JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags gary schwartz , james randi

Reply
Old 5th February 2009, 03:40 PM   #1
ExMinister
RSL Acolyte
 
ExMinister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,981
Question regarding James Randi and Gary Schwartz

Recently another thread was started which linked to a video and on the same page, this article by Dr. Gary Schwartz: http://dailygrail.com/node/1311

Basically Schwartz is saying that James Randi wrote to him claiming a certain committee, organized to review Schwartz's work, would include Dr. Stanley Krippner. According to Schwartz, when contacted by Schwartz, Krippner denied this and stated he would not have agreed to being part of such a committee.

I'm just interested to know if anyone here knows what really happened in this situation, especially from Mr. Randi's perspective. Gary Schwartz is indicating that James Randi had apparently intentionally mis-stated the facts here, and seems to be implying that James Randi has a history of this. That seems like a serious accusation to me. Does anyone know the story?
__________________
www.stopsylvia.com
ExMinister is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2009, 06:05 PM   #2
The Professor
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 721
I will also be looking into these accusations. Perhaps a call to Randi will help?


"Mr. Randi’s recommendation of Dr. Krippner was certainly acceptable to me. However, when I contacted Dr. Krippner directly to see if Mr. Randi’s statement about him serving on the panel was correct, Dr. Krippner was concerned. Dr. Krippner explained that he had previously emailed Mr. Randi stating that he would not agree to serve on such a committee. The truth is, Dr. Krippner was not willing to serve on the panel, and he made this clear to Mr. Randi.

Given that Mr. Randi apparently misrepresented his purported “Independent Qualified Panel,” the Foundation wisely decided not to take any formal action on Mr. Randi’s request."

Last edited by The Professor; 5th February 2009 at 06:08 PM.
The Professor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2009, 06:18 PM   #3
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 33,550
Wow! I'm impressed!! This absolutely proves something!!!!
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 01:57 AM   #4
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
 
UnrepentantSinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: USAian is not a word
Posts: 26,828
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
Wow! I'm impressed!! This absolutely proves something!!!!
Yep. That no straw is too small to be grasped at.
__________________
I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.
UnrepentantSinner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 06:24 AM   #5
Limbo
Jedi Consular
 
Limbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,000
No doubt skeptics want to get to the bottom of this very badly. No doubt there are loads of skeptics investigating this as we speak...unwilling to merely assume blindly one way or another. That's not what skepticism is about. After all, skeptics are careful, fair-minded people and if Randi is a dishonest, manipulative, misleading person then they would want to know, in the interests of the truth, which to a skeptic is FAR more important than petty ideology and personal feelings.
__________________
"Faith in what?" he asked himself, adrift in limbo.

"Faith in faith," he replied. "It isn't necessary to have something to believe in. It's only necessary to believe that somewhere there's something worthy of belief."

Last edited by Limbo; 6th February 2009 at 06:29 AM.
Limbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 06:46 AM   #6
ExMinister
RSL Acolyte
 
ExMinister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,981
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
Wow! I'm impressed!! This absolutely proves something!!!!
Right - not only does it not prove anything (that wasn't my intention for asking about this), but there are two sides to every story. Even if partly true, I would bet there is more to the story here. For example, there is perhaps more to the history between the two of them that we aren't privileged to know about.

At any rate, even if James Randi did for whatever reason mis-state the case to Schwartz, unless he (or someone close to him) feels it is worth coming forward to explain, then out of respect for Mr. Randi, I personally will assume he had reasons that seemed honorable enough at the time, which we just aren't aware of yet.

Again, though, I was just hoping that people here might know the full story.
__________________
www.stopsylvia.com
ExMinister is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 06:57 AM   #7
Limbo
Jedi Consular
 
Limbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,000
Originally Posted by ExMinister View Post
Again, though, I was just hoping that people here might know the full story.

Nope...case closed, if it was ever truly open to begin with. Randi is assumed to be honest and honorable by his loyal followers. Lucky for him that skeptics are selective about where they aim their skepticism.

A Skeptical Look At James Randi

Skeptics duped by Fraudulent Skeptics
__________________
"Faith in what?" he asked himself, adrift in limbo.

