[Ichneumon]

[James Randi's million dollar prize for the first genuine, documented paranormal event has never been claimed. I stand by my comment.]

According to Randi's own website:

Randi's people conduct the preliminary test, and Randi (who has been quoted as saying that anything paranormal is impossible)

I have read all of Randi's books and a lot of his shorter works, and I haven't seen him say anything like this. In fact, he has specifically and repeatedly has said things explicitly to the contrary of what you accuse him of, such as in this passage from his book, "Flim-Flam!":

We were determined to do something about the unfounded claims of miracles and magic powers that were being supported by a few scientists and were alleged to be real scientific discoveries. The result of this meeting was The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) and its journal, The Skeptical Inquirer. Briefly stated, the purposes of CSICOP are:

To establish a network of people interested in examining claims of the paranormal.

To prepare bibliographies of published materials that carefully examine such claims.

To encourage and commission research by objective and impartial inquiries in areas where it is needed.
To convene conferences and meetings.

To publish articles, monographs, and books that examine claims of the paranormal.

To not reject on a priori grounds, antecedent to inquiry, any or all such claims, but rather to examine them openly, completely, objective, and carefully.

This last objective implies an important principle, which I have had to hammer home repeatedly to lecture audiences and to critics: The CSICOP does not deny that such things may exist, nor do I, personally. However, in light of my considerable experience in such matters, I will say that my assigned probability for the reality of paranormal powers approaches zero very closely. I cannot prove that these powers do not exist; I can only show that the evidence for them does not hold up under examination.

Perhaps you might want to retract your false claim...

is the sole arbite of whether it's been passed.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the actual testing procedure. It is set up BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT between the testers and the person to to tested, in such a way that whether or not the person has passed the test will be clear and unambiguous to all parties, including the person tested. For example, they either will or will not be able to locate a prespecified hidden object, hidden in a previously agreed-upon manner, in X out of N attempts.

Is it any wonder that no one has passed the preliminary test?

The reason that no one has passed the preliminary test is quite simply because no one has been able to actually successfully exhibit any paranormal ability IN A TRIAL THEY AGREED AHEAD OF TIME WAS A FAIR TEST OF THEIR ALLEGED ABILITY. Period. The "preliminary test" is nothing more and nothing less than a trial run of the SAME TESTING PROCEDURE which would have been used during the final "official" testing, and again the procedure WAS FORMULATED THROUGH DISCUSSION AND MUTUAL AGREEMENT with the person being tested, and one that THE TEST SUBJECT AGREED WAS A FAIR TEST OF THEIR ABILITY, AND ONE THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO SUCCEED AT.

For example, here's one of the preliminary tests which was administered and failed by the applicant, who claimed he could detect gold with a dowsing rod -- note how every effort was taken to be fair and accomodating to the applicant, while objectively testing whether he could or could not actually perform the detection:

[From: http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html]

At the JREF last week, we tested a dowser, Mike G., as part of his application for the million-dollar prize. Mr. G. had sent in the properly filled-in form, and we had discussed by e-mail — at length! — the procedure he would follow for the preliminary test. Since he lives not far away from Fort Lauderdale, we decided that it would not be necessary for us to appoint another person to conduct the preliminary test. He showed up at the JREF with some dozen different forked sticks, and prepared to deliver a speech on his theories and tales of past victories in dowsing, which we closed off quickly so that we could get right to the testing procedure. When involved in tests, we are not interested in such discussions, but wish only to see results.

Mike was to be tested for finding gold, his specialty. The target material he had chosen, and brought along with him, consisted of five quartz stones, nine "Sacagawea" dollar coins, a gold ring, a gold nugget, and a small vial containing water and a few panned flakes. He said he had always been successful in detecting each and all of these seventeen items, when his forked stick was specifically "tuned" to pick up gold — by having a small scrap of gold fastened to its tip. That's a common claim made by dowsers, that their stick/rod/pendulum is sensitive to the substance attached to it. We decided to use the entire package of seventeen items, sealed in a plastic bag, to give Mike the maximum chance of finding his target, and he affixed his gold "guider" sample to the stick to "tune" it. The total weight of his composite target was 230 grams (8.2 ounces).

Now, we knew that those dollar coins have no gold in them. They're clad in a layer of manganese brass, which is gold in color only. And, when we asked Mike if the quartz stones were supposed to contain gold — since gold most frequently occurs in association with quartz — he told us, no, but that he'd discovered that when two of the rocks were struck together in the dark, they emitted sparks — which he said was stored-up energy "which never runs out." The mineral, he told us, had a "charge" his stick would react to. (This effect is what's known as the piezoelectric effect, which makes quartz emit sparks when struck.) We didn't question his beliefs, because by the rules we should do nothing to discourage him. We just let him go on with the test.

We numbered ten JREF coffee-mugs from 1 to 10 on the outside bottoms. For the baseline part of the test (20 "open" trials in which all those present would know in which cup the target had been placed) Mike was first asked to choose one of ten face-down shuffled cards bearing numerals from 1 to 10, and that choice would designate where the target would be placed, each time. I had asked him to carefully "scan" the floor area of our library in advance to make sure there were no distracting elements present, and he himself carefully chose the positions of each of the ten cups on the floor. He was encouraged by me to adjust the placement of the cups as many times as he needed to, during this phase. He'd told us, first, that at least five feet of separation was required between each cup, but that he could work with just three feet between them. I immediately insisted that he must use at least five feet, since I did not want to allow an excuse later on that the spacing had been inadequate. As it turned out, he chose to have some cups within a foot of one another. But we could not interfere with his choice, since he assured us that all was sufficient for his needs.

Mike also asked that several metallic objects (trophy cups, plaques, steel devices) be removed from the bookshelves nearby. At his request, a teaspoon was taken to the next room because he said that the silver could also attract his stick; that spoon was made of aluminum. But, again, we did not correct his statements.

For the "open" phase of the preliminary test procedure, the target package was placed in the designated cup, which was then openly placed in the spot Mike had chosen for it, mouth-down. He then scanned all ten cups, and declared — both by pointing and verbally — where he believed that his stick had detected the target. Another number was then selected, and the procedure was repeated, twenty times in all. His score was 100% in these "open" tests.

Pause. Let me explain here the purpose of the baseline test of twenty "open" detections, in which the location of the target is known in advance. It served five distinct purposes, which is why we always use such a procedure:

(1) The performer has the opportunity to try out the setup, and make any necessary changes, adjustments, or re-locations that he thinks are needed. Mr. G. changed the location of the ten cups on the floor many times before the "open" detection trials were completed, and finally declared his total satisfaction with the placements, and with the conditions.

(2) The process of randomizing numbers, etc., which is sometimes unfamiliar or unknown to the performer, becomes clear. For Mike, we prepared ten cards bearing numbers from one to ten, shuffled them face-down, and asked him to choose one for each test.

(3) The performer becomes familiar with the sequences and rules of the test. With Mike, we changed only one factor: we began with plastic cups, but because of the bulk of the target package, we switched to using the JREF coffee mugs.

(4) The performer has the opportunity of deciding for himself — in the "open" tests — whether it's his powers, or just his foreknowledge of the answer, that is actually at work. Mike was convinced of the former.

(5) After the "blind"test is done, following the "open" series, the performer cannot offer the excuse that his powers were not working at this time. Mike obtained 100% results during the "open" test, quickly and positively, showing that he was quite able to use his powers.

Following the "open" sequence, for each of the "blind" tests, Mr. G. and I stepped out of the library area, and two other persons randomly (by choosing a face-down card, as before) placed the target package in position, then they left the area and informed us that the target was in place. Mike and I re-entered, alone, and he made his determination while I watched carefully to be sure that he did not nudge any cups, or otherwise attempt to use any means but the movements of his forked stick, to make his guess; at no time was any such procedure observed. After Mike made his guess on each trial, the other two persons were invited back in, and we recorded the results. That procedure was repeated ten times.

