Can we still debunk with out giving away magicians secrets?

Baker · 26th June 2003, 03:51 AM

I have been wondering about this for some time how do you prove frauds like Uri Geller without giving away magicians secrets?

You have to show how they are deceiving us but what if that means exposing long held secrets of magicians?
For example if a self claimed physic used every known magicians trick to prove his powers do you expose all of them?

Lavie Enrose · 26th June 2003, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Baker
I have been wondering about this for some time how do you prove frauds like Uri Geller without giving away magicians secrets?

You have to show how they are deceiving us but what if that means exposing long held secrets of magicians?
For example if a self claimed physic used every known magicians trick to prove his powers do you expose all of them?

How does James Randi do it? I think you will find your answer there.

rustypouch · 26th June 2003, 12:58 PM

I think it is possible. Most muggles (I can't believe I used that word), when they learn how an effect is performed, think that the method is exclusive to the trick.

In other words, even if they know one sleight, they can still be fooled by it if it is used in a different context.

So even if the methods of pyschics were revealed, people would still be fooled by them if they were used in a different trick.

Soubrette · 26th June 2003, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lavie Enrose

How does James Randi do it? I think you will find your answer there.

Hmmm as far as I know he tells us it's a simple trick that any half decent magician could do.

Of course he is a magician - someone like me just saying that with no evidence is unlikely to work as well imo

thanks for the link in your pm btw Lavie

Sou

Lavie Enrose · 26th June 2003, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Soubrette
Hmmm as far as I know he tells us it's a simple trick that any half decent magician could do.

Of course he is a magician - someone like me just saying that with no evidence is unlikely to work as well imo

Yes. Randi demonstrates how he can duplicate the same effect through trickery without revealing how he does it - if the methods he used are the methods used by other professional magicians.

If you do some searching through Randi's Commentary archive, you will see how Randi exposes a fraud without exposing any legitimate secrets of magic.

Here is an example I was able to find with a quick search:

The Moving Compass Trick

Brian · 26th June 2003, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Baker
I have been wondering about this for some time how do you prove frauds like Uri Geller without giving away magicians secrets?

You have to show how they are deceiving us but what if that means exposing long held secrets of magicians?
For example if a self claimed physic used every known magicians trick to prove his powers do you expose all of them?

The two big ones, spoon bending and cold reading Randi has given the secret to. They're both silly tricks that no pro uses, mostly just thieves.
In his commentary Randi said that you "bend them when no one is looking." That is the whole trick, there is nothing else to it.
Cold reading has been gone over again and again. It's a guessing game.
I believe these two at least, you can talk about as much as you want.

Lavie Enrose · 27th June 2003, 05:34 PM

I moved this post from another thread because I think it is more suited to this thread.

Quote:

Originally posted by Earthborn
In short: how can we educate people by keeping secrets?

An example:

From: Randi's Commentary, February 23, 2001

Quote:

The "Alternate Perceptions" article, as I said last week, runs 24 pages, and describes in detail 42 different tricks that were performed. Some are so simple that I won't include them, and a few are slightly more involved routines -- as indicated by the fact that the performer had to try several times to get them to work. At the end of this piece, you will see a web page listed, along with a phone number and address of the magic dealer who sells the tricks. PLEASE don't call or write to ask about the way in which the tricks are performed. The dealer will not discuss this with you. He offers a catalog for sale, the one in which I found these items listed, and from which I have taken the illustrations you see here. He also sells the tricks themselves. I have long been familiar with these tricks, but have listed them so that you can prove for yourself, if you need to, that they exist as recognized, standard, parts of the amateur magician's repertoire.

Quote:

Number 36 is one from a very early book on parlor-tricks, but it's sold in the catalog as "The Haunted Key" routine, in which a regular latch-key slowly turns over on your palm. Here's the instruction sheet, though I've blanked out the pertinent parts. Hey, at $10.00 for item #F1-128, you should buy this one and be accepted by parapsychologists as The Real Thing! You get the key, the instructions, everything but the music and the dancing girls!

