James Randi - Why?

[Veccolo]

I personally don't trust this Randi guy. He is said to be a hardcore sceptic, and to get the million dollar you have to convince HIM and HIS team using HIS rules, as far as I read. I don't think there is a way to do this.

But that doesn't stop the people to go to other, more reputable institutes. Why they don't do this, I dunno. If I could do telekinesis for example, I would try to prove its existance.

[Van-Stolin]

Well the thought of a million dollars to do with what you want is tempting, I wouldn't want to use any sort of spiritual power to get it, I wouldn't want to have to prove to someone that this stuff exist, then they will want to know how it works and such and end up using it for the wrong purpose.  These abilities are to further our development of ourselfs and to just tell someone exactly how it works and to have them pick it appart peice by peice until they can replicate it just takes away the purpose of it and such.

[manuel]

hmmm
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/skeptic09.html

[Atma]

James Randi is a snake.He even admits it: "I am a theif, charlatan, scoundrel, trickster, (etc etc.) all rolled into one". Well... it was something to that extent... Ever read about the Yellow Bamboo incident? First a guy is sent down there, and tests out their telekinesis claims. They check out positive (he was knocked down by one of them). Suddenly, a bunch of BS comes up "oh, it wasn't an authorized test, so we can't do this", and then "we're cutting off all communications with the Yellow Bamboo group".

HAHAHA! Oh that was rich manuel! Soooooooo true.

Anyone notice how these so called "skeptics" will fiercely argue against the side of an issue they don't like, and ingnore everything to do with the other side? I thought a skeptic was supposed to reserve judgement BOTH ways!

[MJ-12]

Hs

[pimpx]

I understand u guys, never read too much about him.. Just saw him sometimes in brazilian tv... Anyway ill keep going on and on to try perform tk

[Kazbadan]

Hi MJ-12 (nice nick name, resembles me from the good times when i played Deus Ex in my pc). I heard a lot of the organization (not the guy, Randi itself) and i thought to myself that it is indeed, very strange that with so many psychics out there, no one is able to proof anything (and thus gaining the money and even more: proof the rality of psi powers).

With what you said about Randi organization (the 4 points you focus on) no i understand that it will be difficult to proof anything, with such a kinf of thought.

It is due to that guy that i see many scientific magazines saying things like: "Paranormal stuff is unreal because no one was able to proof anything to Randi org.. It is strange that no one wants that money....in no shadow of doubt that paranormal is a fake...etc"

Many times i see this kind of idea in good sci magazines and in conversations between scientists with good reputation. This makes me mad! They will never look into anyhting related with paranormal! Even ufos (the most easy ones to believe i think) are ridicularized!

Only when we see aliens landing in NY, or something big like that, people will start to see the true, and starnge, nature of reality.

[Nick]

Yes, there have been a number of threads on Randi. Check this one out for starters:

http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8813

Also, as I mentioned in earlier threads Randi has his own website:

http://www.randi.org/

In my opinion his "James Randi Education Foundation" is never going to part with a million dollars. No matter how believable some event is, Randi will always dispute it. He's a strange, narrow-minded person. []

[atalanta]

You may wish to have a look at Victor Zammit's site where he actually challenged Randi and any materialist hardcore skeptics to disprove any of the positive paranormal experimental tests for $1 millions.  Its been several years now and dispite the fact that Randi and CSICOP know of this offer none of them have taken it up.

Victor is a barrister in Sydney and he has written up the contract in such a way as to mirror that of the one Randi has.  He tells me that the two reasons that the skeptics won't take up the challenge is because they can't disprove the positive experimental results and because the contract is written up in such a way that even if they could disprove it they would still lose the deal.  No matter how well psychics do, Randi has fixed the contract so that they will lose in the end.

The other point I want to make about this which is often forgotten in terms of science is that because someone can duplicate an event doesn't mean that the original event was a hoax.  Because Randi can copy what Uri Geller does or any of the other psychics doesn't mean that they aren't producing the real thing.  Finally, Randi depends on a single test.  The psychic is tested and if they fail they have to admit to the world that they are not psychic.  However, it may be that they didn't make a hit on that particular day, doesn't mean they won't make hits at significant levels at other times.  