On the "open" tests, Mr. G. took an average of 2 1/2 minutes for each determination; on the "blind" tests, he spent an average of 8 1/2 minutes on each one. During the dowsing process, he kept up a running commentary to me on such matters as a rare "Indian root" with which he was familiar and which was a sure cure for the 'flu, a special crystal he carried on his person to ensure his good health, and a few "free energy" machines that he thought I should know about. Not wishing to become involved in any distracting activity, I resisted discussing these matters with him at that time.

The results were that when Mike G. knew the location of the concealed target (the "open" tests), he obtained 100% results. When the test procedure was double-blinded, he obtained exactly what chance alone would call for: one out of ten correct.

By the rules, Mr. G. can re-apply in twelve months to be tested.

Now, following the tests, Mike said that he'd found, all through the trials, that his stick was being "distracted" by the "gold" lettering on a double set of the Encyclopaedia Britannica on the shelves located near cups #1 and #2. Remember, he'd "tuned" his forked stick specifically to react to gold. We told him later that there was no gold in that location, either, since the book lettering is done with a bronze-powder ink.

As I've said before many times, I have found that dowsers are generally very honest folks, and their firm convictions about the reality of their dowsing powers are examples of genuine self-delusion. On only two occasions, with the literally hundreds of dowsing claims I've examined over the last 56 years all around the world, have I found dowsers attempting to cheat — and both were caught out immediately, easily, and definitively.

Mike G., I'm sure, will be back next year. And I think I already know the results.

Another example: A test of a girl who claimed she should see while blindfolded. In this case, it turned out that the girl was faking, and not honestly mistaken about having "paranormal abilities" like Mike G the "dowser" was.

Another: A proposed testing protocol of a prominent "psychic". The test was fair and impartial, and the psychic agreed to it on national TV, but then has been dodging all attempts to get her to follow through on it since then.

Randi gets to control all publicity and use of any data generated from the challenge.

The horrors!!

And applicants must waive their right to sue Randi or JREF.

You "forgot" to mention that this applies only to incidental injuries or damages, and is NOT the same as waiving the right to sue over the prize money, etc. From the actual rules:

When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial or professional loss, or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize.

In short, they're telling applicants not to try to sue if having their "paranormal abilities" disproven causes them to lose clients from their "psychic business", etc.

The so-called "million-dollar challenge" is set up to validate Ranid and in a way that makes sure no one can win it.

This is a lie. I suggest that you retract it, if you want to retain a shred of your credibility.

And most people who look into it know this.

No, "most people who look into it" see it for what it is -- a fair offer which should be easy to win if, indeed, the applicant actually has a paranormal ability.

Randi admitted to sponsoring a fake psychic. They did an extensive tour of Australia.

Yes, but you "forgot" to mention the reason. You appear to be trying to DISHONESTLY imply that the reason was to make money from the gullible (like most other psychics, *cough*), in an attempt to try to smear Mr. Randi.

Instead, the reason for the hoax was to demonstrate how gullible the media was, and to encourage them to be more careful in the future:

[From: http://skepdic.com/steveterbot.html]

Steve Terbot hoax

In 1984, Mark Plummer, former president of the Australian Skeptics and former executive director of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), and Dick Smith, a patron of the Australian Skeptics, invited magician/mentalist/author Bob Steiner to come to Australia to perform as a psychic. They hoped that once the media and the people saw how easy it is to fake being psychic, they would see the error of their ways and become more skeptical. Plummer and Smith were concerned that Australia had seen a large influx of foreign psychics who were welcomed and accepted with very little skepticism being shown either by the people or the media.

Steiner is an accountant by day, a former president of The Society of American Magicians, and the author of Don’t Get Taken, a book about how to avoid being conned. He’s also the author of the entry on “cold reading” in the Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience and the entry on “fortune telling” in the Encyclopedia of the Paranormal. In 1986, Steiner assisted James Randi in his futile exposure of the (expletive deleted) faith healer Peter Popoff (Randi 1989: ch. 9).

In his mentalist act, Steiner pretends he’s an astrologer, a tarot card reader, a palm reader, or a psychic. After his performance, he reveals that he is not really psychic but uses trickery and deceit to make it look as if he has paranormal powers.

Steiner accepted the invitation/challenge of the Australians and for two weeks he hoaxed Australia as Steve Terbot. He appeared on television programs, gave performances at cultural centers, and in a very short time, became a hit. He appeared on Tonight with Bert Newton three times (similar to the Tonight Show in the U.S.). In his first two appearances he played the role of the psychic but in his last appearance he revealed the hoax, explaining that he uses cold reading techniques and other tricks to deceive people into thinking he's psychic. The purpose of the hoax, he told them, was to “warn the people of Australia to beware of people claiming to be psychics" (Steiner 1989: 23).

So, when the hoax was revealed, did the warning do any good? Was there recognition that perhaps the belief in psychics is unwarranted? Did the public or the press learn to be more skeptical of the claims of alleged psychics?

According to Steiner, his hoax worked extremely well and effectively put an end to the influx of foreign psychics. Mark Plummer agreed. When asked whether he thought the hoax did any good, Plummer replied:

Yes. Before then Australia was regularly visited by 'internationally known' psychics. Since then we have only had a couple. Also the organisers are terrified that if they promote someone that person will turn out to be a skeptic. (Personal correspondence).

One of the more interesting aspects of the Steve Terbot hoax was how most of the mass media didn’t bother to check Steiner's credentials or the claims being made by Steve Terbot. The media took it for granted he was who he said he was and did what he said he did. One exception was Phillip Adams, a well known Australian journalist, writer, and media personality. Adams was unique in that he was writing scathing articles condemning the phony psychics plaguing the land during the time Bob Steiner was gathering his flock as Steve Terbot. When asked if he thought that either the Steve Terbot or the Carlos hoax was successful in increasing skepticism, Adams (through his assistant, Amanda Bilson) said  that

he was not convinced [they were] entirely successful. Perhaps the media learned to be a little more sceptical – but they soon returned to their old standards of gullibility. And many people blame the messenger for the message, turning their anger on the Sceptics rather than the charlatans. [Adams] thought [they were] great fun but, given the attention span of public and media alike, of little long term significance. (Personal correspondence).

While on his Australian tour, Steiner exposed alleged psychic John Fitzsimons as a fraud, paving the way for a $64,000 judgment on behalf of one of Fitzsimons’ clients. Seventeen years later, however, I found Fitzsimons on the Internet. He runs a New Age group called Aspects headquartered in a small town (Clayton) outside of Melbourne. He leads discussions on such topics as past lives, karma, out-of-body experiences, spirit guides, prayer, healing, White Eagle (a being channeled by Grace Hook), multiple personality disorder, mediumship, cults, psychic protection, night terrors, spiritualism, psychic readings, exorcism, ouija, channeling, Seth, aliens, Atlantis, UFOs, and--it seems only fitting--chronic fatigue syndrome.

further reading

• Bay Area Skeptic's Newsletter (September 1989)
• Review of Three Powerful Books on Persuasion
• The Spirit Moves Us Fraudulently (1988) by Phillip Adams
• God's Frequency is 39.17 Mhz. - Peter Popoff Fake Healer and Fraud! (Real Audio)
• Peter Popoff

Carroll, Robert (2004). "Pranks, Frauds, and Hoaxes from Around the World." Skeptical Inquirer. volume 28, No. 4. July/August, pp. 41-46.

Randi, James (1989). The Faith Healers.  Prometheus Books.

Steiner, Robert A. (1989). Don't Get Taken! - Bunco and Bunkum Exposed - How to Protect Yourself  Wide-Awake Books.

His description of the room where Uri Geller worked was simply wrong in major respects.

According to whom, exactly?

He saw a person doing what is called "psychic writing" and said he could easily do the same thing with "parlor tricks" but when challenged, refused to do so.

