thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 35,109
With the arguments placed forth on this thread, I am very much seeing that it would not be wise for Randi to take on this claimant. Too much baggage and liability.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
James Randi replies to email about man who goes without food
- Thread starter keithwellman
- Start date
-
- Tags
- james randi keith wellman
Brown
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 12,984
We've been around this issue before. Does Mr. Randi have a reasonable basis for giving such "claims" short shrift? You bet he does.
First, the claim is inherently hazardous. It is well-known that human beings can go without food for extended periods of time, and there is nothing supernatural, paranormal or occult about that. Extended periods of starvation, however, are known to be harmful to health, and it is unreasonable to expect a claim to be tested that puts the claimant's health at such risk. Mr. Randi does not test individuals who claim, for example, to be impervious to bullets, and with good reason: such a test would be inherently hazardous to the claimant, regardless of the claimant's sincerity and willingness to be tested.
Second, the claim in question requires an extensive amount of time and is expensive to control. The individual in question must be monitored continually for weeks, if not months.
Which is related to the third point, namely, such claims are rife with fraud. Past tests of such claims have shown a propensity on the part of claimants to sneak food when they thought they were not being observed. These were not a mere mistaken beliefs or honest self-delusions on the part of the claimants; rather, they were deliberate attempts to cheat.
In the absence of a compelling reason, there is no reason to undertake the time and expense needed to test such a claim.
First, the claim is inherently hazardous. It is well-known that human beings can go without food for extended periods of time, and there is nothing supernatural, paranormal or occult about that. Extended periods of starvation, however, are known to be harmful to health, and it is unreasonable to expect a claim to be tested that puts the claimant's health at such risk. Mr. Randi does not test individuals who claim, for example, to be impervious to bullets, and with good reason: such a test would be inherently hazardous to the claimant, regardless of the claimant's sincerity and willingness to be tested.
Second, the claim in question requires an extensive amount of time and is expensive to control. The individual in question must be monitored continually for weeks, if not months.
Which is related to the third point, namely, such claims are rife with fraud. Past tests of such claims have shown a propensity on the part of claimants to sneak food when they thought they were not being observed. These were not a mere mistaken beliefs or honest self-delusions on the part of the claimants; rather, they were deliberate attempts to cheat.
In the absence of a compelling reason, there is no reason to undertake the time and expense needed to test such a claim.
keithwellman
New Blood
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2004
- Messages
- 8
Randi replies again
Well he replied again. If you would like I will put the emails up here.
First off the guy did send in an application.
Second those of you who say that it is to far fetched of a claim to accept...isn't fortune telling? Or talking to dead people....that seems harder to believe to me.
Third James Randi has said nothing of the liability part of the equation....he says it is too silly and cost too much.
Anyways here are the emails...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a smart ass, smart enough to know that such a claim is so downright
silly, it's a joke. "Photosynthesis"? Get real! You're the kind of person
who would tell us that maybe there really is a tiny Shirley MacLaine in the
TV receiver, and that she's not a picture.... Hey, special selection,
photosynthesis, breeding with midgets, all those things. Now, you can't
deny THAT possibility, can you, Mr. Randi?
Yes, I can.
Yes, it would cost thousands. Hotel, lawyers, doctor(s), TV monitor, other
personnel, the food, transportation, and one VERY important thing: my time.
I'm too old to fritter away some of my days watching over a guy who says he
lives on air. I'm far to busy with real claimants.
Yes, there is a need to "be rude." You've adopted a juvenile attitude, and
need to be told so.
(That's "standby," "free will," "lose," and "Claus.")
