James Randi - Why?

[You]

Some proof of the paranormal would be great. I'd do it for a million dollars.

Oath of poverty my bum. Devoting yourself to poverty doesn't mean you can't make money, it just means you can't keep it. If you won the lottery you could just give it away to everyone, like on Kung Fu: The Legend Continues, with the Ancient. What a ladies' man.

[narfellus]

What kind of "tests" have they accepted thus far? What were the terms or conditions of the experiment? Or is that information private to the foundation?

[migs]

I was a close-minded skeptic for many years, and about four years ago became an open-minded skeptic.   Close-minded skepticism is very close to a religion that some refer to as "scientism", an adherence to 19th century science as though nothing has occurred since then, and similar to religion (thee, thou, etc.)  Below is a link to an excellent article written by Winston Wu, and also one posted on the website of Nobel Prize winning physicist Brian Josephson--and although you may disagree with some of the premises, they makes some excellent points:
http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/resources/articles/wu-debunking-skeptical.htm
http://members.aol.com/ddrasin/zen.html

I have learned this--"I don't know" is a very good philosophy, because in truth, you don't-and-when you believe you know everything, you can learn nothing.

[filipcza]

Gongratulations migs! I wish Randi was like you..and all the other closed minded skeptics too. How on earth did you come to your senses? Because in my books that's bordering a miracle! Did something personal happen to you that made you open your mind to new possibilities?

[migs]

It was the culmination of a number of incidents, the last one being so outrightly "impossible" that I was forced to reassess my position and take a closer look.  When I did, what I found amazed me completely.  The incidents that occurred were at first easily dismissed by me, but they became so extreme that to even attempt an explanation in the conventional sense would be stretching it to extremely bizarre proportions.  I had to attempt to learn     the hows and the whys and the whats..  I'm still learning.

[filipcza]

I think that these things happened to you on purpose, getting more and more difficult to just ignore so that finally you just had to notice them.

I've had one such eye opener in my youth, and that's where my searh began. All I can say is that looking things from your new perspective is more interesting than the way you used to be. You may have lost the ability to laugh at these things, but would you go back the way you used to be if you could? I think not.

Do you have friends who are still closed minded skeptics? If you do, then what do they think of you now?

[migs]

I never had that many friends to begin with, but after I was remarried the ones I had kind of vanished.  One became a Jehovah's Witness, and after he attempted two times he gave up, though he should have known better.  I will always listen, but speak my mind as well.  I find many things far more humorous now, almost like looking at the world with a different set of eyes.  I learn from TV shows that I've seen countless times before,  and when I begin to read something that seems boring at first and I get a "push" to read on I'm never disappointed.  There are lessons in the strangest of places, where no one thinks of looking.  I laugh myself silly sometimes at what seems to be a huge cosmic joke that we have played upon ourselves.  Of course people seeing me doing this would presume that I've gone bonkers, and at one point in time I actually cared what they thought.

[migs]

I watched a special on Alexander (the great).  Here was this man that feared nothing, won enormous battles with nary a scratch, and gained extreme wealth.  What stopped him?  His vices, things that everyday people are brought down with time and again.  The ironies are everywhere if you have the ability to simply observe them.

[filipcza]

In a way you have new set of eyes, because you have a broader perspective now. Those events have broken down some of your conceptual filters, which we all have, so that now you can access more of the reality. In a sense you simply see more.

Closed minded skeptic is a person who has a very narrow perspective and very limiting filters.  He sees only what he want's to see.

[karnautrahl]

There are a very few number of viewpoints that I personally feel are actually wrong. In as far as most viewpoints can be considered valid on some level.
Very extreme viewpoints appear to me (IMHO) to be very incorrect and often dangerous to the advance of humanity's knowledge and to our future.

Fundementalism that misinterprets beliefs to allow for murder and suicide bombings are at one end (this is my own perspective which I admit is not as broad as many of you on here). At the other end is James Randi and the like.  After reading the link posted earlier by Migs and also reading another link regarding James Randi's practice my feeling is that Randi supporters are also pretty blind. He's the sole judge, jury and source of appeal for anyone who volunteers to take his challenge.
If he was genuine, he'd allow for a team of impartial judges-in the main from scientific backgrounds perhaps as well as other relevent areas. And he would allow for an equally broad appeal panel. He does not. This is a man fighting for cause. The cause of absolute materialistic dogmatic belief. I won't grace it with the word science. It is not science. It is not to know. It is to hold onto something he and others hold precious. It's as ignorant in it's way as severe old fashioned religious dogmatism is. Only it uses "science" as it's tool.

Blind belief is somewhat foolish, but so is blind disbelief.

People like Randi have hijacked skeptism. I'm a skeptic, to me that means if a question is important enough to me to know the truth then I'll try to find out for myself. If it's not then I'll simply admit that I simply do not know enough to form a solid opinion.
I don't need to believe in energy work for example, I use it daily. Just the same as I don't need to believe in this keyboard I'm typing on . It's right here.

Real skeptism would equally allow for the possibility that something is true as for it being false!
James Randi and fans only allow for things to be false. They talk very clever crap.  
Hone your own mind and prove things to yourself if it's something that's important to your life.
Healing and energy work are very important to my life so I HAD to work with it and attempt to find out for myself.
Astral projection and other paranormal abilities haven't yet become important enough for me to try to prove to myself. they might .

Excuse the incoherent ramble, first post of a morning is often like this .

[filipcza]

I found your post very coherent and clear. I also agree with you completely here, I see Randi just like you do, and it's sad that so many people take him seriously.

Well, you can't change the world, only yourself.

And you are not a skeptic in my books, you are a seeker of truth, because you find things out.