I'm sure he did -- Randi is an accomplished professional magician, and has already publicly exhibited countless performances of "psychic writing" and other similar stunts. He doesn't need to repeat it on demand in order to have proven his point.

Randi has been quoted (by a fellow skeptic) as saying "I always have an out."

You sort of "forgot" to provide that quote IN CONTEXT. What he actually said was, "Concerning the challenge, I always have an 'out': I'm right!", which is clearly a tongue-in-cheek comment about his confidence concerning the lack of qualified applicants (i.e., anyone with a real paranormal ability), not what you're disingenuously trying to imply it is.

And if you read Randi, he's a militant atheist

Atheist, yes. "Militant", no. But why do you bring this up, are you under the impression that an atheist is incapable of examining paranormal claims? One could even make the case that he would not be as credulous as a True Believer would be, and more apt to objectively examine the claim.

who hates religion,

False.

especially Christianity,

Wrong again.

as much as he despises the paranormal charlatans.

No, he only hates people who use religion as cover for their charlatanism, and who exploit the religious beliefs of their vicitims, like various bogus "faith healers" and such. For example, at the end of his book, "The Faith Healers", which examines many documented frauds, and the enormous damage they cause to their victims, he writes:

Fond as they are of quoting scripture, faith-healers should appreciate a certain appropriate selection from the Good Book in which they seem to have been anticipated. They appear to be pious and innocent, but have perpetrated a vicious, callous, and highly profitable scam on their flocks, bringing grief, economic loss, and severe health risks to their victims. I as them to turn to Matthew 7:15, where it is writte: "Beware of false prophets, men who come to you dressed up as sheep while underneat they are savage wolves. You will recognize them by the fruits they bear."

But while 99 percent of them are confirmable charlatans,not all are.

Uh huh. Sure.

[TBP]

http://www.alternativescience.com/james-randi.htm

James Randi's "$1 million challenge"

Most people have heard of the challenge by James Randi offering $1 million to anyone who can demonstrate psychic powers.

On the face of it, Randi's challenge must be a good thing mustn't it? There's a million dollars just sitting there waiting to be picked up, and all anyone has to do to win it is perform under controlled conditions the kind of claim we read about every day in the newspapers -- spoon bending, mind-reading, remote viewing.

So doesn’t the mere fact that no-one has won Randi's challenge prove that such things are impossible? As usual in the murky world of "skepticism", things are not exactly what they appear to be.

Randi's $1M challenge was unveiled on 1st April 1996. You can read its terms in full at the website of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) the organisation administering the challenge.*

A quick glance through the provisions seems to show an eminently reasonable and fair challenge. But now go back and look again a little more carefully, this time with the kind of critical eye that Randi brings to exposing cheats and frauds. What you find are some ambiguities that are likely to make any serious claimant uneasy to say the least.

The first such ambiguity is contained in the preamble where it says, "Since claims vary greatly in character and scope, specific rules must be formulated for each applicant."

This means, quite reasonably, that the rules for any particular attempt cannot be finalised until a claimant steps forward and announces what he or she is going to do -- bend spoons, read minds or walk on fire. But it also means that Randi will fomulate the rules for each individual attempt at his challenge on an ad hoc basis. And, of course, the claimant has to agree to these ad hoc rules. If he or she does not agree, the contest will not take place at all.

The second ambiguity is in Clause 4, which says that "Tests will be designed in such a way that no "judging" procedure is required. Results will be self-evident to any observer, in accordance with the rules which will be agreed upon by all parties in advance of any formal testing procedure taking place."

This means, quite reasonably, that there will be no interminable arguments by 'experts' over statistical measurements. Either the spoon bends or it doesn't: either the claimant reads minds or he doesn't. The written rules, agreed up front, will decide.

But it also means that there will be no objective, independent judging or adjudication, by scientific criteria, carried out by qualified professional scientists. Randi alone will say whether the terms of the challenge have been met -- whether the metal was bent psychically, or the electronic instrument deflected by mental power, or the remote image was correctly reproduced. In the event that the claimant insists the written terms have been met, but Randi disagrees, then it will be Randi's decision that prevails.

Not only will Randi be the sole judge of whether the claimant is successful, but even if a claimant appeals on scientific grounds that he has met the agreed terms of the challenge, Randi will be the sole arbiter of any appeal as well. Randi says there will be "no judging". In reality, he is both judge and jury -- not only of the claimant's cause but of his own cause as well.

With these two major ambiguities in the rules it would not be surprising if Randi never found a serious claimant to accept his challenge. Any potential claimant who reads the rules carefully will be concerned about two things.

First that the terms enable Randi to draw up specific rules that are unwinnable -- and hence that no claimant would agree to -- and then enable him to claim that "no-one has won the prize".

Second there is Randi's own objectivity. His position can be understood from his own writings such as this.

"The scientific community, too, must bear the blame. When a Mississippi inventor obtained the signatures of some thirty Ph.D.'s (most of them physicists) on a document attesting that he had discovered a genuine "free-energy" machine (essentially a perpetual motion device), and when the U.S. Patent office issued a patent in 1979 to another inventor of a "permanent magnet motor" that required no power input, there was little reaction from the scientific community. The "cold fusion" farce should have been tossed onto the trash heap long ago, but justifiable fear of legal actions by offended supporters has stifled opponents." [Click here for the real scientific facts].

"These absurd claims, along with the claims of the dowsers, the homeopaths, the colored-light quacks and the psychic spoon-benders, can be directly, definitively, and economically tested and then disposed of if they fail the tests."

It doesn't seem to have occurred to Randi that the thirty Ph.D.'s who attested to the new machine might know a little more about physics than he does.

Given uninformed and prejudiced views such as these, the concern will be that Randi, as sole judge of success, will never accept that paranormal phenomena have been demonstrated because his position is that he knows on a priori grounds that the paranormal is impossible and hence whatever the claimant has demonstrated must be merely an unexplained trick of some kind.

I put these ambiguities in the rules to James Randi. He dismissed them, saying only that I should "read the rules", and suggesting that I am a "nitpicker" and "pedant".

Randi is a non-scientist who has announced that -- by some undisclosed but non-scientific means -- he knows that such anomalous claims are farcical and 'absurd', and should be 'tossed on the trash heap.'

The real facts are that Randi is doing exactly what he has accused some scientists of: he has conducted no properly designed experiments, has published no empirical results (reproducible or otherwise) and has not submitted himself to any peer-review process. Yet he expects us to accept his conclusions as having some scientific significance and meriting attention.

Randi says, "There seems to be a certain quality of the human mind that requires the owner to get silly from time to time. Sometimes the condition becomes permanent, a part of the victim's personality."

Here, at least, are words that no-one can disagree with.

[TBP]

http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm

Flim-Flam Flummery:

A Skeptical Look at James Randi

by

Michael Prescott



Years ago, when I was a full-fledged skeptic, atheist, and rationalist, I read James Randi's 1980 book Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns and other Delusions. Randi is an accomplished magician and a professional skeptic, dedicating to disproving any and all claims of what he considers pseudoscience. In line with this agenda, and as its title suggests, Flim-Flam is a concerted attack on miscellaneous purported irrationalities – everything from the pop-culture writings of Erich von Daniken to the more serious investigations of professional parapsychologists. I enjoyed the book, which reinforced my belief system at the time.
Recently I picked up Flim-Flam again. Having changed my mind about many things over the past twenty years, I responded to it much differently this time. I was particularly struck by the book's hectoring, sarcastic tone. Randi pictures psychic researchers as medieval fools clad in "caps and bells" and likens the delivery of an announcement at a parapsychology conference to the birth of "Rosemary's Baby." After debunking all manner of alleged frauds, he opens the book's epilogue with the words, "The tumbrels now stand empty but ready for another trip to the square" – a reference to the French Revolution, in which carts ("tumbrels") of victims were driven daily to the guillotine. Randi evidently pictures himself as the executioner who lowers the blade. In passing, two points might be made about this metaphor: the French Revolution was a product of "scientific rationalism" run amok ... and most of its victims were innocent.

Still, the tedious nastiness of Flim-Flam does not tell us anything about its accuracy. Intrigued, I decided to check out a few of Randi's claims in detail.

I chose to focus on Chapter Eight, Randi's dissection of the experiments of Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff, two well-known parapsychologists. Randi calls them "the Laurel and Hardy of psi" and proceeds to argue that their experiments were a tissue of ineptitude, gullibility, and dishonesty.

The first thing I noticed was that Randi never gives any indication that Targ and Puthoff have any scientific credentials or accomplishments. The casual reader could be forgiven for assuming that they are not "real" scientists at all. For the record, Targ is a physicist credited with inventing the FM laser, the high-power gas-tranport laser, and the tunable plasma oscillator. Puthoff, also a physicist, invented the tunable infra-red laser and is widely known for his theoretical work on quantum vacuum states and the zero point field. (See The Field, by Lynne McTaggart, for an overview of Puthoff's work in quantum phyics.) If these two are "Laurel and Hardy," at least they come with good résumés. Randi, by contrast, has no scientific training.

Randi starts off by telling us how Targ and Puthoff took a professed psychic, Ingo Swann, to Stanford University, where, they said, Swann used his psychic abilities to affect the operation of a magnetometer. According to Randi, "the report was all wet." He knows this because he contacted Dr. Arthur Hebard, "the builder of the device, who was present and has excellent recollections of what took place." Hebard, Randi says disputes the Targ-Puthoff account. He is quoted as saying, "It's a lie. You can say it any way you want, but that's what I call a lie."

This is pretty compelling stuff. But is Randi's version of events accurate? Let's take a look.

First, he seems to make a rather basic error when he says that both Targ and Puthoff were present for this experiment. As best I can determine, Puthoff conducted the experiment, which took place in June, 1972, without Targ's assistance. Targ had met Puthoff prior to this time, but their work together apparently did not begin until a few months later.

That's a small point. Far more important is the matter of Dr. Hebard's testimony. There's another side to the story, which I found in Chapter 17 of Psychic Breakthroughs Today by D. Scott Rogo. Rogo, who died in 1990 at the age of forty, was a prolific journalist and researcher of psychic phenomena. He wrote numerous popular books, some of which have been used as college texts. He also published research papers in peer-reviewed parapsychology journals. Although Rogo was sometimes criticized for tackling overly esoteric subjects, he had a reputation for honesty and was respected for his willingness to do hands-on investigation and field work, rather than relying on armchair appraisals. A Scott Rogo tribute and bibliography can be found here.

Rogo writes, "There obviously exist several discrepancies between Dr Puthoff's views on what happened during this experiment, and what Randi claims Dr Hebard told him. So to clarify the matter, I decided to get in touch with Dr Hebard myself. I finally tracked him down at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey. He was very willing to discuss the Swann magnetometer demonstration with me, and professed to be very interested in parapsychology." Hebard's interest in the paranormal contradicts Randi's statement that Hebard, "not being a reader of far-out literature," was unaware of Targ and Puthoff's claims.

Rogo acknowledges that Hebard's account differs in some respects from Puthoff's. "Dr Hebard denied in no uncertain terms, however, Randi's claim that Swann was never asked to 'stop the field charge' being recorded from the magnetometer. He easily recalled that he had suggested that it would be a fascinating effect if Swann could produce it . . . which, of course, he actually did soon after the suggestion was made. Randi also directly quotes Dr Hebard as calling some of Targ and Puthoff's claims 'lies'. Dr Hebard was very annoyed by this claim since, as he explained to me, Randi had tried to get him to make this charge and he had refused. Dr Hebard later signed a statement to this effect for me." (Ellipsis in original.)

As for the discrepancies between Hebard's and Puthoff's accounts, Rogo reports that in a subsequent meeting with Puthoff, he was shown "the actual graphed print-outs given by the magnetometer during the Swann demonstrations. The records supported Dr Puthoff's contention more than they did Dr Hebard's."

So far, then, the best we can say is that Randi's criticism of Puthoff (and Targ, who apparently wasn't even involved in the magnetometer experiment) is far from the last word on the subject.

Randi proceeds to launch a comprehensive critique of Targ and Puthoff's article "Information Transmission under Conditions of Sensory Shielding," which appeared in the October 18, 1974, issue of the respected journal Nature, and which can be read here (or here). The article details experiments involving, among other participants, the professed psychic Uri Geller.

Randi's take on this series of experiments is withering. He skewers Targ and Puthoff as "bunglers." He reports that their experiments were conducted in a chaotic atmosphere conducive to cheating. He says that a hole in the wall of Geller's isolation room enabled him to spy on the scientists during their ESP experiments. He says that Targ and Puthoff falsified the results of the tests by omitting failed experiments that would have lowered Geller's averages to the level of chance. Further, he says that the scoring of Geller's performances was mishandled, generating higher scores than Geller deserved.

The question naturally arises: How does Randi know all this, since, as he admits, "I've never even set foot on the sacred grounds of SRI [Stanford Research Institute, where the experiments were conducted]"? He explains that he was given inside information by "an individual" who claimed to represent dozens of SRI scientists. This group, which worked in secret and even adopted a code name (Broomhilda), passed the information to Randi.

Unfortunately, Randi never names this individual or any other members of the Broomhilda group. He says that "Broomhilda verified for me much of the information that I had been holding on to for years," but where did he get this earlier information in the first place? "That data," he says, "now moved from the status of hearsay to documented fact." But documented is hardly a term applicable to either the initial information, which is never specified, or the Broomhilda information, which came from an anonymous source. He adds, "Additional facts were elicited during conversations and correspondence with individuals. Many of these persons were not aware of Broomhilda and were acting on their own. Their completely independent input supported Broomhilda's charges. Taken together," he concludes, "the information from all sources amounted to quite an indictment."

Maybe so, but it's an indictment that would never hold up in court. The reader is expected to take Randi's word that his unidentified sources are trustworthy – and that the sources themselves are well-informed about experimental procedures they may or may not have witnessed.

Thus when Randi alleges that "hundreds of [failed] experiments that were done by SRI ... were never reported," we must take the statement on faith, as it is unsupported by any documentation. Similarly, when Randi says definitively, "All the other tests [i.e., the successful ones] lacked proper controls and were useless," we search in vain for any footnote to back up this assertion.

A posting I found on a message board sums up the situation nicely: "Claims of poor scientific method leveled at the experimenters have been shown to be mainly unsubstantiated personal opinion and second-hand 'Chinese Whispers.'" (Chinese Whispers is the British equivalent of the American game, Telephone.) It might be worth adding that critics of paranormal phenomena, like Randi, are forever decrying any reliance on "anecdotal evidence," which is precisely what the bulk of Randi's argument consists of.

Randi does produce two individuals willing to go on the record – Charles Rebert and Leon Otis, both of whom were SRI psychologists. Rebert and Otis apparently disagreed with the Targ-Puthoff conclusions; indeed, Randi tells us that "a horrified Rebert also heard that Targ and Puthoff were going to proclaim these erroneous findings before Stanford University's psychology department, and he forbade such a blunder. The talk was canceled." But this only tells us that there was a dispute among the scientists at SRI. Rebert and Otis ran some unsuccessful tests with Geller and decided that he was a fraud. Targ and Puthoff ran what they regarded as successful tests and decided that, in some areas at least, Geller had legitimate psychic powers. Nothing in Randi's text establishes which conclusion was correct.

