After Randi's gone?

[EGarrett]

From the last commentary:

"An angry chap in the UK named Michael Roll has blathered on for years about my perfidy and often expressed his dismay and frustration that I'm still alive."
Forgive me for broaching such a morbid topic, but Randi isn't going to be around forever. So I have a few questions, and if they've already been answered please just point me to the right location...

1.) What's to become of the JREF, or more specifically the Million Dollar Prize?

2.) Does Randi have a successor? Would Michael Shermer count?

3.) Should we expect people like Sylvia Brown(e?) and Zammit to have a field day when Randi passes? Would they have the balls to claim that they contacted him in the afterlife?

4.) Has Randi ever discussed this topic in a public forum?

Randi is probably the face of Critical Thinking/Skepticism all over the world, at least to the people who believe in such a thing. I don't know who would or could take his place fighting the constant battles that he does.

[Zep]

I hardly think it's a morbid subject at all, and I would guess that Randi doesn't either. I also assume he's well aware of his age and mortality.

I would hope that he has actually selected at least one "successor" to his unofficial crown as the (in-your-)face of the skeptical movement, and that he has discussed this very issue with them.

As I understand it, the JREF is a legal entity that does not officially rely on Randi to exist in its own right, and so it should be able to continue to operate unchanged. Which means the Challenge will continue to exist and be operative. In theory. I expect, though, that it would require someone of similar verve to be its ongoing powerhouse, to prevent it all simply coasting to a halt.

Perhaps this could be achieved by a combination of folks on the JREF Board. I don't know who the members of the current Board are (obviously JR is one!), but it might be worth while getting that in order if it isn't already. I do realise, though, that he is also a busy man, and such mundane activities cut into his schedule of works!

Perhaps we might even hope the Randi will respond to this thread?? Sir?

[SezMe]

If I remember correctly, Randi strongly hinted in one of his recent Swifts that he and Schermer were in discussion about relations between the two groups and that an announcement could be expected shortly. Too lazy to look up the ref. Whatever happened?

[Kiless]

The subject was mentioned at the last TAM.
Randi replied to the effect that he hoped he'd get his desk tidied up (as he thought he'd probably be found behind the desk, appearing to be asleep) and that the work would continue without him.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Kiless
The subject was mentioned at the last TAM.
Randi replied to the effect that he hoped he'd get his desk tidied up (as he thought he'd probably be found behind the desk, appearing to be asleep) and that the work would continue without him.

Well, if he won't kick the bucket until he has cleaned up his desk, then I think we can count on Randi being with us for a very long time.... ;)

[Billy]

Maybe he will continue his work from the other side and communicate his weekly commentary through one of the well respected mediums that we all know and love.

Not really sure what he would say - maybe this could be a good subject for the top 10 section.:randi:

[thatguywhojuggles]

Originally posted by EGarrett

3.) Should we expect people like Sylvia Brown(e?) and Zammit to have a field day when Randi passes? Would they have the balls to claim that they contacted him in the afterlife?


If asked if he will care after he is dead what Sylvia and Zammit have to say about him, he will most likely say that no, it won't bother him--'cause he'd be dead!

However, I wouldn't put it past Randi setting up (prior to his death) something that will, in his absence, deal with this problem. A possible "ultimate" test for Sylvia and the rest of the goons. Some sealed envelopes? :con2:

Perhaps he could make a public announcement that as soon as he dies if he was wrong and there is life after death, he will immediately contact them (the psychics) and give each of them a different "pass phrase" to be verified with sealed envelopes kept at the JREF office.

At least what would happen is that the psychics would never claim to be in contact with Randi because the skeptics of the world would all say, "Oh he talked to you? So you must know what the secret phrase is?"

[CFLarsen]

thatguywhojuggles,

What, he's going to pull a "Houdini code"? That is a very good idea!

I think you may have a point re. Sylvia Browne and the rest of those who loathe Randi: They might actually try to claim that Randi spoke to them from beyond: "Oh, I was wrong, there is an afterlife, Sylvia, you were right!"