"Faith in faith," he replied. "It isn't necessary to have something to believe in. It's only necessary to believe that somewhere there's something worthy of belief."

Last edited by Limbo; 6th February 2009 at 07:13 AM.
Limbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 07:58 AM   #8
paiute
Graduate Poster
 
paiute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Smack in the middle of a de Broglie wavelength.
Posts: 1,229
We are not amused

Originally Posted by Limbo View Post
Nope...case closed, if it was ever truly open to begin with. Randi is assumed to be honest and honorable by his loyal followers. Lucky for him that skeptics are selective about where they aim their skepticism.

A Skeptical Look At James Randi

Skeptics duped by Fraudulent Skeptics
A quote from a post in the second link above:

"I know psi is real because I've tested the previous psi researchers, informally, and I'm satisfied that they have a power. I'm also satisfied that the predictions they have given me in my personal life are real, and not just vague generalities - though they have been wrong sometimes, they are usually correct."

I have great sympathy for the person who wrote that, because as it happens, I am satisfied that I am the Queen of England. I'm also satisfied that my powers and privileges are those due to My Royal Highness.

The damn Bank of England, however, demands proof, even though I am thoroughly satisfied!
__________________
A Novel and Efficient Synthesis of Cadaverine
Organic chemistry, vengeful ghosts, and high explosives. What could possibly go wrong?
Now free for download!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36568510/A...-of-Cadaverine
paiute is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 09:32 AM   #9
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,422
Originally Posted by paiute View Post
A quote from a post in the second link above:

"I know psi is real because I've tested the previous psi researchers, informally, and I'm satisfied that they have a power. I'm also satisfied that the predictions they have given me in my personal life are real, and not just vague generalities - though they have been wrong sometimes, they are usually correct."

I have great sympathy for the person who wrote that, because as it happens, I am satisfied that I am the Queen of England. I'm also satisfied that my powers and privileges are those due to My Royal Highness.

The damn Bank of England, however, demands proof, even though I am thoroughly satisfied!
I at least believe you because I read it on the Internet!
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 02:32 PM   #10
Limbo
Jedi Consular
 
Limbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,000
Originally Posted by paiute View Post
I have great sympathy for the person who wrote that, because as it happens, I am satisfied that I am the Queen of England. I'm also satisfied that my powers and privileges are those due to My Royal Highness.

The damn Bank of England, however, demands proof, even though I am thoroughly satisfied!

Wow! I'm impressed!! This absolutely proves something!!!!
__________________
"Faith in what?" he asked himself, adrift in limbo.

"Faith in faith," he replied. "It isn't necessary to have something to believe in. It's only necessary to believe that somewhere there's something worthy of belief."
Limbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 02:47 PM   #11
Limbo
Jedi Consular
 
Limbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,000
How Skeptics Work
__________________
"Faith in what?" he asked himself, adrift in limbo.

"Faith in faith," he replied. "It isn't necessary to have something to believe in. It's only necessary to believe that somewhere there's something worthy of belief."
Limbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 03:03 PM   #12
juryjone
Refusing to be confused by facts
 
juryjone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 880
You may want to check the Swift archive for May 18, 2001 for Randi's side. Sorry, I can't cut and paste the URL.


Funny, he doesn't seem dishonest to me...
__________________
"Humanity is slipping into the void of ignorance while you cheer and wave." - Tirdun, in reference to geggy and the 9/11 conspiracy theorists
juryjone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 03:30 PM   #13
ExMinister
RSL Acolyte
 
ExMinister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,981
Originally Posted by juryjone View Post
You may want to check the Swift archive for May 18, 2001 for Randi's side. Sorry, I can't cut and paste the URL.


