Slashdot Mirror
Interviews: Ask James Randi About Investigating the Truth
Better known by his stage name "The Amazing Randi", James Randi has made it his quest to "debunk psychic nonsense, disprove paranormal fakers, and squash claims of pseudoscience in order to bring the truth to the forefront." Randi worked as a popular magician most of his life and earned international fame in 1972 when he accused the famous psychic Uri Geller of being a fraud and challenged him to prove otherwise. In 1996 Randi founded The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) a non-profit organization whose mission includes "educating the public and the media on the dangers of accepting unproven claims, and to support research into paranormal claims in controlled scientific experimental conditions." He began offering $1000 in 1964 to anyone who could demonstrate proof of the paranormal. That amount has grown over the years, and the foundation's prize for such proof is now $1M. Around 1000 people have tried to claim the prize so far without success. Randi has agreed to take a break from busting ghostbusters and giving psychic healers a taste of their own medicine in order to answer your questions. As usual, you're invited to ask as many questions as you'd like, but please divide them, one question per post.
What's your favorite magic trick?
Learn something new.
What's the most dangerous lie perpetuated by the people you bust?
END OF LINE.
Mr. Amazing,
Of the various people who've tried for the prize, which one do you think would have made the best entertainer / carnie / whatever had he or she not been so serious about the reality of the trick?
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
I saw the show you did awhile ago on YouTube, where you had dowsers try and prove their technique. Did those people legitimately believe what they were doing worked or were they typical charlatans? How did they explain their failures? Hope your're staying in good health James!
What do you think is the root cause of humans' obsession with believing in supernatural powers, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
Do you think there are parallels between the way the charlatans of the paranormal manipulate their victims and the manner in which some highly dubious, if plausible, technologies are promoted?
Backward%20compatibility%20is%20over-rated
Most people know you for your work laying bare the schemes of fraudsters, and not enough people realize that you really are as good as your stage name. What's the best show you've ever performed that's been recorded and how can we see it?
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
when you can do something paranormal
Through your years of research on faith healing, homeopathy and other "magical" cures...have you found some of them more "effective" than others due to the Placebo Effect? Many people have superstitions, charms and other things they personally believe bring them good luck...and I wonder how much of this magical healing and luck bringing is real due to the Placebo Effect. Of course it is not "magic", but the power of a Placebo is still statistically valid in certain cases it seems.
Hello
What are your thoughts on acupuncture and the existence of chi?
Most practitioners of CMA (Chinese Martial Arts) and non-Western medicine , with few exceptions, believe in the idea of an energy that suffuses all matter, and can be stored and increased in living things. There are exceptions -- I'm thinking of a practice group in the UK that teaches tai chi, but doesn't believe in chi; their explanation for the skills thereof is relaxation and body mechanics, not mysticism.
To me, the health benefits of tai chi and chi kung are readily apparent, regardless of whether or not there is such a thing a chi. Do you have any thoughts on that and/or the benefits of acupuncture?
Why are carrots oranger than oranges?
While we all hope you will live as long as possible and continue your work, do you think that somebody will pick up your legacy and continue to debunk the fraudsters when you are not longer able to? Do you have trusted people to whom you are willing to hand over the responsibility, both financially and skill-wise?
Sometimes when I see tabloids and crap at grocery stores I wonder if humanity is really making progress in the skepticism department. I think there are more people today that are skeptical of all things paranormal than there were years ago but I believe that only because the population has been increasing. Percentage-wise, I fear we may still be at the level humanity has been at throughout history. You can find writings dating way back of people who were "in the know" about what was fake and what was real. As science has increased our realm of knowledge, it seems that paranormal seekers have just found it in other mediums. So what is your opinion on humanity's track record for belief in the paranormal versus skepticism? Have we made progress? Are we forever doomed to deal with a percentage of the population who want to believe?
My work here is dung.
Have you ever had significant repercussions from debunking what is essentially garbage? Have people ever actually threatened you for supposedly crushing any livelihoods, which were then based on fraud?
Do you think that, as time goes by, it's becoming harder for individual performers to hoodwink large sections of the population for financial gain in the way that Peter Popoff and Uri Geller did, in their respective heydays? Do you think the internet could be helping to keep such charlatans at bay through unhindered discussion and criticism? Or are we just as vulnerable as ever?
If you ask me, most of the world's ills can be divided between stupid and evil, most of them of human invention.
Do you feel like you can spot the difference between a stupid mistake and an evil deception? What are the tell-tale signs of active deception versus simple, ignorant people defending a stupid belief? Do you have a favorite logical tool that you use to determine whether or not a person's claim spawns from ignorance, or maliciousness?
Have you ever encountered any unusual phenomena you can't explain?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Slashdot followed briefly a seemingly miraculous device that was almost too good to be true. Have you yourself heard of Rossi's E-Cat machine? Does your foundation also track the physics side of unbelievable things? What is your personal opinion of this device? Does it have all the hallmarks of a fraud?
My work here is dung.
What is your Chi squared estimate applied to those results? That is to say, the probability that those results are due to chance?
Seastead this.
Two part question:
1) What, specifically, are you referring to as "psychic nonsense, paranormal, and pseudoscience?"