A "Houdini code" will definitely put them to shame.

....but, as it is, let's just enjoy Randi while he's still above ground. ;)

[thatguywhojuggles]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
[B]
....but, as it is, let's just enjoy Randi while he's still above ground. ;)

Agreed...

[Beady]

Originally posted by EGarrett
1.) What's to become of the JREF, or more specifically the Million Dollar Prize?

From Rule 11: "Upon the death of James Randi, the administration of the prize will pass into other hands, and it is intended that it continue in force."

Really, gang, I would expect that this group would be more familiar with the rules.

3.) Should we expect people like Sylvia Brown(e?) and Zammit to have a field day when Randi passes? Would they have the balls to claim that they contacted him in the afterlife?

I wouldn't be surprised on either count. I do like the suggestion that Randi leave behind some code words and phrases.

Randi is probably the face of Critical Thinking/Skepticism all over the world, at least to the people who believe in such a thing.

An interesting idea, "believing" in critical thinking.

Anyway, I'm continually surprised at how people forget how large the world outside the computer really is. I think it's fair to say that 99+% of the world's present population have never heard of Randi, Sylvia Browne, John Edward, Penn & Teller, Critical Thinking, etc. If Randi's passing makes it into the news media at all, it will probably be limited to the obit page of Time or Newsweek, and will be forgotten when the page is turned.

Before anyone gets upset, I'm just being realistic. I don't recall seeing anything outside the skeptical literature when Gould died. Sagan's death was pretty big news, but I don't recall that skepticism, at least specifically, was even mentioned. Steve Allen's death was a minor news item, mainly because of his entertainment career. Beyond that, when is the last time anyone saw a news item about a "critical thinker" that had anything to do with critical thinking?

[Francois Tremblay]

Let's hope Shermer doesn't get his grubby hands on it, otherwise he might decide that it's morally acceptable for him to spend it all (what with him being a moral nihilist and all). I'd hasard to think that Randi would be responsible enough to find someone with their head screwed on tighter.

[R.A.F.]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
Let's hope Shermer doesn't get his grubby hands on it, otherwise he might decide that it's morally acceptable for him to spend it all.
How exactly would Mr. Shermer "get his hands on it"?? Randi can't even "get his hands on it". You do understand that the Million $ is in a trust...don't you??

[JPK]

Good afternoon.

I seem to remeber from one of the lectures I have on tape Mr. Randi saying something about Andrew taking over when he passes. I will look to confirm that tonight.

JPK

[Jono]

Not likely to be a realistic alternative but Richard Dawkins in combination with Ray Hyman perhaps?

A scientific thinktank of critical mass, or?

[Jim Lennox]

Surely the JREF needs a someone with a bit of character to do TV appearances and things like that. My vote would have to be for Penn & Teller to be the 'faces' of JREF. They can leave all the boring stuff to people who used to be in Aerosmith.

[DrMatt]

Last January in Ft Lauderdale, I mentioned my grandmother's age and Randi volunteered hints that he had something all lined up, with a certain number of trusted friends.

He said that if he ever gets religion, one of these trustees is instructed to shoot him between the eyes.

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles

Perhaps he could make a public announcement that as soon as he dies if he was wrong and there is life after death, he will immediately contact them (the psychics) and give each of them a different "pass phrase" to be verified with sealed envelopes kept at the JREF office.

At least what would happen is that the psychics would never claim to be in contact with Randi because the skeptics of the world would all say, "Oh he talked to you? So you must know what the secret phrase is?"

That's a good idea, maybe someone can pass this along to Randi.

[crimresearch]

If the passing of other individuals associated with a large group is any indication, we can look forward to several splinter groups, each claiming to be the only true heirs to the real Randi teachings.

One, no doubt based on who has the most posts at JREF, one based on a suddenly 'discovered' book of secret Randi wisdom, one based on having been 'in charge' of the office supplies at the time of death, and so on.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by crimresearch
If the passing of other individuals associated with a large group is any indication, we can look forward to several splinter groups, each claiming to be the only true heirs to the real Randi teachings.