James Randi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is my reply
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. James Randi,
Sorry if my spelling is not up to par with you. Always was bad at spelling. For your information I think the guy is just as wack as you think he his. I said photosynthesis because I was trying to make a point that there may actually be a scientific reason for this. Obviously not photosynthesis but I don't know what it would be so I put that. Second no I have not taken a juvenile attitude. I simply am stating that you have a responsibility to prove these types of people wrong...oh wait real claimants???? What people that read minds? Can tell the future??? Or people that see dead people? What kind of damn "real claimants" are you speaking of? Hmmm...to me someone who can go without eating and drinking is easier to believe that someone who says they know what is going to happen in the future. But who am I...◊◊◊◊ your James Randi....wouldn't want to argue with you. What the ◊◊◊◊ is this ◊◊◊◊ about Shirley maclaine? F*** you...I never said I believed him...however I am a true skeptic and will not put down a claim until proven wrong or right....there is a such thing and simply not knowing. You can use science all you want to back up the fact that this guy is a nut but what about all the things we have proven wrong....
science said the world is flat...science says the world is not flat
science said light is a constant speed...science says we can slow down the speed of light with extreme cold temperatures.
science said teleportation is impossible...science says we can teleport a photon
You see you can't just judge something wrong before you even use science to prove it...you have to prove it with science and then judge it.
hypothesis - the man would get ill without eating or drinking after so many days
experiment - make him not eat or drink while watching him
conclusion - let science decide.
Ok if it would be too expensive I am sorry I argued that. I was obviously wrong...but why not put that out in the open when you contact him. Tell him he would have to pay for everything...if he is telling the truth I am sure he would come up with plenty of money to make 1 million dollars.
Sincerely,
Keith Wellman
P.S. No hard feelings...this is just the way I feel about the situation. My friend and I were arguing about it so I said hey lets email the man himself.
edited for swear word
Well he replied again. If you would like I will put the emails up here.
First off the guy did send in an application.
Second those of you who say that it is to far fetched of a claim to accept...isn't fortune telling? Or talking to dead people....that seems harder to believe to me.
Third James Randi has said nothing of the liability part of the equation....he says it is too silly and cost too much.
Anyways here are the emails...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a smart ass, smart enough to know that such a claim is so downright
silly, it's a joke. "Photosynthesis"? Get real! You're the kind of person
who would tell us that maybe there really is a tiny Shirley MacLaine in the
TV receiver, and that she's not a picture.... Hey, special selection,
photosynthesis, breeding with midgets, all those things. Now, you can't
deny THAT possibility, can you, Mr. Randi?
Yes, I can.
Yes, it would cost thousands. Hotel, lawyers, doctor(s), TV monitor, other
personnel, the food, transportation, and one VERY important thing: my time.
I'm too old to fritter away some of my days watching over a guy who says he
lives on air. I'm far to busy with real claimants.
Yes, there is a need to "be rude." You've adopted a juvenile attitude, and
need to be told so.
(That's "standby," "free will," "lose," and "Claus.")
James Randi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is my reply
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. James Randi,
Sorry if my spelling is not up to par with you. Always was bad at spelling. For your information I think the guy is just as wack as you think he his. I said photosynthesis because I was trying to make a point that there may actually be a scientific reason for this. Obviously not photosynthesis but I don't know what it would be so I put that. Second no I have not taken a juvenile attitude. I simply am stating that you have a responsibility to prove these types of people wrong...oh wait real claimants???? What people that read minds? Can tell the future??? Or people that see dead people? What kind of damn "real claimants" are you speaking of? Hmmm...to me someone who can go without eating and drinking is easier to believe that someone who says they know what is going to happen in the future. But who am I...◊◊◊◊ your James Randi....wouldn't want to argue with you. What the ◊◊◊◊ is this ◊◊◊◊ about Shirley maclaine? F*** you...I never said I believed him...however I am a true skeptic and will not put down a claim until proven wrong or right....there is a such thing and simply not knowing. You can use science all you want to back up the fact that this guy is a nut but what about all the things we have proven wrong....
science said the world is flat...science says the world is not flat
science said light is a constant speed...science says we can slow down the speed of light with extreme cold temperatures.
science said teleportation is impossible...science says we can teleport a photon
You see you can't just judge something wrong before you even use science to prove it...you have to prove it with science and then judge it.
hypothesis - the man would get ill without eating or drinking after so many days
experiment - make him not eat or drink while watching him
conclusion - let science decide.