2) What scientific, empirical evidence can you present that proves your contention that what you label as supernatural phenomenon is always fraudulent? I.e., have you yourself conducted sufficient experimentation to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is no such thing?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
It greatly saddens me that in the 21st century, there is still this spate of "ghost hunter" and paranormal reality shows, even on once respectable networks like the History Channel and other cable network channels. But has there ever been talk of doing a James Randi or skeptic-based reality show (akin to Penn & Teller's Bullsh*t)?
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Follow up question: Assuming you answered "no experimentation" for # 2 above, why should we believe your non-scientific claims over someone else's?
This question can and should be ignored if sufficient experimentation has been performed.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
You chose to devote a big chunk of your life to debunking rather than just ignoring those people. You must feel that they do a lot of harm to make it worth your efforts.
Aside from the obvious, stealing money, please elaborate on the kinds of harm these fraudsters cause.
Do you accept the following definition of the word 'paranormal' from wikipedia?:
paranormal
Adjective
Paranormal is a general term that designates experiences that lie outside "the range of normal experience or scientific explanation" or that indicates phenomena understood to be outside of science's current ability to explain or measure
Sceptics are usually depicted in popular ficton as grumpy sods wh continue to hold onto their ideas in spite of overwhelming evidence that, in their fictional world at least, the paranormal is going on. (Usually this ends with them being eaten by an alien or knocked out a window by a ghost.) Yet in my experience, sceptics are gregarious and engaged.
What is your favourite, or least-unfavourite, sceptic in popular fiction?
(I was fond of the characters in "Red Lights", although I'm in two minds about the ending.)
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
There are certainly things we do not understand in physics. New physics is being made every day with quantum processes now appearing to play a role in biological reactions. Or messages can now be passed on using Neutrinos (no electromagnetic spectrum). This would have seem like science fiction 1 decade ago but it is now real. How can you be so sure that all the effect reported by the researcher in parapsychology, some of them published in major peer reviewed journal, are wrong. Henry James, a major philosopher and Harvard professor at the turn of the 20th century, was talking about radical empiricism were unexplained phenomena should be studied with the scientific method. It seems that you are taking a leap of faith that this is not necessary. Am I right?
Ever done work, or seriously considered doing work against other money making fraud areas like financial / real estate / religion / politics?
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
What's your opinion of PEAR's work?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Randi,
Do you believe the Surgeon General's 1986 (and subsequent 2006 updated) claims about the dangers of second hand smoke, in spite of the lack of evidence supporting the claims*? If so, how can you criticize others for believing unscientific bunk, when you yourself do?
*Most people don't think about it (probably because they don't smoke, and thus see no issue with the demonization of smokers), but if you actually read the reports, you'll notice a distinct lack of defining words like "definitely causes" or "is a factor;" instead, they use 'weasel words' such as "may cause" and "estimated" or "could be a factor" to create an illusion of fact, when in reality it's all pure speculation.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I ask all the "computer programmer" interview types for their proudest chunk of code, in your case I'm just asking for the coolest anecdote / story / bust / event. Not a one liner and not a novel, just a paragraph or so about the coolest most interesting single incident / anecdote you were involved in. Here's one paragraph on your coolest/favorite single incident.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
That's it.
BlameBillCosby.com
Ever work with others in the popular science / journalism community like the "bad astronomy" guy or bill nye (the science guy) or semi-famous real scientists and if so drop some commentary. Not reality show trash talking (unless you really want to, I guess) but do you have any interesting stories?
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
You have spent a lifetime debunking charlatans and fraud, but there is a difference between someone faking paranormal and psychic capabilities, and those things actually existing. Do you believe such things do exist?
You want to debunk paranormal things, please tell me, what is your take on 'The Battery Man' Slavisa Pajkic?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
AC wants to hear about the groupies. I suppose if its a good story...
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
What's the most common method used to try to deceive you and claim the JREF prize?
Couldn't this be construed as an attempt to prevent any potentially legitimate applicants from being considered for the prize?
Is there any way you can prove that your organization is not falsely debunking claims during the "Preliminary Tests," in order to prevent the prize from being claimed?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
So in your world, the truth and the search for it are a waste of time?
When offerring a $1 million reward to anyone who successfully demonstrates proof of the paranormal you risk failing to debunk some paranormal claims, not because paranormal activity actually exists, but because the ruse is either so technologically advanced or clever that investigators fail to identify the means of deception. How concerned were you about this possibility and have you ever had any "close calls" where you almost failed to discover the trick?
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
What's the closest you've come to giving out the $1M prize?
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
Does it get tiring demonstrating to people that the magic powers they claim to have are bunk? Or is it still fun?
And speaking of those wild claims, what's the goofiest one you've ever seen?
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
yeah, it's riddled with 'em, sorry. No coffee means one=on, placebo=Placebo and so forth.
I think OP's point was to state their belief that dedicating one's life to reminding idiots that they are, in fact, idiots, is quite idiotic in it's own right.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
How do you manage to create such a strong disturbance in the Force? It is like 100s of psychic voices crying out and then being immediately silenced.
When I think of skeptics, the first thing that comes to mind is a little story that Dilbert came up with years ago of Ratbert's psychic powers: Ratbert started off by predicting coin flips (as landing on the edge!), and the skeptic debunks him by arguing that Ratbert's description of a hidden drawing, while remarkably similar to what it actually was, was not quite correct.
So what do you to handle people who disbelieve a claim even in the face of positive evidence of that claim, arguing that their position is one simply of skepticism? Or do you not consider that a problem?