I know that I find it difficult to get things if I have any experience of anxiety, or headache, etc.  Anything can stop me, including trying to make money from this.  Even if Randi was offering 10 times that money, I don't think I could do it, I would be too anxious.  Yet this year, of approximately 30 bits of information I have given people the only couple of errors I have made related to time, seeing things that were in the past as present and getting double exposure images, ie, seeing two separate buildings where the features are superimposed on each other so it can be confusing as to which belongs to what, etc.  This is a very high hit rate but if I was to be tested, maybe the anxiety of it would be enough to get it all wrong.  Thats why I don't work as a clairvoyant, psychic, etc.

[mactombs]

I used to be a Randi fan.

quote:Anyone notice how these so called "skeptics" will fiercely argue against the side of an issue they don't like, and ingnore everything to do with the other side? I thought a skeptic was supposed to reserve judgement BOTH ways!

This is why I am no longer. This is dead on. A "true" skeptic as originally defined is not supposed to be a champion of one side. Most skeptics are really critics. One valuable thing I did learn from the Nova epsiode on Randi is to listen to both sides fairly, neutrally, before making judgement. This just doesn't seem to be the case with Randi, at least not any more. He has a narrowly-defined universe that everything has to squeeze into, or it's not real. It is also true that the million-dollar prize has become something created merely as an excuse to say "if it's real, then why hasn't the million been claimed?" It's a million-dollar cop-out.

Thanks for the info on Zammit's site! I didn't know about this.

[majour ka]

Mmm...In a nice way, i wonder what James randi will think when he next passes over? somthing like " oh I was wrong! well that was a big waste of time"

On the other hand maybe he does belive a little, and just wants to get on tv! 2cents [8D]

[SpectralDragon]

Actually, with psicop I know that there was an incident where something was proven as FACT. But they did a nice cover-up. If anyone has dirt on this please feel free because I can't find it.
Basically if this stuff is proven they lose thier jobs, thier relevance, and thier pride. So disproving through those orginizations is impossible. There have been many darn good mystics who are the real thing go to James Randi (From what I hear mostly for luaghs, not for the money) and were turned down outright by the guy. As someone mentioned earlier he admitted to being a trickster himself.

The point is, I think they know it's real by now, so it's a waste of time.

[Kazbadan]

quote:Originally posted by atalanta

 he actually challenged Randi and any materialist hardcore skeptics to disprove any of the positive paranormal experimental tests

I must disagree with that behavior (with Randi too) because people that says something are the ones that must prove it. If i say that there are green cows i must be the one to proof it. But the skecptics cannot say that my affirmation its a  lie.

No, the best kind of actuation, i think it´s to give a chance: if someone argues something (green cows; ufos; electricity, anything..)
the skeptics instead of saying "no, that´s fake", they could think like this "There are some evidences, may testmoines, maybe it´s true, let´s see it". But if it´s a single case(the green cow), they could ignore it(there are so many sayings and lies outhere..).

[atalanta]

Kazbadan, I am not clear on what you mean because of the language differences.

In science, generally, the way something is studied is to pose a hypothesis, its a kind of combination of a question and announcement of belief of what the outcome will be if the question is tested.  For example, families of low incomes have fewer educational opportunities, etc.  Then an experiment is designed and run.  The results and a discussion of those results follow.  For example, the results indicate that families of low incomes do have fewer educational opportunities.  The hypothesis is therefore, accepted or in some cases it could be rejected.

What follows then are reviews by other scientists who may agree or disagree with the experiment.  They may for example look for faults in how an experiment was designed.  Maybe there was some bias by the experimentor, etc.  New experiments to look at the former experiment are produced and maybe these new experiments my back up the experiments or expose problems in the experiment.

What James Randi and other hardcore skeptics do, from my understanding, is they claim that whatever positive results come up were as a result of mistakes in an experiment, or the experimentor is duped or the psychic is cheating in some way.  When they can't disprove the results, they try to discredit the experimentor, making personal attacks on him/her.  They minimalize, ignore, lie, etc, anything to make the positive results go away.