Earthborn · 28th June 2003, 04:23 PM

Lavie Enrose, suppose I promose someone to educate him/her on chemistry, but when this person is ready to receive the lesson, all I say is: "Buy the book"

Am I really educating people by telling them that they can buy the knowledge they want or need? I'd say not. I'd say that education is telling people how something works: not telling how something works is not educating.

Lavie Enrose · 28th June 2003, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Earthborn
Am I really educating people by telling them that they can buy the knowledge they want or need? I'd say not. I'd say that education is telling people how something works: not telling how something works is not educating.

So, it is not enough for me to tell a person that it is a magic trick, and where she/he can buy the trick, I also have to tell her/him how the trick is done, or she/he will believe it is real? If that is the case, some people must be really stupid (and lazy). People that stupid are not going to believe me, even if I do show them how it was done.

Baker · 29th June 2003, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lavie Enrose

So, it is not enough for me to tell a person that it is a magic trick, and where she/he can buy the trick, I also have to tell her/him how the trick is done, or she/he will believe it is real? If that is the case, some people must be really stupid (and lazy). People that stupid are not going to believe me, even if I do show them how it was done.

If it was just as simple as telling them that’s simply just a trick then we wouldn’t need the JREF forum.
The book just you refer to just gives the items to do some tricks not how to do them.
Unfortunately, many people are stupid and lazy which is why there are so many believers.
Look at the replies to this thread on the show Psychic Secrets Revealed.
Which you also participated in

Watching it now. So far it seems to be "Psychic Magician Secrets Exposed" with the 4 unmasked magicians.

One of them is named Mark Edward. Heh.

The first trick was in William Poundstone's Big Secrets, and a card force could have accomplished the same thing.

No cold reading yet. Don't have high hopes that I'll see any.

EDITED after seeing spot before commercial.
Cold reading demonstration is coming up. Hopefully it won't turn into the old hearing aid number.

Yep, it was the hearing aid.

__________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

So far my only real complaint is that they've not stated that there is usually more than one way to do most of these stunts. Other than that, I'm pleased to see them demonstrating so many different topics, even if most of them are "secrets of magicians revealed" type. Then again, the good scam artists borrow heavily from the tricks of 'real' magicians. The bad ones simply rely on their target's total incredulity.

I was disappointed. It seemed that for the most part they were revealing magic tricks and things no self-professed 'psychic' would ever do for a victim.

__________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Lost Sailor
I was disappointed. It seemed that for the most part they were revealing magic tricks and things no self-professed 'psychic' would ever do for a victim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I felt the same way. I guess they will not reveal the secrets of the big name "psychics" for fear of being sued by these con artists.

It make me appreciate the work of James Randi even more.

__________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

I was pretty disappointed by the show. They definitely went with the "Look at all the fancy stuff!" angle rather than the "Skilled deceptionist" angle. Cutting spoons almost all the way through to spoonbend 'em, the mirror in the shoe gag, and the overly complex tables (including one with a guy underneath)...

Then they tossed in a few tricks I've never even heard of, like the dial-a-psychic card reader and the audience shattering a glass with their ESP (and the help of a mousetrap spring and wire).

South Park did a better job debunking Edward and clones.

Earthborn · 29th June 2003, 05:59 AM

Quote:

So, it is not enough for me to tell a person that it is a magic trick, and where she/he can buy the trick, I also have to tell her/him how the trick is done, or she/he will believe it is real?

What you say is delicously irrelevant. Of course it is not enough to tell people certain things are tricks!

It is not just about trying to convince people that so called psychics are more often than not deliberate frauds. It is also about teaching potential claimants why certain security measures are necessary. It is also about teaching scientists to design better experiments. To teach people critical thinking skills so they see through tricks frauds use, even if these tricks are completely new. I want people to have insight, not just the knowledge that somewhere someone knows how something works.

Quote:

If that is the case, some people must be really stupid (and lazy).

Please provide your evidence that people who are unable to figure out common tricks because no one is willing to tell them how they work, are of below average intelligence.

People only assume that 'paranormal' abilities because they do not have the knowledge on how something can be explained in a simpler way. It is a sort of 'God of the gaps' type of explanation.

