An Evening with James Randi & Friends
James Randi is undoubtedly the most famous skeptic in the world. From his debunking of Uri Geller to the JREF forums / website, he's been on my radar since I was a kid. He's rarely in the UK, so when I heard he was visiting I eagerly snapped up tickets for his only public talk, at the NSS's Conway Hall last Saturday. He was flanked by five big names in skepticism, and the sell-out evening didn't disappoint.
Richard Wiseman handled compere duties with aplomb, mixing magic and jokes, and seemed totally comfortable in front of an audience. Chris French then introduced the evening and gave some background on Randi, after which Simon Singh talked about his own fairly recent discovery of the skeptical movement. Unfortunately I have a problem with Simon Singh, as I was explaining to Abi on Saturday morning.
Some years back he wrote an article criticising a scientifically-dubious Katie Melua lyric. I cannot support him on this, as one day Katie will be mine and I clearly don't want to jeopardise our relationship. Simon actually brought this up - the article, not the inevitable marriage - during his talk, and it turns out that Katie had phoned him a couple of days later and arranged a recording of a scientifically-accurate version of the song. Excellent - I can now like Simon Singh, and clearly Katie is even cooler than I thought. Sigh.
Ben Goldacre was as cool as you'd hope, if unfortunately beset by technical problems. His entertaining talk was also a neat demonstration of how sharp and knowledgeable the audience were - he mentioned the historical practice of alternative medicine practitioners creating fake qualifications, adding it was something that continued to this day. A murmur showed we knew exactly who he meant, and he was able to continue without mentioning her name, which pleased everyone 
Then came the full-of-energy Susan Blackmore, who I'd most recently heard reducing a catholic commentator to incoherent ranting on the Jeremy Vine show, and she didn't disappoint in person. She gave a presentation on her work on parapsychology, and her journey from believer to skeptic. She gave this up in the 90's, but seemed to indicate she might be getting back into it, which would be a nice development.
After a break it was time for the main event: Randi himself. He's weirdly familiar - I've seen / heard him countless times in the past few years, and seeing him in person is oddly surreal. He spoke for an hour on general skepticism, and showed a few clips of his most impressive moments on the Johnny Carson show: psychic surgery, and taking out Peter Popoff. I hope it's not too patronising to say that for for a 79-year-old he was remarkably spritely! Very much on top of things, completely comprehensible and as acerbic as ever. I hope I'm in such shape at that age. He was, as ever, a touch negative regarding the whole fight against woo - other speakers had the same sentiment, but didn't seem so bothered - but that's forgiveable, given how long he's been around!
This was first event of its type to be held in London, and seemed to go well enough that more will be arranged. Hopefully next time the speakers will be able to get into some decent skeptical meat. I enjoyed the evening, but it was designed to be fairly light and introductory, with even Randi giving a pretty unfocussed speech, and I'd love to listen to a proper dissection of a topic. Definitely worth going, though, and I got to see some of my intellectual idols up close.
Hello!
Hey, thanks for coming! I'm Andrew, and this is where my headthinks come to breed. They often meander around humanism and photography, but they're flighty and you can't trust them, so anything is possible.
Do feel free to email me - I get lonely:
Your hair looks swish, by the way - have you done something new?
Recent Comments
- vicky: going up this weekend having done all the welsh peaks except 4 snowdon, cant wait
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: what, how can u live in the 21 c and say that, probably a sexist thing
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: da iawn laura, cant believe what im hearing, all this fuss, anyway love the site, and i agree, normal people who swear and curse clomb mountains cos we live in the...
on Climbing Snowdon. - Andrew: Did a few quick test shots to check the light levels, then balanced the camera on the arm of a bench, set it for a 20s exposure and hoped for the best
on ISS. - lynsey: Wow, how did you take that photograph?
on ISS.
April 22nd, 2008 - 02:04
Sadly I couldn’t make it to the evening with Randi on Saturday, but I was very fortunate to be able to rush to London on short notice tonight to catch a certain Dr Plait give a talk in the pub on “the moon hoax hoax”. Randi was supposed to be there apparently but never turned up, which was a shame but I was quite content with what we got. It was my first experience of the “Skeptics in the pub” group, and surely will not be the last.
April 24th, 2008 - 12:26
Sounds excellent, wish I was there.
Was there anyone recording the event?
April 24th, 2008 - 12:37
Actually yep – there was at least one official camera-person recording close-up the whole time, and they sometimes projected an overview of the stage from a camera I couldn’t see. Hopefully this means they’re putting something together.