Susan Blackmore of CSICOP said in Reader's Digest, a couple of months ago, that over all the years that she has been researching the area, all she found was that parapsychological experiments were faulty.  She said that yes there were positive results but she could explain them away.  This is most important and something which most people who do not know statistics will miss.  You see, in science, no one talks of or should talk of absolutes.  There is not a single experiment which has ever been run which 'absolutely' proves anything.  The reason for this is because if a scientist was to say for example, there are absolutely no green cows, unless he has met every cow, he can not make an absolute statement.  There may be a green cow in some never been to place on this earth.  For this reason science and experiments are based on approximations of Reality.  In experiments you should always hear words like, 'the results suggest', 'the result may indicate' and never, 'the results prove...'.

What Susan Blackmore and others like her do, is say, okay, I have to acknowledge that there are positive results because not to do so would throw her credibility into questions, but because there is this gap in science between results and Reality, all I will do is argue that there must have been some other reason for the positive results.  Maybe a reason we may as yet not know about.  On the whole, science doesn't do that.  Scientists run their experiments and assuming there is no problems with it, the results are generally accepted.  However, it doesn't happen with parapsychology.

I was sort of skeptical myself, eventhough I have had my share of paranormal events.  However, when I read that little bit in Reader's Digest, it made me believe that there really was something going on because I recognised in her words, someone who was desperate to find reasons why positive results should not be accepted.

What Victor Zammit and others have done, is say to these skeptics, you can't go around doing that anymore.  Put up or shut up.  We are not asking you to prove the negative, we are asking you to prove the positive.  In a number of years now, none of them have done that, eventhough everyone in CSICOP and Randi knows of this million dollar offer.  I don't agree with everything that Victor says, in fact we have had a number of arguments over different subjects but in this I think he is spot on.

I don't know if this explains it any better.  I hope if there are any scientists out there please correct me as its been several years since I have studied stats.

[pimpx]

Hello there,
Im new here as everyone can see... Im 20 years old from Brazil and im really fascinated with things related to this subject. Like some in here, im learning how to make psi-ball to begin.

Today, something came up in my mind and i have a question to everyone in here, im curious about it:

Since James Randi is offering one million dollars for anyone who have a paranormal gift, why anyone here dont try this?

Note: im not doubting the effectiveness of the techniques described here and in others sites, because i do belive in it.. Im just curious, i would try

ps: im newbie, have plenty articles to read yet
ps2: sorry for my english

[narfellus]

Interesting. I hadn't heard of Randi or his foundation before. Someone else mentioned that a truly gifted spiritual person wouldn't expose their gifts for monetary reward, especially when the goal of Randi seems to be to discredit anything. I agree with that. And nervous jitters are sure to influence anyone, especially if they have ANY doubts about their abilities or motives.

[greatoutdoors]

I've heard of Randi, and believe he serves a good purpose, even though he is firmly self-convinced that nothing "paranormal" exists. We all know there are a lot of charlatans around. As with everything else, I take him with a grain of salt.

Narfellus, I absolutely agree about your mental state affecting your abilities. It's hard enough to get things working properly when you are perfectly relaxed. I think it would be impossible if you were stressed out.

Atalanta, would you (or anyone else for that matter) be interested in working together to try a mental telepathy type of experiment? What I would lilke to do is have one person meditatingn and concentrating on an object, and have the other person meditating and trying to focus in on what that object is. I've had one taker so far, but only one attempt (not successful).

Mind you, I am not proposing any sort of channelng or possession. I have wards up to prevent that sort of thing and would suggest anyone involved in metaphysics do the same. Don't want any uninvited "guests" after all!  

[jr_]

Yes, there have been a number of threads on Randi. Check this one out for starters:

http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8813

Also, as I mentioned in earlier threads Randi has his own website:

http://www.randi.org/

In my opinion his "James Randi Education Foundation" is never going to part with a million dollars. No matter how believable some event is, Randi will always dispute it. He's a strange, narrow-minded person. []

I don't think it's up to a belief whether something is real or not. It has nothing to do with how believable things are. If someone here really has paranormal powers, he would get the million dollars.

