Graham Watkins calls James Randi a fraud. Dragon*Con [Archive]

fls

30th September 2007, 06:03 AM

I just finished listening to the whole thing. Fortunately for Watkins, his claim came at the end of the show, so there really wasn't an opportunity to call him on it.

It was enjoyable to hear reasoned and intelligent believers, although I don't think their proposition that the skeptics are cynics really got the traction they hoped for. It was shown to be a strawman, and they didn't counteract or address that point. Otherwise both sides were essentially saying the same thing.

Linda

DangerousBeliefs

30th September 2007, 07:46 AM

But.... Randi is a fraud. In fact, used to be a professional fraud. What's the big whop?

Lisa Simpson

30th September 2007, 07:49 AM

But.... Randi is a fraud. In fact, used to be a professional fraud. What's the big whop?

Well, he's not a professional fraud anymore.

DangerousBeliefs

30th September 2007, 01:10 PM

Well, he's not a professional fraud anymore.

I'd pay to watch him perform. :D

steve s

30th September 2007, 01:59 PM

I didn't view the video since I'm on a pokey dial-up. But how can he call Randi a fraud when Randi isn't claiming to have any paranormal powers? If Randi is claiming to be normal, and that's fraudulent, does that mean he's really psychic?

Steve S.

shemp

30th September 2007, 02:15 PM

Well, he's not a professional fraud anymore.

So, you're saying he's an amateur fraud? Has he regained his amateur status? Will he be competing in the 100-Meter Fraud in the 2008 Olympics?

DRBUZZ0

30th September 2007, 08:37 PM

But.... Randi is a fraud. In fact, used to be a professional fraud. What's the big whop?

Randi was never a fraud. There's nothing fraudulent about standing in front of people and making things appear to happen which in fact are not and creating illusions. As long as you don't lie about that being what you are doing.

You can ask Penn and Teller or Banacheck or Swiss if they actually do anything supernatural and they have the integrity to tell you that they don't. There's no actual magic in the "magic arts." That's not to detract from the validity of the illusions though. They're both entertaining and can show some rather counter-intuitive aspects of the human condition.

ponderingturtle

1st October 2007, 07:55 AM

Randi was never a fraud. There's nothing fraudulent about standing in front of people and making things appear to happen which in fact are not and creating illusions. As long as you don't lie about that being what you are doing.

You can ask Penn and Teller or Banacheck or Swiss if they actually do anything supernatural and they have the integrity to tell you that they don't. There's no actual magic in the "magic arts." That's not to detract from the validity of the illusions though. They're both entertaining and can show some rather counter-intuitive aspects of the human condition.

Some of this depends on the exact nature of what a fraud is. He was involved with people who intentionally deceived people into thinking that they had psychic powers, but the deception was intended to be temporary.

You can debate if this is or is not fraud but it could well fit.

DRBUZZ0

1st October 2007, 02:42 PM

Some of this depends on the exact nature of what a fraud is. He was involved with people who intentionally deceived people into thinking that they had psychic powers, but the deception was intended to be temporary.

You can debate if this is or is not fraud but it could well fit.

And his motive for this was what? To take people's money from them under false pretense and thus expand his property and leisure with ill-earned money?

Or was it to get the attention of people who might not believe that they could be tricked and obviously could not be tricked in the same manner if they were in on it?

RSLancastr

1st October 2007, 02:47 PM

And his motive for this was what? To take people's money from them under false pretense and thus expand his property and leisure with ill-earned money?

Or was it to get the attention of people who might not believe that they could be tricked and obviously could not be tricked in the same manner if they were in on it?Doc, I think that Dangerous Beliefs' post was meant humorously, and not as a defense of Graham Watkins' attack on Mr. Randi.

Wowbagger

1st October 2007, 02:57 PM

Is there any more of that recording?

