Who shall inherit the crown after Randi?

[Ron_Tomkins]

This is the thing:

James Randi isn't getting any younger. Time goes by and no one has passed the preliminary tests of the Million Dollar Challenge. If Randi happened to pass away before someone won the prize, would he have a follower? Someone who will take the Baton of the Million Dollar Challenge?

It seems like Criss Angel wants that place, after what he did in the show Phenomena.

[volatile]

I'd prefer Penn Jillette or Derren Brown over Angel any day of the week. Angel has done very little in the service of scepticism, and it seems he's riding a bandwagon.

Hell, I'd like to see Chris Hitchens take over for a while, if only for the bunfights.

[Lisa Simpson]

My guess? Michael Shermer.

[tkingdoll]

My guess is no-one. Or maybe someone for a while, but the challenge isn't where the future of skepticism is at anyway. I think without Randi it will lose personality, what little momentum it has left, if any, and then fade into nothing.

Also, it takes a very skilled magician to know all of the ruses that potential challengers may use. I'm not sure Shermer has the knowledge...?

[Ron_Tomkins]

I'd prefer Penn Jillette or Derren Brown over Angel any day of the week. Angel has done very little in the service of scepticism, and it seems he's riding a bandwagon.

Hell, I'd like to see Chris Hitchens take over for a while, if only for the bunfights.



Yes, that's exactly that came to my mind a couple minutes after posting the topic: Penn Jilette would be a perfect candidate for that.

[Foolmewunz]

AAA. Shouldn't this be moved to the JREF section?

Banacek's name comes up quite often.
Penn would be great.
Shermer's not a conjurer, and I agree you'd need a conjurer or someone intimately familiar with the art of same. (ditto Hitchens)
Angel's doing a lot, lately, but he's got all those crosses on chains and that's got to be a concern to those of us with atheist or non-theist leanings.

I'm not sure that the James Randi Educational Foundation will really be able to function without the founder. Would Banacek or Penn or Criss have the humility to take on an organization named after someone else? Would Criss or Penn be willing to give up fat portions of their fairly lucrative and busy careers?

[skullerello]

Penn Gillette. Somebody that's going to keep those legions of woos on their toes.

[TX50]

Uri Geller? :D

[skullerello]

What are we saying; leave it to Jeff Wagg!

[skullerello]

Jeff, are you up to it?!

[Apology]

Someone will be appointed to head the JREF in Randi's absence of course. However, I don't think anyone else will ever be able to fill his shoes. James Randi was alone in stating his skepticism when he started. The fact that we're debating so many different candidates suggests that whoever becomes the new face of skepticism will not be as iconic as James Randi.

[skullerello]

Well, that goes without saying...

[Foolmewunz]

Someone will be appointed to head the JREF in Randi's absence of course. However, I don't think anyone else will ever be able to fill his shoes. James Randi was alone in stating his skepticism when he started. The fact that we're debating so many different candidates suggests that whoever becomes the new face of skepticism will not be as iconic as James Randi.

A new "face" could become as iconic, but it would take considerable teaming and working together starting asap. That's why I wonder that a big name would be willing to give up the time from his career. But if Penn, (say,... could be anyone already named or not yet named) was to start taking on some of the challengers... or do some guest columns for The Amazing One, it'd be a start.

It should be someone who is perceived to be already associated with and participating in the JREF.

[Complexity]

Whoever earns it.

[TX50]

R.S. Lancaster. He already has the beard and "hairstyle".

[Wolfman]

We could have a TV Reality show to decide his successor! We could call it..."The Successor"! We could either do an Apprentice-style show before James Randi dies, and let him choose the candidate he feels is best suited; or else do a Survivor-style show after he dies, where candidates have to face a series of difficult tasks and situations, getting eliminated until there's only one left.

[Zygar]

Don't we mean the torch?

[Ron_Tomkins]

We could have a TV Reality show to decide his successor! We could call it..."The Successor"! We could either do an Apprentice-style show before James Randi dies, and let him choose the candidate he feels is best suited; or else do a Survivor-style show after he dies, where candidates have to face a series of difficult tasks and situations, getting eliminated until there's only one left.




Hehehe, while that sounds good, I think maybe it would be a little bit too sensacionalist... or maybe not. Either way, we'll have to see.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Don't we mean the torch?



Hmmmm, come think of it a torch might look nicer, yes.

[Wolfman]

Don't we mean the torch?
How about a crown with a torch on top?

[ravdin]

Hey! Randi's body isn't even cold yet.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Hey! Randi's body isn't even cold yet.


lol!. It's not like we're rushing the process here. Just trying to be prepared for when it happens.

[RemieV]

I think Banachek would make an excellent skeptical leader.

[CFLarsen]

I think Banachek would make an excellent skeptical leader.

(pokes RemieV)

We should have leads. Not leaders.

[Zygar]

I think Banachek would make an excellent skeptical leader.

I somewhat agree. And I've suggested him in the past. But I worry that he might be too kind for the job. Although perhaps that is a plus. I just don't know.

[genesplicer]

Naah, Randi's going to take it all with him to the afterlife!

[athon]

My guess is no-one. Or maybe someone for a while, but the challenge isn't where the future of skepticism is at anyway. I think without Randi it will lose personality, what little momentum it has left, if any, and then fade into nothing.

Also, it takes a very skilled magician to know all of the ruses that potential challengers may use. I'm not sure Shermer has the knowledge...?

I agree to a point. The JREF, as it is now, will be very different. I see it going one of two ways - it will either adopt a figure who has a public image currently, who will endeavour to continue to promote the JREF publically using their contacts and profile. Or a person without a current public profile will take the reigns. Either way there will be massive changes.

The MDC will, IMO, remain, and I see TAMs staying on for some time as well. These being the two biggest public icons of the JREF outside of Randi himself will continue to be useful, I feel. While Randi might know the magician's art of trickery, Randi himself isn't even a one-man authority. He regularly asks advisors on how to approach challenges. So long as the current JREF authority has access to such advisors it matters little if they personally possess the knowledge, or if they know who to ask for advice on it.

Athon

[Creekfreak]

Ill do it Ive even got my own tiki torch I bought at the dollor store for 50 cent .

[LogicallyInsane]

Penn would be the most obvious choice.
Penn and Tellers long standing friendship with Randi aside, They are experienced tricksters just as Randi. They also freely reveal their secrets as trickery.

They have often cited Randi and Houdini as their inspiration for magic and scepticism.

This entire debate is somewhat pointless because everyone knows James Randi is secretly immortal. His videos dating back decades show no real ageing at all. Perhaps its all the homeopathic remedies he swallows in demonstrations to prove their worthlessness.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Ill do it Ive even got my own tiki torch I bought at the dollor store for 50 cent .



Perhaps Bigfoot would make an even better leader.

[tkingdoll]

Penn would be the most obvious choice.


If Penn wants to take over the MDC I'll eat my juggling balls :D

[UnrepentantSinner]

Angel's doing a lot, lately, but he's got all those crosses on chains and that's got to be a concern to those of us with atheist or non-theist leanings.

Why should that matter? JREF isn't an atheist organization.

To the OP:
I think JREF can continue even after Randi leaves us, we still have a Nobel Prize committee after all.

Hal Bidlack, Banachek and Michael Shermer would all be great choices and would keep the spirit and purpose of the foundation and the Million Dollar Challenge alive. I'm going to disagree with a lot of you advocating Penn. He's brilliant and dedicated to the cause but I think he can be too abrasive. This is an educational foundation and sometimes a lot of tact is required which is why I've chosen the three I've suggested.

[Foolmewunz]

Why should that matter? JREF isn't an atheist organization.

I meant the "us" to be the personal pronoun, e.g. why I'm not sure I'd be totally comfortable with him, personally. I didn't mean the "us" to refer to the JREF (as I'm not a member, just a forumite). In short, a personal opinion. I s'pose I shudda said, "to me".



To the OP:
I think JREF can continue even after Randi leaves us, we still have a Nobel Prize committee after all.

