How does Randi get away with it?

[scoman]

I refer to his postings on topics such as his latest quips regarding Gary Schwartz (strange that scientific qualifications are suddenly worthless if they belong to someone that Randi doesn't agree with!).
Supposedly, randifans from around the world send him their findings, to which randi then goes on to elaborate and poke fun at, without having to trouble himself with tiny matters such as the truth.
If it's been sent by a viewer of "This Morning", it must be true!!! Ever heard of anecdotal evidence being invalid?! Maybe, just maybe their is more to the story than this site is prepared to print (there is if you do a bit of googling).

Another example from earlier this year involved the british program "Most Haunted". Again, the report of one of his 'readers' is enough basis to pull the programme to pieces. OK, the programme isn't scientifically valid, but at least I can say that based on seeing it myself, rather than relying on the musings of a 'reader'.
The more cynical amongst us could wonder whether these 'readers' are real people, or simply a handy way of publishing anything under the guise of a 'reader'.

This then leads onto the famous challenge. On a website, which is so evidently willing to dismiss anything possibly paranormal on the basis of a "This Morning" viewer, why should any potential claimant/applicant (can't quite decipher this legal terminology) expect an objective response from the JREF? If I were claiming to have a paranormal gift, I would rather have it investigated scientifically, rather than as a publicity gimmick for the guy dangling the carrot.

No offence has been intended by this post by the way. If there is anything disagreeable about it, remove it - I ain't a lawyer, just someone interested in voicing my own, possibly mis-informed opinion.

 

[no one in particular]

No offence has been intended by this post by the way. If there is anything disagreeable about it, remove it...

There was a time, not so long ago actually, when I could tell you that there was no chance that your post would be removed. Now, who knows?

 

[CurtC]

So... how does Randi get away with *what*?

As to your question about why one might have Randi set up a test procedure instead of, say, a university, the answer is: one million dollars. Randi offers it, a university doesn't.

 

[Peter Jenkins]

I refer to his postings on topics such as his latest quips regarding Gary Schwartz (strange that scientific qualifications are suddenly worthless if they belong to someone that Randi doesn't agree with!).

There's a lot of history between Randi and Schwartz. I think that colours any comments by Randi.

Also, I note that it is the viewer, Darryn van Vuuren who omits the 'Dr'. Randi actually gives schwartz his full title.

Supposedly, randifans from around the world send him their findings, to which randi then goes on to elaborate and poke fun at, without having to trouble himself with tiny matters such as the truth.

Are you suggesting that he doesnt do any checking at all? Simply form Randis dedication to critical thinking, I would suggest that he does do some checking........of course, if you have evidence to the contrary, please share.

If it's been sent by a viewer of "This Morning", it must be true!!! Ever heard of anecdotal evidence being invalid?! Maybe, just maybe their is more to the story than this site is prepared to print (there is if you do a bit of googling).

As a Brit myself, I can verify that 'Good Morning is ... shall we say...tolerant of woo woo claims. I didn't see that episode, but I am familiar with the story (see a precis of the British 'Daily Mail article at this site )

Another example from earlier this year involved the british program "Most Haunted". Again, the report of one of his 'readers' is enough basis to pull the programme to pieces. OK, the programme isn't scientifically valid, but at least I can say that based on seeing it myself, rather than relying on the musings of a 'reader'.
The more cynical amongst us could wonder whether these 'readers' are real people, or simply a handy way of publishing anything under the guise of a 'reader'.


Then where would he get information on British TV programs? Again, It's possible, but, IMO, unlikely. If you have evidence to the contrary, please show it.

This then leads onto the famous challenge. On a website, which is so evidently willing to dismiss anything possibly paranormal on the basis of a "This Morning" viewer, why should any potential claimant/applicant (can't quite decipher this legal terminology) expect an objective response from the JREF?

How do you mean, "Objective response"? The challenge is simple and clear. It is so simple, it gets up the nose of a lot of people who believe in paranormal claims.

If I were claiming to have a paranormal gift, I would rather have it investigated scientifically, rather than as a publicity gimmick for the guy dangling the carrot.

