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

You may feel different about Randi's challenge if you had a favorite aunt blow 3/4s of her savings so she could speak to her dead husband.

 

I would not *think* any differently. I was a staunch supporter of Randi back when he was making headlines and doing appearances on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson exposing these charlatans in the 70s and 80s. I even attended one of his lectures. I was a fan. But I think he has veered from a fairly noble cause and I think his challenge is just grandstanding that in and of itself does nothing to protect people like your favorite aunt. Clearly Randi and his challenge already did not help your aunt. But please do not confuse my criticism of Randi and his challenge with some idea that I think it is OK for charlatans to prey upon people like your aunt and steal their life's savings. That is simply not the case.

 

Right, because answering my specific objections to specific points would be inconvenient.

So you ignore all the details in my response, pick a single observation, then rail against it by trying to appear reasonable.

In fact I did address all of your assertions at some length and you failed to do likewise because it was... 'tedious'?. You hide behind the ad hominem defense, but you dish it out liberally to both Randi and me. It doesn't really matter to me, but don't claim the high ground under false pretenses.

Thanks for clarifying, because the way I read your previous comment: "I'm [Randi] smart you're dumb for believing in anything paranormal..." was that you were personally offended for being called dumb because you had some paranormal beliefs. If that's not the case than I'll take back what I said earlier in this regard.

I have, but you failed to respond. Here they are again.

You: "And it flies in the face of real science."
Me: "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."

You: "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."
Me: "What are you talking about? What motives? Why do the matter??"

You: "How can anyone with any working knowledge of the scientific method not see this HUGE problem with such a challenge"?
Me: "What is this so-called huge problem you keep bringing up"?

I hope it's not too tedious for you to address these points and questions.

 

You really have not addressed the issue at all. You have postured about it but not actually addressed it. So perhaps I should explain the problem so you understand it. then maybe you can take a shot at offering a counterpoint.

The problem with the million dollar challenge: In it's most simple and basic form the problem is motive. Motives manifest actions, actions manifest results. The motive of an actual scientist doing actual scientific research is to discover knowledge, to observe, hypothesize and then rigorously test as objectively as possible hypothesis' derived from observation. Randi's challenge OTOH gives him and his organization a million motives to reach a result which avoids a payout. That is motive. That motive affects actions, those action affect results. It is an inherently corrupt challenge because it is designed to win and shame those who loose. It is not scientific at all. Even worse is that it dons a face of science but clearly is not. One need look no further than the actual contract one has to enter into with JREF to see just how unscientific and fatally flawed it is with bias. There is no peer review and no third party mediation. It makes JREF the prosecutor, judge and jury. The bottom line is they get to make the rules. And they have a million reasons to make sure the rules don't allow them to ever loose.

This is not how science works. The motives are different. Because the motives are different the protocols are different. Because the protocols are different the results are affected.

If you really don't think motives matter when someone is putting a claim to the test then we really have nothing more to talk about. After all, creationism has passed every test creationists have subjected it to. And I am guessing you and I probably do agree on the motives of creationists.

 

I think this article better illustrates the problems I see with what Randi and his test and organization have become. http://rense.com/general69/randi.htm

 

The fact that the article refers to Uri Geller as "Charismatic psychic" should tell you everything you need to know about the author's credibility.

 

My goodness is ad hominem all the Randi defenders have to offer?

 

Someone has done or said something that is pure BS. That someone has done or said this in such a manner that you are unable to discern that it is BS. Another person is able to clarify what was said or done in such a manner that you now are able to understand that it was BS. Mr. Clarifier good guy or bad guy?

 

The boy who cries ad hominem and then proceeds to say things like:

"You have postured about it but not actually addressed it. So perhaps I should explain the problem so you understand it. then maybe you can take a shot at offering a counterpoint."

The so-called motivation is entirely irrelevant when it comes to the application of the scientific method. In all those words you used to make a circumstantial strawman argument, you have not explained what the actual flaws in the testing procedure are that you object to. Your argument sounds more ideological than factual. Oh, and I love this bit:

Makes me wonder why you brought creationism into it. Creationist arguments are impervious to scientific refutation because as soon as one of their arguments is debunked, they just make up some other nonsense (the gaps argument, etc), or they just say god done everything including the fossils, yadda, yadda. So, it is entirely unhelpful to even raise this, unless your intention was to obfuscate.

 

Your argument fails on two points.
1. The denial that humans' actions and choices are influenced by motivation. Here is a nice little summary on the subject. https://explorable.com/research-bias
2. We are not talking about the scientific method, we are talking about the Randi challenge. This is yet another classic logical fallacy and classic debate tactic. It's called a red herring.

The reasons I brought creationism into it should have been fairly obvious to anyone who has read the Randi challenge contract that I alluded to. 1. Both incorrectly claim to be scientific. 2.Both share a common trait that makes both very very unscientific. They make their own rules and are not subjected to any third party oversight. They both make themselves prosecutor, judge and jury when dealing with anything that conflicts with their established belief system. That is a fact as per the Randi challenge contract and that is profoundly unscientific.

