James Randi is a fraud!!

I just read about a test he conducted on a woman that claims to be a Medium named Patricia Putt and the test was filled with gaping holes.

Here's the test:

The young female volunteer in front of me could not suppress an embarrassed giggle as she sat there wearing a ski mask, wraparound sunglasses, an oversized graduation gown and a pair of white socks, a large laminated sheet hung around her neck displaying her participant number.

Then things got even weirder. Professor Richard Wiseman knocked on the door to collect our volunteer. He accompanied her into a large room where she was instructed to sit in a chair facing the wall and do nothing for 15 minutes or so. Professional medium Mrs Patricia Putt was then brought into the room and sat down at a small table around 12 feet away. Sometimes Mrs Putt would request that a volunteer read a pre-specified short passage, as she had found from past experience that often "the Spirit enters and makes contact through the sound of the sitter's voice". After that, no talking was allowed whatsoever as our medium wrote down a "reading" describing the volunteer using her alleged paranormal abilities. At the end of the reading, Mrs Putt left the room and the volunteer was allowed to change back into somewhat more conventional garb and given a reminder to return later in the day for the all-important judging phase.

Did we make history last week? Is Mrs Putt now preparing to face that final challenge? The chosen readings were compared with the actual readings by Richard Wiseman and Mrs Putt together, with several observers present and the whole procedure recorded. The first volunteer did not choose the reading that had been produced for her. Neither did the second. Or the third. By chance alone, the most likely outcome was for one hit out of ten. Unfortunately for Mrs Putt, every single volunteer chose a reading that had not been written for them. It looks like JREF's million dollars are safe for the time being.

www.guardian.co.uk...

This was a silly test.

1. Who were the participants?
2. What were the participants told?
3. Did the participants know this was a James Randi test? Did they know about the million dollars? Were they skeptics that support James Randi?
4. How many hits were needed for a participant to say the reading was about them?

For example, what if the medium got 3 things right out of 10 for each reading. This would mean she got 8 things wrong. Were the participants told she had to have a certain number of things right in order to accept the reading?

Also, a test like this needs a control group. Say the Medium got 3 things right out of 10 on each reading but the control group averaged around 1 thing right in each reading.

This was a very poor test and it was designed for the Medium to lose the challenge.

Here's more on the test by the guy who carried out the test.
richardwiseman.wordpress.com...

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Randi refused to test me. I still have the rejection letter. I waived any prize money. No kidding.-------------------

The applicants help design the test... And both parties agree to the conditions before its even done....

Just saying.

reply to post by wonhunlo


You should redact any personal info and post it, I imagine a lot of people would be interested in seeing it.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


It's probably worth reading the whole article rather than just the excerpt. It's written by Chris French who I met a couple of times, and gave some (free) advice to in connection with his research a few more. He's an academic, a skeptic but not from the same tin as Randi and Wiseman, and he has a pretty wide knowledge of the paranormal-psychic field.

The secret about being tested by, or for, James Randi is not to be tested. I've seen a lot of psychics work, and a handful of them continue to baffle me. Those people would never offer themselves up for tests of this kind, or be tempted by the money.

I don't really understand how psychic skills work, if they do, but it's clear that they're pretty fragile and that any success depends on the right circumstances. You might be a great lover with your partner in the right surroundings, but try putting on the same performance in a busy car park in a hailstorm. If you had any sense you wouldn't even try.

We can be sure that Randi expects to never part with his million dollars, but I'm not convinced that, at least with regard to his tests, this makes him a fraud. Those who keep on making the wrong choice and volunteer for his tests are not necessarily frauds, either. But they are idiots not to do enough research to realise that whatever skill they may have is not going to work for them in the circumstances that strict scientific testing demands. And moaning about unfairness after they fail really doesn't help at all.

Originally posted by wonhunlo
reply to post by Matrix Rising

 

Randi refused to test me. I still have the rejection letter. I waived any prize money. No kidding.-------------------

When was that? because Randi isn't the guy conducting the tests or reviewing the applicants these days, at least not most of the time.. he's got others who handle it at this point.

And I do believe the tests are accepted based on the claims.. I've done my own testing here in these forums with multiple participants at a time.. What did you claim you could do? I'd be happy to put together a test, but you don't get a prize.. I'm not rich.

I have read all of Mr. Randi's written works and am a fan of his. His team uses actual 'standards' to prove/disprove the existence of paranormal powers. The fact that after decades of work no one has actually done so does not surprise me.

www.csicop.org... is a great place to start the journey to truth and knowledge in a world where the candle of reason is dangerously close to being extinguished. There is joy and pleasure in understanding the way the world works. I encourage everyone to indulge!

