Randi Gets Rude...

[Rhesus Negative]

I've been interested in James Randi's take on the paranormal ever since I was a kid and can remember his old TV show (sadly absent from the UK TV schedules these days).

Whilst I value the skeptical perspective as much as any that champions a 'paranormal' cause (if such a thing exists!), I am a little confused by a recent link I came across when looking for details relating to the JREF challenge.

From what I have found, it seems that a man named Rico Kolodsey sent a letter to JREF proposing that he be tested for the ability to survive on water alone for an indefinite period.

Randi's response was dismissive and insulting, and if true, appears to show Randi himself in a rather unfortunate light.

I must admit to being surprised that Randi considers this man's proposal in any way more absurd than a claim to speak to the dead or move matter with thought.

I have provided a link to the page in question:

http://www.alternativescience.com/randi's_letter.htm

I assume there is a perfectly good reason for such a response, but am having considerable difficulty maintaining an assumption of objectivity on Randi's part.

It seems that, rather than use the cash prize as a means of exploring the possibilities that may or may not exist, or exposing the charlatans that prey on the vulnerable, Randi's prize represents an excuse to send bitchy letters to unproven frauds.

advocate

Edited by Hal to repair the link, the URL cut off too early making it an "error 404"

 

[Rhesus Negative]

something worth thinking about...

As an addition, upon re-reading the letter itself, I'm also having trouble defining exactly what constitutes a 'responsible claim', as worded by Randi himself.

If this man is not considered a responsible claimant, and therefore is deemed exempt from qualification, then:

Can one assume that proposals which 'qualify', such as the ability to cure disease and heal wounds using supernatural power be deemed by Randi as 'responsible claims'?

Are there gradations of 'responsibility', and a prerequisite admission, upon acceptance for JREF testing, of the responsibility of a claim?

If so, it would be fair to assume that Randi considers those he tests as responsible claimants at the very least!

Either that, or, as I said, Randi himself is deliberately blocking out those potential participants whose proposals intimidate him.

Something worth considering...

advocate

 

[Martin]

I'd imagine any claim which would require the subject to place himself in danger in the test would be deemed irresponsible.

 

[Rhesus Negative]

That would be a fair assumption, were it not that Randi himself has previously been involved in performance escapology (as an example),

This is a case wherein he himself proposes that, under circumstance of considerable risk to life (even in the context of his own expertise), he can perform feats that appear supernatural in nature.

Regardless of any claim of genuine paranormal ability (which Randi obviously does not attempt), surely this constitutes an 'irresponsible claim' by the criterium you mention, in which life-risk is 'irresponsible'?

I do not think that implication of life-risk is a suitable criteria for dismissal, in this case.

I'm pretty sure (but I can't remember the exact case!) that these same abilities have been tested under scientific conditions before (and proven false), and medical supervision was provided to minimise dangers.

None of which, of course, justifies the sneering contempt expressed in the letter itself, or the automatic assumption of fraudulence that undermines any supposed attempt to prove falsity through scientific testing.

 

[CFLarsen]

It's a fake.

Two decades of working with computer graphics tells me so.

Here's how I can see why it is a fake:

• The letters are way too clear for a scan. Compared to the rest of the content, the letters are the only things that are crisp and clear.
• All of the lines are lined up perfectly. I mean, there is not even a single pixel difference. This is virtually impossible, if the paper had been scanned. There will always be some displacement.
• If you look at the left side of the image, you will see the black border tapers off by one or two pixels, as expected. However, the lines of text are perfectly lined up.

I am pretty convinced that this has been investigated before. The name sounds familiar.

 

[Martin]

Regardless of any claim of genuine paranormal ability (which Randi obviously does not attempt), surely this constitutes an 'irresponsible claim' by the criterium you mention, in which life-risk is 'irresponsible'?

Yes, indeed. But he's being irresponsible with his own life, which is his call. JREF, on the other hand, cannot take the risk of participating in any test which may place others in danger.