Yeah, but only one would be able to show evidence of the million bucks.

Originally posted by crimresearch
One, no doubt based on who has the most posts at JREF, one based on a suddenly 'discovered' book of secret Randi wisdom, one based on having been 'in charge' of the office supplies at the time of death, and so on.

The first person would be me, and I can assure you that there is nothing in the stars for either me or JREF that it will happen.

[BillyJoe]

15,000! Do you have a day job?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
15,000! Do you have a day job?

Yep. And writing a book, too.

(My secret is 12 incredibly agile fingers and a tail...)

[treble_head]

I think the best thing Mr Randi could do is leave a group of vague quatrains predicting the future.

The effect would be double-fold. He could educate the learned by his writings in life, and force the "causers" to attribute current happenings to him, and when they look in a history web page (let's be honest, books won't be valid by the time he's passed), they might just be informed enough before they have a chance to quantify the ********.

Information by default. It sound like a nice idea to me.

[Jeff Wagg]

During Randi's talk at Tuft's in March, he said the following:

1) Shermer's Skeptic Society will administer the $1M prize upon Randi's demise.

2) Randi had been hoping that Andrew Mayne (Harter) would fill his shoes, but Andrew has decided to go into "video production." There is no one in the line of succession now.

Personally, I think Shermer is a good choice. The two have worked well togther over the years.

Still, I would like to see someone fill Randi's shoes. Hell, I'd like to fill Randi's shoes if only I had the talent, patience, articulation of speech, connections, experience, respect, dexterity and tenacity he has. I'm sure I've missed a few other deficiencies. Can you think of anyone who could carry on Randi's tradition?

Besides, as Randi himself pointed out, I'm too tall. ;)

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by JPK
I seem to remeber from one of the lectures I have on tape Mr. Randi saying something about Andrew taking over when he passes. I will look to confirm that tonight. JPK

Andrew has moved on. He will not be taking over the JREF upon Randi's death.

The only person I know who has the tenacity, brains, experience and guts to walk in Randi's shoes is Jamy Ian Swiss, close-up magician, lecturer, Penn & Teller writer (Sin City) and author of SHATTERING ILLUSIONS. Like Randi, he suffers fools poorly, and goes for the throat.

Jamy moderated the panel discussion at TAM3, and will be moderating BOTH panels at TAM4, as well as giving an evening performance of close-up magic before a small, intimate crowd.
He lectures on magic and deception around the globe, and commands enormous respect amongst the world's greatest magicians.

http://www.jamyianswiss.com/quotes.html

And Randi's successor SHOULD be a magician.

Jamy sees what Randi sees, and fears nothing and no one. Shermer, though certainly more than qualified, is too passive in his presentation to fill in where Randi will have once been. Penn & Teller are too busy and will likely remain so, though there is no doubt that they will continue to expose BS wherever they see it, with or without a cable TV series.

There is much discussion on this subject here, and little has been decided conclusively. Jamy himself is not keen on assuming Randi's role after his death, though it is my hope that when that sad day comes, he may seriously reconsider.

There is presently no successor waiting in the wings, but the JREF will continue its mission nonetheless.

[ChrisH]

Originally posted by JPK
Good afternoon.

I seem to remeber from one of the lectures I have on tape Mr. Randi saying something about Andrew taking over when he passes.

JPK

'When he passes'? Isn't that an odd expression for a Critical Thinker to use? It implies knowledge of some destination, to which the 'spirit' will go...

[Beady]

Originally posted by ChrisH
'When he passes'? Isn't that an odd expression for a Critical Thinker to use? It implies knowledge of some destination, to which the 'spirit' will go...

It's not as crass as "When Randi craps out," or, "When Randi stuffs it."

Although, come to think of it, Kramer? Can you ask Randi what he's going to do? Is he going to die, pass over, stuff it, crap out, snuff it, shed this mortal coil, ascend, descend, disassemble, unincorporate, deconstruct, dissolve...

