43. From the desk of James Randi (Podcast)

[Deadpool]

There seems to be confusion here and I'm sure Randi would be confused aswell. The first email, which seems odd for an opening email, tells Alex to apply for the challenge. Alex says "Let's do it." Seems like he's agreeing to apply to the challenge to me. It is never clearly stated that Alex does not want to do the challenge. And he seems to assume that Randi knows what he is talking about.

So when Alex starts making comments like -

Let me know when your vetting of Dr. Wynne is complete (please complete this within the next two weeks). We are also in contact with other researchers and plan to form a panel of animal behavior experts. I will advise you as other researchers join the project.

- it is not crazy to think Randi might wonder whats going on. And like Venom said, Alex is just this guy with a podcast making psi claims. Randi may be on the top of Alex's to do list but I would guess Alex is on the bottom of Randi's.

Which leads to the next string of emails. Alex seems to think (imo from reading these emails) that his claims are top priority. And when Randi states -

You appear to think that your needs are uppermost on my schedule. What would give you that impression? Looking into a silly dog claim is among my lowest-priority projects. When I’m prepared to give you some time, I’ll let you know. There are some 40+ persons ahead of you.

- I don't see anything in here about the challenge. Coupled with earlier emails it looks like 'apply for the challenge or wait till I have time. There are 40+ people in front of you for my time.' Again I could be wrong.

And all I see in the last response is a man getting annoyed with this guy that keeps emailing him.

I propose you abide by HYPERLINK “James Randi's Transcript on Rupert Sheldrake Telepathy Experiments | Skeptiko Blog earlier offer to appear naked in Piccadilly Circus if research indicates Rupert Sheldrake’s original research was correct. Given the personal attacks you’ve suffered upon Sheldrake, this public humiliation would seem an appropriate penance. And, if you’re worried about cost, I’ll even pay for your airfare to London.

I listened to the podcast again and I don't remember Randi ever saying he would dance naked if "research indicates." He said if Sheldrake passes the test he would hand him the money, dancing naked.

Fill out an APP., do the test and win the million dollars. Or keep making videos, try to talk Wynne in doing this stuff with you (id like to hear what he says about your first 2 vids btw.) and maybe get on Randi's radar.

[pacificwhim]

Well said, Deadpool.

Alex, we all respect the experiments you're doing. But it seems (to me, at least), that you're trying to force your way of doing things down the JREF's throat. Randi is 80 years old, rather full of himself, incredibly busy, and has a set way of doing things, and we all know people--especially when they're older--rarely deviate from their routine.

If I were half as busy as Randi in any enterprise, and you came to me basically ordering me to complete my vetting of your proposed skeptic in two weeks, I'd tell you to go stuff yourself. I would suggest that like it or not, if you want the JREF involved in your work, you'd better be prepared to play by at least some of their rules. Otherwise, you risk coming off looking like a crank. After all, what better victory than to win on the opponent's playing field?

If that irks you, then do what an earlier poster suggested and polish and hone your research and publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. Not that that will sway the Venoms of the world (they'll just insist it's not a reputable journal because it accepts psi papers), but it will move some others down the road to acceptance of the phenomenon.

[David Bailey]

Alex,

I also think it would be best to forget Randi and concentrate on the research. It is fairly obvious that they will never give way with good grace and accept a Ψ claim, so trying to deal with them is like banging your head against a brick wall. I wonder if Rupert would let you attend his confrontation with Randi - it might be worth it, particularly if you got to tape it!

BTW, I presume Alex and Randi must have had discussions arround the time of Randi's podcast, so some of the e-mail exchanges that seem confused should probably be interpreted in that light.

David

[Larry Boy]

Great summing up there by Deadpool and pascificwhim. Fully agree. My advice is, just like David says, to keep doing this the way you intended from the beginning (inolving both skeptics and proponents in the research, then publishing it in a peer-reviewed journal) and simply ignoring Randi's rather blunt call for an application. I don't think anything good will come out of an attempted cooperation with him. Involve serious skeptics like Christopher French or Julie Milton instead.

[LeoM]

Originally Posted by pacificwhim

Well said, Deadpool.

Alex, we all respect the experiments you're doing. But it seems (to me, at least), that you're trying to force your way of doing things down the JREF's throat. Randi is 80 years old, rather full of himself, incredibly busy, and has a set way of doing things, and we all know people--especially when they're older--rarely deviate from their routine.

If I were half as busy as Randi in any enterprise, and you came to me basically ordering me to complete my vetting of your proposed skeptic in two weeks, I'd tell you to go stuff yourself. I would suggest that like it or not, if you want the JREF involved in your work, you'd better be prepared to play by at least some of their rules. Otherwise, you risk coming off looking like a crank. After all, what better victory than to win on the opponent's playing field?

