JimTheBrit said:
What are these charges exactly?
Ok, I have the issue in front of me.
FORTEAN TIMES Issue #190, Jan 2005
Article: "Unleashed" (pp 38-44)
Authors: Bob Rickard, adapting from "Unleashed!" by William Roll and Valerie Storey.
(The original piece is written in the first-person, that person being William Roll.)
I will use the term "Point Of Contention" for those elements of the article which struck me as being against Randi.
POC 1 - Randi's Arrival & Purpose (Page 40)
Randi is presented as some kind of "hit man" dispatched by CSICOP to deal with Resch. CSICOP itself is described a group which "specialised in debunking", which to my knowledge is not accurate.
As Randi himself often points out, skepticism and debunking are not the same. Generally speaking, debunkers come into a situation with a conclusion in mind (name, that it's not what it's claimed to be) whereas skeptics do not take an advocacy position.
Debunkers are more like police detectives looking for clues to gather info on a crime; that a crime has been committed is taken as a given.
Now, as it happens, skeptics often wind up "debunking," but it bears repeating that they ARE prepared to render a positive verdict if the evidence bears one out.
POC 2 - Randi Refused Access (Pages 40-41)
Roll recalls that Joan Resch (Tina's mother) forbade Randi from entering the house because his "showmanship" had "offended" her. She was willing to let others in, but not Randi. This is accompanied by a sidebar newspaper clilpping of the confrontation.
Roll takes Joan's side and presents her wounded feelings as genuine, expressing "surprise" that two scientists accompanying Randi wouldn't go ahead without him.
What Roll leaves unsaid is - to me - the likeliest reason WHY Randi was singled out for exclusion: he knows what to look for. He was the one person there
whose very expertise was deception and counter-deception, the person whom it would be the hardest to fool.
POC 3 - PA Panel Talk (Page 41)
Roll accuses Randi of "ignoring" the written reports of Resch's TK from witnesses when giving his presentation at a panel discussion of the Parapsychological Association in August, 1984.
One of these 'ignored' peoples was Fred Shannon, described as the only witness in attendance at the panel.
(Note, btw, the implicit endorsement of Resch's TK through the term WITNESS. How does one 'witness' something that never happened?)
Randi's talk centered on a selection of Shannon's photos, the article says, and came to the conclusion that Resch was faking it.
Roll presents Randi's words as "distressing" and an "attack" on Shannon's "intelligence and ability to observe what was happening right in front of him"
Shannon was "treated like a fool," the article says.
More on Mr Shannon's observational prowess shortly.
POC 4 - Randi's Dishonesty (Page 41)
Covering Randi's paper for Skeptical Inquirer the following spring (regarding the Resch TK case) Roll point-blank accuses Randi of misrepresenting key events - calling Randi "as master of sleight of words as well as of hand."
Randi, Roll claims, misrepresented his (that is, Roll's) location, words and actions - taking special offense at a crack Randi made about his eyeglasses!
Now, I wasn't there; Randi was. Therefore these matters of misrepresentation (if that's what it is) should be addressed by Randi himself.
POC 5 - Photo Phun (Page 42)
Randi is also taken to ask for his treatment of the now-famous Flying Phone picture (reproduced on page 40).
By the author's admission, there were two people present for this TK display; reporter Mike Harden and Fred Shannon. Fred, the one with the camera, wasn't looking.
Go back and read that again. Fred Shannon "had discovered that the only way to catch the telephone in flight was to take his camera down and look away; he would then snap a picture whenever he caught a glimpse of movement."
So the only person there with the means to objectively document this event was deliberately NOT doing so - and yet Roll has a problem with
Randi's conduct.
POC 6 - Dismissal of Witnesses (Page 42)
The article complains that Randi "dismissed" the accounts of PK happenings given by local electrician (and "family friend...." hmmm) Bruce Claggett.
Not having read Randi's SI report, I don't know how dismissive it was towards Claggett. However, none of this changes the fact that Claggett is yet another person claiming to have seen something which, if true, would rock the sciences of physics and neurology to their foundations.
These PK witness testimonies have interesting things in common. Whether Roll, Harden or Claggett, each person was alone (or the only one looking), each event was irreproducible and there is no objective record for any of them. Even the most famous photo, the Flying Phone, is useless since the camera operator only snapped the picture after seeing it in flight from the corner of his eye.
POC 7 - Caught Red-Handed By Randi (Page 42)
'Amazing'ly, Randi is even taken to task for catching Tina in a clumsy trick involving pulling over a lamp on the day reporters were at the house. Roll admits it was a trick, but insists that the other events - you know, the ones he and others "witnessed" - were of a whole different type.
POC 8 - Circumstances & Conclusion (Page 42)
Roll writes:
"Above all, Randi failed to realize that the occurrences took place under informal circumstances in a private home, not in a laboratory."
I hardly think someone as accustomed to these investigations as Randi is would "fail to realize" such a thing. In fact, I'd bet that's exactly why he and two scientists with him were so insistent that he be allowed to check out Resch's home.
As for "informal circumstances," is that some kind of code for
total lack of test protocols or controls?
So was Randi supposed to be LESS skeptical in such an environment...?
Roll writes:
"He went on to claim that the occurrences around Tina, if genuine, would amount to 'a repeal of the basic laws of physics.'"
Um... yes, it would.
Roll writes:
"Physics does not say that objects cannot be affected without tangible contact. The Moon revolves around the Earth and magnets attract pieces of iron without visible contact."
I will say only this: notice how Roll has to switch TANGIBLE for VISIBLE, since even his own two examples don't support his case.
Roll concludes:
"Recurrent spontaneous psychokenesis requires an extension of the laws of physics, not their repeal as Randi imagines."
I don't think Randi is the one
imagining things here.
That's the end of the Randi-relevent section of the article.
