James Randi crosses over

I wanted to post this earlier, but haven't had the time to round up a couple of decent links: I think I've found something unequivocally positive that James Randi did. He campaigned successfully against fake mine detectors that were used in active service. I was reminded of this by his obituary in the Guardian and I searched around and found this fascinating pdf about all kinds of fake mine detectors...

http://em.fis.unam.mx/public/mochan/blog...2gt200.pdf

which reads in its introduction “... thanks to James Randi and many others, no one in the World who is either still using these devices, or considering buying them, should have any excuse for not seeking proper testing at the very least, if not the obvious immediate ban.”

Surely we can all agree that this, at least, was A Good Thing.

I mean I think there's probably no small number of good things he did. People might take it personal because of how he was towards parapsychology but him going around exposing fake mediums scamming people out of their money, magicians pretending to have authentic abilities, bogus faith healers waving cloth at people to cure their cancer and stuff like that was good. 

He was just a bit of a wanker as well.

I mean I think there's probably no small number of good things he did. People might take it personal because of how he was towards parapsychology but him going around exposing fake mediums scamming people out of their money, magicians pretending to have authentic abilities, bogus faith healers waving cloth at people to cure their cancer and stuff like that was good. 

He was just a bit of a wanker as well.

Exposing fake mediums is only part of the job. It's like exposing bad restaurants. But to give the impression that people should give up going to any restaurants is a severe disservice. That would reek of something more personal, like a bad experience with something taints one's worldview. Perhaps he never quite fulfilled what might have been his potential..

Exposing fake mediums is only part of the job. It's like exposing bad restaurants. But to give the impression that people should give up going to any restaurants is a severe disservice. That would reek of something more personal, like a bad experience with something taints one's worldview. Perhaps he never quite fulfilled what might have been his potential..

That's a very good analogy, Typoz.  Isn't that exactly more or less what he would have wanted everyone to do (discredit mediumship in totality).

Off topic and I've posted this before, but two or three years ago now, I was a witness to a very accurate reading done over the phone, by a medium recommended in Leslie Keane's book, Surviving death (think it was called that). It was so accurate, I still don't believe it. Nothing vague like Aunt Mary is thinking of you and is looking after your pet dog (did you have a dog ? or a pet ? none of that). 

Precise names, precise illness's, accurate dates, rattled off.  I have it taped but I don't believe it. I just think she must have got the information from somewhere but I haven't the foggiest idea how and I have no reason to suspect fraud. Just to add there is no way she could have got this information.

I wanted to post this earlier, but haven't had the time to round up a couple of decent links: I think I've found something unequivocally positive that James Randi did. He campaigned successfully against fake mine detectors that were used in active service. I was reminded of this by his obituary in the Guardian and I searched around and found this fascinating pdf about all kinds of fake mine detectors...

http://em.fis.unam.mx/public/mochan/blog...2gt200.pdf

which reads in its introduction “... thanks to James Randi and many others, no one in the World who is either still using these devices, or considering buying them, should have any excuse for not seeking proper testing at the very least, if not the obvious immediate ban.”

Surely we can all agree that this, at least, was A Good Thing.

I am sure that Randi found some scams that needed to be exposed - whether or not they were related to the paranormal. My my beef with the man was his hypocrisy. He was as dishonest as some of the con-artists he exposed and more so than the rest. Plus his profiteering from his so-called "Educational Foundation" which, as far as I could see, was a vehicle to feed his ego and his bank account.

There’s an old saying “when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail”.

Was looking for something else when I stumbled across this article. Very relevant to our little discussion here, I think:

https://boingboing.net/2020/10/26/the-ma...icism.html

[Laird]

Was looking for something else when I stumbled across this article. Very relevant to our little discussion here, I think:

https://boingboing.net/2020/10/26/the-ma...icism.html

Good stuff, but Sci beat you to it in post #46.

Man, I try to be the even ground but the comments responding to that article are just really terrible. Bout 200 comments of people talking about stuff they've obviously never read about beyond people saying it was psuedoscience. It's just, a profound irony that the article goes "James Randi fucked up skepticism by making people default think parapsychology is psuedoscience without proof/he is an unjust idol" and every single comment is just "BUT PARAPSYCHOLOGY IS PSUEDOSCIENCE THEY SAID SO! How dare you say bad things about James Randi!"

Also just, painful to see the state of discussion about PSI topics, but also the lengths that psuedoskeptics have to go to in order to deny research. To say that 100 years, especially the last 10 to 20 years in which things have probably became the most tight and authentic, of research is all a result of fraud, bias and questionable research practices is such a gigantic accusation I'm supprised that the people who say it aren't crushed to death under the weight of the words as they leave their mouth.

All of those things definitely happen in parapsychology, much like they do in any other science, but the fact that psi stuff can't exist as a default just makes the discussion about it so much more painful. Parapsychology at the table talking about questionable research practices while everyone else thinks that's their entire field, which it so painfully isn't. Not to mention it makes it harder to accept inputs from outsiders, like how Wiseman put out a thing a few years back applying tests for questionable research practices to psychology reports.

Like mhm yes that's very interesting but am I REALLY meant to be convinced that you used a parapsychology report as a default and your results WEREN'T meant to be biased considering your history?

Also, the age of some of the commenters, whew. Maybe the younger generation will be more receptive to psi stuff as time goes on specifically because of better evidence coming out and NOT growing up with people like James Randi. Really the whole advancing science via funerals at work kind of deal.