Conference hydra::dejavu

    Toby --
    
    Your note brings up a potential problem which I think it is best to
    deal openly with.
    
    I have friends who have publicly asked questions and discussed less
    than favorable interpretations of some of Randi's actions.  All above
    board, open and reasonable -- questions that any skeptic *should* ask.
    The response has been what they considered personal harrasment from Randi.
    
    I do not know for a fact, but I have heard of others from what I
    consider reliable sources, that that harrasment (Randi's Venom Letters
    as they are known in some circles) has extended to threats of lawsuit.
    
    Therefore I think that it is worth mentioning that this conference is
    public *only within DEC*.  It would be a breach of both ethics and
    company rules for you to discuss the contents of any note in this
    conference with anyone outside of DEC, including Randi.
    
    As long as you abide by that degree of privacy, you are most welcome
    to read and/or contribute to this conference.
    
    Others may wish to hide or delete any notes which may deal with Randi.
    For myself, I will trust to Toby's ethics to maintain confidentiality.
    
    					Topher

                                             
        
    Thank you for the trust in my ethics.  You are correct in assuming
    that I will NOT discuss anything in this conference with Randi,
    with the possible excepting of asking him some questions about points
    brought up here.  He's pretty well used to me asking questions like
    that, as he IS a rather controversial topic in many circles.  I
    would in NO WAY endanger the people in this conference by revealing
    names or even place of origin of the comments that I ask him about.
    Who knows, this might be a chance for all of you to get some REAL
    answers to questions that you have about him, his work, and his
    findings.  Don't expect quick answers though.  If it's not something
    that I have discussed with him personally before, it may take a
    while for me to find out.  He is so-o-o-o busy now-a-days that I
    generally have a hard time tracking him down even to say hello.
    He was in Boston about 3-4 weeks ago and we could still never seem
    to be at the same place at the same time.
    
    BTW, it has been my experience with Randi, that he is rather calm
    about people, until they make a concerted effort to make his life
    (or other peoples lives) miserable.  He deals with the daily
    death-threats (yes, daily!) as "just another one of those things
    people do".

    
    
    Just as a side note, I have more than once told Randi he is being
    foolish in doing something.  I may not necessarily agree with how
    he does things (on a few occasions), but his "heart" is in the right
    place.  In all my dealings with him he is trying to further the
    search for knowledge, and protect people from themselves (admittedly,
    whether they want protection or not).  (The most vivid case that
    comes to mind is the psychic surgons of the Phillipeans).  Also
    note that I am an engineer, and can't spell worth a ---- ;-).
    
    --Toby
    




                                                  
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    Hello, Toby and Topher,
    
    Sorry to be so unaware...but could you tell me about Randi and what/why
    all the controversy?  I know about most psychics, but haven't heard
    about him.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy Bowers
    

RE: .4
    
    This has been discussed quite a bit in other notes, but...
    
    The self-styled Amazing Randi is not a psychic.  He is a magician who
    used to specialize in escape-artistry.  Escape artistry is an area of
    magic which requires great athletic abilities, so, like professional
    atheletes, when an escape artist gets starts getting a little bit old,
    (s)he has to find another profession.  Randi chose to follow in the
    footsteps of the founder of escape-artistry, Houdini, and become a
    professional lecturer/writer on the subject of the methods of phony
    "psychics" of all kinds.
    
    There is absolutely no doubt in any informed person's mind that Randi
    has performed a valuable social service revealing the methods of many
    individuals who have preyed on the gullible (and to be human is to
    be more or less gullible), and to, furthermore, demonstrate the way
    that many people have deluded themselves.
    
    Many people see Randi as motivated principaly by his desire to help
    people.  That although he does essentially do these activities for
    profit, that he could easily have gone into another field -- such
    as "ordinary" pretedigitation -- just as easily and probably just
    as profitably.  A couple of years ago he was awarded one of the
    prestigious I'm-blanking-on-the-foundation "Genius Awards", which is
    essentially five years of backing for the awardee to do whatever they
    want to do.
    
