Slashdot Mirror
Interviews: James Randi Answers Your Questions
A while ago you had the chance to ask James Randi, the founder of The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF), about exposing hucksters, frauds, and fakers. Below you'll find his answers to your questions. In addition to his writings below, Randi was nice enough to sit down and talk to us about his life and his foundation. Keep an eye out for those videos coming soon.
Human Progress?
by eldavojohn
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?
Randi: It's hard to say, but I think that yes, we're always going to have irrational attitudes to deal with. It is what I’ve called the whack-a-mole problem of skepticism. You have to keep fighting back the nonsense every time it pokes its head out. Judging by the mail and email we receive, I believe we're making substantial progress, however.
query
by LokiSteve
What's the most dangerous lie perpetuated by the people you bust?
Randi: Spurious claims of healing, which directly misdirect and misinform those who are most vulnerable. This is why we support the important work of the Science Based Medicine project and Dr. Steve Novella and the rest of the doctors. The JREF just came out with books on pseudoscientific medical claims, so-called “complementary and alternative medicine,” or CAM, in coordination with them. These are topics like homeopathy and naturopothy. Many other titles on other CAM topics are forthcoming in the months ahead.
Best fraud?
by TrumpetPower!
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?
Randi: None of them have been very entertaining except Uri Geller, who has gone a long way on a 4-trick repertoire...
risks of cash rewards?
by Jodka
When offering 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?
Randi: I have never been very concerned about that. The "means of deception" have never been especially difficult to solve, though I rather wish that a really clever operator would come my way just to provide a bit of a challenge.
Placebo Effectiveness of faith healing
by Bananatree3
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.
Randi: Re the placebo effect, it only makes you feel better momentarily. The question I ask: "do you want to actually BE better, or only FEEL better?"
Can a Christian or theist be a skeptic?
by irenaeous
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.
Randi: First, I never knew of Martin as a Christian, though he was a theist. He told me that he had no evidence at all for his theism, but it simply made him feel better - which I granted him, easily. You certainly do not need to be an atheist to be a good skeptic, as JREF president D.J. Grothe has argued before on randi.org.
Is it true
by Intrepid imaginaut
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?
Randi: How did you ever figure that out? I thought we were doing such an effective job at the cover-up.
repercussions?
by poetmatt
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?
Randi: No, and yes. Lots of threats over the years, but no action...
Is it possible to eliminate magical thinking?
by iris-n
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.
Randi: 3 questions... #1, no, it will always be with us to a greater or lesser extent. But so will many other problems, and that doesn’t mean we just give up and ignore them. Firefighters never give up because there will always be a new fire to put out. #2, yes, frequently, judging from the responses we receive. #3, eventually, and that is why I started The James Randi Educational Foundation, in order to continue and expand on the work I have been doing for decades...
I've always wondered
by mog007
What's your favorite magic trick?
Randi: This is one of those "what's your favorite color" questions... Or "favorite movie, favorite country, favorite song..." If I answered it, would you know what I was talking about? I guess my answer would be “the next trick that would work!” Seriously though, it is probably a mindreading trick I invented involving any book randomly chosen from a bookshelf, and that could be at a bookstore, a library or someone’s home. I have been performing it for many decades.
Your best performance?
by TrumpetPower!
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?
Randi: I've no idea, really. I've been performing for more than 75 years, and I've done thousands of performances, of which only a very small fraction were recorded. I guess that favorites would include my appearance on Happy Days, or performing the first card trick from outer space with astronaut Ed Lu. But again, there were so many that it is hard to say.
Tell a good anecdote
by vlm
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.
Randi: I am happy to say that I share a number of such anecdotes in the new feature length documentary being made about me called An Honest Liar. Take a look!
Legacy
by abies
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?
Randi: I'll depend on my team at the JREF continuing after I'm no longer here, and I trust that it will. (It needs your support to do so, and I’m unapologetic saying so.) The JREF is a great group of people who are in line with my way of thinking, and care about continuing the unique work, including JREF president D.J. Grothe who is helping take the organization to new heights; my longtime friend the magician and skeptic Jamy Ian Swiss, who is a JREF Senior Fellow; Banachek who runs our Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge (video), and the rest of our wonderful staff, volunteers and supporters. And there are many others, like the great Penn and Teller, skeptic Michael Shermer, and the people who come to The Amaz!ng Meeting each year.
by eldavojohn
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?
Randi: It's hard to say, but I think that yes, we're always going to have irrational attitudes to deal with. It is what I’ve called the whack-a-mole problem of skepticism. You have to keep fighting back the nonsense every time it pokes its head out. Judging by the mail and email we receive, I believe we're making substantial progress, however.
query
by LokiSteve
What's the most dangerous lie perpetuated by the people you bust?
Randi: Spurious claims of healing, which directly misdirect and misinform those who are most vulnerable. This is why we support the important work of the Science Based Medicine project and Dr. Steve Novella and the rest of the doctors. The JREF just came out with books on pseudoscientific medical claims, so-called “complementary and alternative medicine,” or CAM, in coordination with them. These are topics like homeopathy and naturopothy. Many other titles on other CAM topics are forthcoming in the months ahead.