Ok if it would be too expensive I am sorry I argued that. I was obviously wrong...but why not put that out in the open when you contact him. Tell him he would have to pay for everything...if he is telling the truth I am sure he would come up with plenty of money to make 1 million dollars.
Sincerely,
Keith Wellman
P.S. No hard feelings...this is just the way I feel about the situation. My friend and I were arguing about it so I said hey lets email the man himself.
edited for swear word
There are nuts out there. As I recall the Guiness Book of World Records ceased entertaining claims for records that could involve the loss of life and limb, for humanitarian reasons as well as for legal ones I'm sure.
I'd stay 1000 miles away from anyone dumb enough to suggest a test that could be seriously dangerous.
I'd stay 1000 miles away from anyone dumb enough to suggest a test that could be seriously dangerous.
Operaider
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 913
Ok, first off I think this is just as ridiculous as the rest of you.
Secondly I find it no more ridiculous than any of the other claims. They are all idiotic, to what degree is irrelevant.
Third, he would not be deprived of water. Water and food would be available and in the room with him at all times. It would be in a sealed package so that we would know if he ate any. But he could eat whenever he wanted.
Fourth, He would not get sick or die because he would fail long before that. If this person has not eaten since 1998, as he claims, than he would not lose any weight going a couple more days without food. The second he drops a pound of weight he loses the test. This would of course need to be stipulated in advance. He could also be tested for blood pressure, pulse rate, and any breathing irregularities. Any change from the norm and he fails.
Fifth, Expense. It would not be necessary to "lock him up". I've suggested that they clear out a room at the Jref office. They could post an intern's desk near the door to the room. During the day there would be no trouble in keeping an eye on him without disrupting their work. The only inconvenience would come at night where someone would have to spend the night at the office in order to watch him.
Sixth, the physician. A physician or dietician would need to be on call to check up on him and test his vitals. The physician wouldn't need to be on constant watch. He would only need to check up on him once or twice a day. Finding one might be hard, but you may be able to get someone to volunteer for the experiment. He would only need to swing by and check his vitals and weight on his way to and from work. As I'm sure it wouldn't take more than a couple of days for the breatarian to lose a pound of weight, the physician wouldn't be greatly inconvenienced.
Seventh, The guy probably wouldn't make it to the testing stage. Once he sees the requirements and that he would be required to pay for the challenge himself he would most likely drop out. But at least he wouldn't be able to say Randi didn't give him a chance.
Secondly I find it no more ridiculous than any of the other claims. They are all idiotic, to what degree is irrelevant.
Third, he would not be deprived of water. Water and food would be available and in the room with him at all times. It would be in a sealed package so that we would know if he ate any. But he could eat whenever he wanted.
Fourth, He would not get sick or die because he would fail long before that. If this person has not eaten since 1998, as he claims, than he would not lose any weight going a couple more days without food. The second he drops a pound of weight he loses the test. This would of course need to be stipulated in advance. He could also be tested for blood pressure, pulse rate, and any breathing irregularities. Any change from the norm and he fails.
Fifth, Expense. It would not be necessary to "lock him up". I've suggested that they clear out a room at the Jref office. They could post an intern's desk near the door to the room. During the day there would be no trouble in keeping an eye on him without disrupting their work. The only inconvenience would come at night where someone would have to spend the night at the office in order to watch him.
Sixth, the physician. A physician or dietician would need to be on call to check up on him and test his vitals. The physician wouldn't need to be on constant watch. He would only need to check up on him once or twice a day. Finding one might be hard, but you may be able to get someone to volunteer for the experiment. He would only need to swing by and check his vitals and weight on his way to and from work. As I'm sure it wouldn't take more than a couple of days for the breatarian to lose a pound of weight, the physician wouldn't be greatly inconvenienced.