 

There are no herrings of any color in what I said and your two points don't stand up either.

Of course human actions and choices are influenced by motivation (but these are irrelevant in a scientific, evidence based setting). As a magician and a showman, Randi made a living by charging his audience a fee to see his magic show. His goal was to entertain and delight the audience and he never claimed that he had any supernatural powers.

Randi was motivated to set up the challenge because he was disturbed by how some in his own profession (magicians of sorts) were exploiting vulnerable people for personal profit based on their claims of possessing supernatural powers. What better way to expose these charlatans than to challenge them to prove their claims under scientifically controlled conditions?

It's also noteworthy that all those that took on the challenge first agreed to the testing procedure, which was laid out beforehand. They were even allowed a test run to make sure that there weren't any 'bad vibrations' in the test arena.

After concluding the experiments, the participants were asked if they felt confident that they achieved positive results. Almost all did. They all failed. When thus informed, most immediately started backpedaling, inventing excuses why they failed, from sunspots to negative thoughts, whatever.

The challenge still stands as does Randi's legacy.

 

Wrong. You changed out Randi's challenge with the scientific method. Classic red herring. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/red-herring/

"The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic. This can be one of the most frustrating, and effective, fallacies to observe."
You can deny it all you want but the thread content shows the facts. The fact is you countered my criticisms of the Randi challenge with a defense of the scientific method. That was an attempt to divert by introducing another topic.

Again with the red herring. We are talking about the Randi million dollar challenge. Not real scientific research, which, by thew way, also has a history of being influenced by money. But thank you for finally conceding the point that humans, which includes Randi and the members of the JREF are influenced by motivation. And clearly they have a million reasons to make sure the challenge is rigged so they never ever lose.

Yep. I agree with all of that. But as I have said consistently throughout this debate. Randi strayed from what was once a noble puerpose and his million dollar challenge is nothing but showmanship designed to shame people for their beliefs.

Actually what is really note worthy is that Randi and JREF control the entire process from start to finish with zero outside oversight. If you want to cherry pick then yes, the participants whose applications are actually accepted to agree to the rules set up by Randi and the JREF. But what you failed to mention was that the applicants who don't agree to Randi's rules don't get to take the challenge. So it really doesn't matter if some applicants agree to the rules. The bottom line is Randi and the JREF make the rules and if you don't agree you don't get to take the challenge. It's Randi's game. He and the JREF make the rules, decide who gets to play and unilaterally decide what constitutes success and failure in the challenge. There is no peer review or outside oversight. It is totally unscientific.

http://rense.com/general69/randi.htm
" Ray Hyman, a leading Fellow of CSICOP, has pointed out that Randi's challenge is illegitimate from a scientific standpoint. "Scientists don't settle issues with a single test ... Proof in science happens through replication."

In case you don't know who Ray Hyman is..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Hyman

And of course a "single" test would in fact be giving the JREF way to much credit since there has yet to even be "a single test" actually conducted.

Of course the challenge stands. So does creationism. And still both suffer from the same fatal flaws from the stand point of real science. Neither actually follows the scientific method even though they both pretend to be scientific. Both begin and end with a dogmatic conclusion.

It is, IMO, quite unfortunate that Randi and the JREF have taken healthy skepticism and co-opted it into grand standing and shaming of others who do not see the world as they do. When it comes to my personal beliefs I suppose I am very much in the same boat as Randi. I don't believe in ghosts, gods, paranormal, etc etc etc. But, unlike Randi and many of his followers, I'm not a d**k about it.

 

I grow weary...

You have no idea about the amount of self control I'm exercising in not directly replying to this quote!

 

You just did respond directly to that quote. Anyhoo. I have made my points. You can agree or disagree. I'm not looking to change your mind.

 

Re the movie, I thought it was entertaining - especially the Popoff bits -- and I would have liked more of that and less about the Carlos relationship/deception.

 

What I'll remember the Amazing Randi for ......
The Happy Days 3 part episode when he gets sh_t-faced and can't perform the "milk-can escape" at the Leopard Lodge Annual Charity Dinner Show.

 

I sold books for a James Randi lecture. He was a gregarious, affable guy, not at all the curmudgeon portrayed by those bothered by his methods.

The highlight, for me, was watching him perform magic tricks at our dinner table for an audience of three, plus the waitress. Trust me, you don't appreciate sleight-of-hand tricks until they're performed under your nose, by the person seated directly across from you, using materials at hand in the restaurant. He made one of those big restaurant salt shakers disappear!

 

Actually, it was Randi who danced around creating a bunch of requirements for holding a cable test. Ask Michael Fremer what the thinks of Randi. I think he calls him a "bully" and "blowhard" who actually was the one who held up holding a cable test until everyone got frustrated with him and gave up. Then Randi said "See, I was right. They're afraid to take the test!" Which pissed Fremer off to no end. Fremer said, we'll use Monster cable and we'll use the cables from my system and Randi said, "Oh, no. You probably have your cables rigged with electronics to cheat with." Right, Randi. Fremer is an audiophile charlatan. He goes around bilking old ladies with his speaker cables.

