When it comes to Randi's million dollars, skeptics and believers have one thing in common. Both usually agree that it is unwinnable. Skeptics think this is because paranormal phenomenon do not exist, believers think it is because Randi's challenge is flawed and biased. In this post I will attempt to illuminate the believers assumptions with some of my own observations.
Randi is a talented magician who also has considerable rhetorical skills. He is probably the worlds most well known debunker of the paranormal. His books, writings, and lectures have not only attempted to show that the paranormal doesn't exist, but have derided its proponents with a venom which many of the "softer" skeptics lack. The anger and derision which pervades his work has made for enjoyable reading and has surely increased Randi's popularity. Yet to many this angry zeal to debunk seems to have, among other things, caused the integrity of his work to suffer. What follows are a few examples culled from various sources:
"It is well known that the two SRI physicists issued a film which shows Geller successfully guessing the uppermost face of a die after it had been shaken in a closed box. Their Nature report describes these tests and Geller's phenomenal accuracy. The critical film was taken by Zev Pressman (an SRI staff photographer) and it shows Geller correctly making a guess. Randi claims that Targ and Puthoff lied when they stated that this film was taken during the actual tests. He further asserts that the film was a re-enactment. Basing his charges on information he claims came from Pressman himself, Randi maintains that the film was taken after the photographer had gone home and was merely staged. 'Pressman revealed that he was told Geller's eight successful throws [my emphasis] were done after he (Pressman) had gone home for the day', writes Randi, 'and that this film was a re-enactment of that supposed miracle'.
Dr Puthoff was thoroughly disgusted when I read this section of FlimFlam! to him. 'Not one millimeter of that film was a re-enactment' he told me. He also claimed that he had even procured an affidavit from Pressman certifying that the footage was filmed by him during the actual SRI tests. Dr Puthoff supplied me with this affidavit and urged me to get in touch with Mr Pressman, which is exactly what I did.
I spoke directly with Mr Pressman on 5 January 1981 and he was quite interested when I told him about Randi's book. He denied that he had spoken to the magician. When I read him the section of Randi's book dealing with his alleged 'expose' of the Targ-Puthoff film, he became very vexed. He firmly backed up the authenticity of the film, told me how he had taken it on the spot, and labelled Randi's allegation as a total fabrication. (His own descriptive language was a little more colorful!)
So just where did Randi come up with this nonsense about the SRI's Geller film? Randi does not specifically state that he personally spoke to Pressman, although he vaguely implies it. It seems instead that he procured this piece of misinformation from another SRI source, who was perhaps honestly mistaken about the film. Randi then repeated the error, never checked out his source, and used the error to make wild accusations against the SRI experimenters. The truly hilarious thing about this mess is that no film showing Geller making eight hits in a row was ever shot! Pressman only filmed one experiment, in which Geller is seen 'passing' - although guessing correctly - on the test. So Randi wasn't even able to describe the SRI film correctly, and he certainly never saw it."--- D.Scott Rogo Psychic Breakthroughs Today
"The January 2000 issue of Dog World magazine included an article on a possible sixth sense in dogs, which discussed some of my research. In this article Randi was quoted as saying that in relation to canine ESP, "We at the JREF [James Randi Educational Foundation] have tested these claims. They fail." No details were given of these tests.
I emailed James Randi to ask for details of this JREF research. He did not reply. He ignored a second request for information too.
I then asked members of the JREF Scientific Advisory Board to help me find out more about this claim. They did indeed help by advising Randi to reply. In an email sent on Februaury 6, 2000 he told me that the tests he referred to were not done at the JREF, but took place "years ago" and were "informal". They involved two dogs belonging to a friend of his that he observed over a two-week period. All records had been lost. He wrote: "I overstated my case for doubting the reality of dog ESP based on the small amount of data I obtained. It was rash and improper of me to do so."
Randi also claimed to have debunked one of my experiments with the dog Jaytee, a part of which was shown on television. Jaytee went to the window to wait for his owner when she set off to come home, but did not do so before she set off. In Dog World, Randi stated: "Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked by." This is simply not true, and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape."---Rupert Sheldrake www.sheldrake.org
"has to many errors to be recommended."----Susan Blackmore in her review of Randi's book The Supernatural A-Z
Apart from Randi's inaccuracies, some think he has also shown questionable ethics in his work. For instance, in the early 80's Randi hired two young magicians to pose as psychics and infiltrate a parapsychology laboratory. The mission was called Project Alpha. The two young men convinced some nonprofessional parapsychologists that they had genuine ability. However, many in the field were adamantly skeptical of the two and no work done with them ever appeared in any parapsychological journal. Despite this, Randi held a large contemptuous press conference about his "sociology experiment". In Parapsychology The Controversial Science, Richard Broughton says that "Afterwards some science commentators, notably William Broad of The New York Times, observed that had Randi been a psychologist conducting that experiment, his hoax would probably have landed him in trouble with the ethics committee of the American Psychological Association."