-pete

[Telos]

I mostly agree, Randi has used some "thoughtless" tactics, like claiming that his foundation researched ESP in dogs and found it inconclusive, only to admit later that he was referring to a separate "informal" experiment. But, then, he did apologize...

He's the sole judge, jury and source of appeal for anyone who volunteers to take his challenge.

This is false. The tests run under contractual agreement. If there is a dispute after the contract was signed, the issue can be taken to court where there is a professional judge or jury. This would cost, however, a great deal in legal fees.

I would not challenge Randi without something I could demonstrably prove, a whole lot of money, and at least 5 or 6 lawyers. I'd probably go to law school myself.

Randi is closed-minded and convinced that he knows what we knows - probably because he has a great many years of study behind him on the tactics of fraud, deception, and stage magic. It took years for the establishment to accept the claims of Gallileo, but he was demonstrably right, and that's why they eventually accepted it.

To think that Randi and his foundation (which I'm sure will survive after his passing) will be forever closed to demonstrable proof is extremely erroneous and shows bad faith in the incontrovertibility of your own assertion.

[karnautrahl]

For you Telos.

http://www.alternativescience.com/james-randi.htm

When I have heard on TV the arguement that Randi's $1million is unclaimed being proof that there is no psychic abilities or paranormal events, it makes me mad.
The stupidest arguement I ever heard a "skeptic" come out with.
How many years of study equal knowing everything there is to know? Many many people study their specialities for for many many years, and still find out that they are ignorant in many areas that they should be expert.
I'd place greater confidence in someone if they were open minded about what they didn't truly know. If Mr Randi wasn't closed minded as a personal philosophy then his expertise would be worth respect.
I am sure there are many people here who can demonstrate reasonably show they have abilities-to heal or see clairvoyantly-in relaxed informal circumstances. There's possibly some with the discipline to enable them to perform in a normal scientifically rigorous setting.
But there isn't one I bet who could deal with the risk on a personal level of failing in front of James Randi with the conditions involved.  I wouldn't, I've had about 70% success with healing (very roughly note) and it's not super strong compared to some I met at Buckland Hall.
To me a real skeptic is a seeker after truth-real truth-WHATEVER that truth may be. NOT a seeker after validation of only his own belief/personal philosophy or what he thinks he already knows. <-That's a bigot.

http://www.alternativescience.com/skepticism.htm

The modern day use of the word skeptic is sadly hijacked by actual bigots and narrow minded types who hijack the terminology of science and critical thinking to support their view. It's the wrong word.
A critical thinker would take into account everything and do their best not to be biased-where possible.

[Telos]

The first such ambiguity is contained in the preamble where it says, "Since claims vary greatly in character and scope, specific rules must be formulated for each applicant." ... Randi will fomulate the rules for each individual attempt at his challenge on an ad hoc basis.   And, of course, the claimant has to agree to these ad hoc rules. If he or she does not agree, the contest will not take place at all.

That's not accurate. Randi and the claimant formulate the rules. This is why the claimant needs lawyers, to specifically negotiate the terms of the contract.

The second ambiguity is in Clause 4, which says that "Tests will be designed in such a way that no "judging" procedure is required. Results will be self-evident to any observer, in accordance with the rules which will be agreed upon by all parties in advance of any formal testing procedure taking place." ... The written rules, agreed up front, will decide.

This does not void statistical measurment. It just means that the statistic must be explicity agreed upon before the test. So if you approach with the claim that you can heal certain illnesses 70% of the time, Randi must agree with that specific percentage before continuing. If he does not agree on it, you can go to the press and try to expose Randi for being a uncooperative - only after you would sue him for fraud, customer discrimination, false advertising, and more.

But that example is problematic. Your claim is extremely difficult to measure objectively. Healing has way too many variables. The people you heal may be using other methods, seeing other healers, or doing their own healing (which is, after all, what all energy healers say they try to do, right? help someone heal themself?)

I don't think Randi's cause is completely honorable. It seems bloated and showy. However, it is strict, and I'm glad it is. I feel like an idiot when I take someone seriously that they're doing magic, and find out they're just a fraud. It ruins dreams. Randi isn't ruining dreams. He's toughening them up.

[karnautrahl]

I can deal with strictness in itself. Scientific proof does have to follow some standards in order to obtain "proof" wherever possible. But successful science was/is done by open minded thorough researchers. It's unlikely to be achieved with a thoroughly closed skeptical mindset.

It is bloated and showy for sure. And you are totally correct on the proving 70% success thing in my case. Way too many variables for me to truly know. I am relying on people's feedback and what I see/sense as well.
I would think the chances of my being able to win the $million are very slim with that kind of setup. Unless someone can think of an easily objective way to prove it? I personally can't.

I've come to the conclusion that both closed minded skeptics and blind believers are at extreme sides of dead end thinking. Neither one is going to advance the knowledge of mankind by very much. We all already have some idea of the power of faith and the mind and we already are aware of the value of solid logical/analytical/critical thinking.
Now what's needed is solid work by open minded skeptical people who basically are only interested in truth-NOT just their own philosophical viewpoint.

[Telos]

Now what's needed is solid work by open minded skeptical people who basically are only interested in truth-NOT just their own philosophical viewpoint.

Agreed! Read this thread.
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15905

[karnautrahl]

I can't AP just yet LOL. But I will eventually, might take a long time though. Energy work=easy for me. Trance and other skills seem impossible

[Telos]

For me, it's always been about keeping a diligent dream journal. The more you write of your dream life the more aware you are of it, and the more aware you are of your dream life, the more connections you open in other dreamstates.

Dream journalling is done in small, simple, easy, slow bits. And it's also fun!

[karnautrahl]

Well I've been following the dream journal thing for a few nights. It's a bit bitty-having to use mindmap format because i never get plots .  Still the memory practice alone is useful.