Something funny I noticed in that documentary regarding Geller's spoon bending was that neither Randi nor the two guys who learned how to do it ever come out and explain how it's done. I kept watching and thinking, "Well, okay, it's a trick show me how it's done!" But they never do. Why? Because their magicians and want to go around amazing people (like Geller) without blowing the secret behind their "magical: powers. Is this the attitude of strict debunkers or just silly showmen? Come on. Geller was just a magician like the rest of them. Doesnt David Blane exude the same "there's something greater going on here" attitude?Sure. He's a showman, like Geller was a showman. It's all about the act and Geller's was so effective at money making with his, it pissed Randi off.

By the way, here's how it done: 1) Bending the spoon with a quick hand movement. 2) Palming a spoon you've cut a head of time. There, I debunked the effect.

 

Who cares what someone thinks of him? The issue at hand is dispelling woodoo peddlers. All these people objecting to Randi seem to be attacking his character, which has no place in skepticism. People that do this, it seems, would rather have the charlatans go unchallenged than be held to task even by someone that rubs them the wrong way (for whatever silly reason). If you're not part of the solution (to quackery), then you're part of the problem.

 

But that was the whole point of that portion of the documentary; kind of the whole point of the documentary as a whole. Geller claimed he wasn’t a magician. Randi’s whole point was that Geller was doing it the same way every other magician (including Randi) does it. The film also readily acknowledges that Geller “pissed” Randi off.

The film also even does a quick montage portraying Randi and Geller in their “media war” or whatever one wants to call it. It strongly implies Randi was game for it, and that at least some of it was probably ego.

Most of the criticisms of Randi in this thread are points made in the very documentary in question. Obviously, the whole point of the documentary isn’t that Randi is an irredeemable a-hole or something. Inherent in being the subject of such a documentary is that some high regard is offered as well. But I’m sensing some folks have either not watched this documentary, or that it has just turned into a thread debating the merits of Randi or his ethos or whatever.

As for not revealing how spoon bending is done in the documentary, while that seemed a bit odd (though they did partially reveal how they replicated other “psychic” abilities), doesn’t Randi actually reveal how spoon bending is accomplished in one of his books about Uri Geller? I haven’t read those books myself, so I’m honestly not sure. But I always assumed Randi wasn’t shy in his Geller books to point out the secret behind that trick. Seriously, in the age of YouTube and Wiki and whatnot, does anybody really think Randi refused to reveal how to bend spoons specifically for this documentary because he thought he could protect the “magician’s secret?”

As for the Fremer stuff with the cables, I can only add that the implication that Randi should simply take Fremer or anybody at his or her word that they wouldn’t try to cheat or fix the test would seem to undercut the whole point of doing the test. I have no reason to believe Fremer would try to cheat. But if one is trying to do that type of rigorous testing, they can’t simply take everyone at their word. It’s like the People’s Court defense. “Well, your honor, I know dogs can bite people, but *my* dog would *never* bite anyone!”

 

It seems odd that you'd hold Randi to blame for not showing how to bend spoons in the film - he didn't direct it. Shouldn't you blame the directors for not showing that?

Randi has shown how it's done before, so I don't get that criticism - it's about 3:30 in this clip...

 

Tech site ArsTechnica is fighting the good fight against fraudulent marketing by taking on peddlers of hyper-expensive "audiophile-grade" Ethernet cable, such as Audioquest Diamond's 8 meter cable which costs about $4,500 (and a 12m version around $10,000). They claim that the cables have a 'meaningful and positive' impact on sound when you use them to listen to audio files hosted on a NAS.

Except that digital data is digital data, and if the Ethernet cable is good enough to carry the bits at all, it’ll do so with perfect fidelity.

So Ars has decided to call:

"... the James Randi Educational Foundation. Founded by famous illusionist and skeptic James Randi, the JREF is an organization which aims to help people defend themselves from paranormal and pseudoscientific claims. It also administers the Million Dollar Challenge, a decades old contest that offers a prize of one million dollars to anyone able to conclusively prove the existence of psychic, supernatural, or paranormal ability under satisfactory observations. The JREF are experts in conducting impartial controlled tests to prove or disprove extraordinary phenomena - like the kinds of phenomena surrounding audiophile equipment".

Good to see the diversification of the JREF challenge to other types of sleight of hand.

 

This is a "good fight?" I think not. Audiophiles are not in any need of being saved from themselves. These objectivist/subjectivist debates really are purely ego driven.

 

That's like saying pseudoscience believers being swindled out of cash are not in any need of being saved from themselves. Can you ever make an argument that doesn't involved the word ego? I guess Ars is now 'egotistical' for wanting to expose frauds too? Sheesh!

 

I am all for exposing actual fraud, that being a deliberate and willful deception hoisted on the consumers. But if they are going after companies like Audioquest they are barking up the wrong tree. Where do rabid skeptics draw the line? Are you going to march into churches and demand proof of god next? If it's about fraud then yeah, I'm all for consumer protection. But if it's about being "right" then it is ego driven unwelcomed policing. Especially when we are talking about luxury items like high end audio components.