Best fraud?
by TrumpetPower!
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?
Randi: None of them have been very entertaining except Uri Geller, who has gone a long way on a 4-trick repertoire...
risks of cash rewards?
by Jodka
When offering 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?
Randi: I have never been very concerned about that. The "means of deception" have never been especially difficult to solve, though I rather wish that a really clever operator would come my way just to provide a bit of a challenge.
Placebo Effectiveness of faith healing
by Bananatree3
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.
Randi: Re the placebo effect, it only makes you feel better momentarily. The question I ask: "do you want to actually BE better, or only FEEL better?"
Can a Christian or theist be a skeptic?
by irenaeous
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.
Randi: First, I never knew of Martin as a Christian, though he was a theist. He told me that he had no evidence at all for his theism, but it simply made him feel better - which I granted him, easily. You certainly do not need to be an atheist to be a good skeptic, as JREF president D.J. Grothe has argued before on randi.org.
Is it true
by Intrepid imaginaut
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?
Randi: How did you ever figure that out? I thought we were doing such an effective job at the cover-up.
repercussions?
by poetmatt
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?
Randi: No, and yes. Lots of threats over the years, but no action...
Is it possible to eliminate magical thinking?
by iris-n
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.
Randi: 3 questions... #1, no, it will always be with us to a greater or lesser extent. But so will many other problems, and that doesn’t mean we just give up and ignore them. Firefighters never give up because there will always be a new fire to put out. #2, yes, frequently, judging from the responses we receive. #3, eventually, and that is why I started The James Randi Educational Foundation, in order to continue and expand on the work I have been doing for decades...
I've always wondered
by mog007
What's your favorite magic trick?
Randi: This is one of those "what's your favorite color" questions... Or "favorite movie, favorite country, favorite song..." If I answered it, would you know what I was talking about? I guess my answer would be “the next trick that would work!” Seriously though, it is probably a mindreading trick I invented involving any book randomly chosen from a bookshelf, and that could be at a bookstore, a library or someone’s home. I have been performing it for many decades.
Your best performance?
by TrumpetPower!
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?
Randi: I've no idea, really. I've been performing for more than 75 years, and I've done thousands of performances, of which only a very small fraction were recorded. I guess that favorites would include my appearance on Happy Days, or performing the first card trick from outer space with astronaut Ed Lu. But again, there were so many that it is hard to say.
Tell a good anecdote
by vlm
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.
Randi: I am happy to say that I share a number of such anecdotes in the new feature length documentary being made about me called An Honest Liar. Take a look!
Legacy
by abies
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?
Randi: I'll depend on my team at the JREF continuing after I'm no longer here, and I trust that it will. (It needs your support to do so, and I’m unapologetic saying so.) The JREF is a great group of people who are in line with my way of thinking, and care about continuing the unique work, including JREF president D.J. Grothe who is helping take the organization to new heights; my longtime friend the magician and skeptic Jamy Ian Swiss, who is a JREF Senior Fellow; Banachek who runs our Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge (video), and the rest of our wonderful staff, volunteers and supporters. And there are many others, like the great Penn and Teller, skeptic Michael Shermer, and the people who come to The Amaz!ng Meeting each year.
No, nope, never. People are stupid. Thanks for your time. At least Jack Horner had a cool story.
I've seen many people fall for this trap, and some have lost their lives too. There are some who're even propagating that just thinking that you will be healed will absolve you of the disease, and you will be leading a happy life all again. But what irks me the most is that most of these people I know are Engineers and Doctors, people who've studied Science and know how it works.
Re the placebo effect, it only makes you feel better momentarily. The question I ask: "do you want to actually BE better, or only FEEL better?"
This is the one place I disagree with Randi in this interview. The placebo effect has been repeatedly scientifically proven to be pretty amazingly effective at making people better, by objective measures of health/recovery. It's the gold standard against which "real" medicine is compared (and sometimes fails to do much better, while adding more side effects). Of course, when there is a real treatment that performs better than placebo in blind trials, people should be getting that. Using placebos dishonestly --- raking in tons of money while keeping people from known effective cures --- is the problem. But it's a worthwhile area of study to learn (possibly by observing the quacks) how *real* doctors can best harness the power of placebo effects in their patient care procedures, bolstering the effectiveness and reducing side effects of actual medications.
> I wouldn't waste that much time on such trivial b.s. like a kid might...
Exactly what you're doing
go away
Although it is probably true that there will always be a fraud in need of skeptics, I do think that his work shows that perhaps we may someday be able to mitigate it to the extent that we can limit the danger to only the most credulous of individuals. And maybe we can limit the damage that these frauds do to those people. So, in that regard, having an organized group like JREF is a real step forward for humanity, and I hope it receives the support it needs to continue the work.
