Uri Geller - What do you think?

Some experiments may have been performed without error I think better describes what most of the proponents are angling towards. While many skeptics in this thread seem to know with certainty what really happened. Ironically, that certainty reminds me of Alex once he decided he knew the truth about psi and it was no longer worth discussing if you were in any way questioning it.

Laird seemed to be saying that he had faith in Targ and Puthoff until proven otherwise. And I think for some skeptics it's Geller used trickery until proven otherwise. And the rest of us are somewhere in the middle, where there isn't much certainty one way or the other. 

However, I'm of the opinion that psi or something psi-like should be different from tricks. So I don't see much point in investigating stuff which looks like what you'd expect trickery to look like, regardless of whether you manage to convince yourself that you've been cleverer than your subject. 

Linda

However, I'm of the opinion that psi or something psi-like should be different from tricks. So I don't see much point in investigating stuff which looks like what you'd expect trickery to look like, regardless of whether you manage to convince yourself that you've been cleverer than your subject. 

I'm afraid I don't follow that. I don't understand in what way Geller's drawings look like what you'd expect trickery to look like. Unless you mean they look too good to be true, which is one of the problems I have with them.

It's perfectly possible Alex does know the truth about Psi. Convincing others is a different thing, even if he wanted to.

It is possible. It's also possible he does not. That's my point, yet he postured as if there was no discussion necessary any more and that those who wanted to discuss it still were "stuck on stupid", which always seemed incredibly rich to me.

There is a big problem for proponents who believe Geller has genuine psychic powers. Geller has been caught in fraud, this is an undeniable fact. There are examples where he was caught cheating. As far as I know even his devout followers (Guy Lyon Playfair, Andrija Puharich) admitted he cheated on occasion.

So the proponents by default have to admit that Geller does utilize trickery. This weakens the proponents case for Geller's psychic powers. Before proponent start arguing their case Geller has psychic powers they have to admit he is a fraud.

The skeptical position is that when a psychic or medium has been caught cheating, then they are discredited as fraudulent forever. This is much more rational then claiming just because we cannot explain some of Geller's feats, he was using psychic powers on those occasions.

So the proponents by default have to admit that Geller does utilize trickery. This weakens the proponents case for Geller's psychic powers. Before proponent start arguing their case Geller has psychic powers they have to admit he is a fraud.

Yes, I agree with all of this, and yet I'm still impressed with the drawings and think it's possible that he can access some types of psi. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Closing yourself off to the possibility that it's psi and taking the position that you 100% know that it's fake because he's faked stuff before is meh to me. Cheers.

The skeptical position is that when a psychic or medium has been caught cheating, then they are discredited as fraudulent forever. 

What does that actually mean, though? It doesn't logically follow that because someone cheated on one occasion, they also cheated on every other occasion. Of course, it increases the likelihood of cheating on other occasions. But surely if we're interested in getting at the truth of the matter rather than point-scoring, we still have to consider each case on its merits.

The issue is about trust.  How can anybody be so gullible as to put any trust whatsoever in Geller now.  If he had been honest in the first place and said that his trickery was trickery and was seperate to his psi work, then maybe we could be a little more open minded but instead he chose to decieve us with fraud.

I'm certainly not suggesting Geller should be trusted. No experimental subject should be trusted. It's essential that experimental protocols should exclude the possibility of fraud on the part of the subject as far as possible, regardless of how trustworthy the subject is deemed to be, and regardless of what skills s/he may have that would be useful for fraud.

I'm not.  I have been trying to find a youtube video of him on the Barbara Walters show but I am having trouble.  During it, he leans right over towards her where he can easily see what she has drawn if he opens his eyes even slightly - and we can't see his eyes because they are turned downwards.  Even Randi missed it and instead started wittering on about turning your back while covering your eyes.

It's impressive that you caught it even though Randi missed it. Well done!