        |
|
Previous
Page
Back
to
Table of Contents
Next
Page
Debunking
PseudoSkeptical
Arguments of
Paranormal Debunkers
Argument # 30: The
James Randi
Million Dollar Psychic Challenge argument
In case
you don’t
know, James
Randi is the most celebrated of
the
organized skeptics who founded the James
Randi
Educational Foundation (JREF).
Skilled and versed in the art
of stage magic, Mr. Randi claims to be
better able to detect fraud and trickery from psychics and mediums
better than
scientists can.
He gives speeches
attempting to “educate” (or brainwash rather, in my
view) the public about
psychics and paranormal phenomena, which he claims is all deception or
self-delusion.
He has written books such
as An
Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and
Supernatural and Flim-Flam!
Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions, made a PBS documentary
called “Secrets of
the Psychics”, attacked
the reputation of psychics and healers such as Israeli-born spoon
bender Uri
Geller, debated with psychics on
CNN’s
Larry King Live, etc.
In the
original version of
this book back in 2001, I decided not to address this argument
because I
didn’t like to create whole arguments against specific
individuals.
However, at this point the
infamous James
Randi and his supporters have made it practically unavoidable. He
is so deeply publicly involved in
debunking parapsychology in the media, that to ignore him would be
tantamount
to ignoring Darth Vader in Star Wars. Paranormal
debunkers now commonly use Randi’s psychic challenge to argue
that there are no
genuine paranormal or psychic abilities, else they would apply for the
challenge and win.
Therefore, in this
new edition of this book, I’ve had to add a section on it
as it is one of
the most often mentioned arguments by organized skeptics.
There are
many obvious
problems with this argument of course, since one magician with an axe
to grind
and hosting a publicity stunt does not debunk all the paranormal
experiences in
the world.
They still happen everyday to
people all over the world.
Randi’s
critics claim is mostly a
publicity stunt for his career due to the fact that 1) Randi is
extremely
selective in who he tests, preferring to only test famous names to
boost his
own career, and that 2) there are many applicants who received no
response
after applying.
Plus, based on
numerous
testimonials from challenge applicants and para-researchers, there is
much
circumstantial evidence that Randi is not that honest, for he has used
plenty
of deceptive and dishonest tactics in the past.
There are many reports and
analyses of him that indicate this and damage
his credibility.
I’ve provided a
list of
them below so you can research them yourself.
A cursory
look at
Randi’s
articles on his website www.randi.org
will
reveal to any objective observer that although this man is very good at
playing
intellectual gymnastics in his commentaries and debates.
He
will do whatever it takes to win, even
committing foul play.
There is no
question that his mind is made up and that he has an axe to grind.
In
addition, Randi seems to
have a tendency to distort facts for his purposes.
For
instance, Harold Puthoff, a researcher at
Stanford Research Institute (SRI) which is famous for conducting
experiments on
remote viewing and Uri Geller’s psychic abilities, told me in
an email:
“<<
All the skeptics I've debated said that the
SRI tests were totally discredited and debunked already.
Is
this true?
>>
Not true at all.
They just quote Randi and his
pronouncements, e.g., in his book Flim
Flam.
In Flim Flam, he gives
something
like 28 debunking points, if my memory serves me correctly. I
had the opportunity to confront Randi at a
Parapsychology Association conference with proof in hand, and in
tape-recorded
interaction he admitted he was wrong on all the points.
He
even said he would correct them for the
upcoming paperback being published by the CSICOP
group.
(He did not.)
In case one thinks that
it was just a case of our
opinions vs. his opinions, we chose for the list of incorrect points
only those
that could be independently verified.
Examples: He said that in our
Nature paper we verified Geller's
metal-bending.
Go to the paper, and you
see that we said we were not able to obtain evidence for this. He
said that a film of the Geller experiment
made at SRI by famed photographer Zev Pressman was not made by him, but
by us
and we just put his name on it.
We
showed up with an affidavit by Pressman saying that indeed he did make
the
film.
Etc., etc.
Hal Puthoff”
And telepathy
researcher Rupert Sheldrake caught Randi lying on several instances
about him:
http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/randi.html
“James Randi -
a
Conjurer Attempts to Debunk Research on Animals
The January 2000 issue
of Dog World magazine included an article on a possible sixth sense in
dogs,
which discussed some of my research. In this article Randi was quoted
as saying
that in relation to canine ESP, "We at the JREF [James Randi
Educational
Foundation] have tested these claims. They fail." No details were given
of
these tests.
I emailed James Randi
to ask for details of this JREF research. He did not reply. He ignored
a second
request for information too.
