James Randi is/is not civilised (Split from "What I am saying")

[The Atheist]

I think the world would be very civilized indeed if more people were like James Randi, ....

:dl:

James Randi? For all his past glory, suggesting that the world would be more civilised if people were more like him is just brilliant.

[skeptigirl]

:dl:

James Randi? For all his past glory, suggesting that the world would be more civilised if people were more like him is just brilliant.Over 9,000 posts here and you don't buy into the basic purpose of the JREF? That is interesting.

[The Atheist]

Over 9,000 posts here and you don't buy into the basic purpose of the JREF? That is interesting.

Do you buy your strawmen by the dozen?

I made no comment about the purpose of JREF. I was pointing out that James is not what one would describe as civilised when it comes to discourse. Have you read his commentary? I probably agree with 90+% of what he says and the manner in which he says it, but civilised it ain't.

[skeptigirl]

Care to cite an example, TA? I've seen nothing uncivilized in Mr Randi's commentary.

[KingMerv00]

Randi is intelligent and he has been friendly with me the few times I have met him.

On the other hand, he can be acerbic with woos. Sometimes I agree with that approach, sometimes not. I certainly don't blame him for having some cynicism though. Popoff and Geller are still around after all.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I get it. He's equating uncivilized with a literal meaning (from the etymology) of the word barbarian. James Randi is definitely bearded.

Seriously, though, I'm in line with what KingMerv just said. I got to see Randi in person just over a week ago. I was sort of surprised that he said many things that I disagree with, but the stuff that people react to is his frankness and maybe a bit of a gruff style sometimes. (In fact, he was incredibly patient during Q & A when some nutjob monopolized one of the questioner's mics to go on and on about his religious beliefs.)

In that lecture, for instance, he said that Montel Williams is a whore. That's pretty strong language, but he did back up and explain exactly what he meant by it. I had no problem with that at all. (In fact I agree with a strong condemnation of Williams' behavior, and that behavior is motivated by nothing but greed.)

In a different part of the lecture, he did something that I do have a problem with. He did a bit that was very critical of academics--basically saying that once someone has a PhD, they can no longer say, "I don't know" or "I was wrong". It was primarily a comic bit, and he said before and after the bit, "I'm just joshing; don't take this seriously." Now I agree with the point that no one is immune to being duped, and academic researchers in particular aren't qualified to spot trickery. I disagree with the overall point, and I have a hard time with letting something like that go just because it's just a joke. Does that mean that Randi doesn't really have the opinions expressed in that bit? Does it mean that bit was merely an exaggeration to make a point? If so, what is the point?

At any rate, I think Randi is charming in a very classical sort of way. As far as being acerbic or gruff, I think the truth is the truth. If it offends someone to hear that homeopathy is bunk, the problem is theirs.

Also, Randi is human, and you just can't expect someone to be patient when discussion goes over and over the same tired and ill-made lines again and again.

[plumjam]

The writings of Randi that I have read have all been complete laughable rubbish.. as if he was deliberately setting out to come across as a dogmatic superior old fool.
The videos and tv programmes I've seen him in he has come across a lot better, more reasonable and personable. Maybe it's because on tv he's with other people and it's a lot harder to be so scathing and dismissive face to face with people. However, when he's just on his own, typing away, it's just intemperate embarrassing closed-minded crud that comes out.

He quite possibly was a good stage magician. Never see him do any of that. Maybe he should have stuck to it.

[KingMerv00]

The writings of Randi that I have read have all been complete laughable rubbish.. as if he was deliberately setting out to come across as a dogmatic superior old fool.

The videos and tv programmes I've seen him in he has come across a lot better, more reasonable and personable. Maybe it's because on tv he's with other people and it's a lot harder to be so scathing and dismissive face to face with people. However, when he's just on his own, typing away, it's just intemperate embarrassing closed-minded crud that comes out.

I think Randi just got older and became frustrated with people who cling to obvious frauds like Popoff. I can understand that. He is human.

That being said, I think he needs to save his anger for those who deserve it.

[brodski]

:dl:

James Randi? For all his past glory, suggesting that the world would be more civilised if people were more like him is just brilliant.

are you perhaps confusing the terms civil and civilised?

Many con-men are perfectly civil, but barely civilised, Randi is the opposite.

