James Randi is a professional skeptic.

He also claims to research and debunk cults, although :

[www.factnet.org]

Quote

Randi disagreed with the distinction FACTNet and other anti-cult organizations make between cults and religions, and referred to the scientific implausibility of events depicted in the Old Testament of the Bible. The distinction between cults and religions we use is based upon cults’ use of deception, fraud, and mind control techniques, to the detriment of their members and wider society. Randi stated in his talk and letter that, "I'm sorry, folks, I still can't see much difference between what they referred to as ‘cults,’ and organized religions."

So at the same time as branding others such as David Icke as anti Semetic Randi is himself openly against all religions and beliefs.

FACT Net notes The letter includes several untrue statements and a mischaracterization of F.A.C.T.Net’s actions. There is a wealth of information on Randi's untrue statements and mischaracterizations as well as relying on unnamed sources which may or may not exist, admitting to compromising other's research, and profitting from his own brand of belief as much as any cult leader.

Randi is a former magician with absolutely no scientific qualifications, and yet he has made matters of science his career.

Whether or not he encourages it Randi has a cult like following and undertakes the same actions that he criticises others for - writing and selling books on what to believe, profitting from giving lectures on what others should believe, running a website telling others what should believe. There are many who accept whatever Randi says without any discerning thought or research into the issues for themselves, and who refute any criticisms with claims that they are descended from those out to get him. Randi boasts that he is 'always right' and his faithful rush to defend that he is just joking - much like my former cult leader's disciples when he announced that Canada was worthless because of it's liberal views on homosexuals and America should just take it over.

As an ex-cult member what I hear from Randi and those who for ease of reference I will term as his followers, brings back bad memories.

I do not think that any research into any claims that manipulate other's beliefs or seek to make profit through fraud are ethical or should be unchallenged. I devote my time and my own modest resources to attempting to educate about the cult which I was a member of and expose the many levels of manipulation and deception.

Those who are ex-cult members or cult researchers, or even those who simply wish to be aware of the risks that exist and avoid them should not be goaded into taking anything for granted. Just because someone presents themselves as a good guy loudly proclaiming at every opportunity they are out to protect everyone does not mean they should be met with unconditional trust.

Randi is granted a level of credibility on account of offerring one million dollars for anyone that can prove a paranormal ability, a stunt that has been denounced by his own colleague at CSICOP of which Randi was a founding member and remains a contributor. The results which Randi dismisses are not made public and the conditions which he imposes on his 'tests' are highly controversial.

[skepdic.com]

Quote

His rules are little more than what any reasonable scientist would require. If you are a mental spoon bender, you can't use your own spoons. If you are going to see auras, you will have to do so under controlled conditions. If you are going to do some remote viewing, you will not be given credit for coming close in some vague way. If you are going to demonstrate your dowsing powers, be prepared to be tested under controlled conditions. If you are going to do psychic surgery or experience the stigmata, expect to have cameras watching your every move.

On top of that Randi does not have any set criteria, it is changeable for every potential person that comes along - hardly standard scientific metodology and he does not make public any failed results so that they may be subject to scrutiny by anyone.

Randi works on the premise that anything which is not proven is automatically disproven - a dangerous and unscientific viewpoint. Such 'reasoning' is the same notion that allowed early scientists to be persecuted for daring to state that the Earth was not flat or that it orbited around the sun. It ignores that many ideals in science which are not considered to be outlandish or delusional at all are infact theories, such as the theories of evolution or the theory of relativity.

If one were to follow Randi's mindset they would remain ignorant to many conspiracy facts (note not theories) for just one example of what goes on the world, despite skeptics discover MK Ultra

[www.mindspring.com] (there are many other links as Google will reveal)

For anyone who wants to examine James Randi rather than simply accepting that his work is valid and the many references that show up to skeptic pages in this forum also criticise and debunk him.

[www.skepticalinvestigations.org]

Quote

He used to be a leading figure in CSICOP, but had to resign because of litigation against him. Carl Sagan, in his sympathetic introduction to Randi’s book The Faith Healers (1987) described him as an “angry man.” His work as a debunker has attracted lavish funding and in 1986 he was the recipient of a $286,000 MacArthur Foundation Fellowship.

Randi's whole career is based on a feud that he established with Uri Geller. While he has denounced Geller as a 'charlatan' it would seem that both have made their livings from Geller's claims of paranormal ability. Infact it seems a reasonable estimate that Randi profitted considerably better.