Me too, If I had such a gift, and believed in the paranormal, I'd turn down $1 million, plus all the added 'talk show' income, the research grants, the income from beguiled believers and the chance to publicly humiliate my nemesis. Randi.

No offence has been intended by this post by the way. If there is anything disagreeable about it, remove it - I ain't a lawyer, just someone interested in voicing my own, possibly mis-informed opinion.

No offence taken here, I just disagree with most of your post.
Peter

 

[An Infinite Ocean]

Supposedly, randifans from around the world send him their findings, to which randi then goes on to elaborate and poke fun at, without having to trouble himself with tiny matters such as the truth.
If it's been sent by a viewer of "This Morning", it must be true!!! Ever heard of anecdotal evidence being invalid?! Maybe, just maybe their is more to the story than this site is prepared to print (there is if you do a bit of googling).

Randi was sent video clips of the appropriate sections of 'This Morning'.

 

[scoman]

Hi Peter,

"There's a lot of history between Randi and Schwartz. I think that colours any comments by Randi. "
I am well aware of the history, and from what I can gather it stems from Randi's initial mockery and inaccurate summary of Schwartz' research.

"Also, I note that it is the viewer, Darryn van Vuuren who omits the 'Dr'. Randi actually gives schwartz his full title."
Peter, you forgot randis additional comment "And how could we ever forget Gary Schwartz? This is an academic who has abandoned reason to accept everything and anything offered him by scammers from John Edward to the gypsy down the street, just so long as he can set up a scenario that has the appropriate scientific atmosphere and trappings about which he can publish a "paper" that appears to suggest wonders"
As I said, and am correct in saying, Randi will mock any scientist, however accomplished if there is a conflict of views, and this is demonstrated here.

"Are you suggesting that he doesnt do any checking at all?"
No. However there is no evidence in this instance to say that any checking did take place.

"Simply form Randis dedication to critical thinking, I would suggest that he does do some checking........of course, if you have evidence to the contrary, please share."
Well, Randi cites his source as "Reader Darryn van Vuuren provides this account of a world-shaking revelation". There is no mention that he verified any part of it, if you have any evidence to the contrary, please share.

"As a Brit myself, I can verify that 'Good Morning is ... shall we say...tolerant of woo woo claims. I didn't see that episode, but I am familiar with the story (see a precis of the British 'Daily Mail article at this site )"
your a priori beliefs give you away. Simply ignoring a claim on the basis that it is 'woo-woo' will mean that you vould be throwing the baby out with the bath water. Anecdotal evidence appears prefectly acceptable to dismiss claims, yet appears to be ignored when it supports them.

"Then where would he get information on British TV programs? Again, It's possible, but, IMO, unlikely. If you have evidence to the contrary, please show it."
It would seem at least polite to verify the ramblings of his readers before using them as a basis of ridicule. Your last comment contradicts itself, by asking how else would randi get information on british TV programmes.

"How do you mean, "Objective response"? The challenge is simple and clear. It is so simple, it gets up the nose of a lot of people who believe in paranormal claims."
It's a simple concept. If I claimed a paranormal gift, an organisation evidently devoted to the ridicule of the paranormal and its proponents would not seem to the ideal venue to have it verified. An organisation with a financial interest in the results of it's challenge cannot be objective in my opinion. There is no escaping the fact that the $1000000 belongs to someone, someone I would imagine who would like to keep a hold of it.

"Me too, If I had such a gift, and believed in the paranormal, I'd turn down $1 million, plus all the added 'talk show' income, the research grants, the income from beguiled believers and the chance to publicly humiliate my nemesis. Randi."
I find it amazing (no pun intended!) that sceptics seem incapable of being sceptical about the challenge. Can you really not see any problems with the agreement?

"No offence taken here, I just disagree with most of your post.
Peter"
Good. It isn't my intention to libel or offend anyone. It is also good that you disagree with most of my post, true dis-believer syndrome seems as rife on this site as true believer syndrome on the woo-woos!

 

[scoman]

"Randi was sent video clips of the appropriate sections of 'This Morning'."
Was he? He didn't say so in the commentary. Perhaps if he had written the commentary from the perspective of himself as the viewer having seen the show, rather than a thrid part anecdote I would be more impressed. I never read in the commentary that he saw the footage himself. where did you get this information?