Hal Bidlack, Banachek and Michael Shermer would all be great choices and would keep the spirit and purpose of the foundation and the Million Dollar Challenge alive. I'm going to disagree with a lot of you advocating Penn. He's brilliant and dedicated to the cause but I think he can be too abrasive. This is an educational foundation and sometimes a lot of tact is required which is why I've chosen the three I've suggested.

I agree on Penn's abrasiveness, but I think Randi's been criticized for the same failing, on occasion. I haven't done the TAMs... Is that his full-time persona, or stage mask?

But I do like your three choices, although I think that of them only Banachek could get the crossover to mainstream/entertainment that Randi gets. (Well, except that Hal's a Hamilton guy and I'm a Burr guy...)

[UnrepentantSinner]

I meant the "us" to be the personal pronoun, e.g. why I'm not sure I'd be totally comfortable with him, personally. I didn't mean the "us" to refer to the JREF (as I'm not a member, just a forumite). In short, a personal opinion. I s'pose I shudda said, "to me".
I forget the code for the big crazy smilie otherwise I'd use it here.

I agree on Penn's abrasiveness, but I think Randi's been criticized for the same failing, on occasion. I haven't done the TAMs... Is that his full-time persona, or stage mask?

He's very smart, funny well spoken (see if you can catch some clips of him on Glen Beck the other night) but I can't forget his comments to the UU woman at TAM3.

But I do like your three choices, although I think that of them only Banachek could get the crossover to mainstream/entertainment that Randi gets. (Well, except that Hal's a Hamilton guy and I'm a Burr guy...)

Therein lies the question - does the Foundation try and get a high profile persona or more of an administrative leader known within the skeptical community (such as it is)? Perhaps the best course might be a triumverate.

[Tressa]

I think it might take more than one person. Penn & Teller for their magical knowledge and name, Michael Shermer for his knowledge and name, and Jeff Wagg to keep it all together.

What did Penn say to the UU women at TAM3?

[Smiledriver]

When the time comes, God forbid (yeah I know the G word you'll get over it) I know Jeff Wagg will do more than great. I was priviledged to meet him this year.

[The Atheist]

My guess is no-one. Or maybe someone for a while, but the challenge isn't where the future of skepticism is at anyway. I think without Randi it will lose personality, what little momentum it has left, if any, and then fade into nothing.

Also, it takes a very skilled magician to know all of the ruses that potential challengers may use. I'm not sure Shermer has the knowledge...?

You been reading my e mails?

In fact this whole thread looks like one of my Outlook folders...

When the time comes, God forbid (yeah I know the G word you'll get over it) I know Jeff Wagg will do more than great. I was priviledged to meet him this year.

Methinks you forgot about 45 smilies on that post.

R.S. Lancaster. He already has the beard and "hairstyle".

Now that's clever.

Me supporting it will kill the idea quickly enough, but it's actually brilliant. I don't know whether you were just being flippant because of the look, but you've hit the nail on the head.

<Realism Mode on>

Randi insists that the person needs to be a conjurer to ensure no trickery is used.

There are no "successors" in the manner that Randi sees it.

Teek's prognosis, should Randi die without a succession plan is a given.

Those three statements are factual and I have corresponded with James Randi on this very subject, so I'm pretty damn confident of my ground here and that he wouldn't disagree with the analysis:

If a successor isn't identified pre-mortem, it's over for JREF. It may struggle on in Randi's memory for a decade, but it would be doomed.

Why not someone like RSL?

Robert Lancaster has:

Huge credibility

Established media presence

Hard-nosed attitude

Excellent organisational skills

A successful history

Respect from the "skeptical community"

So, RSL might be tricked by a conjurer? I don't buy a bar of that myself. Even in a worst case scenario, there are sufficient Banacheks, Penns and Angells to lend a hand, as I'm certain they would. Hell, I had no trouble convinving NZ's top magician to become part of the Kiwi Challenge. They love this stuff. A deal to get expert help from a top magician if someone passed the preliminary challenge wouldn't be hard to arrange.

I have no idea whether RSL is available, or would want the challenge of taking Randi's torch into a new century, but he or someone like him could well fill the role.

But quickly.

In the same vein, Gravy would be another who could twist the role into the direction I'm thinking RSL could. I think the same positive qualities I've listed above could be said of Gravy as easily as RSL.

A conjurer taking over from Randi will inevitably draw comparisons - maybe a step sideways would overcome that and bring a new type of member to JREF.

<Realism Mode off>

And just to double-blind the realism mode of this post, I've just sung the praises of two blokes who I'd be reasonably confident do not have me on their Christmas card list.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I think it might take more than one person. Penn & Teller for their magical knowledge and name, Michael Shermer for his knowledge and name, and Jeff Wagg to keep it all together.

What did Penn say to the UU women at TAM3?

I know there's a thread on it somewhere but my search fu isn't serving me well tonight and I don't want to recount what for me might be faulty memories. Here's a link to a thread initiated after TAM2 in a similar vein though.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=17040

[CFLarsen]

I know there's a thread on it somewhere but my search fu isn't serving me well tonight and I don't want to recount what for me might be faulty memories. Here's a link to a thread initiated after TAM2 in a similar vein though.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=17040

Can you name one person who hasn't said something at some point which you haven't found reason to criticize in any way?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Can you name one person who hasn't said something at some point which you haven't found reason to criticize in any way?

I wasn't the one who started the thread I linked to above, nor was I the only person who commented on the TAM 3 panel discussion nor Penn's comments to the UU lady, therefore your question is a tangent.

[CFLarsen]

I wasn't the one who started the thread I linked to above, nor was I the only person who commented on the TAM 3 panel discussion nor Penn's comments to the UU lady, therefore your question is a tangent.

Maybe.

It just seems a bit like overreacting, if you dismiss Penn because of one comment he had made in the past that you didn't like.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Maybe.

It just seems a bit like overreacting, if you dismiss Penn because of one comment he had made in the past that you didn't like.

I should have made more clear that my concerns about his public style are about more than one two comments.

[H3LL]

We should have leads. Not leaders.

*WOOF!!*


:D

.

[Juustin]

On a related note: When Randi passes away (with modern medicine let's hope that's not for a long while yet), who do you think will be the first psychic to claim they've received contact with him?

[CFLarsen]

I should have made more clear that my concerns about his public style are about more than one two comments.

Randi isn't exactly seen as the Mellow Dude either.

[Monza]

We could have a TV Reality show to decide his successor! We could call it..."The Successor"! We could either do an Apprentice-style show before James Randi dies, and let him choose the candidate he feels is best suited; or else do a Survivor-style show after he dies, where candidates have to face a series of difficult tasks and situations, getting eliminated until there's only one left.


How about holding a live seance on TV? Each competitor will come out and try to channel Randi's ghost. If they succeed, they are immediately elimnated from the show and the next competitor is brought out.

Seriously, I think Penn would make a great public face for the MDC. And anything involving Michael Shermer has my approval.

[De_Bunk]

I'll do it...

I'll just Taze every applicant...

:)

DB

[Zygar]

I should have made more clear that my concerns about his public style are about more than one two comments.

I agree with this. And I am convinced that the number could be significantly increased with some digging.

I think, primarily, that Penn would inevitably hijack the JREF onto his own personal agenda. If we want to maintain the JREF with the mission it has today, or even a similar mission, we should not have someone who will hijack the organization.

[athon]

I agree with this. And I am convinced that the number could be significantly increased with some digging.

I think, primarily, that Penn would inevitably hijack the JREF onto his own personal agenda. If we want to maintain the JREF with the mission it has today, or even a similar mission, we should not have someone who will hijack the organization.

Penn, like Randi, has a very strong, dominating personality. That works well when dealing with people resorting to insults when they find they've not come out on top. It also makes for a great focus of a three ring circus of debate that attracts the public's attention. However, using the series 'BS' as an example, it's more entertaining than necessarily educational in teaching the public to be skeptical. It's one thing shouting out that something is nonsense. It's another encouraging people to be able to think skeptically.

