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

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by mrjinks, Jul 7, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Deesky

    Deesky Forum Resident

    There you go again with the ego business. And who are these 'they' that you keep referring to? This (Ars) is an independent organization that is not a part of JREF, but who saw the value in the work that JREF does and thus decided to collaborate. To keep objecting to various organizations that are trying to cut through various forms of public deception is unfathomable and probably ideological.
     
  2. Scott Wheeler

    Scott Wheeler Forum Resident

    Location:
    ---------------
    Dude, what did you not understand about "I am all for exposing actual fraud, that being a deliberate and willful deception hoisted on the consumers."? How is it that you would respond to that by saying "To keep objecting to various organizations that are trying to cut through various forms of public deception is unfathomable and probably ideological."? Let me break that down for you. By me being all for exposing "actual fraud" I am doing the **opposite** of objecting to any organization trying to cut through "public deception."

    Now how about addressing my questions? "Where do rabid skeptics draw the line? Are you going to march into churches and demand proof of god next?"

    And yeah, there I went with ego again. As long as it is true it will continue to come up. As I said before

    ***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. Do you understand the difference between fraud and differences in belief? Do you understand how those differences manifest themselves in a perceptual hobby such as audio?
     
  3. Scott Wheeler

    Scott Wheeler Forum Resident

    Location:
    ---------------
    http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015...ile-ethernet-cables-to-the-test-in-las-vegas/

    :rant:

    A few things about this charade.

    "After several e-mail and Twitter discussions with a bunch of different audiophiles—including Michael Lavorgna who initiated what turned out to be a very courteous exchange of e-mails—it became pretty obvious that the folks who believed in this kind of thing really believed in it."

    And there you go. There is no "fraud" going on here. It's audiophiles who, based on personal experience, believe these cables make an audible improvement selling these cables to other like minded audiophiles. That is not fraud. That is audiophiles enjoying their hobby. They clearly don't need to be saved from themselves.

    And what is even more clear is that saving subjectivist audiophiles from themselves clearly is not the intention of Ars or other objectivists with an emotional investment in this debate. I offer the following as proof of that assertion. From the same Ars article "Realistically, we also know that this test won’t sway anyone" And there you go. They aren't doing this to save subjectivists from themselves at all.

    Why are they doing it then? Let's look at what the article says...."However, for those of you who put your faith in the scientific method when it comes to audiophile testing, this should be pretty exciting." Hmmm "exciting." OK. Now let's look at some of the things being said about this over on Hydrogen Audio, an objectivist oriented forum. "And that's why dealing with such audiophool nonsense is a waste of time. You cannot reason with someone who actively does not want to be reasoned with. They will always make excuses if the test results don't fit their prejudiced opinion." "Besides proving that one person can't hear the difference there's also the opportunity to make some money. That's why I challenge my audiophoolish friends to bets, giving them better than 1:1 odds intheir favor. This way not only do you show them up that these silly myths are nothing but snake oil and are just plain baloney, you also make a profit. [​IMG]"

    Yeah those are good intentions. So when I keep bringing up the issue of ego this is the sort of thing that makes it fairly obvious that it is about ego. Clearly Ars and and like minded audiophile objctivists are not doing what they do with the idea of saving subjectivists from themselves. it's about them being right and subjectivists being wrong. It's about validation and validation is about ego. The objectivsts are clearly looking to validate their beliefs and more importantly invalidate the beliefs of subjectivists. This isn't about Ars and Randi flying in to save subjectivists from themselves or the from the terrors of fraudulent manufacturers of snake oil audio gear. This is about seeing subjectivists having fun with their hobby, getting pissed off about it and trying to take a big proverbial dump on their enjoyment of their hobby. That isn't fighting a good fight against fraud. that's just being an ***hole.

    A few other points in the article that i would like to address

    "The best way to dig into it seemed to be to bring in an outside expert. So, we called the James Randi Educational Foundation."

    Now if that isn't just plain funny..... Since when has Randi or the JREF ever been experts on audio or psychoacoustic research? That's a joke. they are not experts on the subject and not anyone who should be called in to do actual well designed DBTs in audio. there are plenty of experts on that, Randi and the JREF are not among them.

    "This isn’t the first time the JREF has taken on audiophile-grade cables. In 2007, the foundationoffered its Million Dollar Challenge prize to the Pear Cable Company if the company could prove its $7,250 audio cables improved sound quality as advertised. The Pear Cable Company declined the offer."

    Well...this is an interesting way of reporting what happened that is painfully deceptive (ironic that they are being deceptive) It is true that Pear cable Company declined to participate in any such challenge. But what is not being mentioned here is that one Michael Fremer was willing to take the challenge and it was Randi and the JREF that in effect did not allow the challenge to go forward. And it's probably a good thing they did not because they would have had quite a problem on their hands. Turns out the Pear Audio cables in question had a network box that clearly and measurably had a substantial effect on the frequency response of those cables. IOW they do actually sound different than regular audio cables. There is an old saying..."look before you leap." Clearly Randi did not and perhaps coincidentally no test was ever conducted despite the fact that Fremmer was quite willing and wanting to take the test. Hmmmmmmm.