Shit, I am surprised Zues really does exist.
You die, and it turns out your were wrong there is a god other than the one you pray to. What do you say?
So, this is what Valhalla looks like. Impressive.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
What proof do we have that this was really James Randi answering the questions, and not just somebody (say, someone else at JREF) claiming to be Randi?
I am officially gone from
That's pretty easy, you say:
"Well, fuck..."
Assuming that you have the chance to actually comment before you end up as the main course in a supernatural luau, that is.
Needless to say, I'm hoping that if the answer to the multiple choice question is "D. None of the Above", that they at least let me show my work and give me partial credit for trying.
James Randi debunked the evil lie of the 4-dimensional cubic hosts file. MyCleanPC is the true way.
I do not avoid women, Mandrake...but I do deny them my hosts file.
I respect Randi and the work that he does, but I'm sadly disappointed with this interview. I was really hoping for more involved answers here; there's barely anything resembling a thought-provoking response among the bunch. Perhaps I was spoiled by the recent Dr. Bakkar Q&A.
You die, and it turns out you were wrong and there is a God. What do you say?
-So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish!
I am surprised Zeus really does exist.
I wouldn't be: A few years ago there was a large statue of Jesus near Monroe, OH struck down by a bolt of lightning, so clearly Zeus exists and decided to smite that statue.
I am officially gone from
I asked the question regarding whether a Christian could be a skeptic. I called Martin Gardner a "self-described liberal Christian" which I tried to correct in a comment to my original post. He was a theist and was raised as a Christian, but my thinking of him as a liberal Christian was based on a misreading of one of his books where he appealed to "Liberal Christians" or "Philosophical Theists" using both terms. So I confounded them. On further reading it seems clear to me that he rejected religious traditions including Christianity while retaining as stance as a philosophical theist. Randi's answer was both accurate and charitable. He is a great man.
No, seriously why...
You die and find out this was a class project; there one god per boson. What do you say? "Sorry Z?"
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
They wouldn't say anything, because the existence of something we'd call a god doesn't necessitate an afterlife, and he'd still be dead? What you're really trying to say is "What if a particular sect of a particular branch of a particular religion has exactly the correct interpretation of the nature of the universe, and you were faced with the consequences thereof?" To which the inevitable question is "Which one?" That would dramatically influence my perspective.
"You did a pretty shitty job with all the diseases and psyche-destroying pain levels. And what the fuck with the high gravity so we break falling just a few feet?"
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Valhalla is reserved for a low number of skilled warriors. Niefelheim is for all other warriors and civilians.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/03/27/we-were-all-wrong-the-true-god-is-polynesian/
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
No one has ever taken the formal test. Not one person.
How many have taken the preliminary test? JREF doesn't know -- they're that badly organized.
There have been a few cases reported where JREF has killed applications by requesting changes to the protocol that effectively changing the nature of the claim made by the challenger. That makes for some great posts on the JREF forum, but otherwise hurts the reputation of the challenge itself.
In short: Randi is a fraud. He does a disservice to the skeptical community.
Wow. I suggest you begin by educating yourself at: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/content/article/37-static/254-jref-challenge-faq.html And don't take my (or Randi's site) word for it. All of the information there is independently verifiable, if you do a little work. Somehow, I don't think you're eager to.
That's right. Not one person has been able to pass the preliminary testing, which is designed to see if there's enough of an effect to warrant full-scale testing. So?
How many have taken the preliminary test? JREF doesn't know -- they're that badly organized.
Why should they keep track of every idiot with ridiculous claims who can't even show plausible evidence that there's something possibly worth investigation?
There have been a few cases reported where JREF has killed applications by requesting changes to the protocol that effectively changing the nature of the claim made by the challenger.
Citation, please? This claim has been making the rounds, and it seems to be based on one case where the applicant violated the agreed-upon protocol by using her cell-phone during the testing. She claimed she was just answering a text, but refused to continue testing without the cell phone. Yes, her preliminary results would have warranted further investigation if she had followed protocol, but the fact that she refused to continue without her phone is quite suspicious (and cannot be blamed on JREF).
If you've got something more substantial than that, please present it.
I knew it.
In short: Randi is a fraud. He does a disservice to the skeptical community.
Whuuut?
Dark Reflection
They wouldn't say anything, because the existence of something we'd call a god doesn't necessitate an afterlife, and he'd still be dead? What you're really trying to say is "What if a particular sect of a particular branch of a particular religion has exactly the correct interpretation of the nature of the universe, and you were faced with the consequences thereof?" To which the inevitable question is "Which one?" That would dramatically influence my perspective.
You know which one, it is written on your heart. You choose to try and convince yourself otherwise though. Remember that.
No one has ever taken the formal test. Not one person.
That's because nobody has passed preliminary testing.
How many have taken the preliminary test? JREF doesn't know -- they're that badly organized.
Check their web site - they have dozens of writeups on preliminary tests.
There have been a few cases reported where JREF has killed applications by requesting changes to the protocol that effectively changing the nature of the claim made by the challenger.
