Like it? Share it!

Banner


Reason Rally Logo
 

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
Bull**** Artist? PDF Print E-mail
Swift
Written by Brandon K. Thorp   
Friday, 20 November 2009 23:20

A rawtha angry letter by Rupert Sheldrake will appear in the next issue of Skeptic, in response to Chris French's ("reverential") interview of James Randi in the summer issue.

The letter has its points -- for example, when it accuses Randi of occasional grumpiness (It's true! He can be grumpy!) -- but the bulk of the thing is an attack upon Randi's character and qualifications.

Mostly, Sheldrake seems discomfited by a document passed out by Randi, Andrew Mayne, and Michael Shermer at The Amaz!ng Meeting 3, entitled "Communicating Skepticism To The Public." We have no copies of this document. Perhaps you can help us.

Does the document say, as Sheldrake claims, that it's "easy" to become a media skeptic? And what about this:

Becoming an expert is a pretty simple procedure; tell people you're an expert. After you do that, all you have to do is maintain appearances and not give them a reason to believe you're not.

Did Randi really write that? If so, nobody at the JREF, and nobody we've been able contact, has any recollection of it. And if Randi did write these words, in what context did they appear? We'd really like to know. If you were at TAM3 and still have a copy of the document, please tell us.

(Incidentally, the idea in quotes has merit, whether it's a Randi quote or not. It is extremely easy to become an "expert" in telepathy, telekinesis, dowsing, channeling, prophecy, scrying, cursing, spell-casting, acupuncture, and homeopathy. In those fields, the master and the novice are on precisely equal footing. Fantasy, like punk rock, is democratic that way.)

Trackback(0)
Comments (27)Add Comment
...
written by Squid, November 20, 2009
Wow... as near as I can tell, this guy is pretty woo. "Morphic Resonance" indeed. I'm no biologist, but I don't think it takes some sort of mystical energy field or universal memory to explain the process.

As for him producing a document from TAM 3... I can't help you there, but I am a bit... skeptical. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) It just sounds faked to me.

Squid
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by dpeterman, November 20, 2009
I have a file folder into which I've tossed every piece of noteworthy paper from TAM 2 forward, and I can't find anything like the document that's described. That certainly is not to say it never existed, but if it did and it was distributed to all attendees, it's odd that I don't have it.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +6
...
written by ConTester, November 20, 2009
After telling everyone he’s an expert on morphic resonance and thereafter maintaining appearances so as to not give anyone reason to think he’s not, Sheldrake should have little trouble producing a copy of the document in question from the “Akashic Records” so as to substantiate his claims. Or is evidence no longer required once one has seen through to the mystical realms of the morphic field?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +11
The same quote
written by RobbieD, November 21, 2009
The same quote is used by Ted Dace in a very poor critique of TAM3 at:-

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

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by bosshog, November 21, 2009
Being an expert is like being sexy: if your audience thinks you are so, you are so.
To put it another way, if you "know" enough to fool people you are a relative expert.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by GMJ, November 21, 2009
That quote about being an expert sounds familiar, but I think he was talking about how any fraud such as Sheldrake can pretend to be an expert on nonsense like morphic resonance. In the same sence that "experts" on Mayan Prophecy are now a dime a dozen.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
Convince Scientists not Just Skeptics
written by Gord_in_Toronto, November 21, 2009
I find it Amazing that people like Sheldrake take such umbrage at skeptics like Randi. How much influence does Randi have on the world of science? Sheldrake does not have to convince Randi -- he should concentrate on getting peer reviewed papers published in recognized science journals.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +15
...
written by jhuger, November 21, 2009
That quote sounds like something Randi would say regarding what it takes to become an expert in the eyes of the media, the general public, etc. taken out of context. e.g. "[as far as Fox News is concerned,] Becoming an expert is a pretty simple procedure; tell [there] people you're an expert. After you do that, all you have to do is maintain appearances and not give them a reason to believe you're not."
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by MadScientist, November 21, 2009
Ah, it's Sheldrake - he's just looking for someone else to threaten to sue. His website is hilarious though - it does show how easy it is to become an 'expert'. You'll be hard pressed to find a real biologist who would have anything kind to say about Sheldrake, yet he claims he's one of the most innovative biologists. Yeah, and I'm the reincarnation of princess Diana.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
Further on that quote - it's ancient.
written by dbs, November 21, 2009
That quote was cited in a posting more than 4 years ago, here:
http://www.budoseek.net/vbulle...90&page=5

If you want more evidence read his own manual "Communicating Skepticism to the Public" in which he states: “Becoming an expert is a pretty simple procedure; tell people you’re an expert. After you do that, all you have to do is maintain appearances and not give them a reason to believe you’re not.”


That posting is dated August 8, 2005. I still can't find any other cite about this other than that one.

(By the way, for the 'Reiki vs Reality' argument, there are some wonderful bits in that thread on both sides.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
My Copy of Communicating Skepticism to the Public - YES IT IS TRUE.
written by podblack, November 22, 2009
This particular document inspired an article which is published in the Australian Skeptic, called " and led to my contributing to Daniel Loxton's "What Do I Do Next? 105 Practical Ways to Promote Science and Advance Skepticism".