I then asked members
of the JREF Scientific Advisory Board to help me find out more about
this
claim. They did indeed help by advising Randi to reply. In an email
sent on
Februaury 6, 2000 he told me that the tests he referred to were not
done at the
JREF, but took place "years ago" and were "informal". They
involved two dogs belonging to a friend of his that he observed over a
two-week
period. All records had been lost. He wrote: "I overstated my case for
doubting the reality of dog ESP based on the small amount of data I
obtained.
It was rash and improper of me to do so."
Randi also claimed to
have debunked one of my experiments with the dog Jaytee, a part of
which was
shown on television. Jaytee went to the window to wait for his owner
when she
set off to come home, but did not do so before she set off. In Dog
World, Randi
stated: "Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to
every
car that drove by, and to every person who walked by." This is simply
not true,
and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape.”
So, if he
lies, then why
should anyone trust him in playing fairly in a million dollar challenge?
In his
article CSICOP
and
the
Skeptics:
An
Overview
George Hansen cites in his footnotes a damaging admission from Randi:
http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/CSICOPoverview.htm
“25
Randi’s antics should have come as
no surprise to members of CSICOP because he has engaged in similar
behavior in
relation to psi research. Krippner (1977), Rao (1984), Targ and Puthoff
(1977,
pp. 182-186), and Tart (1982b) have all documented glaring errors of
Randi.
Dennis Stillings has demonstrated that “Randi is capable of
gross distortion of
facts” (Truzzi, 1987, p. 89). Randi has been quoted as
saying, “I always
have an out” with regard to his $10,000 challenge (Rawlins,
1981, p. 89).
Puthoff and Targ (1977) documented a number of mistakes. In a
published,
handwritten, signed letter, Randi replied offering $1,000 if any
claimed error
could be demonstrated (see Fuller, 1979). Fuller proved Randi wrong. In
a
rejoinder to Puthoff and Targ (1977), Randi reversed himself (for a
clear example,
see point number 15 in Randi, 1982, p. 223). Randi should have paid the
$1,000,
but he never did.”
In
response to Mr.
Randi’s
million dollar psychic challenge charade, Dr. Zammit has issued a
million
dollar counter-challenge to skeptics to disprove the afterlife evidence
detailed in his book A Lawyer
Presents the Case for the
Afterlife. You can read the details of
this challenge at:
http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/challenge.html
In any
case, I would say in
conclusion that regardless of whether Randi’s psychic
challenge is legit, I do
not believe the fact that it is officially unwon to constitute proof
that
paranormal and psychic phenomena don’t exist, as some
debunkers claim.
Simply put, there are a
variety of reasons
why it would still be unwon, ranging from Randi’s own
dishonesty and less than
sincere motives, to tricks like perpetually raising the bar, as well as
the spiritual
principle that psychic abilities used for selfish motives or profit
disconnect
one from the higher source they emanate from. Furthermore, if you also
pit the
argument of the unwon challenge against the overwhelming anecdotal
(majority
population) and scientific evidence for psychic phenomena,
it’s nothing in
comparison.
Simply put, one unwon public challenge by a
debunker and magician does
NOT invalidate the countless millions of paranormal experiences
throughout
world history, nor does it refute the years of replicable psi research
done by
Ganzfeld or PEAR experiments, among others.
Finally,
in regard to CSICOP (Committee
for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal), one
revealing
thing needs to be said.
Former CSICOP
staff member Dennis Rawlins resigned after finding hard evidence of CSICOP
intentionally suppressing its own findings which supported astrology
(known as
the "file drawer effect") during one of their initial investigations
of Michel Gauquelin’s statistical research, thus proving the
organization's
true agenda was simply to discredit/debunk in any way possible rather
than to
find the truth, in order to appease its subscribers.
You
can read Rawlins' report “sTARBABY” at http://cura.free.fr/xv/14starbb.html. CSICOP has maintained of course,
that it was all just a big
misunderstanding.
But what else do you
expect them to say?
Mr. Rawlins’
findings seem to be very sincere and unambiguous.
Also, for
an in-depth
analysis of CSICOP,
see this article:
http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/CSICOPoverview.htm
And
speaking of astrology,
skeptic and debunker
Michael Shermer set up a double blind test for Astrologer Jeffrey
Armstrong,
who passed with flying colors, scoring a major victory for the validity
of
astrology.
You can see the video clip of
this test here, which includes a surprise twist at the end: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N1dIUTbZTo
Why Randi, Shermer and the
CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics
James
Randi, Michael Shermer
and the CSICOPers are
highly selective with their skepticism. Not only do they not question
their own
beliefs, but they never challenge or apply skepticism to the status
quo.