[skeptigirl]

As someone whose frankness is often misjudged as insulting, I see communication as a two-way endeavor. Not being as concerned with social correctness allows one more freedom to be frank about things. It may turn some people off, they typically are less likely to be swayed anyway. But the advantage is an outside observer might find some insight in the exchange that would otherwise be buried within more polite framework.

There is a place for politeness, I'm not claiming it is never warranted or that what it adds to communicating with people isn't important in many situations. But there is also a place for frankness and not beating around the bush. And it saves time to get to the point.

[The Atheist]

are you perhaps confusing the terms civil and civilised?

Assuredly not. Do check the custom title, old chap!

Many con-men are perfectly civil, but barely civilised, Randi is the opposite.

Look, I know that in the days before you obtained the highly-paid position of moderator, you were, at one time, a "revolting descriptivist". While I would agree with you that dictionaries are not necessarily always correct, there is no question that civilised has two distinct meanings. One of these relates to manners and good behaviour. Gentlemanly conduct, if you will.

James Randi is many things.

"Gentleman" is not one of them.

As someone whose frankness is often misjudged as insulting, ...

Join the club.

:bgrin:

Just to be completely sexist - I admire that trait in a woman. (That is my wife to a "T"!)

Not being as concerned with social correctness allows one more freedom to be frank about things. It may turn some people off, they typically are less likely to be swayed anyway. But the advantage is an outside observer might find some insight in the exchange that would otherwise be buried within more polite framework.

There is a place for politeness, I'm not claiming it is never warranted or that what it adds to communicating with people isn't important in many situations. But there is also a place for frankness and not beating around the bush. And it saves time to get to the point.

Yep, and I agree with you 100%.

But it has nothing to do with being civilised, as above.

I do, however, find it amusing that a semantic argument has been given its own thread in this section.

[athon]

I think Randi just got older and became frustrated with people who cling to obvious frauds like Popoff. I can understand that. He is human.

That being said, I think he needs to save his anger for those who deserve it.

I agree fully with both of your posts, KM. However, I don't think this is quite a point of 'anger'.

We all get angry. I swapped directions in my career out of anger - I worked in pathology and was involved in a situation where an infant died as a result of being denied medication in deference for homeopathy. It was my wake up call to needing to do something more, and led to education and now to science communication.

I was angry. I was there when the mother heard the news. It was the worst sound you'll ever hear - a mother learning her child died. But I was not angry at her. And, over the years, I learned I couldn't be angry at the peddlers of the treatments. They were deluded, and short on good science education, but none of them wished harm on anybody. Should I therefore be angry at the science teachers? Well, to be fair, the system isn't the easiest one to work in, and there hasn't been as large a focus on thinking skills in the past. The academics? The government? God?

There are crooks and swindlers out there. They make me angry, too. But who should I aim my anger at, then? We focus on 'woo' here, but the crook part has nothing to do with poor thinking skills, but rather a value in fairness which I have and they lack. So while I could fairly be angry, I might as well be angry at all people who lack such values.

Anger is well and good, but in the end it is counterproductive in converting people if one channels it into bitterness and cutting remarks. Anger, made visible, binds together those who feel the same way as you do. And Randi has created a tight community of skeptics by doing that. I feel that is not a bad thing, in itself. But the JREF has other goals than simply rallying the masses. And how many converts have there been as a direct result of his belligerance?

Indeed, the direct opposite seems to be more true. Look at the recent SWIFT (21/3) for evidence of that. It was politeness and respect which won over a believer into reconsidering.

We can all understand Randi's bitterness. And sure, we can say that some people might deserve it, for their desceitful ways. However the JREF is about educating people in self-deceit, as well as demonstrating that charlatans are out there. As for the latter, I fail to see how it benefits skepticism in any way to throw in the regular sharp remark. However, I can see enormous benefits for biting that bitter tongue and focussing on the game.

Athon

[Darth Rotor]

The writings of Randi that I have read have all been complete laughable rubbish.. as if he was deliberately setting out to come across as a dogmatic superior old fool.
The videos and tv programmes I've seen him in he has come across a lot better, more reasonable and personable. Maybe it's because on tv he's with other people and it's a lot harder to be so scathing and dismissive face to face with people. However, when he's just on his own, typing away, it's just intemperate embarrassing closed-minded crud that comes out.