April 24th, 2008 - 15:44
Wow sounds like an interesting line up, I’m familiar with all of the people involved and they seem to be the usual suspects for debates of psuedo-science (as well as Richard Dawkins). I saw Ben Goldacre on a panel about complementary medicine which quickly dived into a fierce debate about the placebo effect. I have to say, my personal view is that a little irrationality is healthy as without it, we’d be quite depressed, wouldnt fall in love, and probably shoot ourselves before long.
Andrew, being a Katie Melua fan, check out my video of ‘If The Lights Go Out’, type Katie Lights Threads into youtube and you should find it. My username is wearerabbits. I’d like to hear your views.
December 3rd, 2008 - 08:09
To be honest I wouldn’t spend an evening with someone claiming to be a skeptic when they obviously are just NON BELIEVERS.
December 3rd, 2008 - 11:03
lolwut
December 3rd, 2008 - 13:42
Can someone help me out here. I thought a sceptic was someone open to all possibilities but not fooled just because someone claims to have psychic abilities, etc? Mr Randi seems to be very closed minded in his views.
December 3rd, 2008 - 14:12
At last someone else speaking out against Mr. Randi. You are correct in what you say Nimble..that is exactly what a sceptic is..someone who open mindedly looks at all possibilities ! Unfortunately some people who are dogmatic in their non belief don’t want to admit they are…and therefore they call themselves “sceptics”.
December 3rd, 2008 - 14:17
A sceptic is someone who works from the evidence. If there’s reasonable evidence for a proposition, a sceptic will provisionally accept it as true. If the evidence is found to be wanting, it’s reasonable to provisionally declare the proposition false, or at least unknown. This is what ‘open-minded’ means – you have to be open to both possibilities.
With regards to Mr Randi, I’ve no doubt you have something particular in mind – care to share?
December 3rd, 2008 - 15:32
Mr Randi is beyond contempt. His attitude and better than thou rubbish really grates me. There are so many times this guy has been proven to blatantly lie regarding his findings etc when he has not even botherd to check the research/tapes etc, he makes my blood boil.
He is making a whole stack of cash and of course notoriety from basically focusing on a subject that matter that he himself is not exactly being honest on judgeing. He has even dismissed evidence based on a..now wait for it…”A Hunch!”
December 3rd, 2008 - 19:21
I like how you think Andrew and Jenna. I’ve just recently had my eyes open to how true a sceptic James Randi is. I honestly believe it wouldn’t matter what evidence there was he wouldn’t accept it. Don’t get me wrong I’m a big sceptic BUT I honestly believe science cannot hold all the answers……it’s that simple. We humans would be pretty boring if we had answers for absolutely everything. What would be the fun in finding out new things? JR has a large following and I believe many of them have a niggling doubt themselves but daren’t speak up.
December 3rd, 2008 - 19:39
What I don’t get is how a supposidly intelligent man sometimes uses such unintelligent ways of arguing his case. This is a quote from a recent Horizon Programme he did about homeopathic medicine:
Lee Cook:
“Do you think that homeopathy is okay if it makes someone “feel” better, even if it is only in their mind? ”
James Randi:
“Heroin also make people feel better, but I wouldn’t recommend using heroin.”
So are we likening homeopathy to heroin..heroin makes people feel better but it also kills and destroys lives. It’s a completely different thing. I wonder how the statistics for Death by Homeopthy would rate along side Death by Heroin !! It’s just such a simplistic argument from someone who is supposed to be at the top of his game.
December 4th, 2008 - 10:52
No. Wait. I am so not on your side. My point about skeptics is that James Randi is very much a proper skeptic. He always proportions his beliefs to the evidence – as least as far as I’ve seen. So far I’ve seen a lot of accusations – can you point me towards anything concrete?
@Poppy – Randi’s next line in that Horizon webchat is “Feeling better is not actually being better”. His point is pretty obvious, and it’s not directly comparing homeopathy and heroin.
December 4th, 2008 - 14:07
Well without wishing to sound sarcastic or rude Andrew but the best thing I can point you to is common sense. JR has outed a lot of fakes over the years, of that I have no doubt. BUT his hardened beliefs will not allow him to even consider alternatives. I’m a concerned sceptic who has grown sick and tired of all the fakery, etc. BUT I’m also sick and tired of seeing people attacked and branded as woo merchants simply because their belief systems don’t tally with JR’s or any other noted “sceptic”. It’s easy to hide behind the title but it doesn’t give anyone free range to tell someone they’re wrong and use the exhausted “woo” word when they get out of their depth. Science cannot and will never hold all the answers. All you have to do is imagine how you would feel if your beliefs were branded as nonsense. We all believe in something in life even sceptics…..that one I do know.
December 4th, 2008 - 14:32
I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about. What ‘alternatives’ is he not considering? Give me specifics, please.
Who’s claiming science has all the answers? Nobody says that. What’s important is science knows how to look for answers.