[www.answers.com]

Quote

In the early 1970s Randi published The Magic of Uri Geller
The original edition contained a number of factual errors, including the claim that Geller had been convicted of fraud in a criminal trial, and misstatements about whether there was a clear view of the window in the room where Geller did his work, a place Randi had never been to.

[jeff.zaadz.com]

Quote

The irony, with regard to the James Randi Educational Foundation is that, while it claims to encourage critical thinking, it actually functions in some ways to stifle exactly that!

[www.skepticalinvestigations.org]

Quote

In his “points to remember,” he noted that skepticism is not cynicism and that skeptics must be open-minded. “If you have evidence,” he said, “bring it on.”

So it’s ironic that actual science was hardly touched on. Instead it was one speaker after another reinforcing the conceit, almost universal among conference participants, that they are the enlightened ones, that they are charged with the burden of defending sense against nonsense, that they alone can be counted on to stand their ground against the tide of irrationalism that threatens to engulf our civilization and undo all the gains that have been wrought in the name of Science.

[www.skepticalinvestigations.org]

This is a comprehesive article about a former believer in Randi who examined his book Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns and other Delusions and details the lack of accuracy he found such as factual errors, unnamed sources to support allegations to confirm his accounts of bungled research, which he did not even back up by inspecting the premises himself, and generally expects the reader to place a lot of faith in what he tells them.

Quote

Maybe so, but it's an indictment that would never hold up in court. The reader is expected to take Randi's word that his unidentified sources are trustworthy - and that the sources themselves are well-informed about experimental procedures they may or may not have witnessed.

Thus when Randi alleges that "hundreds of [failed] experiments that were done by SRI ... were never reported," we must take the statement on faith, as it is unsupported by any documentation. Similarly, when Randi says definitively, "All the other tests [i.e., the successful ones] lacked proper controls and were useless," we search in vain for any footnote to back up this assertion.

[www.skepticalinvestigations.org]

Quote

The January 2000 issue of Dog World magazine included an article on a possible sixth sense in dogs, which discussed some of my research. In this article Randi was quoted as saying that in relation to canine ESP, "We at the JREF [James Randi Educational Foundation] have tested these claims. They fail." No details were given of these tests.

[www.skepticalinvestigations.org]

Quote

"The fact is that people who do not accept the laboratory and other evidence for psi that already exists are unlikely to change their minds or their beliefs simply because someone beats Randi's challenge and wins Randi's money. In the name of Science, many keep raising the issue of parsimony, of Occam's Razor where psi is concerned. In this case, wouldn't the simpler explanation as far as the Skeptics are concerned be that Randi was scammed out of the money? In the name of Science, many raise the issue of repeatability. If someone beat Randi's Challenge once, how does this meet the criteria of repeatability? What does this prove?"

www.skeptic.com/archives03.html

Quote

leading Fellow of CSICOP, Ray Hyman, has pointed out, this "prize" cannot be taken seriously from a scientific point of view: "Scientists don't settle issues with a single test, so even if someone does win a big cash prize in a demonstration, this isn't going to convince anyone. Proof in science happens through replication, not through single experiments."

[u:b084651386][b:b084651386]Is this ruining a life?[/b:b084651386][/u:b084651386] It is certainly guiding someone into what career they should take, and expecially under the circumstances described seems to be a destructive action, particularly since debunking chiropratics has no solid scientific merit. Note that Randi poo poos all 'alternate' medicines - what an age we live in where what is based in nature is deemed alternative!

[www.randi.org]

Quote

BITTEN BY CHIROPRACTIC

A reader, formerly a chiropractor, and who wishes anonymity, writes:

I do not believe I will ever practice chiropractic again, because I see no ethical way to practice. Spinal manipulation has limited uses at best and some forms of manipulation can be dangerous, cervical manipulation, for example. The problem is that I now have over $150,000 worth of non-dischargeable student loans and it looks like my credit is ruined for the rest of my life.

I realize this is my own fault for taking out the loans. I was stupid and lacking in critical thinking skills at the time. But, just curious, what would you do if you were me? Would you try to hire an attorney and fight the school for fraud? Would you just move on and try to forget about it? Would you write a book to warn other potential students?

I often feel like I have ruined my life with this massive debt. I still have a lot of joy in my life: I have a great wife, a rewarding (non-chiropractic) job, and many wonderful friends. But I still feel like I was bamboozled by the chiropractic profession.

No rush to answer me, but I’m just curious about your thoughts on this subject. I cannot encourage you enough to continue warning potential students about the rampant quackery in the chiropractic profession. Many students take out massive loans when they are in their early 20s only to discover later that chiropractic is a fake, unethical profession. By then, it’s too late and they are in debt forever.