    Other's, however, see or at least suspect a more sinister view of
    Randi.  They percieve that Randi's actions are different from those of
    the phony psychic only in the audience that he addresses.  While the
    phony psychic delivers to those who wish to believe in the supernatural
    illusions supportive of their beliefs, Randi is seen as delivering to
    those who wish to believe in the completeness of contemporary
    "rationality" support for *their* belief.  Frequently that support
    is facts, but they question whether it always is.
    
    I am, in large part (though not completely) in the latter camp.  I have
    admired Randi since I was a child (he used to do the midnight interview
    show on WOR radio in New York, and I would struggle to stay up to
    listen) -- and I admire much about him to this day.  I find many of his
    actions questionable, however.  He manipulates the news media rather
    freely, reportedly he uses the courts as well to supress public
    disagreement, he does seem to always leave himself an "out" (as
    Rollins, his ex-fellow member of the CSICOP executive board claims he
    "gleefully" admitted to him once), and has a habit, in good "psychic"
    style, of announcing his intentions only after the fact and thus
    being able to take credit (or at least not take the blame) for whatever
    does come about.  Furthermore, it is my assesment that Randi clearly
    and unmistably violated the ethics of a "scientific investigator"
    (which he gets credit for being without actually having to claim it)
    and a magician in the infamous "Alpha investigation".
    
    I certainly have not declared Randi "guilty" in my mind, but I have a
    profound distrust of the man.
    
    					Topher
    

    
    
    I think that Topher has summed up the society's view of Randi pretty
    well.  BTW, he got a MacArthur(sp) Fellowship I think.  The major
    difference between Topher and myself, is that I see Randi as someone
    who is out to help and "discover" whether or not these type of psychic
    events really occur.
    
    One of Randi favorite phases when we talk (I will try to quote exactly)
    "It's not that I won't or don't believe in psychic events, it is
    simply that I have never seen any evidence of such events produced
    under proper observing conditions."  And with that statement I must
    agree.  In the time that I have worked with and known Randi, all
    of the proclaimed psychic's that have attempted to relieve him of
    his money, were in all cases very good (or sometimes very bad ;-))
    magicians.
    
    The work that Randi does is very frustrating and thankless.  To
    relate a story that you might recall.  In the spring of 1984 there
    was a house in Colombus, Ohio that was supposed to have a poltergiest
    in it.  (I remember this, because at the time Randi was staying
    with my family in Tennessee and had to cut his visit short to
    investigate this "ghost").  The story made the national news on
    all the networks.  We discussed it and devised some "tests" for
    this poltergiest to see if there was a different/better explaination
    for things flying around the house, water being turned one, etc...
    There was a quite good picture of a telephone flying across the
    room that made the AP wire.  I will not reveal the methods of discovery
    used in an open forum (I will discuss it personally if you are
    interested).  But, it was proved (and admitted) that the n year old
    girl (I don't remember how old) that lived in the house was doing
    all these things for "fun".  The picture of the telephone flying
    across the room.  A good reporter can't wait all day for a ghost,
    so someone picked it up and flung it across the room, assuring the
    photographer that that was just how it happens when he is not around.
    
    After discovery of the modus operendi of the "ghost" one whould
    have expected national coverage of the hoax revealed.  Not so,
    deafening silence from the news community.  You see, a haunted house
    is news worthy and a good story.  A misbehaving little girl is not.
    That is how people come to believe more and more things like this
    to be true.  When we think it is true, the news is spread far and
    wide, but when we find we were wrong, we do not go out of our way
    to correct the misconceptions we have created in people.  
    
    This was the first really big case that I was involved in with Randi
    and even to this day, I get upset when I think of how the media
    handled the whole situation.  Randi had told me that was what always
    (almost always) happened, but I didn't really believe him until
    this happened.  Today I am much more sceptical about anything I
    see or read on/in the news.  
    
    As an aside, until the MacArthur grant Randi was having less and
    less income and was considering going back on the road again as
    a professional stage magician.  But when The Grant came through
    (he was as surprised as everyone else) he continued with his first
    love.  I don't think he would have had trouble with a stage act.
    He really is a first class magician.
    
    Topher he had told me of his radio show, but since I am only 22
    and lived in Tennessee for most of my life I never heard it.  Wish
    I could have, it must have been something to hear him in action
    that often.

    
    
    Randi and I don't always agree.  I am a Christian and do a lot of
    work with the church.  Christianity is also something Randi views
    as "hooey" and has not seen proper scientific evidence for, but
    my strong ties with the church do not keep us from being friends.
    It just makes for more interesting conversations sometimes. Randi
    respects my beliefs since unlike most "psychic phenon." he cannot
    --------
    prove them to be wrong.  He does not and will not try to force his
    beliefs on me.  Which is probably why we are still friends.
    
    --Toby
    

    Re .6 (Toby):
    
    >One of Randi favorite phases when we talk (I will try to quote exactly)
    >"It's not that I won't or don't believe in psychic events, it is
    >simply that I have never seen any evidence of such events produced
    >under proper observing conditions."  And with that statement I must
    >agree.  In the time that I have worked with and known Randi, all
    >of the proclaimed psychic's that have attempted to relieve him of
    >his money, were in all cases very good (or sometimes very bad ;-))
    >magicians.
     
    I've followed Randi, and have read two of his books, _The Magic
    of Uri Geller_ and _Flim-Flam!_.  The first book was a detailed
    analysis of Geller; the second, a general swipe at anything paranormal.
    In the first, he was rather restrained; in the second, he was yelling
    and shrill.   I find him a consummate stage magician and a very
    entertaining personality.
    
    I've witnessed a few cases of fairly accurate precognition and have
    been involved in a few situations that I have absolute knowledge
    were not rigged.  However, none of the cases would be easy to duplicate
    in the laboratory, by their very nature (e.g., you can't use Zener
    cards to predict an accident).
    
    Anent invesitgatable phenomena:  Suppose one witnesses an opaque
    ball rise and hang suspended in midair.  Now without going into
    the paranormal, it's possible that the ball could be suspended or
    otherwise supported by wires.  It could be held aloft by a magnetic
    field.  It could even be suspended on a column of air.  Paranormally,
    it could be levitated or even raised through the aid of some
    supernatural entity.  If, _for argument's sake_ we assume that all
    of these alternatives are valid, then the fact that one could replicate
    a floating sphere by nonparanormal means doesn't necessarily preclude
    a paranormal explanation of the original.  Occam's razor suggests
    that the nonparanormal explanation is the more likely, but it's
    not conclusive to say something like, "I duplicated the effect with
    a magnetic field; therefore levitation doesn't exist"; however,
    such an argument is frequently advanced. (If you replace "doesn't
    exist" with "hasn't been proven" in the statement, I have no quarrel
    with it.)
    
    Re self-proclaimed anything: those who make the most noise are likely
    to be the emptiest containers.
    
    >After discovery of the modus operandi of the "ghost" one whould
    >have expected national coverage of the hoax revealed.  Not so,
    >deafening silence from the news community.  You see, a haunted house
    >is news worthy and a good story.  A misbehaving little girl is not.
    >That is how people come to believe more and more things like this
    >to be true....
     
    Only partially true.  It was investigative reporting that determined
    that the so-called "Amityville horror" was a hoax.  Likewise, to
    take a much older case, the Cardiff Giant.
    
    In a case followed here, some folks, the Smurl family, who live
    in Pennsylvania, claimed their house was infested with demons. 
    The press started out being interested in it, but as it ground on
    _and_ it became evident that Ed and Louise Warren, of Amityville
    Horror "fame" were deeply involved, the interested died.  By the
    time Mr. Smurl came out with his [predicted in this very conference]
    book, he barely was able to make a part of the talk-show circuit
    with it; and he was greeted with a certain amount of skepticism.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    

    re: .0
    
         The show talked about in .0 is airing tonight on Channel 2
    locally (SF Bay Area) and Channel 3 (Sacramento).
    
    Frederick
    

Thanks for the reminder...Frederick

In the Boston area its on ch 56 at 8:00 p.m. because of the channel 2 
auction I guess.

Meredith    

    I was only able (due to company) to catch a bit of it.
    
