Question regarding James Randi and Gary Schwartz

[BobR]

Excellent talk. The more reasonable 'skeptics' should really be asking themselves why they give such credence to these self-appointed 'experts'.

Mr. Randi included, it must be said.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Mr. Randi included, it must be said.

Which experts *in the field in which they are expert* is Randi misusing?

 

[kuroyume0161]

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.

Correct me if I'm misreading of the context here that you think that there are cases of true paranormal activity? If that is the case then can you provide a list of studies which you think do so?

 

[BobR]

<you think that there are cases of true paranormal activity?

I suspect it is highly likely. On the other hand, I find that there is no irrefutable proof that such exists, any more than there is irrefutable proof that it doesn't.

<If that is the case then can you provide a list of studies which you think do so?

A list of studies that I think do what, please?

 

[BobR]

Which experts *in the field in which they are expert* is Randi misusing?

Suppose you tell me, since this is your implied assertion and not mine.

 

[madurobob]

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.

So, you are suggesting Randi intentionally omitted strong evidence of Cayce's paranormal abilities? You'll be offering examples for our consideration then?

 

[BobR]

So, you are suggesting Randi intentionally omitted strong evidence of Cayce's paranormal abilities? You'll be offering examples for our consideration then?

I don't know. Define "strong". My position is that Randi intentionally omitted evidence that was a good deal stronger than the evidence he provided.

Randi used a sample of the very large body of Cayce materials that was not a representative sample of that body of work. He pretty much restricted his examination to material having to do with missing person location, which Cayce himself warned that he was unable to do, and "life readings" having to do with past lives in Atlantis or whatever, which are unprovable one way or the other.

Now, if Randi really wanted to refute Cayce, why didn't he go to the thousands of instances of readings which purport to show Cayce diagnosing illnesses from hundreds of miles away and prescribing treatments, and show those to be "flim-flam"? His refutation would have been much more convincing to me. While they are not necessarily "strong evidence" (again definition required), they are not "no evidence at all", either, as the evidence he gives is. So Randi is using straw man arguments here, and that is perhaps strong evidence in its own right: "The Amazing Randi" is up to a few tricks of his own, and he wouldn't do that if he felt no need to hide anything.

Rather than "offering examples for our consideration" (a true skeptic will research my point of view anyway) I will direct those interested to the materials from which I drew my conclusions, and invite them to draw their own. One may take up a copy of Randi's "Flim-Flam!", look for Cayce in the index, and read what I read. One may then browse the 35,000 or so pages of Cayce material in Virginia Beach, VA (of course there are many books, but not too many skeptics have written them), and conclude for oneself what Randi's intentions were.

I must say that Randi doesn't appear to me to be a skeptic at all on the matter of the existence of paranormal phenomena. Rather he looks like a confirmed advocate of the idea that they do not exist. In most cases presented I'm in complete agreement with him. (The Peter Popoff exposure, for example, was a great public service, and that SOB deserved everything he got.) However, in a very few cases I am not as certain as he advocates himself to be, and the case of Edgar Cayce is one of them.

 

[Azrael 5]

*snip*

Now, if Randi really wanted to refute Cayce, why didn't he go to the thousands of instances of readings which purport to show Cayce diagnosing illnesses from hundreds of miles away and prescribing treatments, and show those to be "flim-flam"?.) However, in a very few cases I am not as certain as he advocates himself to be, and the case of Edgar Cayce is one of them.

Why doesn't Edgar Cayce present himself for peer reviewed scientic investigation instead of moaning about Randi? Best way to show the world that a) He has these amazing powers and b) Randi is all talk.

Off you go and let us know when this happens.

 

[madurobob]

I don't know. Define "strong". My position is that Randi intentionally omitted evidence that was a good deal stronger than the evidence he provided.

Agreed - lets ignore the "strong" bit and just consider "evidence".

Randi used a sample of the very large body of Cayce materials that was not a representative sample of that body of work. He pretty much restricted his examination to material having to do with missing person location, which Cayce himself warned that he was unable to do, and "life readings" having to do with past lives in Atlantis or whatever, which are unprovable one way or the other.

He warned he couldn't do it... then did it anyway? Curious. Not unlike a con man playing both sides.

As for Randi's book, of course he couldn't include everything about Cayce, or he'd have an entire book devoted to him, perhaps two or three. The point is he picked some obvious items to show how they were used to trick people.

