notice that. And as we will see, Dr. Schwartz's definition of "lied" may need some work.

'Randi is a bright guy, but he is not to be trusted with the truth. '

Really? Well, I checked with all four persons who were named by me as a suggested independent panel who could examine the Schwartz data. The person of whom Schwartz was writing, the un-named member of the suggested panel, was Dr. Stanley Krippner of San Francisco's Saybrook Institute. Stanley has worked with me previously on handling data of this sort. I most certainly did contact this man.

My conversation with Dr. Krippner revealed that he had decided that he was, in his own words, "overloaded" at present, and that he wished Schwartz would "get his act together." He agreed that he could be involved with a test of Sylvia Browne (no, a full 73 days after her agreeing to be tested, she has still not responded!) but he said that the Schwartz data was just so voluminous, he would not be able — at this time of the year — to take the time required to look over the material. In my original phone conversation with Stanley, I had spoken with him about both a test of Browne and an examination of the Schwartz data, but not a "test" of Schwartz. Krippner had agreed to be presently involved with Browne, but not presently with the Schwartz data, for the reasons given. He just cannot at this time take on new projects, but this is the sort of thing on which we have worked in the past, and Stanley is most knowledgeable and proficient in this field.

Dr. Krippner has suggested three other persons in parapsychology who I am currently reaching out to..."
 
Limbo said:
No doubt skeptics want to get to the bottom of this very badly. No doubt there are loads of skeptics investigating this as we speak...unwilling to merely assume blindly one way or another. That's not what skepticism is about. After all, skeptics are careful, fair-minded people and if Randi is a dishonest, manipulative, misleading person then they would want to know, in the interests of the truth, which to a skeptic is FAR more important than petty ideology and personal feelings.
Click to expand...

Absolutely...but you're preaching to the choir, man.
 
I find it amusing that Schwartz is accusing Randi of something that Schwartz himself is guilty of.
And attempting to make woo-woo look like science is in reality attempting to make lies look like the truth, like conspiracy theories. And usually conspiracy theorists think it's they who are the skeptics, but in reality they're just extremely gullible.
 
Funny, he doesn't seem dishonest to me...[/QUOTE]

I personally commend Mr. Randi's work in exposing the vast majority of people in the field that at least overstate their cases, and at most are frauds. I do however find that he has a tendency to amplify facts that support his positions in order to distract attention from facts that do not. His treatment of the Edgar Cayce materials in "Flim-Flam" will serve as an example of the sort of treatment from which I draw my conclusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom