Magician & Investigator James Randi Talks Directly to You (Video)

Last week James Randi answered your questions. But that was text, and he's a performer ("The Amazing Randi"), so you need to hear the man talk to get his full flavor. He's a good talker, too. So Rob Rozeboom (samzenpus) got on Skype with The Amazing Randi to talk about his exploits, including his debunking of a whole bunch of (alleged) frauds, ranging from Uri Geller to Sylvia Browne. The resulting interview was so long and so strong that we cut it in half. Today you see Part One. Tomorrow you'll see Part Two. (The video's here now; sorry about the delay.)

Comments

What you see today

[ArcadeMan]

Is nothing because Slashdot keeps using technology from two decades ago.

DEATH TO FLASH!

Re:What you see today

[farlukar]

Slashdot keeps using technology from two decades ago.

Well, that's just because Lynx hasn't implemented the canvas tag yet.

Asking for proof there is a god, if there is one..

[mark-t]

... is not altogether unlike one character in a book asking another one to prove they are characters in a book.

Kind of pointless, since the events that happen in the book are taken for granted as "natural", and so anything which the author writes about would not be seen as anything other than normal to those characters, even though the author still actually wrote it.

Damn, I missed it

[azav]

I wish I got a word in. See, I'm a very scientific person with an actual degree in this "Science" stuff. Yet, I realize that science falls short in explaining that which can't be quantified, measured, or repeated.

As a 15 year old young man, I did live in a house where things moved, occasionally right in front of our eyes. Thankfully, it was only for a one year, and I have never experienced such disturbing events again.

At least four other people (all men) also witnessed these events within our house.

Of course, after leaving, I found out that there was a violent relationship (and death) in the house. It's like some imprint was left on the place and there was a constant hostility towards all men within the house. When you see 3 inch nails flying across a room, more than once, that sends a message.

Though James Randi is very much against supernatural things, I wonder if he is able to admit that there are things that we do not have the disciplines to explain yet?

Part of scientific thinking is that "I don't know" is a perfectly good answer for that which science can not yet measure or identify.

Really. This stuff did happen to me, my father, two friends and a repairman.

Re:Damn, I missed it

[dingen]

He says "I don't know" all the time. He also explicitly doesn't say he knows supernatural stuff doesn't exist. He just asks that if you say you have a supernatural ability, you have to be able to prove it. Many have tried, but so far nobody has ever been able to do so.

Re:Damn, I missed it

[nblender]

You were had.

My son believes that squirrels leave messages for him in his mailbox. He wants to believe it so badly that he refuses to acknowledge that it could be me doing it, or a workman that I cajoled into doing it for me. One day it will occur to him that it was me but until then, he's entitled to his little fantasy.

It's too bad someone didn't own up to it though. Those pranks seem to have affected your adult ability to think critically.

Re:Damn, I missed it

[KingSkippus]

If you watched the video, he specifically addressed this. He says that he's not claiming that supernatural events don't occur. His prize is up for grabs to someone who can prove that they do.

"I don't know" is, in fact a perfectly good answer, but it's not a valid explanation. It's certainly not proof of the contrary. More often than not, it is a cop-out to use "I don't know" as an excuse to not believe what evidence there is or do further research into the matter. This is where religion gets into trouble a lot. I've seen it a lot in the form of statements like, "Scientists don't know such-and-such, therefore God did it."

If you have what seemed to be supernatural occurrences happening in a house you lived in, the scientifically "correct" course of action isn't to simply chalk it up to ghosts and be done with it, it is to try to come up with plausible explanations for what was happening and testing them. Even if you settle on the ghosts answer, you need some way to prove that that's what it is. Who knows? Maybe you could have won Randi's prize.

And I'm not being facetious when I say that. A lot of advancements in science have happened when people didn't just accept seemingly supernatural phenomena at face value, but investigated it. Sometimes you even get really lucky and the actual explanation is more fantastical than any supernatural explanation.