Now, if Randi really wanted to refute Cayce, why didn't he go to the thousands of instances of readings which purport to show Cayce diagnosing illnesses from hundreds of miles away and prescribing treatments, and show those to be "flim-flam"? His refutation would have been much more convincing to me. While they are not necessarily "strong evidence" (again definition required), they are not "no evidence at all", either, as the evidence he gives is. So Randi is using straw man arguments here, and that is perhaps strong evidence in its own right: "The Amazing Randi" is up to a few tricks of his own, and he wouldn't do that if he felt no need to hide anything.

Oh, I see, because Randi didn't devote multiple volumes to every bit of Cayce material, he must be trying to hide something? Hmmm.. did Cayce document all his misses?

I must say that Randi doesn't appear to me to be a skeptic at all on the matter of the existence of paranormal phenomena. Rather he looks like a confirmed advocate of the idea that they do not exist. In most cases presented I'm in complete agreement with him. (The Peter Popoff exposure, for example, was a great public service, and that SOB deserved everything he got.) However, in a very few cases I am not as certain as he advocates himself to be, and the case of Edgar Cayce is one of them.

You appear to have fallen into the mindset of the credulous. That is, you would expect the skeptic to prove the negative - to prove something doesn't exist. There is a fundamental logical flaw in that approach. The correct approach to any claim of paranormal activity is to require positive proof. The one making the claim must provide evidence to prove the claims.

I await your proof of Cayce's paranormal ability. No, I 'm not going to visit Virginia Beach (not that far away - been there may times). If you have evidence to present, present it here and we can debate its merits. If you have no evidence to present or refuse to present it... then what exactly do you expect to accomplish here on a skeptics forum?

 

[bookitty]

I've always been fascinated by Cayce and have studied him on and off for decades. He is unique in many ways, quite unlike the bombastic showmen that make up the majority of self-described psychics. His work shows human frailty and even self-deprecation. There is an honesty to what he believed.

But through it all is the same thread of self-delusion that any member of this forum has seen in the numerous psychics that pop up here. It doesn't really matter how much they believe in their gift if there is no proof that it actually exists. Again and again, you see the same confirmation-bias, the same repetitions and the same stubborn clinging to fantasy.

You are saying that Cayce may have been right about some things and wrong about others. But so many of his trance-induced readings are obvious fantasies - Atlantis, talking to Jesus, being an ancient priest. Many of the others are simply common sense, like avoiding alcohol or getting exercise.

It would be nearly impossible to track down the people he "healed" to see what illness they had, if it was self-limiting or if it was the placebo affect.

But, if Cayce was truly capable of even one tenth of what he claimed, then there would be some proof of paranormal powers. If these powers exist, then Cayce should not be unique. If we look at his modern contemporaries, we find nothing to support the idea that these powers occur.

The theory that Cayce was an honestly caring person who vividly daydreamed about helping people is far more plausible.

 

[BobR]

Why doesn't Edgar Cayce present himself for peer reviewed scientic investigation instead of moaning about Randi? Best way to show the world that a) He has these amazing powers and b) Randi is all talk.

Off you go and let us know when this happens.

Suppose you google "Edgar Cayce" and spend the 60 seconds it would take to research your own answer to your satisfaction. I think you'll find it most enlightening, and hopefully, you'll not let any embarrassment you might feel prevent you from sharing what you find.

Off you go yourself, then...

 

[Mojo]

Why doesn't Edgar Cayce present himself for peer reviewed scientic investigation instead of moaning about Randi?

I suspect that if he were to do either he would have a pretty good claim on the million.

 

[Mojo]

We've had threads in which what were alleged by a Cayce supporter to be his strongest cases of medical clairvoyance, and "paranormal" access to then unknown medical knowledge, were examined. There really wasn't much there.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Suppose you google "Edgar Cayce" and spend the 60 seconds it would take to research your own answer to your satisfaction. I think you'll find it most enlightening, and hopefully, you'll not let any embarrassment you might feel prevent you from sharing what you find.

Off you go yourself, then...

 

[ExMinister]

Strange to see a thread resurrected after almost a year.

I don't know. Define "strong". My position is that Randi intentionally omitted evidence that was a good deal stronger than the evidence he provided.