Randi goes on to report that after he had criticized Geller in an earlier book, Targ and Puthoff "issued a 'fact sheet' in rebuttal to twenty-four" of his points. According to Randi, "This attempt was a failure, and in response to one claim that the SRI tests were done under tight controls, a scientist who was there declared flatly, 'This is b.s. As far as my colleagues and I are concerned, none of the experiments met accepted scientific protocol.' I will not burden you," Randi concludes, "with the other twenty-three points; they are as easily demolished."

Well, hold on. A quotation from yet another anonymous source ("a scientist who was there") hardly constitutes a demolition job, especially when the scientist's argument consists of an unsupported assertion ("none of the experiments met accepted scientific protocol"). Personally, I would have welcomed the "burden" of the other twenty-three points and of Randi's detailed and carefully documented rebuttals.

Some idea of the counter-arguments to Randi's claims can be obtained by taking another look at D. Scott Rogo, who earlier showed the initiative to track down Dr. Hebard. Unlike Randi, who, as we have seen, had "never even set foot" inside the research facility, Rogo visited SRI on June 12, 1981. He found that Randi had misrepresented the hole in the wall of the isolation room through which Geller was supposedly able to spy on the researchers. The hole, a conduit for cables, is depicted in Flim-Flam as being three and a half inches wide and therefore offering a good view of the experimental area where the researchers were working. Rogo found, however, that the hole "is three-and-a-quarter inches [wide] and extends through a twelve-and-a-half inch wall. This scopes your vision and severely limits what you can see through it. The hole is not left open either, since it is covered by a plate through which cables are routinely run. Dr Puthoff and his colleague were, however, concerned that their subject might be ingenious enough to insert an optical probe through this hole, so they monitored the opening throughout their telepathy experiments."

Randi also indicates that the hole is stationed 34 inches above the floor. Not so, says Rogo. "It isn't three feet above the floor, but is located only a little above floor level. The only thing you can see through it - even under optimal conditions - is a small bit of exterior floor and opposing wall. (The viewing radius is only about 20°, and the targets for the Geller experiments were hung on a different wall completely.)* I also discovered during my trip to SRI that an equipment rack was situated in front of the hole throughout the Geller work, which obstructed any view through it even further. I ended my little investigation by talking with two people who were present during these critical experiments. They both agreed that wires were running through the hole – therefore totally blocking it – during the time of the Geller experiments."

It would appear that the hole in the isolation booth's wall poses considerably less of a problem than the holes in Randi's arguments.

By now, I felt that Randi's credibility was in doubt. He had committed careless errors of fact, had quite possibly misrepresented and misquoted Hebard, and had made unsupported assertions based on rumors. I wondered what Targ and Puthoff have to say about all this. The only responses from either of them that I could find online were part of a long essay by Winston Wu, "Debunking Common Skeptical Arguments Against Paranormal and Psychic Phenomena"; the relevant part is Argument 18. Puthoff is quoted as saying the following:

"In Flim- Flam, [Randi] 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.)* ...

"The truth of the matter is that none of Randi's claimed suspected inadequate controls actually had anything to do with the experiments, which of course Randi was not there to know of. This has been independently reported by Scott Rogo somewhere in the literature, who came out specifically to check each of Randi's guesses about inadequate controls and found them inapplicable under the conditions in which the tests were conducted. In fact, all of Randi's suggestions were amateurish compared to the sophisticated steps we took, suspecting as we did everything from magician's tricks to an Israeli intelligence scam....

"In case one thinks that it was just a case of our opinions vs. his opinions," Puthoff continues, "we chose for the list of incorrect points only those that could be independently verified. Examples: [Randi] 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."

There is no way for me to verify Puthoff's statement that he tape-recorded Randi's concession of defeat "on all the points." This has to stand as an unsupported assertion, just like Randi's own arguments. But it is possible to take a closer look at Puthoff's last two claims.

First, Puthoff insists that his and Targ's Nature article does not endorse Geller's alleged metal-bending. This is accurate, as you can see for yourself by reading the article. Puthoff and Targ write, "It has been widely reported that Geller has demonstrated the ability to bend metal by paranormal means. Although metal bending by Geller has been observed in our laboratory, we have not been able to combine such observations with adequately controlled experiments to obtain data sufficient to support the paranormal hypothesis."

On the other hand, I have not found any statement by Randi in Flim-Flam to the effect that Targ and Puthoff "had verified Geller's metal-bending." He attacks the Targ-Puthoff experiments on other grounds. Of course, he may have made this statement elsewhere, but as far as I can tell, Puthoff is rebutting a point Randi never made.

How about Puthoff's second claim, regarding the SRI film? Randi certainly does make this an issue in Flim-Flam. Targ and Puthoff, he writes, "appended to [the film] – without his knowledge or permission – the name of Zev Pressman, the SRI photographer who had shot the film.... Pressman, said Targ and Puthoff, was present during [a particular series of] experiments. Not so, according to Pressman.... Most damning of all, Pressman said to others at SRI that he had been told the successful [tests] were done after he (Pressman)* had gone home for the day. So it appears the film was a reenactment ... Pressman did not even know that Targ and Puthoff were issuing a statement, he did not sign it, and he did not give them permission to use his name. He knew nothing about most of what appeared under his name, and he disagreed with the part that he did know about." (Italics in original.)

Here we have Randi saying that this photographer, Pressman, was duped and used by the experimenters, while Puthoff says that Pressman signed an affidavit swearing that "indeed he did make the film." Is there any way to resolve this?

A further Web search turned up Chapter 14 of The Geller Effect. Part One of this book is written by Uri Geller. Part Two, which includes Chapter 14, was written by Guy Lyon Playfair. Living up to his name, Playfair offers an even-handed presentation of the various controversies surrounding the flamboyant and eccentric Geller.

Playfair writes, "[Randi] turned, in a later book, Flim-Flam, to the professional photographer who had made the film, a Stanford employee named Zev Pressman, with an extraordinary series of unfounded allegations....

"Pressman flatly denied all of Randi's allegations in two public statements, neither of which was even mentioned in the 1982 reissue of the book. 'I made the film,' said Pressman, 'and my name appeared with my full knowledge and permission . . . Nothing was restaged or specially created . . . I have never met nor spoken to nor corresponded with Randi. The 'revelations' he attributes to me are pure fiction.'"

It is true that no mention is made of these "two public statements" in Flim-Flam's 1982 edition – the edition I own.

For corroborating testimony, I turned once again to the indefatigable Scott Rogo, who investigated this claim just as he had looked into Dr. Hebard's testimony and the infamous hole in the wall.

Rogo writes, "I spoke directly with Mr Pressman on 5 January 1981 and he was quite interested when I told him about Randi's book. He denied that he had spoken to the magician. When I read him the section of Randi's book dealing with his alleged 'expose' of the Targ-Puthoff film, he became very vexed. He firmly backed up the authenticity of the film, told me how he had taken it on the spot, and labeled Randi's allegation as a total fabrication. (His own descriptive language was a little more colourful!)*" Rogo also reports that Puthoff showed him Pressman's signed affidavit.

How could Randi's conversation with Pressman be so different from Rogo's? The truth is, Randi does not appear to have had a conversation with Pressman at all. Take another look at the quote from Flim-Flam. The key words are: "Most damning of all, Pressman said to others at SRI ..."

Evidently, then, Randi's source is not Pressman himself, but unnamed "others at SRI" who passed on this information to Randi. Another round of Chinese Whispers, it seems.

At this point Randi ends his discussion of the Geller experiments and proceeds to criticize Targ and Puthoff's later work, as well as the work of another researcher, Charles Tart. Dealing with these criticisms would require another essay of equal length to this one, so I will stop here. The reader who wants to go further is invited to read Randi's Flim-Flam and then click on any of the links inserted throughout this essay and listed below. Or just search the Web for the keywords Randi, Targ, Puthoff, etc., and see what comes up.

