Mr. Monatgue Keen
Setting aside the whole issue of how Mr. Keen’s comments came to this board, the question that needs answering is, “Do his lengthy comments add up to anything?” Let’s take a look…
”First, some clarifying points about the programme in which we both appeared, and the reason for my protest, which Randi ignores.”
I didn’t see the program (and, living in the US – I probably never will) so I will not comment very much on this lengthy segment. I do wish to call attention to these parts however;
”Even more disconcerting for Randi’s scepticism was the enthusiastic endorsement by the chieftains of Philadelphia police of Charles’ psychic detective work. Unless they are all stupid, deluded, incompetent, naïve and ineffective liars, we must assume that Charles has actually helped them trace missing bodies or persons.”
Why does Mr. Keen think this so-called endorsement is so disconcerting? We know how physics claim all the time that they assist police (Sylvia Brown for instance), but they VERY often offer no corroboration. Can anyone confirm that there were “Philadelphia police “chieftains” on this show and they endorsed Charles’ psychic detective work? And, if so, did they elaborate on exactly how Charles was instrumental in solving cases? I must state that without this corroboration/information, Mr. Keen is simply quoting hearsay, and this issue shouldn’t disconcert Randi at all.
“…a genuine platform medium rarely has any opportunity to know anything about the composition of his audience; and only the foolish give mediums in private sittings information that can be fed back to them. It would be easy enough for Randi or some less well-recognised person to discover this for himself simply by attending readings given by prominent platform psychics, or in spiritualist churches.
.”
And Mr. Keen knows these things to be true how? On the other hand, we have testimony from participants in John Edward theater shows stating that Edward’s staff is very much in evidence before the show -milling about with the audience. And, we have transcript after transcript from Larry King live that demonstrates how the “foolish” give mediums information that is fed back to them. How come Mr. Keen is somehow unaware of this?
Now to the heart of the matter – Randi’s alleged flawed approach to psychic phenomena;
“In the Larry King Live show on USA television on April 3rd, 2001, after Ed Woods talked about his ghosts, Randi said “I think that may be the $1 million prize that we offer here at the James Randi Educational Foundation might be his… I think I’d better take a trip out to Washington.” This implies, however jocularly, that a haunted house might qualify, or may be the man who introduces a ghost who agrees to all the Randi rules.”
I read the transcript and it was a joke – Mr. Keen dwells on trivialities here.
“We are dealing with a mysterious faculty that does not subscribe to the normal rules governing the senses, cannot be turned on and off to order, and which manifests itself in all manner of odd ways and unpredictable occasions.”
How convenient for the paranormal practitioner! And, this is precisely Randi’s point Mr. Keen! If you can’t reliably turn it on/turn it off, then it can’t be measured, the applicants will never pass a test, Randi will never award his prize – and you can never say with certainty that these phenomenon actually exist. Why are you going on so about “evidence” if you really believe in this statement. Really, this sort of self-contradictory drivel should be the official credophile manifesto.
“If the offer were a genuine attempt to discover the truth, then it ought to apply to anyone who can provide evidence with adequate records, oral and written, from several or more witnesses or participants, backed up by photographic records.”
Who decides what evidence is adequate Mr. Keen, you? Randi asks that these applicants be specific about what they can do and demonstrate their talents under controlled conditions. And, that these conditions be agreed to, in advance, by the party tested. It’s just that simple. Why don’t you get it?
”The same arguments have to be adduced in all the twenty cases which I have challenged him to explain. This is Randi at his most evasive. He maintains that the authors of these “miracles” are dead or unreachable, and we have no indication that any of the cases are factual. He then conveniently diverts to other cases where fraud was likely or proved, in the same way that one could argue that, since some banknotes have been faked, all banknotes must be fakes.”
What are these 20 cases Mr. Keen, and what, specifically, is the evidence for them?
” Could it be that the reputation for deception which Randi has built up over thirty years accounts for the dearth of applicants?”
Supposition and an ad hom Mr. Keen – exactly the things you accuse Randi of. How do you know there is a “dearth of applicants”?
“If Randi is so convinced of Edwards’ fraudulence, let him offer a cold reading explanation of the Crossing Over extracts Michael Prescott has reproduced on his website; and if he resorts to the fraudulent charge that Edwards plays the same tricks with his audience as Randi did in the Ultimate Challenge programme.”
Michael Prescott’s essay on John Edward is simply a collection of Edward’s “greatest hits” as compiled by Mr. Prescott. There is neither real context offered here nor any stats on just how many shows were watched to compile these special hits. Mr. Prescott goes through a laundry list of skeptical objections/explanations, and rejects them all stating that, “this [Edward hits] goes beyond good guesswork”. But, as in ALL Edward readings, one is struck by the all the questions he asks. If he is really talking to the dead shouldn’t he just know?
Oh wait, I forgot, “We are dealing with a mysterious faculty that does not subscribe to the normal rules governing the senses, cannot be turned on and off to order, and which manifests itself in all manner of odd ways and unpredictable occasions.”
“I urge him to read my brief account of a skeptical check on the Crossing Over programme which I have written for the forthcoming edition of the SPR’s Paranormal Review.”
Mr. Keen, I for one look forward to your forthcoming article and ask that you post it here so we all my view it.
Finally, Keen’s opening statement;
” Randi’s…denunciation of my challenge to him, arising from his performance and claims on “The Ultimate Psychic Challenge”, illustrates almost all the wiles of the practised skeptic, plus ample derision and abuse: evasion of the main issues; obsessive concentration on minor or unimportant matters in order to divert attention from the major issues; contemptuous dismissal of evidence inconsistent with his conviction that all evidence for the paranormal is bunk, and all who contend otherwise are deluded fools”
…has a pot, kettle, black flavor, as HIS denunciation of Randi engages in the exact same tactics – from a practiced credophile – that Randi is accused of.
[Please note that I do not comment on Mr. Keen’s anecdotes in any detail, as I was not present and don’t have the information at my disposal to effectively judge the accuracy of his description of these events.]
Link to LKL transcripts;
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/lkl.html
Link to Michael Prescott essays;
http://www.michaelprescott.freeservers.com/#K