Randi used a sample of the very large body of Cayce materials that was not a representative sample of that body of work. He pretty much restricted his examination to material having to do with missing person location, which Cayce himself warned that he was unable to do, and "life readings" having to do with past lives in Atlantis or whatever, which are unprovable one way or the other.

Now, if Randi really wanted to refute Cayce, why didn't he go to the thousands of instances of readings which purport to show Cayce diagnosing illnesses from hundreds of miles away and prescribing treatments, and show those to be "flim-flam"? His refutation would have been much more convincing to me. While they are not necessarily "strong evidence" (again definition required), they are not "no evidence at all", either, as the evidence he gives is. So Randi is using straw man arguments here, and that is perhaps strong evidence in its own right: "The Amazing Randi" is up to a few tricks of his own, and he wouldn't do that if he felt no need to hide anything.

Rather than "offering examples for our consideration" (a true skeptic will research my point of view anyway) I will direct those interested to the materials from which I drew my conclusions, and invite them to draw their own. One may take up a copy of Randi's "Flim-Flam!", look for Cayce in the index, and read what I read. One may then browse the 35,000 or so pages of Cayce material in Virginia Beach, VA (of course there are many books, but not too many skeptics have written them), and conclude for oneself what Randi's intentions were.

I must say that Randi doesn't appear to me to be a skeptic at all on the matter of the existence of paranormal phenomena. Rather he looks like a confirmed advocate of the idea that they do not exist. In most cases presented I'm in complete agreement with him. (The Peter Popoff exposure, for example, was a great public service, and that SOB deserved everything he got.) However, in a very few cases I am not as certain as he advocates himself to be, and the case of Edgar Cayce is one of them.

Where did Cayce say that he was "unable to do" missing persons readings?

I just re-read the passage in Flim-Flam. The only part I have ever disagreed with is the statement that Cayce was fond of expressions like "I feel that" and "perhaps" to avoid making positive declarations. I have the Cayce readings on CD-ROM and had studied him for years and hadn't come across those kinds of statements much at all. What Cayce does, though, is speak in such convoluted sentences that it is sometimes hard to make any sense whatsoever out of what he is saying.

Personally I think James Randi's assessment is fair enough, as far as it goes. It wasn't meant to be a comprehensive treastise on Cayce, but a brief overview. And contrary to what you say here, I found no discussion of past lives in Atlantis. He didn't even mention Cayce's mis-dating of the Great Pyramid or the Earth Changes that were predicted for 20 years ago, two of Cayce's bigger fails.

 

[Minarvia]

Long ago I read a couple of books on Cayce (pro-Cayce) and was embarrassed. I was embarrassed that the material was presented so seriously. I also seem to recall that he said Atlantis would rise in 1969. Still waiting on that one, we are.

 

[Mojo]

Long ago I read a couple of books on Cayce (pro-Cayce) and was embarrassed. I was embarrassed that the material was presented so seriously. I also seem to recall that he said Atlantis would rise in 1969. Still waiting on that one, we are.

His 1934 prediction that Hitler would rise to power in Germany is pretty impressive as well, having been made about a year after Hitler became Chancellor.

 

[BobR]

Strange to see a thread resurrected after almost a year.



Where did Cayce say that he was "unable to do" missing persons readings?

I just re-read the passage in Flim-Flam. The only part I have ever disagreed with is the statement that Cayce was fond of expressions like "I feel that" and "perhaps" to avoid making positive declarations. I have the Cayce readings on CD-ROM and had studied him for years and hadn't come across those kinds of statements much at all. What Cayce does, though, is speak in such convoluted sentences that it is sometimes hard to make any sense whatsoever out of what he is saying.

Personally I think James Randi's assessment is fair enough, as far as it goes. It wasn't meant to be a comprehensive treastise on Cayce, but a brief overview. And contrary to what you say here, I found no discussion of past lives in Atlantis. He didn't even mention Cayce's mis-dating of the Great Pyramid or the Earth Changes that were predicted for 20 years ago, two of Cayce's bigger fails.

I'll defer to your knowledge of the details of Randi's examples, since I haven't picked up the book in a while. Also, the statement about Cayce saying that he hadn't much ability with locating missing persons is probably fourth-level hearsay. I read it somewhere in a bio as I recall. So I'll be glad to retract it, especially since its veracity has no bearing on my argument.