Funny, he doesn't seem dishonest to me...
Thanks Juryjone! That's exactly what I was looking for. Here is the relevant part from the above-mentioned Swift for anyone who is interested:


"On Wed, 9 May 2001, an inquirer wrote to Dr. Gary Schwartz informing him that someone had posted a message on the Internet claiming that he (Schwartz) had contacted one of the people that I had suggested be used as a panelist for the million dollar "grant" to the University of Arizona, and that this un-named person had said that he was "not contacted by Randi, and if they were, would not participate in the test."
First, note that there was no "test" involved. It was merely a proposed examination of the Schwartz data already produced, upon which the widespread media attention was based. Schwartz responded:


'I did contact someone, and have email documentation that Randi lied about his conversation with this person. '

Pause to reflect. Note that Schwartz — remember, he's the one who has been bleating about being "forthcoming," "up-front," and "sharing" in these matters — doesn't tell us which of these four persons he contacted. I just ask you to notice that. And as we will see, Dr. Schwartz's definition of "lied" may need some work.

'Randi is a bright guy, but he is not to be trusted with the truth. '

Really? Well, I checked with all four persons who were named by me as a suggested independent panel who could examine the Schwartz data. The person of whom Schwartz was writing, the un-named member of the suggested panel, was Dr. Stanley Krippner of San Francisco's Saybrook Institute. Stanley has worked with me previously on handling data of this sort. I most certainly did contact this man.

My conversation with Dr. Krippner revealed that he had decided that he was, in his own words, "overloaded" at present, and that he wished Schwartz would "get his act together." He agreed that he could be involved with a test of Sylvia Browne (no, a full 73 days after her agreeing to be tested, she has still not responded!) but he said that the Schwartz data was just so voluminous, he would not be able — at this time of the year — to take the time required to look over the material. In my original phone conversation with Stanley, I had spoken with him about both a test of Browne and an examination of the Schwartz data, but not a "test" of Schwartz. Krippner had agreed to be presently involved with Browne, but not presently with the Schwartz data, for the reasons given. He just cannot at this time take on new projects, but this is the sort of thing on which we have worked in the past, and Stanley is most knowledgeable and proficient in this field.

Dr. Krippner has suggested three other persons in parapsychology who I am currently reaching out to..."
__________________
www.stopsylvia.com
ExMinister is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 03:35 PM   #14
ExMinister
RSL Acolyte
 
ExMinister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,981
Originally Posted by Limbo View Post
Thanks, Limbo. I have listened to part of this and have checked out the links you provided above. I am always open to considering things from different viewpoints and so your input is appreciated, too.
__________________
www.stopsylvia.com
ExMinister is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 03:38 PM   #15
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,215
Originally Posted by Limbo View Post
No doubt skeptics want to get to the bottom of this very badly. No doubt there are loads of skeptics investigating this as we speak...unwilling to merely assume blindly one way or another. That's not what skepticism is about. After all, skeptics are careful, fair-minded people and if Randi is a dishonest, manipulative, misleading person then they would want to know, in the interests of the truth, which to a skeptic is FAR more important than petty ideology and personal feelings.
Absolutely...but you're preaching to the choir, man.
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 04:33 PM   #16
legne
Scholar
 
legne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Norway aka Snoreway
Posts: 100
I find it amusing that Schwartz is accusing Randi of something that Schwartz himself is guilty of.
And attempting to make woo-woo look like science is in reality attempting to make lies look like the truth, like conspiracy theories. And usually conspiracy theorists think it's they who are the skeptics, but in reality they're just extremely gullible.
legne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 04:38 PM   #17
legne
Scholar
 
legne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Norway aka Snoreway
Posts: 100
Originally Posted by Limbo View Post
Seriously? Go on the "about us" page thingy and google all of the names.
forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84022
^ (I guess it's biased huh? )
legne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 09:29 PM   #18
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
 
UnrepentantSinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: USAian is not a word
Posts: 26,828
Originally Posted by Limbo View Post
{snip}forum.mind-energy.net{snip}
Originally Posted by Limbo View Post
{snip}sheldrake.org{snip}
__________________
I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.
UnrepentantSinner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2009, 03:06 AM   #19
plumjam
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Valencia, Spain
Posts: 7,837
Originally Posted by Limbo View Post
Excellent talk. The more reasonable 'skeptics' should really be asking themselves why they give such credence to these self-appointed 'experts'.
plumjam is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2009, 09:16 AM   #20
BobR
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 381
Funny, he doesn't seem dishonest to me...[/quote]

