Debunking PseudoSkeptical Arguments of Paranormal Debunkers
Argument # 30: The James Randi Million Dollar Psychic Challenge argument.
In case you don’t know, James Randi is the most celebrated of the
organized skeptics who founded the James Randi
Educational Foundation (JREF).
Skilled and versed in the art of stage magic, Mr. Randi claims to be
better able to detect fraud and trickery from psychics and mediums better than
scientists can. He gives speeches
attempting to “educate” (or brainwash rather, in my view) the public about
psychics and paranormal phenomena, which he claims is all deception or
self-delusion. He has written books such
as An
Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural and Flim-Flam!
Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions, made a PBS documentary called “Secrets of
the Psychics”, attacked
the reputation of psychics and healers such as Israeli-born spoon bender Uri Geller, debated with psychics on CNN’s
Larry King Live, etc.
In the original version of
this treatise back in 2001, I decided not to address this argument because I
didn’t like to create whole arguments against specific individuals. However, at this point the infamous James
Randi and his supporters have made it practically unavoidable. He is so deeply publicly involved in
debunking parapsychology in the media, that to ignore him would be tantamount
to ignoring Darth Vader in Star Wars. Paranormal
debunkers now commonly use Randi’s psychic challenge to argue that there are no
genuine paranormal or psychic abilities, else they would apply for the
challenge and win. Therefore, in this
new edition of this treatise, I’ve had to add a section on it as it is one of
the most often mentioned arguments by organized skeptics.
There are many obvious
problems with this argument of course, since one magician with an axe to grind
and hosting a publicity stunt does not debunk all the paranormal experiences in
the world. They still happen everyday to
people all over the world. Randi’s critics claim is mostly a
publicity stunt for his career due to the fact that 1) Randi is extremely
selective in who he tests, preferring to only test famous names to boost his
own career, and that 2) there are many applicants who received no response
after applying. Plus, based on numerous
testimonials from challenge applicants and para-researchers, there is much
circumstantial evidence that Randi is not that honest, for he has used plenty
of deceptive and dishonest tactics in the past.
There are many reports and analyses of him that indicate this and damage
his credibility. I’ve provided a list of
them below so you can research them yourself.
A cursory look at Randi’s
articles on his website www.randi.org will
reveal to any objective observer that although this man is very good at playing
intellectual gymnastics in his commentaries and debates. He will do whatever it takes to win, even
committing foul play. There is no
question that his mind is made up and that he has an axe to grind.
In addition, Randi seems to
have a tendency to distort facts for his purposes. For instance, Harold Puthoff, a researcher at
Stanford Research Institute (SRI) which is famous for conducting experiments on
remote viewing and Uri Geller’s psychic abilities, told me in an email:
“<< All the skeptics I've debated said that the
SRI tests were totally discredited and debunked already. Is this true?
>>
Not true at all.
They just quote Randi and his pronouncements, e.g., in his book Flim
Flam. In Flim Flam, he gives something
like 28 debunking points, if my memory serves me correctly. I had the opportunity to confront Randi at a
Parapsychology Association conference with proof in hand, and in tape-recorded
interaction he admitted he was wrong on all the points. He even said he would correct them for the
upcoming paperback being published by the CSICOP
group. (He did not.)
In case one thinks that it was just a case of our
opinions vs. his opinions, we chose for the list of incorrect points only those
that could be independently verified.
Examples: He said that in our Nature paper we verified Geller's
metal-bending. Go to the paper, and you
see that we said we were not able to obtain evidence for this. He said that a film of the Geller experiment
made at SRI by famed photographer Zev Pressman was not made by him, but by us
and we just put his name on it. We
showed up with an affidavit by Pressman saying that indeed he did make the
film. Etc., etc.
Hal Puthoff”
And telepathy
researcher Rupert Sheldrake caught Randi lying on several instances about him:
http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/randi.html
“James Randi - a
Conjurer Attempts to Debunk Research on Animals
The January 2000 issue
of Dog World magazine included an article on a possible sixth sense in dogs,
which discussed some of my research. In this article Randi was quoted as saying
that in relation to canine ESP, "We at the JREF [James Randi Educational
Foundation] have tested these claims. They fail." No details were given of
these tests.
I emailed James Randi
to ask for details of this JREF research. He did not reply. He ignored a second
request for information too.
