Sign up for news and updates!






Enter word seen below
Visually impaired? Click here to have an audio challenge played.  You will then need to enter the code that is spelled out.
Change image

CAPTCHA image
Please leave this field empty

Login Form



JUST TO SET THE FACTS IN PLACE… PDF Print E-mail
Swift
Written by James Randi   

In an attack titled, “The Problem with James Randi,” published in the Las Vegas Weekly some time ago, someone named Skylaire Alfvegren ran on in delight on how poorly informed she is about me and my claims. This was recently forwarded to me for my comments. First, I strongly suggest that my reader go to http://rense.com/general69/randi.htm to see this masterpiece, then read my comments, which follow. This is a first-class example of how badly informed the woo-woos can get, without any help... 

Read that…? Okay…

First, Ms. Alfvegren dubs me a “dogmatist.” She fails to provide any example of this, so her designation is unproven. Moving along…

Second, when I began “futzing with a deck of cards” as a kid, I knew well in advance that conjuring was a “world of smoke and mirrors,” a deception.  And the “connection between stage magic and skepticism makes sense” from any perspective, Ms. Alfvegren.

In answer to her question, “What's more important, what science knows or what it doesn't (yet)?” I would say that these are of equal importance… You see, I’m just trying to clear up a few points that seem to easily confound Ms. Alfvegren.

Next, she refers to a TAM (The Amaz!ng Meeting) that we held in 2006 – I believe – and states that “(some) scientists have falsified data to get grants or overlooked inconvenient phenomenon to maintain the status quo in their field.” This is a well-known fact, her use of which quite escapes me…

Ms. Alfvegren refers to me as “wildly intelligent,” a description that similarly puzzles me, along with my “contributions…to science and objective thought.” Any such output by me has been the result of my simple consideration of the inconsistencies of certain scientists who are obviously out of their depth, certainly not the result of any elevated IQ. But then I see a reference to what Ms. Alfvegren says are my “main qualities… malice and hypocrisy”, for which she offers no examples. It’s very true that I defrock “distinguished scientists and Nobel Prize-winners” as easily as I do the lesser-honored quacks, swindlers, and liars who infest the field, even though I lack academic credentials.  I wrote that astrology column she mentioned for a Canadian tabloid to establish that simply clipping up an astrology magazine and randomly connecting the predictions with dates, met with eager approval from those naifs who read and followed my advice, but Ms. Alfvegren failed to mention that fact, and the “paranormal-themed radio show” to which she referred covered 39 states, seven nights a week, and regularly reached literally millions of listeners. It debunked any and all current vendors of nonsense… 

Sir Arthur C. Clarke was my very good friend, and hosted me during a few visits I made to him in Sri Lanka. He quite changed his mind on cold fusion when he heard more about Pons and Fleischmann, the two coo-coos who cooked up this farce. And Nobel-winning Dr. Brian David Josephson, despite the abundant evidence that Uri Geller is a conjuror, still prefers to accept that he produces miracles rather than simple sleight-of-hand conjuring tricks…

And let’s examine my claimed “penchant for lawsuits,” as well. Uri Geller, alone, has brought literally dozens of lawsuits against me, all over the world – and he has lost every one of them! – while I’ve brought only one, against a “psychic” in Canada, which the subject avoided by dying – an unfair tactic, as you may agree. As for my leaving CSICOP, I chose to do that because the organization – of which I was a co-founder – refused to support me in my continuing opposition to Uri Geller, who I agree is quite “charismatic,” but a liar, nonetheless.

Please note that the “satisfactory observing conditions” I require for any test of anyone’s psychic claims are always arranged in total agreement with the challenger’s needs and design of the protocol, not mine. Hundreds have applied, not one has succeeded. Ever…

Professor Ray Hyman’s observation is that "Scientists don't settle issues with a single test... Proof in science happens through replication." I agree, of course. The million-dollar challenge is just that, nothing more. But tell me, please, why won’t the “big names” of the woo-woo world send in their acceptance of this generous offer…? Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

I insist that any test of psychic powers must be done double-blind, and that neither I nor any person in my camp, may participate.  This challenge is not “rigged” in any way, though I’m sure Ms. Alfvegren is quite aware of that fact, and also of the fact that I have never claimed that “paranormal phenomena simply does [sic] not exist.

I’ve no more time for this. I have much better-informed persons to even better inform…

And my best wishes of the season, folks!

James Randi.