He quite possibly was a good stage magician. Never see him do any of that. Maybe he should have stuck to it.
James Randi plays the curmudgeon well.

At his age, I believe he is entitled.

(in)Articulett has a case of hero worship mixed with standard application of the Halo Effect.

It's not as though she is the first human being be so afflicted.

DR

[athon]

James Randi plays the curmudgeon well.

At his age, I believe he is entitled.


Should we be mixing 'entitled' and 'understandable' with 'effective' and 'admirable' at all? I'm not suggesting that this is the consensus here, however I get the feeling that Randi's curmudgeonly nature is dismissed as inconsequential. I don't think it should detract from the work he has done exceedingly well, however to treat it as if it has negligible consequences is to risk having it be a characteristic other skeptical communicators would aspire to.

Athon

[KingMerv00]

James Randi is many things.

"Gentleman" is not one of them.

That's harsh don't you think? At least critically examine your dislike of Randi.

First, have you met him? Of course everyone is more polite in person (especially with kindred spirits) but all of my personal interaction has been positive.

Second, put his rants in perspective: Imagine you've spent your adult life fighting frauds. Imagine that it is your passion. Sure it is rewarding but you answer the same questions and accusations day in, day out. You may expose crooks but many of them surface 800 miles away pushing the same crap after getting a slap on the wrist.

Now imagine you write a column once a week where you talk about all of the frauds YET to be caught. Let's see YOU keep it completely civil.

IMO sometimes he is rude to people that don't deserve it and that is wrong. Then again, sometimes I'M rude to people that don't deserve it. I'm sure YOU are rude to people that don't deserve it at times. Frankly, I don't think you know him well enough to call him "ungentlemanly".

[The Atheist]

That's harsh don't you think? At least critically examine your dislike of Randi.

Rather than me examining my non-existent dislike of James Randi, why don't you check out your assumptive gearbox and ask yourself why you assumed I dislike him?

I don't consider being "gentlemanly" a virtue, particularly, I'm merely - and quite correctly - pointing out that whatever description you choose for him, "gentleman" or "civilised" are not among them. There are lots of adjectives I could use to describe Randi and his life to date and almost all of them are positive ones.

I have also said that I don't necessarily think his approach is wrong.

If you think he's above criticism, then I really do pity you. And I say that cheerfully here, because I'm not criticising him! I wonder whether the approach is the most effective, but that's fairly sensible, don't you think?

First, have you met him? Of course everyone is more polite in person (especially with kindred spirits*) but all of my personal interaction has been positive.

*I could cynically say, "and paying customers", but I won't go that far.

Nope, haven't met him in person, but I've corrsponded with him for 25+ years, so I think I have a reasonable insight into the bloke.

I'm sure YOU are rude to people that don't deserve it at times. Frankly, I don't think you know him well enough to call him "ungentlemanly".

Oh, I'm quite sure I know him well enough to call him ungentlemanly and that I have a good enough understanding of what the term actually means to call him it.

And in terms of my own rudeness, I am indeed downright bloody rude to people, when I feel they've earned it, but I have three riders to my rudeness:

1 If I'm wrong, stand up and apologise for it
2 If I'm going to be rude to idiots, I'll praise people who aren't
# Treat 'em all the same, from Richard Dawkins to CFLarsen to Joe Bloggs at the pub

My integrity on those matters is still intact, I've given myself an uppercut a few times lately, as a matter of fact.

[KingMerv00]

Rather than me examining my non-existent dislike of James Randi, why don't you check out your assumptive gearbox and ask yourself why you assumed I dislike him?

I think it was a fair assumption even if it turned out to be wrong. The vast majority of people I know would dislike people they called "ungentlemanly" in that context.

I don't consider being "gentlemanly" a virtue, particularly, I'm merely - and quite correctly - pointing out that whatever description you choose for him, "gentleman" or "civilised" are not among them. There are lots of adjectives I could use to describe Randi and his life to date and almost all of them are positive ones.

I have also said that I don't necessarily think his approach is wrong.


Fair enough.

If you think he's above criticism, then I really do pity you.

I obviously don't think that. I just criticized him, albeit lightly.