So, I guess it's kind of well-known to me. Sheldrake should not be attacked by the JREF for quoting something correctly, certainly not with the very insulting title of this post, which judges him from a position of ignorance.

Here are two photos that I have taken that support Sheldrake's claim. I would like to point out that I am very, very, very surprised that a group who bill themselves as being a 'critical thinking resource center' do not keep copies of their very own documents! Really, JREF!

Photo one - my file from TAM3 - http://podblack.com/wp-content...oto-59.jpg
Photo two - my copy of the document - http://podblack.com/wp-content...oto-61.jpg
Photo two - my copy of "Communicating Skepticism to the Public - A Seminar on Promoting A Scientific View of the World", which I received after attending the workshop at the Amazing Meeting, along with Michael McRae. The two of us can be contacted at CriticalTeaching.org.

I'll post further on my blog. Thanks.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +7
Blog entry with evidence now featured on my site.
written by podblack, November 22, 2009
http://podblack.com/2009/11/ru...t-no-bull/ smilies/cry.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
@ podblack
written by FrankH, November 22, 2009
The quote on your blog is more complete. Rupert Sheldrake quotes:
"Becoming an expert is a pretty simple procedure; tell people you’re an expert. After you do that, all you have to do is maintain appearances and not give them a reason to believe you’re not."
Your blog carries the rest of it which gives it additional/different meaning:
"I could be one of the leading experts on 19th century Bavarian Monkey Chess up until the moment I say something that totally contradicts what you know about this noble and lost game of strategy."

In other words, it's easy to be an expert until a real expert turns up.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
So it's Selective Quoting
written by Gord_in_Toronto, November 22, 2009
@FrankH

Ah. The old selective quoting so well loved by Creationists. Somehow this does not surprise me. smilies/sad.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
CHANGED SWIFT ARTICLE!
written by podblack, November 22, 2009
Why is this article changed?

This is not the same article that was printed earlier. Why was it changed?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
@podblack RE: CHANGED SWIFT ARTICLE!
written by BMN, November 22, 2009
Other than that it has "beleive" corrected to "believe" I don't see any difference with google's cache from yesterday (timestamp: 21 nov 2009 05:12:53 GMT.)
I also don't notice any difference from the first time I saw the article (although as we all know memory can be fallible). Could you say what, in your opinion, has changed? Maybe it'll jog my memory.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by insomicman, November 22, 2009
I take offense to the above statement. I think The Clash was a pretty talented band.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by MandySmith24, November 22, 2009
Are you going to apologize to Sheldrake?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
...
written by rjh02, November 22, 2009
For further discussion of this topic see http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=160077
This includes the quote in context.

Sheldrake should apologize to JREF for quote mining.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
@podblack
written by JeffWagg, November 23, 2009
Did you respond to Brandon's request for a copy of the document?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
Thanks much!
written by bkthorp, November 23, 2009
A copy of the document has been scanned and sent to us. We'll soon post the relevant passages in their entirety.

Thank you,
- BKT
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by AndrewMayne, November 23, 2009
I wrote the document. Sheldrake took it out of context (surprise). It was a criticism of how eager the media is ready to accept anybody as an expert if they stand out in some way.

The main part of the document was about how local skeptic groups can reach out to the media. My main point (as shown in the photo Podblack kindly provided) was "Have a legitimate reason for being entitled to your opinion (besides being a clever person)."

Skeptics need to speak out more and should be comfortable talking about their area of expertise.

I didn't know saying the media wasn't critical of experts it puts on television and that many of them represent bogus groups would be such a controversial statement...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
...
written by eternalcontrol, November 23, 2009
I've seen a morphic resonance device so I know they exist. On my planet they are called trombones. I'm not sure what they are used for though. Probably for marching to a different drummer.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by AndyD, November 24, 2009
I'm a bit weirded out. People are accusing Sheldraske of selective quoting, out of context, based on a single quote provided above from an as yet "unpublished" letter.

Beyond assumption, how do we know the context in which Sheldrake has used that quote without seeing the whole letter? And since when was it usual to respond to something which hasn't been published? Is this just an ad for the next issue of Skeptic?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by LuigiNovi, November 27, 2009
Brandon, which issue of Skeptic was this interview with Randi in? I know you said the "summer issue", but it's hard to find dates or even seasons on the cover or in any indicia in the issue. Is it the most recent issue with the 2012 stories and the cover image of the Earth being destroyed? Or the one before that with the religious icons on the cover? I looked through them and couldn't find any interview with Randi. Thanks. smilies/smiley.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Greg, November 29, 2009
LuigiNovi: I believe that Brandon is referring to the British Magazine 'The Skeptic', not the American 'Skeptic' magazine. The former is edited by Chris French, the latter by Michael Shermer. Website for 'The Skeptic' is here: http://www.skeptic.org.uk/
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by LuigiNovi, November 29, 2009
Thanks, Greg.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0

Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy
Last Updated on Saturday, 21 November 2009 00:22