Reported by whom? I've seen examples where they ask for changes to the claim because the claim was untestable. For example, there was a guy who said he could talk telepathically to aliens. He could describe their homeworld and technology and everything. Of course, he could be making it all up, so they asked him if he could provide anything that could be testable.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
That's my feeling, I admire his aims, but I don't respect the hypocrisy with which he aims to meet them. Ultimately, skepticism without an open mind is lacking in value. One must have an open mind when being skeptical because there's a ton of weird things over the years that have proven to be true, even though they seemed to be completely insane at the time.
The whole idea that cells are made up of even smaller particles would have seemed to be astonishing when it was first postulated, and scientists are still finding smaller particles many decades later.
Or, perhaps those blind spots where the optic nerves prevent vision, I'm sure that seemed very strange when discovered. Or the ability of humans to see polarization in light, even now that seems relatively strange, even though it's true.
You are confusing discoveries which can be proven upon investigation with alleged discoveries for which no proof is ever offered.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
And what the fuck with the high gravity so we break falling just a few feet?"
Would you rather break a leg by being a clumsy oaf or have everyone die from breathing vacuum? (Gravity is a prerequisite for an atmosphere, you know.)
I've got a question that I didn't think of to ask in time for the interview.
Have you ever gone into a situation where you thought you would be debunking something only to find out that the person was on the level?
I'm thinking if a debunker had heard of penicillin (being cured of small pox by using bread mold!?!) he would have been able to cast dispersions on Fleming etc. Is there ever a case where you were debunking actual advancement and decided that it didn't need to be debunked after all?
I personally know 3 religious people who have each had, at one time in their lives, a medically diagnosed condition which was being monitored carefully by their physician after discovery, and that spontaneously disappeared from existence after a period of time ranging from a few weeks to almost a year with absolutely no evident medical explanation (for one of them, in particular, one of the last ultrasounds they were to have had before an upcoming surgery was unable to find any evidence of the condition for which they had supposedly needed the operation in the first place, where previous ultrasounds had apparently confirmed it... the condition was suddenly simply gone). In all 3 cases, the doctors they had could offer no reasonable explanation, and only encouraged their patients to be grateful, and all 3 of these people that I know attribute it to having been healed by God.
Is it possible that they were just misdiagnosed the first time, and as further tests were performed, ultimately more reliable results obtained? I dunno... but if that's not the case, then human faith in something has considerably more influence than I think science can reasonably explain.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
You die, and it turns out you were wrong and there is a God. What do you say?
"Dammit, Bob, you had better be here at the gates with double my money back!"
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
God is cholesterol? Good to know. "Diets high in soluble fiber shown to reduce God".
You should know that false certainty doesn't actually make your beliefs accurate.
What does God need with a starship?
or
What the fuck was that all about? I can do a better job than you - here give me a go.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
LOL mod funny XD
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"You die, and it turns out you were wrong and there is a God. What do you say?"
There's nothing to say. God knows everything.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
You'd think an omnipotent being could get around such little issues... or is he not "all powerful" after all?
No, I'm not. You seem to be under the impression that these ideas had proof prior to the experiments being done. Minds like Randi's are problematic because they sprout from the diea that there's nothing to it, rather than from the possibility that there's something to it. You can't do good science starting with the belief that there's nothing to it. You have to start from the point of view of, well, if this is real, what would it be like, and how can I test to see if that's the case. If you're view is that the only acceptable answer is that it's bunk, you're experiments will be just as flawed as people who take the opposite tack.
BTW, I do have a degree in the Natural Sciences, and there's no way in hell that I would ever assume that things like this were proven before the experiments were done.
What's more, have you been following the bullshit in String Theory lately? They have yet to come up with even one testable hypothesis in over 2 decades of work.
"Never Trust Anyone who Claims to be a keeper of truth."
"Always remember to seek truth."
"Truth is a Three Edged Sword. Your Truth, my truth and the truth itself."
-Hackus
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Randi is a good-egg and we need more people like him who are alert to frauds. I'm also appalled at irrational rejection of medical treatment on the basis of quackery. But there's one little bit of good that can come from an, ahem, 'healer' if they have confidence that the patient can catch onto. To go with many medical conditions is a load of mental baggage and even legit pills that fuzz thinking. It helps enormously if the patient leaves their complex regrets, hang-ups and attention to trivial detail behind to focus instead on getting better. This applies to school kids worried about exams, artists losing their muse and general depression, de-motivation and relationship problems. Often a ludicrously unqualified but persuasive person can achieve that. Unfortunately letting such 'enthusiasts' near vulnerable people can be bad news as altruism turns to exploitation. Ughh! Here's hoping someone can square that circle.
You ask for a do-over.
I disbelieve!
Who is to say that GP is not a skilled warrior?
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
The Pope's Reward
Or it might've been Thor. ;)
Asatru and Odinism are gaining adherents in the US (and abroad)
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
You should say: "Oh great Zeus, I apologize for misspelling your name!"