Yes, my friend, you were certainly bamboozled – as any victim of chiropractic is. As for writing a book warning others of your plight, I cannot see it becoming a popular read because it contains facts that the public just doesn’t want to know. Another problem here is that those who sign up for instruction in chiropractic, obtain diplomas, and start into practice, discover that the monetary rewards are so huge, that they can’t resist staying with the business, even if they recognize that they’re quacks.

You’re an exception; you care.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Quote

Chiropractic was founded in 1895... Though its use has been documented from the time of the ancient Egyptians,[2] spinal manipulation in an attempt to correct the theoretical vertebral subluxation is solely a chiropractic endeavor. Chiropractic's contribution to the field of manipulative therapies is the concept of applying a precise adjustment to a specific affected vertebra, as opposed to the generalized maneuvers of the early osteopaths. While some chiropractors adhere strictly to the use of only spinal manipulation in their adjustment, others include a broad range of methods directed at correcting the subluxation and/or just relieving musculoskeletal pain.

There are currently thousands of qualified chiropractors practicing throughout the world and no evidence to sugguest that the profession is subject to any more litigation or claims of malpractice than any other field of medicine or alternative medicine.

Quote
cultreporter
There are currently thousands of qualified chiropractors practicing throughout the world and no evidence to sugguest that the profession is subject to any more litigation or claims of malpractice than any other field of medicine or alternative medicine.

There's also no strong evidence to suggest chiropractic does anything at all- on a good day. On a bad day, it has proven fatal [www.chirobase.org].

Quote
kath
There's also no strong evidence to suggest chiropractic does anything at all- on a good day. On a bad day, it has proven fatal [www.chirobase.org].

Conventional medicine itself kills 100,000s each year.
[www.dangerousmedicine.com]

Stephen Barrett (Mr. QuackWatch) is a cult in and of himself. He's been known to aggressively go after his detractors with frivolous SLAAP lawsuits in the same way Scientology and Landmark does.

His information about alternative health is one-sided at BEST. If a scientific study that does come out, say, showing that acupuncture helps with urinary tract infections (a study like that came out a while back), Stephen will conveniently ignore it.

To connect this to the topic - both Randi and Barrett are of the same ilk. They are men who profit either financially or emotionally from actively destroying other people.

They are not interested in a middle ground. Their world is completely black and white.

If these guys were legitimately open and said, hey, there might some value to some alternative medicine/paranormal/healing etc., and we just want to weed out the frauds, that's one thing. But they spend their entire lives actively working to destroy and descredit anything that does not fit into their worldview.

At least Randi says he'll give a million dollars to someone who can "prove" it. Barrett - he'll die a bitter man, yelling at the chiropracters on his deathbed.

Kath I do not doubt as you say that on a bad day that chiropractory has proven fatal, but there are many cases of fatality caused by the mainstream and accepted medical profession - one would be very hard pressed to find a medical discipline that has not caused a single fatality - and this is not used as a generalisation to debunk medicine in general. Nor should it be.

Quote

A genuine doctor may offer you an utterly useless treatment. He may give you a quite unneccessary prescription selected almost at random from the vast and growing pharmacopoeia pressed on him by the drug companies, wholly and solely because you have come to believe that you have not been properly treated if you get the proper reccomendation of rest and a lot of water to drink which will perfectly cure almost all of the feverish colds lavishly described as 'flu. But the doctor who does this is not a quack. This treatment is the approved practice of the medical profession. - The World's Worst Medical Mistakes. Martin Fido

Medicine is a scientific field that owes much of it's collective knowledge to a reliance on theories which are based on known facts with the gaps filled in by critical reasoning. Research continues to discover advances and it would be a very unhealthy world we would come to live in if the exact same 'reasoning' used to debunk 'alternative' medicines was applied to conventional medicine and they were shut down on account of not being able to prove the how or why of every single form of treatment and that it would unquestionably work for every single individual and had positively no potential to cause any adverse effect.

In an attempt to convey that I do not have an agenda in wanting to examine James Randi and sugguesting that his ideals should be questioned I submit the following.

Anyone who wants to check my posts on this forum will see that I am an open critic of the Hare Krishna philosophy and I do not endorse it whatsoever - but this as an attempt at debunking defies merit. It is the most non persuasive argument I have ever seen advanced against any cult - it is very boring? Randi inserts blanket statements based solely on his opinion which damage any factual point that he is trying to make and allow for any advocate of Krishna philosophy to easily deflect valid criticisms through his obvious lack of objectivity and the few facts that it does contain are incorrect.