Re:Damn, I missed it

[wonkey_monkey]

I have the "ability" to affect *some* street lights. It's always the same ones *but* it doesn't always work.

*facepalm* Otherwise known as dodgy street lights which would be going on and off even if you weren't around, only then you're not around to see it.

Re:Damn, I missed it

[Pope]

I have the "ability" to affect *some* street lights. It's always the same ones *but* it doesn't always work. It seems to depend on my mood for some reason. When I approach they turn off and once I'm past them they light up again.

I think the light sensors may have extremely varying properties and that some may happen to pick up on some kind of energy and/or frequencies that people emit. I also think that people who can see "auras" see the same thing, their eyes pick up something outside of the visible spectrum.

I've once seen a video where a guy had to prove he had the same ability, as if all street lights were manufactured with the exact same atomic patterns. There's variations in each and every single things we make. As an example, some people may be able to crack a board in two with their bare fists, other boards will resist the punches because maybe it's a different wood type, maybe it's because of the wood grain, etc. Same thing applies to everything, on the atomic level.

Hi. That's called Confirmation Bias. You do not have supernatural powers.

Re:Damn, I missed it

[Em Adespoton]

This reminds me of a TV show where it turned out that a "haunted" house happened to have a fungus growing in the walls that caused hallucinations in susceptible people (not everyone). End result was that sometimes it was the people themselves throwing things across the room, but remembering it happening without them touching the objects. Once they cleaned up the fungus, the paranormal activity stopped.

Sure, that's just someone's script for a show, but there are quite often* explanations for paranormal things, as long as your thinking isn't trapped in a box of limited possibilities.

*OK, there's always more explanations (hypotheses) than events, and often even more than one is correct, for a given limited definition of correct.

Never forget that science is really just a collection of narratives that have been cross-referenced to hang together. Most of the time, we can create a narrative that's both simplistic enough for us to understand it and complex enough to cover most of the event horizon. But not always (see Lies to Children like "what is a solid object" and "what is gravity" -- even with Higgs (boson particle/field etc), we're dealing with narrative descriptions based on observations, not definitions of how things actually work).

Re:Damn, I missed it

[MightyMartian]

So, in other words, your qualifications are no more "science" than a baker's or a doctor's.

And the reason these phenomenon are frequently discounted is because they almost inevitably do not stand up to scrutiny. How many times do researchers have to waste their time on claims of spirits moving dishes before finally researchers throw up their hands and decide their time would be much better spent in areas where fruitful results are likely,.

I'll be blunt, the paranormal "field of research" is populated by a long list of quacks and frauds, with maybe a very very very very very small number of researchers who actually are willing to apply appropriate methodologies. The reason that guys like James Randi, Penn and Teller and the Mythbusters are so successful at what they do is because they are experts in what one might call the illusionary arts, and thus are uniquely qualified to recognize when some spoon bender type is playing a con.

And as a final note, it amazes me how, after a century and a half of pretty deep research into how the human mind functions, and all too often malfunctions, that people are so willing to absolutely trust their senses when objects or environment seem to function in a counter-intuitive fashion. There have been no lack of studies that demonstrate just how fallible our senses and our cognitive abilities can be under extreme and sometimes even normal circumstances, and yet those rational explanations are rejected out of hand in favor of wild ass claims of ghosts, spirits, UFOs, the Hand of God, the Holy Spirit, mystery electro-magnetic (or insert your favorite quasi-scientific phrase; quantum seems quite popular these days) and yes, sometimes just being plain conned.

Re:Damn, I missed it

[Xtifr]

No one has ever taken the official challenge.

Because no one has ever passed the preliminaries.

The JREF is also suspiciously silent on the number of preliminary tests conducted every year.

No they're not. Nobody has taken the preliminary since they introduced the "you must have reasonable documentation of something worth testing" requirement a while back. There are plenty of ways to provide documentation: letters from a local college or university, passing the tests offered by many smaller skeptic groups (which will give you some cash to continue your efforts), or even mainstream media news coverage. I only looked into it briefly out of curiousity, and I was able to find that out with just a little bit of investigation. The fact that you think it's some great mystery doesn't speak well to your investigative powers.