[JPK]

Good afternoon ChrisH
Originally posted by ChrisH
'When he passes'? Isn't that an odd expression for a Critical Thinker to use? It implies knowledge of some destination, to which the 'spirit' will go...

Sorry to give that impression. I must be spending too much time disscussing death with people who believe in an afterlife. They tend to take offence when I use terms like wormfood. For the record, I do not have knowledge of any such destination or for the existance of a spirit to travel there.
JPK

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Beady
It's not as crass as "When Randi craps out," or, "When Randi stuffs it."

Although, come to think of it, Kramer? Can you ask Randi what he's going to do? Is he going to die, pass over, stuff it, crap out, snuff it, shed this mortal coil, ascend, descend, disassemble, unincorporate, deconstruct, dissolve...

He will be no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the JREF, 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-RANDI!!

No worries, though: He'll reincarnate as a Norwegian Blue. Beautiful plumage!

An' 'e's not dead, 'e's resting! Norwegian Blues stun easily, major.

[JPK]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
He will be no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the JREF, 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-RANDI!!

No worries, though: He'll reincarnate as a Norwegian Blue. Beautiful plumage!


An' 'e's not dead, 'e's resting! Norwegian Blues stun easily, major.
And I just thought he was pining for the fjords.

JPK

[psy kick]

I have no doubt the "so called psykicks:will claim they predicted his death. If they do it every day eventually one day they will be right and their deluded followers will stay deluded. He will be missed.

[jj]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
Let's hope Shermer doesn't get his grubby hands on it, otherwise he might decide that it's morally acceptable for him to spend it all (what with him being a moral nihilist and all). I'd hasard to think that Randi would be responsible enough to find someone with their head screwed on tighter.

Now that's a rather big mouthful.

I guess that somewhere, sometime, you've been handed your nose by Michael?

Btw, you are suggesting that he'd commit a crime. Do you really want to assert that? IF you do, I hope you have some nic,e solid evidence.

And, btw, I sorta doubt you have a bit.

[thaiboxerken]

I hope that Randi's successor will also be a magician. It's Randi's skills as a magician that makes his lectures entertaining and helps to demonstrate the point about paranormal feats being nothing more than tricks.

[rjh01]

How to clam the $1million
1. Persuade Randi to leave behind several phrases. If anyone can tell the world what they are after Randi dies they can claim the $1 million.
2. Persuade Randi to tell you what those phrases are.
3. Wait until Randi is dead
4. Prove that there is an after life by reporting what the phrases are.
5. Claim your $1 million.

By the way, Randi will never die; he will live forever in our hearts, or some such rubbish like that.

And CFLarsen you spell tail tale.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by rjh01
And CFLarsen you spell tail tale.

No, I have 12 fingers and a tail.

[Billy]

Firstly, like all of us (I am sure) I hope we won't need a successor to Randi for a good long time to come.

I haven't been following this group long enough to know all the different personalities mentioned. But I am familiar with some of Jamy Ian Swiss's reviews in Genii magazine. With his directness and zero tolerance of any BS in the magic community (yes there is some), one could almost begin to feel sorry for any woos he casts his critical eye on (only almost).

Maybe James could start auditioning, and give occasional guest commentaries as a try out.

[KRAMER]

Sounds like a real Randi successor to me.

Whoever it turns out to be, it should be a magician who doesn't mince words.

We want him to carry on Randi's tradition, right?

[CFLarsen]

Well, yes and no.

Yes, we would want that person to carry on Randi's tradition.

No, we wouldn't want that person to become Randi's successor.

Because, how can you be a successor to Randi? You can't! I don't mean to put people like Jamy down (unless he tries that trick with the wristwatch on me, in which case I will personally drape his intestines on the nearest crucifix), but - people, let's get real here.

You can't top Randi, and that's that.

I say, when Randi - oh, in a couple of hundred years or so - finally decides to become fertilizer for daffodils (or, probably, for nettles), let's let things happen. Things will have changed by then, and we'll adjust, precisely as science adjusts.