Originally posted by Snippy23
reply to post by Matrix Rising

 

It's probably worth reading the whole article rather than just the excerpt. It's written by Chris French who I met a couple of times, and gave some (free) advice to in connection with his research a few more. He's an academic, a skeptic but not from the same tin as Randi and Wiseman, and he has a pretty wide knowledge of the paranormal-psychic field.

The secret about being tested by, or for, James Randi is not to be tested. I've seen a lot of psychics work, and a handful of them continue to baffle me. Those people would never offer themselves up for tests of this kind, or be tempted by the money.

I don't really understand how psychic skills work, if they do, but it's clear that they're pretty fragile and that any success depends on the right circumstances. You might be a great lover with your partner in the right surroundings, but try putting on the same performance in a busy car park in a hailstorm. If you had any sense you wouldn't even try.

We can be sure that Randi expects to never part with his million dollars, but I'm not convinced that, at least with regard to his tests, this makes him a fraud. Those who keep on making the wrong choice and volunteer for his tests are not necessarily frauds, either. But they are idiots not to do enough research to realise that whatever skill they may have is not going to work for them in the circumstances that strict scientific testing demands. And moaning about unfairness after they fail really doesn't help at all.

I don't really buy a lot of what you suggest.. Psychics are pretty out there with their claims, and many of them flaunt it .. fame, mystique or just downright attention are at play in every case I've seen.. I've never found someone who just does it for the joy of doing it without a single thing to gain from it..

I often see extraordinary claims of abilities but the moment you ask for a controlled experiment these gifts fall apart at the seams, they vanish .. I don't find that excusable .. I think they are "fragile" for a reason..the person really isn't a psychic.. I believe it's POSSIBLE that this kind of phenomena exists, but I don't think we as a species have seen it yet .. I just don't ..

I believe some self-professed psychics have deluded themselves and may genuinely believe they are doing something, but I don't think they are.. it either falls into the realm of chance, or someone is good at cold reading and may not even be aware they are doing it .. being perceptive about body language and knowing how to effectively communicate or judge vocal cues can provide you a ton of insight.. some are just naturally gifted..

I've tested all manner of psychics myself.. including remote viewers and astral projectionists right here on ATS =) .. we've never had any success

Originally posted by GringoViejo
reply to post by wonhunlo

 

You should redact any personal info and post it, I imagine a lot of people would be interested in seeing it.

It just said that because I was not a pro medium or celebrity, they had no interest. I wanted to be tested against a random number generator. So a cheap test. Kinda "remote influencing". Anyway, it's all true. -------------------

reply to post by miniatus


Thanks for your intelligent reply! I agree with 99% of what you say, but I kind of have a loophole where, as I mentioned, I reserve some bafflement.

I live in the UK, and we certainly do have some rubbish 'psychics' and, worse, we seem to have set the standard for overwroughtTV ghost hunters. Ours don't even have plumbing skills.

My reservations come from attending UK Spiritualist churches. mostly from 1969 to 1978, but sometimes since. I think that the movement operates a bit differently than in the US, with a lot of small churches all over the country, often with an attendance of 20 or so, putting on a religious service with clairvoyance on a Sunday, clairvoyance on a weekday evening and spiritual healing on an afternoon or two. It's all very low-key, and usually open and welcoming.

This is, I think, where people do it, "without a single thing to gain from it", maybe their bus fare or some petrol money. Some respect, yes, but no fame, and maybe working on this basis thirty evenings a year. Most of them have probably never heard of Randi, or remote viewing, and wouldn't want, or feel a need, to be tested. But I've had the odd message, and have heard and met others receiving the odd message, that I can't quite explain away,

reply to post by miniatus
[mo

The so-called psychics you've dealt with had big egos, as you have stated yourself. However, a real psychic would have to first destroy their ego to obtain such abilities. You can't be a money grubbing, attention seeking egomaniac and truly have those abilities, because those abilities are allegedly spiritual in nature.

Samuel Sagan MD (author of Awakening Your Third Eye) teaches his meditation students to not even have someone in the same room with you that's not meditating as well. Why? Meditation and chakra work is aimed at helping a person become more 'sensitive'; which is needed to unlock those latent abilities that we all have. Efficient practitioners can be so sensitive to others energy that a stroll through a public market can be absolutely draining due to all of the negative energy present. That being said, a true psychic would be a person that doesn't seek money or fame for their gifts....they would also live a 'good' life (ie be kind, thoughtful, polite). And they would never knowingly sit in a room with a bunch of closed minded skeptics simply to 'convince' them; and believe me, Randi is aware of this.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

What Randi is a pseudo-scientist and pseudo-skeptic. You don't say! You'll be telling me that the government is lying about UFOs next.