Quote:

People that stupid are not going to believe me, even if I do show them how it was done.

Please provide your evidence that the people who are told how something works, in terms they understand, are unable to believe that the simple explanation is at least a possibility.

Please tell how you can explain to people (who are able to believe the simple explanation is at least a possibility) what signs to look for to differentiate between the simple explanation is a possible different one...

You seem to be arguing that critical thinking is something that some people just 'get' and others are unable to: they simply can't be educated. If that is the case, what do you think the E in JREF stands for?

Lavie Enrose · 29th June 2003, 11:28 AM

Quote:

You seem to be arguing that critical thinking is something that some people just 'get' and others are unable to: they simply can't be educated. If that is the case, what do you think the E in JREF stands for?

I am arguing that you do not have to reveal the secrets of magic in order for people to understand that many things can be accomplished through trickery, or cheating, and get them to think critically about paranormal claims. Randi does this all the time. His weekly Commentary is full of examples of how he educates, and debunks, without exposing important secrets of magic. I am also arguing that knowing the secrets of magic does not mean you can never be fooled, and exposure of the secrets of magic to the lay public does not automatically make people smarter (nor does education), it only hurts magicians, and the art of magic. This is why Randi does not reveal the secrets of magic

The rule for this Forum about not exposing the secrets of magic comes from Randi himself:

Quote:

"As this site is owned and operated by a professional conjurer, no discussion in which specific magical secrets are revealed; is allowed."

Yes, I know what the "E" in JREF stands for, and it is not "exposure".

Lavie Enrose · 29th June 2003, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Baker
Psychic Secrets Revealed.

In case anyone missed Randi's comments on the show:

Randi Commentary May 2, 2003

Quote:

Magician and most excellent friend Jamy Ian Swiss comments on the recent "Secrets of the Psychics — Revealed!" program on NBC. This farce purported to show viewers how the psychics flim-flam their victims, but was only a low-budget imitation of "The Masked Magician" programs that Fox-TV ran some time back. Sensing that money was to be made from such nonsense, NBC gave a producer and director — the same ones who did the "Masked Magician" shows — a budget to buy simple tricks right out of the magic shop, and present them as the tools of the psychics. Those "psychics" were delighted, since nothing they use was used or exposed. Says Jamy:

According to reports (and as per my distinctly non-psychic prediction), this was essentially The Masked Mentalist — i.e., exposure of the methods of legitimate mentalists, with very little on the subject of psychics other than a bit on cold and hot readings._ Prurience over education._ Please do not consider this material to be information about methods and effects psychics use — it is not._ It may, however, lessen your sense of mystery the next time you try to enjoy the work of a professional mentalist._

Some of those "exposures" were hilarious in their ineptness. For example, a confederate seated directly behind a victim in the audience, peeks over his shoulder to see what he's drawn on a pad the size of a table-cloth, and then casually describes it to the performer on stage via a microphone concealed in his cupped hand! And no one, either beside him or around him, notices or hears that he's talking to his hand! Subtle!

specious_reasons · 29th June 2003, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Lavie Enrose:
This is why Randi does not reveal the secrets of magic.

I have to disagree with you there, Randi has in fact revealed the secrets of magic tricks, in order to show how people making paranormal claims are actually performing what they say is magic. I can provide links, if you feel you need them.

The distinguishing factor seems to be that Randi, as a professional conjuror, has a better understanding of which tricks can be revealed without damaging the magic industry.

I don't personally like the rule as it is worded. I am not interested in exposing magic tricks, I am concerned that the rule itself does reflect badly on the JREF.

Lavie Enrose · 29th June 2003, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by specious_reasons
I have to disagree with you there, Randi has in fact revealed the secrets of magic tricks, in order to show how people making paranormal claims are actually performing what they say is magic. I can provide links, if you feel you need them.

I should have said "legitimate magic secrets". Uri Geller moving a compass needle with a hidden magnet, and other such kids tricks, are not anything that serious magicians do. Some tricks just are not sold, or used anymore, as well. What Geller, Edwards, and Browne do is not magic, it is just a lame con. None of the methods they use are used by legitimate magicians.

