# James Randi and Dry Spots **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 13, 2004, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926 "2004-10-13T01:46:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![InvidiousCourgette](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e47c2d/32.png) [@InvidiousCourgette](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InvidiousCourgette)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/41 "2004-10-13T11:58:40Z")
Randi is an entertainer. There is no getting away from that. Many people consider his entertainment very worthwhile, but in a serious debate about paranormal activity his pronouncements _might_ be considered to be tainted with bias by an impartial observer. He is, in my view, therefore a distraction. What is not a distration is the application of the Scientific Method to test any hypothesis. A scientist could guarantee himself fame and fortune if he were able to prove paranormal ability was a real phenomenon using the Scientific Method. No such proof has ever been established. That is what leads this sceptic of paranormal activity to conclude it simply does not exist. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/42 "2004-10-13T12:00:54Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > What’s with the term “woo woo”? It’s quicker to type than “person who believes in the paranormal”. And as to its etymology, I don’t have the faintest idea. > [@](#): > > At any rate, let’s see the records! We don’t even know how many cases he’s tested. How many accepted and how many rejected? It’s very basic stuff. Where would it take you? What is “big hit psi” exactly? Would I be correct in thinking that it is something rather difficult to distinguish from “occasional lucky guess”? > [@](#): > > Psi that works in neatly quantifiable ways has the “rub” that I mentioned above: mathematical expectation makes it difficult to set realistic requirements. I still don’t know what the heck you mean, I’m afraid. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/43 "2004-10-13T12:01:06Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > I’m not sure I see where you are going with this. A New Ager would (if what you say is correct) dislike the means by which Randi fooled people by cold reading. Would that mean he did not fool them by cold reading? > > What is your point? The point is that New Agers don’t see Randi’s trickery in the service of a “higher cause” as excusable. I was also trying to explain why he is hated so much by us. New Agers don’t generally go out of their way to hate atheists. We really don’t like people whom we perceive as dishonest and “spreading darkness.” Yeah, I know it’s hard to understand. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/44 "2004-10-13T12:02:57Z")
> [@InvidiousCourgette](#): > > A scientist could guarantee himself fame and fortune if he were able to prove paranormal ability was a real phenomenon using the Scientific Method. No such proof has ever been established. That is what leads this sceptic of paranormal activity to conclude it simply does not exist. I disagree. It’s now known that faith healers and such people can heal: it’s called the “placebo effect.” But now that it’s been proven it’s just an oh-so-ordinary phemenon, nothing special. It’s just as “paranormal” as anything else we can’t explain. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/45 "2004-10-13T12:05:00Z")
New Agers don’t like people that spread dishonesty? Now why would anyone find that hard to understand? _Cough_ Sylvia, John Edward, Uri Gellar and multitudes more ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/46 "2004-10-13T12:09:39Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Basically, the very terms of the challege prevent a truly “fair” (i.e., psi is in theory proven) result. Basically, with a cool mil at stake Randi stands to lose money (mathematical expectation) right up to 1/1,000,000 odds (actually, he stands to lose money at _any_ odds, but the sum would be less than a penny). But psi could be “proved” (or the guy could just get damn lucky) at odds well below that. And I think that’s the rub. Actually maybe I see what you’re saying, but if I’m understanding you right I don’t see how this is a problem with the challenge. You’re saying that someone could pass the challenge but not prove anything because they may have just got lucky. True enough. But all that amounts to is (a) if someone passes the challenge they won’t have proved psi but they’ll have gone some way towards it and (b) if they don’t pass the challenge that throws doubt on psi. Which amounts to: the challenge is useful but not definitive. I’m happy enough with that. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/47 "2004-10-13T12:15:06Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > The point is that New Agers don’t see Randi’s trickery in the service of a “higher cause” as excusable. I was also trying to explain why he is hated so much by us. New Agers don’t generally go out of their way to hate atheists. We really don’t like people whom we perceive as dishonest and “spreading darkness.” Yeah, I know it’s hard to understand. It is, yes. I’m not at all sure the fault lies with me, though. I don’t see why fooling some people to make a point, then admitting what you’ve done immediately afterwards, is particularly obnoxious. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/48 "2004-10-13T12:18:56Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > What is “big hit psi” exactly? Would I be correct in thinking that it is something rather difficult to distinguish from “occasional lucky guess”? It’s my own term, but basically it refers to psi events whose probability is very hard to estimate. If I were able to tell you your dog’s name, his birthdate, and, I don’t know, the color of his collar–was that just a lucky guess, or was it psi? It’s hard to measure. > [@](#): > > I still don’t know what the heck you mean, I’m afraid. It’s pretty simple. Mathematical expectation is the probability of the event happening times the value of that event. The value of succeeding in the challenge is $1M: a lot of dough. If Randi accepts lets someone take the challenge with 1/1000 odds of success on the event, then he stands to lose $1,000,000/1,000 = $1,000. That is a losing proposition for him. So what if a psychic came in and said, “I can find a jewel hidden in a black box.” So even if Randi sets up 1,000 black boxes in a gymnasium with just one jewel hidden therein, he still stands to lose $1,000. Or, to put it another way, if were to test 1,000 applicants with this test he will probably lose his $1,000,000. Similar odds would be guessing heads or tails correctly for 10 times in a row (1/1024). How many psychics claim to be that good? Not that many, I would guess. So basically Randi has to require astronomical odds in order to keep his mil, whereas most pyschics don’t have that level of ability and never claim that they do. But they still should be considered psychic if they regularly perform above chance. ---
**Author:** ![InvidiousCourgette](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e47c2d/32.png) [@InvidiousCourgette](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InvidiousCourgette)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/49 "2004-10-13T12:20:37Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I disagree. It’s now known that faith healers and such people can heal: it’s called the “placebo effect.” But now that it’s been proven it’s just an oh-so-ordinary phemenon, nothing special. It’s just as “paranormal” as anything else we can’t explain. Paranormal: > [@](#): > > Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation: such paranormal phenomena as telepathy; a medium’s paranormal powers. The placebo effect does not fit into this definition. Let me clarify. If a telepathist was demonstrated to have some special ability to read minds, it might be because of two reasons: 1. He had an ability that had a normal scientific explanation (analgous to the placebo effect in your example), for example he was unusually gifted at reading facial expression. 2. He had a paranormal ability. It was demonstrable under laboratory conditions that he could read thoughts and there was no scientific explanation that could account for it. The first scenario would be interesting and that would be the end of it. The second scenario would have such profound implications that the telepathist would become world famous and rich beyond the dreams of Croesus. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/50 "2004-10-13T12:21:46Z")
Actually, **Aeschines** , I note that David Blaine merely says “it’s not what you think” in relation to his card tricks. If Randi performed a similar card trick, would you expect him to say explicitly beforehand “I am about to show you an example of simple sleight-of-hand”? Would he be being “dishonest and negative” if he didn’t? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/51 "2004-10-13T12:23:06Z")
> [@InvidiousCourgette](#): > > Randi is an entertainer. There is no getting away from that. Many people consider his entertainment very worthwhile, but in a serious debate about paranormal activity his pronouncements _might_ be considered to be tainted with bias by an impartial observer. He is, in my view, therefore a distraction. I don’t really understand this. You seem to put people in little boxes and attribute taint to them depending upon the box you have put them in, rather than their actions. Scientists aren’t saints. They have their worldly motivations too, you know. Doing a double blind test is not rocket science. You don’t need a PhD to administer one. It’s a double blind test whether you do it, I do it, a scientist does it or James Z. Randi does it. And if your point is that _the perception_ of Randi as being biased is the problem then I could as easily point to some of the more gullible/unethical scientists who believe in and purport to have proven the paranormal: _the perception_ that they are qualified and able because they are scientists is the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/52 "2004-10-13T12:23:19Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > New Agers don’t like people that spread dishonesty? Now why would anyone find that hard to understand? > _Cough_ Sylvia, John Edward, Uri Gellar and multitudes more Well, I just said that _I_ wasn’t happy with John Edward, as I don’t think anyone can perform that consistently and he shouldn’t promise it. Uri Gellar is extremely flaky, if nothing else. He’s a showman and an over-self-promoter like Randi (and many other psychics, to be fair), and I don’t find that to be particularly appealing. Jean Dixon, for example, is outright obvious crap; so are many others. Some have talent but are delusional at the same time. So have talent but cheat all the same. I’ve never heard of “Sylvia,” however. ---
**Author:** ![Testy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c37758/32.png) [@Testy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Testy)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/53 "2004-10-13T12:26:34Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > The point is that New Agers don’t see Randi’s trickery in the service of a “higher cause” as excusable. I was also trying to explain why he is hated so much by us. New Agers don’t generally go out of their way to hate atheists. We really don’t like people whom we perceive as dishonest and “spreading darkness.” Yeah, I know it’s hard to understand. Randi is “spreading darkness?” I believe it to be the other way around. The New Age types keep running around trying to suck people back into the darkness where ghosts and demons and non-existant powers do all kinds of amazing things when no one is looking. Randi is trying to stop that. As far as why the New agers hate the guy, I’d say that is just because he is very plain-spoken and is willing to use the term “bullshit” when the word is appropriate