And I say that cheerfully here, because I'm not criticising him! I wonder whether the approach is the most effective, but that's fairly sensible, don't you think?

*I could cynically say, "and paying customers", but I won't go that far.

Nope, haven't met him in person, but I've corrsponded with him for 25+ years, so I think I have a reasonable insight into the bloke.

Oh, I'm quite sure I know him well enough to call him ungentlemanly and that I have a good enough understanding of what the term actually means to call him it.

And in terms of my own rudeness, I am indeed downright bloody rude to people, when I feel they've earned it, but I have three riders to my rudeness:

1 If I'm wrong, stand up and apologise for it
2 If I'm going to be rude to idiots, I'll praise people who aren't
# Treat 'em all the same, from Richard Dawkins to CFLarsen to Joe Bloggs at the pub

My integrity on those matters is still intact, I've given myself an uppercut a few times lately, as a matter of fact.

All fair enough.

[davefoc]

As someone whose frankness is often misjudged as insulting, I see communication as a two-way endeavor. Not being as concerned with social correctness allows one more freedom to be frank about things. It may turn some people off, they typically are less likely to be swayed anyway. But the advantage is an outside observer might find some insight in the exchange that would otherwise be buried within more polite framework.

There is a place for politeness, I'm not claiming it is never warranted or that what it adds to communicating with people isn't important in many situations. But there is also a place for frankness and not beating around the bush. And it saves time to get to the point.

Wow skeptigirl, a frank admission that parallels my view of myself. In my case, I have been aware of it for at least thirty years and have worked to change that aspect of myself for many of those thirty years (there have been periods of acceptance but mostly I have seen it as a flaw that I would like to change).

As to the substance of your thoughts and this thread:
This is an old discussion around here, both in general and with regards to Randi. Mostly I think Randi is reasonably polite. On occasion, he's not. Sometimes he has shown extraordinary patience when dealing with people who in my opinion are acting like jerks. And other times his patience for lunacy and jerks is more limited. Would he be more effective if he was relentlessly polite at promoting skepticism. Maybe, but I'm not sure he would be human if he was.

[articulett]

I think Randi just got older and became frustrated with people who cling to obvious frauds like Popoff. I can understand that. He is human.

That being said, I think he needs to save his anger for those who deserve it.

I find plumjam's writings laughable and Randi way more tolerant than I could ever be. He's offering a million dollar prize... he's showing you how cons do their "magic"-- I think he's earned the right to needle people.

I am a total fan-girl. I find his critics far more offensive than him... and they have nothing to offer-- no wisdom, knowledge, humor, mdc, magic tricks, illusions... nothing. Usually just their self-important opinion, like plumjam. Who'd pay for that?

I think people are much nastier to him than his warranted rather than the reverse. I think they search out things to dislike about him because he threatens something they want to believe. I'd love to see a world with many more James Randis and a lot fewer of his critics frankly.

[Miss Whiplash]

Over 9,000 posts here and you don't buy into the basic purpose of the JREF? That is interesting.

TA complaining of Randi's incivility is one of those textbook cases of "pot-kettle-black." I've yet to see Randi give any woo a tongue lashing as tart as, say, Judge Judy. Is he dismissive? Yes. Is he impatient? Sure. I would be too, if I heard the same woo-woo over and over for 50 years and people still haven't learned anything. A person can only tolerate so much stupid.

His frankness has rattled a few cages. At the end of the day, that will be remembered more than mealy-mouthed platitudes.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Randi's a crumudgeon. That's just who he is and it manifests itself in his writings and public appearances. In person he's delightful. I really enjoyed just being at the table for our impromtu breakfasts on TAA2.

I'm a young crumedgeon myself, and think there's a time and a place for frankness, but it seems to be a lot of people are confusing being frank with using Ann Coulter as a role model for how to deal with people they disagree with. Randi doesn't do that.

[The Atheist]

TA complaining of Randi's incivility is one of those textbook cases of "pot-kettle-black."

Wow, your complete lack of comprehension astounds me. I'm not complaining about it all and have said at least twice I more or less agree with his approach. I'm stating facts, no complaints.

But jolly decent of you to try to make something out of it!

[CFLarsen]

Nope, haven't met him in person, but I've corrsponded with him for 25+ years, so I think I have a reasonable insight into the bloke.