    What I saw was interesting:  One of Randi's guests was an instant
    calculator (rather like an _idiot savant_ without the idiot) and
    was able to come up with correct answers faster or as fast as they
    could be input into a hand calculator.  I caught a part of that.
    
    Bracketing this were a couple of folk who were showing how some
    self-styled psychic folk could fake miracles (the one I saw part
    of was how to fake a psychic healing).  Now, that in itself was
    a public service, however, the two involved were frequently derogatory,
    unnecessarily about the idea of the "New Age" phenomenon.
    
    [As people who have followed my notes long enough are aware, I don't
    believe that "New Age" is anything more than a marketing gimmick
    ("New Age Music" generally means music that has been electronically
    synthesized); however, I'm aware that to some people, doing things
    related to the so-called New Age makes them feel good, or supported,
    whether it's obtaining crystals or practicing relaxation exercises.]
    
    The folk doing the expose crammed "New age" into one word, "Newage"
    and pronounced it to rhyme with "sewage."   That was _not_ a public
    service; it was an unnecessary smear tactic.
    
    If anyone was able to see the whole thing, a report would be appreciated.
                                                
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Steve,
    
    I was talking on the phone during the show, so I only caught pieces
    of it.  What surprised me is that Uri Geller is in the spotlight
    again.  I remembering him being exposed as a fake years ago when
    he tricked Barbara Walters.  How short people's memories are that
    he would become popular again!  I thought Randi (whose tactics I
    don't like either) did make Geller look foolish.
    
    Ro
    

        I only saw the first half but I recorded the second half to watch
    later.  What I saw was insipid and stupid.  I have never liked Randi,
    I find him arrogant and abrasive and not a good showman with a crowd
    (in terms of personality) nor a good host.  Bill Bixby looked foolish
    most of the time, not knowing what was happening or how to react...
    Uri Geller looked absolutely dumb and desparate, Sylvia Brown [a
    psychic who lives here and I have seen on television being quite
    impressive] looked remarkably flat and was well-off from the
    "success" she usually seems to display.  The other "performers"
    had to be into it for the money and all I can say is that their
    negative egos set them up for quite the egg on their faces.
    The only bright spot came from a gentleman from the psychic
    college in England, who did seem to have valuable information to
    pass on.
    
    Frederick
    

Like Steve, I too thought that the show was interesting.  I saw all but 
the first 15 or 20 minutes.  

What I saw of his "challengers" included: the use of a divining rod, 
reading auras, psychometry, psychic determination of figures on cards, 
astrology, and there may have been a couple of others.

He also had a psychic doing readings in the audience, the discussion of 
psychic healing, and Uri Geller attempting to influence the fixing of 
watches in the homes of viewers.  These items were not associated with a 
"challenge."

As an example of the challenges, I'll use the astrology.  The astrologer 
was given twelve individuals representing each of the twelve sun signs.  
His task was to have a brief, monitored, interview with each of the 
individuals and determine the sun sign of each based on his interview.  
The people then sat in a booth labeled with the sign which he had 
assigned them.  When the host asked for all individuals who had been 
placed *in*correctly to step forward, they *all* stepped forward.

The above challenge, to me, simply shows that the astrologer was not 
able to make a determination of sun signs based on an interview.  In my 
opinion, astrology is much more complex than this, and a more 
appropriate challenge would be to see a persons chart and then offer a 
reading of some sort.  This, though, would have been much more difficult 
to prove or disprove.  I think, thought, that this type of demonstration 
gives the public a distorted view of astrology and does nothing to prove 
or disprove its validity.

As another example, the aura reader had a (too me) more valid test and 
simply failed it.  The reader selected individuals (ten, I think) from a 
group of people prior to the program.  Her selection was based on her 
ability to clearly see their auras prior to the show.  Personnel with 
the show then placed a subset of her choices behind ten screens.  A 
premise which the aura reader agreed to prior to the show was that auras 
extend beyond the physical form to a significant enough degree that she 
should be able to see their auras above the screens (I don't remember 
the exact dimensions).  Her challenge was to identify which of the 
screens had a person behind it.  When asked which screens had a person 
behind it, she said "all ten."  There were people behind (I think) four 
of the screens.  She needed to have eight correct to win the challenge.