I personally commend Mr. Randi's work in exposing the vast majority of people in the field that at least overstate their cases, and at most are frauds. I do however find that he has a tendency to amplify facts that support his positions in order to distract attention from facts that do not. His treatment of the Edgar Cayce materials in "Flim-Flam" will serve as an example of the sort of treatment from which I draw my conclusion.
BobR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2009, 09:31 AM   #21
BobR
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by plumjam View Post
Excellent talk. The more reasonable 'skeptics' should really be asking themselves why they give such credence to these self-appointed 'experts'.
Mr. Randi included, it must be said.
BobR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2009, 09:45 AM   #22
kuroyume0161
Graduate Poster
 
kuroyume0161's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Loveland, CO, USA
Posts: 1,628
Originally Posted by BobR View Post
Mr. Randi included, it must be said.
Which experts *in the field in which they are expert* is Randi misusing?
kuroyume0161 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2009, 09:48 AM   #23
kuroyume0161
Graduate Poster
 
kuroyume0161's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Loveland, CO, USA
Posts: 1,628
Originally Posted by BobR View Post
I personally commend Mr. Randi's work in exposing the vast majority of people in the field that at least overstate their cases, and at most are frauds.
Correct me if I'm misreading of the context here that you think that there are cases of true paranormal activity? If that is the case then can you provide a list of studies which you think do so?
kuroyume0161 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2009, 11:46 AM   #24
BobR
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 381
<you think that there are cases of true paranormal activity?

I suspect it is highly likely. On the other hand, I find that there is no irrefutable proof that such exists, any more than there is irrefutable proof that it doesn't.

<If that is the case then can you provide a list of studies which you think do so?

A list of studies that I think do what, please?
BobR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2009, 11:48 AM   #25
BobR
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by kuroyume0161 View Post
Which experts *in the field in which they are expert* is Randi misusing?
Suppose you tell me, since this is your implied assertion and not mine.
BobR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2009, 12:04 PM   #26
madurobob
Philosopher
 
madurobob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven, NC
Posts: 5,694
Originally Posted by BobR View Post
I personally commend Mr. Randi's work in exposing the vast majority of people in the field that at least overstate their cases, and at most are frauds. I do however find that he has a tendency to amplify facts that support his positions in order to distract attention from facts that do not. His treatment of the Edgar Cayce materials in "Flim-Flam" will serve as an example of the sort of treatment from which I draw my conclusion.
So, you are suggesting Randi intentionally omitted strong evidence of Cayce's paranormal abilities? You'll be offering examples for our consideration then?
__________________
Insert witty phrase or out of context post by another member here.
madurobob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2009, 02:18 PM   #27
BobR
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by madurobob View Post
So, you are suggesting Randi intentionally omitted strong evidence of Cayce's paranormal abilities? You'll be offering examples for our consideration then?
I don't know. Define "strong". My position is that Randi intentionally omitted evidence that was a good deal stronger than the evidence he provided.

Randi used a sample of the very large body of Cayce materials that was not a representative sample of that body of work. He pretty much restricted his examination to material having to do with missing person location, which Cayce himself warned that he was unable to do, and "life readings" having to do with past lives in Atlantis or whatever, which are unprovable one way or the other.

Now, if Randi really wanted to refute Cayce, why didn't he go to the thousands of instances of readings which purport to show Cayce diagnosing illnesses from hundreds of miles away and prescribing treatments, and show those to be "flim-flam"? His refutation would have been much more convincing to me. While they are not necessarily "strong evidence" (again definition required), they are not "no evidence at all", either, as the evidence he gives is. So Randi is using straw man arguments here, and that is perhaps strong evidence in its own right: "The Amazing Randi" is up to a few tricks of his own, and he wouldn't do that if he felt no need to hide anything.

Rather than "offering examples for our consideration" (a true skeptic will research my point of view anyway) I will direct those interested to the materials from which I drew my conclusions, and invite them to draw their own. One may take up a copy of Randi's "Flim-Flam!", look for Cayce in the index, and read what I read. One may then browse the 35,000 or so pages of Cayce material in Virginia Beach, VA (of course there are many books, but not too many skeptics have written them), and conclude for oneself what Randi's intentions were.