Again it depends on what the JREF actually wants to do, and how it wants to achieve it. Even with Randi it's a touch unclear. His passing would probably make the foundation stop and consider where its future aims lie.

Athon

[zenotter]

If it's Callahan and he even goes so far as to claim that he's hired Randi from the afterlife, I would be happy to kick him in the face. Repeatedly.

Note: I wouldn't really, but the thought of it made me smile. </clarification>

[T'ai Chi]

Someone like Shermer would be a welcome choice, as would someone like Nickell. I think both would get the focus away from magic and more towards science and detection, which IMO is more pertinant to skepticism than magic.

[CFLarsen]

Someone like Shermer would be a welcome choice, as would someone like Nickell. I think both would get the focus away from magic and more towards science and detection, which IMO is more pertinant to skepticism than magic.

Yes, the fallacy that scientists are better at detecting deceit than magicians. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Alpha)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Randi isn't exactly seen as the Mellow Dude either.

But he's, with very few exceptions, tactful. That's something Penn often goes out of his way to not be (seen any Bullsh*t episodes?).

I think too many people on this forum are enamoured with an in your face and kiss my ass if you don't like it attitude, but that's not going to attract people to investigate or participate in organized skepticism than tactful, reasoned explanations of why paranormal claims don't hold water (see Shermer or Randi and Sagan's Carson appearances).

[CFLarsen]

But he's, with very few exceptions, tactful. That's something Penn often goes out of his way to not be (seen any Bullsh*t episodes?).

I think too many people on this forum are enamoured with an in your face and kiss my ass if you don't like it attitude, but that's not going to attract people to investigate or participate in organized skepticism than tactful, reasoned explanations of why paranormal claims don't hold water (see Shermer or Randi and Sagan's Carson appearances).

How many discussions have we had here, where people have complained that Randi is too rude?

Atsalot, paisan.

[UnrepentantSinner]

How many discussions have we had here, where people have complained that Randi is too rude?

Atsalot, paisan.

Not nearly as many as Penn that I can recall. "Flim Flam" is a lot more tactful than Bullsh*t.

You're not going to change my mind on this and there are folks who agree and disagree with both of us so I don't see anything productive coming out of continued discussion on this particular tangent.

[Senex]

I hope Randi lives forever but in today's day and age we know death isn't the end. For a small fee I'm certain Sylvia or John Edwards will translate Randi's weekly column from afterlife speak to current life speak. Jeff can be the brick and mortar face of the organization, risking incontinence whenever challenged (hey wasn't that one supposed to be broadcast on the web?)

[Sherman Bay]

My vote would be for Penn Gillette or Michael Shermer.

The amount of time it takes to run JREF is substantial. I can't see Penn doing it as a sideline; he'd have to retire from show biz. If he didn't, it might bring negative vibes to his stage show.

For Shermer, he could easily transfer more duties to the Skeptic mag staff, as it is already in place and functioning. I don't see Shermer's lack of prestidigitation skills as a minus -- I'm confident he would have experts to call upon to avoid being hookwinked.

Penn has a strong attitude, which I like, but it tends to turn off the public in the same way Randi's often does. Shermer gets along with people better without compromising principles.

I can't see Teller in that role unless he comes out of the closet, speaking-wise, which would be a major career change. Even Harpo spoke on occasion.

[NobbyNobbs]

Has anybody considered asking Randi?

As logical as he is, he knows he won't last forever. He knows that woo will outlive him. Perhaps he's already prepared for this?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Not nearly as many as Penn that I can recall. "Flim Flam" is a lot more tactful than Bullsh*t.

You're not going to change my mind on this and there are folks who agree and disagree with both of us so I don't see anything productive coming out of continued discussion on this particular tangent.

Claus, I do want to clarify this as a final statement. I don't think that Penn is tactless. Far from it and as evidence just check his Glen Beck appearance on CNN Headline News and other appearances like when he was with Rachael Ray on Food Network. I'm also not suggesting that Randi isn't crumudgeonly. I'm merely suggesting that in terms of tact for public consumption of the message we want to get out there Randi would rate above Penn and folks like Shermer, Sagan and Hal are even above him (again IMO).

If you reply to this comment, I'll appreciate it, but don't expect me to continue it in this thread. :)

[The Atheist]

Has anybody considered asking Randi?

As logical as he is, he knows he won't last forever. He knows that woo will outlive him. Perhaps he's already prepared for this?

Answers to your two questions, respectively:

Yes and no.

[CFLarsen]

and no.

Do you speak for Randi?

[The Atheist]

Do you speak for Randi?

No, he can speak for himself.

[CFLarsen]

No

Then don't presume to do so.

[Rrose Selavy]

Without the aid of any living "mediums" Randi will obvously make his presence clear from the "other side".


That way he gets to keep the Million.
=

[Darat]

Not nearly as many as Penn that I can recall. "Flim Flam" is a lot more tactful than Bullsh*t.

...snip....

Just as a note on that (just using your post because it's been brought up once or twice) I do remember hearing Penn explaining that the style they use in Bullsh!t is partly to do with the legal ramifications - the use of the OTT language and so on apparently would make it harder for legal action to be brought against them. (This is from memory from about 3 years ago so I may be misremembering this.)

[The Atheist]

Then don't presume to do so.

I don't presume to do anything. A question was asked and I gave an answer which is 100% correct. You may attempt to dispute that at your peril.

[Chaos]

As much as I hate to be seen agreeing with Tai Chi, Joe Nickell might actually be a good suggestion.


That said, I am not even sure one person would be able to fill Randi´s footsteps. Two or even three, working together, may be necessary.

[mayday]

I wish Randi wasn't old. I wish he had some offspring to carry on his legacy.

[real american]

I would guess Randi already has a person in mind. I myself would love to take the tourch after him but highly dought it would happen. But I would not want to see Chris Angle to carry that tourch. I think if he has any family members that work with him that they should have the privelage to take over after randi.

[Fredrik]

I don't think Penn Jillette would be a good choice. It bothers me that he presented some very weak arguments in his show as if they were rock solid and completely proved him right. (I also don't think he would give up a successful career in entertainment to run an educational foundation).

Shermer would be a better choice, but he seems kind of boring, at least compared to Randi. I've never seen a Michael Shermer lecture, but I doubt they're as funny as Randi's.

The leader of the JREF doesn't have to be a magician. He (or she) can ask a magician for help when he needs it, just as Randi would ask a mathematician to do a probability calculation.

I can't believe that some people are suggesting that it would be OK to have someone who isn't an atheist take over after Randi. The JREF would lose all credibility if it's run by a person of faith.

[Ron_Tomkins]

What about Daniel C Dennett?

He's cool

[The Atheist]

Very.

But I doubt he'd see it as a smart career move.

[real american]

The JREF would lose all credibility if it's run by a person of faith.

I don't agree, I feel as along as you believe in what james randi says on psychic, faith healers, or homopathy you are a good chaoice. Like I said mabey a family member should take it over and keep a "blood-line" if you will because they will probably know better than anyone else on what randi would want done.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Very.

But I doubt he'd see it as a smart career move.



That's probably true.... AND he's probably not going to last much longer than Randi either :D

[UnrepentantSinner]

I can't believe that some people are suggesting that it would be OK to have someone who isn't an atheist take over after Randi. The JREF would lose all credibility if it's run by a person of faith.

Why? The JREF isn't an atheist organization.

[Wowbagger]

Rebecca Watson.




If she's not doing anything, that is...

[george@etcorngods.co]

Why would anyone want someone to carry on where the amazing randi left off? My guess is his thing will die before he does.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Why would anyone want someone to carry on where the amazing randi left off? My guess is his thing will die before he does.




Why wouldn't someone want to carry on where the amazing Randy left off?

[Rrose Selavy]

- Whatever form JREF takes in the future may have very difference personalities but the important thing is surely skepticism as a force lives on - Just like that Jesus fellah has been dead for years but ....hang on ..maybe I should rethink that analogy....