I am officially gone from
Could it be that certain paranormal occurences you debunk as not being grounded scientifically or are just fraudulent are in fact just beyond our ability to measure?
I use acupuncture and the manipulation of qi as an example. Acupuncture is difficult for Westerners to accept because it is hard to measure it with the scientific method, however it is also a medicinal practice that is thousands of years old; one would expect a system with no effect beyond the placebo effect would eventually die out as ineffective in favor of more effective medicine, so it would seem just by the fact that it has existed so long that there is some validaton to it.
I've found over the years that a great many skeptics have some area in their life, where their personal beliefs come at odds with scientific consensus or their skepticism. These would include a great many things you/others write against as bunk: chi, anti-vaccination views, global warming "debate", acupuncture, raw diets, chiropractic, good luck charms, or personal rituals.
What beliefs (if any) do you hold or practice that might not be well based in science (good luck charm, personal ritual, unproved frontiers of "science" such as singularity theory)?
How do we reconcile psychological tools (chi in martial arts, good luck charms, placebos for psychosomatic illnesses / pain management, etc...) with the need to inform the public of their basis (or complete lack thereof) in reality?
please?
Artificial intelligence is the study of how to make real computers act like the ones in the movies.
My understanding of the word 'paranormal' is that it is something that is something for which there is no scientific proof of its existence.
The Giant Squid was once considered paranormal, but proof of its existence brought it into mainstream science and altered our perception of it.
Plenty of other phenomena fall into the same boat [pun intended! sorry]. Prove it, and it's no longer paranormal.
Seems like the prize might be tricky to win.
Better known by his stage name "The Amazing Randi"
I think at this point he's really better known as James Randi. Maybe back in the 60s and 70s when he was actually performing, but many Slashdotters may not have even been born then.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Why haven't you actively encouraged religious leaders to accept your challenge? Seems to me they are the biggest paranormal fraudsters on the planet but you seem to give them a pass. I'd pay cold, hard cash to see you and Richard Dawkins tag-teaming Ratzinger and Khamenei...
Mr. Randi,
Of the people you have debunked, how many of them admit to deception verses how many continue with the charade, either by moving the goalposts or somehow attacking the validity of the test?
"Long time listener, first time caller."
Scientists usually have a degree behind their authority so that they have credibility and are recognized as authoritative experts in their domain.
What degree(s) (Bachelor, Masters, Doctoral) do you have? If none, why not?
Newton didn't have a degree in Alchemy yet spent the majority of time researching it. Why is it not "legitimate" research for someone who gave us the basics of Physics (until Einstein came along) to investigate if there is a basis of truth for things outside the domain of Science?
You came out as a gay man in 2010. Can you elaborate on how that impacted your life and work?
Do you think the bias around homosexuals unfairly hurts your credibility? Now that you've had a few years living "out," do you still think you chose the right time to do so?
The default state of the human brain does not include the scientific method, nor the critical think needed to recognize (let alone challenge) unproven assumptions, nor the collection of life-experiences that gives us good intuitions about what is and is not realistic.
The default state DOES, however, include intuitions about every effect having a cause, and a readiness to believe whatever an adult says (this has obvious survival benefits, given the above-mentioned lacks). Also, there is a perchance for fantasy and the surreal, largely because that is more interesting.
Belief in magic is a natural enough consequence of this state. The correction of this belief requires a combination of:
1) Inculcation of the scientific method.
2) Evocation of critical thinking skills.
3) Provision of facts and life-experiences that reinforce sound intuitions about how reality works.
These things do not happen automatically. A very directed education is necessary to instill these, and without them, most people are very ill-equipped to protect themselves against nonsense. Old superstitions and charismatic charlatans can therefore easily keep belief in magic alive.
The fact that so much of the world has so little understanding of science, that they feel the choice is between belief in religion and belief in science.
I'd much prefer a world where belief was protected over in one corner, and knowledge was protected over in the other - and the population as a whole understood the difference.
How would you realistically track our societies on this path ?
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
I ask this because I used to regard myself as a Christian skeptic. While I support what you do and much of the work of the skeptical movement, I now no longer make that claim because current skepticism seems joined at the hip with atheism. I am sure you know, one of the early leaders of the skeptic movement, Martin Gardner, was a theist and a self professed liberal Christian. Are people like Martin Gardner welcome in the movement today?
And, as a Christian I thank you for exposing the televangelist faith healing frauds.
Have you ever succeeded in changing someone's beliefs in pseudoscience? Do you think that it is possible to do so in a large scale, to move humanity towards a more rational way of thinking?
Sorry for the down tone, but I have plenty of experience in failing to convince people of the falsehood in astrology, homeopathy, acupunture, etc., and very little in succeeding.
entropy happens
Imagine a supposed charalatan came along and produced something that actually worked. Consistently, repeatably, under the controlled conditions you require. And agreed to publish their methods, thereby allowing other people to do the same thing reliably in their own labs. But if they do all of that, what they've come up with isn't pseudo-science, it's actual science. Doesn't that mean you wouldn't have to pay them? :-)
Randi et all get together with the claimant and they agree on a protocol: "I can make this happen". If someone comes up with a "magic" device that actually works they will be able to claim the prize, provided that they can get Randi to think that it won't work while developing the protocol.