I must say that Randi doesn't appear to me to be a skeptic at all on the matter of the existence of paranormal phenomena. Rather he looks like a confirmed advocate of the idea that they do not exist. In most cases presented I'm in complete agreement with him. (The Peter Popoff exposure, for example, was a great public service, and that SOB deserved everything he got.) However, in a very few cases I am not as certain as he advocates himself to be, and the case of Edgar Cayce is one of them.
BobR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2009, 02:33 PM   #28
Azrael 5
Philosopher
 
Azrael 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Yorkshire,Uk
Posts: 5,304
Originally Posted by BobR View Post
*snip*

Now, if Randi really wanted to refute Cayce, why didn't he go to the thousands of instances of readings which purport to show Cayce diagnosing illnesses from hundreds of miles away and prescribing treatments, and show those to be "flim-flam"?.) However, in a very few cases I am not as certain as he advocates himself to be, and the case of Edgar Cayce is one of them.
Why doesn't Edgar Cayce present himself for peer reviewed scientic investigation instead of moaning about Randi? Best way to show the world that a) He has these amazing powers and b) Randi is all talk.

Off you go and let us know when this happens.
__________________
"I achieve these results through a mixture of magic,misdirection,suggestion and showmanship"-Derren Brown
Azrael 5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2009, 02:53 PM   #29
madurobob
Philosopher
 
madurobob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven, NC
Posts: 5,694
Originally Posted by BobR View Post
I don't know. Define "strong". My position is that Randi intentionally omitted evidence that was a good deal stronger than the evidence he provided.
Agreed - lets ignore the "strong" bit and just consider "evidence".

Originally Posted by BobR View Post
Randi used a sample of the very large body of Cayce materials that was not a representative sample of that body of work. He pretty much restricted his examination to material having to do with missing person location, which Cayce himself warned that he was unable to do, and "life readings" having to do with past lives in Atlantis or whatever, which are unprovable one way or the other.
He warned he couldn't do it... then did it anyway? Curious. Not unlike a con man playing both sides.

As for Randi's book, of course he couldn't include everything about Cayce, or he'd have an entire book devoted to him, perhaps two or three. The point is he picked some obvious items to show how they were used to trick people.

Originally Posted by BobR View Post
Now, if Randi really wanted to refute Cayce, why didn't he go to the thousands of instances of readings which purport to show Cayce diagnosing illnesses from hundreds of miles away and prescribing treatments, and show those to be "flim-flam"? His refutation would have been much more convincing to me. While they are not necessarily "strong evidence" (again definition required), they are not "no evidence at all", either, as the evidence he gives is. So Randi is using straw man arguments here, and that is perhaps strong evidence in its own right: "The Amazing Randi" is up to a few tricks of his own, and he wouldn't do that if he felt no need to hide anything.
Oh, I see, because Randi didn't devote multiple volumes to every bit of Cayce material, he must be trying to hide something? Hmmm.. did Cayce document all his misses?

Originally Posted by BobR View Post
I must say that Randi doesn't appear to me to be a skeptic at all on the matter of the existence of paranormal phenomena. Rather he looks like a confirmed advocate of the idea that they do not exist. In most cases presented I'm in complete agreement with him. (The Peter Popoff exposure, for example, was a great public service, and that SOB deserved everything he got.) However, in a very few cases I am not as certain as he advocates himself to be, and the case of Edgar Cayce is one of them.
You appear to have fallen into the mindset of the credulous. That is, you would expect the skeptic to prove the negative - to prove something doesn't exist. There is a fundamental logical flaw in that approach. The correct approach to any claim of paranormal activity is to require positive proof. The one making the claim must provide evidence to prove the claims.