Towards the end of the panel, I asked Graham Watkins and the other woo guy (I forget his name, but he was from Court TV), why they can't "separate their signal from the noise". And, I think Graham's response was something to the effect that they don't have enough funding. :rolleyes:

I also managed to "interrogate" Watkins with some more questions, after the debate, which I caught on camera. At one point, he claimed there could be "engineering applications" coming out of his study of psychics. Which I thought was rather "interesting".

I sent Jeff a copy of that "interrogation". I might place it up on YouTube, or something later.

ETA: Another Watkins highlight, worth mentioning, is that during the debate, he also claimed that the evidence for spirits is actually stronger than our evidence for light. Which, to me, seemed rather backwards. But, whatever.

ETA2: Gaahh!! Silly me! When I first wrote the above, I only clicked on the short clip. I totally forgot about the blog entry, which has a longer recording. I am listening to it now.
And, I also learned, from the blog, that the "other woo's" name was Patrick Burns.

Wowbagger

1st October 2007, 06:06 PM

For those interested, I wish to submit the following highlights, from the hour-long audio clip of the whole debate, posted on the blog:

20:45 – Someone asks how much our own beliefs influence what we see in “ghost” photos.
21:57 – Watkins answer takes this rather more literally than would be considered sane. He wants to know how much ghosts can actually effect the CCDs in digital cameras! He then goes on talking about a time when he heard all sorts of weird noises in a house, which did not get picked up on his audio recording equipment, and he cites that as something that could indicate mysterous powers, or something.

37:05 – Shermer makes a comment about there being billions of people who have died, and asks why we do not detect billions of ghosts.
37:47 – Watkins makes a comment that we should not believe in the theories of light, if that is going to be your attitude.

49:07 – My question. I stutter too much, but you can make it out. I inform Watkins that we can measure light with ever greater precision, and yet ghosts are only detected when there is less and less precision. Then I ask them how do you separate the signal from the noise?
Watkins answers by claiming he does not have enough funding.

54:20 – Watkins comments that James Randi is a fraud. Jeff Wagg can be heard, in the background, shouting a couple of obscenities.

ponderingturtle

2nd October 2007, 09:58 AM

And his motive for this was what? To take people's money from them under false pretense and thus expand his property and leisure with ill-earned money?

Or was it to get the attention of people who might not believe that they could be tricked and obviously could not be tricked in the same manner if they were in on it?

Does a fraud need to have economic benefit to be of classed as a fraud?

sthomson

2nd October 2007, 10:15 AM

Does a fraud need to have economic benefit to be of classed as a fraud?

Let's ask google to define fraud. (http://www.google.com/search?q=define:fraud)

"intentional deception resulting in injury to another person"

"In the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain, although it has a more specific legal meaning,"

"An intentional perversion of truth; deceitful practice or device resorted to with intent to deprive another of property or other right."

"The act of leading a person to believe something which you know to be false in a situation where you know the person will rely on that thing to their detriment."

Tressa

2nd October 2007, 05:09 PM

He better not be a fraud; I just mailed out $50 to join JREF today! :)

Going by the definitions sthompson posted, Randi is not a fraud.

Wowbagger

2nd October 2007, 05:22 PM

Randi is NOT a frog! He is a human being!!

DRBUZZ0

2nd October 2007, 06:38 PM

Does a fraud need to have economic benefit to be of classed as a fraud?

Fraud would tend to imply economic benefit or attempted economic benefit or at the very least malintent.

But in any case, I suppose the fact that Randi is a fraud is born out by all the times which he as assumed that some paranormal event or alternative and far fetched claim was untrue and either a lie, illusion or mistaken identification of a known and explainable phenomena and then end up being proven completely wrong and having to eat crow when it's shown that it was indeed what was claimed.

How many is that now?

By my count I'm at zero.

Slimething

2nd October 2007, 10:49 PM

Randi is NOT a frog! He is a human being!!