None of which, of course, justifies the sneering contempt expressed in the letter itself, or the automatic assumption of fraudulence that undermines any supposed attempt to prove falsity through scientific testing

Well, I think the point here is that most paranormal claims are things which could be false and yet held sincerely. This particular claim, on the other hand, must either be the beginning of a scientific revolution or an outright lie - and a damn irresponsible one at that, if this fellow is suggesting to others that they could go without food. People have died trying this kind of thing.

Put simply, while it is possible to believe one can, say, dowse for gold and be mistaken, there is no way to believe that one has not eaten for 5 years and simply be mistaken.

 

[roger]

Rhesus, you are new here, and thus can't be expected to know, but this exact claim was discussed here a year ago: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6440

Upshot - JREF gets far more applications than it can realistically test. Some criteria of "reasonableness" must be used to filter the claims. Reasonable people can be expected to differ over what constitutes a "reasonable" claim in paranormal claims.

JREF is an educational foundation. A _lot_ of people believe in dowsing, mind reading, and talking to the dead, whereas only a very few people believe claims that somebody can subsist on air. Whether you or I personally consider that claim reasonable (compared to the other claims) is irrelevant; JREF's limited resources are best spent on claims that have widespread belief.

It amazes me how many people come on these boards and try to tell other people how to spend there time. If yoiu think the claim should be tested, you test it. (now I'm telling you how to spend your time ).

Hope this helps.

 

[Voob]

Assuming it's true, it was rejected because it was possibly life-threatening.

As for escape artist's performances, to paraphrase Houdini: "I don't do anything more dangerous than sitting in my living room."

It's not like being Evil Kneivel or anything.

(off to look for source...)

 

[Rhesus Negative]

i just wrote an individual response to each point, which i've managed to blank out, so this is briefer than I'd like.


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.

Still, I'm no expert on that type of thing, so I'll leave it there.

As for 'widespread belief' constituting qualification for testing; the belief that it is possible to survive for long periods of time only on 'spiritual energy' is an ancient and culturally widespread belief.

A modern take on it such as that championed by the 'Breatharian' cult or the guy who survives only on water would surely be a worthy opponent for JREF.

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.

Anyway, (roger) sorry to dampen your amazement, but I have no intention of 'telling JREF how to spend their time',

rather I am more interested in QUESTIONING how and why they don't spend it!

advocate

 

[Rhesus Negative]

"Put simply, while it is possible to believe one can, say, dowse for gold and be mistaken, there is no way to believe that one has not eaten for 5 years and simply be mistaken."

That's true. There's also no way to believe that one has walked on flaming red hot coals and be mistaken. Yet it has been tested scientifically, and surely warrants scientific exploration.

Why should the potential for error be relevant here? If truth is being pursued on an objective level, then surely the subjective assumptions of the challenger are irrelevant.

On a different note:

It would obviously be impossible to test whether he can 'survive' or not, though! JREF's successful debunking would, I have to admit, mean the guy's death...

Still, I am disappointed at the phrasing of the letter -it seems to assume falsity rather than imply untestability.

We cannot know whether this guy is telling the truth or not.

We simply cannot know. So he is not a cheat or a liar or a fraud until proven so.

 

[Rhesus Negative]

The further thought occurs that the JREF prize places the burden of proof upon the 'challengee', and does not exist to prove falsity, rather to assume a position of disbelief until the proposal can be rationally and empirically demonstrated.

In that context, it's safe to say that fraudulence IS assumed, though the outright accusation of charlatanism without an accompanying forum for refute represents to me an undignified means of debate.

advocate

 

[roger]

The guy is lying. Period.

We have ample evidence on how the world works. I'm not going to pretend to be "open minded" about the ability to live on only air & water. It's an absurd claim based on either massive delusion or intentional deceit.

 

[Rhesus Negative]

"The guy is lying. Period."

That statement is as logically absurd as his claim to the contrary.

He may be able to do what he claims.

I believe that the possibility is high that he is lying.

But i would have to be possessed of supernatural powers myself to make a definitive assumption as you (and Randi too) do.

We are a civilisation that has only very recently discovered the existence of 'calorie' measurement, and wherein advancements in genetic engineering suggest the possibility of improved lifespan and endurance.