I'm not going to say that Randi's demise - in the year 2375, give or take - won't be a loss. But it won't be the end of the world, let alone skepticism.

[delphi_ote]

I know it's a real and practical thing to think about, but it just makes me sad to even think about losing another champion of skepticism and science... it just doesn't seem like a new generation is rising to take their place.

And dammit, nobody could dream of taking Randi's place.

[NoDeity]

I notice that people often refer to Randi as a former magician and that puzzles me because it seems likely to me that the only former magician is a dead one. The TV story to which he provided a link in the May 13 commentary also called him that. Does he simply not do any magic any more, are people who phrase it that way trying to turn him into a has-been or is there some other reason for it?

[Darat]

Originally posted by NoDeity
I notice that people often refer to Randi as a former magician and that puzzles me because it seems likely to me that the only former magician is a dead one. The TV story to which he provided a link in the May 13 commentary also called him that. Does he simply not do any magic any more, are people who phrase it that way trying to turn him into a has-been or is there some other reason for it?

Well I saw him do some magic just a few months ago so he still "does" magic. I think what it refers to is that his profession is no longer described as a "magician".

[Soapy Sam]

Is he dead then?

I vote we have him stuffed and mounted as a perpetual sceptical figurehead. We could carry him in procession every Hallow'een to scare away the ghoulies.

I reckon we should write the Vatican now to start the beatification process. All he has to do is perform a miracle.
His old mate Uri could help out with that. Better to get these things sorted while all the leading characters are still around to answer questions.

Just imagine a medium managing to summon an apparition of James Randi. Which would be the more upset, I wonder?

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by NoDeity
I notice that people often refer to Randi as a former magician and that puzzles me because it seems likely to me that the only former magician is a dead one. The TV story to which he provided a link in the May 13 commentary also called him that. Does he simply not do any magic any more, are people who phrase it that way trying to turn him into a has-been or is there some other reason for it?

I tend to refer to him as a "former stage magician."

[Belgian thought]

I could not comment on how things should develop following Mr Randi's demise in the US, but what I would really like to see is Darren Brown being offered and accepting the post of president for a newly created UK JREF.

True it would mean him having to turn his back on a successful career in magic, but his presidency would really help counteract the growing nonsense occurring in this country regarding therapies, belief systems, demonisation of science etc. and also perhaps help create a launch pad for JREF entry into the rest of Europe.

Darren Brown is now such a well known figure in the UK, and from what I have read has always maintained that his talent is based on trickery, makes a perfect choice. Imagine the coverage the JREF would get in the UK were he to go to the "dark" side of reason and logic!

[psy kick]

Originally posted by Darat
I think what it refers to is that his profession is no longer described as a "magician".
Parttime magician, full time curmudgeon.
;)

[EGarrett]

After watching Michael Shermer's evolution debate, I have to say that JREF would need a much more charismatic representative.

Penn and Teller might be a good choice, at least as a public face. They can give a presentation that is as funny as anyone, even if someone more informed is writing the speech.

[Jeff Wagg]

That's a very interesting observation. I just attended a conference with Mr. Shermer and spent some time with him setting things up, and I found him to be very likable.

On stage though, he doesn't have the presence of an entertainer as do Randi and Penn. He can handle himself well, but he's not focused on "the show." Of course, Randi and Penn piss people off, and I've never heard that said about Shermer.

So that's an interesting question: should the hypothetical Randi replacement be an entertainer? Anyone care to weigh in?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jeff Wagg
So that's an interesting question: should the hypothetical Randi replacement be an entertainer? Anyone care to weigh in?

Good question.

First and foremost: Someone with the knowledge and experience necessary. Second, it doesn't hurt if the person is media-savvy.

I think Shermer would be a very good choice: Not only because he already is a big name, he is not coming in from the boondocks. But also because he is not an entertainer, but has academic clout.

How often have we not heard "Oh, well, Randi is just a failed magician..."?