Maybe if he'd stop wearing that burlap sack on his head? ;)

I believe that what watkins was alluding to is that old chestnut that Randi is offering money he doesn't have and the MDC is rigged. And..good for Jeff Wagg!

CFLarsen

3rd October 2007, 12:52 AM

49:07 – My question. I stutter too much, but you can make it out. I inform Watkins that we can measure light with ever greater precision, and yet ghosts are only detected when there is less and less precision. Then I ask them how do you separate the signal from the noise?
Watkins answers by claiming he does not have enough funding.

*ding*

How does he even know that there is a signal in the noise, if he isn't able to distinguish between signal and noise?

Wowbagger

3rd October 2007, 07:13 AM

How does he even know that there is a signal in the noise, if he isn't able to distinguish between signal and noise? Which is precisely the problem his answer seems to demonstrates. Instead of explaining various methods that could strengthen his "signal", he merely suggests that the signal is weak, because he doesn't get enough funding to do more "studies".

In a follow-up question I asked, after the debate: If he did have all the funding he could ever want, what would he buy? His answer was, essetially more-of-the-same. Just more equipment to do the same level of "study", in many more places; (as opposed to buying stuff that would actually improve his results.) And, he hopes a theory could be devised out of just that.

I have this follow-up on video tape. I will eventually get it on the Internet.

ponderingturtle

3rd October 2007, 07:20 AM

Let's ask google to define fraud. (http://www.google.com/search?q=define:fraud)

"intentional deception resulting in injury to another person"

And the parapsychologists he helped fool where not injured? All the people who believed in Carlos where not in some way injured?

They might well class his deception as personally injurious.

I am not saying I would necessarily call him a fraud, but I can see that it is not an entirely inappropriate application of the term.

sthomson

3rd October 2007, 09:07 AM

They might well class his deception as personally injurious.

I am not saying I would necessarily call him a fraud, but I can see that it is not an entirely inappropriate application of the term.

It depends if we're talking about a court of law or the court of public opinion.

DRBUZZ0

3rd October 2007, 10:39 AM

It depends if we're talking about a court of law or the court of public opinion.

The court of public opinion has less to do with what is than what is thought to be. Someone considered something in the court of public opinion does not mean that they are. There are plenty of people who don't "believe in" evolution or think something else that isn't actually factually-based or even remotely accurate.

Anyone who actually does any research about Randi's work or knows the first thing about him knows what he stands for and what the whole skeptic movement is about.

Then again, if you believe in the paranormal very strongly and cannot give up that belief, then the only conclusion you can come to is Randi is lying. Sad, really.

But I fail to see how anyone could look at Randi's history objectively and see him as being dishonest or looking to cash in on lying about stuff that is infact true.

ponderingturtle

3rd October 2007, 12:21 PM

The court of public opinion has less to do with what is than what is thought to be. Someone considered something in the court of public opinion does not mean that they are. There are plenty of people who don't "believe in" evolution or think something else that isn't actually factually-based or even remotely accurate.

Anyone who actually does any research about Randi's work or knows the first thing about him knows what he stands for and what the whole skeptic movement is about.

Then again, if you believe in the paranormal very strongly and cannot give up that belief, then the only conclusion you can come to is Randi is lying. Sad, really.

But I fail to see how anyone could look at Randi's history objectively and see him as being dishonest or looking to cash in on lying about stuff that is infact true.

The point is that Randi has been involved with some less than totally honest endeavors, or at least ones that where intentionally temporarily dishonest.

Darat

3rd October 2007, 12:38 PM

The point is that Randi has been involved with some less than totally honest endeavors, or at least ones that where intentionally temporarily dishonest.

Which ones?

sthomson

3rd October 2007, 12:41 PM

The court of public opinion has less to do with what is than what is thought to be.

I'll be more clear. What I meant to say was that, if anyone would like to try Randi in a court of law for fraud, they would in general have to prove that he injured them in some real, quantifiable way - that he claimed to be a healer, took their money, and then poisoned them. In that case, Randi could be tried as a fraud because the victims lost money and their good health.