I await your proof of Cayce's paranormal ability. No, I 'm not going to visit Virginia Beach (not that far away - been there may times). If you have evidence to present, present it here and we can debate its merits. If you have no evidence to present or refuse to present it... then what exactly do you expect to accomplish here on a skeptics forum?
__________________
Insert witty phrase or out of context post by another member here.
madurobob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2009, 02:54 PM   #30
bookitty
Philosopher
 
bookitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,532
I've always been fascinated by Cayce and have studied him on and off for decades. He is unique in many ways, quite unlike the bombastic showmen that make up the majority of self-described psychics. His work shows human frailty and even self-deprecation. There is an honesty to what he believed.

But through it all is the same thread of self-delusion that any member of this forum has seen in the numerous psychics that pop up here. It doesn't really matter how much they believe in their gift if there is no proof that it actually exists. Again and again, you see the same confirmation-bias, the same repetitions and the same stubborn clinging to fantasy.

You are saying that Cayce may have been right about some things and wrong about others. But so many of his trance-induced readings are obvious fantasies - Atlantis, talking to Jesus, being an ancient priest. Many of the others are simply common sense, like avoiding alcohol or getting exercise.

It would be nearly impossible to track down the people he "healed" to see what illness they had, if it was self-limiting or if it was the placebo affect.

But, if Cayce was truly capable of even one tenth of what he claimed, then there would be some proof of paranormal powers. If these powers exist, then Cayce should not be unique. If we look at his modern contemporaries, we find nothing to support the idea that these powers occur.

The theory that Cayce was an honestly caring person who vividly daydreamed about helping people is far more plausible.
bookitty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2009, 03:07 PM   #31
BobR
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by Azrael 5 View Post
Why doesn't Edgar Cayce present himself for peer reviewed scientic investigation instead of moaning about Randi? Best way to show the world that a) He has these amazing powers and b) Randi is all talk.

Off you go and let us know when this happens.
Suppose you google "Edgar Cayce" and spend the 60 seconds it would take to research your own answer to your satisfaction. I think you'll find it most enlightening, and hopefully, you'll not let any embarrassment you might feel prevent you from sharing what you find.

Off you go yourself, then...
BobR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2009, 03:09 PM   #32
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 24,999
Originally Posted by Azrael 5 View Post
Why doesn't Edgar Cayce present himself for peer reviewed scientic investigation instead of moaning about Randi?

I suspect that if he were to do either he would have a pretty good claim on the million.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2009, 03:12 PM   #33
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 24,999
We've had threads in which what were alleged by a Cayce supporter to be his strongest cases of medical clairvoyance, and "paranormal" access to then unknown medical knowledge, were examined. There really wasn't much there.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2009, 03:23 PM   #34
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,422
Originally Posted by BobR View Post
Suppose you google "Edgar Cayce" and spend the 60 seconds it would take to research your own answer to your satisfaction. I think you'll find it most enlightening, and hopefully, you'll not let any embarrassment you might feel prevent you from sharing what you find.

Off you go yourself, then...
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2009, 03:52 PM   #35
ExMinister
RSL Acolyte
 
ExMinister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,981
Strange to see a thread resurrected after almost a year.

Originally Posted by BobR View Post
I don't know. Define "strong". My position is that Randi intentionally omitted evidence that was a good deal stronger than the evidence he provided.

Randi used a sample of the very large body of Cayce materials that was not a representative sample of that body of work. He pretty much restricted his examination to material having to do with missing person location, which Cayce himself warned that he was unable to do, and "life readings" having to do with past lives in Atlantis or whatever, which are unprovable one way or the other.

Now, if Randi really wanted to refute Cayce, why didn't he go to the thousands of instances of readings which purport to show Cayce diagnosing illnesses from hundreds of miles away and prescribing treatments, and show those to be "flim-flam"? His refutation would have been much more convincing to me. While they are not necessarily "strong evidence" (again definition required), they are not "no evidence at all", either, as the evidence he gives is. So Randi is using straw man arguments here, and that is perhaps strong evidence in its own right: "The Amazing Randi" is up to a few tricks of his own, and he wouldn't do that if he felt no need to hide anything.