You clearly don't.

[brodski]

t, there is no question that civilised has two distinct meanings. One of these relates to manners and good behaviour. you accept that here is more than one definition of civilised, and yet you seek to only shown that one is not applicable, where you have seeming made no attempt to clarify which definition was being used in the statement which you disagreed with.


Gentlemanly conduct, if you will. gentlemanly conduct is very different than just manners and "good behaviour" you are equivocating so far away from you're own point that you're only three more steps away from claiming that civilised= Kevin bacon ;)



"Gentleman" is not one of them.

How do you know if he has paid his tailor or not?

[The Atheist]

Sorry, I've been away for the weekend and only just saw this, which does need a response:

you accept that here is more than one definition of civilised, and yet you seek to only shown that one is not applicable, where you have seeming made no attempt to clarify which definition was being used in the statement which you disagreed with.

Wow, your English is really showing this time. Context, Brodski, is all. It should be abundantly clear to even an intermediate user as to which description I was using. Even then - if in doubt, there are two plain choices - assume or check. I can see which way you went.

:bgrin:

gentlemanly conduct is very different than just manners and "good behaviour" you are equivocating so far away from you're own point that you're only three more steps away from claiming that civilised= Kevin bacon ;)

Uh, no. The comments are quite explicit and further away from equivocation than your [sic] English is from a grammar lesson.

How do you know if he has paid his tailor or not?

Well, according to Spike Milligan, a gentleman is someone who gets out of the bath to take a pee, so it's not just tinkers & tailors which maketh a gent.

[Mojo]

Assuredly not. Do check the custom title, old chap!


Being a "tyrant" doesn't mean you are right. It merely means that you think you can force people to agree with you when you're not.

[Mojo]

The writings of Randi that I have read have all been complete laughable rubbish.. as if he was deliberately setting out to come across as a dogmatic superior old fool.
The videos and tv programmes I've seen him in he has come across a lot better, more reasonable and personable. Maybe it's because on tv he's with other people and it's a lot harder to be so scathing and dismissive face to face with people. However, when he's just on his own, typing away, it's just intemperate embarrassing closed-minded crud that comes out.

He quite possibly was a good stage magician. Never see him do any of that. Maybe he should have stuck to it.


Nice to see you getting back to your original agenda (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=91378). It's interesting that you appear to have changed your mind about his television appearances (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2871075#post2871075) though.

[NoZed Avenger]

I agree fully with both of your posts, KM. However, I don't think this is quite a point of 'anger'.

We all get angry. I swapped directions in my career out of anger - I worked in pathology and was involved in a situation where an infant died as a result of being denied medication in deference for homeopathy. It was my wake up call to needing to do something more, and led to education and now to science communication.

I was angry. I was there when the mother heard the news. It was the worst sound you'll ever hear - a mother learning her child died. But I was not angry at her. And, over the years, I learned I couldn't be angry at the peddlers of the treatments. They were deluded, and short on good science education, but none of them wished harm on anybody. Should I therefore be angry at the science teachers? Well, to be fair, the system isn't the easiest one to work in, and there hasn't been as large a focus on thinking skills in the past. The academics? The government? God?

There are crooks and swindlers out there. They make me angry, too. But who should I aim my anger at, then? We focus on 'woo' here, but the crook part has nothing to do with poor thinking skills, but rather a value in fairness which I have and they lack. So while I could fairly be angry, I might as well be angry at all people who lack such values.

Anger is well and good, but in the end it is counterproductive in converting people if one channels it into bitterness and cutting remarks. Anger, made visible, binds together those who feel the same way as you do. And Randi has created a tight community of skeptics by doing that. I feel that is not a bad thing, in itself. But the JREF has other goals than simply rallying the masses. And how many converts have there been as a direct result of his belligerance?

Indeed, the direct opposite seems to be more true. Look at the recent SWIFT (21/3) for evidence of that. It was politeness and respect which won over a believer into reconsidering.

We can all understand Randi's bitterness. And sure, we can say that some people might deserve it, for their desceitful ways. However the JREF is about educating people in self-deceit, as well as demonstrating that charlatans are out there. As for the latter, I fail to see how it benefits skepticism in any way to throw in the regular sharp remark. However, I can see enormous benefits for biting that bitter tongue and focussing on the game.

