Randi Gets Rude...

[Skeptical Greg]

Randi Gets Rude...

The letter you linked to doesn't seem rude to me.

I have heard that Randi can be abrasive sometimes.

This doesn't seem to lend any credibility to a claim that someone could continue to live in the world as we know it, consuming nothing but water.

I certainly agree with Randi, that anyone making such a claim is a liar.

 

[ceo_esq]

Firstly: Was the letter proven to be a fake? It's printed on pre-printed JREF stationary, and that combined with a contrast increase on the black ink would account for the clarity.

Also, the top third of the letter appears to show ink-impressions from being folded and pressed together- these impressions seem consistent with the content, but it's hard to tell.

I agree about the ink impressions being apparently consistent with the printed message, although perhaps this is also subject to fakery.

On the other hand, the signature, which is the only legible part of the letter that runs across a fold in the paper, looks phoney. The contours of the signature don't seem to be affected by the crease -- or do my eyes deceive me?

If it's responsibility we're talking about here, a public debunking of such a potentially dangerous belief would be of far more valuable public service than a dismissal of spoon-bending.

I think the point is that doing anything that might plant the seed in someone's mind that an experiment in self-starvation could lead to a million dollar prize, would be irresponsible.

The belief that one can survive indefinitely on water alone is potentially dangerous, but its extreme and obvious potential for danger is part of what makes it such a small actual danger. Under ordinary circumstances, the risk that such a counterintuitive and ultrahazardous belief will spread is already so small that it will not be appreciably reduced by a public debunking. Not much of a public service, finally.

However, let's assume JREF accepts this guy as a candidate for the Challenge and debunks his claim. Inevitably there will be some members of the public who will not remember that it was debunked so much as they will (mis)remember that the claimant had one foot in the door to the JREF prize vault. Some will think, "That guy blew it, but for a million bucks I might succeed where he failed." Even if such people don't actually believe they have paranormal abilities, they might be encouraged to try to fool JREF, with potentially harmful consequences.

This is why the Guinness Book of World Records has certain records for which it will no longer entertain challenges - not that the records couldn't necessarily be safely challenged or broken under proper testing conditions, but simply because knowing Guinness won't even answer e-mails about them will deter some jackasses from hurting themselves.

 

[CFLarsen]

This is why the Guinness Book of World Records has certain records for which it will no longer entertain challenges - not that the records couldn't necessarily be safely challenged or broken under proper testing conditions, but simply because knowing Guinness won't even answer e-mails about them will deter some jackasses from hurting themselves.

Exactly. I think we need to keep sane here.

Even though I will seek evidence of paranormal phenomena wherever it may be, I would still be a wee bit apprehensive when it came to feats that could endanger anyone.

Not smart. We've seen enough suffering, there's no need to increase it.

 

[compjan]

Assuming the letter's genuine, I would agree that it is overly rude. However, I don't blame Randi for dismissing the claim summarily. He has to filter out obviously ridiculous claims to focus on the more likely ones. Not to mention in today's litiguous society the nightmare scenario of someone starving themself to death and his heirs suing Randi. A great way to get bad press for the Challenge! Even better than "Mean old man makes young girl cry!"

CompJan

 

[roger]

Rhesus,

I wonder if you perhaps misunderstand the purpose and assumptions of the challenge. I say that because you refer to things like Randi is "denying an academic forum".

The challenge has nothing to do with scientific research, or academic exploration. It is, instead, a challenge. There are two aspects to this, as I see it.

First, the challenge is not about science, but about the paranormal. If the claim to live on water & air alone is based on hithero unknown science, then the challenge does not apply and Randi would not test the claim. So I got a little lost when you talk about, for example whether we really know if vitamins are useful. I'll argue we do below, but, and this is important, if we really don't know that, then the claim is a scientific one, and not relevant to JREF.

Second, the challenge is based on the assumption that science can explain what happens in this world. The important term is "can" - this is not a claim that scientific knowledge is perfect, just that if you explore an issue deeply enough you can gain enough information to make true statements about how the world works.

This, of course, is not proven, and as far as anyone can tell, not provable. However, we feel that there is such strong evidence that this is in fact how the world works that we are willing to say it is true (not TRUE, in some absolute sense). Furthermore, Randi is willing to put up $1M dollars to back up the statement. This is _not_ based on "open mindedness" on this issue. A line in the sand has been drawn, that this is a reasonable assumption, so reasonable that claims to the contrary can be dismissed out of hand. It's a "put up or shut up" challenge, and of course there is some chutpah and showmanship in that.