Because of these and other concerns, many people feel justifiably skeptical of Randi's ability to design an objective scientific test. If a parapsychologist had the same record of misstatements and deceit no skeptic would take any experiments that person was involved in seriously. One must also keep in mind that the validity of Randi's life's work is inextricably intertwined with the outcome of every challenge. If the subject's fail his challenge, Randi's work remains strong and validated in the eyes of the public as well as his own. Yet if just one person manages to somehow win the prize, the majority of Randi's hard work, beliefs, and ideas become invalid and he will be seen as ignorant of what he is supposed to be wise about. Needless to say, the effect would be devastating. Because of this, it seems to many that Randi has designed a rather clever testing system which enables him to "always have an out".
The challenge does not consist of just one pass or fail test. The rules state that:
"In all cases, applicant will be required to perform the preliminary test either before an appointed representative, if distance and time dictate that need, or in a location where a member of the JREF staff can attend. This preliminary test is to determine if the applicant is likely to perform as promised during a formal test. To date, no applicant has passed the preliminary test, and this has eliminated the need for formal testing in those cases"
Although the purpose of this preliminary test may seem legitimate to some, it enables Randi to have incredible control over each situation. If he is ever confronted by someone who succeeds in the preliminary test, there seems to be no reason why he can't just dismiss it because it wasn't the "formal" test and give various reasons for why the claimant must be preliminarily tested again (the recent yellow bamboo case is something which is sure to meet this fate). Then after a long wait, if Randi isn't completely confident he knows how the claimant succeeded, he can simply use his skilled rhetoric to distort and deride the person involved, keeping him from ever taking another preliminary test let alone a "formal" one. It seems that Randi has crafted a very secure safety net for himself, and any serious claimant should have cause for concern.
It is also relevant here to note that Randi has no prior protocols set up for testing the claimants. This works for his favor in a couple of ways. First, since there are no previously designed experiments, unlike in real science, there is nothing for anyone to judge or criticize. Any design flaws, which could be detrimental to paranormal effects, would most likely be unnoticed by a claimant with no scientific background. If parapsychologists were allowed to criticize and help design Randi's experiments, just like skeptics are encouraged to do for parapsychology, the challenge would be much more valid.
Another way the lack of prior protocols works in Randi's favor is that it gives him the ability to avoid running any experiment who's results he might not be able to explain. For instance, lets say a parapsychologist decides he's tired of Randi and is going to apply for the challenge. Lets also say that he wants to run a long series of ganzfeld experiments. What if Randi isn't completely confident that he can find flaws in the experiment which will account for the possible positive results? Since both the claimant and Randi have to agree on the protocol, Randi can simply say he doesn't agree with the proposed test(the rules don't say he has to have a good reason for dismissing it). Now if the parapsychologist cries foul, there's nothing he can do about it, and Randi can go deride and smear him because he refused the challenge.
Another thing which should cause worry for potential claimants is the fact that skeptics, which Randi is associated with, are to be the judge and jury of his tests. It is needless to say that many of these people have just as much vested interest as Randi does in seeing that each claim fails.
Finally, it is curious that Randi thinks himself such an expert at designing scientific experiments in the first place. The late Charles Honorton (pioneer of the ganzfeld experiments) in his essay Rhetoric Over Substance: The Impoverished State Of Skepticism, had this to say about Randi's competence in these matters: "...Randi's skill as a magician is well known; but despite well publicized claims to methodological expertise, his ability to design scientifically adequate psi experiments is not at all apparent from an examination of his public efforts. Serious methodological weaknesses and statistical errors occur, for example, in his book on testing ESP and in his televised tests of psychics (e.g. Morris, 1992: Rao, 1984)."