Athon



Quoted in its entirety because it was extremely well-said.

N/A

[UnrepentantSinner]

Hold on a second there Mr. Lawyer... you're not suggesting that we might convey our message better if we treat people with whom we have a disagreement about something as fellow human beings rather than retards, insane, inherently worthy of disdain and/or contempt or somehow beneath us because they ascribe to woo are you?

If you are, I agree completely.

[NoZed Avenger]

Hold on a second there Mr. Lawyer... you're not suggesting that we might convey our message better if we treat people with whom we have a disagreement about something as fellow human beings rather than retards, insane, inherently worthy of disdain and/or contempt or somehow beneath us because they ascribe to woo are you?

If you are, I agree completely.

Whoa -- you say that, but then you call me a LAWYER in the same post??



I won't say that doesn't . . . hurt a little.


If you'll excuse me I . . . I have something in my eye.

[Skeptic Guy]

:dl:

James Randi? For all his past glory, suggesting that the world would be more civilised if people were more like him is just brilliant.

Not to put words in Articulett's mouth, as she is more than capable of explaining what she meant on her own, but I think she was referring to this definition of "civilized" (with a "z" dammit):


having a high state of culture and development both social and technological


Not:


cultivated and genteel


And if so, I think she's 100% correct.

From what I have read, Randi only gets rude with those who deserve it, those who know better, the scammers, those who prey on the gulliable.

But I also understand what you are saying, TA, and agree that you do not mean you don't like or appreciate Randi. You don't use the term "uncivilized" as a criticism. You are just using a different meaning of "civilized".

[articulett]

I have always found TA more uncivilized than Randi... in fact, I find him more uncivilized than just about everyone. I cannot believe such an uncivilized person would make this self-aggrandizing poll except for the fact that he's uncivilized (as well as "unskilled and unaware") per my sig. :)

[The Atheist]

I have always found TA more uncivilized than Randi... in fact, I find him more uncivilized than just about everyone.

Nah, I'm only like that when dealing with the truly deluded.

I cannot believe such an uncivilized person would make this self-aggrandizing poll except for the fact that he's uncivilized (as well as "unskilled and unaware") per my sig. :)

Unaware? As in, so unaware of reality you'd think this was a poll? Or think that I'd started the thread? Now that's unaware and unskilled.

[athon]

From what I have read, Randi only gets rude with those who deserve it, those who know better, the scammers, those who prey on the gulliable.

This is the most common defence for any aggression, belligerance or sharp comments made by the likes of Randi (and I'd include Dawkins there as well). Of course we feel supported in our own emotions by their expression, as it serves as an outlet for the frustration and ire we feel at the ignorance and low moral fortitude of some.

It goes without saying that he's only sharp with 'those who deserve it'. Would he carry such a tone with those he feels don't deserve it? Of course not. The problem is, 'deserve' is a subjective, judgemental stance. Why do they 'deserve' to be treated as such? Is it an eye for an eye response? Tit for tat? Punishment for being ignorant?

Some might be downright criminal in their actions, sure; but again, this isn't their poor thinking skills at fault but rather their criminal values. Nonetheless, many people truly do feel they are doing good by peddling quackery. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful state of mind, after all, and many people weave their chicanery without complete knowledge that it is pure fantasy, in spite of what it might appear to others. After all, who is to make the distinction between a spectrum of mental illness and criminal intent?

Athon

[Damien Evans]

Nah, I'm only like that when dealing with the truly deluded.



Unaware? As in, so unaware of reality you'd think this was a poll? Or think that I'd started the thread? Now that's unaware and unskilled.

QFT

[DRBUZZ0]

So who started this thing about Randi being uncivilized? Have they ever met Randi or delt with him?

I get the whole "he's an angry old man" thing because that seems to be coming from a lot of his more public comments and persona and the fact that he doesn't hold punches with people like Popoff or Gellar.

Of course, plenty of us here have met Randi or communicated with him enough to know that the whole "angry bitter old man" thing is not true at all. Randi is a character and a bit stubborn at times, but that's his style. He's not at all spiteful in general and I'm personally very appreciative to how much he effort he personally has gone to to be open and accessible to those who have legitimate enquirery.