You obviously agree with me that we can decide that things are true or false, otherwise the challenge would be meaningless. Furthermore, I believe that you agree that there is no point in testing claims, for example, that the Earth is flat. I think you would not agree that your conclusion that the Earth is round is you being "absolute" or close minded, but the result of an informed decision. If pressed, you'd agree that there's some possibility of being wrong, yet it's not enough of a possibility to seriously entertain the alternatives. The Earth is round. Period. It's a reasonable conclusion, not based on zealousness. (I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just explain what I _think_ you would agree with). If someone said the Earth was flat , I assume you'd try to educate them, not seriously reconsider whether the Earth is round or flat. Randi doesn't seriously think the paranormal is possible. That's why he's bet $1M. He could be wrong, but he (and I) feel confident enough to assign truth values to statements about these things.

So, finally, about the challenge under discussion. Quite simply, the Breatharian claims are paranormal. They claim that they draw energy from their "chakra". So that makes the challenge applicable to JREF (unlike questions about whether vitamins are necessary, which is scientific in nature).

Randi has drawn a distinction between things he will test and will not test. Naturally people will dispute those distinctions, as you are. He won't test a claim that I can turn a person into a monkey just by thinking about it. He will test a claim that I can find water with a dowsing stick. I don't speak for Randi, but it appears to me that the distinction here is it's easy to confuse yourself and think you really are dowsing. You can't confuse yourself that you are turning a person into a monkey except through mental illness. So making the claim of person->monkey is either a product of mental illness or a lie. Sorry, no challenge for you! It's how Randi chooses to spend his time, and I find it reasonable, though I do understand why others would draw the lines differently.

You point out that some believe the Breatharian claims, and a few do. They claim 5000 members worldwide, but many feel those numbers are inflated. In any case, only a handful of those claim not to eat at all. So it's not widespread by any means. Of course I'll consider other data if you have it

So, I don't believe for a second that people live only on water, no more or less than I believe the Earth is flat. Heck, on the Breatharian website the owner admits to eating a McD hamburger two hours ago - for "love", and to counteract negative vibrations, not nutrition. Right.... And they claim not to age. The guy is white haired. Sorry, I feel the statement "I prefer to keep an open mind, but not so open it falls out" applies here. If that makes me "zealous" and "absolute", I can live with that

 

[ceo_esq]

Looking at the types of applications that Randi refuses to entertain for purposes of the Challenge, it’s possible to discern at least three categories of claims that, while arguably paranormal, are not “eligible” for good, sound policy reasons (note that certain rejected claims may fall into more than one category):

1. Claims that are either hazardous to test, or the mere entertaining of which would risk inspiring hazardous undertakings. (Example: “I can resurrect myself from a fatal injury.”)

2. Claims that are essentially unfalsifiable. (Example: “I can turn invisible if no one is watching or recording me.")

3. Claims the testing and/or debunking of which would not materially advance the JREF’s goals. Remember that the JREF is endeavoring to encourage the broader public to think critically, and to alert them to the consequences of accepting paranormal or pseudoscientific claims. This goal is well-served by debunking claims of the sort to which large numbers of uncritically-minded folks give credence, or might give credence if it came to their attention (dowsing, clairvoyance, conjuring spirits, medical quackery, perpetual motion, telekinesis, flying saucers). This goal is obviously not appreciably advanced by debunking claims that are manifestly unlikely ever to achieve more than a negligible level of acceptance among mentally healthy, albeit uncritical, members of the public – or even among the ordinary woo-woo population. (Examples: “I can survive indefinitely without food”; “I can transform a person into a monkey”.) JREF’s mission is preoccupied with the risks posed to the uncritical mainstream – not the true lunatic fringe – by paranormal/pseudoscientific beliefs.

All of the foregoing seems to me to furnish a rational, logical basis to justify the summary rejection by JREF of certain Challenge claims, and no case has yet come to my attention where I detected any hypocrisy in JREF’s response to a claimant.