    Yeah this is real guuuuud sciance. All about doing good in this world and protecting those poor little ole subjectivsts from the horrors of consumer fraud. what a joke. It's all about an old and tired debate in audio and the ego driven desire to get confirmation of ones' beliefs. It's not enough to be right. The enemy must also be wrong.

    This is not healthy skepticism or real science. this is ***holes trying to piss on other peoples' fun.

    The real tragedy is that it gives legitimate skepticism and science a bad name.

    end rant
     
  4. Scott I appreciate your passion and research you put into your posts -well done. But a couple of points: ego driven initiatives and a worthwhile expose of "snake oil" are not mutually exclusive, so I could care less that there may be a large component of "ego" fueling these challenges. And tests for the sake of demonstrating how employing a scientific method for testing whether an audio component makes any measurable improvement can be useful and fun for those conducting them. And they do sway some people. I was a chump who paid extra for Monster cables when I put together my first system, but after reading about the tests associated with Monster cables (and word of mouth from others who read these articles) I did not purchase them when upgrading my system. I also became a huge skeptic of any identifiable advantage of high resolution audio based on reading the results of a double-blind test available on line.
     
    Deesky likes this.
  5. Scott Wheeler

    Scott Wheeler Forum Resident

    Location:
    ---------------
    Fair enough. But there two real problems I have with this particular example of Ars and JREF: 1. the gross misrepresentation of facts in regards to Randi's and the JREF's "expretise" on the subject of audio and proper testing of audible differences. If you are going to bring in an expert with real integrity that is one thing. But bringing in amateurs with an obvious agenda and vested interest in the result is not really a good start when trying to do actual scientifically valid DBTs. I have seen far to many agenda driven DBTs that were obviously crap tests over the years to stomach that kind of nonsense. 2. The gross misrepresentation of the facts in regards to how the JREF and Randi already "successfully debunked" the Pear Audio cables. That is just plain B.S. No test was ever done despite the **fact** that Fremer wanted to go forward and do them. And the real kicker is the fact that those particular cables have a clear and measurable non linearity in their frequency response. Measurable differences that should, by objectivist standards, cause audible differences.

    I'm all for disclosure and sharing of knowledge but sadly that all to often that gets obfuscated in the heated, emotional EGO DRIVEN age old debate between objectivists and subjectivists. And IMO that is a problem in audiophilia. It is IMO also a common problem in skepticism.
     
  6. Thomas D

    Thomas D Forum Resident

    Location:
    Bradenton, FL
    Just saw the thing and enjoyed it up to the final 30 minutes. Thought it was a bit of a bait and switch. Thought it should have dealt more with how the spoons are bent. Put the nail in the coffin on the benders. But he didn't. My personal opinion is as a magician he did not want to DESTROY other magicians. Yes he severely damaged Geller, but left him some wiggle room so that he could preserve some dignity and attempt a limited comeback if he could. It seemed like a bait and switch when he could have gone the bender exposition route but instead went with the personal life, which I don't give a flip about.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2015
  7. BlueGangsta

    BlueGangsta Forum Resident

    Location:
    Australia
    Well, I though it was great. The ending served an interesting twist to the film, Rhandi spent his life exposing others deceit and lies, yet was in on one himself. I felt it made him less black and white.
     
  8. I just finished watching the movie. What a great film!
     
    Brian Lux, Scope J and mrjinks like this.
  9. Scope J

    Scope J Senior Member

    Location:
    Michigan
    Very good doc , much i did not
    know about his early years .
    no mention of Sylvia Browne ,
    a legal thing ?
     
  10. BlueGangsta

    BlueGangsta Forum Resident

    Location:
    Australia
    I was very shocked at that too. But, she's been discredited to the point of no return now any way. It probably wasn't necessary, but to someone who is more susceptible to ******** should get to see how that sage went down...
     
  11. balzac

    balzac Senior Member

    Interestingly, generally speaking it’s actually usually easier to go into discussing a person who is deceased, as an estate/family cannot typically sue for slander/libel/defamation of a deceased individual.
     
  12. Brian Lux

    Brian Lux One in the Crowd

    Location:
    Placerville, CA
    Finally caught up with this one. It was one of those Netflix picks where I thought it could be good, probably not great, not sure it was a good pick. Well, it was GREAT! I really like it. May favorite line mentioned the difference between using deception to conceal the truth and using deception to reveal the truth. I found this film revealed much about truth and deception and an added reminder to be skeptical of what we are told is truth. More healthy skepticism could save us all a lot of grief. (Yes, I'll leave it at that!)
     
    BlueGangsta likes this.
  13. fr in sc

    fr in sc Forum Resident

    Location:
    Hanahan, SC
    Yup, Bob Greene wrote all about it in his OOP classic "Billion Dollar Baby" about his stint as Santa with Alice Cooper in their '73 Billion Dollar Babies tour. Whenever I hear Randi's name that's what I always think of first.
     
    JamieC likes this.
  14. Ginger Ale

    Ginger Ale Snackophile

    Location:
    New York
    Started watching this. Paused it every few minutes to discuss things. More later when done watching.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine