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

I disagree...the problem is with the people who claim to have the (non-existent) paranormal abilities, not the skeptics. People who make money by claiming to have abilities that can't exist should be brought out into the light at every possibility, and bravo for Randi for doing it (and putting his money where his mouth is).

 

I'm totally with @Scott Wheeler on this (a first, it seems ). Debunkers get a huge pass in our society for some reason. If your ideology depends on the existence of an opposing ideology to justify its existence, it's probably a weak ideology to start with.

And let's not mince words: James Randi is a fierce ideologue.

 

If your argument relies on the other side having has no basis in reality, it's not wrong to be an ideologue. I am an ideologue for the premise that 2+2= 4.

 

An attempt to destroy ideas (as opposed to creating them) is just violence abstracted. Debunking without presenting new ideas is the epitome of intellectual laziness IMHO.

Think of it as coercion vs. persuasion. The mere existence of charlatans does not validate Mr. Randi in any way as far as I'm concerned.

 

It's not destroying ideas, it's attempting to bring to light people who claim to be able to accomplish the impossible. Which, IMO, is a noble profession.

 

Far too little is known about how our universe works for anyone to claim to be the "truth teller" for us all. Again, just my opinion.

 

*the problem* IMO is not with any given belief system. It is with the conviction that one has a monopoly on "the truth" and that it is not enough to have that monopoly but that "the truth" should be forced upon those lesser beings that can't see the light on their own.

Everyone thinks they are right. The math is simple though. 10 different people with 10 different beliefs about the same subject can't all be right. At most only one can be. So it follows that most people are wrong most of the time about most of their "beliefs." I wonder if skeptics like Randi see that they are in that same boat and are no less immune to being wrong about things.

 

If your axiom is that you have a monopoly on the knowledge of reality you are dead in the water without knowing it. It is also very very unscientific.

Math is a language. It exists in the abstract and so we get to make the rules. There is no practical test for it so it's apples and oranges.

 

Well, I would say that the basic laws of physics are pretty much just as absolute as the laws (language) of mathematics. If people claim to be outside those constructs, it is my opinion that they should be called on it. I don't believe there is a "side" to be taken.

 

I think you have a fair point. The problem is that Randi didn't stop there. He chose to be a showman and create this ridiculous million dollar challenge which clearly creates a motive that is not about real discovery of the truth. So in creating a challenge that is more about showmanship than actual discovery Randi has become a small part of the problem he was once trying to relieve. I was quite a fan of his when he was exposing charlatans who were preying on peoples' beliefs and hopes and in effect stealing their money. But ego took over and he strayed from the path. And it is now very much about shaming people for their beliefs and creating the facade of a scientific approach to dealing with such beliefs. He has become a charlatan himself.

 

You would still be comparing apples and oranges. And last time I checked our understanding of the laws of physics is still a work in progress and math as a language used to describe those laws is still being expanded and occasionally revised. So no matter how "absolute" the actual laws of physics may be our understanding of those laws and the language used to describe those laws (math) are hardly "absolute."

If anyone makes claims that stand outside the current models for either math or physics they don't need to be "called on it." The claim needs to be put to the test and tested fairly with an open mind and a large dose of real skepticism. IOW it needs to be tested scientifically. That process would never involve a million dollar bet which will always act as a corruptive force in the process.

 

I agree with all of that (of course they should be tested, but for some reason they hardly ever want to be, hmm i wonder why), but the million dollars is not really a bet. It's mainly a way to show to people that "paranormal" things aren't real. Because if they were, surely someone would have made a lot of easy money by now.

 

Absolutely it's a bet. And the very word "paranormal" is problematic since if anything were to be discovered to be real it would no longer be "paranormal." It would be "normal." At one point randi was wasting a lot of peoples' time going after the audiophile cable community. Clearly he had not done his homework and he went after Michael Fremer for his claims about the quality of cables. Here is the catch. The particular cable Fremer was touting that Randi tried to call him on was a cable that had a network box in the circuit that clearly would audibly alter the frequency response. Randi sure did a lot of grand standing in his exchanges with Fremer. Do you think for one minute that Randi would have forked over a million dollars had he tested Fremer and Fremer was able to reliably identify an audible difference between those cables and other cables? No way. Would have never passed all the limitations Randi puts on his so called challenge. Those limitations are their to protect the money. The money is an influence. So is this a case of Randi debunking the "paranormal?" I think not. Didn't stop him from grandstanding and trying to shame audiophiles though did it? as if the world of audio is in desperate need of being saved by The Amazing Randi.

This is the clear and obvious problem with his so called million dollar challenge. It will always be a corrupting force rather than an aid in the pursuit of knowledge. Had randi been genuinely interested in finding out whether or not cables do or do not sound different there would be no million dollar challenge involved, there would be no grand standing and name calling and there would have been perhaps a genuine well designed test done instead of what actually happened.

It is a bet and by being a bet it corrupts any real attempt at discovery.

 

A must see !

 

Is this the same as the documentary shown on the BBC at the end of last year?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04ndsb3

All the clips in the trailer are in the BBC film.

And yes... a must see. Whichever version it is.

Debunking rules!

 

You have abosultely no idea what you are talking about. Randi is involved in the Skeptics Society. They publish the great Skeptic magazine. Other prominent individuals that are/were involved with the society include Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, Penn & Teller among others. They produce education materials and have scholarly seminars and conventions. Below is a link that lists the topics that they cover in their magazine. Evolution and Creationism is at the top of the list. Other important issues include vaccine pseudoscience, Holocaust deniers, global warming, 9/11 conspiracy, etc. All important topics that require a skeptical analysis to get at the truth. One of my favorite all-time articles in the magazine was an article about race and sports. Are blacks better than whites in sports? What about race and IQ? Let's see the mainstream media investigate these topics.

I highly recommend this magazine to anybody. It is more of a scholarly journal than a magazine.

http://www.skeptic.com/magazine/about_the_magazine/

 

They barely even mention the million dollar challenge in the film (which is what the thread is about, right?). Separately, while some arguments can be made that "skeptics" are "grandstanding", have egos, etc. (not sure that really contradicts what they say, though), I don't see how the million dollar challenge somehow proves that Randi, et al. have other "motives." I'm sure they want to draw attention, but they want to draw attention to what they feel are scams, people taking advantage of people (including taking their money and in some cases endangering their health), etc. Offering the million dollar challenge isn't the *perfect* way to reveal these frauds, but it's about the best once can do to try to reveal them.

I also don't believe it's accurate to equate someone trying to debunk psychics with the actual psychics (or replace psychic with other proven frauds), as if a bunch of skeptics woke up and were skeptical of psychics before they knew self-professed psychics existed, and then specifically sought out psychics to debunk. The frauds came first, and then the skeptics came. I'm not talking about a general "skeptic" ideal or viewpoint, but a specific debunking of specific types of fraud. To me, in cases where true frauds were revealed by debunkers, I don't think those two sides should be equated as equally ideologues. That's like saying a cop is as guilty as the guy he catches after he proves the guy did it.

The "skeptic" community and attitude can have some downsides, and that's why I think this discussion is interesting, because some of those downsides are discussed in this very film! Randi does *not* come off as an unequivocal good guy in this film. If anything, I thought the film went a bit light on a few of Randi's "targets." Only the Popoff segment really showed how much innocent people can be seriously hurt and injured by such frauds.

 

Randi was already famous when he took on Geller.

 

I watched this via Netflix streaming and thoroughly enjoyed it. What I find most amazing is that both Popoff and Geller, after being debunked, reinvented themselves and stayed in business. It just shows that people desperately want to believe in the "extra-natural", etc. despite scientific evidence to the contrary. We see this everywhere -- UFOs, people who claim that took extraterrestrial journeys in alien space ships, bogus medical treatment for terminal illnesses (often masquerading as natural solutions), etc. While tele-evaangelists are clearly predatory and bizarre, I think Geller is nothing but another more palatable version of the same kind of fraudster. He has made a career of deceiving people and claiming he was a mentalist with psychic powers.

 

As a former member of the Skeptics Society and a subscriber to the magazine I assure that you have no idea what you are talking about when you claim I have no idea what I am talking about. I very much enjoy Penn and Teller but to mention them in the same sentence as Carl Sagan and Stephen J Gould in this context is kind of ridiculous. I stand by my criticisms of Randi and his million dollar challenge. If you disagree then here is an idea, tell me what is wrong with the logic of my arguments. Getting on a soap box and attacking me personally is hardly a logical argument and it's obnoxious.