Regardless of our own personal assumptions, isn't it naive to pronounce absolute faith in a such young arena of science, and pronounce absolute dismissal on the same basis?

"We have ample evidence on how the world works."

Ample for what?

 

[LillyThePink]

If I claim I can stop bullets with my thoughts, should Randi let me shoot myself in the head to prove it?

Nope, since he's living in America and my family would prolly sue his butt for being irresponsible to the mentally deranged. They could even say he goaded me into it. And judging by the advocacy system in the US, they'd prolly win too.....

 

[Rhesus Negative]

Legislation is a different issue altogether, and would also be a relevant factor in (as mentioned above) escapology as a performance art.

But that is not what is being said by Randi. He is denying an academic forum on the basis of an absolute assumption of untruth.

It is the principle of that which is problematic, not the untestability of the subject.

If you claim to stop bullets with your thoughts, you are not expressing a widely held cultural belief.

If you claim that you can survive without solid nourishment, you are expressing a claim that has existed for many hundreds of years.

While a test for outright survival would be plain foolhardy, the claim that the body can withstand these circumstances without adverse effect can be tested with medical supervision and precise definition of said 'adverse effects.'

That would be a far more valid approach to the claim than to express contempt and hostility, which has no place in controlled academic exploration.

Period.

 

[Rhesus Negative]

Assuming the letter is real, of course.

It would be useful if the JREF Foundation could confirm or deny this...

 

[roger]

[BRegardless of our own personal assumptions, isn't it naive to pronounce absolute faith in a such young arena of science, and pronounce absolute dismissal on the same basis?[/B]

No. I'm not going to get into the hand-waving, 500page definition of the limits of human knowledge. Obviously there are limits. It doesn't follow that any statement must be considered possible unless proven otherwise, nor that any claim is reasonable to study.

We know the earth is round. We don't "Know" (in any absolute sense) the Earth is round, as no matter how much evidence we gather we can come up with some alternative explanation. That doesn't mean that I or anyone should continue investigating whether the Earth is flat.

 

[Rhesus Negative]

roger:

I agree with the spirit of that, but it doesn't apply in these circumstances.

My point was clear, and the fact remains that nutrition and metabolism are areas of high contention within the scientific community.

The shape and size of the Earth is not generally a cause for contention.

But we still don't know whether vitamins are really useful, or what conditions the body can really withstand.

You are offering concrete support to a rationally debatable science, and I thought that was a weak standpoint.

The alternative is not to present us with a '500 page' lecture on knowledge itself, but simply to justify your absolute standpoint in the same rational terms you apply to your critique. Perhaps you don't want to do that in preference to dismissal.

If so, that attitude reminds me somewhat of a rather zealous priest I once met at university...

Basically, in an academic environment that cannot even confirm the value of the vitamin, can we be expected to take a newly devised and constantly revised nutritional science as gospel?

Doing so may be to the detriment of further understanding, but it is JREF's right to decline.

To call the guy an outright cheat and a liar who doesn't warrant forum assumes a rather ridiculous omniscience, though...

 

[pgwenthold]

In that context, it's safe to say that fraudulence IS assumed, though the outright accusation of charlatanism without an accompanying forum for refute represents to me an undignified means of debate.

1) It is not necessarily fraud. The claimnant could just be mistaken. They aren't the same thing. It is irrelevent as to why the claim is not correct. The only question is whether the claim is correct or not.

2) What do you mean, "without an accompanying forum for refute? Anyone is given the opportunity to refute the position that they do not have the abilities they claim! All they have to do is to demonstrate them under controlled conditions.

Seriously, how much more of a forum does anyone need?

 

[Rhesus Negative]

"2) What do you mean, "without an accompanying forum for refute? Anyone is given the opportunity to refute the position that they do not have the abilities they claim! All they have to do is to demonstrate them under controlled conditions.
Seriously, how much more of a forum does anyone need?"

Have you been reading this thread?

The guy was up for the challenge to 'demonstrate it under controlled conditions' and was (APPARENTLY) turned down for testing on the unsubstantiated and unscientific claim that he was a liar and a cheat.

I agree, the only forum he needs is to have his claims tested.

So test him already. That's what I thought JREF was about...