Edited to Add: I did find this, which, in my opinion, does break the rule.

Randi Commentary January 5, 2001

Perhaps, Randi needs to clairify the "rule" for us.

Earthborn · 29th June 2003, 01:35 PM

Quote:

and other such kids tricks, are not anything that serious magicians do.

Three words: Copperfield. Lady Liberty.
Would you agree that this is just a glorified 'kid's trick' ? If not, I guess you just don't understand how he did it...

Quote:

Some tricks just are not sold, or used anymore, as well.

Where exactly in the rule is defined that we are allowed to disclose magic tricks that are not sold anymore, or not used anymore? How are we to know whether a trick is sold, somewhere on the planet? And how are we to know which parts of a trick are not to be disclosed, and which parts are... Since almost all tricks are based on a limited number of principles. Revealing any of those principles make the working of thousands of tricks on sale completely obvious.

The way the rule is formulated now, even if I invent a completely new trick myself, that isn't based on any already known principle used in any trick on the market, and I as the inventor want it to be in public domain, I still can't reveal it!

In fact explaining how Uri Geller moved a compass needle (I won't repeat how it was done, I don't want to break the rule) is basically against the forum rules. There is no rule saying that Kid's tricks (however those are defined) are exempted. It says: "specific magical secrets". That could potentially include any trick, special effect, discussion on how Michael Moore can manipulate what people say by editing, even how Magic 8 balls or Lava-lamps work! There is absolutely no limitation on what could fall under the term.

I want to follow the rules, and I probably never need to explain anyone how they can saw people in half. Probably. But if I want to explain people what is required for a good test protocol, and why, I will need to be able to explain at least some "specific magical secrets".

Quote:

Perhaps Randi needs to explain the "rule" to us?

Hell, yeah!

Diamond · 30th June 2003, 07:12 AM

The book "The Truth about Uri Geller" contains lots of revelations about how tricks are done. But old tricks and tricks which are extremely simple, such as the bending fork trick, or the moving compass trick, or the starting a broken watch trick.

The reason Randi wrote the book was controversial amongst conjurers and still is: that a recognised conjurer was presenting himself as the Real Thing, and Randi thought this needed to be stopped.

He did so by revealing how (or how possibly) the trickery could be done under the noses of some very intelligent, but gullible, people. Conjurers still criticised him for revealing tricks....although less and less do now.

This forum is not about conjuring, but about the limitations placed on the forum which render it meaningless as a discussion area. If someone produced a "Solar science" area but you weren't allowed to talk about quantum physics, plasma or nuclear fusion, what would be the point?

The entire point of a forum is to discuss the subject of the forum from lots of angles and perspectives. This forum has its purpose taken away from it, right from the start. Why does it exist?

tamiO · 30th June 2003, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Diamond
If someone produced a "Solar science" area but you weren't allowed to talk about quantum physics, plasma or nuclear fusion, what would be the point?

The entire point of a forum is to discuss the subject of the forum from lots of angles and perspectives. This forum has its purpose taken away from it, right from the start. Why does it exist?

Very good point. Hear! Hear!

Lavie Enrose · 30th June 2003, 09:41 AM

This is a quote from an email to me from Randi with regard to the rule:

Quote:

I want the forum to deal with matters that involve or are suggested by the JREF's goal. "How to do magic tricks" is only peripheral to that goal.

I agree.

26th June 2003, 03:51 AM	#1
Baker Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 1,121	Can we still debunk with out giving away magicians secrets? I have been wondering about this for some time how do you prove frauds like Uri Geller without giving away magicians secrets? You have to show how they are deceiving us but what if that means exposing long held secrets of magicians? For example if a self claimed physic used every known magicians trick to prove his powers do you expose all of them?
Baker Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 1,121

26th June 2003, 06:58 AM	#2
Lavie Enrose Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 1,961	Re: Can we still debunk with out giving away magicians secrets? Quote: Originally posted by Baker I have been wondering about this for some time how do you prove frauds like Uri Geller without giving away magicians secrets? You have to show how they are deceiving us but what if that means exposing long held secrets of magicians? For example if a self claimed physic used every known magicians trick to prove his powers do you expose all of them? How does James Randi do it? I think you will find your answer there.