But if Randi pretends to be psychic for awhile, then at the end of the show says, "Oh, I'm not a psychic - see, if I can do it anyone can," then he hasn't materially injured any of the victims. They could argue that they were mentally disturbed, I suppose. Alternately, real psychics could sue him for libel, if they can prove that they ARE psychics.

People could call him a fraud for advertising that he was giving $1,000,000 for proof of a supernatural event, if he never intended on giving out the money. However, it would be difficult to prove in court, as someone would have to show that they demonstrated a supernatural event in a controlled environment without getting the million bucks.

ponderingturtle

3rd October 2007, 12:44 PM

Which ones?

I was thinking specificaly about Carlos which I believe he was somewhat involved with, as well as Project Alpha with Banacheck and Mike Edwards.

I can see these events as haveing good arguements for them being called frauds.

ponderingturtle

3rd October 2007, 12:47 PM

I'll be more clear. What I meant to say was that, if anyone would like to try Randi in a court of law for fraud, they would in general have to prove that he injured them in some real, quantifiable way - that he claimed to be a healer, took their money, and then poisoned them. In that case, Randi could be tried as a fraud because the victims lost money and their good health.

But if Randi pretends to be psychic for awhile, then at the end of the show says, "Oh, I'm not a psychic - see, if I can do it anyone can," then he hasn't materially injured any of the victims. They could argue that they were mentally disturbed, I suppose. Alternately, real psychics could sue him for libel, if they can prove that they ARE psychics.

People could call him a fraud for advertising that he was giving $1,000,000 for proof of a supernatural event, if he never intended on giving out the money. However, it would be difficult to prove in court, as someone would have to show that they demonstrated a supernatural event in a controlled environment without getting the million bucks.

Did John Edward ever do personal readings where he charged? If it was just his TV show, and he did not charge for admitance, would that mean that he was not a fraud?

Darat

3rd October 2007, 12:49 PM

I was thinking specificaly about Carlos which I believe he was somewhat involved with, as well as Project Alpha with Banacheck and Mike Edwards.

I can see these events as haveing good arguements for them being called frauds.

But I thought all of these were instructed to answer truthfully if they were asked if they were faking their abilities and so on?

DRBUZZ0

3rd October 2007, 12:55 PM

I was thinking specificaly about Carlos which I believe he was somewhat involved with, as well as Project Alpha with Banacheck and Mike Edwards.

I can see these events as haveing good arguements for them being called frauds.

If you want to call those "frauds" then I think there are a lot of investigative reporters and undercover cops and sting-operation investigators who are in trouble.

Randi has done things like that to get attention to important issues, while never having any sort of intent to cause harm to the public or in any way gain or allow the "fraud" to be perpetuated.

Actually, it's an effective and sometimes the *only* way to show a real fraud by demonstrating how easily it is done.

The same is done in all manner of consumer-awareness and undercover operations and also studies of public trends and such.

I see no reason why this should be considered fraud. If you're in a school and the fire alarm goes off, then you leave and see an adminstrator say "That wasn't a real fire; just a surprise drill. You're lucky too, because you didn't come out nearly as fast as you should have. I hope this shows you that you ought to know where the exits are"

Is that an act of fraud? There is some deception there, right?

DRBUZZ0

3rd October 2007, 12:56 PM

People could call him a fraud for advertising that he was giving $1,000,000 for proof of a supernatural event, if he never intended on giving out the money. However, it would be difficult to prove in court, as someone would have to show that they demonstrated a supernatural event in a controlled environment without getting the million bucks.

replace "intended to give out the money" with "thinks he'll ever actually find someone who qualifies"

Those are different things.

RSLancastr

3rd October 2007, 01:05 PM

Did John Edward ever do personal readings where he charged?
Yes, he did. And he still charges people to attend his lectures, in which he performs "readings."