That said, Randi's "bedside manner" vis-à-vis certain claimants may well be susceptible to improvement; however, the nature of his role doesn't really require him not to be a grouch. These people aren't his clients or patients, after all, and a number of them are obviously cranks.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

That said, Randi's "bedside manner" vis-à-vis certain claimants may well be susceptible to improvement; however, the nature of his role doesn't really require him not to be a grouch. These people aren't his clients or patients, after all, and a number of them are obviously cranks.

Heh, Heh.. I reseve the right to be cranky with cranks..

 

[Randi]

We also refuse to consider claims od Santa Claus sighting, the Tooth Fairy, and Easter Bunny.

Some things are just too silly and tedious to waste time on.

We've tested "breatharians" before. It's tiring and stupid. You wait outside the Holiday Inn for the delivery from MacDonalds or Pizza Hut, then you confront the liar and go home.

Boring.

James Randi

 

[Stainless_Steel_Rat]

Besides, testing a "breathian would take forever, and what type of standard would you use?

If they just claim to be able to survive without food, what's a good time frame? How long can a normal person go without food? How do they loose? Die? Do you lock them into a sealed room in the JREF building, with monitors on it 24/7 recoding every second to make sure no cheating takes place?

If they claim no ill effects, who decides at what point the person is suffering ill effects? How do you measure that? When his kidneys are down to 50% effeciency?

It's a claim full of crap, and no one with any ounce of reason would believe it.

SSR

 

[Brown]

So we have person who says (with an apparently straight face) that he can survive on water alone for an indefinite period. Now, there's nothing so unusual about living only on water for a prolonged period. Lots of people fast voluntarily, drinking only water. Some of them have done this for weeks at a time. Lots of others fast involuntarily, i.e., they starve.

Their health has suffered, and they have lost weight as a result.

Does the claimant assert an ability to maintain weight on a water-only diet? Does the claimant assert that there are no adverse long-term effects of consuming only water? If not, then the JREF is absolutely right to dismiss this claim out of hand!

Taking the claim at face value, one suspects that the claim is bogus, and that the claimant is really consuming nourishment, but not telling anyone. (Mr. Randi has some experience in this area, and apparently he has found this to be the case.)

You know, I'm reminded of the opening chapter of Joseph Heller's "Catch-22."

Yossarian is in the hospital, claiming to be sick. He claims he has a borderline liver condition that won't develop into jaundice, so his condition can't be treated. He wants to stay in the hospital indefinitely.

The doctors suspect Yossarian is merely moving his bowels and not telling anyone.

 

[Captain Spaulding]

If this link has already been posted I apologize. I found this on the Skeptic's Dictionary website http://www.skepdic.com/inedia.html

Apparently there has been someone irresponisble enough to test this claim. Her claims as why the test failed would hilarious if they were'nt so sad

"Greve claimed that she failed because on the first day of the test she had been confined in a hotel room near a busy road, which kept her from getting the nutrients she needs from the air. “I asked for fresh air. Seventy per cent of my nutrients come from fresh air. I couldn’t even breath,” "

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

ROFL. OMG that letter by Randi made me spit our my cereal and wake people up with laughter. I'm still engaged in that short spasmy laughter as I write this.

Hadn't consumed anything but water since 1998??? !!!

Sure.


Let me say if the letter is real, still very warranted. I mean come on.

Throw me a freakin bone here.

Randi was certainly kinder then I would have been. LOL/ repeat.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

the ability to survive on water alone for an indefinite period.

LOL LOL.

And just the way its worded by you. Sorry but I mean COME ON.

Testing that guy would be a waste time. You know nobody can survive on water alone and if they say "since 1998" they are lying. End of freakin story.

 

[The Informant]

You know nobody can survive on water alone and if they say "since 1998" they are lying.

You're basing your conclusion on a preconceived notion. Not very scientific, eh?

We're still not 100% sure WHAT the limits of the human body are. You might think it's crazy to assume that someone can fall from an airplane and survive. But there have been several instances of skydivers with failed parachutes hitting the ground at terminal velocity and surviving.

Sure, conventional wisdom might tell you that the claimant is lying. But remember that conventional wisdom has often turned out to be wrong.

***

If anybody is worried that testing of such a claim could be hazardous, and that JREF would get sued as a result, there's a simple solution.

Draw up a contract between JREF and the claimant. The major stipulation in the contract would be: "Both parties have agreed that JREF will not be held responsible for any injury or health problems that result from this test".

