"An Honest Liar" - documentary about magician/skeptic James "The Amazing Randi"

Had been looking forward to seeing this and was pleasantly surprised to see it pop up on Netflix tonight. I wished a little more focus was on Randi's professional career and a little less focus on his personal life, but a lot of the (very favorable) reviews on Metacritic praised the film for just that emphasis.

Anyway, fascinating guy and an interesting documentary...

 

It was interesting, but I also agree to much on his personal life. I suppose the big "deception" that was part of his own life was supposed to ironic in some way. But it just sort of overwhelmed the more interesting aspects of his life. I actually came away with a lesser opinion of Randi after seeing it. I used to see him as a sort of a thoughtful serious person, but learning about his past as a carnival worker and early days as a Houdini clone and magician/performer, I felt like he came off as a bit of a pushy huckster himself. And maybe his campaign to unveil the psychic fraud and extrasensory and psi power had a tad too much venom behind them, going to elaborate lengths to embarrass scientists. Maybe that was just my take on it, but he sure does run his mouth like a carnival barker all the time.

 

A must see !

 

You cannot have enough 'venom' going after hucksters and frauds. His aim wasn't to embarrass scientists but to expose how professional tricksters could fool even those conducting scientific research (at the time).

Of course, those types of tricks are no longer effective in the scientific community today thanks to not only peer reviewed double blind trials, but also to the efforts of people like Randi who helped to shed light on the tactics used by the woo fraudsters. Good on him and the skeptical movement he helped to foster.

 

I like the guy. Isn't his $1000000 challenge (whatever) still open and standing?

 

He gets my vote.

 

Yes it is: http://web.randi.org/the-million-dollar-challenge.html
I think the guy's a hoot: intelligent, funny, sharp as a tack in his late 80s. I wish the doc was about an hour longer...

 

I think his contribution was almost nil as contribution to how scientists conduct experiments. True to his ego, he'd like to see it as more in changing the world toward a skeptical outlook, whereas his own self-proclaimed hero Houdini did the same slight-of-hand debunking decades before based on skepticism and an insider's knowledge of trickery. And we're talking here strictly about the short-lived pursuit of study a "psuedo-science" when reseachers like Targ and Ornstein, egged on the Military's search for new the Cold War weapons (and the psychedelic sixties), had a few scientists studying telepathy, psi, precognition and other psychic skills. Those researchers were bootlegging, trying to come up with approaches to measuring effects that are basically unmeasurable and were a a far cry from the kind controlled studies Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research did on the same subject. Add to that mix deliberate fraudsters (employed by Randi) makes it almost an insult to say that Randi contributed to construction of the overall scientific method. Scientific research was peer reviewed and subject to experimental controls hundreds of years before Randi played his little games with his magician friends. And research into psychic powers was a weird little blip on science's radar, a minute subject of research, and it's ridiculous for Randi to suggest he changed the history of the scientific method when, in the scope of things, this pseudo science research barely drew a smidgen of interest from the real scientific community. It was almost in the same vein as Timothy Leary and his Psilocybin Project "research" which got him fired from Harvard, the by-product of Age of Aquarius. At best, Randi pointed out some flaws in the methodology of these researchers' testing (although he, himself, has provide some of the controls which the over-anxious researchers shouldn't have used as a shortcut, more trickery by Randi) which is a normal part of any peer review and certainly not any new "outlook" on how science is shaped. Randi's suggestion that he somehow broaded the mind of science is itself nothing but a bit of deceptive hucksterism.

So sum it up, if you want to proudly call yourself a skeptic, you better be willing to question the motivations of other skeptics.

 

Oh cool! Thanks for the heads up, I'll put it in my queue. Huge props for Randi for debunking 'faith healers'. Those people are true predators.

dan c

 

It was significant in this area. Scientists using the scientific method are used to playing on a level playing field when investigating physical phenomena. They observe, measure and analyze the ensuing data and see how it fits with the initial hypothesis or claim. They're not used to entrapment and willful deception by means of skillful tricks and slights of hand. Those types of deceptions were easier to perpetrate back in the day and by Randi shedding light on them as an insider (magician), it allowed the investigators to tighten their testing procedures and for him to keep his money. His contribution has not been insignificant in this area.

This is widely acknowledged within the skeptical community and the historical roots of the skeptical movement. I don't see why we need to bring emotively pejorative terms like 'ego' into the discussion,.

How is this relevant? Houdini was a great magician. Randi was in the same profession and he admired one of the greats. I don't get your point.

What point are you trying to make? I honestly can't work it out.

What does that even mean? Skepticism in a nutshell is to have a default skeptical position for unsubstantiated claims or claims that are made based on any of a multitude of logical fallacies. And to always keep in mind that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

There's also the central deception in his personal life as well which he was blinded to.

 

Thanks for the heads up. Randi is a hero to many, we need more like him. His takedowns of Uri Geller, Peter Popoff and James Hydrick i could watch again and again, they are so awesome.