I wouldn't describe him as narrow-minded, rather the opposite. Which applies to most skeptics too - they tend to investigate many paranormal claims and those claims are considered as possible, you just have to have to evidence to make it real.

[SpectralDragon]

they tend to investigate many paranormal claims and those claims are considered as possible, you just have to have to evidence to make it real.

No, they don't. Try arguing with one in a thread. You can provide all the evidence and absolute proof you want, they won't believe it. I have seen it happen over and over again. Simple energy manipulation arguments is a big example. They won't let anyone with energymanipulation powers take the test. (The reason being is because Qigong was proved as fact by scientists at YMCA)

[Anonymous]

Yep. I think it's all part of the con. They don't want everyday people knowing how to do stuff like this. How are they going to test you for energy manipulation anyway? If someone were smart, they'd take the test and use mind control to get the money lol .

[Telos]

Even though Randi appears old and stubborn, he's done his homework. He has studied the exact methods people use to fool other people, and shows us how it's done. That's excellent. I want to know when I'm being fooled!

So, Randi isn't going to fool himself and think that he knows every method of fooling a person, so he's going to approach every paranormal phenomenon as another possibility that he's being fooled. And why not? Humans can be quite foolish, especially when they don't even know it.

I have studied the clauses in the contract and, from what I've heard of what's possible through OBE, there's no good reason why an exceptiionally advanced projector wouldn't or shouldn't win.

It would have to be a brave person. Someone who could stand the incredible press, attention, and religious following. Such a person would have to withstand the danger of being targeted by people who are afraid of such power, and the mass confusion of being labelled as an alien or, worse, the second coming. But such a person could be a leader and give hope to humanity and maybe, just maybe, usher in a new era of peace. There would be a renewed interest in science, knowledge of all kinds, and people would be understanding and rational towards one another. People want magic, creative power, and love - but what they need is a reason for believing they've got it.

The idea that experienced projectors aren't doing it because "it's wrong to work for money" is a load of garbage. Everyone knows that the news would spread to all corners of the world and people would feel hope and ask themselves "maybe I can learn to do the impossible?"

[Adun]

what tells you that randi would accept the the result of the test?

[jr_]

they tend to investigate many paranormal claims and those claims are considered as possible, you just have to have to evidence to make it real.

No, they don't. Try arguing with one in a thread. You can provide all the evidence and absolute proof you want, they won't believe it. I have seen it happen over and over again. Simple energy manipulation arguments is a big example. They won't let anyone with energymanipulation powers take the test. (The reason being is because Qigong was proved as fact by scientists at YMCA)

Well, there it is again - "believe it". But it's not about belief, but critical thinking! Can I have a look at that absolute proof?

[jr_]

what tells you that randi would accept the the result of the test?

What tells you that he wouldn't? What results would you accept, if you are familiar with them? Thus far it seems nothing paranormal exists.

[Telos]

what tells you that randi would accept the the result of the test?

Because the applicant would have at least one contract lawyer present (preferably an entire firm) and bring the Randi Education Foundation to court in the case of a dispute. The contract does prevent the applicant from suing Randi for damages, but it does not prevent the applicant from challenging the awarding of the prize.

The most important rule, as stated in the criteria, is rule number one - that both parties explicitly agree on the precise and exact terms of the test. The most important term, I'd think, would be the agreement on who is considered an objective witness. In such a case, both parties may appear before a judge, who would either act as the witness or appoint a witness, in both cases the witness would be paid a fee by the applicant.

The applicant would already require an enormous amount of money, for rule 6 explicity states:

All expenses such as transportation, accommodation, materials, assistants, and/or all other costs for any persons or procedures incurred in pursuit of the reward, are the sole responsibility of the applicant. Neither the JREF nor JR will bear any of the costs.

So, people who have taken a vow of poverty are out. I don't see that as unfair because proving a paranormal event would have the possible outcome of moving all of humanity away from a dependence on money. Instead, they would be dependent on their own spirit and on the peaceful trust of one another.