Shermer is quite entertaining as it is, though: Even though he usually does his presentations with a smile, he can certainly be sharp and direct as well.

[dann]

Dr Richard Wiseman started his working life as an award-winning professional magician and was one of the youngest members of The Magic Circle. He then obtained a first class honours degree in Psychology from University College London and a doctorate in psychology from the University of Edinburgh. He currently heads the Perrott-Warrick Research Unit at the University of Hertfordshire. Core funding for this Unit is provided by the Perrott-Warrick Fund, administered through Trinity College Cambridge.

Dr Wiseman's work has also been funded by many other organisations, including The Leverhulme Trust, The Wellcome Trust, COPUS, The British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS) and The Bial Foundation.

The University of Hertfordshire recently awarded Dr Wiseman Britain's first Readership in the Public Understanding of Psychology. In 2000 he was awarded The CSICOP Public Education In Science Award, and in 2002 Dr Wiseman received the Joseph Lister Award from the BAAS.

Dr Wiseman has established an international reputation for scientific research into the scientific examination of unusual areas within psychology. This work has been reported in over 40 academic journal articles, including those In Nature, Science and Psychological Bulletin. In addition, he has co-authored 6 books and presented over 50 papers at both national and international conferences.http://www.conference2020.org/wiseman.htm

[EGarrett]

Shermer was my first choice, as he's probably the second biggest "name" in skepticism. And we know he has the dedication to fight an endless series of liars.

In terms of administering the prize and writing web updates, Shermer would definitely be the man. But I just don't like him as a public representative. He's unconfident, shy, sounds rehearsed, and just can't enrapture people.

This isn't meant as a slight or insult to Shermer, as most people aren't great public speakers. But to be head of an organization like JREF, which is generally considered curmudgeonly, and is competing with all manner of heartwarming, captivating fantasies, you almost have to have someone that people will like despite themselves. Or at least want to listen to.

Randi is one of those people. He's brilliant, quick-witted, funny, experienced, and basically inexhaustible.

If you want evidence, even Winston Wu posted admitting that he spoke to Randi on the phone and really liked him. If you remember Winston, you'll know that Randi has some serious charisma.

That's why I'd still favor a stage performer. People like Penn and Teller can carry a TV show even when they're no longer saying anything useful (i.e. the latter seasons of ********).

Randi is unfortunately one-of-a-kind, but so was Houdini. Hopefully someone new will emerge.

[Beady]

Originally posted by EGarrett
That's why I'd still favor a stage performer. People like Penn and Teller can carry a TV show even when they're no longer saying anything useful (i.e. the latter seasons of

This may be a stupid question, but what about David Copperfield? On the surface he would seem like a natural possibility, but I don't recall that anyone has ever mentioned him. Is there a reason?

[EGarrett]

I never considered it because I never heard Copperfield express any kind of interest in skepticism.

I actually don't know much about his personality besides the few specials he's done, where he's always just hyping his latest illusion. He would be great though, in terms of name recognition.

[Jeff Wagg]

Copperfield said on an episode of P&T to "Leave him out of it."

I think that's a good idea.

[Minkster]

I'd like to see Derren Brown build himself up in this regard however it would probably be a gradual thing as - whilst being a skeptical of the paranormal, faith systems, conmen etc, he is still at the peak of his TV magician career and I don't think the two would be compatible at the moment. Certainly, in the future he has the charisma to carry it off.

I do like the Richard Wiseman idea though. I haven't seen that much of him, certainly not 'performing' however when I have seen his investigations they are generally entertaining and he has a good way of communicating his side of things (such as the edingburgh ghost study he recently did)....just seen this at http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,5500,1159475,00.html
about wiseman too. Certainly seems to fit the bill :

" "I did endless kids' parties and became a member of the Magic Circle by the age of 16." He left school after A-levels and made a living doing the rounds of the Covent Garden piazza, restaurants and clubs. After three years of this he had had enough: "It seemed an awfully tough way to make a living for the rest of my life." He decided to study psychology, realising that what interested him wasn't the magic itself so much as the art of persuading an audience to like the person who was deceiving it.

