cmac
Member
Let's all get to know James Randi, the greatest skeptic known to man
Well, if you don't know who James Randi is, it is not a huge surprise. He was a very accomplished Magician and illusionist. Also sometimes considered a Con-man, he made a living deceiving people. Now he is likely the greatest skeptic known to man and has a bevy of followers who seemingly adore the man. His many articles are full of deception, misrepresentations, and arrogance. He proposes that others are con artists, deceiving the public for financial gain, whether they are profiting or not. He has made huge profits by throwing around his skeptical viewpoints, rarely backing up anything he spews with data and factual representations of others. Which is precisely what he enjoys accusing others of.
Here are some exerpts from James Randi, in comments asserted towards Dr. Gary Swartz, University of Arizona. I will let you be the judge of Mr. Randi's character. James Randi's comments are in regular print, Dr. Gary Swartz' comments follow in bold print.
As soon as Gary Schwartz produces data derived from a proper scientific experiment rather than from a game-show exercise, we can begin to examine that evidence — which I have always insisted must speak for itself. As it is, we hear only muffled mumblings and not one clear word.
Here is the entire article if you would like to see the complete version: http://www.psicounsel.com/marius/dear_james.htm
VERITAS – We publish our papers in peer reviewed journals, including the Journal of Scientific Exploration. Randi can read the papers if he likes….
It might be a warning sign to us that Schwartz was educated at Harvard, which also gave us Dr. John Mack, the man who apparently has never met anyone who hasn't been abducted by space aliens.
VERITAS – John Mack would likely call "never met anyone who hasn’t been abducted by space aliens" an example of your extreme, inaccurate, and potentially slanderous remarks. You may think you are cute, but your misinformation is quite unbecoming.
This is a very definitive protocol, one that could be easily and economically implemented, one that would result in a clear picture, not only of whether the performer was able to produce as claimed, but whether the methods we at the JREF believe are being used to accomplish trickery, are in fact the reasons for apparent successes. Now Schwartz seems to have abandoned any plans to use that excellent design. One can only wonder why.
VERITAS – Our multi-center, double-blind procedure has been approved by the IRB at the University of Arizona, and we are pilot testing it right now. It includes Randi’s suggestions.
Since Schwartz has admitted that he's never done a double-blind experiment, insisting that when he does get around to that mode he will improve it to "triple-blind" — whatever that means! — I will await his implementation of proper controls before making further comment; there is no need to explain something that has not yet been shown to exist. What he has done so far appears to be a series of games and amateur probes, quite without any scientific value — though the mediums are quick to quote him and claim academic validation from the University of Arizona.
VERITAS – The latest single-blind experiments rule out cold reading, guessing, selective memory of hits and misses, rater bias, and experimenter bias, from the findings. However, Randi doesn’t believe the data. This is because he is convinced this is all "nonsense."
By the way, the idea of a "triple-blind" study came up because Randi did not trust our double-blind procedures! We will do a triple-blind study once the double-blind study is completed. Triple-blind is ever more "bells and whistles"
Agreed, Schwartz has employed masses of technical attachments, lots of bells and whistles, and has applied statistics to the half-data obtained, but that is much like measuring chimneys with a laser beam to determine whether a fat man in a red suit can get down them, and to thereby explore the reality of Santa Claus.
VERITAS – The above statement is an example of extreme language by someone who does not know science nor care about data that goes against his view of how the universe must operate. Such extreme language is insulting to the intelligent mind who cares about truth in the reporting of data. We do not analyzethe half-data," we analyze all the data, and Randi knows this.
This is just the same old fare, cold reading, exactly what Edward and the other "readers" do! If we had an entire transcript or tape of this series of guesses, we'd be able to evaluate it, wouldn't we? But we will never have that. Dr. Schwartz won't share it with us. Why? That slamming noise you hear is the door to his Ivory Tower closing.
VERITAS – All media who come to the lab have seen the raw footage. So have magicians, visiting scientists, and others. Randi could have come to the lab, he could have come to the conference. Instead, he complains that we do not give him the raw data. Given all the misinformation presented by Randi above, can anyone blame us?
If you enjoyed this, you might also enjoy these links: www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/nicholls.html
http://www.psicounsel.com/randshel.html
This guy seems to be the speaker for the skeptical community, which really is a shame to the skeptical viewpoint and to finding the truth about reality.
