One view is that Geller’s act is like professional wrestling. It’s a lie, everybody knows it’s a lie, but he must never, ever admit it’s a lie.
The slightly cynical view is that Geller is a fraud, but there are worse frauds in the world so don’t worry about it.
The more cynical view is that those who criticize Geller are clinging to old-fashioned, irrelevant ideas like integrity.
The even more cynical view is that most of Geller’s critics have no more integrity than he does, They don’t mind that Geller has made a fortune fleecing people, only that he’s better at it than they are.
Some (many) years ago, I went on a kick where I compulsively read every issue of the Skeptical Enquirer, and read everything Randi and Martin Gardner wrote. Since Gardner and Randi died, and the Skeptical Enquirer took a distressing political bent, I haven’t been following the Skeptical movement as closely as I once did. But I remember they devoted a lot of ink to Geller, and it seemed very clear to me that he was trying to convince people that he had real physic powers, using primitive and obvious sleight of hand techniques. It seemed that his lack of technique in magic was every bit as offensive as his evident skill in fleecing the flock.
I was enormously surprised to see the article I linked to.above. I honestly didn’t that Geller was in any still relevant. It was even more surprising to see it in an outlet that pretends to responsible journalism.
Did Gellar really have a “flock” to fleece? The frauds of his I’ve read about were all targeting oil and gas companies, and other major corporations. Did he also have a sideline in getting little old ladies to send him their life savings, like a televangelist?
In general they seem to be skeptical of the current liberal orthodoxy. That’s not necessarily a bad thing to be skeptical about, but I found the tone of their arguments a little uncomfortable.
The fraud wasn’t the relevant part of the quote. It’s the part where you say you knew of several magicians who had publicly spoken negatively about Geller. Without that part, it sounded like you believed that nearly all magicians like him.
Plus you just seemed very angry, like you were taking offense on Geller’s behalf. I’m glad that is not the case.
Had you quoted that other part, maybe that would have been more obvious to others. Or just said somewhere in your post something like “Yeah, he’s a fraud, but at least some other magicians do seem to admire him and even support him.”
ianzin would probably hate this book. It explains how Geller and other magicians who followed him did varieties of tricks. Too expensive to buy and no American libraries will bother with it. Or any libraries. WorldCat.org doesn’t list it.
The article is basic newspaperese. Somebody wrote a big coffee table book, and so they wrote a background piece. It’s much better than the response here. Some of the insights are quite good.
In 1973, he was a guest on “The Tonight Show,” and for 20 intensely awkward minutes Mr. Geller didn’t even try to bend the objects laid out in front of him. (The vibe was wrong, he explained.) Astonishingly, viewers seemed to regard the failure as a sign of authenticity. Only someone at the mercy of the universe’s unpredictable vibrations, went the theory, could have flopped like that.
Frauds, con artists, and faith healers knew this psychology eons ago. Televangelists may also have proceeded him. Where Geller was ahead of the curve was bringing this to mainstream media.
Today it’s standard procedure for right-wing politicians. They’re all faith healers. Getting caught is proof of their innocence. Only enemies and demons are doubters.
No wonder that Geller is rich and giving the finger to his skeptics.
The book ends with this quote from Uri Geller:
“Ben, I enjoyed your book and bouquets, but must declare ‘shenanigans!’ I maintain implicitly that I use REAL POWERS and not trickery. As your intent does seem kind and good-spirited, I will not sue your skinny ass.
The author hates progressive ideology, saying it is preventing science, then goes on to completely misrepresent the actual ideology. It even mixes up the concept of sex and gender. I’m not sure there’s a single progressive position in that article that is represented accurately.
I can understand how the author might himself not understand progressive ideology, but you would think that someone involved would have noticed the inaccuracies. The strawman fallacy is one of the most basic.
I haven’t been following the Skeptical movement recently, but I have subscribed to a few other blogs ( Rebecca Watson, PZ Myers) and their views were sufficiently harsh, that I haven’t been back.
It’s not unusual for the Times to publish fluff in the Style section. This article was published on page 4 of Sunday Business, and had a reference on the bottom of the front page: “In 1973, Uri Geller claimed to bend metal with his mind on British TV. Now his skeptics are on board.” Here’s the core of the piece, as I understand it:
Today, Mr. Harris and Mr. Geller are friends who text or talk nearly every day. Mr. Harris looks back at his 1985 attack book, “Gellerism Revealed,” as the work of an angry young man who had missed the point.
And the point is that Mr. Geller is an entertainer, one who’d figured out that challenging our relationship to the truth, and daring us to doubt our eyes, can inspire a kind of wonder, if performed convincingly enough. Mr. Geller’s bent spoons are, in a sense, the analog precursors of digital deep fakes — images, videos and sounds, reconfigured through software, so that anyone can be made to say or do anything.
Also: some people have done worse things. Deep fakes are worse, according to the author. The article mentions that Geller sued Randi for libel and lost, but does not mention the litigious Geller’s failed 60 million pound lawsuit against Pokeman (Nintendo). Nor does it discuss the chilling effect that $15 million lawsuits against private citizens such as Randi can have. Nor Geller’s attempts to take down critical videos of him on You-tube and suing those who put them up.
At any rate, I don’t feel like Geller did a very good job of challenging my relationship with the truth, or anyone else’s for that matter. No more than an arsonist challenges a building’s relationship with functionality or a pickpocket challenges his target’s relationship with shopping. Deception isn’t that novel or deep.
I think the other reason that professional magicians don’t like him is because the guy is a hack. There is no showmanship, no banter, no originality in developing new illusions. All he has is a few basic tricks that he learned to perform well and does over and over along with some intense looks of concentration and a claim that its all real.
I suspect that they think of him the same way that archeologists think of Erich von Däniken.
This article never should have been conceived, and if conceived never written, and if written never approved by the editor, and if approved never published. As it is, writer, editor, and publisher need to rethink their lives. The FAA should be called in to evaluate this cascade of errors and criminal inanity.
If published (why? why?), this ambiguous claim should have been cut. But to take it on its own terms… all magicians do this. There’s nothing special about adding a layer of scam to it.
Two performers who do dig into this concept are Jim Rose who runs a traveling circus with some misdirection thrown in and Derren Brown. Both are recommended. Jim Rose is the author of Snake Oil: Life’s Calculations, Misdirections, and Manipulations, while Derren Brown is an author, television creator, and live performer.