If that irks you, then do what an earlier poster suggested and polish and hone your research and publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. Not that that will sway the Venoms of the world (they'll just insist it's not a reputable journal because it accepts psi papers), but it will move some others down the road to acceptance of the phenomenon.

A lot of work of psi has been published in peer reviewed journal such as society of scientific exploration, lancet journal done on nde's by Pim Van Lommel and that still did not sway the skeptics.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by pacificwhim

Well said, Deadpool.

Alex, we all respect the experiments you're doing. But it seems (to me, at least), that you're trying to force your way of doing things down the JREF's throat. Randi is 80 years old, rather full of himself, incredibly busy, and has a set way of doing things, and we all know people--especially when they're older--rarely deviate from their routine.

If I were half as busy as Randi in any enterprise, and you came to me basically ordering me to complete my vetting of your proposed skeptic in two weeks, I'd tell you to go stuff yourself. I would suggest that like it or not, if you want the JREF involved in your work, you'd better be prepared to play by at least some of their rules. Otherwise, you risk coming off looking like a crank. After all, what better victory than to win on the opponent's playing field?

If that irks you, then do what an earlier poster suggested and polish and hone your research and publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. Not that that will sway the Venoms of the world (they'll just insist it's not a reputable journal because it accepts psi papers), but it will move some others down the road to acceptance of the phenomenon.

Do you really think we should excuse Mr. Randi because of his age? Or, his "busy schedule"?

He's been extremely public is his ridicule of Dr. Rupert Sheldrake. And, he made some very bold statements during our interview. He should be held accountable.

Consider:

1. I selected a very qualified researcher with animal behavior expertise.

2. I've selected someone who is very skeptical of the claims.

3. I'm funding the research with my own money.

4. I'M WILLING TO FORGO RANDI"S MILLION DOLLAR PRIZE.

All Randi has to do is agree to abide by the research conclusions.

Why are you making excuses for him?

[pacificwhim]

Originally Posted by LeoM

A lot of work of psi has been published in peer reviewed journal such as society of scientific exploration, lancet journal done on nde's by Pim Van Lommel and that still did not sway the skeptics.

Exactly my point, Leo. The whole journal thing is a losing game, a Catch-22, at least when you're talking about dogmatic pseudoskeptics. This is how it works:

a) If a frontier journal like the Journal of Scientific Exploration publishes a pro-psi paper, they dismiss it because it's just a "woo-woo" journal.

b) If a mainstream journal publishes the same paper, they howl bloody murder and personally attack the researchers and the experiment.

c) If a mainstream journal like Nature or JAMA refuses to accept a psi paper, then it can't possibly be because the mainstream academic establishment is fearful about even acknowledging the validity of psi research. It must be because the work was garbage..."crap" in Venom's delicate yet classy language.

But of course, if even one anti-psi study makes it into a mainstream journal, including the one published in (I think it was) JAMA done by a NINE YEAR OLD GIRL debunking therapeutic touch, the same psi deniers trumpet that as proof positive that psi and the paranormal are bunk.

It's an unwinnable game. So why play? Alex, you will NEVER, EVER convince the Venoms of the world. No amount of evidence will ever be enough. Spend your energy on solid research and publication and let the skeptics stew in their own self-congratulatory, arrogant juices.

[pacificwhim]

...I'm not making excuses for Randi. I'm saying that when you're dealing with people like him, you need to take the high road. That means not coming off as harassing.

Remember, the perception of most psi researchers is that they are all pro-psi believers, rather than skeptical scientists. Appearance does matter.

I also understand where he's coming from. Why should you be his first priority? Why should he deal with you if you're not willing to play by his rules? Remember, the villain is never the villain in his own mind. You're going to have to compromise if you're going to get the JREF to play ball.

Also, I sincerely doubt Rupert Sheldrake needs you to defend him. Why not get him and Randi on your show and let them have at it?

[David Bailey]

LOL - a Randi vs Rupert Sheldrake podcast would be worth doing - and I just know who would win that contest!

David

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

It seems Randi has LOADS of time, according to Kramer in 2005 (then Randi's JREF challenge organizer) ..'There have been two tests since my arrival here one year ago. My understanding is that there has never been more than a couple of tests per year.'

If both Randi and Kramer were telling the truth, Alex's doggies should be due to be tested in 20 years time?

If you actually look at the documentation on the JREF site you would see that the vast majority of challengers never manage to articulate what they can do and how they are going to demonstrate it. Instead they waste everybodies time in endless email exchanges lasting years. Alex fits the pattern to a tee although putting out a press release claiming to have accepted the JREF 1 million dollar challenge racks up kookometer scale another notch.

What is so difficult about it? Simply describe what the dogs are going to do and how you are going to demonstrate it in a controlled manner. Specifically state how you are going to judge the success or failure of the trial.

The support of somebody like Clive Wynne is irrelevant. The experiment should be designed so that the results are self evident. If the videos that Alex put up on youtube are representative of the effect then there should be no problem.