 

My point is that Randi can hardly be said to have forwarded the methodology of science for one little stunt he played purposefully trying to deceive scientists so he could get another shot on the Carson show. I really used to like him, but after watching this documentary I now see him as a bitter little guy jealous of talk show superstar Geller after his own corny magic act ended because he was too old. I think his so called noble intentions were nothing more than a way to keep himself in the limelight (and paychecks) in another way. (Whoever heard of Randi the milk can escape artist? He became more famous for his attacks on others who were doing the same junk he probably used to charm sideshow audiences with for fifty cents). So in a sense, the man of great principle and intention was little more than yet another taking advantage of others misery for his own profit -- by hounding them out of their shadow. At least Kreskin is always smart enough to say upfront, "I don't claim to have any powers..." as a disclaimer, then he does the exact same act Peter Popoff to delight and amaze audience and rake in profits. Randi's whole "million dollar challenge" is nothing but a big publicity stunt of its own -- in the carnival showman style he lived by -- somehow spun as a noble challenge to disprove fakery. It's like a Chinese puzzle or Welle's "F is for Fake." Who's the faker here? Geller or the guy pretending to debunk him for his own slice of fame?

 

Any mention of Pear Anjou cables?

 

You keep belittling his influence in the skeptical movement out of some emotional animus towards Randi. His contribution wasn't just 'one little stunt'. For decades, he has been involved in the skeptical community dispelling quackery and promoting evidence based reasoning. He has been a frequent contributer to conferences like The Amazing Meeting, Dragon Con, European Skeptics Congress, Skeptics in the Pub, Edinburgh Festival Fringe, etc.

Geller, obviously. Boy, Randi must have run over your dog or something!

 

Randi toured with the Alice Cooper Band, and was responsible for the guillotine rig, played the executioner, and often Santa.

 

he was a cool dude and I'm still a fan.

 

quite a stretch...from Santa to the executioner!

 

The thing is, having just watched “An Honest Liar”, I was surprised by how the film at several points specifically addresses the moral/ethical questions involved in undertaking a huge deception in order to uncover a potentially larger deception. The two “Project Alpha” guys in particular seemed to be uneasy about how, even though their experiment spearheaded by Randi was making an important and valid point, they were bringing hurt and pain to people as a result. Another interview subject even mentions the fact that Randi was the “General” running the operation, and didn’t have to deal with the emotional fallout that his guys “in the field” had to deal with.

The film doesn’t purely glorify what Randi did, it surprisingly openly questions how far he should have gone to prove his points.

I also don’t understand the accusation that, essentially, Randi attacked those who were doing the same thing he had done as a magician. That’s one of the main points of the film. It’s one of the main points of the title of the film! His point was/is that someone who tells the audience they are a magician are acknowledging that everything they’re doing is a trick, sleight of hand, etc. It’s for entertainment. As opposed to those who are doing the very same things, but presenting it as a psychic (etc.) ability having nothing to do with magic, and in the process often taking money and making people think they can be healed of diseases, etc.

Even in that regard, the film doesn’t paint a glowing picture of Randi. Uri Geller even pops up in an interview done specifically for the documentary, and for the first time ever perhaps, makes an actual valid point: Randi didn’t succeed in making psychics go away. They became arguably more prevalent.

The film also points out that even the recipient of perhaps Randi’s most scathing debunking, the slimy Popoff, eventually got back into the business and raked the money in again, simply dropping the one bit of shtick that he was busted for.

 

Vigorous back-and-forth between Fremer and Gizmodo in the comments, too...at the very least, it's a most entertaining read

 

I'd have just got a industrial cable specialist in to properly identify the cable and advise it's actual original industrial/technical cost. That would have been my starting point.

But anyway...

 

The problem with Randi and many of his followers is that it really is about ego and grand standing. How can one take his million dollar challenge seriously? That is showmanship and grand standing. And it flies in the face of real science. With a million dollar challenge there are a million motives involved that have nothing to do with a genuine desire to discover the nature of the universe. How can anyone with any working knowledge of the scientific method not see this HUGE problem with such a challenge? Randi's flavor of skepticism has devolved to being about "I'm right, you're wrong, I'm smart you're dumb for believing in anything paranormal and I am going to shame you for it and pat myself on the back for being so danged smart"

This is why I remain skeptical of many self proclaimed skeptics. **Real skepticism** and **real science** are great things. But anyone who understands either or both knows how a million dollar stake in the outcome will inherently corrupt any such endeavour.

 

um, but he IS right, so what's wrong in saying it?

 

He is right? You mean a million dollar challenge is not inherently corrupted by motives that have nothing to do with a genuine desire to seek the truth? He and many of his followers realy aren't "right" about a lot of things.


Something most of these folks with this mind set really ought to consider. I don't remember who said it or the exact words but someone said "It's better to be nice than right unless it's about how to land the plane or something like that."

Debunking peoples' beliefs in paranormal or superstition is rarely as important as landing the plane safely. Those fights are much more about ego than truth. There are some important causes and fights in the world of science and religion/paranormal beliefs. Things like the fight to keep creationism out of the public science classrooms where it clearly does not belong. I can't say that I see Randi or his followers very much involved in fighting those important fights.