 

[scoman]

"So... how does Randi get away with *what*?"
Ridiculing on the basis of a 'reader'

 

[kittynh]

Well, I think you can email Mr.Randi and tell him your complaints. I think you have a good point that if he saw a tape of the show, he should mention that.

He doesn't "get away" with anything as long as people give him input.

I guess I wonder how someone like Lamar Keen's widow would do what she did considering the history of Mr.Keen. I guess if I feel anything it is extreme sadness.

 

[walthrup48]

An excerpt from your 'ramblings' that sticks out like a sore thumb:

"On a website, which is so evidently willing to dismiss anything possibly paranormal on the basis of a "This Morning" viewer, [...]"

I'd be grateful if you'd point out where in that particular segment of the commentary Randi dismisses "anything possibly paranormal." A priori, indeed.

"Can you really not see any problems with the [challenge] agreement?"
Oh, pleeeease enlighten us ......

"There is no escaping the fact that the $1000000 belongs to someone [...] I would imagine [...] would like to keep a hold of it."

........ actually, forget it.

Edited further:

"[...]maybe their is more to the story than this site is prepared to print (there is if you do a bit of googling)."

"[...] but at least I can say that based on seeing it myself, rather than relying on the musings of a 'reader'." Or the musings of Google?

"Ever heard of anecdotal evidence being invalid?!" No, but I've heard it incorrectly stated that all anecdotal evidence is invalid in any circumstance. Is this what you meant? I hope not.

"If I were claiming to have a paranormal gift, I would rather have it investigated scientifically [...]"
Well said! We want a controlled test that determines the powers are genuine and not some other factor which we've misinterpreted as a supernatural phenomenon. Heck, if we went to the JREF, we'd only be fobbed off with a controlled test that determines the powers are geniune and not some other factor which we've misinterpreted as a supernatural phenomenon. That fraud!

No offence has been intended by this post by the way.

 

[BillyJoe]

scoman,

Randi does not dismis claims out of hand. He is completely open minded about paranormal phenomena. It's just that he has never, in all his eighty years, come across a single example. He is so keen to be a witness to such an event, that he has offered a million dollars to anyone who can make it happen.

Okay, I don't believe that either.

Actually, he is so convinced that there cannot be such a thing as a supernatural event, that he is willing to risk (what risk?) a million dollars so that he can rub it into their faces again and again that they can't win it.

Okay, that's a bit strong as well (but only a bit).

The fact is that Randi is fed up with idiots like Gary Schwartz who couldn't recognise a scientific trial if it came up and bit him in his forked tail.


As for you, scoman, why don't you pull your own tail between your legs and and scamper out of here before I set my dogs on you.


No offence intended of course.

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[Ladewig]

It's a simple concept. If I claimed a paranormal gift, an organisation evidently devoted to the ridicule of the paranormal and its proponents would not seem to the ideal venue to have it verified.

What, then, is the ideal venue? One of the problems with having scientists examine paranormal claims is that they are not aware of all the tricks and sleight of hand moves used by mentalists and other stage performers. Professional illusionists see through Uri Geller's claims much more easily than professional physicists. Any testing that involves both scientists and magicians is more thorough than testing that involves only one of them.

 

[scoman]

Pardon me for having an opinion! I forgot that it was unacceptable to disagree with disbelievers (sceptic is certainly the wrong definition)

I could email Randi and voice my opinion privately, but surely the forum is also for debate. I doubt Randi will be backward in coming forward if he feels bothered by my posts, but of course he may not even see it.

"I'd be grateful if you'd point out where in that particular segment of the commentary Randi dismisses "anything possibly paranormal." A priori, indeed."
Randi says "I'll bet the "medium" told them that asking direct questions was just not done, that Montague's spirit just wanted to blather on and on about how happy he is in Never-Never Land"
Yes a priori indeed. Perhaps rather than betting with this negative bias, more research could be done to verify what the mediums did or didn't say.

"Can you really not see any problems with the [challenge] agreement?"
Oh, pleeeease enlighten us ......"
Er, I have done several posts on this on the relevant board, and certainly intend to develop this further. I take it that by your request of assistance, you cannot find a single ambiguous point in the agreement.