Archangel

3rd October 2007, 03:02 PM

Yes, he did. And he still charges people to attend his lectures, in which he performs "readings."

I believe PonderingTurtles point was (please correct me if I'm wrong) that by DRBUZZOs saying that Fraud requires the separation of money/property from the victim, IF John Edwards had never charged someone for a reading (only doing the television show for no money) would John Edwards be any less of a fraud?

For the record, I don't think that Randi should be classed as a fraud for the Carlos/Project Alpha set ups, assuming that if they'd been asked if they're faking it they would have said "yes", the same way that Derren Browns "Messiah" show could not be classed as a fraud for doing the same thing.

DRBUZZ0

3rd October 2007, 04:10 PM

I believe PonderingTurtles point was (please correct me if I'm wrong) that by DRBUZZOs saying that Fraud requires the separation of money/property from the victim, IF John Edwards had never charged someone for a reading (only doing the television show for no money) would John Edwards be any less of a fraud?

No. Because John Edward uses it to promote his show thereby getting ratings and by that means getting paid. But that's not the point at all. If John Edward were to come out at the end of the show and say it was all fake and "let this be a lesson to you before you pay someone..."

That would be fine but he could also only get away with that once.... maybe twice or so.. But he could not do a show every week like that.

To say someone is a "fraud" implies that they personally embody the fraud mentality or make their living fraudulently or are not what they claim to be.

It's a strawman and furthermore it's stupid. It's beyond stupid it's a completely irrelevant and idiotic notion.

Harry Houdini went undercover to expose scams and scammers or proported to be someone different than he was. In india, there are doctors who do stunts for villagers and then show they are stunts to help prevent them from falling for traveling quacks who are a major problem there. There are investigative journalists, law enforcement and private investigators who also misrpresent themselves to root out fraud.

It's no different. I've never heard someone called a fraud for temporarily misrepresenting something within the context of demonstrating something.

At worst you could call him a "prankster" or "hoaxer" but nothing more.

ponderingturtle

4th October 2007, 07:57 AM

But I thought all of these were instructed to answer truthfully if they were asked if they were faking their abilities and so on?

Project alpha I beleive so, I don't know if Carlos did that or not.

It seems like a pretty small fig leaf to hide behind, how many people ask "Are you a fraud", they applied to be in paranormal tests.

ponderingturtle

4th October 2007, 08:01 AM

If you want to call those "frauds" then I think there are a lot of investigative reporters and undercover cops and sting-operation investigators who are in trouble.

I am not calling Randi a fraud, I am saying I can see arguments for the application of the term having justification.

And those actions are less than entirely honest. The difference is when you decide that the principle is more important than being entirely honest.

But, would you class someone who had a TV show about talking to the dead with a disclaimer that it was for entertainment purposes only a fraud even if they never take a dime from the individuals getting the reading?

I think everyone here would call such a person a fraud.

ponderingturtle

4th October 2007, 08:05 AM

Tricky

4th October 2007, 08:28 AM

I was thinking specificaly about Carlos which I believe he was somewhat involved with, as well as Project Alpha with Banacheck and Mike Edwards.

I can see these events as haveing good arguements for them being called frauds.
As I recall, one of the big hints that Carlos was a hoax was that he didn't charge for anything. His performances were free. He sold crystals and tea at the performances, but didn't actually accept money. He only took information. The would-be purchasers were later informed of the hoax. He was quite careful not to do anything that could get him charged with fraud.

Here's the Australian report of him.
tHLdUxcL-BA

Archangel

4th October 2007, 03:03 PM

No. Because John Edward uses it to promote his show thereby getting ratings and by that means getting paid. But that's not the point at all. If John Edward were to come out at the end of the show and say it was all fake and "let this be a lesson to you before you pay someone..."

That would be fine but he could also only get away with that once.... maybe twice or so.. But he could not do a show every week like that.

