|Peter Bowditch's Web Site|
|Home | Interests | Writing | Speaking | Videos and Photos | Books | Podcast|
As a professional magician and debunker of nonsense, James Randi has long been one of the most significant public figures in the world of organised skepticism and rationality.
Randi's conjuring career was based on deception, but he never claimed it was anything other than deception. What would happen, though, was that people would approach him after shows to tell him that they had seen similar tricks done by others who were claiming they had paranormal powers. They were using these tricks and pretending to heal people of illness or as evidence that they had powers that enabled them to predict stockmarket fluctuations, talk to dead relatives of people in the audience, and many other forms of deception where the deceit was not admitted and the powers were claimed to be real.
Quite reasonably, Randi saw this abuse of a form of entertainment as something that should be challenged. As he put it in an interview with Australasian Science: "It's for the purpose of entertainment, but when it goes beyond those bounds or it gets to the point where people's lives are being changed or their judgement or their knowledge of the real world is changed, that's when I step in".
Randi had enormous success in exposing the tricks of people like faith healer Peter Popoff and one-trick-pony Uri Geller. Of course, exposing these people doesn't always bring popularity, and there was the famous incident with Randi on The Don Lane Show where the host stormed off because Randi not only reproduced Geller's rather easy-to-do spoon bending trick but had bad things to say about spirit medium Doris Stokes. (In her defence, Stokes did a far more competent cold reading act than current psychic readers like John Edward.)
Ironically, one of the criticisms sometimes thrown at Randi by his detractors is that he really does have magic powers but simply lies about that in order to pretend that he is just doing tricks. I don't know if there is an adequate answer to that sort of accusation.
Another criticism based on a form of logic unknown to most people is that nothing Randi says can be believed because he has admitted to being a professional liar - saying the truth about what he does is an admission that he is not telling the truth and therefore he can't be telling the truth about anything else. The meaning of the word "sophistry" might have changed since the time of the ancient Greek philosophers, but I'm sure Plato or Socrates could recognise its application here.
Can Organised Skepticism Survive a Civil War?
Randi hasn't been attacked personally in any of this, but many of his good friends have been subjected to some of the most vile accusations. Maybe some of these accusations have a grain of truth in them, but it's bizarre to see people who claim to be skeptics accepting hearsay and innuendo as evidence. Randi was tangentially involved because the organisers of The Amazing Meeting, an event run annually by the James Randi Educational Foundation and possibly the largest skeptic convention in the world, were accused of not doing enough to make the event safe for women.
"I certainly hope that there is no permanent damage caused by this," he says. "There have been some problems which we are looking into now, and we have to do some serious repair work on the movement."
I share Randi's optimism that this nonsense will eventually blow over and that everyone can return to the real job at hand, which is taking the fight to people who propose irrational thinking or do harm by promoting ideas that are not supported by either science or reality. Most of the people involved in this fight are too important to lose so I hope that this optimism is fulfilled.
There are more important issues out there than whether Richard Dawkins writes ham-fisted Twitter messages or that there is no exact balance of men and women as speakers at every conference. Luckily we seem to have avoided this nonsense in Australia, but as Thomas Jefferson didn't say (it was John Curran): "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".
Greatest Achievement and Disappointment
Recent changes at JREF could affect its future, but the optimists among us hope that the changes will be for the better and that Randi's influence and legacy will continue to play the important role that they have over the past few decades. The changes had not been officially announced when Australasian Science went to press.
When asked about his greatest disappointment, Randi's answer came as a surprise. "I don't really have much to complain about," he said. "We've done well financially through difficult times, and I receive a constant stream of feedback from people encouraging us to continue doing what we're doing. I don't have any great disappointments, certainly not in the skeptical movement. I'm very satisfied with the way things are happening."
I'm sure that most of us can look back over our lives and find something which we could have done much better or which perhaps we should not have done it all. It's a tribute to the man that he can look back over 86 years and say that there is very little that he would do differently if he had his time over again.
What Annoys Randi Most
You might wonder why he would pick this particular form of woo over all the other sorts of things he has come across and challenged in his life, but it is something with which I agree. Homeopathy is unlike many other forms of superstition or alternative "medicine". For homeopathy to be true, almost all known sciences have to be wrong - chemistry, physics, mathematics, quantum mechanics, and possibly even astronomy. It is something that simply cannot work.
It might conceivably be possible one day to demonstrate that there really are meridians running through the body that can be affected by acupuncture, or determine that slight misalignments of the spine really can affect general health and the progress of infectious disease, or that a person's star sign says something about their personality, or that some crop circles are messages from alien civilisations ..., but the likelihood of any of these is very, very slight. What it will never be possible to prove is that dilution of something to the point where there cannot even be a single molecule of the original active ingredient left can allow for any effect of that ingredient to remain.
A related debunking event for which Randi is famous is that several years ago the editors of Nature arranged for a group of people, including Randi, to visit the laboratory of Dr Jacques Benveniste, a French scientist funded by a manufacturer of homeopathic "medicines", who claimed to have established that water can retain the memory of chemical compounds it has come into contact with even if none of the original material remains. In 2000, Benveniste wrote to me to say that research proving the possibility of homeopathy would be published in major scientific journals within a year. We are all still waiting.
An Honest Liar
This film about his life and times has been receiving enthusiastic audience reactions at film festivals throughout 2014, including the prestigious Tribeca Festival in New York. Randi will be appearing at screenings of this film in Australia this month. Australasian Science is a sponsor of his tour.
James Randi has been an inspiration to me and to others for a long time. I've met him on several occasions, including when I was honoured to be a speaker at The Amazing Meeting in Las Vegas, and it was a joy to spend some time with him for this interview. He might be 86 now but I hope he has many more years of honest lying ahead of him
This article was published in the December 2014 edition of Australasian Science
|Copyright © 1998- Peter Bowditch|
Logos and trademarks belong to whoever owns them
Authorisation to mechanically or electronically copy the contents of any material published in Australasian Science magazine is granted by the publisher to users licensed by Copyright Agency Ltd. Creative Commons does not apply to this page.