[Locknar]

Why would anyone want someone to carry on where the amazing randi left off? My guess is his thing will die before he does.
You are 100% right; who would want to champion critical thinking and science? After all, its not like either has done anyone any good right?

[Olowkow]

Randi should choose...

[T'ai Chi]

Someone who can take it back to be taken more seriously.

I used to see it as an actual serious challenge to present to those with claims, probably in the 80s and to the mid-90s. Then sometime after that, you could see it get more rule-y, and the media requirement, etc. It just got to be all entertainment-y.

[CFLarsen]

Someone who can take it back to be taken more seriously.

I used to see it as an actual serious challenge to present to those with claims, probably in the 80s and to the mid-90s. Then sometime after that, you could see it get more rule-y, and the media requirement, etc. It just got to be all entertainment-y.

The only ones who don't take it "seriously" are those who make up all sorts of excuses for those who claim something paranormal not to take it.

[HarryKeogh]

I would like to see Shermer and The Skeptics Society take it over. You need people who want to do this full-time. Penn Jillette is putting on shows in Vegas practically every night. I doubt he has the time to take over such a demanding role.

That and he's a bit of a prick. I much prefer Shermer's tone when he talks to the media than Penn's way too loud, over-the-top schtick.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Just as a note on that (just using your post because it's been brought up once or twice) I do remember hearing Penn explaining that the style they use in Bullsh!t is partly to do with the legal ramifications - the use of the OTT language and so on apparently would make it harder for legal action to be brought against them. (This is from memory from about 3 years ago so I may be misremembering this.)

Sorry I missed this earlier and noted, but I am basing my concerns about Penn being JREF's head or a putative "leader" of organized skepticism not on Flim Flam vs. Bullsh*t but on general tone and tenor primarily from things I've seen him say at TAMs.

I get a lot from flames from my fellow atheists suggesting that tact is a preferred tactic to being an ******* when it comes to religion which is why I feel the same way about the public face of skepticism.

[articulett]

My guess? Michael Shermer.

No. Too bland. It needs to be a magician... someone a little provocative.

I remember someone suggest Penn at one of the TAMS. Joe Nickel is good. Derren Brown would be excellent...

But I hope Randi has a lot more years...

The Beyond Belief 2007 tapes should be released soon... I bet there will be some winners in there.

What about Adam Savage? He's not a magician... but he loves JREF and young people love him-- and Randi wants to reach out more to the young--

[Fredrik]

I can't believe that some people are suggesting that it would be OK to have someone who isn't an atheist take over after Randi. The JREF would lose all credibility if it's run by a person of faith.


Why? The JREF isn't an atheist organization.
The JREF is an educational foundation. Its purpose is to educate people. About what? It's not that people can't really talk to the dead, bend spoons with their minds, etc. It's that information obtained by using non-scientific methods is unreliable. Anyone who understands that, and is reasonably honest to himself/herself, won't ever become a woo believer.

Faith, on the other hand is the exact opposite of that. To have faith in something, as opposed to just having belief in something, is to have a belief that can't be changed by evidence.

I hope that answers the question. The way I see it, faith is the exact opposite of everything (the only thing) the JREF stands for.

[real american]

The way I see it, faith is the exact opposite of everything (the only thing) the JREF stands for.

No, you can believe in god and not believe in faith healers or pshychic's. I am a believe in the lord and don't believe in faith helars or psychics. The catholic church is very much against psychics.

[Rrose Selavy]

No, you can believe in god and not believe in faith healers or pshychic's. I am a believe in the lord and don't believe in faith helars or psychics. The catholic church is very much against psychics.

That's because they consider them competition and want the monopoly of the market and if you don't believe in faith healers or psychics then virtually all of the Catholic church and the Bible is rendered redundant. If it wasn't already.



-

[real american]

That's because they consider them competition



-

The believe for its says it in the bible. Many other followers of god feel this way.

[athon]

No, you can believe in god and not believe in faith healers or pshychic's. I am a believe in the lord and don't believe in faith helars or psychics. The catholic church is very much against psychics.

You missed what was said. The point is that the JREF is not (should not be?) about telling people what is bunk, but primarily about how to identify bunk and why they should not adopt beliefs purely on faith value. Take what you say and insert 'I am a believer in aliens having landed and communicated with world leaders and don't believe in faith healers or psychics. The aliens are very much against psychics'. Compare the difference.

Athon

[real american]

I get what your saying

[Jeff Corey]

I know there's a thread on it somewhere but my search fu isn't serving me well tonight and I don't want to recount what for me might be faulty memories. Here's a link to a thread initiated after TAM2 in a similar vein though.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=17040
Geebus Cisipies! Wasn't it established beyond a doubt that Penn never said "*******" retards? I did object to "retards", though. It's akin to "Mongolian idiot".

[UnrepentantSinner]

The JREF is an educational foundation. Its purpose is to educate people. About what? It's not that people can't really talk to the dead, bend spoons with their minds, etc. It's that information obtained by using non-scientific methods is unreliable. Anyone who understands that, and is reasonably honest to himself/herself, won't ever become a woo believer.

Right. What does that have to do with debunking religion? What JREF does it debunk specific religious claims, but the official position seems to be an understanding that the scientific method cannot address the supernatural per se.

Faith, on the other hand is the exact opposite of that. To have faith in something, as opposed to just having belief in something, is to have a belief that can't be changed by evidence.

Unless you put a chastity belt on your wife you have faith in her faithfulness. Your use of language as an argument is a tangent. How about addressing directly why JREF is an atheist organiziation or why religious people shouldn't be encouraged to be skeptics despite their religiosity?

I hope that answers the question. The way I see it, faith is the exact opposite of everything (the only thing) the JREF stands for.

If your definition of faith is - something you cannot destroy - then it's different from mine and what most people use. Sweeping back to by broader concern, we're going to attract a lot more people to "organized" skepticism by accepting their religious beliefs as being seperate from their concerns over PSI, Cryptozoology, UFOlogy, dowsing, Creationism, etc. than telling them how stupid they are for being religious.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Geebus Cisipies! Wasn't it established beyond a doubt that Penn never said "*******" retards? I did object to "retards", though. It's akin to "Mongolian idiot".

You would. ;)

Despite being there I personally don't recall him using specific words, but I do recall his sentiment and while he might have self censored *******, I have a hard time believing he wasn't thinking it. But isn't the adjective to the adjective less of a problem as far as tact goes than the adjective itself?

[Ron_Tomkins]

Right. What does that have to do with debunking religion? What JREF does it debunk specific religious claims, but the official position seems to be an understanding that the scientific method cannot address the supernatural per se.



Unless you put a chastity belt on your wife you have faith in her faithfulness. Your use of language as an argument is a tangent. How about addressing directly why JREF is an atheist organiziation or why religious people shouldn't be encouraged to be skeptics despite their religiosity?



If your definition of faith is - something you cannot destroy - then it's different from mine and what most people use. Sweeping back to by broader concern, we're going to attract a lot more people to "organized" skepticism by accepting their religious beliefs as being seperate from their concerns over PSI, Cryptozoology, UFOlogy, dowsing, Creationism, etc. than telling them how stupid they are for being religious.




Nominated.

Your critique on the concept of Faith really puts a whole new dimension to extremists views.

I think this would be a good topic to develop a new discussion.

Indeed, there are many things that even skeptics have blind faith on: The wife example being by far the best I've heard, but there are of course many others similar to this one.

Be that as it may, I agree that there is no reason the "new Randi" couldn't have religious beliefs at all.
The JREF is about giving you the tools to create your own rational criteria.
It's not about forbidding people to believe what they want to believe.

As long as the person doesn't indoctrinate religious beliefs, he can believe in any God he wants to.
I don't believe in the 100% Skeptic, same way I don't believe in the 100% Supertiscious person.
These are illusions. Alter Egos people create of themselves.