Of course he is. We all know this. He has no intention of ever giving anyone a million dollars... He is nothing more than a real life troll, just trying to hassle people and comes across as an ass in the process.

Why would Mr. Randi want to 'troll' people? I don't understand that.

reply to post by NuminousCosmos


I'm a fan of Randi as well but he doesn't get much love here on ATS. Some would rather blame him for the failure of psychics than blame the psychics.

Shouldn't any real psychic know he's a fraud and just turn him down? Shouldn't they sense his deception, if he is indeed deceiving them? So an ordinary man with no powers whatsoever can easily outsmart folks with supernatural paranormal ability? Sad really if that's the case.

Some of Randi's best work has been in debunking homeopathy. Unfortunately no matter how much this sort of pseudoscientific and new age stuff is debunked there will be those irrational enough to believe it. Which leads me to the conclusion that a great deal of people simply don't want all the pressures of thinking and applying skepticism.

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
Of course he is. We all know this. He has no intention of ever giving anyone a million dollars...

That is because there is no such thing as a real psychic, they are all frauds!

Originally posted by GringoViejo
The applicants help design the test... And both parties agree to the conditions before its even done....

Just saying.

This

The applicants design a test that they feel they should be able to do, the test is then adjusted to allow it to have odds of passing beyond guesswork, it's as simple as that.

No one ever even passes the initial testing of THEIR OWN test.

Oh yes of course James randi is a Fraud, it's not like we have any evidence at all of psychics lying cheating cold reading and being scam artists is it. While the evidence against Randi is overwhelming obviously

Ive never trusted him since he called that poor honest spoon bending guy a cheat, just imagine the cheek

I met James Randi once, he came into the ER I worked in down in FL a few years ago, came in for a chest infection I think, really nice guy

Isn't it ironic that a psychic seems impotent in a room full of skeptics?

reply to post by davespanners

Randi is definitely a pseudo skeptic!
The following passage could be a description of Randi. Try reading it before you get upset.

According to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, a skeptic is:

One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons.

Pyrrho, the founder of "Skepticism", intended for it to be about open inquiry and suspension of judgment.

In classical philosophy, skepticism refers to the teachings and the traits of the 'Skeptikoi', a school of philosophers of whom it was said that they 'asserted nothing but only opined.' (Liddell and Scott) In this sense, philosophical skepticism, or Pyrrhonism, is the philosophical position that one should suspend judgment in investigations.[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

But rather than inquiring, or asking questions to try to understand something, they seek to debunk, discredit and ridicule anything that doesn't fit into their belief system. And rather than suspending judgment, they make accusations of fraud and delusion of all paranormal claimants. They are PROSECUTORS, not investigators. Hence, we call them pseudoskeptics (a term coined by the late Marcello Truzzi) for their actions and behaviors are the complete antithesis of what skepticism truly means.

According to WikiSynergy:

Pseudoskepticism (or pseudoskepticism) is defined as thinking that claims to be Skeptical but is actually faith-based disbelief. Because real skepticism is a justifiable position, pseudoskepticism may also be defined as making pseudoscientific arguments in pursuit of a skeptical agenda.

Pseudoskepticism is a general term which encompasses two types of faith-based disbelief: making positive claims that something is wrong or unreal without evidence (positive disbelief), and rejecting sufficient evidence.

A "true skeptic" objectively inquires and seeks evidence, challenging all sides including their own beliefs (see here). But these pseudoskeptics do anything but. As someone observed to me:

The original definition of skeptic was a person who questions ALL beliefs, facts, and points-of-view. A healthy perspective in my opinion. Today's common definition of skeptic is someone who questions any belief that strays outside of the status quo, yet leaving the status quo itself completely unquestioned. Kind of a juvenile and intellectually lazy practice in my opinion.

Even Wikipedia indirectly admits that modern skepticism is really about rejecting new information:

The word skepticism can characterize a position on a single claim, but in scholastic circles more frequently describes a lasting mind-set and an approach to accepting or rejecting new information.

en.wikipedia.org...

SOURCE: SCEPCOP Treatise - Debunking Pseudoskeptical Arguments of Paranormal Debunkers


The fact is that Psi has already been determined to be real. That is by scientists who have set out to establish the truth rather than by pseudo-skeptical attempts to disprove that something that is real.

A more elaborate answer is, psi has been shown to exist in thousands of experiments. There are disagreements over to how to interpret the evidence, but the fact is that virtually all scientists who have studied the evidence, including the hard-nosed skeptics, now agree that there is something interesting going on that merits serious scientific attention.

www.deanradin.com...

Randi Backs Out of Challenge with Homeopath George Vithoulkas