So if you've manged to discover some new science you could collect some money from Randi, but since it has not happened yet, and I don't hear of many trying to collect it this way, so I doubt it is a big issue.
How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
I often notice that amongst the so-called educated they quote science that leans in their favor, and then outright dismiss science that challenges their beliefs. I'm not talking about creationists or global warming deniers. I mean something less obvious and more insidious that can be found across political spectrums. A friend of mine who teaches history is oft to mention his belief that we are leaving an era of reason behind in favor of an era where 'gut' feelings and authenticity rules supreme. These people espouse a brand of empiricism that would set us back pre-Descartes, actually make that the medieval period. And their numbers are growing.
This isn't merely scientific ignorance. These people have been raised around science, but just like creationists, they've built up a straw-man caricature of science in their heads and that's what they go by, based on their feelings. They don't actually test out their assertions in a structured way beyond surfing websites that agree with them. You'll find examples of that brand of opportunism, even occasionally while browsing up through this thread. You'll find it on biased environmentalist activist websites that espouse long-term damaging solutions to complex problems, or on alternative medicine websites that attack 'science' for 'being fundamentalist' while engaging in fundamentalist behavior, people who think Autism is not an illness, or a technology that has the potential to feed billions (GM) is evil, etc etc. You'll find such bias anywhere there is an identity to protect, an ego to feed or a website to promote. Since it cherry picks, and goes by what 'feels' good, it is ultimately self-serving, hence it's 'epistemological opportunism'.
What do you think can be done to counteract these populist attitudes on science that seem to be taking over? When people collapse complex problems (like medicine, cancer, mental health, GM crops etc) into black and white issues without stopping to look at all the issues, what do you do? Is there ways of raising awareness re critical thinking and proper scientific methodology? It's so easy to demonize scientists with coy phrases or genetic fallacies. Do some approaches work better than others in explaining basic scientific concepts to the public?
"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." George Bernard Shaw
Only if you fail 100% of the time. Idiocy is not necessarily a permanent state: if you can convince just a section of the idiot population that they're being idiots, you're already winning.
Note that I don't mean idiot as in "low intelligence", often smart people believe stupid things because they've never encountered the counter-argument. They're _being_ idiots but aren't actually idiots. When you show them a solid argument, the lights do go on.
> no, yes, maybe (tagging beta)
You have exposed many theories on the psychology of superstitious people.
But do you have an explanation of what makes a self-described "full-fledged skeptic, atheist, and rationalist" come to the conclusion that you "come[s] across as a bullying figure, eager to attack and ridicule, willing to distort and even invent evidence - in short, the sort of person who will do anything to prevail in a debate, whether by fair means."
Thanks,
apol
No it is not a cop out, because the protocol is negotiated and agreed upon by both party *before* the test, preliminary or not. Also the JREF make sure the protocl to be agreed upon is impartial, that is can be judged by any party to be failed or sucess without having any sort of discussion. For a dowser for example it might be "dowser go out of the room with judge, impartial person put a gold nugget under observation under a random paper cup, then go out of theroom , judge come back with dowser, dowser has as many time as needed (with say an upper limit of 30minutes) and chose a paper cup , then paper cup are revealed, then mished at different position and first step is repeated. To pass preliminary dowser must at least find 3 gold nugget out of 10 test , and at least 6 out of 10 test for the real challenge".
Usually a lot of woo protest that the prelim are not fair, but in reality the test are agreed upon to have 1 chance out of 1000 to happen by chance alone, and 1 out of 1 million for the final test. All those protest of unfairness are in reality from most woo just cop out because they can't when properly double blind tested show any special ability whatsoever.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Of all the fakes you've seen, which was the most impressive and why?
does it bother you that so few people even care to know what the truth is these days?
Who would you most like to see take the paranormal challenge that hasn't done so already?
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
On some roads I've seen signs that assert "Prayer Works". How would you design a protocol to test this assertion?
Nate
Some number of years ago, I read a great paper that tried to correlate the increase in mysticism with the take off of technology. The paper suggested that the only way some brains can deal with the advent of technology is in the framework of magic.
Could someone please point me to where I can find a copy? The title had something to do with common reference.
No hour on a horse is ever wasted. Winston Churchill
There is no evidence to the contrary. Your language is the only evidence against itself. The term supernatural implies that it cannot exist in the natural world. However, if you were to demonstrate a radio to someone from the 1700s they would certainly burn you as a witch. Contrary to popular belief there is plenty of unexplained phenomena which would qualify today as the "supernatural". Prior to the invention of the telegraph many charlatans claimed the ability to communicate at a distance in real time. Uncovering them as charlatans did not disprove the ability to communicate at a distance; only that they couldn't do it. Are there true psychics in the world? I don't know, and neither do you.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Most modern magicians use science extensively in their illusions.
Is it true that your organisation is a front to attract the mystically endowed and drain them of their powers to feed the unholy appetites of a cabal of dark theurgists and further their quest to challenge the illuminati for control of the mortal world, leading ultimately to human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, and mass hysteria?
What have you found is the most effective way to deal with friends, loved ones, or co-workers that latch on to something that is obviously pseudo-scientific nonsense? For example, my boss is obsessed with the healing properties of his high-priced alkaline water filter, while a cousin is certain that vaccines are the source of all health problems. Confronting them seems mean, and could damage the relationship, while leaving them to fall prey to hucksters also seems wrong. What can a kind-but-rational person do?