Instead, they have a fanatical allegiance to it, evidenced by their
behavior. A
true skeptic examines all sides, including his own. But pseudoskeptics
only
point their skepticism at what they don't believe in, which everyone
else does
too. So what makes them different than anyone else then? Only one
thing: The
SIDE they're on. In this case,
they are on the side of authority, orthodoxy
and materialism. That is why their skepticism and critical examination
is ONLY
directed at anything and anyone that challenges the status quo, but
NEVER at
the status quo itself. In essence, that makes them "establishment
defenders" (or establishment whores), not real skeptics.
That is
why you will never
see Randi, Shermer or the
CSICOP crowd apply any skepticism, criticism or condemnation toward
orthodoxy
or establishment. They hold that side to be blameless and infallible,
not
overtly, but by their selective skepticism. And they take on faith
anything
that the establishment says as true, with zero skepticism. In other
words, the
official version of everything is ALWAYS the truth to them, and never
to be
questioned. You can see this in ALL their publications, writings,
interviews
and speeches, where the official version of anything is NEVER
questioned.
Instead, one side is always right to them (the official version,
materialistic
paradigm) and the other always wrong (paranormal or conspiratorial
claims).
Simply put, their skepticism can never be used to question the status
quo, only
to defend it.
Now, what
kind of skepticism
or critical thinking is
that? Is that the mark of a freethinker or truth seeker?
I
don't think so.
This is
why not only are
they against all validity of
the paranormal, but also against all claims of conspiracy as well,
which are
not even paranormal in nature. In their view, anyone that challenges
the system
or the official version is automatically discredited, regardless of
whether
their claims are true, credible or backed by evidence. And this
includes former
high ranking government officials as well.
For those
of you who have
followed the work of Randi,
Shermer or CSICOP, ask yourself this: Have you ever seen them criticize
anything of the establishment, including crimes, murders, lies,
conspiracies,
evil plots, etc?
I'll bet
not.
Consider
the following
documented facts and let me ask
you:
Do they
ever speak out
against the senseless killings
in the Iraq War for power and profit?
Nope.
Do they
ever admit that the
US Navy was wrong to fake
the Gulf of Tonkin Incident in 1964 (which has now been exposed) which
resulted
in the deaths of 60,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese, making
the war
and their deaths a FRAUD?
Nope.
Are they
outraged with the
fact that the CIA has been
involved in drug trafficking for many years, which even some in the
mainstream
media have reported? Or the CIA assassinations of foreign leaders who
refused
to abide by US policy?
Nope.
Are they
outraged that the
EPA lied after 9/11 that
the air was safe to breathe, which caused thousands of First Responders
to
develop cancer from the toxic air and slowly die?
Nope.
Are they
outraged that upper
levels of government have
concocted secret plots to sacrifice innocent lives to stage terrorist
activities and blame it on others to start wars, such as Operation
Northwoods
and Operation Dirty Trick? (Google them for more info)
Nope.
Do they
speak out against
the thousands of people that
die from pharmaceutical drugs every year?
Nope.
But will
they go ballistic
if ONE person allegedly
dies from alternative treatment such as homeopathy?
You betcha!
So, what
does it say about
them then if they have no
problem with lies and evil plots that result in the death of millions,
yet have
a big problem with the death of a few if alternative medicine is
involved?
It tells
you that they are
one sided with an axe to
grind, rather than fair, honest or objective. They are fanatical
defenders of
establishment and orthodoxy, holding that side to be blameless. As such
they
are totally blind to the faults of authority, or deliberately ignore
them at
least. Their critical thinking and skepticism can ONLY be directed at
anything
AGAINST the establishment, and NEVER at anything FROM the establishment.
Tell that
to the
pseudoskeptics. And when they deny
it, challenge them to produce a publication from a media skeptic or
skeptic
organization that openly condemns or criticizes the above crimes of the
establishment
(elite or shadow government, whatever you want to call it). When they
come up
empty handed, then you've got them. From that point, it does not matter
if they
continue in their denial, for the facts speak for themselves.
Now, is
that true skepticism
to you? Is that
objectivity, logic and science? Is that the mark of a freethinker
independent
of authority or bias? Or is that fanaticism from a programmed mind who
has
given up his intellect to become an intellectual slave of authority?
You tell
me.
A REAL
skeptic is able to
apply skepticism to ALL
SIDES, including their own. They do not hold one side to be blameless
and the
other to be always wrong, like the Randis, Shermers and CSICOPers do.
Fanatics
are always one-sided, independent free thinkers aren't.
The
ability to independently
assess all sides,
including your own, is the mark of a true freethinking at a higher
level of
consciousness. These folks clearly do not fit the bill.
You gotta
remember that
"actions speak louder
than words". Anyone can claim to be a skeptic or critical freethinker.
But
if their ACTIONS do not show the hallmark of one, then they aren't. And
by
their actions, the Randis, Shermers and CSICOPers aren't.
See my
video rant about this
here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0aPN3R3vPw
Previous
Page
Back
to
Table of Contents
Next
Page