If the claimant really believes that he can do what he says he can do, then he'd agree to a contract like this without hesitation.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Is your name really ' Brain ' ?

And yes, we do know.. Sighhhhh....

Some preconceived notions are based on empiracle evidence..

Of course, all are not.. We know some things, we don't know others..

One of the things we do know, is that a human being cannot consume only pure water, and continue to live indefinitely...

 

[Zep]

Definitely a fake letter

I reckon the letter is a complete and utter fake. The proof is quite simple to see.

1. Look at the second horizontal fold in the paper, the one going through Randi's signature. That fold is quite rough and appears to have been folded either very roughly, or it has been refolded a number of times.

2. Look closely at the items on the letter this fold passes through: an address block on the sidebar on the left, and Randi's signature.

3. The sidebar address block is roughly distorted over the fold, and shows shadowing as well.

4. Randi's signature is completely undistorted over the fold - it aligns perfectly above and below, and shows no shadowing at all.

Ergo, the signature is photgraphically overlayed (most likely digitally), leading to a reasonable assumption that the rest of the body of the letter is similarly faked.

Plus all the other points noted previously by others.

Forget the discussion, we are talking about a fake anyway.

Zep

 

[The Informant]

Diogenes:
"Is your name really ' Brain ' ?"

No, I am not "Brain" (doh!), nor am I "Brian", which is the name of the person I quote in my signature.

"One of the things we do know, is that a human being cannot consume only pure water, and continue to live indefinitely..."

That's not what is being claimed. What is being claimed is that this person has survived X amount of time on pure water alone. Nobody ever explicitly said that he could go on without food indefinitely.

Zep:
"I reckon the letter is a complete and utter fake."

Well, look at the opinions expressed in Randi's post above, and a statement made by Randi in his 7.5.02 commentary: "I gave this dumbo a short, sharp, answer long ago, but he's still carrying on about this nonsense."

This suggests that Randi did send either the letter in question or a letter expressing similar opinions to the one in question.

 

[compjan]

<..>
"One of the things we do know, is that a human being cannot consume only pure water, and continue to live indefinitely..."

That's not what is being claimed. What is being claimed is that this person has survived X amount of time on pure water alone. Nobody ever explicitly said that he could go on without food indefinitely.

<..>

Maybe not. From Milton's site:

"Mr Kolodzey is one of several thousand people who believe and claim that they can live on water alone,absorbing 'prana' or life energy from space around them."

and Randi's letter:

"Are you actually claiming that you have not consumed any food products except water, since the end of 1998?"

Imply long term food deprivation well beyond what is physically possible.

However from Milton again:

"It ought therefore to have been a very simple matter for Randi to offer to lock Mr Kolodzey up for a week or two."

Which is a much different time scale and well within normal human capacity to withstand.

Its disingenous anyway because A) Its not simple to lock someone up for two weeks or to B) monitor them closely enough to see a difference between their weight loss and "ordinary" weight loss.

It would be very difficult to test his claims in a single test. You would need several months of closely monitored behavior.

Randi is being reasonable to ditch this claim.

Now, if you want to cough up the money and time to lock up and monitor Mr. Kolodzey for six months, then you've got a case.

Have a good day,

CompJan

 

[Preston]

Ok, the claim that an individual can survive for an indefinite period of time off of water is quite the doozie. That goes against everything we know.

But did anyone catch that? Indefinite!

That means that the person is saying they will never ever die as long as they have dihydrogen monoxide, H20, or in laymans terms: Water.

Assuming that the water they had could provide all the sustinance their body would need, which is not possible but just for the sake of argument, they would still have to manage not ever dying.

I would reject that claim outright. It's not worth anyone wasting time on, and even recieving a personally signed rejection letter is rather generous if you ask me.

 

[ceo_esq]

Ok, the claim that an individual can survive for an indefinite period of time off of water is quite the doozie. That goes against everything we know.

But did anyone catch that? Indefinite!

That means that the person is saying they will never ever die as long as they have dihydrogen monoxide, H20, or in laymans terms: Water.

Assuming that the water they had could provide all the sustinance their body would need, which is not possible but just for the sake of argument, they would still have to manage not ever dying.

I would reject that claim outright. It's not worth anyone wasting time on, and even recieving a personally signed rejection letter is rather generous if you ask me.

I agree about rejecting the claim. But that's not what "indefinite" means.