How does the fictional character Peter Venkman portrayed by Bill Murray in the 1984 hit film Ghostbusters compare to actual parapsychology researches?
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
I was wondering what axioms you hold to be true? Any rational system has a set of axioms that are the unprovable foundation of that rational system. What do you believe on faith?
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
Despite the enormous advances in scientific understanding, and the utter failure of 'believers' to produce any verifiable miracles or supernatural events, enormous numbers of people still fervently believe in such things. Even in developed countries, I see people constantly claiming that their dreams are predicting the future, or that God healed their sick grandmother, or that their house is haunted, and so on. It seems that these people just have a habit of assuming that anything they don't have an immediate, intuitive, physical explanation for must be due to magic (you've probably heard of the 'God of the Gaps fallacy').
Will better education alone (on science, epistemology, or whatever) be sufficient to change this? Or does there need to be a change in our cultural attitudes before people will stop filling in all the gaps with magic and start thinking rationally about what they observe?
How do you use truth and logic to reroute deeply held emotional or political beliefs.
Example:
In the news today, we see Chicagoans more likely to die of gunshots than US citizens in Afganistan, while Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation. That seems to be a fact. Meanwhile, a political frenzy supported by much reporting talks as if stiffer gun laws will stop criminals and crazies.
"I thought you had died a few years ago. Do you have any idea how truly relieved I am to hear that you are still alive?"
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Would it be possible to publish a set of criteria that would prove beyond reasonable doubts that an effect is unexplained. As far as I know, nobody has passed the preliminary selection for the challenge and there is no set of rules or document. One set of rule for example. Selection of participants: The phenomena must be repeatable with more than 99% confidence and be demonstrated by at least 3 independent scientists. The work must have been published in peer review journal. Test: The test must be performed on a TV stage with more than 99% confidence with 10 skeptics and/or expert magicians present. Or something similar. There is nothing right now. For me the current challenge is more like propaganda than wanting to actually know the truth. A faculty scientist and radical empiricist at the University of California San Diego
(Disclaimer: I am not a believer)
Recent studies indicated that the human brain may be hardwired to believe in something supernatural. This may have arisen through evolution - fearing the unknown could have protected early humans from danger, and their haphazard impulse to explain the unexplained, over the course of millenia, may have been at the root of what became science.
Why must everything be "true"? Is anyone seriously being harmed by Uri Geller? He puts on an entertaining act, and some people like it.
Not everyone has to be a scientist. Wouldn't it be the modern and progressive thing to do, showing some tolerance and respect for other people's choices, including fondness of the "mystical" or "spiritual", etc.?
After all, most of us enjoy fiction, and while some might be prone to pointing out inaccuracies, even trained minds can suspend disbelief.
Do bear in mind that the placebo effect is very real. Having "faith", whether it be justified by a belief in higher powers, or mere self-confidence, does wonders for a person's psychological well-being and the psychosomatic implications thereof.
I've read several of your books, used to have a subscription to "Skeptical Inquirer", and generally support your activities and those of other skeptics. (I sometimes point out that the emperor has no clothes on this very site :-)
Your books, and transcripts and stories of skeptic investigations, hold a generally belittling attitude towards the people you're investigating. Not at all the dispassionate, "here's the evidence, here's our conclusions" type of prose that is customary in scientific literature.
Regarding this tone of voice, what advice can you give to someone who does public writing? Has this attitude helped your cause, or served to impede it? If you were given the chance to start over, would you take the same attitude?
Basically, is "snark" a good writing style?
Nota Bene: For those who think this is a troll (it's not), I grabbed "Flim Flam" by James Randy off of my bookshelf (the first of his books I could find). Opening at random and starting from chapter 6 (Erich von Daniken &c) reads sentences/fragments such as: "The only facts in his four books [named] that I depend on are the page numbers", "perpetrated ... a literary diddle of enormous scope", [Chapter 8] "Along with Freudian psychiatry, this madness has persisted to the present day".
I found the book informative and interesting, but the tone, sometimes nuanced and sometimes explicit, fairly screams "prejudice!" to the reader. To my mind, the style detracts from the credibility.
Online, tone of voice is everything. We have an opportunity to find out whether snark writing is more effective than dispassionate, and perhaps that will inform online writing.
Right, but until someone can demonstrate the ability, there is far more reason to assume it doesn't exist. While the fact that nobody can (or will) demonstrate it doesn't prove the negative, it certainly doesn't add any support to the idea. So sure, in a strictly technical logical sense you're right, but in a realistic, maybe more pragmatic way, I consider the lack of demonstration as evidence to the non-existence. Just like unicorns. You can't prove they don't exist, but in reality there is no reason to believe they do.
Why are some people so willing to accept a supernatural explanation when trickery or fakery is involved and easly proved?
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Has the significant knowledge about how the brain works as reveled through FMRI made it any easier to debunk supernatural claims?
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
What epiphany led you to your current role in debunking false claims?
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Only if you fail 100% of the time. Idiocy is not necessarily a permanent state: if you can convince just a section of the idiot population that they're being idiots, you're already winning.
Note that I don't mean idiot as in "low intelligence", often smart people believe stupid things because they've never encountered the counter-argument. They're _being_ idiots but aren't actually idiots. When you show them a solid argument, the lights do go on.