They do, however, try to run at least one informal test each year at TAM.

He's already shown that he's willing to defraud the federal government (example: Jose Alvarez).

A publicity stunt designed to show that people are still too gullible, perpetrated on Australian media somehow magically becomes "defrauding" the "federal government"? Not only are your facts wrong, but your butt-hurtedness is showing. Which sacred cow of yours did he gore?

That they're completely silent on the activities related to their most well-known and well publicized function speaks volumes.

A) They're not completely silent on it, and B) however well-known the million-dollar-challenge, it's still nothing but a publicity stunt that has little or nothing to do with the Randi Foundation's primary purpose of educating the public. It serves its purpose quite well just by sitting there, unchallenged. The Randi Foundation's actual activities are well-documented and publicized. If they weren't, the Foundation would be in serious legal hot water.

Re:Damn, I missed it

[CODiNE]

I've had that happen to me. Think of it this way, if a street light goes out once in a while and takes a few seconds to turn back on, every night a dozen people could pass under it close enough for it to seem like they caused it. Hundreds of other people would just see a normal light.

Similar to the 9/11/2001 plane crashes, all the sudden hundreds of people claimed to have had premonitions of it. In a country with 300,000,000 people, how many dream of a plane crash on a given night? A few thousand? Now if a plane crash happens in the next week... month? They'll feel like it was connected. Otherwise they'd just forget it as a random dream.

That is what another poster calls confirmation bias. We tend to remember the times things match up, and not notice the hundreds of other times that they didn't.

Those particular lights you seem to have an effect on, keep an eye on them. Try watching from a distance, count how often they flicker or turn off. See if you can make some kind of statistics on it... does it change with your distance from the light? If it seems to happen more on a particular night than others... write down your mood. Also write down the temperature and humidity. Sooner or later a clear pattern will emerge. If it's confirmation bias, then things will pretty much seem random or show a direct connection to the weather. If it seems you having an effect on it, what is the factor behind it? Your distance? Your emotional intensity? What you had for breakfast? You need to get it to where it's repeatable and controllable. At that point you call Randi up and perhaps become a millionaire. Well worth the effort either way.

Re:Damn, I missed it

[azav]

How was I had?

What "had" me?

Here's what happened in chronological order where objects moved on their own. And no, I didn't drink or do drugs when I was 15.

About to walk into the right bay of the garage, where the ceiling was a white stucco ceiling and the walls were white, a 3 inch rusty nail fell out of the ceiling (there were no exposed nails in the ceiling), stopped 3 feet from the ground, flew horizontally across the room to the garage divider two feet away from me, bounced off a box with a thunk, hit the floor with a ping and disappeared.

The repairman working in the room that lead to the attic above the garage ran out of the house and told us not to call him again. He was listening to country music and the radio station with a rotary mechanical dial (1970's radio) changed stations. The only way for this to happen was to manually turn the dial.

My father walked in to the garage. Nail fell out of the ceiling, stopped falling about 3 feet from the ground, flew across the room, hit a wall, hit the floor and dis not disappear. My father picked up the nail and held it in his hands.

Me, garage again. Nail again.

My father was sitting on the john and the wastebasket flew across the room without him touching it.

I was sleeping and woke, hearing three footsteps come in to the room. No impressions could be seen on the carpet, but I heard the boards creak as someone was walking. Yeah, not impressive, many answers for what could cause that.

I was sleeping and woke, and looked over at my closet. The closet doors were wobbling like the guy's stomach in the Pepto Bismol commercials of the early '80s. This is not physically possible, but I saw it with my own eyes.

There were other strange things that happened, but I forget the details to some of them and though creepy, are not involving concrete objects. Other friends had problems with their pets not coming on to the property, even if dragged on by a leash. Lots of other, less concrete events occurred, but the physical objects moving right in front of our eyes are the events that are least open to misinterpretation.

