Michael Prescott: Ex-skeptic hates Randi

[Rodney]

Is that impossible? Books don't have errata?

To my knowledge, no errata was issued for the 1980 edition of "Flim-Flam." Further, Randi's statement that "I've never even set foot on the sacred grounds of SRI" also appears in the 1982 edition. And, to my knowledge, no errata was issued for that edition either. But the main point here is that, when Prescott wondered on-line how Randi obtained his detailed knowledge of the SRI testing room when he had "never set foot on the sacred grounds of SRI," Randi chastised Prescott for arriving at such a conclusion. Prescott then cited the exact page of "Flim-Flam" that states that Randi had "never set foot on the sacred grounds of SRI." Randi still didn't explictly acknowledge the error, but mystifyingly responded: "Wasn't able to find that!"

So, the bottom line is that "Flim-Flam" contains a misstatement that understandably led Prescott to think that Randi had never been to SRI. Randi's reaction, however, was to chastize Prescott, rather than apologizing for, or even directly acknowledging, the misstatement.

 

[drfrank]

To my knowledge, no errata was issued for the 1980 edition of "Flim-Flam." Further, Randi's statement that "I've never even set foot on the sacred grounds of SRI" also appears in the 1982 edition. And, to my knowledge, no errata was issued for that edition either. But the main point here is that, when Prescott wondered on-line how Randi obtained his detailed knowledge of the SRI testing room when he had "never set foot on the sacred grounds of SRI," Randi chastised Prescott for arriving at such a conclusion. Prescott then cited the exact page of "Flim-Flam" that states that Randi had "never set foot on the sacred grounds of SRI." Randi still didn't explictly acknowledge the error, but mystifyingly responded: "Wasn't able to find that!"

So, the bottom line is that "Flim-Flam" contains a misstatement that understandably led Prescott to think that Randi had never been to SRI. Randi's reaction, however, was to chastize Prescott, rather than apologizing for, or even directly acknowledging, the misstatement.

The statement is wrong: Randi has obviously been to SRI. Perhaps he didn't acknowledge the error because The Devil told him not, or because he can be pretty stubborn, or Pressman is severely misrepresenting him, but it doesn't change the reality of what happened.

I'd certainly be interesting in hearing the opinion of Dr Hebard without the woo filter. I've seen too many instances where ID proponents have claimed things like "Richard Dawkins basically agrees with me on design" to take Pressman's word on this.

 

[Nucular]

I'd certainly be interesting in hearing the opinion of Dr Hebard without the woo filter. I've seen too many instances where ID proponents have claimed things like "Richard Dawkins basically agrees with me on design" to take Pressman's word on this.

From wherever I linked to above, part of Randi's response:

When I contacted Dr. Arthur F. Hebard originally, he was unaware of most other work that was being done in parapsychology, until I informed him. He became "interested in parapsychology" as a result of the fiasco he saw presented by Targ and Puthoff.

Just today (September 24, 2003), he told me, "As far as my experience was concerned [with the Swann matter] there was no effect produced by him that could not be explained by ordinary means." He recalls the event well, and he also recalls that he told Scott Rogo that when they simply held a hand over
the helium vent of the machine, the same effect was produced that Swann showed – and – that any use of the helium source by another facility in the building, produced the same effect! "There were unusual excursions of the data recorder," he told me – again! – "but nothing that did not have ordinary explanations." Note that Rogo did NOT report this! Hebard says that Rogo had "selective memory" of their discussion, and tried to get him to say things that Hebard just did not hold as opinions.

Hebard also repeated to me that he agrees with everything I wrote about the matter in Flim-Flam. And he denies that he ever made the "signed statement" that Rogo says he made.

 

[drfrank]

From wherever I linked to above, part of Randi's response:

Oops, laziness on my part there

Thanks Nucular

 

[J. Arthur Hastur]

I think somebody got to Michael Prescott's pocketbook.

 

[Cueshark]

Oh my god.

He completely overlooked the fact that Randi insists on a mutually agreed test protocol that simply uses controls....

That post of his on the yellow bamboo incident severely lacked research.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I'm sure research into the truth never really occurs to people like Prescott. Guys like this do not like facts because they threaten the beliefs.

 

[Rodney]

I'm sure research into the truth never really occurs to people like Prescott. Guys like this do not like facts because they threaten the beliefs.