"There is no escaping the fact that the $1000000 belongs to someone [...] I would imagine [...] would like to keep a hold of it."
........ actually, forget it. "
Sorry, am I to take it that you believe the money doesn't belong to anyone with an interest in it? I realise that the JREF is always seeking patrons and benefactors and 'brights' to purchase flying pig merchandise, I just assumed that a million dollars might have been of passing interest. I can't say that I am aware of any serious scientific research which offers its subjects incredible prizes for single demonstrations.

Edited further:

"[...]maybe their is more to the story than this site is prepared to print (there is if you do a bit of googling)."
[...] but at least I can say that based on seeing it myself, rather than relying on the musings of a 'reader'." Or the musings of Google?"
As we are all obviously using the net to access this webpage, we are all capable of rudimentary googling. I would imagine that someone with an interest in physics for example would be able to find numerous webpages to of interest. My point is, that although bogus webpages are available amongst the genuine ones, folks in america might find something in relation to the story of intrest in lieu of not being able to watch "This Morning"

"Ever heard of anecdotal evidence being invalid?!" No, but I've heard it incorrectly stated that all anecdotal evidence is invalid in any circumstance. Is this what you meant? I hope not."
You obiousley didn't see the satire. I repeatedly hear that anecdotal evidence is invalid, especially when it suits. I certainly don't disregard anecdotal evidence, but I do judge each case individually.

"If I were claiming to have a paranormal gift, I would rather have it investigated scientifically [...]"
Well said! We want a controlled test that determines the powers are genuine and not some other factor which we've misinterpreted as a supernatural phenomenon. Heck, if we went to the JREF, we'd only be fobbed off with a controlled test that determines the powers are geniune and not some other factor which we've misinterpreted as a supernatural phenomenon. That fraud!"
I am willing to accept that there could be something paranormal (bet you didn't guess). I am also more than keen for psychics and mediums to be tested, as thoroughly as you like, as if their gift can be verified, it must surely be of benefit to them. I just feel that there is sufficient motive where the JREF challenge is concerned to it remaining un-won. On paranormal forums, newbies to the subject repeatedly bring up the challenge as topics for discussion, which demonstrates how effective the challenge is as a publicity gimmick. If the challenge is won, the game is over.

"No offence has been intended by this post by the way."
None taken. I've been debating this kind of thing elsewhere for ages and faced some rather hysterical folks in the process! It's nice to stay on topic for a change.

As for scientists not being able to spot the tricks alledgedly used by psychics, that idea is nonsense. Are we to assume that magicians are the only people capable of spotting charaltans? And if so, who is checking that the magician is on the level? It is the method which is important, hopefully a scientific method which can be repeated by anyone, anywhere. I think it is insulting to suggest that no scientist is capable of formulating a method of testing psychics which prevents trickery, or that they are so incompetant to observe fraudulent actions.

Think i've addressed all points directed at me, apart from the one regarding the dogs
If this debate drags on further, I might dispense with the cut and paste, as it's getting a little on the large side.

 

[davidhorman]

"Randi was sent video clips of the appropriate sections of 'This Morning'."
Was he?

I posted an AVI of the first interview and sent links to Randi, and he replied that for some reason he couldn't view it. After the second interview I uploaded AVIs and MP3s and sent him links to those as well, although he never replied to confirm he'd seen them.

So at the very least, he had access to the interviews.

David

 

[walthrup48]

"I'd be grateful if you'd point out where in that particular segment of the commentary Randi dismisses "anything possibly paranormal." A priori, indeed."
Randi says "I'll bet the "medium" told them that asking direct questions was just not done, that Montague's spirit just wanted to blather on and on about how happy he is in Never-Never Land"
Yes a priori indeed. Perhaps rather than betting with this negative bias, more research could be done to verify what the mediums did or didn't say.

Perhaps. But this quote doesn't support your original statement that Randi dismisses anything possibly paranormal in that segment. I'll move on, it's not an important point anyway ...