[CFLarsen]

No, you can believe in god and not believe in faith healers or pshychic's. I am a believe in the lord and don't believe in faith helars or psychics. The catholic church is very much against psychics.

The believe for its says it in the bible. Many other followers of god feel this way.

The Catholic Church also recognizes faith healers outside the Bible. E.g., the many saints.

Geebus Cisipies! Wasn't it established beyond a doubt that Penn never said "*******" retards?

Yes. Another myth buried.

You would. ;)

Despite being there I personally don't recall him using specific words, but I do recall his sentiment and while he might have self censored *******, I have a hard time believing he wasn't thinking it. But isn't the adjective to the adjective less of a problem as far as tact goes than the adjective itself?

You're not judging someone based on what you think they were thinking...are you? ;)

[quixotecoyote]

Psssst. Randi.. I think maybe your fans are planning something.....

[zenotter]

I always thought I had faith in the scientific method, because I knew/had the belief in it actually working. Perhaps I've been mistaken and I only have a mere belief in the scientific method instead of full-blown faith? Aah, semantics for some.... ;)

[Chaos]

*snip*
Yes. Another myth buried.


But you admit that he did say "mentally ill retards", right?

[CFLarsen]

But you admit that he did say "mentally ill retards", right?

Don't make it seem as if I am "admitting" something. I never said anything about his statement either way.

You, however, claimed he said "f**** retards".

Do you admit that he didn't say "f*** retards"?

[Fredrik]

No, you can believe in god and not believe in faith healers or pshychic's.

That's obvious, so why even mention it?


The catholic church is very much against psychics.

I don't doubt that, but guys like Randi aren't just "against" psychics, they understand the reasons why it's extremely unlikely that psychic abilities exist.

Right. What does that have to do with debunking religion?

I wasn't talking about debunking religion. I was explaining the purpose of the JREF.


What JREF does it debunk specific religious claims, but the official position seems to be an understanding that the scientific method cannot address the supernatural per se.

If you mean that there are some claims about the supernatural that science can't ever hope to prove or disprove, you're of course right. The claim that the universe was created by some sort of conscious entity is a good example. However, all religions that I know of make claims that go far beyond that. They don't just make claims that can be disproved by science. They make claims that have been disproved by science.


Unless you put a chastity belt on your wife you have faith in her faithfulness. Your use of language as an argument is a tangent.

I consider that a matter of trust, not faith. But you do have a point. Even people like Randi and me are capable of having faith about certain things, and we don't think all faith is bad. (I don't really know that he would agree with me about this, but I'm guessing that he would). For example I don't have kids, but if I did, I would probably have "faith" that they would grow up to be good people rather than some kind of horrible mass murderers. That faith would prevent me from ever giving up on them.

I was of course aware of this when I wrote my previous post, but I wanted to keep my answer short and to the point.


How about addressing directly why JREF is an atheist organiziation or why religious people shouldn't be encouraged to be skeptics despite their religiosity?

The first part of that question is very strange. You want me to explain why the JREF is an atheist organization?! You're acting as if I have given you a reason to believe that I think it is. I have not. The JREF is clearly "not an X organization", no matter what word in the dictionary you substitute for X. It's not a club where you can only be a member if you have certain beliefs (or lack a certain belief). Anyone who pays the membership fee is a member of the JREF.

The second part of your question suggests that I should explain why religious people shouldn't be encouraged to be skeptics. That's also pretty strange. If a religious person learns about the scientific method and what it implies about supernatural abilities, I think that's great. I still wouldn't call that person a skeptic though, not if he believes in religious claims that have been disproved by science (e.g. the age of the Earth according to the bible).


If your definition of faith is - something you cannot destroy - then it's different from mine and what most people use.

Is it really, or is it just that people who are unable to change their minds are unwilling to admit it? I'm sure you're right about that most people wouldn't define the word "faith" the way I did, but isn't my definition an accurate description of how those people (including you) use it? I assume that you agree that the sentences "I believe that X is true" and "I have faith that X is true" don't say exactly the same thing. What, in your opinion, is the difference?


Sweeping back to by broader concern, we're going to attract a lot more people to "organized" skepticism by accepting their religious beliefs as being seperate from their concerns over PSI, Cryptozoology, UFOlogy, dowsing, Creationism, etc. than telling them how stupid they are for being religious.
That may be true, but I'm not willing to lie to them. I try to avoid the word "stupid" when I can, but the truth is that religion is not fundamentally different from other kinds of woo, and it would be a lie to tell them that it is. I don't know, maybe we should lie to them just to get them to listen, but I find it difficult to do so.

[Fredrik]

Be that as it may, I agree that there is no reason the "new Randi" couldn't have religious beliefs at all.
The JREF is about giving you the tools to create your own rational criteria.
It's not about forbidding people to believe what they want to believe.

As long as the person doesn't indoctrinate religious beliefs, he can believe in any God he wants to.

The sole purpose of the JREF is to teach people about those tools and encourage people to use them, but a person who has faith in a religion isn't using them. That's why it would be inappropriate (to put it mildly) to put such a person in charge of the JREF.

[Kirk]

It almost has to be Penn. Penn made a name for himself as a magacian (like Randi) and is well known outside the Skeptic community and well liked by the genreral populous. He is charismatic and smart. Shermer is a nice guy but very dull. Almost too nice at times. Outside of Penn taking over, I don't think anyone outside our community would care about skepticism. Penn would bring instant attention and credibility.

[Kirk]

The sole purpose of the JREF is to teach people about those tools and encourage people to use them, but a person who has faith in a religion isn't using them. That's why it would be inappropriate (to put it mildly) to put such a person in charge of the JREF.

I couldn't agree more.

[Ron_Tomkins]

The sole purpose of the JREF is to teach people about those tools and encourage people to use them, but a person who has faith in a religion isn't using them. That's why it would be inappropriate (to put it mildly) to put such a person in charge of the JREF.



A person who has a religious belief can still be a person who uses rational criteria. I know of many people who believe in God but still need evidence for most things and events in their life, and still have an overall evidence-based criteria of life.

Like I said (And I know you disagree with me on this, which is fine because it's my personal opinion): I don't believe in self-claimed 100% Skeptics and I don't believe in self-claimed 100% Supertiscious Nothing-can-be-proved-in-life type of people.

A Skeptic could perfectly say "Don't believe everything you hear. Use your own criteria" and add "Personally, I believe in Zeus, but that's me. You don't have to believe that".

There's no contradiction because there's no indoctrination which is what the JREF fights against. In fact, a true TRUE Skeptic should add "Don't believe anything you hear without doing research. Even if I say it".

[Senex]

Unless you put a chastity belt on your wife you have faith in her faithfulness. Your use of language as an argument is a tangent. How about addressing directly why JREF is an atheist organiziation or why religious people shouldn't be encouraged to be skeptics despite their religiosity?


Your post reminds me of a time period I was going through. I was living with a young woman whom I thought might be cheating on be but there was always the doubt. A good friend of mine thought she might be cheating as well but I told him there was always the doubt. He volunteered to watch her to prove she was cheating on me. He later told me she was holding this fellow's hand during lunch but when I asked my girlfriend she said he was going through a bad period of time and was just offering support. Another time he told me he saw them go to a hotel together but my girlfriend told me that her company rented a conference room in the hotel. "Always the doubt" I told him. Another time he told me he saw them both naked in my house but closed the shades before having physical contact and I assured him yet again there is always the doubt.

[zenotter]

Exactly. How can you confirm physical contact if the shades are closed? :rolleyes:

[athon]

A person who has a religious belief can still be a person who uses rational criteria. I know of many people who believe in God but still need evidence for most things and events in their life, and still have an overall evidence-based criteria of life.

Like I said (And I know you disagree with me on this, which is fine because it's my personal opinion): I don't believe in self-claimed 100% Skeptics and I don't believe in self-claimed 100% Supertiscious Nothing-can-be-proved-in-life type of people.