Speaking of facts, did Randi ever set the record straight about setting foot on the grounds of SRI? See posts #11 and #21 on this thread.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Oh about the fact that Randi has been to SRI? Why do you believers insist on dwelling on such minuscule things? The fact is, hotrod, psychic powers do not exist, there are no gods, and pixies are fictional.

 

[Rodney]

Oh about the fact that Randi has been to SRI? Why do you believers insist on dwelling on such minuscule things?

Because whenever Randi catches a believer in a contradiction or misstatement, or even when the believer cannot document a claim, Randi accuses the believer of being a liar. Here, however, Randi is guilty of the contradiction or misstatement. So, is it okay for believers to call Randi a liar?

The fact is, hotrod, psychic powers do not exist, there are no gods, and pixies are fictional.

Darn, I was just about to publish my new book, "Why I Believe in Psychic Powers, Gods, and Pixies", but there's no point now that you have conclusively proven that they do not exist.

 

[This is The End]

"Wasn't able to find that!" to me reads as:

"I wasn't able to find that when I first checked" which implies he found it now.

not

"I wasn't able to find that still!" which implies he hasn't found it still....

Especially in light of the third sentance. The mistake is probably the "but" that begins the second sentance should be an "and".

Wasn't able to find that'! But the scale diagrams I ran in F-F were the direct results of my visit there. I believe it should have read, 'They were asking me, and at that time I'd not set foot on the sacred grounds of SRI.

bold added

 

[cj.23]

Bah, about to go out, and only popped in for a second, but what makes you think he hates Randi? He disagrees with Randi, Randi replied courteously enough, Prescott conceded he was wrong on several issues, and they are engaging in what appears ot be a fairly constructive dialogue?

Also why do you characterise Prescott as an ex-sceptic? He is no longer a fully fledged sceptic or atheist or rationalist he says - well the middle one I can understand, but the other two seem bizarre. He is still demonstrating rational and sceptical critique.

I think he might have adopted a less belligerent tone, and perhaps engages in a little more fact checking, but critiquing Randi, Sagan, Shermer and Gardner is what makes scepticism a valid and vital process, not an ideological cult. We should really welcome critical thinking, and the chance to discuss and clarify.

James Randi is not infallible, and he would be the first to admit I'm sure. He
often posts corrections in his reports, and that is what makes him important - he acknowledges his errors, the provisional nature of his conclusions, and is happy to amend if new evidence comes along. He is NOT as so many people assert a dogmatic naysayer, but an honest enquirer after truth. I'm a Christian who holds to some "paranormal" beliefs and work in parapsychology - but I can see the integrity of Randi clearly enough, even if we disagree on some issues.

I have only briefly glanced over the links, and have no great interest in Geller and his shenanigans, but this seems a very healthy and reasonable discussion. Good luck to both of them, and let's see more critiquing! Peer review is valuable.

cj x

 

[Rodney]

"Wasn't able to find that!" to me reads as:

"I wasn't able to find that when I first checked" which implies he found it now.

not

"I wasn't able to find that still!" which implies he hasn't found it still....

Especially in light of the third sentance. The mistake is probably the "but" that begins the second sentance should be an "and".

Here is how I would handled this if I were the author of Flim-Flam, and had been to SRI:

Prescott: "On the matter of the disputed quote from Flim-Flam, indicating that Randi 'never even set foot' inside the SRI facility ... The quote is accurate. Here it is in full context: 'Shortly thereafter, I received a communication from a member of a second special committee within SRI charged with looking into the Targ and Puthoff shenanigans (the first 'Psychic Research Review Committee' had found everything perfectly kosher, it seems), asking me for for details about my investigations of the situation there. They were asking me . . . and I've never even set foot on the sacred grounds of SRI.'"

"The quote is on p. 142 . . ."

Me: "You're right. Sorry for the error. However, contrary to the book, I have been to SRI. The sentence should have read, 'They were asking me, and at that time I'd never even set foot on the sacred grounds of SRI.'"

 

[thaiboxerken]

Because whenever Randi catches a believer in a contradiction or misstatement, or even when the believer cannot document a claim, Randi accuses the believer of being a liar. Here, however, Randi is guilty of the contradiction or misstatement. So, is it okay for believers to call Randi a liar?

Does he really? I seem to recall that he lets the reader decide. You and people like Prescott want to make a big deal out of nothing. The fact is that you people have not even come close to discrediting the JREF or it's challenge.

Darn, I was just about to publish my new book, "Why I Believe in Psychic Powers, Gods, and Pixies", but there's no point now that you have conclusively proven that they do not exist.

Good, at least you've finally decided to come to your senses.