However, my assertion stands. Randi avoided the more interesting examples that have been the subject of argument, instead choosing to submit some of his "epic fails" instead. I take exception to your implication that he could not have done otherwise in a brief overview.

As for Cayce's misdating of the pyramid, there is compelling evidence that the sphinx has been subjected to about a thousand years of water erosion, which calls the accepted date range of its construction, and by association those of the pyramid, seriously into question.

I find these passages much more controversial than those that Randi submitted:

March 1929

“…we may expect a CONSIDERABLE break and bear market, see? This issue being between those of the reserves of nations and of INDIVIDUALS, and will cause—unless another of the more STABLE banking conditions come to the relief—a great disturbance in financial circles. This warning has been given, see?”

1935

This will make for the taking of sides, as it were, by various groups or countries or governments. This will be indicated by the Austrians, Germans, and later the Japanese joining in their influence; unseen, and gradually growing to those affairs where there must become, as it were, almost a direct opposition to that which has been the THEME of the Nazis (the Aryan). For these will gradually make for a growing of animosities.

And unless there is interference from what may be called by many the SUPERNATURAL forces and influences, that are activative in the affairs of nations and peoples, the whole WORLD – as it were – will be set on fire by the militaristic groups and those that are “for” power and expansion in such associations...

1939

You are to have turmoil -- you are to have strife between capital and labor. You are to have a division in your own land, before you have the second of the Presidents that next will not live through his office ... a mob rule!"

 

[BobR]

I've always been fascinated by Cayce and have studied him on and off for decades. He is unique in many ways, quite unlike the bombastic showmen that make up the majority of self-described psychics. His work shows human frailty and even self-deprecation. There is an honesty to what he believed.

But through it all is the same thread of self-delusion that any member of this forum has seen in the numerous psychics that pop up here. It doesn't really matter how much they believe in their gift if there is no proof that it actually exists. Again and again, you see the same confirmation-bias, the same repetitions and the same stubborn clinging to fantasy.

You are saying that Cayce may have been right about some things and wrong about others. But so many of his trance-induced readings are obvious fantasies - Atlantis, talking to Jesus, being an ancient priest. Many of the others are simply common sense, like avoiding alcohol or getting exercise.

It would be nearly impossible to track down the people he "healed" to see what illness they had, if it was self-limiting or if it was the placebo affect.

But, if Cayce was truly capable of even one tenth of what he claimed, then there would be some proof of paranormal powers. If these powers exist, then Cayce should not be unique. If we look at his modern contemporaries, we find nothing to support the idea that these powers occur.

The theory that Cayce was an honestly caring person who vividly daydreamed about helping people is far more plausible.

I'm afraid I don't find your arguments convincing. I remain as skeptical of the nonexistence of paranormal phenomena as I do of the reverse.

 

[bookitty]

<Snip>

I find these passages much more controversial than those that Randi submitted:

March 1929

“…we may expect a CONSIDERABLE break and bear market, see? This issue being between those of the reserves of nations and of INDIVIDUALS, and will cause—unless another of the more STABLE banking conditions come to the relief—a great disturbance in financial circles. This warning has been given, see?”

1935

This will make for the taking of sides, as it were, by various groups or countries or governments. This will be indicated by the Austrians, Germans, and later the Japanese joining in their influence; unseen, and gradually growing to those affairs where there must become, as it were, almost a direct opposition to that which has been the THEME of the Nazis (the Aryan). For these will gradually make for a growing of animosities.

And unless there is interference from what may be called by many the SUPERNATURAL forces and influences, that are activative in the affairs of nations and peoples, the whole WORLD – as it were – will be set on fire by the militaristic groups and those that are “for” power and expansion in such associations...

1939

You are to have turmoil -- you are to have strife between capital and labor. You are to have a division in your own land, before you have the second of the Presidents that next will not live through his office ... a mob rule!"

Those are indeed intriguing but raise many questions. What is the source of those quotes? Is it possible to prove that they were written before the fact? Or were they gleaned from something written after the dates mentioned?

In the source for those quotes, how many other predictions were given that were wrong? If these 3 are the only correct out of say, 200 predictions, they are far less impressive. Remember, Cayce was incredibly prolific. With so many predictions to choose from it would be nearly impossible to not get some right from chance alone.