During his postgraduate years at Edinburgh, Wiseman spent a long time testing psychics - "there were the frauds, and those who genuinely believed they had paranormal powers, but no, I didn't find any evidence to support a belief in psychics" - before moving down to Hertfordshire.

It's here that Wiseman's career takes on its own hint of the paranormal. While most newly qualified academics are hunting around for even the humblest temporary contract, Wiseman almost immediately found himself heading up his own research team of six or seven. So why did the university take such an outrageous punt?

"I think it helped that I was given core funding by the Perrott-Warwick fund," he says. And now the tale gets stranger still, for Perrott and Warwick were two extremely wealthy spiritualists who, on their deaths in the 30s, left a bequest to be administered by Trinity College, Cambridge, for research into the paranormal.

So how does Wiseman think Perrot and Warwick would feel, knowing their money had gone to someone who's gone out of his way to debunk the paranormal? "Well," he replies,"if they are watching me from up there, then they'll know they were right and I was wrong. In which case, they only have to send me a message."

Wiseman knows some other academics get sniffy about his work, but he's not that bothered. "By definition, my work brings me into contact with a lot of people who academics don't generally mix with," he argues. "How else can you test the validity of claims made by those who believe in the paranormal other than engaging them in scientific experiments?"

It's clearly been a lot of fun along the way. He's worked with Derren Brown - "great magician, but no paranormalist" - as well as running into Indian gurus and West Coast psychics, not to mention ghost-hunting in Hampton Court Palace. And he's still not found any evidence of the paranormal.

"I've found plenty of evidence of unscientific approaches to data, but have never come across a paranormal experiment that can be replicated," he says.

Wiseman is no clairvoyant, but even he must reckon the future is looking rosy, with plenty more radio and TV appearances planned and a new book on spotting the opportunities others have missed - something he knows a thing or two about - due in September. "

[Beady]

Originally posted by Jeff Wagg
Copperfield said on an episode of P&T to "Leave him out of it."

I think that's a good idea.

Why?

I did go to Copperfield's web site, and it looks like his off-stage interest is in using magic as physical thereapy and rehabilitation. It's hard to complain about that.

[NoDeity]

Why, you ask? If he's not interested, that's a pretty good reason.

[Beady]

Originally posted by NoDeity
Why, you ask? If he's not interested, that's a pretty good reason.

I don't believe that's what Jeff meant.

[NoDeity]

What do you believe Jeff meant?

[Beady]

Originally posted by NoDeity
What do you believe Jeff meant?

Sounds to me like he doesn't like David Copperfield, for reasons of his own.

[NoDeity]

If he quotes Copperfield asking to be "left out of it", I'd take that as a pretty good indication that Copperfield is saying that he's not especially interested in being identified with skepticism.

Do you recall Copperfield ever having publicly publicly come out to support skepticism? If skepticism were something that Copperfield was interested in supporting, don't you think he would have said something about it by now? Of course, he could just be very shy and very private. If so, that's probably not the sort of person you'd want heading up something like the JREF anyway.

[Beady]

Originally posted by NoDeity
If he quotes Copperfield asking to be "left out of it", I'd take that as a pretty good indication that Copperfield is saying that he's not especially interested in being identified with skepticism.

Yes, but I get the feeling that there are reasons why Jeff is happy to agree.

Do you recall Copperfield ever having publicly publicly come out to support skepticism?

No, but then I've never considered my own state of knowledge to be a valid measure of something. That's why I asked the question. I also don't know why Jeff says Copperfield's non-interest is good; it seemed a curious remark, so I asked Jeff about it.

It just occurred to me to wonder why you are answering a question I addressed to Jeff. Do you know why he said what he did? How do you know, did Jeff tell you?

If skepticism were something that Copperfield was interested in supporting, don't you think he would have said something about it by now?