Seventh, The guy probably wouldn't make it to the testing stage. Once he sees the requirements and that he would be required to pay for the challenge himself he would most likely drop out. But at least he wouldn't be able to say Randi didn't give him a chance.
JPK
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 1,870
Re: Randi replies again
Humm.. liability=lawsuit=cost too much.
Perhaps Randi just didn't spell that out.
Seriously, the guys claim is one that would cause harm to him. If a man claimed that he can withstand a gunshot through the head and live, should Randi except this? Perhaps his skull has "evolved" into a bullet proof shield. If Randi did allow this test to go through, do you think he would do well in court against family members. I can read the headline now "James Randi offers man $1,000,000 to blow his brains out."
JPK
keithwellman said:
Humm.. liability=lawsuit=cost too much.
Perhaps Randi just didn't spell that out.
Seriously, the guys claim is one that would cause harm to him. If a man claimed that he can withstand a gunshot through the head and live, should Randi except this? Perhaps his skull has "evolved" into a bullet proof shield. If Randi did allow this test to go through, do you think he would do well in court against family members. I can read the headline now "James Randi offers man $1,000,000 to blow his brains out."
JPK
troy jones
Student
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 37
He mentions the cost of lawyers. I think he recognizes that actually testing a claim of this sort opens the JREF to possible liability, or at least that lawyers would have to be consulted (and paid).keithwellman said:
Seriously, the testing of claims where the (possibly mentally ill) applicant is putting his health and even life at risk as part of the test is a sticky issue legally (and morally). Lawyers would have to be brought in to help form protocols for the test, waivers for the claimant to sign, etc, that would release the Foundation from liability in the case of the claimant injuring or killing himself as a result of the testing process--and those lawyers charge by the hour. This isn't the case with most claims, e.g. dowsing, which carry little or no threat of injury and death. And even if the lawyers give the go-ahead, the guy signs the release, etc, and then dies from starving himself, his surviving relatives may claim he wasn't legally able to give consent to this test due to being mentally ill, and would sue for wrongful death. Regardless of that case's outcome, it could cost the JREF thousands, and possibly millions, of dollars in legal bills.
That's the civil side of it. On the criminal side, there are the small matters of "depraved indifference to human life", "criminally negligent homicide", etc, and the potential costs of defending JREF in criminal proceedings--to say nothing of potential jailtime.
That's why I said in the other thread on this topic that the Foundation should avoid testing claims that would entail risking an applicant's life or health.
People who actually know a thing or three about photosynthesis would be insulted to see it bandied about in this manner, as an ad hoc "scientific reason" for this crazy man's crazy beliefs.
Among other things, photosynthesis simply could not, even theoretically, generate enough energy for ordinary day-to-day human activity, even if you lived in constant daylight and didn't wear clothes. Assuming of course human skin had the capacity for photosynthesis, which it doesn't. Read this: http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_green_040520.html
And the original guy's claim isn't even that he uses photosynthesis. That's something you made up, thus putting yourself firmly in the camp of purveyors of psuedo-scientific horses**t (aka woo-woos).
You misunderstand the science you are alluding to.
Alas, in the real world there are often financial and legal limits to what sort of fantastical claims can or can't be tested. JREF and James Randi certainly have the right to draw the line at tests that could potentially harm applicants, and/or potentially cost the Foundation unreasonably large amounts of money, and/or get them in legal trouble.
Bottom line: it isn't their duty to prove this guy wrong. It is the breatharian's duty to prove everything we know about biology, etc, is wrong.
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2002
- Messages
- 15,892
Re: Randi replies again
Seriously. Randi can't do tests that are inherently, or even potentially, dangerous for the participants. Even if he could legally avoid liability, it's morally reprehensible. That far outweighs any so-called obligation he has to test all comers for the sake of debunking dangerous beliefs. How hard is that to understand?