Before I began this modest online research project for a rainy afternoon, I had mixed feelings about Randi. I saw him as closed-minded and supercilious, but I also assumed he was sincere and, by his own lights, honest. Now, having explored his contribution to the Targ-Puthoff controversy in some detail, I am thoroughly unimpressed. Randi comes across as a bullying figure, eager to attack and ridicule, willing to distort and even invent evidence – in short, the sort of person who will do anything to prevail in a debate, whether by fair means or foul.

The title of his book thus takes on a new and unintended meaning. From what I can tell, James Randi really is the Flim-Flam man.

[TBP]

You do know that James (the Amazing) Randi is a rather militant atheist, don't you? Read the magazine The Skeptical Inquirer, to which he is a regular contributor, if you doubt me. He seems to have no use afor religion at all.

Randi is a prestidigitator (a magician), not a scientist of any kind. He also is a person who absolutely disbelieves in anything supernatural. I don't think it's possible to get him to award the million dollars, no matter your procedures or your results.

His philosophical viewpoint defnitionally precludes anything mystical, metaphysical, or consciousness-related, so he would be required by his worldview to find a reason why what was done wasn't valid, even if his challenge was accepted exactly as he describes it.

Randi's "challenge" is structured in such a way that no one CAN pss the tests he creates. And isn't it interesting that (according to JREF's own website) he has the "preliminary" tests done entirely by his own people? That is how he can ensure that no one ever passes the test.

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

"The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place.

Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF

Remember; it's the JREF Paranormal Challenge, and The JREF alone dictates the rules surrounding it and how it is run "

IOW, Randi and his people control the testing process.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/James-Randi

"Randi revealed that he had been able to orchestrate a years-long and complete compromise of a privately-funded psychic research experiment."

Some of Randi's detractors claim that the challenge is insincere, and that Randi will ensure he never has to pay out. In the October 1981 issue of Fate magazine, Dennis Rawlins quoted him as saying "I always have an out"

"(T)he rules prohibit independent judging, making the success or failure of the challenge dependent on whether Randi agrees that the test has been passed"

http://www.trvnews.com/tsl/090502/

"The catch is the psychic must agree to a test according to Randi's guidelines, where he is the sole judge. And as part of his challenge, the applicant must give up all rights to any legal action. In essence, the deal is rigged."

http://www.lougentile.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=200

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/2/prweb106721.htm

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm

"A PRELIMINARY comment on Mr. Randi's ethics - and those of Fulcrum TV's producers: When he practices as a stage illusionist, the audience know they are being entertained and deceived: they suspend their disbelief and enjoy the show. To pretend to be a genuine psychic, and to connive with the TV staff without the knowledge or consent of the victims to garner details about members of the audience, their friends and their sitting positions, with a view to misleading them - even though the ruse is later acknowledged - is to employ deception in what was claimed to be a serious programme about a very serious subject."

"since I was alongside the lady at the time, and observed what went on, as did Dr. Parker and Dr. Puhle who were immediately in front of me, I should say that she takes (USA) size 10 clothes at Macy's, which is way down the obesity scale, is regarded as attractive for her age, smiled at Mr. Randi and said quite politely but firmly, with no finger stabbing, and to his obvious astonishment, "Mr. Randi you're a fraud", whereupon he staggered back and stammered, "And you, you, you, you're ugly," to which the lady responded as he disappeared backwards through the double doors, "But at least I'm honest"

"Under Article 3, the applicant allows all his test data to be used by the Foundation in any way Mr. Randi may choose. That means that Mr. Randi can pick and chose the data at will and decide what to do with it and what verdict to pronounce on it. Under Article 7, the applicant surrenders all rights to legal action against the Foundation, or Mr. Randi, no matter what emotional, professional or financial injury he may consider he has sustained. Thus even if Mr. Randi comes to a conclusion different from that reached by his judges and publicly denounces the test, the applicant would have no redress. The Foundation and Mr. Randi own all the data. Mr. Randi can claim that the judges were fooled. The implicit accusation of fraud would leave the challenger devoid of remedy."

"Mr. Randi thrusts every case into the bin labelled 'anecdotal' (which means not written down), and thereby believes he may safely avoid any invitation to account for them."

That's the other problem with Randi's challenge, that he has already been quoted publicly as saying that what he is asking you to prove can't be done.

"That these doubts about the genuineness of Mr. Randi's dedication to objective research are far from theoretical may be concluded from the efforts made by Professor Gary Schwartz of Arizona University in designing his multi-centre, double-blind procedure for testing mediums. Schwartz was not interested in the prize money: he merely sought to obtain Mr. Randi's approval for his protocol for testing mediums - and he duly modified it to met Mr. Randi's suggestions. Having falsely declared that the eminent parapsychologist Professor Stanley Krippner had agreed to serve on his referee panel, Mr. Randi ensured that the other judges would be his skeptical friends Drs Minsky, Sherman and Hyman, all well-known and dedicated opponents of anything allegedly paranormal.

As the ensuing Randi/Schwartz correspondence (which Mr. Randi declined to print on his website) makes clear, when the outcome of the experiment proved an overwhelming success, Mr. Randi subsequently confused a binary (yes/no) analysis with the statistical method required to score for accuracy each statement made by a medium, and falsely accused Dr Gary Schwartz and his colleagues of selecting only half the data for analysis. He then derided the publication of Professor Schwartz's findings in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, the world's oldest scientific peer-reviewed publication devoted to the paranormal, and in which Mr. Randi himself has published contributions. He criticised the fact that the Schwartz findings appeared in neither Nature nor Science, although he must have been aware of the long-standing refusal of these two leading scientific journals to publish anything touching on the paranormal."

"Mr. Randi notoriously failed to fulfil his boast to be able to replicate Ted Serios' "thoughtography" tests" (This is the case where he said he could replicate the act by "parlor tricks" then when challenged to do so, refused. Why wouldn't he show that it was just a trick if he was so certain? (It likely is, BTW.) Was he afraid that his effort to do so would fail? Maybe he knew he couldn't do what he said he could do.)

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/J/Ja/James_Randi.htm

"There have been various objections from people claiming paranormal abilities to the nature of the test and its rules:
No independent judge will be used, and the tests are designed by the JREF without scientific peer review.

Randi has rejected at least one applicant, with the rejection letter stating the reason was because the applicant was "a liar and a fraud". (*)

According to the challenge webpage, no offers to conduct a formal test have ever been extended by the JREF to an applicant. (*)"

http://www.rense.com/general50/james.htm

"Indeed, contempt for the human condition (or at least the condition of the pitiable "unwashed public") seems the very crux of the debunker ideology. It is this contempt which leads them to belittle eye witness accounts of "paranormal" phenomena as "anecdotal testimony,"

It is also this contempt which has driven the most noted skeptic/debunker of them all, the so-called "Amazing Randi," to stake a million dollars of other peoples' money on his assertion that no paranormal, supernatural, or occult phenomena can be proven by responsible scientists.

Randi often refers to paranormal proponents as "frauds," and/or "self-deluded fools," and inspite of Randi's stated basis, it is JREF which ultimately must approve all testing protocols. Unfortunately, in many ways, the Challenge remains too much of an unknown to come under any real scrutiny, as JREF asserts that numerous applicants, after failing the mandatory "preliminary testing," have asked that their identities be kept secret. It is also JREF's assertion that no applicant to date has ever passed the preliminary testing."

"Bear in mind that Randi asserts there is no valid evidence to support any paranormal, supernatural, or occult phenomena.

"What exactly is Randi asserting when he writes: "We only respond to responsible claims." Is Sylvia Browne's claim that she can talk to the dead a "responsible" one? What about Uri Geller's assertion that he can bend spoons with the power of his mind? Would Randi have use believe that he views the "abilities" of Browne and Geller as more "plausible" than Kolodzey's? Again, we must remember, it is Randi's assertion that there is NO VALID EVIDENCE of any paranormal or supernatural phenomena, so there really can be no such thing as "degrees of plausibility" in this field. But even more importantly, if Kolodzey IS a liar and a fraud (which he may very well be), then one would think that JREF has all the more reason to accept his application. Isn't that the whole point of the Randi Challenge - to expose dangerous hucksters and/or "self-deluded frauds?"