"Ummm.. please reincarnate me as a Koala bear."
They have the life, sleeping nearly all day and getting high on eucalyptus.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
You can't do good science starting with the belief that there's nothing to it.
Replace "belief" with "hypothesis" and this is exactly how good science is done. You first try to explain an unexpected observation by using known phenomena. Only after this hypothesis fails do you turn to the unknown.
You have to start from the point of view of, well, if this is real, what would it be like...
While arguably the more fun part of scientific advancement, this bit comes _after_ you've dilligently and unsuccessfully tried to shoot yourself down.
You die, and it turns out you were wrong and there is a God. What do you say?
I punch God in the face.
You have to start from the point of view of, well, if this is real, what would it be like, and how can I test to see if that's the case.
That's... what their Challenge is. A test to prove the supernatural/etc exists.
If you're view is that the only acceptable answer is that it's bunk, you're experiments will be just as flawed as people who take the opposite tack.
Right. Which is why they don't do that.
However, let me ask you this: If I claim to have an invisible, untouchable, floating, fire-breathing dragon in my garage, would you REALLY have an open mind regarding it's existence, or would you dismiss it as most likely a false claim (while keeping the possibility of its existance open if proof was brought forth)? Because that's what JREF does. When they get a claim that violates the known laws of physics, they basically say 'That's not possible according to what we know of the Universe. However, let's come up with a good Test to see if we can prove it is possible...'.
At that point (a fair test being designed), the claimant usually backs out, claiming the fair test is biased, or mumbling something about 'bad vibes'. The few who actually go through with it... fail.
How many times does an experiment have to fail, before the scientists running it can reasonably say "This won't work"? (I'll remind you that one definition of Insanity is 'doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results').
Fuck, I drove by that monstrosity a few years ago... 2006, i think. Creeped me right the fuck out. Glad to hear it's been destroyed by a righteously wrathful deity.
Why should they keep track of every idiot with ridiculous claims who can't even show plausible evidence that there's something possibly worth investigation?
Because that's what Legitimate organizations do! Don't you think that their donors would be interested in seeing how their money is being put to good use?
What about marketing? "We tested n applicants in 2012 and found them to be frauds! Help us keep up the good work."
What about managing applications? "We've tested similar claims n times over the past 5 years and need to focus on other areas"
I called Randi and his JREF organization a fraud because they act like frauds. It's obvious to everyone that Randi has no problem misrepresenting the truth whenever it suits him. (To his credit, he usually admits to his "exagerations" when challenged. Example: Randi's outright lie in Dog World Magazine about testing Sheldrakes claims.)
Apply just a little bit of reason and critical thinking here.
If you want to make a real difference, and KNOW where your money goes, find a classroom in need on donors choice. A $100 for a microscope for a science class will go a lot farther than $10,000 for JREF to ... do what, exaclty? Hold an annual meeting? Publish an electronic newsletter?
Anything's better than supporting a fraudulent enterprise like JREF.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions.
You probably knew going into this that /. is much like an asylum full of raving lunatics hell bent on arguing over the minutiae of each and every point just for the hell of it.
I found your responses to be an interesting read, and I'm glad you're still fighting the good fight.
That's a stupid place for God to write me a message. I for one am not going to cut open my chest just to see what is written on my heart. Why can't he send a letter or an email or phone me like normal people.
Why can't god put a roof on the planet, that'd stop the atmosphere escaping, and also be a pretty strong hint he actually exists.
No, I'm not. You seem to be under the impression that these ideas had proof prior to the experiments being done. Minds like Randi's are problematic because they sprout from the diea that there's nothing to it, rather than from the possibility that there's something to it.
Am not. I am under the impression only that these ideas came from somewhere, not the void. They were suggested by observation and reinforced by more observation. Moreover, mindsets like Randi's are the only mindsets that are worth having - the kind that says: Show me. AKA Money talks and bullshit walks.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Hey, I collected enough experience points, and completed all the required side quests. So why am I stuck at the table in the kitchen with all the children?
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Well, it might have been Thor, but his style always seemed to be walking straight up to whatever he wants to smite and smacking it with Mjollnir. Zeus, on the other hand, tends to prefer smiting with a lightning bolt from afar, so this seemed more like Zeus' doing.
But yes, my Asatru and Heathen friends argued this same point with me back when the smiting happened.
I am officially gone from
Here, enlarge it to poster size and stick it in every primary school
Suppose you die and there is no god. Then you are dead.
Check their web site - they have dozens of write-ups on preliminary tests.
Let's put this to the test. Can you find any of the following (for 2012):
The number of applicants (notarized).
The number of applications rejected.
The number of applications in process.
The number of preliminary tests conducted.
Having trouble? That's because that very basic information does not exist. This extreme lack of transparency is exactly what you'd expect from frauds and scammers.
If it acts like a fraud ...