Perhaps Randi was a little quick to accuse you of a juvenile attitude. But then you turned around and lived up to it, in spades. Randi ought to be commended for his prescience.keithwellman said:
Seriously. Randi can't do tests that are inherently, or even potentially, dangerous for the participants. Even if he could legally avoid liability, it's morally reprehensible. That far outweighs any so-called obligation he has to test all comers for the sake of debunking dangerous beliefs. How hard is that to understand?
Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
Re: Re: Randi replies again
Do we have any confirmation that the e-mails were in fact from Randi?
hgc said:
Do we have any confirmation that the e-mails were in fact from Randi?
Operaider
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 913
Many people have pointed out that the applicant is clearly insane. We all know this. An easy way to get around this is to make one of the stipulations of the challenge to include a psychiatric exam with a clean bill of mental health supplied before the start of the experiment.
This will allow the applicant to have a chance at the challenge, however slim. It will also allow Randi to accept the challenge without looking like he is backing down in defeat. It is obvious that no psychiatrist will conclude that he is mentally fit. It may even allow him to realize that he needs to get some help
This will allow the applicant to have a chance at the challenge, however slim. It will also allow Randi to accept the challenge without looking like he is backing down in defeat. It is obvious that no psychiatrist will conclude that he is mentally fit. It may even allow him to realize that he needs to get some help
Operaider
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 913
Basically what I’m saying in my post is. Randi is ably to set the rules of the challenge however he wants. He can adjust it to accommodate any problems he might foresee.
This includes cost, liability, and potential harm caused by the experiment. Dismissing the claim on the grounds that it is ridiculous shouldn’t be done by someone that tests the ridiculous.
He can find away to accept the challenge without ever really needing to conduct a test. He just needs to make the applicant accept all potential expenses of the challenge. This can include anything from paying for lodging, paying for the physician, and paying for a lawyer to draw up the conditions. Make him prove he is not mentally unfit and sign a waiver that he accepts all aspects of the challenge and that he will eat or not eat of his own free will.
This argument is kinda pointless to begin with. The application was done it June of 1999, over 5 years ago. I’m sure the applicant has either died of starvation or been sent to the loony bin by now. But, I still say that Randi should accept all applicants. He just doesn't need to make it easy on them.
This includes cost, liability, and potential harm caused by the experiment. Dismissing the claim on the grounds that it is ridiculous shouldn’t be done by someone that tests the ridiculous.
He can find away to accept the challenge without ever really needing to conduct a test. He just needs to make the applicant accept all potential expenses of the challenge. This can include anything from paying for lodging, paying for the physician, and paying for a lawyer to draw up the conditions. Make him prove he is not mentally unfit and sign a waiver that he accepts all aspects of the challenge and that he will eat or not eat of his own free will.
This argument is kinda pointless to begin with. The application was done it June of 1999, over 5 years ago. I’m sure the applicant has either died of starvation or been sent to the loony bin by now. But, I still say that Randi should accept all applicants. He just doesn't need to make it easy on them.
Linda
Former JREF Goddess
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2001
- Messages
- 788
Re: Re: Re: Randi replies again
I will attest that the emails in question are definitely from Randi. I don't know that we got a notarized application though; I think it was just an email inquiry as to whether the claim would be eligible.
Rob Lister said:
I will attest that the emails in question are definitely from Randi. I don't know that we got a notarized application though; I think it was just an email inquiry as to whether the claim would be eligible.
walthrup48
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 1,087
Oh joy, the Kolodzey letter rears its head again.
"You are James Randi and you owe it to your foundation and fans to proof these types of people wrong."
The JREF is not out to prove any applicant wrong. The claims are measured by how they stand up to scrutiny under controlled conditions. According to the JREF, they have all failed so far.
"Accept his challenge, lock him up for 2 weeks without water or food and do rigorous scientific tests to see if he is truly special or simply another quack."