One of the inherent premises of skepticism and critical thinking is that assumptions are not a good thing; it's better to ak questions than to assume. It sounds like you are working from an assumption that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Frankly, I'd rather work from Jeff's assertion that Copperfield has actually said that he's not interested, than I would from your assumption that he has not said that he is. Jeff has provided an answer, you have provided an assumption as if it were an answer.

Of course, he could just be very shy and very private.

I'm really having trouble, trying to call up an image of a shy person claiming on a national forum that he can make the Statue of Liberty disappear.

[Jeff Wagg]

What a fascinating study in the inability of computer messages to convey sentiment. :)

Copperfield said what he said. I don't have an opinion of the man at all...I don't know much about him. I do find his magic overly flashy.

If he says "Leave me out of it" concerning a topic on P&T's BS show...I'm extending that to mean he's not interested and not qualified for the job of replacing Randi.

Randi would never say "Leave me out of it."

I've spent some time with Mr. Randi recently, and I've come to the conclusion that there can be no replacement for the man. The JREF could continue, but it would require several people to fill his shoes.

There are other people as smart as he is (not many), and there are other people as entertaining as he can be, and there are other people who understand the way people think as well as he does, but I don't think there is anyone who does all three as well as he does.

[NoDeity]

Originally posted by Beady
Yes, but I get the feeling that there are reasons why Jeff is happy to agree.

You "get a feeling"?

It just occurred to me to wonder why you are answering a question I addressed to Jeff. Do you know why he said what he did? How do you know, did Jeff tell you?
It appeared to me that the answer was self-evident in what Jeff posted and I decided to point that out to you.

One of the inherent premises of skepticism and critical thinking is that assumptions are not a good thing; it's better to ak questions than to assume. It sounds like you are working from an assumption that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
In some cases -- not necessarily this one -- absence of evidence is evidence of absence. My assumption is that if skeptical inquiry is something that is very important to Copperfield, it is likely that he would have spoken out about it by now, unless he just is not the sort of person who prefers not to speak publicly about things that are very important to him. You are correct in pointing out that it's just an assumption but I think it's a pretty good assumption. Besides, if one were looking for someone to lead or even just be a figurehead for a skeptical organization, one should not, I think, choose someone who is not already outspoken in supporting skepticism.

I'm really having trouble, trying to call up an image of a shy person claiming on a national forum that he can make the Statue of Liberty disappear.
Your difficulty in calling up an image -- personal incredulity -- isn't evidence, though, is it? ;) Some show biz people are just as dynamic and flamboyant off stage as on while others are "on" when they're in the spotlight but prefer to quietly keep to themselves otherwise.

[Minkster]

This stuff about Copperfield is ridiculous.

I saw it as a joke insert - that may or may not have even been recorded for the P&T show.

I certainly don't think you can read ANYTHING else into it, certainly not his views on skepticism.

[Beady]

Originally posted by Minkster
I certainly don't think you can read ANYTHING else into it, certainly not his views on skepticism.

I thought of going to the horse's mouth, but the forum on his web site is rather discouraging. Among other things, it really doesn't seem set up for much more than as a place for his fans to gush. Well, he *is* actively performing. As I said earlier, elsewhere on his site he indicates that his off-stage interest is in teaching the use of magic as a form of physical therapy.

Anyway, thanks for the answer and the clarification, Jeff. I have no idea why it raised the side-issues that it did. It seemd simple enough when I asked.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by NoDeity
Some show biz people are just as dynamic and flamboyant off stage as on while others are "on" when they're in the spotlight but prefer to quietly keep to themselves otherwise. Case in point....

One of Australia's best known and best loved comedians died a few days ago at the age of 71. In his heyday, he was a household name. He had a weekly television show that was never topped in the ratings for all the years that it ran. He was outrageous. He was loud. He was irreverently funny. It seemed the world was at his feet.

Off screen he was almost painfully shy and he never married. Just before going on air, he would get so nervous he would vomit. In his later life, he became almost a recluse. However, the few people who got to know him well said he was a very pleasant, interesting, and likeable man.

The public persona was very different from the private man.

BJ