26th June 2003, 01:23 PM	#4
Soubrette The Philosophy Spice Girl Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 671	Re: Re: Can we still debunk with out giving away magicians secrets? Quote: Originally posted by Lavie Enrose How does James Randi do it? I think you will find your answer there. Hmmm as far as I know he tells us it's a simple trick that any half decent magician could do. Of course he is a magician - someone like me just saying that with no evidence is unlikely to work as well imo thanks for the link in your pm btw Lavie Sou

26th June 2003, 02:13 PM	#5
Lavie Enrose Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 1,961	Re: Re: Re: Can we still debunk with out giving away magicians secrets? Quote: Originally posted by Soubrette Hmmm as far as I know he tells us it's a simple trick that any half decent magician could do. Of course he is a magician - someone like me just saying that with no evidence is unlikely to work as well imo Yes. Randi demonstrates how he can duplicate the same effect through trickery without revealing how he does it - if the methods he used are the methods used by other professional magicians. If you do some searching through Randi's Commentary archive, you will see how Randi exposes a fraud without exposing any legitimate secrets of magic. Here is an example I was able to find with a quick search: The Moving Compass Trick

26th June 2003, 05:14 PM	#6
Brian Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 1,780	Re: Can we still debunk with out giving away magicians secrets? Quote: Originally posted by Baker I have been wondering about this for some time how do you prove frauds like Uri Geller without giving away magicians secrets? You have to show how they are deceiving us but what if that means exposing long held secrets of magicians? For example if a self claimed physic used every known magicians trick to prove his powers do you expose all of them? The two big ones, spoon bending and cold reading Randi has given the secret to. They're both silly tricks that no pro uses, mostly just thieves. In his commentary Randi said that you "bend them when no one is looking." That is the whole trick, there is nothing else to it. Cold reading has been gone over again and again. It's a guessing game. I believe these two at least, you can talk about as much as you want.
Brian Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 1,780	__________________ O' beautiful, for spacious skies But now those skies are threatening They're beating plowshares into swords For this tired old man that we elected king Armchair warriors often fail And we've been poisoned by these fairy tales The lawyers clean up all details Since daddy had to lie -Don Henley

26th June 2003, 12:58 PM	#3
rustypouch Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Calgary... Posts: 2,585	I think it is possible. Most muggles (I can't believe I used that word), when they learn how an effect is performed, think that the method is exclusive to the trick. In other words, even if they know one sleight, they can still be fooled by it if it is used in a different context. So even if the methods of pyschics were revealed, people would still be fooled by them if they were used in a different trick.

27th June 2003, 05:34 PM	#7
Lavie Enrose Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 1,961	I moved this post from another thread because I think it is more suited to this thread. Quote: Originally posted by Earthborn In short: how can we educate people by keeping secrets? An example: From: Randi's Commentary, February 23, 2001 Quote: The "Alternate Perceptions" article, as I said last week, runs 24 pages, and describes in detail 42 different tricks that were performed. Some are so simple that I won't include them, and a few are slightly more involved routines -- as indicated by the fact that the performer had to try several times to get them to work. At the end of this piece, you will see a web page listed, along with a phone number and address of the magic dealer who sells the tricks. PLEASE don't call or write to ask about the way in which the tricks are performed. The dealer will not discuss this with you. He offers a catalog for sale, the one in which I found these items listed, and from which I have taken the illustrations you see here. He also sells the tricks themselves. I have long been familiar with these tricks, but have listed them so that you can prove for yourself, if you need to, that they exist as recognized, standard, parts of the amateur magician's repertoire. Quote: Number 36 is one from a very early book on parlor-tricks, but it's sold in the catalog as "The Haunted Key" routine, in which a regular latch-key slowly turns over on your palm. Here's the instruction sheet, though I've blanked out the pertinent parts. Hey, at $10.00 for item #F1-128, you should buy this one and be accepted by parapsychologists as The Real Thing! You get the key, the instructions, everything but the music and the dancing girls!