Now, I'm certainly no advocate of the paranormal. I tend to be very skeptical of these paranormal things myself -- although I am not closed to them. Some may be real.

I know these fields attract a lot of hucksters and charlatans. But they are no bigger frauds than Mr. Randi himself, IMO.

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/index.htm#JamesRandi

"James Randi is a conjurer (the “Amazing Randi”) and showman who is described on his web site as “the world’s most tireless investigator and demystifier of paranormal and pseudo-scientific claims.” He used to be a leading figure in CSICOP, but had to resign because of litigation against him.

He has an ambiguous attitude to scientific authority, deferring to it when it supports his beliefs, but rejecting it when it does not.

On his web site he asserts: “Authority does not rest with scientists, when emotion, need and desperation are involved. Scientists are human beings, too, and can be deceived and self-deceived.”

But as a leading Fellow of CSICOP, Ray Hyman, has pointed out, this "prize" cannot be taken seriously from a scientific point of view: "Scientists don't settle issues with a single test, so even if someone does win a big cash prize in a demonstration, this isn't going to convince anyone. Proof in science happens through replication, not through single experiments." ( www.skeptic.com/archives03.html)

Randi’s fellow showman Loyd Auerbach, President of the Psychic Entertainers Association, is likewise sceptical about this “prize” and sees it as a stunt of no scientific value."

Randi's dishonest claims:

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/Randi_dogs.htm

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/skepticorgs/index.htm#randprize

"The rules are conceived by a showman not a scientist, and make little sense from a genuinely scientific point of view. The introduction to the rules states, "All tests must be designed in such a way that the results are self-evident, and no judging process is required." Most scientific research, including research in particle physics, clinical medicine, conventional psychology and parapsychology, depends on statistical results that need to be analysed by experts to judge the significance of what has happened. Practically all serious scientific research would fail to qualify for the Randi prize. Contenders have to pay for their own travelling expenses if they want to go to Randi to be tested: Rule 6: "All expenses such as transportation, accommodation and/or other costs incurred by the applicant/claimant in pursuing the reward, are the sole responsibility of the applicant/claimant." Also, applicants waive their legal rights: Rule 7: "When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any person peripherally involved and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature and/or financial, or professional loss, or damage of any kind." Applicants also give Randi complete control over publicity. Rule 3: "Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.) of any sort gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by the JREF."

Check out http://www.skeptic.com/archives03.html

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Dace_amazing3.htm

"Alternative medicine is a favored target of skeptics, despite the fact that no scientific discipline is ever perfect or complete and that we can expect at least some trends from the periphery of medical practice to be taken up eventually within the scientific mainstream. Granted, certain aspects of alternative medicine are obviously fraudulent, such as ear candling and magnetic bracelets, but to denounce anything at all that’s outside accepted, traditional medicine is to promote a view of science more akin to religion - with its unreflective, ossified dogmas - than science as it actually exists."

"Richard Dawkins said he was worried that Randi would eventually have to pay up. Dr. Dawkins had just delivered a truly fine lecture - the high point of the conference, in fact - and Randi had joined the famed author onstage for a public chat. “About the million dollar prize, I would be worried if I were you because of the fact that we have perinormal possibilities.” Dawkins had just introduced this neologism during his talk. An alleged phenomenon is perinormal (from the Greek “peri,” in the vicinity of) if it seems impossible but which, in contrast to the “paranormal,” turns out to be a 100% natural, skeptic-approved phenomenon. Electromagnetic fields, for instance, were once perinormal but eventually came to be recognized as real. The question, then, is which phenomena currently dismissed by skeptics as paranormal are actually perinormal. “I mean, what if somebody-what if there really is a perinormal phenomenon which is then embraced within science and will become normal, but at present is classified conventionally as paranormal?”

But Dawkins had a trick up his sleeve. If a “psychic” phenomenon turns out to be real, then by definition it is physical and therefore not really psychic after all, and thus Randi still shouldn’t have to pay."

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Prescott_Randi.htm

"Randi's dissection of the experiments of Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff, two well-known parapsychologists. Randi calls them "the Laurel and Hardy of psi" and proceeds to argue that their experiments were a tissue of ineptitude, gullibility, and dishonesty.

The first thing I noticed was that Randi never gives any indication that Targ and Puthoff have any scientific credentials or accomplishments. The casual reader could be forgiven for assuming that they are not "real" scientists at all. For the record, Targ is a physicist credited with inventing the FM laser, the high-power gas-tranport laser, and the tunable plasma oscillator. Puthoff, also a physicist, invented the tunable infra-red laser and is widely known for his theoretical work on quantum vacuum states and the zero point field. (See The Field, by Lynne McTaggart, for an overview of Puthoff's work in quantum phyics.) If these two are "Laurel and Hardy," at least they come with good résumés. Randi, by contrast, has no scientific training.

Randi starts off by telling us how Targ and Puthoff took a professed psychic, Ingo Swann, to Stanford University, where, they said, Swann used his psychic abilities to affect the operation of a magnetometer. According to Randi, "the report was all wet." He knows this because he contacted Dr. Arthur Hebard, "the builder of the device, who was present and has excellent recollections of what took place." Hebard, Randi says disputes the Targ-Puthoff account. He is quoted as saying, "It's a lie. You can say it any way you want, but that's what I call a lie."

This is pretty compelling stuff. But is Randi's version of events accurate? Let's take a look.

First, he seems to make a rather basic error when he says that both Targ and Puthoff were present for this experiment. As best I can determine, Puthoff conducted the experiment, which took place in June, 1972, without Targ's assistance. Targ had met Puthoff prior to this time, but their work together apparently did not begin until a few months later.

That's a small point. Far more important is the matter of Dr. Hebard's testimony. There's another side to the story, which I found in Chapter 17 http://66.221.71.68/analysis.htm of Psychic Breakthroughs Today by D. Scott Rogo. Rogo, who died in 1990 at the age of forty, was a prolific journalist and researcher of psychic phenomena. He wrote numerous popular books, some of which have been used as college texts. He also published research papers in peer-reviewed parapsychology journals. Although Rogo was sometimes criticized for tackling overly esoteric subjects, he had a reputation for honesty and was respected for his willingness to do hands-on investigation and field work, rather than relying on armchair appraisals. A Scott Rogo tribute and bibliography can be found here

Rogo writes, "There obviously exist several discrepancies between Dr Puthoff's views on what happened during this experiment, and what Randi claims Dr Hebard told him. So to clarify the matter, I decided to get in touch with Dr Hebard myself. I finally tracked him down at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey. He was very willing to discuss the Swann magnetometer demonstration with me, and professed to be very interested in parapsychology." Hebard's interest in the paranormal contradicts Randi's statement that Hebard, "not being a reader of far-out literature," was unaware of Targ and Puthoff's claims.

Rogo acknowledges that Hebard's account differs in some respects from Puthoff's. "Dr Hebard denied in no uncertain terms, however, Randi's claim that Swann was never asked to 'stop the field charge' being recorded from the magnetometer. He easily recalled that he had suggested that it would be a fascinating effect if Swann could produce it . . . which, of course, he actually did soon after the suggestion was made. Randi also directly quotes Dr Hebard as calling some of Targ and Puthoff's claims 'lies'. Dr Hebard was very annoyed by this claim since, as he explained to me, Randi had tried to get him to make this charge and he had refused. Dr Hebard later signed a statement to this effect for me." (Ellipsis in original.)

As for the discrepancies between Hebard's and Puthoff's accounts, Rogo reports that in a subsequent meeting with Puthoff, he was shown "the actual graphed print-outs given by the magnetometer during the Swann demonstrations. The records supported Dr Puthoff's contention more than they did Dr Hebard's."

