Uri Geller - What do you think?

[Laird]

In the spirit of Chris's reply:

For example, in the dice box experiments, at least some of the time, Geller handled the box, making it possible for him to thumb the lid for a quick peek after a little misdirection.

And the rest of the time?

Marks and Kammann are two psychologists who attempted to replicate Trag and Puthoff's research. They wrote a book, "The Psychology of the Psychic" about the results. With respect to the experiments with Uri Geller, they toured the facilities where the experiments were performed, reviewed the lab notes of the various people involved in the program, looked at video tape and discussed the experiments with Targ and Puthoff. It became clear that what was shown on the videotape was a sanitized version of the actual experiments.

For example, in the dice box experiments, at least some of the time, Geller handled the box, making it possible for him to thumb the lid for a quick peek after a little misdirection. For the drawing experiments, there was a window (one-way mirror) between the room where Geller sat unobserved and the room where the drawings were produced. A bulletin board covered the window, and Marks and Kammann noted that a pinhole in the bulletin board would allow Geller to observe the production of the pictures (as well as listen to any conversation as an intercom was present between the rooms). 

Marks and Kammann were the ones who discovered that the remote reading results were due to poor procedure on Targ and Puthoff's part when they presented the targets in the order they were visited to the judges, and left cues in the readings as to the order the sites were visited, making it easy to match readings to the sites. Taking the cues out and mixing up the order left the results unremarkable.

Has anybody else read the book?

Linda

I have the second edition of the book.

I think Laird could do with reading it. Like I said before, there are possible naturalistic explanations for the experiments he did with Puthoff and Targ. As the possibility of fraud and sensory leakage was not ruled out, there is no need to invoke miracles.

You know what's funny? Skeptics go on about how easy it is to get fooled, and that any test of a purported psychic needs to have magicians involved to check for trickery. But point out to them in a given experiment that a magician was involved and suddenly it becomes, "Oh, so you think magicians can't be fooled, huh?"

I tell you, the goalposts can be shifted endlessly.

There is no reliable evidence Russell Targ was a practicing magician, apart from his own words in a biography. Joe Nickell says it is a fabrication. I am inclined to believe it is. Targ has been caught lying about remote viewing experiments (check out the book by David Marks that fls mentioned), so likely he lied when he said he used to work as a magician.

Targ has very bad eyesight. He cannot see hardly anything, do you really think he was the best person to be testing Geller?

A video of Uri bending a spoon. Fairly recent it appears to be. https://youtu.be/pN_AC9KHlM8

A video of Uri bending a spoon. Fairly recent it appears to be. https://youtu.be/pN_AC9KHlM8

Lol I found the comments more interesting than the video. Almost every comment calling him a conman, fraud and liar.

I also see it is an advert for Kellogg's cereal. Uri must be desperate for money again...

I guess it's too late to change the decision, but it is possible to copy this thread back onto the ECP forum and have two discussions going.

I'm really not that invested in it, thanks, Ninshub.

I think this thread demonstrates how polarised the views are, except that most of the proponents seem to be saying merely that there appears to be something of interest happening in the video and the others are insisting: no there isn't, it's just Geller, he's a fraud and so are all those guys who tested him at SRI. It is curiosity versus certainty, open-mindedness versus dogma. It is also a case of sceptics citing other sceptics.

The internet is full of the same dogma which is why this thread and the malaise it highlights are quite depressing and why I feel less inclined to take part. I asked for more evidence and I tried to find it myself. If Google search is an indicator of the state of play, then what you will find when you search are pages and pages of links to sceptical sites and blogs. CSICOP, RationalWiki, even the sceptically biased Wikipedia with its so called Guerrilla Skeptic editors. If shouting down the opposing view is the way to win debates, then the internet is proof that it works. Leuders comes along to this forum and shamelessly cites his own website as though RationalWiki should be regarded as a trusted and unbiased source. A site dedicated to the character assassination of anyone involved with psi research (unless that involvement happens to be for the purpose of debunking). A site where pejoratives like pseudoscience and woo are tossed around like confetti and any semblance of balance is dispelled after reading the first paragraph of any entry.

In short, leave it where it is (or move it back) - I don't particularly care right now.

[Ninshub]

Wikipedia is a great website , everything on it has to be sourced. The paranormal believers hate the website because it is pro science and debunks their woo

Just because this forum allows Skeptics, and that the policy is not to moderate content (so far), this doesn't mean that any type of post is welcome. This is obviously a troll post, and is not welcome here. I see you're a new member, please reconsider your approach to posting.