"Can you really not see any problems with the [challenge] agreement?"
Oh, pleeeease enlighten us ......"
Er, I have done several posts on this on the relevant board, and certainly intend to develop this further. I take it that by your request of assistance, you cannot find a single ambiguous point in the agreement.

Ok, I was a little too sharp with this remark. The trick is not to find ambiguous points in the agreement but to find ambiguous points that haven't already been clarified by the JREF and aren't just applied pedanticity or semantic jiggery-pokery. That said, it's a fool's errand anyway. The most prominent faults, I think most would agree, lie not in the rules themselves but how they've been applied and the resulting effect on the integrity of the testing. Discussion over these points lies in the archives of the MDC forum. But if it floats yer boat, develop away.

"There is no escaping the fact that the $1000000 belongs to someone [...] I would imagine [...] would like to keep a hold of it."
........ actually, forget it. "
Sorry, am I to take it that you believe the money doesn't belong to anyone with an interest in it? I realise that the JREF is always seeking patrons and benefactors and 'brights' to purchase flying pig merchandise, I just assumed that a million dollars might have been of passing interest. I can't say that I am aware of any serious scientific research which offers its subjects incredible prizes for single demonstrations.

I think these shadowy figures whose malevolent intentions corrupt the foundation need to get their act together and instruct Randi to stop proclaiming
- an independent, third party can check/help create the protocols.
- an independent, third party can implement the testing.
- an additional independent party can act in a supervisory capacity and oversee the whole procedure.
Plus, they need to get rid of that legal stipulation that the prize be awarded if the testing is completed successfully.

And I suspect that the uniqueness of the prize has something to do with the gulf between the vast range and extravagance of the claims made regarding psi powers and the moribund reality reflected in the findings of serious research.

Edited further:

"Ever heard of anecdotal evidence being invalid?!" No, but I've heard it incorrectly stated that all anecdotal evidence is invalid in any circumstance. Is this what you meant? I hope not."
You obiousley didn't see the satire. I repeatedly hear that anecdotal evidence is invalid, especially when it suits. I certainly don't disregard anecdotal evidence, but I do judge each case individually.

No, I'll admit - the satire passed me by completely.

"If I were claiming to have a paranormal gift, I would rather have it investigated scientifically [...]"
Well said! We want a controlled test that determines the powers are genuine and not some other factor which we've misinterpreted as a supernatural phenomenon. Heck, if we went to the JREF, we'd only be fobbed off with a controlled test that determines the powers are geniune and not some other factor which we've misinterpreted as a supernatural phenomenon. That fraud!"
I am willing to accept that there could be something paranormal (bet you didn't guess). I am also more than keen for psychics and mediums to be tested, as thoroughly as you like, as if their gift can be verified, it must surely be of benefit to them. I just feel that there is sufficient motive where the JREF challenge is concerned to it remaining un-won. On paranormal forums, newbies to the subject repeatedly bring up the challenge as topics for discussion, which demonstrates how effective the challenge is as a publicity gimmick. If the challenge is won, the game is over.

We'll have to agree to disagree over 'sufficient motive'. Game over if won? How so? You think all the skeptics are gonna throw up their arms in defeat and take up crochet ? One claim is demonstrated and no matter what the mechanics behind it, there'll still be a multitude of crackpottery filling the airwaves, waiting for someone to declare that that their Emperors are looking a little bare. The JREF would continue and I wouldn't at all be surprised to see a challenge Mk 2 swiftly accumulated (3 months for $500,000 the first time around, remember) - if mystery donor X didn't gift another substantial sum in the mean time.

As for scientists not being able to spot the tricks alledgedly used by psychics, that idea is nonsense.

History proves you wrong, I'm afraid.

Are we to assume that magicians are the only people capable of spotting charaltans?

No, of course not. I don't remember this ever being stated as the case.

And if so, who is checking that the magician is on the level? It is the method which is important, hopefully a scientific method which can be repeated by anyone, anywhere. I think it is insulting to suggest that no scientist is capable of formulating a method of testing psychics which prevents trickery, or that they are so incompetant to observe fraudulent actions.

Insulting it certainly is and I'm sure Randi would agree with you and I on that point too. It's never been his stance, as far as I'm aware.