How I’d feel if my beliefs were branded as nonsense? What does that have to do with anything? If I think I’m being chased by a unicorn made of spinach, and someone tells me I’m wrong – that’s something they should feel bad about? Are you saying Randi should never expose frauds in case he hurts their feelings?
December 4th, 2008 - 14:37
You know how one of the main problems JR has is mediums and psychics who con people etc. JR and many of his followers are all about how mediums are either liars or delluded..and perish the thought of lying ! What about the Rupert Sheldrake case…it is well know FACT and admitted by James Randi himself that on two occassion he blatently lied about tests done on dogs to study their 6th sense. Now, if a believer lied just once during testing it would be a case of “that person is a liar we can’t trust ANYTHING they say “..A skeptic does it and it’s all alright..there there never mind.
And Andrew..no disrespect but I don’t see how quoting the line that came after the quote on post 12 makes any difference to the meaning whatsoever. But I would be interested in haring from you what his point was then…and not just “homeopathy doesn’t work and is woo” but what he really meant and the point of mentioning heroin in his answer.
December 4th, 2008 - 14:54
Excellent, some specifics. Can you give me any links to Randi admitting he’s ‘lied’? I’m interested in hearing more. I like reading about psychic dogs.
Lee Cook asked whether homeopathy was ok if it made people feel better. Randi replied that heroin also makes people feel better. Now, clearly heroin is not a good thing. So feeling better is not, on its own, a virtue: you have to look deeper than that one single benefit. You made this point yourself: “heroin makes people feel better but it also kills and destroys lives” – we have to look at the whole picture, as you did. That’s why the original question is flawed: Randi shows that it could be applied to defend heroin use – something we all agree is unambiguously dangerous – to point out the problem with the question. If you want to discuss homeopathy, saying it makes people feel better is not appropriate, as it wouldn’t be appropriate for a discussion of heroin.
So he’s not comparing everything about homeopathy to everything about heroin. The analogy is specific to whether something that makes you feel better must be ok. Better?
December 4th, 2008 - 15:04
The alternatives I speak of Andrew are the ones where science does not hold the answer. Look at how hardened JR is in how he feels towards mediums, etc. What would it take for him to accept anything away from the science label?
Of course the science argument is used repeatedly by many. It’s become like a get out clause when someone doesn’t understand alternative theories. Again the word “science” has become exhausted. You cannot label everything this way. As for your beliefs having anything to do with it…….why not? You believe that JR is right in what he does. Add to that others telling you it’s wrong how you feel and branding it with a distasteful word like “woo.” I’m sorry but it’s not hard to imagine how that would make anyone feel.
Your comment about the unicorn answers a lot to be honest. “If I think I’m being chased by a unicorn made of spinach, and someone tells me I’m wrong – that’s something they should feel bad about?” If that’s how you feel then JR must feel dreadful because that’s exactly what he does. It works both ways I’m afraid. I’m not saying frauds shouldn’t be exposed but let’s be honest here all from Sylvia Browne to Colin Fry are still enjoying a very lucrative life aren’t they? If JR and the like are doing such an incredible job why are we still bombarded with these charlatans on a daily basis? Something doesn’t add up does it?
December 4th, 2008 - 15:25
What do you mean, where ‘science does not hold the answer’? Anything that’s real can be investigated. Again, nobody says science has all the answers, but it does know how to look.
What would it take to convince Randi? A demonstration. That’s it! It’s not difficult. If I say I can turn water into chickens, all I need to do to make James Randi believe me is turn some water into a chicken, in a situation where everyone can see I’m not faking it. If mediums are real, they just need to ‘prove’ it. Randi has said many times that all it would take to change his mind is a psychic to demonstrate their powers in a controlled setting. Yet, despite the lure of $1million, none have. Curious.
I don’t know what I’m supposedly labelling. Reality? You’re being tricksy with the word ‘believe’. I don’t ‘believe’ Randi as a matter of faith, I ‘believe’ him because he shows the evidence behind what he says. How I feel doesn’t come into it – if there’s good reason to believe something, I will. What does how I feel about something have to do with its being true? I’m sorry people get their feelings hurt when things they believe turn out to be false, but that’s just how it is. If you want to argue about the way Randi does it, that’s an entirely different argument. But you’re not – you seem to be saying that we shouldn’t ever say anything that would hurt anyone’s feelings. Which is craziness.
What doesn’t add up? Mediums and psychics are very, very good at exploiting human psychology. Fighting against that is very difficult. What doesn’t make sense, here?
December 4th, 2008 - 15:29
Also – who’s “telling you it’s wrong how you feel”? Randi says you’re wrong about something you feel strongly about. There’s a difference.