Required reading for internet skeptics
I'd say nothing becasue I would be too busy ripping his heart out and eating so I could get his power.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Er - who cares? Who are they defrauding?
Yeah it could be run better, but the million dollar challenge isn't their main mission. But it's all their money, so who cares?
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
I admire his aims, but I don't respect the hypocrisy with which he aims to meet them.
The scientific method is hypocritical? - In what way? I've been a Randi fan for 33yrs, if he has a fault in his approach I would say he could lighten up a bit when it comes to certain fictional works.
As for the rest of your post, ignorance is curable, you seem to be laboring under the misconception that confidence in Science as a reliable way to know the universe equates to a closed mind, this suggest you do not fully comprehend the central role of skepticism in science and would benefit greatly from reading some of Randi's books. I think I can speak for Randi when I say that if someone can pass the JREF tests then the contribution to mankind's knowledge would be worth much more than the prize.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
" they sprout from the diea(sic) that there's nothing to it,"
yes, it's called the null hypothesis.
Learn what the fuck science is and how the fuck it works.
BTW, I can find many peopel with degrees in a scientific field who don't actually know how science works. A degree doesn't not a scientist make.
" They have yet to come up with even one testable hypothesis in over 2 decades of work."
actually, there are several. You sir, are an ignorant dope.
In fact, the LHC could very well find evidence to support it. But you go on with you ignorance in in how science and mathematics are used.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"The number of applicants (notarized)."
Between 1964 and 1982, Randi declared that over 650 people had applied. Between 1997 and February 15, 2005, there had been a total of 360 official, notarized applications.
There are these things called 'websites' You can go to them and read about stuff! you should try it, they are awesome!
idiot.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Who are they defrauding?
Their donors, obviously.
Occasionally, the federal government. Though that's just Randi, not necessarily the JREF. Ask Jose Alverez about that...
Required reading for internet skeptics
Ah, I see that you have trouble reading.
I asked for numbers from 2012
In fact, you won't find numbers for ANY specific year. Their website only offers a few vague figures from two disconnected date ranges.
I repeat: the very basic information I (and any donor would have) requested does not exist. This extreme lack of transparency is exactly what you'd expect from frauds and scammers.
If it acts like a fraud...
Required reading for internet skeptics
He did, but it's reeeeeeealllly high up; His conception of space being much different from ours.
Why can't god put a roof on the planet, that'd stop the atmosphere escaping, and also be a pretty strong hint he actually exists.
Why should God have to build that roof, or cure all diseases for us? (S)He created us humans with enough intelligence to figure out how to do these things on or own. Now THAT's what I'd call good use of engineering!
And by the way, why do you feel God owes you 'proof' of His/Her existence? Isn't the fact that you exist at all, on a planet that is a mixture of rock and mud and water (with a breathable atmosphere), spinning so fast that were if not for gravity centrifigul force would spew everything off, a planet that is hurtling through the vacuum ofspace at tremendous speeds enough to give you pause at the utter absurdity of our very existence? God provides all this evidence of Him/Her, but you are so stubborn that you still want MORE proof? What would convince you, an actual personal appearance by the Almighty, perhaps one where (S)He dons a hat and cane and performs a song and dance for you, singing, "Hello my baby, hello my darling, hello my ragtime gal... Send me a kiss by wire, baby my heart's on fire..."?!?
How about just being grateful for your life and the lives of the others you love? Quit yer bitchin'! In a relatively short moment of cosmic time, you will have died from old age from 'this' life, and you'll have your answer then. Stop demanding proof of God or else you're going to keep going around insisting your life in just an accident of chance. The odds of our very existence are so astronomical you couldn't even comprehend that number. You're not a kid anymore, now start using that brain that ''God gave you''. :-)
In other words, you'll just have to wait and see...
I have yet to see an academic class (here I exclude shop and home ec) before college that needs anything but a teacher, textbooks and a classroom. If weather is good the classroom is optional, and in many cases either the teacher or the textbook is optional. Microscopes rarely extend beyond 5 minutes of "ooh, that's cool" and go back into the locked closet for another year.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Mr Geller,
Your butt still hurts ?
You make a good point. There are several interpretations of the nature of universe but there is only going to be one correct one. You can't have conflicting interpretations. Well so which interpretation? I think two key factors are truthfulness and completeness.
Ah yes, the ignition of butter Jesus.
Because that's what Legitimate organizations do! Don't you think that their donors would be interested in seeing how their money is being put to good use?
Except a major point of the preliminary test is to save the foundation money. Preliminary tests are done by local organizations and volunteer groups, whereas the final test would involve flying people out to the test location. Occasionally Randi will do the preliminary test himself if the applicant lives or travels to somewhere near a place Randi was already going to be for other reasons. So the number of preliminary tests wouldn't be involved in how and how much the foundation spends.