At the end of the show Randi made the statement (I'm paraphrasing), that 
he was not trying to "prove a negative," meaning that he could not prove 
that psychic phenomena is not possible; rather that it was up to the 
proponents of it to prove that it *is* possible.  My opinion from what I 
saw is that, though he makes the above disclaimer, his attitude denotes 
an air of, "look, we just shot another one down!"

His condescending approach to things "new age" is not a public service 
in that it does not offer a sense of balance or objectivity.  It also 
tends to clump all things "psychic" with all things "new age" which, in 
my opinion, is totally lacking in objectivity.  The idea of a new age is 
far too broad a term to be focussed on psychic phenomena, and the idea 
of psychic phenomena (whether possible or not) has been around far 
longer than the idea of a new age.

Jeff

P.S.  Uri Geller had a significant part of the show, but his presence 
seemed to be more commercial (rather than scientific) in intent, and 
nothing was proved or disproved as a result of his participation.

    
    
    RE .14  Jeff
    
    You are right...astrology *is* much more complex than sun signs
    alone.  What would have been a good experiment, in my opinion, is
    to have a group of people who know their *full* birth info (time
    is essential here), do up the charts, and then have the person
    match the people to the charts after doing an interview with them.
    I believe that, if the astrologer were knowledgeable, the results
    would have been quite different.  The only tricky thing here would
    be to make sure that the selected group were of similar age, or
    at least looked to be close in age.  In astrology, you can do some
    guessing of a persons age by the position of the slower moving
    planets.
    
    Carole
    
    

    This was my first exposure to James Randi, and I was not impressed.
    I also object to the way "New Age" was pronounced, but feel it pretty
    much portrays the leaning of the show and its lack of objectivity
    and lack of any type of sincere attempt to approach the subject
    it _supposedly_ was presenting.
    
    tj
    

    I finally saw that show -- I taped a rerun.  (This somehow turns
    the urgings to call one of the 900- numbers into a very bizarre
    joke.)
    
    The "people" referring to the New Age as `newage' was Penn Gillette
    of Penn and Teller, who used the term twice.  You may object to
    his attitude and expression, just as you may object to that of Don
    Rickles, but you can't have Penn&Teller without it.  (They wrote
    _Cruel_Tricks_for_Good_Friends_.  Said a friend reading it:  "These
    guys are *nasty*!"  Upon reading some more:  "Oooooo!  These guys
    are *really* nasty!")
    
    What I object to are these comments about the show's lack of
    `objectivity', as if anything less than wholehearted endorsement
    of every claimed psychic as 100% valid were an unacceptable viewpoint.
    
    For example, since the astrologer thought he had been given
    sufficient information, it is not right to insist that he was not.
    (It would be acceptable (but tacky) to claim that this astrologer
    was chosen because he wasn't very good.)  The aura reader was happy
    with her conditions, so (again) the proper complaint would be that
    she was not well-chosen.  For the douser, it would have been more
    than nice to know if all five water sources were among the eight
    containers he marked -- or if the one we were shown was the only
    one.
    
    						Ann B.

    re .17 (Ann):
    
    >The "people" referring to the New Age as `newage' was Penn Gillette
    >of Penn and Teller, who used the term twice.  You may object to
    >his attitude and expression, just as you may object to that of Don
    >Rickles, but you can't have Penn&Teller without it.
     
    As I noted, I saw only two small time slices of the show.  I have
    no idea how the instant calculator was treated (he was still Doing
    His Thing when I had to switch off), and I saw _some_ of the Penn
    & Teller thing, without any information or background on them. 
    The tone of their presentation was negative; I'm not qualified to
    speak on the show as a whole unless I see a tape sometime.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .17 (Ann B.)
    
    Ann,
    
    I haven't seen the show so I cannot comment on it, but I can comment
    on your points.
    
    You argue that because Penn and Teller's act is consistently insulting
    that their cheap, attacks were justified.
    