Re:Damn, I missed it

[Anonymous Coward]

Though James Randi is very much against supernatural things, I wonder if he is able to admit that there are things that we do not have the disciplines to explain yet?

I don't see how you can say a man that has spent the last 25 or so years offering money, publicity, and verification tests to people in an effort to assist them in proving paranormal events is "very much against supernatural things". Quite the opposite, he is probably the greatest advocate anyone with a genuine claim could have - the vast majority of the scientific community would just ignore most of this kind of stuff outright...

I personally think your story is either a bunch of bullsh*t or is explainable through conventional means, and I suspect most thoughtful science-minded people would think the same thing. But you might be able to talk Randy into going to that house if you have any real evidence beyond anecdotal accounts. Which is why I would say if you think he is "against" this kind of thing you are completely missing the point...

As for not having the disciplines to explain these events... His testing methods do not require explanation - it they did they would not be able to verify paranormal events since such events are by definition not explainable through current means. The tests are designed to eliminate all possible conventional explanations and have nothing left at the end. As such you dont have to explain the event, you just have to demonstrate it in a way that cannot be explained otherwise.

Oh Slashdot

[dingen]

You claim the interview is "too long" to post in one go, so you cut in half (it's not even half an hour, but ok). Yet you didn't use these cutting abilities to edit out the bit where Randi had to go turn off his TV in the other room, making us watch at his empty chair for over a minute.

Re:Asking for proof there is a god, if there is on

[femtobyte]

One can, however, ask for proof for particular claims about a God who defies the apparent "natural" order. When claims are made that, e.g., God created the world 6,000 years ago, with all species as immutable types --- proof, please? God sent a hurricane New Orleans to punish the gays --- proof, please? God will cure your cancer if you pray hard enough --- proof, please? While a God who acts through creating the entirety of empirical and intelligible reality is an untestable proposition, many more specific claims (in which the "finger of God" comes out of the sky to nudge an off-track cosmos back onto course) are often made. I actually happen to believe in God; but, willingness to ask what is amenable to "hard proof" (and noting its consistent resulting lack) considerably refines/constrains my picture of how God operates in the world.

Did he just age a year?

[dcollins117]

Anyone else notice that he says " I am now 84, going on 100 as I like to say." and then shortly thereafter says "as I say, I'm 85"

I'm not busting his balls or anything; I like the guy. Just struck me as odd. He either doesn't know how old he is or that video took a long time to make :P

p.s. According the Wikipedia, he's 85.

Re:Asking for proof there is a god, if there is on

[the eric conspiracy]

The problem with your statement is that militant theists don't recognize the existence of any other type of non-believer than atheists. That view is an epic fail.

That view doesn't cover things, and by a very long distance.

I do not believe in God. I am not an atheist though, I just don't care about the existence of God, or not. The reason is simple, as my tag line says, I have no need for that hypothesis. Other approaches to the problems posed by reality require simpler hypotheses, and hypothesis that are testable. God is not admissible as a hypothesis under these conditions.

When somebody is able to pose a problem that I think is reasonable to want an answer for and that answer requires the hypothesis of the existence of God, or alternatively the opposite, the hypothesis that God does not exist then I'll become more interested.

Right now though it's a waste of time. God, existence or not, is not a useful concept.

Re:It's called pseudoskepticism

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

You are confused, young man.

All they do is, when someone makes a claim, say, "Let's prove it."

They create tests that merely rule out known forms of trickery (this is why you need skilled magicians like Randi) and, Lo! The phenomenon suddenly disappears.

Repeat that to yourself: When known forms of trickery are watched for, the phenomenon never manifests.

Make of that what you will...if you are intellectually honest.

Re:Asking for proof there is a god, if there is on

[i kan reed]

And, that, is completely indistinguishable from an atheistic opinion. Atheism just means not actively supporting bad hypotheses on religious grounds.

