Michael Prescott's criticism of Randi

[kookbreaker]

In a recent column defending himself from the onslaught of one 'Keen', Randi opponent referenced and article written by one Michael Prescott that he claims is devastating in its fault finding.

That article is here.

Michael makes several comments about Flim Flam mostly and his point might be good, had his sources not been fairly unreliable. Rogo's claim that the "hole" in the SRI booth was at floor level is easily parried by photo's of Randi at SRI investigating the hole. These photo were in the August 2nd commentary of 2002. Most of Rogo's other claims are likely to be wrong as well.

Other complaints turn out to be unconfirmed, and Prescott is a decent enough man to admit that fact. I wrote an email to Prescott and point out a couple more errors (in regards to the Pressman film claims). He was decent enough to consider these things.

I can't say I like the mans conclusiosn, or how he got to them, but it is intersting to see his willing to listen to critcism of his criticism. He even posts Randi's response (which does noit cover all points, sadly) without additional commentary.

Thoughts?

 

[kookbreaker]

115 reads and no-one has anything to say?

Bah!

 

[arcticpenguin]

Well I read it. Prescott wasn't present for any of the original events. He relies on comments of others.

Example: There is a contention about what Hebard said. Does Prescott interview Hebard himself? No, instead he finds what someone else (Rogo) has written about it and passes that on instead. He passes on a claim by someone else (Rogo again) that Hebard signed a statement about the matter. Prescott has not seen this statement.

The whole article proceeds like that, with Prescott passing on criticisms made by others.

 

[gnome]

Nothing to say except when I first saw the title I thought it was Michael Wincott...

Though I have no idea why he'd be ticked at Randi.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Here are my thoughts:

..., dedicating to disproving any and all claims of what he considers pseudoscience.

I'm not convinced at all that disproving is his goal, but rather testing the claims of others and seeing if there is anything to them.

Randi, by contrast, has no scientific training.

Randi seems to have the principles of science understood pretty well though. You don't get worldwide acclaim, an honary doctorate, and awards for being ignorant of such things.

Thus when Randi alleges that "hundreds of [failed] experiments that were done by SRI ... were never reported," we must take the statement on faith, as it is unsupported by any documentation.

Well, Randi could be simply reporting on what the SRI insiders or others said to him.

Rogo found, however, that the hole "is three-and-a-quarter inches [wide] and extends through a twelve-and-a-half inch wall. This scopes your vision and severely limits what you can see through it.

If the hole was 2 inches, 1 inch, or half an inch wide it is a major problem. Visuals, sounds, possible sensory leakage can be obtained thanks to a hole in the wall. It is a hole, right there in a wall near where supposedly controlled testing is going on. Why would you do a tightly controlled experiment with a hole in the wall?

(The viewing radius is only about 20°, and the targets for the Geller experiments were hung on a different wall completely.)*

One could still think of ways to see more of the room fairly easily. But that is besides a point. There shouldn't be any viewing radius because there shouldn't be a hole in the wall near where testing is going on.

I saw him as closed-minded and supercilious, but I also assumed he was sincere and, by his own lights, honest.

How is it close-minded to critically examine the far-fetched claims of others and see if there is anything of substance to them?

 

[kookbreaker]

*sigh*

Well, the man was being reasonable, but then just sent me an email accusing Randi of plagiarism, claiming he effectively copied this article for hte first section of his 9/5/03 commentary..

Personally, I don't see it. But I'm not a good judge of these things. This is hefty acusation, and I have my doubts that Randi wrote this the night before 9/5/03.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

*sigh*

Well, the man was being reasonable, but then just sent me an email accusing Randi of plagiarism, claiming he effectively copied this article for hte first section of his 9/5/03 commentary..

Personally, I don't see it. But I'm not a good judge of these things. This is hefty acusation, and I have my doubts that Randi wrote this the night before 9/5/03.

I see at least one statement that is almost word for word, but I wonder where Dalton ( the author of the article ) got his material..

He seems to be quoting and paraphrasing Benveniste, but does not mention an interview or source...

 

[kookbreaker]

I see at least one statement that is almost word for word, but I wonder where Dalton ( the author of the article ) got his material..

He seems to be quoting and paraphrasing Benveniste, but does not mention an interview or source...

That's what I couldn't figure out. Seems that the Wall Street Journal might be the source, but I couldn't find an article online to compare it with.

 

[tracer]

Nothing to say except when I first saw the title I thought it was Michael Wincott...

Though I have no idea why he'd be ticked at Randi.

Easy! Wincott was in The Crow, which was all about dead people coming back to life. And here Randi is denouncing John Edwards.

 

[jj]

115 reads and no-one has anything to say?

Bah!

Hearsay.

Bah! indeed.