    I am a great admirer of Penn and Teller, and catch their act whenever
    I can.  I think, however, that you misrepresent their act.  They do
    indeed perform nasty tricks on anyone they can catch (i.e., dumping
    dozens of live cockroaches over David Letterman's desk when he has
    clearly demonstrated a mild insect phobia a number of times on his
    show).  They will include, in such cases, a bit of somewhat barbed
    humor in their patter (and it is, of course, *their* patter even though
    Teller never says a word).
    
    But their real vitriol is reserved entirely for people they don't like:
    e.g., "NewAgers", professional psychics, and any one who has ever
    expressed the slightest bit of disapproval of anything they have ever
    done or said.  Here is a "retrodiction" (remember I have not seen the
    show) -- at no time did they say anything more than mildly insulting
    about Randi, or the skeptical community, or any member of the skeptical
    community.
    
    If they could not come *as skeptics* willing to objectively address
    questions of the validity of paranormal beliefs, either verbally or
    by demonstrating that "illusions" could explain much of the supposed
    evidence, or both, they should not have come at all.  Their usual
    persona as wisecracking professional humilators is clearly, entirely
    inappropriate.  That they are *professional* sleaze-artists who had
    been hired for the effort does not make their contribution any less
    sleazy.  If they had been professional hit-men, hired to gun down
    anyone who passed the test, would you say that their presence was
    theirfore justified since they killed people all the time?
    
    Second, no one here has argued that the tests were not fair tests of
    what the individuals claimed to be able to do.  What the disagreement
    is about is whether those individuals were in any way shape or form
    representitive of anything.  The complaint which is made here is,
    that most "New Agers" would not expect the individuals to make a good
    showing on the tests, whatever they themselves think, and if this
    is true (I rather expect that it is, at least in some cases) then
    despite the implications to the contrary, these demonstrations said
    absolutely *nothing* about New Age phenomena.  They only demonstrated
    the truism that some people think they can do things which they, in
    fact, cannot.
    
    A skeptic *must* address the very best evidence or he/she is not being
    a skeptic.  That the poorest evidence, or even the average evidence, is
    invalid is completely irrelevant.
    
    I also am concerned because Randi is so very clever and he is clearly
    (IMHO) interested in proving a point rather than discovering unkown
    truth.  A naive claimant, without the aid of an equally clever
    magician, could easily be manipulated into agreeing to quite unfair
    terms without that ever being obvious to him/her or to the audience.
    
    For example, let's just say that, contrary to the belief of most
    astrologers, people do tend to conform closely to their sun-sign
    stereotypes.  To make it even more concrete, let's say that 80% of
    people clearly, unambiguously and uniquely conform to their
    descriptions according to the sun-sign.  Then, unless the contract
    were highly specific about how the people were selected in the
    sun-sign test, Randi could "legitimately" find 12 people who he
    had checked did *not* conform to their stereotypes as found in any
    elementary astrology book.  Under these conditions, the basic claim
    of the claimant would be completely true, but they would be virtually
    guarenteed to fail the test 100%.
    
    There is also a problem with people who might have legitimate claims
    but have exagerated ideas about how those claims translate into
    practice.  For example, the ESP cards test used, according to
    descriptions I have read, would not have been expected to be passed
    by the very best, most reliable subjects on such tests in the
    history of parapsychology.  People who do exceptionally well on ESP
    tests rarely seem to have much idea of how much of their "normal"
    psychic success is due to sensory cueing, but that doesn't mean
    that they don't show an excess over chance when they are tested under
    conditions where such is excluded -- it only means that they don't
    do quite as well as they expect.
    
    As it happens, the percipient did spectacularly poorly (exactly chance
    levels, if I remember the descriptions) but what would have been the
    result if they had simply scored at a 10000 to 1 against chance level?
    Answer -- they would have failed to pass the test, even though by
    normal scientific standards they would have demonstrated excellent
    evidence for an effect.
    
    					Topher 

    
    re: .17
    
    	I have to agree, the whole show was negative about everything they
    were supposed to be investigating.  They could have been a lot more
    objective.  Often cutting off an entire episode because of one failure,
    such as the man with the devining rods.  Who's to say that the one he
    picked with the sands in it was not wet sand?  
    	If this is what Randi is all about, he's as much a farst as anyone!
    
    Dan