Rather than "offering examples for our consideration" (a true skeptic will research my point of view anyway) I will direct those interested to the materials from which I drew my conclusions, and invite them to draw their own. One may take up a copy of Randi's "Flim-Flam!", look for Cayce in the index, and read what I read. One may then browse the 35,000 or so pages of Cayce material in Virginia Beach, VA (of course there are many books, but not too many skeptics have written them), and conclude for oneself what Randi's intentions were.

I must say that Randi doesn't appear to me to be a skeptic at all on the matter of the existence of paranormal phenomena. Rather he looks like a confirmed advocate of the idea that they do not exist. In most cases presented I'm in complete agreement with him. (The Peter Popoff exposure, for example, was a great public service, and that SOB deserved everything he got.) However, in a very few cases I am not as certain as he advocates himself to be, and the case of Edgar Cayce is one of them.
Where did Cayce say that he was "unable to do" missing persons readings?

I just re-read the passage in Flim-Flam. The only part I have ever disagreed with is the statement that Cayce was fond of expressions like "I feel that" and "perhaps" to avoid making positive declarations. I have the Cayce readings on CD-ROM and had studied him for years and hadn't come across those kinds of statements much at all. What Cayce does, though, is speak in such convoluted sentences that it is sometimes hard to make any sense whatsoever out of what he is saying.

Personally I think James Randi's assessment is fair enough, as far as it goes. It wasn't meant to be a comprehensive treastise on Cayce, but a brief overview. And contrary to what you say here, I found no discussion of past lives in Atlantis. He didn't even mention Cayce's mis-dating of the Great Pyramid or the Earth Changes that were predicted for 20 years ago, two of Cayce's bigger fails.
__________________
www.stopsylvia.com
ExMinister is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2009, 06:18 PM   #36
Minarvia
fading orb
 
Minarvia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Illinois
Posts: 2,261
Long ago I read a couple of books on Cayce (pro-Cayce) and was embarrassed. I was embarrassed that the material was presented so seriously. I also seem to recall that he said Atlantis would rise in 1969. Still waiting on that one, we are.
Minarvia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2010, 02:28 AM   #37
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 24,999
Originally Posted by Minarvia View Post
Long ago I read a couple of books on Cayce (pro-Cayce) and was embarrassed. I was embarrassed that the material was presented so seriously. I also seem to recall that he said Atlantis would rise in 1969. Still waiting on that one, we are.

His 1934 prediction that Hitler would rise to power in Germany is pretty impressive as well, having been made about a year after Hitler became Chancellor.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2010, 01:50 PM   #38
BobR
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by ExMinister View Post
Strange to see a thread resurrected after almost a year.



Where did Cayce say that he was "unable to do" missing persons readings?

I just re-read the passage in Flim-Flam. The only part I have ever disagreed with is the statement that Cayce was fond of expressions like "I feel that" and "perhaps" to avoid making positive declarations. I have the Cayce readings on CD-ROM and had studied him for years and hadn't come across those kinds of statements much at all. What Cayce does, though, is speak in such convoluted sentences that it is sometimes hard to make any sense whatsoever out of what he is saying.

Personally I think James Randi's assessment is fair enough, as far as it goes. It wasn't meant to be a comprehensive treastise on Cayce, but a brief overview. And contrary to what you say here, I found no discussion of past lives in Atlantis. He didn't even mention Cayce's mis-dating of the Great Pyramid or the Earth Changes that were predicted for 20 years ago, two of Cayce's bigger fails.
I'll defer to your knowledge of the details of Randi's examples, since I haven't picked up the book in a while. Also, the statement about Cayce saying that he hadn't much ability with locating missing persons is probably fourth-level hearsay. I read it somewhere in a bio as I recall. So I'll be glad to retract it, especially since its veracity has no bearing on my argument.

However, my assertion stands. Randi avoided the more interesting examples that have been the subject of argument, instead choosing to submit some of his "epic fails" instead. I take exception to your implication that he could not have done otherwise in a brief overview.

As for Cayce's misdating of the pyramid, there is compelling evidence that the sphinx has been subjected to about a thousand years of water erosion, which calls the accepted date range of its construction, and by association those of the pyramid, seriously into question.