I could buy that, if not for the fact that more often than not, the lights don't go on when you show people a solid argument; if anything, most of the time they get even more stupid and defensive.
A couple of topics that I've seen otherwise "smart" people get really, really stupid about:
- Abortion
- Guns
- Drugs
- Smoking
Now, you may be saying to yourself, 'but CanHas, those are hot-button topics; of course there will be highly emotional responses!' I do not disagree; However, as any Special Forces soldier will tell you, emotion is the enemy when it comes to intelligent decision making. Thus, when discussing a topic that a person feels strongly about, regardless of how intelligent they are, there is a tendency to eschew intellect in favor of slobbering-at-the-mouth fanaticism. Whether or not the choice is made consciously, I think would be a topic of great debate.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
You've spent a lifetime debunking claims of the paranormal, and for that we thank you.
In your opinion, are there areas in modern society which are not identified as paranormal that should be investigated? If you were addressing a cadre of young scientists willing to make efforts into verifying or debunking things, are there important social issues which should be examined? Which issues would those be?
To frame the question in context, here are examples of the types of issues I am referring to:
1) Economic opinions and "schools of thought", "a little inflation is good" even though no one can state what the best value is, or come up with an analytical way of measuring it
2) Antidepressants have no effect, 90 percent of cancer studies can't be reproduced. The peer review process and scientific publishing in general.
3) Most soft science papers are confident to 95%, implying that on average the results of 1 out of 20 scientific papers arose due to chance.
These aren't tricks. Tricks are for kids. Dogs do tricks.
I've met some stellar Magicians who have spent decades perfecting their own illusions and they call these effects. Some actually can become hostile to the suggestion of tricks. They may be forgiving, but I've met many masters who burn up inside. It's like calling a psychologist a shrink.
Skeptics seem to divide into two categories. First, those who publicly reveal falsehoods and loudly denounce them as deceptions. Second, those who silently observe the willingness of the public to believe in absurd falsehoods and regard that as a financial opportunity.
As an example of the latter category, the golf industry has deceived the the public into the belief that hitting little white balls around in the grass with expensive sticks is very, very important. This falsehood is enormously lucrative. Tiger Woods earned $120 million from prize money and sponsorships during 2009. Between July 2011 and July 2012 the ten top-earning golf players made $236 million collectively.
A golf skeptic would claim that the positions of small white balls in grass fields is actually of no consequence whatsoever , that golfers are peddling flim-flam, and that the public is fooled out of hundreds of millions of dollars a year. A golfing apologist would say it is a personal preference and fans should have the freedom to spend on golf because they enjoy it.
Parapsychology, like an interest in golfing, is a personal lifestyle choice. If we denounce parapsychology, religion and astrology as irrational does not consistency demand that we also denounce all other manner of irrational human behavior such as golf? You denounce some forms of irrational behavior but undoubtedly carve out exceptions for other forms which you tolerate or even practice yourself. So like you, I could carve out an an exception to what forms of irrational behavior I will tolerate by selling Mayan end-of-the-world advent calendars. Why are specifically both gullibility and its financial exploitation not acceptable life style choices in a society which generally tolerates unquestioningly the financial exploitation of irrational behavior?
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
What do you know about 'The Amazing Kreskin' Is he an ally to your debunking, or a target for it?
Derren Brown and a few others have shown how to hypnotize a person during a handshake and make them sleep within seconds. Is that real of fake?
If you have never seen it, here is a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSCA6osMHx4
The question of the op is about failing the preliminary test quote "Is there any way you can prove that your organization is not falsely debunking claims during the "Preliminary Tests," i".
This is totaly different than actively not setting a proper protocol. The reason I could answer that question btw is that on jref.org this is asked again and again and again. With a lot of woo coming by and stating the same question insinuating the same things. But if you look at the protocols (which are public btw) you will see this is never the case.
I understand slashdot is not jref, but I would rather see "new" question than question which were answered to death.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
. . . did they name a pokemon after him?
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
This is not a question - it's a comment. We should not strive to find “the truth” because it is a static assertion that has no basis in reality. We should strive to read ourselves of mysticism, i.e: the belief that “willed realities” can replace the actual reality outside. It's hard to instill positives, but it is easy to liquidate negatives. And mysticism exists in all domains of life: art, relationships, philosophy, language, science, computers, law, etc.
How was mysticism vanquished? I think now (and it could be stupid because I'm a little hypomanic now) that the final blows were delivered by a few 90s-2000s popular Television shows: Friends, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and naturally Buffy, the Vampire Slayer. Those shows were fun and entertaining, and featured many good and attractive actors and actresses, but they were subtle and direct in their undermining of mysticism. Since then all the action moved to the Internet: to email, IRC, blogs, microblogs, social networks, source sharing sites, web comics, lolcats/captioned images, video-sharing sites (YouTube), wikis, etc. etc. Now, Television may be entertaining and good, but it's no longer subversive. It no longer pushes the boundaries of knowledge.