instead of being mealy-mouthed about the matter. Regards Testy ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/54 "2004-10-13T12:27:06Z")
> [@InvidiousCourgette](#): > > The placebo effect does not fit into this definition. Well, it’s for this reason that object to the word “paranormal” in the first place. If it’s happening, then it’s normal. All the same, there is no explanation for the placebo affect; just a recognition that it’s real and theories. > [@](#): > > Let me clarify. If a telepathist was demonstrated to have some special ability to read minds, it might be because of two reasons: > > 1. He had an ability that had a normal scientific explanation (analgous to the placebo effect in your example), for example he was unusually gifted at reading facial expression. > > 2. He had a paranormal ability. It was demonstrable under laboratory conditions that he could read thoughts and there was no scientific explanation that could account for it. > > The first scenario would be interesting and that would be the end of it. The second scenario would have such profound implications that the telepathist would become world famous and rich beyond the dreams of Croesus. Well, the latter kind of thing does happen, whether through fraud or actual ability. Gellar’s rich, isn’t he? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/55 "2004-10-13T12:28:44Z")
> [@](#): > > But they still should be considered psychic if they **regularly** perform above chance. Bolding mine. The testing timescale is determined by the claims of the applicant, and under Popper’s principle **can ONLY be FALSIFIED**. There is a statistical term of critical importance here: [significance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance). The black-box guesser or coin-caller must show that the effect is _significant_. If the 1/1000 guesser claims, say, a 50% success rate, this can be falsified in an afternoon. If he claims a _0.2%_ success rate, which is still better than chance, he would have to submit to weeks or months of testing. ---
**Author:** ![InvidiousCourgette](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e47c2d/32.png) [@InvidiousCourgette](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InvidiousCourgette)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/56 "2004-10-13T12:30:30Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > And if your point is that _the perception_ of Randi as being biased is the problem then I could as easily point to some of the more gullible/unethical scientists who believe in and purport to have proven the paranormal: _the perception_ that they are qualified and able because they are scientists is the problem. It was indeed the perception of Randi that was my point. You are correct that not all scientists can be viewed as being ethical. The perception of their work in their peer group is important. For this reason, a scientific theory will only be widely accepted when it has been peer reviewed and published in a respected journal. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/57 "2004-10-13T12:30:36Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I disagree. It’s now known that faith healers and such people can heal: it’s called the “placebo effect.” But now that it’s been proven it’s just an oh-so-ordinary phemenon, nothing special. It’s just as “paranormal” as anything else we can’t explain. There’s also a divergence of objective outcome and claimed paranormal method that you are glossing over. I am yet to meet or hear of any faith healer, homeopath, naturopath, aromatherapist whatever who will admit, even off the record when there are no patients about, that their method is unimportant and that it all works on placebo effect. They do not admit this at all, they claim that their hocus _actually matters_. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/58 "2004-10-13T12:32:48Z")
> [@Testy](#): > > Randi is “spreading darkness?” I believe it to be the other way around. The New Age types keep running around trying to suck people back into the darkness where ghosts and demons and non-existant powers do all kinds of amazing things when no one is looking. Randi is trying to stop that. > As far as why the New agers hate the guy, I’d say that is just because he is very plain-spoken and is willing to use the term “bullshit” when the word is appropriate instead of being mealy-mouthed about the matter. > > Regards > > Testy Quite. The real point is that New Agers tend to keep such open minds their brains fall out. It is virtually the whole point of New Agism. ---
**Author:** ![InvidiousCourgette](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e47c2d/32.png) [@InvidiousCourgette](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InvidiousCourgette)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/59 "2004-10-13T12:36:48Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Well, the latter kind of thing does happen, whether through fraud or actual ability. Gellar’s rich, isn’t he? Uri Geller is indeed rich. He is rich because he is an entertainer. If he had an ability that could not be explained by science, he could make himself much richer still. I suspect he will continue to display his abilities on TV rather than in a laboratory, however. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/60 "2004-10-13T12:37:59Z")
> [@InvidiousCourgette](#): > > You are correct that not all scientists can be viewed as being ethical. The perception of their work in their peer group is important. For this reason, a scientific theory will only be widely accepted when it has been peer reviewed and published in a respected journal. Yes, but while in the little scientific world this is adhered to, outside of that little world perceptions are quite different. I think Randi is closer to being the main game than a distraction. I don’t like that, any more than I suspect you like that. But that’s the way I see it in practical terms. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926.md?page=4)