28th June 2003, 04:23 PM	#8
Earthborn Terrestrial Intelligence Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Terra Firma Posts: 4,470	Lavie Enrose, suppose I promose someone to educate him/her on chemistry, but when this person is ready to receive the lesson, all I say is: "Buy the book" Am I really educating people by telling them that they can buy the knowledge they want or need? I'd say not. I'd say that education is telling people how something works: not telling how something works is not educating.
	__________________ Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that! Multatuli

28th June 2003, 07:33 PM	#9
Lavie Enrose Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 1,961	Quote: Originally posted by Earthborn Am I really educating people by telling them that they can buy the knowledge they want or need? I'd say not. I'd say that education is telling people how something works: not telling how something works is not educating. So, it is not enough for me to tell a person that it is a magic trick, and where she/he can buy the trick, I also have to tell her/him how the trick is done, or she/he will believe it is real? If that is the case, some people must be really stupid (and lazy). People that stupid are not going to believe me, even if I do show them how it was done.

29th June 2003, 03:59 AM	#10
Baker Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 1,121	Quote: Originally posted by Lavie Enrose So, it is not enough for me to tell a person that it is a magic trick, and where she/he can buy the trick, I also have to tell her/him how the trick is done, or she/he will believe it is real? If that is the case, some people must be really stupid (and lazy). People that stupid are not going to believe me, even if I do show them how it was done. If it was just as simple as telling them that’s simply just a trick then we wouldn’t need the JREF forum. The book just you refer to just gives the items to do some tricks not how to do them. Unfortunately, many people are stupid and lazy which is why there are so many believers. Look at the replies to this thread on the show Psychic Secrets Revealed. Which you also participated in Watching it now. So far it seems to be "Psychic Magician Secrets Exposed" with the 4 unmasked magicians. One of them is named Mark Edward. Heh. The first trick was in William Poundstone's Big Secrets, and a card force could have accomplished the same thing. No cold reading yet. Don't have high hopes that I'll see any. EDITED after seeing spot before commercial. Cold reading demonstration is coming up. Hopefully it won't turn into the old hearing aid number. Yep, it was the hearing aid. __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ So far my only real complaint is that they've not stated that there is usually more than one way to do most of these stunts. Other than that, I'm pleased to see them demonstrating so many different topics, even if most of them are "secrets of magicians revealed" type. Then again, the good scam artists borrow heavily from the tricks of 'real' magicians. The bad ones simply rely on their target's total incredulity. I was disappointed. It seemed that for the most part they were revealing magic tricks and things no self-professed 'psychic' would ever do for a victim. __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Lost Sailor I was disappointed. It seemed that for the most part they were revealing magic tricks and things no self-professed 'psychic' would ever do for a victim. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I felt the same way. I guess they will not reveal the secrets of the big name "psychics" for fear of being sued by these con artists. It make me appreciate the work of James Randi even more. __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ I was pretty disappointed by the show. They definitely went with the "Look at all the fancy stuff!" angle rather than the "Skilled deceptionist" angle. Cutting spoons almost all the way through to spoonbend 'em, the mirror in the shoe gag, and the overly complex tables (including one with a guy underneath)... Then they tossed in a few tricks I've never even heard of, like the dial-a-psychic card reader and the audience shattering a glass with their ESP (and the help of a mousetrap spring and wire). South Park did a better job debunking Edward and clones.
Baker Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 1,121