I have called the people who have conquered mysticism from inside permanently, Qs after the Qs in Star Trek, who are omnipotent. I have written Star Trek: “We, the Living Dead” as my own fan fiction episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, where it is mashed up together with Objectivism and Neo-Tech, with Judaism and Israeli culture, with all parts of history, with geek hackerdom, with some parts about love, sex and relationships, and with crazy Illuminati/Elders-of-Zion/vampires theories. It features a friendly talking vampire cat who is older than Planet Earth, and yet still likes human affection ; the still alive version of Moses who has married girls who were 40 times his junior, and testifies that they were more mature than him in most respects. “Deborah the prophetess” who had lived in the same place in Israel since before the Israelite conquest, and is now the chief ambassador of Earth at the Q continuum; and Katie Jacobson - a female software developer in her twenties, originating from Berkeley california, who is a big admirer of Jake Sisko's stories, and a graduate of the Technion in Haifa, who joins the Star Trek crew, and in a typical millenial manner finds everything she encounters to be exhilirating.
Thing is, that such shows as those featured a lot of supposedly mystical, unethical, and irrational elements (demons, vampires, lies, innocent deaths, superpowers, etc.) while still maintaining a healthy dose of rationalism, objectivism and individualism. Note that the new age (and we have entered the new age) rationalism and individualism is pluralistic: some Roman Catholics are value producers, while some Randian Objectivism fanatics are value destroyers. The pope now has a Twitter account, because back at the time, Gutenberg's Bible was so clearly inferior to the one written by Monks, that people thought the Printing Press was a fad and that it would never catch on. But it did, and changed everything in Europe. Twitter and Facebook now face similar criticisms, in part because they are very quick and have a low barrier of entry. The pope (and most other spritual leaders) don't want to stay behind the times, and instead wish to endorse change. Only Totalitarian countries such as Iran and China, try to block Facebook, Twitter, the Cheezeburger network, You
We have two eyes and ten fingers so we will type five times as much as we read. http://www.shlomifish.org/
In his novel Mostly Harmless the late Douglas Adams wrote:
Is the practice of astrology acceptable to you on those terms?
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
If anyone is interested, interested parties may want to check out a documentary in the works called "An Honest Liar" which is about James' life. I was lucky enough to meet him last year when cameras were following him around.
They are soliciting kickstarter funds to see it finished:
http://www.anhonestliar.com/
I read your "Faith Healers" (and "Flim Flam", etc...) - no questions, but please keep on doing what you're doing.
Well maybe one question - I read somewhere that you have a note in your pocket with the text 'I will die this day', and today's date. And that you write this note fresh each morning. Do you still do this?
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Most people have seen spoon bending on TV or in stage acts - I've seen it done right before my eyes, in a completely improvised setting, with an ordinary spoon taken from the kitchen. There was no sleight of hand involved - the spoon was bending while in this man's hand, being visible all of the time. The handle remained rigid in his hand while the spoon's bowl actually rotated with no apparent force being exerted on it, so that the spoon basically twisted by about 120 degrees. (I've kept the spoon as a souvenir. It remains twisted, not cracked, and will not bend in any direction with any amount of force I can apply with my hands.)
My question to you is: if this is no more than a magic trick, how was it done? The various trick methods described here could not have been employed.
What was your funniest encounter with the supernatural believer/perpetrator?
Your assertion is based on the possibly false assumption that nobody can or has/will demonstrate the ability.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Has anyone ever "gone clean" after you've debunked them (closed their business, publicly retracted claims, admitted fault, etc.)?
"debunk psychic nonsense, disprove paranormal fakers, and squash claims of pseudoscience in order to bring the truth to the forefront." question: in this quest, who has been your Commander Pike, Spock, etc. We of the /. would grok the analogy. hey! someone had to ask!
What do you believe happens -- if anything -- after we die?
When is the Amazing Show podcast Coming Back?
I love those stories and I KNOW you've got lots more to tell.
If you're not bringing back the podcast, I'd be very pleased to hear you on The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe again!
http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-james-randi-on-skepticism-about-mainstream-science.html :-) In general, I think your skepticism about cold fusion is commendable and well warranted, but, a flat denial of its possibility is shading into the area where science progresses by going beyond what we know well and exploring into that which we are just speculating about (such as the exploration of human flight over a century ago that eventually led to success after much skepticism and many failures). I am concerned that you may have not been skeptical enough about the claims of mainstream hot fusion scientists when they dismiss something like cold fusion that might impact their funding. As I reflect on that issue of cold fusion, and think as well about another contentious human enterprise like homeopathy and as it compares to mainstream medicine with its own problems, I guess I begin to wonder about the general issue of the limits to knowledge given it is part of a social process. You have made it all too clear how anything involving people is subject to corruption and confusion for several reasons. I quote several fairly mainstream academics who say the same thing. So, this is plea in a way for skepticism about mainstream science. Of course, if one is skeptical about mainstream science, then that opens the door to all sorts of possibilities, either now, or in the future as our technology and science continue to change. I also mention in passing nutritional interventions to cure heart disease that you may have an interest in following up on. "
"I guess you might say what I am trying to do here is save you a million dollars, so you can keep it around to keep debunking the more usual paranormal claims related to ESP and so on.
It is good to be skeptical. It is possible to take it to the point of dysfunctional pathology, too.
BTW, on being caught up in a cult of a materialistic world view:
http://www.paradigm-sys.com/
"Charles T. Tart is internationally known for his more than 50 years of research on the nature of consciousness, altered states of consciousness (ASCs) and parapsychology, and is one of the founders of the field of Transpersonal (spiritual) Psychology. His and other scientists' work convinced him that there is a real and vitally important sense in which we are spiritual beings, but the too dominant, scientistic, materialist philosophy of our times, masquerading as genuine science, dogmatically denies any possible reality to the spiritual."