Blanks in transcript

[furyqba]

There are three gaps in the transcript; here's what belongs in two of them. I'm still having trouble making sense of the other.
~6:45 "they should be able to cheat people and lie to them and fake their results"
~11:26 "giving them things like, be sure to take their lecithin; I can sense from the vibrations"

Re:Asking for proof there is a god, if there is on

[CanHasDIY]

The problem with your statement is that militant theists don't recognize the existence of any other type of non-believer than atheists. That view is an epic fail.

Hell, most militant theists don't recognize the existence of other types of theists! For example, I submit Jihadist Muslims and the WBC - according to both groups, if you're not among their ranks, you're a filthy non-believer.

I do not believe in God. I am not an atheist though,

If the first part of that statement is true, then yes, you are an atheist by definition. However, the rest of that paragraph makes me think what you meant to say is something to the effect of, "I do not necessarily believe in a God, but I will not acknowledge nor deny the existence of such," which would technically make you an "agnostic atheist." At least, according to Wikipedia; personally, I hate labels.

Right now though it's a waste of time. God, existence or not, is not a useful concept.

Fuckin' A, man. We, as a species, have more important shit to do than waste our lives arguing about an unknowable.

Re:Asking for proof there is a god, if there is on

[deoxyribonucleose]

/.../, atheism is also a faith-based belief structure.

In exactly the same way that avoiding playing football is a sport.

Re:Asking for proof there is a god, if there is on

[narcc]

Atheism just means not actively supporting bad hypotheses on religious grounds.

What?

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any god. That's all. There's nothing extra. No add-ons. There's no "because", further ramifications, or requirements.

The parent is undoubtedly an atheist. He seems to dislike the term, however, likely due to the association with the vile cesspool that is the online atheist community.

Re:Asking for proof there is a god, if there is on

[The Wild Norseman]

No... under any objective burden of legal proof, even under the notion of "beyond a reasonable doubt", there is no assessment made about whether or not god exists one way or the other, any more than under a notion of legal proof, you could somehow come to any conclusion about whether or not the events of today either would or would not ever actually happen.

  There simply is no data... either way.

Yes there is. There is a tremendous amount of data supporting the fact that gods (where properly defined so as to be a coherent concept) are made up by humans. There is especially more evidence when a god is spoken of in an incoherent manner that it is simply imagination. There is no evidence of the existence of these god-concepts -- either coherent or incoherent -- outside of imagination.

This isn't a 50-50 kinda deal and it's a mistake to think it is.

Relief interviewer.....

[jkyrlach]

This is a great guest, especially relevant to the view of the greater Slashdot community. But this is a horrible interview. Please listen to NPR to understand how real interviews are done. A real interviewer knows how draw out the "goods" from their guest. For example, this guy has a pretty even-keeled vocal delivery of information, so a questions that help connect to his passions might be a good idea. "Why are you writing that book", why did you feel debunking was important to do", "what is the most tragic con you know about", etc. I don't wish to be cruel, but this guy asking the questions does not sound like he has a natural gift for talking. Can I do the rest of the interview?

Re:Asking for proof there is a god, if there is on

[Seumas]

Sorry, but you are confusing two things.

In a world where the religious have seeped into every aspect of politics, life, government, and law and where people who do not believe in a religion (or, sometimes, just believe in a different one) are persecuted and mistreated (death threats, problems at work if someone discovers you don't believe, problems if your significant other's family finds out you don't believe, etc) and religious beliefs and assertions are imposed upon everyone else in the form of laws and policies (hello, gay marriage rights like any other "all men are created equal" fairness?). . . . do you really think that the side that is guilty of nothing more than simply not believing should just shut the fuck up and eat it?

Your comment sounds an awfully lot like when people used to refer to "uppity negroes" or talk about how women asserting their rights and marching and boycotting and organizing were so "militant" and "aggressive". It's the same kind of shit we hear all the time when someone calls a group on their intolerance and their response is "oh ho ho ho! so the one complaining about intolerance is intolerance of intolerance! How ironic durp durp durp!".