December 4th, 2008 - 16:36
Hi Andrew..I still think the Heroin quote was made partially for shock value, and I believe that whatever he did mean he knew what the words he said would
“sound like” to the people listening. Yes I can accept your explanation but it’s a shame James Randi didn’t have you on there wording it for him..because
whereas I can see where you’re coming ..that quotes (or those quotes) from James Randi do not say the whole thing. You as someone interested in this
have probably got insight into the work of James Randi, how he works and thinks so yes you can “read between the lines” as it were. However lets look at
the majority of people in the country ..would they really have got all that meaning that you put through just those 2 small quotes. I study the paranormal
and have done for many years as probably many on here have so I’m not playing the big I am just saying where I am coming from…and yes if you know James Randi
etc etc you can see the meaning behind it…but come on surely a man of his intelligence could have explained it in a much more suitable way rather than go for the
“effect” factor.
In regard to the lie bit and the dogs check out http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/randi.html now obviously that’s one man’s side but I doubt he could make those claims without them being true ..alsoI have actually seen a autobiographical article James Randi wrote where he himself reffered to this case and admitted foul play. The thing is he only told the truth because he had to..on the two occassions. Some people might say “at least he came clean” but he didn’t out of any sense of morality, he didn’t do so until he had no choice. Am going to search for the article done by Mr. Randi or at least the one done by the JRF about this and will post it as soon as I can. That way it is coming from both sides..not just the guy that could be seen as Randi’s enemy in this. I think we know he wouldn’t have got away with such comments and accusations..but equally good evidence in proving statments like the ones I’ve made is as important as good evidence for everything to do with the paranormal. So before you shout at me for sending a one sided opinion..I will be finding the other side…
December 4th, 2008 - 18:29
You must surely appreciate that science is used far too frequently as an excuse to avoid the possible thought of alternative theories. It isn’t how JR does what he does nor is it about why. It is about his hardened belief that unless something is labelled science it cannot “be”. Nowhere in my posts have I stated that you yourself have labelled anything. It was written in a generalised way to show that others do label things. It’s okay JR or anyone else taking the credit for exposing frauds. But ask yourself if enough has been done why are we still bombarded with these charlatans on a daily basis? If anything, sadly, they psychic business is even more lucrative. The people who help to ban it and make a mark in this business are the ones who get the praise I’m afraid. Never forget that JR is hardly poor from his endeavours. I also think of the people who aren’t in the business for the money but there to help others in times of need. Because of these fraudsters they’re too frightened to come forward. So anything that could show possible ability is quashed immediately because of fear.
I’m not sure what you mean by me being “tricksy” either. I would rather use the term “believer” than “woo merchant” and the word is used correctly and appropriately. One of my problems is that you keep answering my questions with questions but sadly aren’t commenting on some important points I made like your unicorn statement. I’m sensing defensiveness when there’s no need for it. The way you feel about something does play a role in it. If I feel strongly in something then my beliefs automatically go along with that. It was a simple statement of interest from my part. Again this statement……….”But you’re not – you seem to be saying that we shouldn’t ever say anything that would hurt anyone’s feelings. Which is craziness.”………..apart from being incorrect could be taken personally. Thankfully I haven’t but I could have all to easily. I want answers just like the next man does but without mutual respect and understanding the answers may stay as elusive as ever.
December 8th, 2008 - 13:00
Nimble – science is about a methodology applied to determine truths, rather than the truths themselves. Scientific certainties don’t exist, however there are common facts which are routinely upheld by the application of a scientific methodology. What sceptics are saying is not that things are deceptions because they don’t fit in with these commonly held facts, but because they cannot be upheld by the application of the methodology.
So regarding ‘science’ as a label is inaccurate – when theories become demonstrable then these theories could become accepted as ‘common fact’, even by the most hardened sceptic.
December 8th, 2008 - 18:41
Sadly in my experience I’ve found on numerous occasions that many “sceptics” will not accept that there may be something other than a scientific explanation for everything. I am a sceptic myself but find a lot of cynical views under the guise of scepticism. Not all sceptics will immediately close their minds to other possibilities but I’m afraid plenty do. We cannot allow ourselves to disregard everything because it isn’t proven fact. It is not I who label everything with science but it is the first defence used when debates veer away from it. On many occasions I’ve also sensed defensiveness very quickly in my conversations on this subject like on my previous posts. There is no need for it as what I’ve said has been written in a non attacking way.
Again I say that James Randi and Derren Brown, etc, are proving how the fraudulent side of things works. But they’re not doing anything to stop it and have made a considerable fortune at the end of it all. To me the people who work to stop the con artists and abuse of the grieving are the ones who deserve the praise. It mostly boils down to mutual respect and accepting that alternative possibilities can exist.