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
I'm not asking about Truth, I'm asking about belief and the human psyche. I'm sure that in Pedanticworld where you seem to live, they are equivalent, but they're not here on Earth. So on Earth, where Earthlings live, the burden of proof is on the mystics. My question is what drives man to believe in these things. I'm really only interested in finding out what James Randi thinks about it, not playing retarded parlor games with dull slashdot denizens.
But you don't make plans based on an undemonstrated ability. It's possible that tomorrow I may phase through the floor due to an unrealized psionic power in the human mind suddenly manifesting.
Of course this has never been demonstrated in practice, so I don't structure my life around it as a possibility - in fact it's so unlikely that I don't bother considering it at all, and until such time as that changes there's no reason too because there isn't even compelling theoretical evidence that such a thing is possible.
A lot of writers were considered important in their time and were rightfully forgotten to but a select audience a hundred years or even more later. One name especially springs to mind: August von Kotzebue was a popular German writer in the early 19th century. Very popular. And yet all he is remebered for today is being murdered and his unfortunate name. Nobody seriously will perform his plays and outside select circles he will propably not be read. If it weren't for Project Guttenberg, his works propably wouldn't be available anymore due to lack of demand. I could name other once popular writers that now are forgotten but I have forgotten about them. Circular reasoning: the last refuge of the intellectually lazy.
Your assessment od snobbery is of course correct. While I do read high-brow stuff, I also go for what by no means can be considered high literature. We need both. Anne Rice is not as popular as she was in the 90ies and those Twilight novels and their imitators will also be forgotten. The genere is very VERY old. But it hardly needed its own bookshelf.
20 minutes into the future
As a fellow with a passion for critical thinking, I used to attempt to engage in debate with friends about their unsubstantiated beliefs, but it tended to just hurt me socially. I became known as the guy who argues a lot. Do you know any tactful ways of encouraging application of critical thinking to others on a personal level?
It would not be difficult to demonstrate that the radio worked, though, which is where psychics tend to run into difficulties.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
I've always been a fan since I saw the series James Randi: Psychic Investigator in the early nineties. Given the fad that was going round at the time for the paranormal, it was very reassuring for me as an adolescent to see the cases so completely deconstructed with logic.
What worries me, though, is to see the James Randi foundation aligning itself with the likes of Richard Dawkins.
A great part of the magician's art is the use of language for misdirection. Does Richard Dawkins's sophistry not bring him into the same class as the other charlatans the JR foundation seeks to uncloak?
I'm thinking in terms of appeal to authority (eg quoting high-energy physicist Steven Weinberg as a Nobel prize winner, sidestepping the fact that he is no authority whatsoever on human behaviour), preference for "assumed" language over "asserted" language, essentially taking his conclusion as a starting point etc.
Can you ever justify defending rationality with an irrational argument?
[Disclosure: I am not religious, although I was brought up in a Catholic household. I "lost my faith", as they say, several years ago, and hold no bad feeling towards people who chose to identify themselves as religious.]
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
I think that is pretty clear at this point.
Thanks for that. One of my favorite ironies of life is when a not particularly bright individual makes ridiculous statements about my level of intelligence while simultaneously proving how truly lacking they are in that area themselves.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Again, you have no idea if it has ever been demonstrated in practice or not, ergo everything else you wrote is ridiculous conjecture based on a quite possibly false assumption.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Over the course of your career, there has been a huge amount of technological advancement. Has the changes in technology over that time made it easier or harder to investigate people's claims? Do you see the same tricks refreshed over time as technology changes?
-Doug "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke
It is still better to try and have a rational discussion about something rather than dismissing people as idiots.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Have you ever had a practicing or former Scientologist attempt to prove the efficacy of auditing, or any other practice from Scientology? If so, how did it go? :) If not, how might you go about testing and debunking it?
You are not the customer.
It is still better to try and have a rational discussion about something rather than dismissing people as idiots.
Well, sure, but what's the proper recourse when it becomes obvious that said people will not allow a rational discussion? Screaming at a wall does no good to anyone.
We, as a society, need to come to the realization that yes, there are groups of people out there who hold opinions so blindingly stupid that they should not be allowed to take part in any discussion of public policy. Sadly, right now, those groups are the ones who get the most attention, and those of us with rational thought processes are ignored, presumably because we don't scream as loud as the extremists.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Not to mention that "phasing" in sci-fi has always been based on the naive interpretation of what "gaps" in matter mean. The idea that you could slip something through the gap between a nucleus and its orbital electrons is utterly risible. The forces in there are immense. On one level, it's like claiming you can slip a spaceship through the gap between stars and without having to worry about the gravity of the star... on a deeper level, you're claiming that charged particles can pass each other without blowing the electrons off atoms or potentially fusing the nuclei under the combined pressure of orbitals.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that anything that lives by the sword dies by the sword, and the term "phasing" started life by semi-scientific musings so can be roundly dismissed as not possible. The problem is that other "undemonstrated abilities" start with claimed demonstrations, which is why Randi analyses them by observation rather than merely by theory.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
If every test you perform comes out exactly as you predicted, that these people are all fakes...
Haven't you just proven that you are psychic?