I find these passages much more controversial than those that Randi submitted:

March 1929

“…we may expect a CONSIDERABLE break and bear market, see? This issue being between those of the reserves of nations and of INDIVIDUALS, and will cause—unless another of the more STABLE banking conditions come to the relief—a great disturbance in financial circles. This warning has been given, see?”

1935

This will make for the taking of sides, as it were, by various groups or countries or governments. This will be indicated by the Austrians, Germans, and later the Japanese joining in their influence; unseen, and gradually growing to those affairs where there must become, as it were, almost a direct opposition to that which has been the THEME of the Nazis (the Aryan). For these will gradually make for a growing of animosities.

And unless there is interference from what may be called by many the SUPERNATURAL forces and influences, that are activative in the affairs of nations and peoples, the whole WORLD – as it were – will be set on fire by the militaristic groups and those that are “for” power and expansion in such associations...

1939

You are to have turmoil -- you are to have strife between capital and labor. You are to have a division in your own land, before you have the second of the Presidents that next will not live through his office ... a mob rule!"
BobR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2010, 01:53 PM   #39
BobR
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by bookitty View Post
I've always been fascinated by Cayce and have studied him on and off for decades. He is unique in many ways, quite unlike the bombastic showmen that make up the majority of self-described psychics. His work shows human frailty and even self-deprecation. There is an honesty to what he believed.

But through it all is the same thread of self-delusion that any member of this forum has seen in the numerous psychics that pop up here. It doesn't really matter how much they believe in their gift if there is no proof that it actually exists. Again and again, you see the same confirmation-bias, the same repetitions and the same stubborn clinging to fantasy.

You are saying that Cayce may have been right about some things and wrong about others. But so many of his trance-induced readings are obvious fantasies - Atlantis, talking to Jesus, being an ancient priest. Many of the others are simply common sense, like avoiding alcohol or getting exercise.

It would be nearly impossible to track down the people he "healed" to see what illness they had, if it was self-limiting or if it was the placebo affect.

But, if Cayce was truly capable of even one tenth of what he claimed, then there would be some proof of paranormal powers. If these powers exist, then Cayce should not be unique. If we look at his modern contemporaries, we find nothing to support the idea that these powers occur.

The theory that Cayce was an honestly caring person who vividly daydreamed about helping people is far more plausible.
I'm afraid I don't find your arguments convincing. I remain as skeptical of the nonexistence of paranormal phenomena as I do of the reverse.
BobR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2010, 02:04 PM   #40
bookitty
Philosopher
 
bookitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,532
Originally Posted by BobR View Post
<Snip>

I find these passages much more controversial than those that Randi submitted:

March 1929

“…we may expect a CONSIDERABLE break and bear market, see? This issue being between those of the reserves of nations and of INDIVIDUALS, and will cause—unless another of the more STABLE banking conditions come to the relief—a great disturbance in financial circles. This warning has been given, see?”

1935

This will make for the taking of sides, as it were, by various groups or countries or governments. This will be indicated by the Austrians, Germans, and later the Japanese joining in their influence; unseen, and gradually growing to those affairs where there must become, as it were, almost a direct opposition to that which has been the THEME of the Nazis (the Aryan). For these will gradually make for a growing of animosities.

And unless there is interference from what may be called by many the SUPERNATURAL forces and influences, that are activative in the affairs of nations and peoples, the whole WORLD – as it were – will be set on fire by the militaristic groups and those that are “for” power and expansion in such associations...

1939

You are to have turmoil -- you are to have strife between capital and labor. You are to have a division in your own land, before you have the second of the Presidents that next will not live through his office ... a mob rule!"

Those are indeed intriguing but raise many questions. What is the source of those quotes? Is it possible to prove that they were written before the fact? Or were they gleaned from something written after the dates mentioned?

In the source for those quotes, how many other predictions were given that were wrong? If these 3 are the only correct out of say, 200 predictions, they are far less impressive. Remember, Cayce was incredibly prolific. With so many predictions to choose from it would be nearly impossible to not get some right from chance alone.

Last edited by bookitty; 5th January 2010 at 02:07 PM. Reason: clarity
bookitty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:07 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.