So far, then, the best we can say is that Randi's criticism of Puthoff (and Targ, who apparently wasn't even involved in the magnetometer experiment) is far from the last word on the subject.

Randi proceeds to launch a comprehensive critique of Targ and Puthoff's article "Information Transmission under Conditions of Sensory Shielding," which appeared in the October 18, 1974, issue of the respected journal Nature, and which can be read here The article details experiments involving, among other participants, the professed psychic Uri Geller.

Randi's take on this series of experiments is withering. He skewers Targ and Puthoff as "bunglers." He reports that their experiments were conducted in a chaotic atmosphere conducive to cheating. He says that a hole in the wall of Geller's isolation room enabled him to spy on the scientists during their ESP experiments. He says that Targ and Puthoff falsified the results of the tests by omitting failed experiments that would have lowered Geller's averages to the level of chance. Further, he says that the scoring of Geller's performances was mishandled, generating higher scores than Geller deserved.

The question naturally arises: How does Randi know all this, since, as he admits, "I've never even set foot on the sacred grounds of SRI [Stanford Research Institute, where the experiments were conducted]"? He explains that he was given inside information by "an individual" who claimed to represent dozens of SRI scientists. This group, which worked in secret and even adopted a code name (Broomhilda), passed the information to Randi.

Unfortunately, Randi never names this individual or any other members of the Broomhilda group. He says that "Broomhilda verified for me much of the information that I had been holding on to for years," but where did he get this earlier information in the first place? "That data," he says, "now moved from the status of hearsay to documented fact." But documented is hardly a term applicable to either the initial information, which is never specified, or the Broomhilda information, which came from an anonymous source. He adds, "Additional facts were elicited during conversations and correspondence with individuals. Many of these persons were not aware of Broomhilda and were acting on their own. Their completely independent input supported Broomhilda's charges. Taken together," he concludes, "the information from all sources amounted to quite an indictment."

Maybe so, but it's an indictment that would never hold up in court. The reader is expected to take Randi's word that his unidentified sources are trustworthy - and that the sources themselves are well-informed about experimental procedures they may or may not have witnessed.

Thus when Randi alleges that "hundreds of [failed] experiments that were done by SRI ... were never reported," we must take the statement on faith, as it is unsupported by any documentation. Similarly, when Randi says definitively, "All the other tests [i.e., the successful ones] lacked proper controls and were useless," we search in vain for any footnote to back up this assertion."

"Some idea of the counter-arguments to Randi's claims can be obtained by taking another look at D. Scott Rogo, who earlier showed the initiative to track down Dr. Hebard. Unlike Randi, who, as we have seen, had "never even set foot" inside the research facility, Rogo visited SRI on June 12, 1981. He found that Randi had misrepresented the hole in the wall of the isolation room through which Geller was supposedly able to spy on the researchers. The hole, a conduit for cables, is depicted in Flim-Flam as being three and a half inches wide and therefore offering a good view of the experimental area where the researchers were working. Rogo found, however, that the hole "is three-and-a-quarter inches [wide] and extends through a twelve-and-a-half inch wall. This scopes your vision and severely limits what you can see through it. The hole is not left open either, since it is covered by a plate through which cables are routinely run. Dr Puthoff and his colleague were, however, concerned that their subject might be ingenious enough to insert an optical probe through this hole, so they monitored the opening throughout their telepathy experiments."

Randi also indicates that the hole is stationed 34 inches above the floor. Not so, says Rogo. "It isn't three feet above the floor, but is located only a little above floor level. The only thing you can see through it - even under optimal conditions - is a small bit of exterior floor and opposing wall. (The viewing radius is only about 20°, and the targets for the Geller experiments were hung on a different wall completely.) I also discovered during my trip to SRI that an equipment rack was situated in front of the hole throughout the Geller work, which obstructed any view through it even further. I ended my little investigation by talking with two people who were present during these critical experiments. They both agreed that wires were running through the hole - therefore totally blocking it - during the time of the Geller experiments."

IOW, Randi completely misstated the information he used to debunk Geller. (Geller may well be a fraud, but Randi "debunked" him just as fraudulently.)

Hmmm... he can know how a room is set up without ever seeing it. Sounds paranormal. I wonder if he'll award himself the million bucks.

Describing it incorrectly is likely a mistake. Insisting on the mistake after he's been publicly corrected is out-and-out lying.

Randi is an aggressive person. He's not the nicest guy in the world.

the challenge is rigged to make sure that no one CAN pass it. And given that:

1. Randi's people do the preliminary test (according to his own website);
2. Randi controls the flow of information about all the projects and all publicity about them; and
3. You have to waive your right to sue Randi or his organization (it's in the rules; I read them)

He "always has an out," as he himself has said. He can simply announce that the test was a failuer (after all, his people did it) and you are not allowed by the structure of the challenge to contest him.

That's hardly in integrity.

The Amusing Randi is as much of a fraud as the people he exposes.

William James nailed Randi (even before Randi was here) when he said, "I believe there is no source of deception in the investigation of nature which can compare with a fixed belief that certain kinds of phenomena are impossible." Yet this is exactly the mindset from which Randi operates and from which his million-dollar challenge is issued. Stated simply, there is NO proof, no matter how thorough, that someone with James Randi's worldview will EVER accept! They have already ruled out the possibility of any of these experiments succeeding before they conduct them.

1. Randi has been publicly quoted as saying that paranormal phenomena are impossible.

2. Randi's people perform the initial test on a claim.

3. Randi controls the data generated and its distribution

4. You have to waive your right to sue Randi. These things are from his own rules.

As Randi said, "I always have an out."

Now, a test conducted by someone who is not open to it working (by his own quoted statements) is not going to work. And if that person also controls the data and its distribution and cannot be sued, then that person can declare the results to be anything he wants and no one can contest it. This means that the system is set up so that one CANNOT pass the test. To me, offering a million-dollar challenge and rigging it so that it cannot possibly be passed is not in integrity. It's not quite honest.

Now, couple these facts with the fact that Randi, by his own admission, set up an associate of his as a phony psychic and toured Australia with him, charging admission for his shows. Randi says it was "to show how gullible people are," but it's still fraudulent. Scott Rogo proved that Randi lied about the conditions of Geller's performance. And Randi boasted that he could easily do (through tricks) what is called "thoughtography" but when challenged to do so, he refused.

Randi has made an ideology of his disbelief. I define ideology as the inability to see the difference between your opinion and the facts and the unwillingness to think outside your box. That ideology has led him to structure teh rules of the challenge, as outlined above, in such a way as to ensure that no one can pass it. It's not the experiments that are corrupted, it's the structure of the challenge.

And Mr. Randi is not a scientist. he has publicly stated that there is no possibility that any paranormal ability could be true. Thus, he is not allowing for new evidence. Which is one more reason no one will ever collect the million.

Personally, I think it comes from The Amusing Randi's insatiable need for publicity.

Randi is closed to the possibility that any paranormal phenomena could ever be real. While I agree with him that most of these guys are scam artists of the first magnitude and I am glad that he and others work to expose them, I am open to the possibility that one or a few may be genuine.

But no amount of evidence, no amount of testing, no amount of proof will ever convince Randi or his acolytes like you, the members of the Randi cult, no matter what. He and his acolytes come in with what might be called an "invalidation bias" (simply Confirmation Bias for the negative) and everything is going to fit within that tiny construct or it's "fraud" in the minds of the Skeptics.

It might be a good idea to look outside that box once in a while.

As I said, he's as big a fraud as the people he exposes. Randi's putative offer is never going to be paid, no matter what people do and no matter what the evidence shows. I'd love to see someone get through his rigged system and perform as advertised, just so I could hear him wiggle and weasel as he explains why he isn't giving out the million bucks.