A Skeptic could perfectly say "Don't believe everything you hear. Use your own criteria" and add "Personally, I believe in Zeus, but that's me. You don't have to believe that".

There's no contradiction because there's no indoctrination which is what the JREF fights against. In fact, a true TRUE Skeptic should add "Don't believe anything you hear without doing research. Even if I say it".

You're correct that the term 'skeptic' as a complete individual is a misnomer. We all compartmentalise in some way, depending on a range of criteria. Some do it with small, insignificant things (supporting a football team in spite of knowing they're in poor form), while others exclude large areas from critical thinking (religion).

Cognitive dissonance where we compartmentalise our life into 'things to be skeptical about' and 'things which we reserve from skeptical thinking' is common. However, communal skepticism such as those here is about opening those compartments for exploration. Skeptics should be prepared to decompartmentalise when addressed with reasons, or in the very least admit their reservations are emotionally based. It might be fair to describe skeptics as people who recognise the difference between rational and emotional justification for a belief.

For the JREF to promote the ends of rational thinking is no different to promoting faith; both are accepted on grounds of social thinking skills, not critical ones.

Athon

[T'ai Chi]

[Penn is]...well liked by the genreral populous.


Evidence?

I'm not talking about his magic persona, but actually him. Presumably we are talking about actually him, not his magic persona, being in charge of a 'skeptic' organization.

[Ron_Tomkins]

You're correct that the term 'skeptic' as a complete individual is a misnomer. We all compartmentalise in some way, depending on a range of criteria. Some do it with small, insignificant things (supporting a football team in spite of knowing they're in poor form), while others exclude large areas from critical thinking (religion).

Cognitive dissonance where we compartmentalise our life into 'things to be skeptical about' and 'things which we reserve from skeptical thinking' is common. However, communal skepticism such as those here is about opening those compartments for exploration. Skeptics should be prepared to decompartmentalise when addressed with reasons, or in the very least admit their reservations are emotionally based. It might be fair to describe skeptics as people who recognise the difference between rational and emotional justification for a belief.

For the JREF to promote the ends of rational thinking is no different to promoting faith; both are accepted on grounds of social thinking skills, not critical ones.

Athon




Agreed.

[Kirk]

Evidence?

I'm not talking about his magic persona, but actually him. Presumably we are talking about actually him, not his magic persona, being in charge of a 'skeptic' organization.

I don't think the general public seperates the two... Evidence, how about sold out Vegas Shows, multiple TV appearences and the Showtime Series?!?!

His persona is as close as most people will ever get to him.

[Senex]

Exactly. How can you confirm physical contact if the shades are closed? :rolleyes:

Yes, you just made my point ;) I'm too subtle for this crowd. My Christ like parable demonstrates how a person should take the facts into consideration and come up with the truth, not what one wishes to believe.

What I wrote was just as profound as what the chastity belt guy wrote. Did I say just as -- I should have said more. :D

[UnrepentantSinner]

Some excellent responses which I cannot reply to until tomorrow night.

Thank you for them, and see you guys then.

(now off to Top Ten List and TLPTPTTTW)

[Chaos]

Don't make it seem as if I am "admitting" something. I never said anything about his statement either way.

Stop evading. Do you admit, right now, that he did indeed say "mentally ill retards"? Yes or no?

You, however, claimed he said "f**** retards".

And when you presented evidence against that, I retracted that claim. As a skeptic should.

Do you admit that he didn't say "f*** retards"?

I did so, long ago.

I do, however, claim that he said what YOU proved he said: "mentally ill retards".

[CFLarsen]

Stop evading. Do you admit, right now, that he did indeed say "mentally ill retards"? Yes or no?

I am neither evading or "admitting" anything.

Making me "admit" is a cheap, dirty trick designed to make it seem as if I am on the defensive. I am not. There is nothing for me to "admit", because I didn't claim he didn't say "mentally ill retards". I showed evidence what he in fact said - evidence you should have found.

And when you presented evidence against that, I retracted that claim. As a skeptic should.

A skeptic would have found evidence of his claim. You didn't, even though you had the DVDs in your possession.

Don't come crying to me, just because the evidence showed you wrong.

I did so, long ago.

I do, however, claim that he said what YOU proved he said: "mentally ill retards".

You do now, yes.

Do you have a point?

[Chaos]

I am neither evading or "admitting" anything.

So you refuse to admit it. Thanks, that´s all I wanted to know.

Making me "admit" is a cheap, dirty trick designed to make it seem as if I am on the defensive. I am not. There is nothing for me to "admit", because I didn't claim he didn't say "mentally ill retards". I showed evidence what he in fact said - evidence you should have found.

Cheap, dirty trick, huh? And your endless diversions and evasions are what, exactly? Like, harping about the f-word part, or implying that a lack of f-word says anything about the "retards" part.

A skeptic would have found evidence of his claim. You didn't, even though you had the DVDs in your possession.

Moving the goalposts. Nice. First you complain I don´t admit I´m wrong. When I point out I did admit it, you whine about something else.

Don't come crying to me, just because the evidence showed you wrong.

I don´t come crying. And if I didn´t, I wouldn´t come to you, of all people.

You do now, yes.

Do you have a point?

Do I have a point?

Yes, of course.

My point is, despite all your attempts to distract from that, Penn did say that religious people are "mentally ill retards". This statement contains two claims.

First, that religious people are mentally ill.
Second, that religious people are retards.

Neither he, nor you, nor anyone else ever provided a shred of evidence for either of these claims. To the contrary, even casual contact with religious people - starting with folks such as Hal or Kittynh or MLynn - shows that the vast majority of them are sane, intelligent people.

[CFLarsen]

So you refuse to admit it. Thanks, that´s all I wanted to know.

:hb:

Cheap, dirty trick, huh? And your endless diversions and evasions are what, exactly? Like, harping about the f-word part, or implying that a lack of f-word says anything about the "retards" part.

:hb:

Moving the goalposts. Nice. First you complain I don´t admit I´m wrong. When I point out I did admit it, you whine about something else.

:hb:

I don´t come crying. And if I didn´t, I wouldn´t come to you, of all people.

:hb:

Do I have a point?

Yes, of course.

My point is, despite all your attempts to distract from that,

Yes, it's all my fault. Everything is.

Penn did say that religious people are "mentally ill retards". This statement contains two claims.

First, that religious people are mentally ill.
Second, that religious people are retards.

Neither he, nor you, nor anyone else ever provided a shred of evidence for either of these claims. To the contrary, even casual contact with religious people - starting with folks such as Hal or Kittynh or MLynn - shows that the vast majority of them are sane, intelligent people.

Me? Why would I - or anyone else than Penn - be required to provide evidence? Especially of something that was clearly a provocative opinion?

And how is this relevant to the thread issue?

[chillzero]

And how is this relevant to the thread issue?

Exactly.
Please keep this thread on topic from here on, or I will remove all of that discussion to AAH.

[Ron_Tomkins]

:hb:



:hb:



:hb:



:hb:



Yes, it's all my fault. Everything is.



Me? Why would I - or anyone else than Penn - be required to provide evidence? Especially of something that was clearly a provocative opinion?

And how is this relevant to the thread issue?






Although I did have a good laugh with you two guys, I do have to agree we're getting off the topic... plus now you're getting me in trouble and now my thread is in danger of extinction :D


I will add this:
If Penn did say that religious people are "mentally ill retards", I'm still not quite sure that that disqualifies him from taking Randi's place. That's his opinion. Not the nicest opinion I've ever heard, but then again, sounds to me like that's something he would say at his show BS. No, not that saying it on the show justifies it, but it seems to me that part of the show's policy is to be provocative. Why then is there so much unnecesary swearing and cursing and further variations on how to use the F word on every episode?

So, just to avoid unnecesary debates that could develop from this, I shall rephrase it: In my opinion, Penn is still a good candidate to continue Randi's legacy.

So anyone who disagrees, feel free to.