Well, if you don't know who James Randi is, it is not a huge surprise. He was a very accomplished Magician and illusionist. Also sometimes considered a Con-man, he made a living deceiving people. Now he is likely the greatest skeptic known to man and has a bevy of followers who seemingly adore the man. His many articles are full of deception, misrepresentations, and arrogance. He proposes that others are con artists, deceiving the public for financial gain, whether they are profiting or not. He has made huge profits by throwing around his skeptical viewpoints, rarely backing up anything he spews with data and factual representations of others. Which is precisely what he enjoys accusing others of.
Here are some exerpts from James Randi, in comments asserted towards Dr. Gary Swartz, University of Arizona. I will let you be the judge of Mr. Randi's character. James Randi's comments are in regular print, Dr. Gary Swartz' comments follow in bold print.
As soon as Gary Schwartz produces data derived from a proper scientific experiment rather than from a game-show exercise, we can begin to examine that evidence — which I have always insisted must speak for itself. As it is, we hear only muffled mumblings and not one clear word.
Here is the entire article if you would like to see the complete version: http://www.psicounsel.com/marius/dear_james.htm
VERITAS – We publish our papers in peer reviewed journals, including the Journal of Scientific Exploration. Randi can read the papers if he likes….
It might be a warning sign to us that Schwartz was educated at Harvard, which also gave us Dr. John Mack, the man who apparently has never met anyone who hasn't been abducted by space aliens.
VERITAS – John Mack would likely call "never met anyone who hasn’t been abducted by space aliens" an example of your extreme, inaccurate, and potentially slanderous remarks. You may think you are cute, but your misinformation is quite unbecoming.
This is a very definitive protocol, one that could be easily and economically implemented, one that would result in a clear picture, not only of whether the performer was able to produce as claimed, but whether the methods we at the JREF believe are being used to accomplish trickery, are in fact the reasons for apparent successes. Now Schwartz seems to have abandoned any plans to use that excellent design. One can only wonder why.
VERITAS – Our multi-center, double-blind procedure has been approved by the IRB at the University of Arizona, and we are pilot testing it right now. It includes Randi’s suggestions.
Since Schwartz has admitted that he's never done a double-blind experiment, insisting that when he does get around to that mode he will improve it to "triple-blind" — whatever that means! — I will await his implementation of proper controls before making further comment; there is no need to explain something that has not yet been shown to exist. What he has done so far appears to be a series of games and amateur probes, quite without any scientific value — though the mediums are quick to quote him and claim academic validation from the University of Arizona.
VERITAS – The latest single-blind experiments rule out cold reading, guessing, selective memory of hits and misses, rater bias, and experimenter bias, from the findings. However, Randi doesn’t believe the data. This is because he is convinced this is all "nonsense."
By the way, the idea of a "triple-blind" study came up because Randi did not trust our double-blind procedures! We will do a triple-blind study once the double-blind study is completed. Triple-blind is ever more "bells and whistles"
Agreed, Schwartz has employed masses of technical attachments, lots of bells and whistles, and has applied statistics to the half-data obtained, but that is much like measuring chimneys with a laser beam to determine whether a fat man in a red suit can get down them, and to thereby explore the reality of Santa Claus.
VERITAS – The above statement is an example of extreme language by someone who does not know science nor care about data that goes against his view of how the universe must operate. Such extreme language is insulting to the intelligent mind who cares about truth in the reporting of data. We do not analyzethe half-data," we analyze all the data, and Randi knows this.
This is just the same old fare, cold reading, exactly what Edward and the other "readers" do! If we had an entire transcript or tape of this series of guesses, we'd be able to evaluate it, wouldn't we? But we will never have that. Dr. Schwartz won't share it with us. Why? That slamming noise you hear is the door to his Ivory Tower closing.
VERITAS – All media who come to the lab have seen the raw footage. So have magicians, visiting scientists, and others. Randi could have come to the lab, he could have come to the conference. Instead, he complains that we do not give him the raw data. Given all the misinformation presented by Randi above, can anyone blame us?
If you enjoyed this, you might also enjoy these links: www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/nicholls.html
http://www.psicounsel.com/randshel.html
This guy seems to be the speaker for the skeptical community, which really is a shame to the skeptical viewpoint and to finding the truth about reality.