I then asked members
of the JREF Scientific Advisory Board to help me find out more about this
claim. They did indeed help by advising Randi to reply. In an email sent on
Februaury 6, 2000 he told me that the tests he referred to were not done at the
JREF, but took place "years ago" and were "informal". They
involved two dogs belonging to a friend of his that he observed over a two-week
period. All records had been lost. He wrote: "I overstated my case for
doubting the reality of dog ESP based on the small amount of data I obtained.
It was rash and improper of me to do so."
Randi also claimed to
have debunked one of my experiments with the dog Jaytee, a part of which was
shown on television. Jaytee went to the window to wait for his owner when she
set off to come home, but did not do so before she set off. In Dog World, Randi
stated: "Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to every
car that drove by, and to every person who walked by." This is simply not true,
and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape.”
So, if he lies, then why
should anyone trust him in playing fairly in a million dollar challenge?
In his article CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview
George Hansen cites in his footnotes a damaging admission from Randi:
http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/CSICOPoverview.htm
“25 Randi’s antics should have come as
no surprise to members of CSICOP because he has engaged in similar behavior in
relation to psi research. Krippner (1977), Rao (1984), Targ and Puthoff (1977,
pp. 182-186), and Tart (1982b) have all documented glaring errors of Randi.
Dennis Stillings has demonstrated that “Randi is capable of gross distortion of
facts” (Truzzi, 1987, p. 89). Randi has been quoted as saying, “I always
have an out” with regard to his $10,000 challenge (Rawlins, 1981, p. 89).
Puthoff and Targ (1977) documented a number of mistakes. In a published,
handwritten, signed letter, Randi replied offering $1,000 if any claimed error
could be demonstrated (see Fuller, 1979). Fuller proved Randi wrong. In a
rejoinder to Puthoff and Targ (1977), Randi reversed himself (for a clear example,
see point number 15 in Randi, 1982, p. 223). Randi should have paid the $1,000,
but he never did.”
In response to Mr. Randi’s
million dollar psychic challenge charade, Dr. Zammit has issued a million
dollar counter-challenge to skeptics to disprove the afterlife evidence
detailed in his book A Lawyer Presents the Case for the
Afterlife. You can read the details of
this challenge at: http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/challenge.html
In any case, I would say in
conclusion that regardless of whether Randi’s psychic challenge is legit, I do
not believe the fact that it is officially unwon to constitute proof that
paranormal and psychic phenomena don’t exist, as some debunkers claim. Simply put, there are a variety of reasons
why it would still be unwon, ranging from Randi’s own dishonesty and less than
sincere motives, to tricks like perpetually raising the bar, as well as the spiritual
principle that psychic abilities used for selfish motives or profit disconnect
one from the higher source they emanate from. Furthermore, if you also pit the
argument of the unwon challenge against the overwhelming anecdotal (majority
population) and scientific evidence for psychic phenomena, it’s nothing in
comparison. Simply put, one unwon public challenge by a debunker and magician does
NOT invalidate the countless millions of paranormal experiences throughout
world history, nor does it refute the years of replicable psi research done by
Ganzfeld or PEAR experiments, among others.
Finally, in regard to CSICOP (Committee
for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal), one revealing
thing needs to be said. Former CSICOP
staff member Dennis Rawlins resigned after finding hard evidence of CSICOP
intentionally suppressing its own findings which supported astrology (known as
the "file drawer effect") during one of their initial investigations
of Michel Gauquelin’s statistical research, thus proving the organization's
true agenda was simply to discredit/debunk in any way possible rather than to
find the truth, in order to appease its subscribers. You can read Rawlins' report “sTARBABY” at http://cura.free.fr/xv/14starbb.html. CSICOP has maintained of course, that it was all just a big
misunderstanding. But what else do you
expect them to say? Mr. Rawlins’
findings seem to be very sincere and unambiguous.
Also, for an in-depth analysis of CSICOP,
see this article: http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/CSICOPoverview.htm
And speaking of astrology, skeptic and debunker
Michael Shermer set up a double blind test for Astrologer Jeffrey Armstrong,
who passed with flying colors, scoring a major victory for the validity of
astrology. You can see the video clip of
this test here, which includes a surprise twist at the end: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N1dIUTbZTo
Why Randi, Shermer and the
CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics
James Randi, Michael Shermer and the CSICOPers are
highly selective with their skepticism. Not only do they not question their own
beliefs, but they never challenge or apply skepticism to the status quo.
Instead, they have a fanatical allegiance to it, evidenced by their behavior. A
true skeptic examines all sides, including his own. But pseudoskeptics only
point their skepticism at what they don't believe in, which everyone else does
too. So what makes them different than anyone else then? Only one thing: The
SIDE they're on. In this case, they are on the side of authority, orthodoxy
and materialism. That is why their skepticism and critical examination is ONLY
directed at anything and anyone that challenges the status quo, but NEVER at
the status quo itself. In essence, that makes them "establishment
defenders" (or establishment whores), not real skeptics.