29th June 2003, 05:59 AM	#11
Earthborn Terrestrial Intelligence Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Terra Firma Posts: 4,470	Quote: So, it is not enough for me to tell a person that it is a magic trick, and where she/he can buy the trick, I also have to tell her/him how the trick is done, or she/he will believe it is real? What you say is delicously irrelevant. Of course it is not enough to tell people certain things are tricks! It is not just about trying to convince people that so called psychics are more often than not deliberate frauds. It is also about teaching potential claimants why certain security measures are necessary. It is also about teaching scientists to design better experiments. To teach people critical thinking skills so they see through tricks frauds use, even if these tricks are completely new. I want people to have insight, not just the knowledge that somewhere someone knows how something works. Quote: If that is the case, some people must be really stupid (and lazy). Please provide your evidence that people who are unable to figure out common tricks because no one is willing to tell them how they work, are of below average intelligence. People only assume that 'paranormal' abilities because they do not have the knowledge on how something can be explained in a simpler way. It is a sort of 'God of the gaps' type of explanation. Quote: People that stupid are not going to believe me, even if I do show them how it was done. Please provide your evidence that the people who are told how something works, in terms they understand, are unable to believe that the simple explanation is at least a possibility. Please tell how you can explain to people (who are able to believe the simple explanation is at least a possibility) what signs to look for to differentiate between the simple explanation is a possible different one... You seem to be arguing that critical thinking is something that some people just 'get' and others are unable to: they simply can't be educated. If that is the case, what do you think the E in JREF stands for?
	__________________ Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that! Multatuli

29th June 2003, 11:28 AM	#12
Lavie Enrose Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 1,961	Quote: You seem to be arguing that critical thinking is something that some people just 'get' and others are unable to: they simply can't be educated. If that is the case, what do you think the E in JREF stands for? I am arguing that you do not have to reveal the secrets of magic in order for people to understand that many things can be accomplished through trickery, or cheating, and get them to think critically about paranormal claims. Randi does this all the time. His weekly Commentary is full of examples of how he educates, and debunks, without exposing important secrets of magic. I am also arguing that knowing the secrets of magic does not mean you can never be fooled, and exposure of the secrets of magic to the lay public does not automatically make people smarter (nor does education), it only hurts magicians, and the art of magic. This is why Randi does not reveal the secrets of magic The rule for this Forum about not exposing the secrets of magic comes from Randi himself: Quote: "As this site is owned and operated by a professional conjurer, no discussion in which specific magical secrets are revealed; is allowed." Yes, I know what the "E" in JREF stands for, and it is not "exposure".

29th June 2003, 12:05 PM	#13
Lavie Enrose Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 1,961	Quote: Originally posted by Baker Psychic Secrets Revealed. In case anyone missed Randi's comments on the show: Randi Commentary May 2, 2003 Quote: Magician and most excellent friend Jamy Ian Swiss comments on the recent "Secrets of the Psychics — Revealed!" program on NBC. This farce purported to show viewers how the psychics flim-flam their victims, but was only a low-budget imitation of "The Masked Magician" programs that Fox-TV ran some time back. Sensing that money was to be made from such nonsense, NBC gave a producer and director — the same ones who did the "Masked Magician" shows — a budget to buy simple tricks right out of the magic shop, and present them as the tools of the psychics. Those "psychics" were delighted, since nothing they use was used or exposed. Says Jamy: According to reports (and as per my distinctly non-psychic prediction), this was essentially The Masked Mentalist — i.e., exposure of the methods of legitimate mentalists, with very little on the subject of psychics other than a bit on cold and hot readings._ Prurience over education._ Please do not consider this material to be information about methods and effects psychics use — it is not._ It may, however, lessen your sense of mystery the next time you try to enjoy the work of a professional mentalist._ Some of those "exposures" were hilarious in their ineptness. For example, a confederate seated directly behind a victim in the audience, peeks over his shoulder to see what he's drawn on a pad the size of a table-cloth, and then casually describes it to the performer on stage via a microphone concealed in his cupped hand! And no one, either beside him or around him, notices or hears that he's talking to his hand! Subtle!

29th June 2003, 12:17 PM	#14
specious_reasons Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,119	Quote: Lavie Enrose: This is why Randi does not reveal the secrets of magic. I have to disagree with you there, Randi has in fact revealed the secrets of magic tricks, in order to show how people making paranormal claims are actually performing what they say is magic. I can provide links, if you feel you need them. The distinguishing factor seems to be that Randi, as a professional conjuror, has a better understanding of which tricks can be revealed without damaging the magic industry. I don't personally like the rule as it is worded. I am not interested in exposing magic tricks, I am concerned that the rule itself does reflect badly on the JREF.
	__________________ ta- DAVE!!!

