Was Randi Wrong about Uri Geller?

[Kevin Kane]

I'm sure he has been caught cheating. He makes his money as a showman. Psychic abilities are anomolous and not easy to reproduce on cue. That doesn't change the fact that most performances by Uri have never been debunked. Any claim to say that Uri is debunked is very inaccurate. James Randi has spent a huge amount of time and money trying to debunk Uri, and only produced a handful of times that he was caught cheating. I'd say Randi's fail rate is very high.

[Kevin Kane]

Science demands reproducibility of results. Randi should be able to debunk Uri every time, but can't. He should be able to set forth a set of guidelines or principles showing how Uri can be debunked .. every time, but can't. Randi isn't doing science, he's doing comedy. Skeptic theories about how Uri tricked the SRI team are comedy gold.

[ProfWag]

[highflyertoo]

[Kevin Kane]

[ProfWag]

[Kevin Kane]

Uri debunkers such as Randi have not provided proof that Uri is faking it all the time, aka, non-scientific results. Randi has attempted to replicate Uri's results .. poorly. Randi's imitative tricks are easy to spot while Uri's are not **. If this was a competition between stage magicians, clearly Uri would be the better magician by far. But it hasn't been proven that he is only a stage magician. Despite great efforts by skeptics to prove he is, Uri has only been shown to use stage craft some of the time.

Skeptics have failed to provide a method of effectively debunking Uri (and his like), all the time. And the reason why, is because skeptics such as Randi were never using science in the first place.









** Randi's imitation Uri tricks .......................................................... suck.

[ProfWag]

[Kevin Kane]

I'm not answering because skeptics ignore stuff more than I do. Like, logic.

If someone wanted to become a famous magician, why would they choose a trick like spoon-bending? Why not choose something impressive like turning a rabbit inside out so it's skeleton was on the outside? Something like Blaine or Copperfield would do. Maybe Uri didn't choose spoon-bending .. it chose him.

[ProfWag]

[Kevin Kane]

[Mistislav D'ralle]

[Kevin Kane]

Do you know why skeptics make lousy scientists? Because many of them are stage magicians and hypnotists. A practice that involves deception. Scientists search for truth. Skeptics practice to deceive.

That's why Puthoff and Targ didn't want Ray Hyman and Persi Diaconis observing the official tests. Because they were both masterful manipulators, con-artists who could pollute the experiments, as they currently pollute all science.

[ciscop]

[Kevin Kane]

It's entirely possible that Uri Geller is a complete fraud.

But that's not what the science shows.

Science performed without any apparent fault by respectable scientists.

In a court of science, Uri Geller should be regarded as a psychic until the evidence suggest otherwise.