And I'm still, of course, interested in hearing from other possible candidates that I might not have heard about, for it gives me a chance to discover them (After all, I discovered Randi through Penn Jillete)

[Chaos]

I think the discussion about Penn is very much on topic. If someone who is discussed as a possible (or potential) successor of Randi happens to such absurdly woo-woo opinions as Penn does, should this factor into any considerations about his suitability as the potential head of skeptic organization?

It has been stated - by both Randi and Jeff Wagg - that JREF is not an atheist organization. How could that position be maintained, if JREF were to be headed by someone with such "provocative opinions" as Penn?

[CFLarsen]

I think the discussion about Penn is very much on topic. If someone who is discussed as a possible (or potential) successor of Randi happens to such absurdly woo-woo opinions as Penn does, should this factor into any considerations about his suitability as the potential head of skeptic organization?

It has been stated - by both Randi and Jeff Wagg - that JREF is not an atheist organization. How could that position be maintained, if JREF were to be headed by someone with such "provocative opinions" as Penn?

Why not? They are opinions. And Randi is every bit as atheist as Penn, and just as vocal. The vocabulary may be different, but thank (insert deity here) for that. Don't forget that they come from different times, with a 27 years age difference. You can't expect them to talk the same way.

Is this the only reason why you dismiss Penn? One provocative sentence?

[chillzero]

I think the discussion about Penn is very much on topic.

I don't dispute that, however the argument between you and CFL that already has another thread, is very much off topic.

And to clear up any confusion thatwas what I meant I would split off to AAH, not the whole thread.

[Chaos]

@Chillzero: Point taken. Thanks.


Why not? They are opinions. And Randi is every bit as atheist as Penn, and just as vocal. The vocabulary may be different, but thank (insert deity here) for that. Don't forget that they come from different times, with a 27 years age difference. You can't expect them to talk the same way.

Is this the only reason why you dismiss Penn? One provocative sentence?

No it is not.

Sure, Randi is an atheist - but I´m not sure about "as atheist as Penn". At least he does not spend his on-stage time at TAM (or his commentaries) gratuitiously insulting religious people. Sure, he piles on specific groups who adhere to specific disproven claims, but I see no evidence for an "I am an atheist, and all who believe differently are mentally ill retards" attitude like Penn´s.

[CFLarsen]

No it is not.

What, exactly, is it you have against Penn, then?

You didn't like the comment he made. What else?

Sure, Randi is an atheist - but I´m not sure about "as atheist as Penn". At least he does not spend his on-stage time at TAM (or his commentaries) gratuitiously insulting religious people.

What do you think religious people make of this? (http://www.randi.org/jr/021805a.html#2)

Sure, he piles on specific groups who adhere to specific disproven claims, but I see no evidence for an "I am an atheist, and all who believe differently are mentally ill retards" attitude like Penn´s.

Whoa, whoa. That's about attitude. Not how atheist they each are.

Don't mistake one for the other. You are not more of an atheist if you have a bad-ass attitude about it.

[Jeff Wagg]

For those interested:

Randi's wishes are that the JREF keep running in perpetuity, including after his departure in whatever capacity that might be. Steps have been taken to ensure that is the case.

There is no chosen successor, and there may not be. Randi cannot be replaced. Hopefully, what he does can be picked up by one or more people.

Lots of names have been bandied about here, but none of them have been asked to take over after Randi departs.

One I can assure you that will not take over for Randi is Penn. Neither Randi nor Penn would wish this, as Penn is not interested in heading an organization. Penn remains very close with Randi, but not in the capacity of successor.

[NobbyNobbs]

I think the Mythbusters guys would be good candidates, if they were so inclined.

[RSLancastr]

R.S. Lancaster. He already has the beard and "hairstyle".I would be more than willing to loan them to whoever takes over when Randi retires.

[Walter Wayne]

I would be more than willing to loan them to whoever takes over when Randi retires.Loan? Imagine the embarrassment if the loan was up just before an important television appearance. You'd have to sign over ownership.

Walt

[RSLancastr]

Loan? Imagine the embarrassment if the loan was up just before an important television appearance. You'd have to sign over ownership.I'm not sure my Better Half would go for that arrangement. She is rather fond of my beard...

Seriously, though: nobody will replace Randi.

Will whoever runs the MDC after Randi's retirement have to be a conjurer? I would think that whoever it is, they would consult with experts in fields which are outside their expertise, much as Randi does now with statisticians and such. If the next person who runs the MDC is not an expert in conjuring methods, he or she will consult one. Maybe Randi himself.

[sthomson]

I think the Mythbusters guys would be good candidates, if they were so inclined.

Perfect: Adam and Jaime have just enough lovableness and irascibility to make up one Randi.

[RSLancastr]

Whoever it is, I think they should be renamed Randi New-man.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Whoever it is, I think they should be renamed Randi New-man.



I was leaning more towards "Randi the II"

[rjh01]

This topic does get raised from time to time. Here is one example What happens to the JREF after Randi is gone? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=49686)

[CFLarsen]

Whoever it is, I think they should be renamed Randi New-man.

:hit:

:D

[Ron_Tomkins]

Everyone keeps saying Penn Jillete would be a great sucessor.

What about Teller?

A good chance to finally open his mouth.
It'd be like that episode where Bob what's-his-last-name hosts Krusty's show.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Everyone keeps saying Penn Jillete would be a great sucessor.

What about Teller?

A good chance to finally open his mouth.
It'd be like that episode where Bob what's-his-last-name hosts Krusty's show.

Sideshow Tellerwilliker has spoken at every TAM the two of them have appeared at. Hearing him speak would be old news for many of us. :)

I asked Jeff this in chat but he wouldn't say, and it's making me crazy wondering who is the possessor of Randi's secret phrase that he'd say if ever contacted by a spirit medium ala Houdini. That's a mystery I'm much more interested in than who his successor might be.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Sideshow Tellerwilliker has spoken at every TAM the two of them have appeared at. Hearing him speak would be old news for many of us. :)

I asked Jeff this in chat but he wouldn't say, and it's making me crazy wondering who is the possessor of Randi's secret phrase that he'd say if ever contacted by a spirit medium ala Houdini. That's a mystery I'm much more interested in than who his successor might be.


Oh I know he has spoken. I've heard him before. But in general lines, his public image is mostly quiet (I was amazed that even in serious interviews where they're out of the "character", Teller still doesn't do any talking and Penn is the only one who talks).
So if he went to become the sucessor, it would be interesting seeing him lead the "show" now a la Randi.


What's this Secret Phrase you're talking about? Randi promised to say a secret phrase if someone actually proves he has paranormal powers?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Teller has a wonderfully melifluous (sic) delivery and I wish he'd speak more - despited loving his mime/pantomime act - during interviews, off stage appearances, etc.

What's this Secret Phrase you're talking about? Randi promised to say a secret phrase if someone actually proves he has paranormal powers?

I was referring to Houdini's phrase that he told to people he trusted and that, if it were possible to communicate from the dead, he would use it to do so. After all these years, no one has guessed it correctly. I was just wondering if Randi has a similar pact so the van Frauds and Sylvia Frowns of the world couldn't claim to speak for him ex post facto.

[zenotter]

I psychically predict that said secret phrase is written in the envelopes dated 10-24 that Criss Angel has. Raymond "Weels" Hill should've been able to confirm that a few weeks ago; maybe he had some indigestion or something and had to go. :rolleyes:

Teller would be a nice choice if he's so inclined.

[Ron_Tomkins]

I was referring to Houdini's phrase that he told to people he trusted and that, if it were possible to communicate from the dead, he would use it to do so. After all these years, no one has guessed it correctly. I was just wondering if Randi has a similar pact so the van Frauds and Sylvia Frowns of the world couldn't claim to speak for him ex post facto.


So let me see if I understand: Randi is the only other person besides Houdini who knows this phrase?

[Ron_Tomkins]

I psychically predict that said secret phrase is written in the envelopes dated 10-24 that Criss Angel has. Raymond "Weels" Hill should've been able to confirm that a few weeks ago; maybe he had some indigestion or something and had to go. :rolleyes:

Teller would be a nice choice if he's so inclined.