29th June 2003, 12:28 PM	#15
Lavie Enrose Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 1,961	Quote: Originally posted by specious_reasons I have to disagree with you there, Randi has in fact revealed the secrets of magic tricks, in order to show how people making paranormal claims are actually performing what they say is magic. I can provide links, if you feel you need them. I should have said "legitimate magic secrets". Uri Geller moving a compass needle with a hidden magnet, and other such kids tricks, are not anything that serious magicians do. Some tricks just are not sold, or used anymore, as well. What Geller, Edwards, and Browne do is not magic, it is just a lame con. None of the methods they use are used by legitimate magicians. Edited to Add: I did find this, which, in my opinion, does break the rule. Randi Commentary January 5, 2001 Perhaps, Randi needs to clairify the "rule" for us.

29th June 2003, 01:35 PM	#16
Earthborn Terrestrial Intelligence Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Terra Firma Posts: 4,470	Quote: and other such kids tricks, are not anything that serious magicians do. Three words: Copperfield. Lady Liberty. Would you agree that this is just a glorified 'kid's trick' ? If not, I guess you just don't understand how he did it... Quote: Some tricks just are not sold, or used anymore, as well. Where exactly in the rule is defined that we are allowed to disclose magic tricks that are not sold anymore, or not used anymore? How are we to know whether a trick is sold, somewhere on the planet? And how are we to know which parts of a trick are not to be disclosed, and which parts are... Since almost all tricks are based on a limited number of principles. Revealing any of those principles make the working of thousands of tricks on sale completely obvious. The way the rule is formulated now, even if I invent a completely new trick myself, that isn't based on any already known principle used in any trick on the market, and I as the inventor want it to be in public domain, I still can't reveal it! In fact explaining how Uri Geller moved a compass needle (I won't repeat how it was done, I don't want to break the rule) is basically against the forum rules. There is no rule saying that Kid's tricks (however those are defined) are exempted. It says: "specific magical secrets". That could potentially include any trick, special effect, discussion on how Michael Moore can manipulate what people say by editing, even how Magic 8 balls or Lava-lamps work! There is absolutely no limitation on what could fall under the term. I want to follow the rules, and I probably never need to explain anyone how they can saw people in half. Probably. But if I want to explain people what is required for a good test protocol, and why, I will need to be able to explain at least some "specific magical secrets". Quote: Perhaps Randi needs to explain the "rule" to us? Hell, yeah!
	__________________ Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that! Multatuli

30th June 2003, 07:12 AM	#17
Diamond SkepticWiki Founder Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: 'Stralia Posts: 4,748	The book "The Truth about Uri Geller" contains lots of revelations about how tricks are done. But old tricks and tricks which are extremely simple, such as the bending fork trick, or the moving compass trick, or the starting a broken watch trick. The reason Randi wrote the book was controversial amongst conjurers and still is: that a recognised conjurer was presenting himself as the Real Thing, and Randi thought this needed to be stopped. He did so by revealing how (or how possibly) the trickery could be done under the noses of some very intelligent, but gullible, people. Conjurers still criticised him for revealing tricks....although less and less do now. This forum is not about conjuring, but about the limitations placed on the forum which render it meaningless as a discussion area. If someone produced a "Solar science" area but you weren't allowed to talk about quantum physics, plasma or nuclear fusion, what would be the point? The entire point of a forum is to discuss the subject of the forum from lots of angles and perspectives. This forum has its purpose taken away from it, right from the start. Why does it exist?

30th June 2003, 08:13 AM	#18
tamiO Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 3,287	Quote: Originally posted by Diamond If someone produced a "Solar science" area but you weren't allowed to talk about quantum physics, plasma or nuclear fusion, what would be the point? The entire point of a forum is to discuss the subject of the forum from lots of angles and perspectives. This forum has its purpose taken away from it, right from the start. Why does it exist? Very good point. Hear! Hear!
tamiO Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 3,287

30th June 2003, 09:41 AM	#19
Lavie Enrose Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 1,961	This is a quote from an email to me from Randi with regard to the rule: Quote: I want the forum to deal with matters that involve or are suggested by the JREF's goal. "How to do magic tricks" is only peripheral to that goal. I agree.