That is why you will never see Randi, Shermer or the
CSICOP crowd apply any skepticism, criticism or condemnation toward orthodoxy
or establishment. They hold that side to be blameless and infallible, not
overtly, but by their selective skepticism. And they take on faith anything
that the establishment says as true, with zero skepticism. In other words, the
official version of everything is ALWAYS the truth to them, and never to be
questioned. You can see this in ALL their publications, writings, interviews
and speeches, where the official version of anything is NEVER questioned.
Instead, one side is always right to them (the official version, materialistic
paradigm) and the other always wrong (paranormal or conspiratorial claims).
Simply put, their skepticism can never be used to question the status quo, only
to defend it.
Now, what kind of skepticism or critical thinking is
that? Is that the mark of a freethinker or truth seeker? I don't think so.
This is why not only are they against all validity of
the paranormal, but also against all claims of conspiracy as well, which are
not even paranormal in nature. In their view, anyone that challenges the system
or the official version is automatically discredited, regardless of whether
their claims are true, credible or backed by evidence. And this includes former
high ranking government officials as well.
For those of you who have followed the work of Randi,
Shermer or CSICOP, ask yourself this: Have you ever seen them criticize
anything of the establishment, including crimes, murders, lies, conspiracies,
evil plots, etc?
I'll bet not.
Consider the following documented facts and let me ask
you:
Do they ever speak out against the senseless killings
in the Iraq War for power and profit?
Nope.
Do they ever admit that the US Navy was wrong to fake
the Gulf of Tonkin Incident in 1964 (which has now been exposed) which resulted
in the deaths of 60,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese, making the war
and their deaths a FRAUD?
Nope.
Are they outraged with the fact that the CIA has been
involved in drug trafficking for many years, which even some in the mainstream
media have reported? Or the CIA assassinations of foreign leaders who refused
to abide by US policy?
Nope.
Are they outraged that the EPA lied after 9/11 that
the air was safe to breathe, which caused thousands of First Responders to
develop cancer from the toxic air and slowly die?
Nope.
Are they outraged that upper levels of government have
concocted secret plots to sacrifice innocent lives to stage terrorist
activities and blame it on others to start wars, such as Operation Northwoods
and Operation Dirty Trick? (Google them for more info)
Nope.
Do they speak out against the thousands of people that
die from pharmaceutical drugs every year?
Nope.
But will they go ballistic if ONE person allegedly
dies from alternative treatment such as homeopathy?
You betcha!
So, what does it say about them then if they have no
problem with lies and evil plots that result in the death of millions, yet have
a big problem with the death of a few if alternative medicine is involved?
It tells you that they are one sided with an axe to
grind, rather than fair, honest or objective. They are fanatical defenders of
establishment and orthodoxy, holding that side to be blameless. As such they
are totally blind to the faults of authority, or deliberately ignore them at
least. Their critical thinking and skepticism can ONLY be directed at anything
AGAINST the establishment, and NEVER at anything FROM the establishment.
Tell that to the pseudoskeptics. And when they deny
it, challenge them to produce a publication from a media skeptic or skeptic
organization that openly condemns or criticizes the above crimes of the establishment
(elite or shadow government, whatever you want to call it). When they come up
empty handed, then you've got them. From that point, it does not matter if they
continue in their denial, for the facts speak for themselves.
Now, is that true skepticism to you? Is that
objectivity, logic and science? Is that the mark of a freethinker independent
of authority or bias? Or is that fanaticism from a programmed mind who has
given up his intellect to become an intellectual slave of authority?
You tell me.
A REAL skeptic is able to apply skepticism to ALL
SIDES, including their own. They do not hold one side to be blameless and the
other to be always wrong, like the Randis, Shermers and CSICOPers do. Fanatics
are always one-sided, independent free thinkers aren't.
The ability to independently assess all sides,
including your own, is the mark of a true freethinking at a higher level of
consciousness. These folks clearly do not fit the bill.
You gotta remember that "actions speak louder
than words". Anyone can claim to be a skeptic or critical freethinker. But
if their ACTIONS do not show the hallmark of one, then they aren't. And by
their actions, the Randis, Shermers and CSICOPers aren't.
See my video rant about this here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0aPN3R3vPw
Previous
Page Back to
Table of Contents
Next
Page