I think you're THIS close to stealing Ferj's thunder. :D

[UnrepentantSinner]

So let me see if I understand: Randi is the only other person besides Houdini who knows this phrase?

Here, read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Houdini#Code_words

I was making a joke about Randi having a code word list/secret phrase like Houdini, maybe he does have one, maybe he does not.

[zenotter]

I think you're THIS close to stealing Ferj's thunder. :D
Oh whatEVER. ;)

I keep trying to come up with names of other skeptics who would be a good fit, even branching out in thought to various countries and disciplines (medicine, writing, general geekery), and I can't really think of anyone. Sigh.

[Badger]

For those interested:

Randi's wishes are that the JREF keep running in perpetuity, including after his departure in whatever capacity that might be. Steps have been taken to ensure that is the case.

There is no chosen successor, and there may not be. Randi cannot be replaced. Hopefully, what he does can be picked up by one or more people.

Lots of names have been bandied about here, but none of them have been asked to take over after Randi departs.

One I can assure you that will not take over for Randi is Penn. Neither Randi nor Penn would wish this, as Penn is not interested in heading an organization. Penn remains very close with Randi, but not in the capacity of successor.

Jeff, thank you very much for this clarification.

It spurs my following thoughs (weigh them as you choose)

JREF needs someone to step in as an organizer when Randi dies. The Skeptic Movement (there, I've said it) needs someone to herd all the cats in the same general direction.

JREF forums could go to Shermer's site. The Challenge could be trumpeted by magicians everywhere, both high and low profile. TAM could become more widespread, coordinated with Dawkins, Hitchens (yes, I know), the Mythbusters, Criss Angel's site, and the participants of the Skeptic Web Ring.

Efforts would be focussed more, such that RS Lancaster and CFLarsen weren't kind of hanging their own butts out there, and grass roots education of kids, and media exposure could become more coordinated.

(Here's a barrell of good ole Canadian Crude for the fire) I am reminded of Girl6 and her passion for Skepticism.(Kiless, Athon, Teek, Rebecca, Wolfman, etc. please don't take offense) She contributed immensely to the JREF. Involvement with the first Skepchick calendar, the first TAM, bringing skepticism to disadvantaged inner city children in her area....

I don't mean to say she should be "the one" as I'm sure she has a life and stuff. What I mean to say is that I, personally, would like to see an organizer who has passion for this such that the herd of cats sees why they need to stay in line (and is not afraid to contact any cats that they think will help the quality and dissemination of the herd), and has passion for this such that they are constantly putting themselves in the front line as well.

My 2 cents (Cdn) for whatever that may be worth in your currency.

[Grayce]

Since I think Penn Jillette is one of the coolest guys on earth, I would love to see him taking over after Randi. I don't know how plausible that is, but I would be very excited if that happened. Also Penn Jillette would help JREF become even more known.

With that being said, I ofcourse hope that our amazing Randi lives to be a 100 or more. :)

[RSLancastr]

Efforts would be focussed more, such that RS Lancaster and CFLarsen weren't kind of hanging their own butts out there, and grass roots education of kids, and media exposure could become more coordinated.Okay, now there's an image I think we all could have done without... :boggled:

[Ron_Tomkins]

Randi should make, in addition to the Million Dollar Challenge, a Be-The-Next-Randi challenge.

[T'ai Chi]

Maybe now since a media presence is so important to furthering skepticism, that the next person should have more of a media presence.

[sthomson]

Maybe now since a media presence is so important to furthering skepticism, that the next person should have more of a media presence.

Oh ha ha.

You should try a bit harder to be curmudgeonly. This post just came off as whiny.

[Retto_Pyrrah]

This thread reminds me of the time that my parents sat me down to tell me about their will.

:covereyes

I will just say this and go on with not thinking about it anymore. Penn - No, better as the big, boisterous sidekick of the JREF. Mythbusters guys - No, well not unless Adam stops pretending he's british. I can't think of any yesses. I therefore conclude that it will never happen.

[Soapy Sam]

Surely it has to be someone with the initials "JR"?

[Dunstan]

A couple of points:

1. I agree with those who have observed that a successor need not be a conjurer, as the JREF could always consult with one. It's not as if Randi walks around doing Million Dollar Challenges on the street and has to be constantly ready to catch some sleight-of-hand.

2. I'd also say that there's no particular need for a "high profile" individual. I think many here might be overestimating how well known Randi is outside the "skeptical community." When I first stumbled across this site years ago, it triggered at most vague memories of some guy with a money challenge for proof of the paranormal, and of some conjurer named the "Amazing" Randi. I'm pretty sure I had never connected the two.

It's dangerous to extrapolate from my own ignorance, but whenever I've mentioned Randi or the JREF to other people, I usually get blank stares. And I could be wrong, but I don't think CNN or other media organizations are putting Randi on the air because they think their audience recognizes him.

That doesn't mean fame wouldn't be an asset, but I don't think it's a requirement. You would need someone who can handle him- or herself well on television or other speaking engagements, but that's a different issue.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Surely it has to be someone with the initials "JR"?


JR Tolkien comes to mind

[Soapy Sam]

Or Larry Hagman.

[Math Maniac]

I've read the thread from the beginning, but I don't believe anyone has mentioned Jamy Ian Swiss. Doesn't he have the appropriate magic and skeptical background?

Has he said that he's not interested?

[Ron_Tomkins]

I've read the thread from the beginning, but I don't believe anyone has mentioned Jamy Ian Swiss. Doesn't he have the appropriate magic and skeptical background?

Has he said that he's not interested?


I´m not sure anyone has ever asked him yet.:)

[dudalb]

Someone will be appointed to head the JREF in Randi's absence of course. However, I don't think anyone else will ever be able to fill his shoes. James Randi was alone in stating his skepticism when he started. The fact that we're debating so many different candidates suggests that whoever becomes the new face of skepticism will not be as iconic as James Randi.
Agreed.
I don't think Penn is a good choice to fill Randi' shoes,though. His recent trend toward using "BullSh-t" to push his own political views is not good,IMHO. The head of JREF,although certainly welcome to his own political views,should not use the forum to push them. I think Penn probably would.

[CaptainManacles]

Yes, that's exactly that came to my mind a couple minutes after posting the topic: Penn Jilette would be a perfect candidate for that.

I vote for Teller. I think Penn would have a hard time getting up early enough in the morning to handle randi's job. I mean, Penn couldn't handle a radio show at noon.

[CaptainManacles]

JR Tolkien comes to mind

...comes back from the dead and claims the prize for himself.

[Kahalachan]

Does someone have to take the crown immediately after Randi? Harry Houdini was a master escape artist and magician who was good at debunking woo and Randi didn't come along immediately afterwards.

I would rather wait for someone who really fits the bill instead of quickly hoping for a good replacement.

[rjh01]

I think that may be why the are ending the challenge. So that Randi can retire without risking that the replacement would lose the million dollars. Then the next person can take JREF in any direction they want. Then when the time is right they can challenge woos in their own way. This may or may not include a MDC.

[Kirk]

They are ending the challenge?!?

[rjh01]

They are ending the challenge?!?

Yes, it was in Swift a few weeks ago. See also this thread The challenge is coming to an end. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102667)

[Crundy]

I'd like to see Derren Brown do more for the skeptic community. Magicians can show how tricks such as spoon bending and telekinesis tricks are done, but Derren has done demonstrations before that would convince a lot of people he has psychic abilities. For example, he once stood behind a screen with his hands through two holes and correctly guessed which hand 9 out of 10 people were holding their hand over, and he can win 100% of the time in a game of stone paper scissors. I went to one of his live shows where he made an ouiji board work exactly the way he wanted with random audience members and then cold read a woman on stage without her saying a word.

He would be an excellent candidate to prove that not only are the 'professional' psychics doing something quite simple, but that he can do it ten times more convincingly.