For over 2,500 sessions and methodological refinements which have met the criteria of parapsychologys most sophisticated critic, Ray Hyman, the ganzfeld experiments have sustained a hit rate 8.2% higher than the 25% expected by chance alone. The odds against chance of this happening are a million billion to one. If Randi thinks he can design a better experiment than Hyman can, then he is doing a great disservice to his field as well as to parapsychology by keeping quiet about it.
amherst
Randi is a talented magician who also has considerable rhetorical skills. He is probably the worlds most well known debunker of the paranormal. His books, writings, and lectures have not only attempted to show that the paranormal doesn't exist, but have derided its proponents with a venom which many of the "softer" skeptics lack. The anger and derision which pervades his work has made for enjoyable reading and has surely increased Randi's popularity. Yet to many this angry zeal to debunk seems to have, among other things, caused the integrity of his work to suffer. What follows are a few examples culled from various sources:
"It is well known that the two SRI physicists issued a film which shows Geller successfully guessing the uppermost face of a die after it had been shaken in a closed box. Their Nature report describes these tests and Geller's phenomenal accuracy. The critical film was taken by Zev Pressman (an SRI staff photographer) and it shows Geller correctly making a guess. Randi claims that Targ and Puthoff lied when they stated that this film was taken during the actual tests. He further asserts that the film was a re-enactment. Basing his charges on information he claims came from Pressman himself, Randi maintains that the film was taken after the photographer had gone home and was merely staged. 'Pressman revealed that he was told Geller's eight successful throws [my emphasis] were done after he (Pressman) had gone home for the day', writes Randi, 'and that this film was a re-enactment of that supposed miracle'.
Dr Puthoff was thoroughly disgusted when I read this section of FlimFlam! to him. 'Not one millimeter of that film was a re-enactment' he told me. He also claimed that he had even procured an affidavit from Pressman certifying that the footage was filmed by him during the actual SRI tests. Dr Puthoff supplied me with this affidavit and urged me to get in touch with Mr Pressman, which is exactly what I did.
I spoke directly with Mr Pressman on 5 January 1981 and he was quite interested when I told him about Randi's book. He denied that he had spoken to the magician. When I read him the section of Randi's book dealing with his alleged 'expose' of the Targ-Puthoff film, he became very vexed. He firmly backed up the authenticity of the film, told me how he had taken it on the spot, and labelled Randi's allegation as a total fabrication. (His own descriptive language was a little more colorful!)
So just where did Randi come up with this nonsense about the SRI's Geller film? Randi does not specifically state that he personally spoke to Pressman, although he vaguely implies it. It seems instead that he procured this piece of misinformation from another SRI source, who was perhaps honestly mistaken about the film. Randi then repeated the error, never checked out his source, and used the error to make wild accusations against the SRI experimenters. The truly hilarious thing about this mess is that no film showing Geller making eight hits in a row was ever shot! Pressman only filmed one experiment, in which Geller is seen 'passing' - although guessing correctly - on the test. So Randi wasn't even able to describe the SRI film correctly, and he certainly never saw it."--- D.Scott Rogo Psychic Breakthroughs Today
"The January 2000 issue of Dog World magazine included an article on a possible sixth sense in dogs, which discussed some of my research. In this article Randi was quoted as saying that in relation to canine ESP, "We at the JREF [James Randi Educational Foundation] have tested these claims. They fail." No details were given of these tests.
I emailed James Randi to ask for details of this JREF research. He did not reply. He ignored a second request for information too.
I then asked members of the JREF Scientific Advisory Board to help me find out more about this claim. They did indeed help by advising Randi to reply. In an email sent on Februaury 6, 2000 he told me that the tests he referred to were not done at the JREF, but took place "years ago" and were "informal". They involved two dogs belonging to a friend of his that he observed over a two-week period. All records had been lost. He wrote: "I overstated my case for doubting the reality of dog ESP based on the small amount of data I obtained. It was rash and improper of me to do so."
Randi also claimed to have debunked one of my experiments with the dog Jaytee, a part of which was shown on television. Jaytee went to the window to wait for his owner when she set off to come home, but did not do so before she set off. In Dog World, Randi stated: "Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked by." This is simply not true, and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape."---Rupert Sheldrake www.sheldrake.org
"has to many errors to be recommended."----Susan Blackmore in her review of Randi's book The Supernatural A-Z
Apart from Randi's inaccuracies, some think he has also shown questionable ethics in his work. For instance, in the early 80's Randi hired two young magicians to pose as psychics and infiltrate a parapsychology laboratory. The mission was called Project Alpha. The two young men convinced some nonprofessional parapsychologists that they had genuine ability. However, many in the field were adamantly skeptical of the two and no work done with them ever appeared in any parapsychological journal. Despite this, Randi held a large contemptuous press conference about his "sociology experiment". In Parapsychology The Controversial Science, Richard Broughton says that "Afterwards some science commentators, notably William Broad of The New York Times, observed that had Randi been a psychologist conducting that experiment, his hoax would probably have landed him in trouble with the ethics committee of the American Psychological Association."