There really are not a lot of people out there trying to convince you that there is no god. Guess what? Nobody really cares. However, there are a lot of angry and "militant" people out there who are pissed off that they have to walk on egg-shells and worry that someone might discover that they're an atheist, because it will be held against them in potential relationships, friendships, employment, community standing, and so forth. I know that religious people think those people should just "shut up and not care", but that's bullshit. When there are people going around wishing that people would be killed for simply not having a believe that they have, I'm pretty god damn glad there are some guys out there who make it their living to be "militant" about combating that.

Guess what? I don't believe in anything. I don't care if you do or not. I only care that you not impose your shit on me. I don't mean "don't show up at my door and give me a Watch Tower magazine", because I don't mind that and am kind tot hose people. I mean, don't make me worry about how I'm going to be treated in various aspects of life simply because I don't share some weird subscription to various mythologies and don't make the rest of the world who doesn't agree with you submit to your narrow views, despite their protection as an equal by our constitution. Everyone should be allowed to believe (or not believe) in whatever the fuck they like. They also should not have to be subjected to the results of other people's beliefs.

Re:Asking for proof there is a god, if there is on

[Seumas]

By definition, you are an atheist if you do not believe in a god or a religion. I used to be an agnostic, because "I can't prove anything and don't care", but then I realized an "agnostic" is just what you call yourself when you want other people to be less judgmental of you. I've had people wish me dead, simply because they found out I don't believe. I've been harangued by family. I've been judged by parents of girlfriends. This is why I keep that shit close to the vest as much as possible in real life. But I'm not going to call myself an agnostic, anymore, because that's just sort of catering to people who are so angry and obsessed with what I do or do not think.

I spend about 0.0000000001% of my life giving the slightest fuck about religion or lack thereof, except when it is foisted upon me. The fact that I'm not out there telling other people "you should stop believing in crazy shit!" doesn't mean I'm not an atheist. You know, that's the whole "a" part of the word. I'm also not an astronomer or a race-car driver, but I guess they don't have a word for not being one of those things.

I do, however, find it kind of pathetic how religious people often act like you should keep being poked with the stick of religion and then act like you're somehow "militant" when you finally get tired of that stick and turn around and knock the person holding it across the head. As if not believing in their religion means you should not care about anything ever involving it, even when it directly impacts you. It's about as transparent and disingenuous as you can get.

If standing up for things like, you know, not being discriminated based on lack of religion or standing up for the right of people to be married since "all men are created equal" under our form of government and the only reason we disallow it is on the grounds of "the bible durp durp!" makes one "militant", then I guess I'm militant. I would just suggest that I'm a human being that doesn't believe in a thing and also doesn't stand by and let that thing disrupt other people's lives.

Re:Asking for proof there is a god, if there is on

[tehcyder]

I do not believe in God. I am not an atheist though

Yes, you are.

An agnostic could say "I am unable to decide whether God exists or not" but it is illogical to say "I do not believe in God even though He exists".

Re:Not so much

[pmc]

If only you'd used there again, then you would have had two theres in your post.

Re:Asking for proof there is a god, if there is on

[tehcyder]

Of course, the whole conversation ends up being kind of dumb, because who gives a fuck?

As an atheist, I give a fuck for the very simple reason that theists do not simply sit in their rooms reading their holy books and being nice and cool.

They influence laws and wars in places like the USA, Russia, Iran and Afghanistan. Their representatives appear on TV criticising couples who want to have sex without producing babies, women who want to control their own bodies, people who want to have relationships outside marriage, gay people and so on. Here in the UK, Bishops get a place in the House of Lords and I am restricted from doing certain things on a Sunday.

Their authority comes from the fact that they are taken seriously as somehow representing the word of god, so it is a pretty big deal if their whole house of cards is built on sand (as it were).