 

So many words and emotional 'reasoning', the antithesis of skeptical thought.

A skeptical person would not try to prove a point by casting aspersions of (perceived) egoism. And to call true skeptics as 'followers' is to cast them as mindless sheep, also the opposite of what the skeptical community is.

How about because if you can prove woodoo powers exist, you get a million bucks? That's serious money even today.

Funny that a professional magician would be a showman.

How? He's basically saying that under repeatable, rigorous scientific testing conditions, that if you can show evidence for woodoo powers that is statistically significant, you win. Sounds like a real scientific approach to me.

What are you talking about? What motives? Why do the matter??

What is this so-called huge problem you keep bringing up?

Boy, I take it from that rant that you do belove in woodoo, right? No wonder you're miffed. Apart from your colorfully derisive characterization of what Randi is doing, in essence, he is right. People who believe in mystical forces and entities without any proof whatsoever or even suggested physical mechanism of agency are pretty gullible and are often taken advantage of.

This is why he's been championing this cause for such a long time. He's basically said, put up or shut up. If you can prove woodoo powers without any tricks, I'll give you a million bucks! I wonder why he still has the cash, hmmm?

Your comments have made it clear that you don't really understand what science and skepticism really mean.

 

I already quoted your statement about Creationism and Evolution, of which you were flat out wrong. Penn & Teller deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as Carl Sagen and Stephen J Gould as they are fighting the good fight and have a large media presence. They are talking to people that would never listen to Stephen J Gould.

In regards to your million dollar challenge problem, I am not 100% sure what your issue is. Randi gives you a million if you can prove some seudo-science BS is statistically relevant. Are you saying that the million dollar prize makes him less objective? He offers the million because the scammers, psychics, and exotic cable manufacturers would never agree to the test otherwise. If a cable manufacture could prove their cables sound better proven with a DBT, why hasn't that happened yet? Believing that you hear things that can not be measured is a religious belief. Perfect topic for the Skeptics Society.

 

This is how most Australians know James Randi

 

I suppose I could break this down point by point but that would be far too tedious. Your argument boils down to one thing really. This...
"Boy, I take it from that rant that you do belove in woodoo, right? No wonder you're miffed."
"Your comments have made it clear that you don't really understand what science and skepticism really mean."

Any decent argument relies on two elements. Logic and factual support. So let's look at both in regards to your basic argument.
1. Logic. The logic you used is often referred to as "Ad Hominem Argument" or also known as "personal attack." Instead of addressing my assertions you make it about me. that is a classic logical fallacy. So your argument fails on logic.
2. factual support. You as factual support for your already failed logic that "I do belove (believe) in woodoo (supernatural/paranormal) But here is that actual fact. I don't. I am an agnostic atheist with no beliefs whatsoever in anything supernatural/paranormal.
You assert that "I don't really understand what science and skepticism really mean." But I do.

So your argument has been....debunked.

If you are interested in actually making any worthwhile arguments against my assertions using actual logic that is supported by actual facts please feel free to do so. But if all you have is ad hominem I really am not interested. It's boring and obnoxious. I have better things to do than constantly point out the logical fallacies of Amazing Randi followers.

Oh and that leads me to one other assertion you made that is simply plainly wrong. That anyone who is a follower of something or someone is somehow a mindless sheep. Complete nonsensical attempt to tag my assertion with non existent prejudicial baggage. One can be a follower of something or someone and still be an active thinker. For instance I have been a follower of Stephen J. Gould. Carl Sagan, Penn and Teller and at one time, even the Amazing Randi.

I do hope you see some of the irony there.

 

No you are flat out wrong. Stephen J Gould was one of the most prominent figures in the history of the fight between teaching creationism and evolution in public school science classes. Aside from being an actual world leading scientist on the subject of evolution (he was the one who co developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium) He authored many articles that appeared in numerous published books that dealt with evolution and more pointedly dealt with the issues of creationism v. evolution. the one article that was most important and widely read was titled. "Evolution as fact and theory" which essentially dismantled one of the pillars of creationist propaganda. He was also the most significant witness in the famous McLean vs. Arkansas creationism trial.

Now what exactly have Randi and Penn and Teller done in regards to the fight to keep creationism out of public school science classes that they belong in the same sentence as Stephen J Gould on that subject?