Yet Magicians get away with doing a show like that every week, or even daily in the case of Siegfried and Roy :p ;)

Seriously though, I was talking about a totally hypothetical example, in a case where John Edward does his act successfully (ie draws in an audience) each week, but he accepts absolutely no money at all for doing it, so no advertisers dollars, no wages and no money for the readings themselves, does this make him any less of a fraud?

We've now separated the monetary component from Edwards doing his act, but IMO this doesnt make him any less fraudulent in his claims, although from reading your last line this would make him a "hoaxer or a prankster at worst".

I guess the problem I have with this is that I've always seen Hoaxer and Fraudster as synonyms and Dictionary.com seems to agree with me:

fraud /frɔd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[frawd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1300–50; ME fraude < OF < ML fraud- (s. of fraus) deceit, injury]

—Related forms
fraudful, adjective
fraud·ful·ly, adverb

—Synonyms 1. See deceit. 3. wile, hoax.

So the question becomes, does someone performing a hoax automatically become a fraudster?

To which I have to reply, yes and no as it depends on the intent behind the hoax, and to be honest I'm not sure I could put a decent definition of what sort of intent would separate the two options.

fagin

4th October 2007, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
fraud /frɔd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[frawd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1300–50; ME fraude < OF < ML fraud- (s. of fraus) deceit, injury]

—Related forms
fraudful, adjective
fraud·ful·ly, adverb

—Synonyms 1. See deceit. 3. wile, hoax.
So the question becomes, does someone performing a hoax automatically become a fraudster?

There is still a subtle difference between the words. A fraud will generally include a hoax, which means to fool someone, but a hoax does not necessarily include fraud.

CLD

4th October 2007, 04:02 PM

Graham Watkins goes on record (256kbit MP3) to accuse James Randi of being a fraud.

http://foo.ca/dcon2007/dcon-fraud-256.mp3

I watched the Quicktime movie of the debate. The impression I got was that Watkins outburst stating that Randi was a fraud was consistent with typical knee-jerk reaction of someone who passionately believes in the existence of the paranormal. Since the MDC has so far gone unawarded, they feel it must be unfairly rigged.

Wowbagger

4th October 2007, 05:46 PM

I watched the Quicktime movie of the debate. The impression I got was that Watkins outburst stating that Randi was a fraud was consistent with typical knee-jerk reaction of someone who passionately believes in the existence of the paranormal. Since the MDC has so far gone unawarded, they feel it must be unfairly rigged.
I was there. I did get the same impression, in fact.

Where is the Quicktime movie located?

DRBUZZ0

4th October 2007, 05:57 PM

Yet Magicians get away with doing a show like that every week, or even daily in the case of Siegfried and Roy :p ;)

Seriously though, I was talking about a totally hypothetical example, in a case where John Edward does his act successfully (ie draws in an audience) each week, but he accepts absolutely no money at all for doing it, so no advertisers dollars, no wages and no money for the readings themselves, does this make him any less of a fraud?

We've now separated the monetary component from Edwards doing his act, but IMO this doesnt make him any less fraudulent in his claims, although from reading your last line this would make him a "hoaxer or a prankster at worst".

Edwards has to have people believe that he actually can talk to dead people. The same with Geller saying he has powers. You have to actually be *really* *really* good to get people to watch you over and over, knowing that you're not really doing magic.

Jamy Ian Swiss is pretty amazing with a few of the illusions. And Banacheck of course. They're interesting and stimulating eventhough you know that they are not actually doing anything magic. That is part of it... the amazement that such realistic and convincing tricks can be done using only simple principals and illusions.

On the other hand, Geller... isn't that good. I mean come on. Would you pay to see an illusionist who gets up and says "Now watch me bend a spoon. See? it really kinda looks like I am bending it with my mind. And for my second illusion, I shall move a compass. Now look at that... it looks kinda like I'm doing it with magic.. Now who wants to see me bend a fork???"

Same with John Edward and his coldreading. He's not even all that good at it!