Because of these and other concerns, many people feel justifiably skeptical of Randi's ability to design an objective scientific test. If a parapsychologist had the same record of misstatements and deceit no skeptic would take any experiments that person was involved in seriously. One must also keep in mind that the validity of Randi's life's work is inextricably intertwined with the outcome of every challenge. If the subject's fail his challenge, Randi's work remains strong and validated in the eyes of the public as well as his own. Yet if just one person manages to somehow win the prize, the majority of Randi's hard work, beliefs, and ideas become invalid and he will be seen as ignorant of what he is supposed to be wise about. Needless to say, the effect would be devastating. Because of this, it seems to many that Randi has designed a rather clever testing system which enables him to "always have an out".
The challenge does not consist of just one pass or fail test. The rules state that:
"In all cases, applicant will be required to perform the preliminary test either before an appointed representative, if distance and time dictate that need, or in a location where a member of the JREF staff can attend. This preliminary test is to determine if the applicant is likely to perform as promised during a formal test. To date, no applicant has passed the preliminary test, and this has eliminated the need for formal testing in those cases"
Although the purpose of this preliminary test may seem legitimate to some, it enables Randi to have incredible control over each situation. If he is ever confronted by someone who succeeds in the preliminary test, there seems to be no reason why he can't just dismiss it because it wasn't the "formal" test and give various reasons for why the claimant must be preliminarily tested again (the recent yellow bamboo case is something which is sure to meet this fate). Then after a long wait, if Randi isn't completely confident he knows how the claimant succeeded, he can simply use his skilled rhetoric to distort and deride the person involved, keeping him from ever taking another preliminary test let alone a "formal" one. It seems that Randi has crafted a very secure safety net for himself, and any serious claimant should have cause for concern.
It is also relevant here to note that Randi has no prior protocols set up for testing the claimants. This works for his favor in a couple of ways. First, since there are no previously designed experiments, unlike in real science, there is nothing for anyone to judge or criticize. Any design flaws, which could be detrimental to paranormal effects, would most likely be unnoticed by a claimant with no scientific background. If parapsychologists were allowed to criticize and help design Randi's experiments, just like skeptics are encouraged to do for parapsychology, the challenge would be much more valid.
Another way the lack of prior protocols works in Randi's favor is that it gives him the ability to avoid running any experiment who's results he might not be able to explain. For instance, lets say a parapsychologist decides he's tired of Randi and is going to apply for the challenge. Lets also say that he wants to run a long series of ganzfeld experiments. What if Randi isn't completely confident that he can find flaws in the experiment which will account for the possible positive results? Since both the claimant and Randi have to agree on the protocol, Randi can simply say he doesn't agree with the proposed test(the rules don't say he has to have a good reason for dismissing it). Now if the parapsychologist cries foul, there's nothing he can do about it, and Randi can go deride and smear him because he refused the challenge.
Another thing which should cause worry for potential claimants is the fact that skeptics, which Randi is associated with, are to be the judge and jury of his tests. It is needless to say that many of these people have just as much vested interest as Randi does in seeing that each claim fails.
Finally, it is curious that Randi thinks himself such an expert at designing scientific experiments in the first place. The late Charles Honorton (pioneer of the ganzfeld experiments) in his essay Rhetoric Over Substance: The Impoverished State Of Skepticism, had this to say about Randi's competence in these matters: "...Randi's skill as a magician is well known; but despite well publicized claims to methodological expertise, his ability to design scientifically adequate psi experiments is not at all apparent from an examination of his public efforts. Serious methodological weaknesses and statistical errors occur, for example, in his book on testing ESP and in his televised tests of psychics (e.g. Morris, 1992: Rao, 1984)."
For over 2,500 sessions and methodological refinements which have met the criteria of parapsychologys most sophisticated critic, Ray Hyman, the ganzfeld experiments have sustained a hit rate 8.2% higher than the 25% expected by chance alone. The odds against chance of this happening are a million billion to one. If Randi thinks he can design a better experiment than Hyman can, then he is doing a great disservice to his field as well as to parapsychology by keeping quiet about it.
amherst
That is truly shocking! And it doesn't say much for the credibility and honestly of skeptics on here that they insist that Randi is always scrupulously fair 
Hell, how many tests is one required to pass??