This proposal is a failure already. According to Randi's response, the claim is to survive without food - not water. This technical point aside, why are your test condions any better than those already used by the JREF? To test 'fasters', you need to curtail any food source. No locking up in a single room, nor any particularly "rigorous scientific tests" are needed. Further, your imposition of the test conditions ignores one of the most important aspects of the challenge - that the tests are designed around the applicant's claims.
"Is this letter a fake?"
"That letter is quite real, not faked, I meant it and I still mean it." (Source).
Randi emphasises his opinion that these type of claims are too silly to test. I'm with Operaider on this - I find the apparent 'ridiculousness' of a claim to be very dubious grounds for accepting or rejecting a challenge application (and that's easy for me to say, as I don't deal with the claims!) However, as with the posters above, Randi has also pointed out the limited resources the foundation has for testing and the ethical concerns involved in this type of claim. I think these are perfectly valid reasons for rejecting challenge applications from fasters.
"You are James Randi and you owe it to your foundation and fans to proof these types of people wrong."
The JREF is not out to prove any applicant wrong. The claims are measured by how they stand up to scrutiny under controlled conditions. According to the JREF, they have all failed so far.
"Accept his challenge, lock him up for 2 weeks without water or food and do rigorous scientific tests to see if he is truly special or simply another quack."
This proposal is a failure already. According to Randi's response, the claim is to survive without food - not water. This technical point aside, why are your test condions any better than those already used by the JREF? To test 'fasters', you need to curtail any food source. No locking up in a single room, nor any particularly "rigorous scientific tests" are needed. Further, your imposition of the test conditions ignores one of the most important aspects of the challenge - that the tests are designed around the applicant's claims.
"Is this letter a fake?"
"That letter is quite real, not faked, I meant it and I still mean it." (Source).
Randi emphasises his opinion that these type of claims are too silly to test. I'm with Operaider on this - I find the apparent 'ridiculousness' of a claim to be very dubious grounds for accepting or rejecting a challenge application (and that's easy for me to say, as I don't deal with the claims!) However, as with the posters above, Randi has also pointed out the limited resources the foundation has for testing and the ethical concerns involved in this type of claim. I think these are perfectly valid reasons for rejecting challenge applications from fasters.
walthrup48
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 1,087
Originally posted by Operaider
"[...] than he would not lose any weight going a couple more days without food [...]"
The challenger can always state that weight loss is a normal part of the process for x amount of time.
"He could also be tested for blood pressure, pulse rate, and any breathing irregularities. Any change from the norm and he fails."
Again, what if the applicant states that these are all normal signs of surviving on prana (or whatever)?
"Once he sees the requirements and that he would be required to pay for the challenge himself he would most likely drop out. But at least he wouldn't be able to say Randi didn't give him a chance."
No, but he would be able to say that he really does have paranormal powers but they don't work under the conditions imposed by the JREF. Alternatively, he really does have paranormal powers but can't afford to be tested.
"[...] than he would not lose any weight going a couple more days without food [...]"
The challenger can always state that weight loss is a normal part of the process for x amount of time.
"He could also be tested for blood pressure, pulse rate, and any breathing irregularities. Any change from the norm and he fails."
Again, what if the applicant states that these are all normal signs of surviving on prana (or whatever)?
"Once he sees the requirements and that he would be required to pay for the challenge himself he would most likely drop out. But at least he wouldn't be able to say Randi didn't give him a chance."
No, but he would be able to say that he really does have paranormal powers but they don't work under the conditions imposed by the JREF. Alternatively, he really does have paranormal powers but can't afford to be tested.
I think you all missed Keith’s basic point.
He did himself no favours by reverting to a completely immature rant though !
He want the guy to be tested to SHOW how ridiculous and fake it is.
He knows it is
I know it is
You know it is
Randi definitely KNOWS it is
BUT..
Some idiots think this stuff is real
I think Keith just wanted to see Randi make a complete idiot of the Guy.. I sorta did too !
(plus it gives ammo to the woo woos to say.. see Randi doesn’t even test people !)
