James Randi — Skepticism's Great Achilles
From an interesting report in the Daily Grail: "... one of the greatest hypocrites of this or any other generation ...."
Feeling the future meta-analysis
Before Cornell University psychologist Daryl Bem published an article on precognition in the prominent Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, it had already (and ironically given the topic) evoked a response from the status quo. The New York Times was kind enough to prepare us to be outraged . It was called " craziness, pure craziness" by life-long critic Ray Hyman. Within days the news media was announcing that it was all just a big mistake . I wrote about the ensuing brouhaha in this blog . But the bottom line in science, and the key factor that trumps hysterical criticism, is whether the claimed effect can be repeated by independent investigators. If it can't then perhaps the original claim was mistaken or idiosyncratic. If it can, then the critics need to rethink their position. Now we have an answer to the question about replication. An article has been submitted to the Journal of Social and Personality Psychology and is available here . The key
Comments
This scandal is just one of a number that Randi has survived because his fan base doesn't care about the truth, they care about their ideological position and, I'm ever more convinced, the permission Randi gives them to feel superior, expending no effort other than mocking refusal to look at the controlled research into PSI. Conceit is the primary motivation of the "skeptics", their ideology is, primarily, a vehicle of self-esteem. And the professionals among them use that as a means of self-promotion and profit. Few if any of the "skeptics" would be anything but obscure without that racket.
I was wondering if this was the same kind of telepathy that you have been researching or if it is completely different. If it is similar then how do skeptics respond to this? Thanks.
The DOD's interest is in "synthetic" telepathy. This is a conventional neuroscience application of brain-computer interface research. My studies focus on direct mind-matter interactions.
Not that its an honest act but we should be cautious about generalizing it to his greater character.
Just like preachers who rant over the supposed evils of homosexuality, and then turn out to be secretly gay, the revelation of their hypocrisy utterly destroys their credibility.
It doesn't surprise me a bit that Randi would be hiding a fraud.
Or are you saying he has a habit of helping immigrants steal identities and uses public skepticism as a cover?
Since Randi came out of the closet a couple of years ago and was living with the young "Jose", it seems fair to say that he was likely his lover, and he knew all about the identity theft, and probability statistics would dictate that he was probably the one that helped him carry it out and conceal it for all this time, even after it was uncovered.
Unfortunately, that, and his lack of credible expertise other than fooling audiences onstage, makes him a liar, a cheat, and a disingenuous spokesperson in general. But he certainly pulled the wool over everyone's eyes.
Then again, when I was in graduate school it never occurred to me to take a course in the history, philosophy or sociology of science. In most schools those courses aren't even considered to be important enough to be listed as electives for future scientists.
So it's not surprising that many working scientists maintain a highly simplistic view of what science is all about. In hindsight if I were creating a science curriculum today I would add those courses as absolute requirements.
Much of what passes for professional naysaying today, in light of history, is laughable.
Wonder rather than doubt is the root of all knowledge.
Abraham Joshua Heschel
Skeptics are guilty of 'Logical Closure' an error of thought in formal Philosophy, hence a prominent mainstream psychology skeptic said the brain couldn't have quantum events happening because it was all wet or damp inside - total ignorance of quantum physics.
Einstein said, "Imagination is more important then Knowledge" , because if you just think about what is known it severely limits your options to find out new truths.
Keep up the great work Dean... Cheers Russ
http://stevevolk.com/archives/952
I like your blog. I thought I'd contribute an experience I had as a healer and in talking with skeptics about this issue...at least the person I was talking to wasn't a jerk like James Randi, just an open minded but skeptical scientist, and I do like scientists. :) What Creates Consciousness - a blurb to a skeptic
I tried to explain to this person how and why psi research on healing is so difficult. So much seems to depend on the consciousness level of the researcher, not just the subjects or situation he thinks he is studying, lol. Ironic, isn't it.
Not sure I did a very good job with my blurb, but I do love science and I did my best even though I am a healer working in a woo field that doesn't have that much data yet. I hope the future will include more research. It would really help healers and scientists both. Thanks! Adele Wang, SafehavenHealing.net
Attacking his credibility by demonstrating paranormal phenomena under controlled conditions would be a much more effective challenge.