 

[BillyJoe]

Think i've addressed all points directed at me, apart from the one regarding the dogs

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[scoman]

"The trick is not to find ambiguous points in the agreement but to find ambiguous points that haven't already been clarified by the JREF and aren't just applied pedanticity or semantic jiggery-pokery."
Hmmm. In my view, that is even more suspicious. To clarify ambiguous points on the website, but not the agreement itself is decidedly dodgy. Surely the simplest thing to do would be clarify the agreement so that further discussion and doubt is eliminated.
The applicant agrees to the application only, not to items that may or may not appear on the website.

We will have to differ on the motive issue. In my opinion it is undesirable to have the body conducting the challenge facing a $1000000 loss if it is won. Perhaps it's just me who finds the idea crazy.
I would much rather prolonged research were done by scientists. My thoughts return to the CSICOP shambles where sceptics were entrusted to view and report their findings. I think we are aware of how that one and only investigation went!

 

[Rob Lister]

[BI would much rather prolonged research were done by scientists.[/B]

THAT option is also available to any paranomalist, is it not? After they pass that test, they can always apply for the RandiAward, and be assured of success*.





*assuming the scientists are just that, assuming there was no trickery on the part of either party, assuming any paranormalist with even half a brain would trade private knowledge of their talent for a mere million bucks.

 

[Kopji]

The question I keep asking myself is not how Randi gets away with it, but how Gary Schwartz gets away with it. At least Randi's money is his own to do with as he wants.

My tax dollars (as an Arizonan) help support and fund Schwartz's "scientific" activities, and I have no say about it.
http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/97/102/01_3.html

The school he is a paid staff member of, the University of Arizona, is part of the state school system. Seven years seems long enough, so let's see some of that data Gary.

UofA's two sister schools "in the news" seem more normal. ASU is a big part of the Saturn Cassini-Huygens mission, and NAU is involved in bio-chemical research and teacher training. Uof A does some actual science too, but their claim to media fame is a minor researcher in a minor department. SHAME.

 

[davefoc]

We will have to differ on the motive issue. In my opinion it is undesirable to have the body conducting the challenge facing a $1000000 loss if it is won. Perhaps it's just me who finds the idea crazy.

Scoman, I think to some degree the Randi prize meets your criteria. The money was actually put up by a third party and the Randi organization is in charge of organizing the tests for the prize. In addition, the actual determination of whether to award the prize or not is removed from Randi's organization because of Randi's insistance that the test result in an unambiguous conclusion. i.e. Pass equals you get the money, fail equals you don't and to the degree possible that foresight can eliminate it a gray area result of maybe is not possible.

It might be interesting to hear how you would set up an organization to test paranormal claims. From my perspective it is hard to see how the Randi organization could do it in any better a way given the resources of the organization.

Another thing that you might not be aware of is that the Randi prize is only one of many such prizes in the world. If a person who believes that he has a paranormal power doesn't like or trust the Randi organization for whatever reason he can certainly apply to one of these other organizations. In a list published in one of Randi's columns the total prize money from these various organizations totalled over two million dollars.

I would much rather prolonged research were done by scientists.

Which "scientists" would you choose to do your research? From my perspective there have been many scientists doing this kind of research. They have produced a lot of reports, many of these reports have claimed evidence of a paranormal result. Some of these reports have clearly been made by scientists who perhaps unknowingly reported results that have been shown to have been caused by experimental error or outright fraud. Many of the positive results are small or ambiguous and have not been successfully replicated IMHO. So how would you propose to sort through these results and separate truth from fiction? One easily applied method to separate the truth from fiction in these reports is to look at them and see if they make a claim that could be tested by the Randi organization. If they do and they haven't applied to take the Randi test or a similar one it is a strong piece of evidence that the researchers are not willing to attempt to repeat their tests in a fraud resistant manner. And given this reluctance it is reasonable to discount the possibility that actual evidence of the paranormal has been found.

My thoughts return to the CSICOP shambles where sceptics were entrusted to view and report their findings. I think we are aware of how that one and only investigation went!

Actually, I'm not quite sure of what you were referring to here. Could you provide a more specific reference for those of us out of the loop?