Randi is just brutally honest and he isn't afraid to admit that he finds scam artists to be repugnant. I don't see a problem with this. Unless, of course, you're a scam artist.

[athon]

I don't see how it matters if it's a public persona or not. The point is not whether Randi really is cynical, aggressive, belligerent, spiteful etc. The point is that his manner in the public eye comes across that way.

The best personal comparison I have is my teaching experience. In front of a class, you can't afford to be just yourself. That also demands a certain persona of authority and control. I'd go further to suggest that it was basically a select part of my personality, where other parts were dampened. The kids wouldn't see my 'drink down the pub with mates' side, for instance. So I don't think Randi's public persona is a complete character invented for the purpose, but rather for personal encounters with those he feels share his views, he's kind and soft spoken.

I simply find it peculiar how such aggression is justified as being 'for those who deserve it', and 'just being brutally honest', and 'pulls no punches'. They could just as well be cut and pasted from any website sticking up for any fundamentalist preacher damning gays to hell, or some evangelist on morning television putting down rationalist thinking. I highly doubt any skeptic would then be saying 'I disagree with what he says, but at least he's not pulling his punches'.

The bottom line is not whether Randi is bitter and angry. He has every right to that. The question is 'what effect does this have on his goals?'. If his goal was just to pull like-minded individuals from the woodwork, to create a community of individuals who all share the same anger and hatred, then I might not be posting this. He's succeeded wonderfully there. And as I've said a number of times before, this in itself is far from a bad thing.

But attracting people to want to reconsider their views and think skeptically, to make the concept appealing...with few acceptions I don't see name-calling and spite having much of an impact at all.

Athon

[CFLarsen]

So who started this thing about Randi being uncivilized? Have they ever met Randi or delt with him?

I get the whole "he's an angry old man" thing because that seems to be coming from a lot of his more public comments and persona and the fact that he doesn't hold punches with people like Popoff or Gellar.

Of course, plenty of us here have met Randi or communicated with him enough to know that the whole "angry bitter old man" thing is not true at all. Randi is a character and a bit stubborn at times, but that's his style. He's not at all spiteful in general and I'm personally very appreciative to how much he effort he personally has gone to to be open and accessible to those who have legitimate enquirery.

Randi is just brutally honest and he isn't afraid to admit that he finds scam artists to be repugnant. I don't see a problem with this. Unless, of course, you're a scam artist.

Very true.

[DRBUZZ0]

I don't see how it matters if it's a public persona or not. The point is not whether Randi really is cynical, aggressive, belligerent, spiteful etc. The point is that his manner in the public eye comes across that way.

The best personal comparison I have is my teaching experience. In front of a class, you can't afford to be just yourself. That also demands a certain persona of authority and control. I'd go further to suggest that it was basically a select part of my personality, where other parts were dampened. The kids wouldn't see my 'drink down the pub with mates' side, for instance. So I don't think Randi's public persona is a complete character invented for the purpose, but rather for personal encounters with those he feels share his views, he's kind and soft spoken.

I simply find it peculiar how such aggression is justified as being 'for those who deserve it', and 'just being brutally honest', and 'pulls no punches'. They could just as well be cut and pasted from any website sticking up for any fundamentalist preacher damning gays to hell, or some evangelist on morning television putting down rationalist thinking. I highly doubt any skeptic would then be saying 'I disagree with what he says, but at least he's not pulling his punches'.

The bottom line is not whether Randi is bitter and angry. He has every right to that. The question is 'what effect does this have on his goals?'. If his goal was just to pull like-minded individuals from the woodwork, to create a community of individuals who all share the same anger and hatred, then I might not be posting this. He's succeeded wonderfully there. And as I've said a number of times before, this in itself is far from a bad thing.

But attracting people to want to reconsider their views and think skeptically, to make the concept appealing...with few acceptions I don't see name-calling and spite having much of an impact at all.

Athon


Randi is not so bitter and angry in his public persona if you actually look at his complete statements, presentations, writings and so on. Yes, if you grab a few sound bytes, which is what many people are limited to he might come off as angry, certainly cynical.

I don't think he should try to change her public persona or be something different. He's not Carl Sagan, he's James Randi and people have come to know him for a different image. His image is what has worked for him and what has been the image that helped him get as far as he did.