He did himself no favours by reverting to a completely immature rant though !
He want the guy to be tested to SHOW how ridiculous and fake it is.
He knows it is
I know it is
You know it is
Randi definitely KNOWS it is
BUT..
Some idiots think this stuff is real
I think Keith just wanted to see Randi make a complete idiot of the Guy.. I sorta did too !
(plus it gives ammo to the woo woos to say.. see Randi doesn’t even test people !)
princhester
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 13, 2003
- Messages
- 321
This topic comes up over and over, and every time people chime in to say that the real reason Randi won't do the test is potential legal liability.
Randi has said several times that he won't test such people because its too tedious, too expensive and too silly.
I find that a bit disappointing, but I also accept that it's not my decision and we'll all just have to get over it. It's Randi's life.
The whole legal liability thing gets up my nose. Dragging out one's "bush lawyer" non-skills to try to come up with excuses for Randi that Randi himself does not need or raise is conduct unbecoming skeptics and beyond pathetic.
I am yet to hear from anyone actually legally qualified who thinks there would be any legal liability problem with conducting such tests. I'm an Australian lawyer, so I accept I'm not precisely qualified to comment but I just don't see a problem. If someone says they don't eat, and all Randi does is say "I'll watch you and if you really don't eat I'll give you a million" how the hell does that make Randi suddenly responsible?
That and a well written disclaimer just for the sake of "belt and braces" and there would be no problem, I reckon.
Indeed anyone who's put in the time to research the issue in any detail would realise that Randi has tested such people in the past, so there cannot be any inherent difficulty with doing so.
Woo woos have enough ammunition as it is without skeptics who should know better raising tissuepaper-thin excuses for woo woos to rip down.
Randi has said several times that he won't test such people because its too tedious, too expensive and too silly.
I find that a bit disappointing, but I also accept that it's not my decision and we'll all just have to get over it. It's Randi's life.
The whole legal liability thing gets up my nose. Dragging out one's "bush lawyer" non-skills to try to come up with excuses for Randi that Randi himself does not need or raise is conduct unbecoming skeptics and beyond pathetic.
I am yet to hear from anyone actually legally qualified who thinks there would be any legal liability problem with conducting such tests. I'm an Australian lawyer, so I accept I'm not precisely qualified to comment but I just don't see a problem. If someone says they don't eat, and all Randi does is say "I'll watch you and if you really don't eat I'll give you a million" how the hell does that make Randi suddenly responsible?
That and a well written disclaimer just for the sake of "belt and braces" and there would be no problem, I reckon.
Indeed anyone who's put in the time to research the issue in any detail would realise that Randi has tested such people in the past, so there cannot be any inherent difficulty with doing so.
Woo woos have enough ammunition as it is without skeptics who should know better raising tissuepaper-thin excuses for woo woos to rip down.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the legal climate in the US, but this sort of statement would definately put Randi at risk of a lawsuit here. By offering him a million dollars, Randi could be considered to be encouraging this person to do harm to himself. All it would take is one sharp lawyer and the JREF would no longer exist.princhester said:
Juries are known to hand down some pretty strange verdicts here. Perhaps you heard of the O.J. Simpson trial.
Brown
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 12,984
Re: Randi replies again
This display of sarcasm and exceptionally bad manners does not lend credibility to you. It makes you sound like an spoiled, immature hothead who doesn't have his head screwed on straight.
I am sure that you are not really like that at all, but unfortunately that is clearly the impression that you created.
Professionalism, courtesy, good spelling and grammar, and plain old decency go a long way toward being persuasive.
My, my, my, my, my.keithwellman said:
This display of sarcasm and exceptionally bad manners does not lend credibility to you. It makes you sound like an spoiled, immature hothead who doesn't have his head screwed on straight.
I am sure that you are not really like that at all, but unfortunately that is clearly the impression that you created.
Professionalism, courtesy, good spelling and grammar, and plain old decency go a long way toward being persuasive.