Yes, they could use better organization, although part of the problem has been how minimal staffing has been, and some issues come down to there being only one or two people to handle some of the applicant process. With a huge portion of the applications never getting replies or further communication from the applicant or cases with the applicant never showing up for or participating in tests after agreeing that everything was ready to go, at least on of the former organizers too a bit too lax view tabulating the status of old files... although the documents and applications are there if someone else wants to volunteer to do it.
if this is real, what would it be like, and how can I test to see if that's the case
Umm, isn't that the entire point of the challenge, to actually get people to think of ways to test for such things then to actually test for it? The problem with many such claims is that people will refuse to do careful testing of their own claims, and then when presented with possible ways to do controlled tests, they find excuses to not bother with it. The whole point of the challenge is to make sure tests are thought out beforehand, so that claims are clarified into an agreeable, testable nature, and then to give people a motivation to actually go through with the test.
except that really, all religious texts say exactly the same thing. The difference is in the dogmatic interpretations.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Like how the Vedas make reference to the redemption of sin. Or the Torah makes reference to the illusion of reality. Or the Qur'an suggesting the existence of karma.
Wait, no, those are all very different religious books, and your false certainty doesn't make you any more right.
At one time there was a forum on the JREF web site where they created a new thread for every applicant and documented what progress had been made. Although they communicated with these people through the mail or on telephone, they posted updates in the thread to show what was going on in each case.
I spent a few hours reading through the threads. They were basically all from people who were clearly delusional. The few who went as far as the first test always failed miserably. Indeed, in one thread, the person documenting the case said something to the effect of "I can no longer in clear conscious continue pretending as if there is a potential supernatural claim to be tested here. You clearly need to seek psychiatric help." This at the end of a series of letters attempting to pin down exactly how they were to test whether this guy could sit in the corner of a dark room for about 20 minutes and see various colorful things floating around.
That's essentially the only thing the prize attracts. Those perpetuating real scams, like those pretending to be psychics, aren't interested in the million dollar prize because they know there's no way they could possibly win it (and that isn't because they're psychic and they know James Randi will cheat, though I'm surprised no one has attempted to use that excuse yet). The only people who attempt to claim the prize have some real issues.
This also led to a lot of problems with getting anyone to test these people. The organization would have to contact some scientists well-educated in skepticism somewhere in the country near the prize applicant, and get them to agree to volunteer their time to set up some carefully prescribed agreed-upon test environment only to test someone who is clearly delusional and had no chance whatsoever of ever passing the test. They were having a lot of difficulty with this, as apparently once someone tested a few of these people, they no longer wanted anything to do with the process as it was just too dumb and pointless.
I believe this is what led to the change to the rules some years ago that, in order to be eligible, you must first get a news article written and published about your ability in a local newspaper. Thus, they no longer have to deal with the delusional because the local newspapers will never publish an article about them, yet the prize remains open to any daytime talk show psychic who wants it. Thus, it's quite possible that they don't test anyone anymore, as these people aren't interested in having their abilities being demonstrated to be false.
+1 Good facts.
Somebody ought to point James Randi to this challenge. Be the easiest $10k he ever made!
Nice try though.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
If it weren't for the fact that everything you just said was factually untrue, you might have a point!
Not for the creator of reality. To quote Morpheus, "You think that's air you're breathing? Humph."
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
The donors of the prize? There was one donor. He's fine with it.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Or just stay comfortable in your beliefs founded on other people's words. Truth is free, but it costs you dearly.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
The donors of the prize?
Really? That's what you came up with? With supporters like you, it's no wonder JREF stays in business!
In case you haven't figured it out: Their donors are the people who make donations to the organization. It's their primary source of funding, like most non-profits.
Thankfully, you haven't puzzled out how to contribute financially. Consider yourself lucky!
I hate seeing flim-flam scammers take advantage of the helpless.
Required reading for internet skeptics
http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-james-randi-on-skepticism-about-mainstream-science.html#Homeopathy_as_a_big_picture_example
Yes, there is a lot of nonsense in alternative medicine. But there is a lot of nonsense in mainstream medicine, too (e.g. much mainstream cancer and heart disease treatment is misguided dues to financial conflicts of interest in the providers). We need the best of both. The mind can affect health in a variety of ways -- including by moderating the immune system to reduce inflammation (and possibly destroying some cancer), providing natural internal painkillers, and by choosing to eat healthier and otherwise live a healthier lifestyle (which may even include religious-motivated things like periodic fasting that can have health benefits in some contexts). We need to make the most of those possibilities in a responsible way.
As I suggest in that essay, Randi himself probably got scammed by mainstream medicine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi
"In February 2006, Randi underwent coronary artery bypass surgery."
"If you look into the nutritional medicine that Dr. Joel Fuhrman, MD, practices, but you can also find several others who say the same, you will find that most bypasses are unnecessary and blocked arteries can be unblocked and brought back to health in about two years of an agressive nutritional approach of a diet heavy on vegetables, fruits, and beans (and a little nuts, seeds, and whole grains). So, in one of the greatest decisions of your life, you were, I'd suggest, scammed by the mainstream medical community and its connection with the mainstream agri-business. In fact, people who get a bypass but don't change their eating habits tend to just have the same problem come back."