He's actually a very good showman and his presentations are not just angry but rather thoughtful, funny, thought-provoking and so on. Most of my friends who don't know Randi or have much to do with the skeptical movement think he's great at making fools out of woo-merchants and seem to be pretty receptive to his statements.

However, most of my friends are basically skeptics. Even if not officially considering themselves "skeptics" or members of any foundation or anything I tend to hang out with a lot of engineering types, geeks, science-minded people in general.

I have some friends who are a bit woo and they don't generally like Randi or think he's coming across as intelligent. They say it's shallow and empty and he's just prejudiced.

This is par for the course. If you promote skepticism it doesn't matter what you come across as. People will not be universally receptive to that message or the messenger in general.

[athon]

Randi is not so bitter and angry in his public persona if you actually look at his complete statements, presentations, writings and so on. Yes, if you grab a few sound bytes, which is what many people are limited to he might come off as angry, certainly cynical.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. No, not all of his writing is cynical or belligerent. However an aggressive demeanour doesn't need to permeate all that somebody writes to stand out and be obvious. In that respect, it is a little like profanity - using one or two swear words over half a dozen short articles is not equivalent to swearing constantly, but it's enough to create a feel for the writer.

I don't think he should try to change her public persona or be something different. He's not Carl Sagan, he's James Randi and people have come to know him for a different image. His image is what has worked for him and what has been the image that helped him get as far as he did.

None of this is addressing the point. 'He is what he is' might be true, but I don't see how it is an argument. The OP in this thread was stating that Randi is not exactly an archetype of civility, with further discussion wavering between 'he is a perfect gentleman' to 'he has a right to not be that way'. I don't think many supporters of Randi's work are doing much clear thinking on this, rather simply defending him in a knee-jerk reaction.

I'm suggesting that while he has done well making skepticism acceptable to skeptics, promotion within other demographics has succeeded only as a result of a calm, friendly demeanour which is inviting, rather than aggressive language mixed with the occasional insult. No, Randi is not Sagan, but that does not address the discussion in the slightest.

He's actually a very good showman and his presentations are not just angry but rather thoughtful, funny, thought-provoking and so on. Most of my friends who don't know Randi or have much to do with the skeptical movement think he's great at making fools out of woo-merchants and seem to be pretty receptive to his statements.

One doesn't have to be part of a 'skeptical movement' to be skeptically minded. Again, if you share his views and share his aggression, you are made to feel part of a community. Nothing wrong with that. But there's perfect evidence in SWIFT itself of how ex-believers come to understand skepticism better when it is presented without the insults and snide remarks.

If you promote skepticism it doesn't matter what you come across as. People will not be universally receptive to that message or the messenger in general.

All that said, it's this statement I oppose 100%. People can be receptive to critical thinking. Many won't, certainly, but it is possible to change minds. People are social animals - they are heavily influenced by social factors in their thinking, for good or bad. If you share the view of person A and happen to like how they present their opinion, and person B calls person A an ignorant fool, you're hardly going to consider person B's view any time soon.

Again, I remind you of examples presented recently in SWIFT which remarked on the polite, welcoming attitude of those such as Jeff which assisted them in their thinking. At no point was it 'I was made to feel like an idiot, so I changed my attitude based on feeling foolish'.

I'm not suggesting Randi has to change anything. He is welcome to use whatever language he sees fit. However, it concerns me that as a role model for skepticism, it would influence others to see merit in adopting such a 'persona' and mimicking the use of such an attitude.

Athon

[Smiledriver]

Y'know OP I had occasion to have dinner with James Randi a few times and I'll have you know he always uses the right forks and makes polite and interesting conversation. After a particulary lovely meal, during drinks he obliged a few dinner guests with magic tricks. All and all quite civilized.

[rwguinn]

you accept that here is more than one definition of civilised, and yet you seek to only shown that one is not applicable, where you have seeming made no attempt to clarify which definition was being used in the statement which you disagreed with.

gentlemanly conduct is very different than just manners and "good behaviour" you are equivocating so far away from you're own point that you're only three more steps away from claiming that civilised= Kevin bacon ;)...

I believe it was in "Stranger in a Strange Land" where I read the definityion of "Gentleman" that is the best, and proper one. Don't remember the whole thing, but it has the caveat "A whirling son-of-a-bitch when need be"