43. From the desk of James Randi (Podcast)

[alextsakiris]

Chronicles the email exchange between Skeptiko host, Alex Tsakiris and noted Skeptic, James Randi regarding DogsThatKnow experiment.

Read the entire email exchange

Click here to read more ...

[pacificwhim]

So you are offering to have an independent text of the DogsThatKnow experiments without asking for the million bucks? Smart move, Alex. But I suspect since that doesn't fit into the carefully controlled milieu of the JREF challenge, you may find yourself stifled.

My suspicion is that unless you're willing to jump through their application hoops, they won't give you the time of day.

What I want to know is, what's Randi planning to confront Sheldrake about? Getting stabbed? Being British? What's Rupert done lately to ruffle the feathers of the arch-skeptic?

Weird.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by pacificwhim

My suspicion is that unless you're willing to jump through their application hoops, they won't give you the time of day.

Of course. There is no doubt about that.

[Open Mind]

James Randi writes ....
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.

If Randi is going to deceive, one would think a magician could make a less obvious job than this? The idea Randi is so busy with 40+ persons about to be tested is contradicted by his later e-mail when he writes he has nothing to do with the JREF trials and he doesn't conduct the trials....

'....I have nothing to do with the challenge; it’s handled by other persons, and neither of them recognize your name. ...

Who are those 40+ persons taking up his time? If these 40 are others under test outside the JREF challenge, Randi is still contradicting himself by saying '... No application, no interest. Goodbye...'

I seriously question whether Randi has tested 40 persons in his life, at least properly ... yes if he counts cheque waggling in his early days, counts non-scientific short stunts and counts non-test failed applications he might be in the hundreds or more.

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?

Also on the skeptiko interview

Randi says
[i] '..So, it wouldn’t be me doing the test. It would be someone like Chris French or Wiseman, or some other scientist with the proper credentials. Plenty of places could do this sort of thing, and we always, always have it out of house. We don’t do the tests ourselves. We always turn it over to a lab or to an association, organization, college, whatever, who will do the experimentation, the whole run on the thing, and announce the results at the end of it.”

Randi is trying to make his tests sound independent by saying 'out of house'. Wiseman and French are clearly within the house of organized skepticism. Wiseman is fellow of CSICOP and consultant editor of their magazine ...... Chris French is co-editor of UK skeptic magazine funded by CSICOP. Randi was the co-founder of CSICOP before moving on to JREF.

Last time Randi was in the UK (April 2008) he shared a stage with other TV rent-a-skeptics ........ Richard Wiseman, Chris French, Susan Blackmore and a couple of others. .... ' An Evening With Randi And Friends' ...

Let us have some researchers who haven't invested their reputations and made media careers out of opposing paranormal claims .... anything less is hardly independent.

[Venom]

I find Alex very arrogant in all this. Who does he think he is? He's just a Psi-believer having is own little podcast.

If he wants to apply to the Million Dollar, he should do so the proper way (I've said that before, but he's soooo above his head that he doesn't listen).

Not trying to bypass the proper procedure for his own benefit. Play by the rules, or don't play.

But stop trying to cheat, or to bullshit your way through another way. You just look like a dick when you act that way.

[Larry Boy]

Originally Posted by Venom

Who does he think he is? He's just a Psi-believer having is own little podcast... he's soooo above his head that he doesn't listen... stop trying to cheat, or to bullshit your way through another way. You just look like a dick when you act that way.

Perhaps you should consider what you look like yourself when you write things like this.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Larry Boy

Perhaps you should consider what you look like yourself when you write things like this.

I sound like someone who is speaking his mind.

Alex claims to know a lot about skepticism. And then he doesn't understand the basics of how the Million Dollar Challenge works.

It's another clue of how clueless he can be about the subjects he pretends to be an expert at...

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Venom

I find Alex very arrogant in all this. Who does he think he is? He's just a Psi-believer having is own little podcast.

If he wants to apply to the Million Dollar, he should do so the proper way (I've said that before, but he's soooo above his head that he doesn't listen).

Not trying to bypass the proper procedure for his own benefit. Play by the rules, or don't play.

But stop trying to cheat, or to bullshit your way through another way. You just look like a dick when you act that way.

You sound very angry Venom . . .

[jacob]

Since when is 1 million dollar prize is the benchmark for good research?
I think that a proper scientific inquiry, the way Alex tries to pull off, is the correct way.

James Randi and the JREF are not a peer-reviewed system. If Alex publishes his research backed uped by real scientists specializing in animal bahaviour and other related subjects then I don't care if he applied for the challenge.

The real challenge is to publish a research in a scientific peer-reviewed journal and to get positive reviews.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by pacificwhim

What I want to know is, what's Randi planning to confront Sheldrake about? Getting stabbed? Being British? What's Rupert done lately to ruffle the feathers of the arch-skeptic?

Weird.

Randi plus TV crew will probably be trying to do what his friend Richard Dawkins attempted last year.... stitch up Sheldrake by being economical with what the (later named) 'Enemies of Reasons' programme was all about, not that it worked.

According to Sheldrake .....

'..... The previous week I had sent Richard [Dawkins] copies of some of my papers, published in peer-reviewed journals, so that he could look at the data.

Richard seemed uneasy and said, “I’m don’t want to discuss evidence”. “Why not?” I asked. “There isn’t time. It’s too complicated. And that’s not what this programme is about.” The camera stopped.

The Director, Russell Barnes, confirmed that he too was not interested in evidence. The film he was making was another Dawkins polemic.

I said to Russell, “If you’re treating telepathy as an irrational belief, surely evidence about whether it exists or not is essential for the discussion. If telepathy occurs, it’s not irrational to believe in it. I thought that’s what we were going to talk about. I made it clear from the outset that I wasn’t interested in taking part in another low grade debunking exercise.”

Richard said, “It’s not a low grade debunking exercise; it’s a high grade debunking exercise.”

In that case, I replied, there had been a serious misunderstanding, because I had been led to believe that this was to be a balanced scientific discussion about evidence. Russell Barnes asked to see the emails I had received from his assistant. He read them with obvious dismay, and said the assurances she had given me were wrong. The team packed up and left.

Dialogues and Controversies - Controversies - Richard Dawkins

Sheldrake's account is probably fairly accurate IMHO, over a year ago I spoke to someone else who was excited to be asked to appear on same two part series, although they knew Dawkins was on programme too, it wasn't made clear the programme was just a vehicle for Dawkin's own viewpoint only, he turned it down on realizing the likely type of programme. Others probably did so too.