See also:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/PCI_angioplasty_article.aspx
"Interventional cardiology and cardiovascular surgery is basically a scam based on a misunderstanding of the nature of heart disease. Searching for and treating obstructive plaque does not address the areas of the coronary vascular tree most likely to rupture and cause heart attacks. If there was never another CABG or angioplasty performed or stent placed, patients with heart disease would be better off. Doctors would be forced to educate our citizens that their heart disease risk is determined by what they place on their forks. Millions of lives would be dramatically extended. To abandon the theory of stretching and cutting out areas with plaque would shut down interventional cardiology, nearly all cardiovascular surgery, and many suppliers of the biotechnology. In many cases, interventional cardiology is the major income generator to hospitals. The ending of this ill-conceived, out-dated and ineffective technology would dramatically downsize hospitals in the United States and free up over $100 billion annually in medical care costs. Besides being ineffective, interventional cardiology places the responsibility in the hands of the doctor and not the patients. When patients finally realize they must take control of their heart problems with aggressive dietary modifications (and when needed medications for temporary periods) we will essentially solve the health crisis in America.
The sad thing is surgical interventions and medications are the foundation of modern cardiology and both are relatively ineffective compared to nutritional excellence. My patients routinely reverse their heart disease, and no longer have vulnerable plaque or high blood pressure, so they do not need medical care, hospitals or cardiologists anymore. The problem is that in the real world cardiac patients are not even informed that heart disease is predictably reversed with nutritional excellence. They are not given the opportuni
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
"You haven't read the original texts" is one of those arguments that sounds a lot better than it actually is.
So, picking an arbitrary book from an arbitrary time in it's history is now the secret to understanding everything. Certainly not the conjunction of observation, scientific method, inductive reasoning, and inference. Nope, sufficiently old books are magic. And you can pretend they're aaaaaaaaaaaallll the same, and that makes them even better.
So you're argument is that science has made modern translations more accurate and suddenly changed centuries of dogma? Not thinking properly are you? Stop being an idiot and realize that what I am saying is the science. Modern understanding of language usage at the time of writing the documents shows that they are all talking about the same things. Choosing a first edition is not arbitrary, it is the most logical starting point. Spend more time learning to think than spewing out canned dogmatic insults. The dogma makes them different. Anyone who continuously talks about an anthropomorfic god when disparaging christianity is responding only to dogma and not the what the documents actually say.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
So "I'm argument" is that I've read many interpretations of many of the "original texts" and they tend towards nonsensical, and definitely unrelated. It'd be like saying Sun Tzu's Art of War was fundementally the same as Julius Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico. If it weren't a religious argument, it would literally be deemed crazy.
You die, and it turns out you were wrong and there is a God. What do you say?
The skeptic says, "in light of this new data, I have a new working hypothesis."
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Why should God have to build that roof, or cure all diseases for us?
Because it would be a nice thing to do, and immensely lower the total amount of suffering? You know, in line with the whole "benevolent" part? Or are you also a follower of Cthulhu?
Stop demanding proof of God or else you're going to keep going around insisting your life in just an accident of chance.
I'll stop asking for proof when people stop trying to cram their particular brand of god down my throat. And that includes using religious arguments for public policy.
Is God supposed to get involved in every natural and man made disaster beforehand? How then would we learn to deal with them correctly to prevent them? We are a smart enough species to learn so many things, for God to step in every time something bad occurs would cause us to become dependent on Him/Her, not conducive to our growth as a species. And that would interfere with free will, and we would be not much better than infants needing our parents constantly. A good parent would want to see their children learn from their mistakes, lest they become 'crippled' by their dependency on the parent.
Think of God as a dean in a college of higher learning. Usually you never see that dean, they're running the show from their office and only get involved when they deem it necessary, not when the students make demands that they do. Subordinates handle the lesser things.
And not to worry when people die from this existence, it seems that there's a safety net for all of us. To me this life is akin to kindergarden, where you learn the basics to living this life. Basics like play nice together, don't hit, share your blocks with others, etc. I 'know' (don't ask, too involved, and you probably wouldn't believe me anyway) that there's a 'first grade' that we'll graduate to at the end of this life, if we remember the lessons we learned in kindergarden, and practice the universal golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you". Pretty simple rule to living that many do not practice. Perhaps they get sent back to repeat kindergarden again until they 'get it', who knows. All I know for sure is that there's something after this life, what that something is I don't know. Just that there's something, and that's good enough for me. I try to live the best life I can, help others, learn from my mistakes as I can, and I remain grateful to God for this wonderful, odd, beautiful life I've been granted here, temporary though it may be. And I try not to bitch too much when thingsdon't go the way I wanted them to, that's what children do.
Have a great day/ life, sir/ madam! :-)
P.S. No one knows how and when God does decide to get involved, I'm betting that when God does get involved, (S)He stay's 'low key' about it, and doesn't need to call attention to themself.