I would love nothing more than someone such as Randi who has resources and reputation to debunk the Hare Krishnas. There are facts of hypocrisy, criminal activities and 'scientific' claims made by Bhaktivedanta Swami about the universe, the moon landing (that it did not happen) and that women's brains are smaller than men's (surmising that they are less intelligent) that would be far more informative and convincing than that it is boring.

For those who agree with Randi - I don't disagree with everything that he says - I propose that his work could at the very least be improved upon, and such improvements would only further his cause of debunking frauds.

This is the point which I am attempting to make in trying to explain why I do not believe that the word of anyone should be accepted unconditionally and unquestionably without applying one's own critical reasoning.


[www.randi.org]

Quote

Hare Krishna A cult originated in 1948 by a mystic of Calcutta known as A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, born Abhan Charan De in 1895. It was introduced to the Western world in 1965, and by 1968 the first saffron-robed disciples were swaying down London streets chanting and ringing cymbals in a now-familiar orgy of magical bliss.
(Krishna (also, Kistna) is one of two incarnations of Vishnu, the Hindu god. The story goes that Vishnu plucked out two of his hairs, one white and the other black. The black one became Krishna. No one really believes this, but there it is.)
The object of the “Ha-re Krish-na” chant, repeated endlessly, is to bring to the attention of the world the teachings attributed to Krishna. The actual Krishna philosophy, as outlined in the Bhagavad-Gita, calls for an end to wars and for universal love and food for all. No modus for achieving these ideals is given. Except chanting.

The actual, complete chanted mantra used by the Hare Krishna disciples is:

Hare Krishna/ Hare Krishna/ Krishna Krishna/ Hare Hare/ Hare Rama/ Hare Rama/ Rama Rama/ Hare Hare.

It is repeated 1,728 times a day by each devotee, who keeps count by means of 108 beads carried in a pouch around the neck. There are sixteen “rounds” of 108 “sets” each. It is very boring.

The factual errors - The Hare Krishna religion was founded by Chaitanya Mahuprabhu a possibly mystical figure of Indian history in the 1400s and is descended from Hinduism. The texts are the same, with the main difference being that while Hindus worship an array of gods and godesses Chaitanya preached that Krishna was the 'supreme personality of godhead'

Bhaktivedanta Swami was not a mystic, he was descended from Gaudiya Vaishnavism. It would have been more convincing here to state that the belief was that he was a pure devotee in disciplic succession descended from god himself.

The maha mantra 'Hare Krishna' chant is not to bring the attention of the world to Krishna, it is considered that the chanting of it is a form of worship and devotional service. No doubt that they do like attention, but this would be easily refuted or simply dismissed as misconception in the teachings of this cult.

To state that there is no modus for achieving the ideals is incorrect. ISKCON has a detailed mandate which while it is unrealistic (especially in the hands of a bunch of morally bankrupt criminals) it does exist. It includes many charitable initiatives which it would be a persuasive point to draw attention to have been sidelined by corruption and embezzlement.

Japa is not neccessarily done that many times a day. The exact number of times a person does it is dictated to them by their initiating guru. 16 rounds is the generalisation, although the scripture actually dictates 32 - even less appealling, some people are assigned less.

Your criticisms are aimed at things Randi has said or done on a professional level. That someone is 'wrong' in your opinion doesn't make them destructive. Destructive gurus' destructiveness isn't judged by that.

These are some things a real destructive guru may do-

Coerce people in an emotional and personal way, involved with peoples' relationships and such.

Financially do a real hard sell -'you need to do this course or you will never make much money or have the relationship you want.' Not just selling products or receiving donations, manipulating people into it.

They also often exploit their followers in erm, other ways :o

A real destructive guru as opposed to a person promoting a type of thought, uses

1) coercion or manipulation
2) exploitation

I've no doubt Randi is a 'character' but I don't know of him doing this. He seems to keep a level of distance, unless he is more involved personally in the states, or was when he was in better health.

Love
Kath

Quote

The actual Krishna philosophy, as outlined in the Bhagavad-Gita, calls for an end to wars and for universal love and food for all.

Randi appears not to have actually read the [i:8d91f00a1e]Bhagavad-Gita[/i:8d91f00a1e], either. as far as I understand it, the text advocates a life of service and undertaking any action for its own sake. that includes waging war. the whole text comes from Krishna's instruction to the reluctant Arjuna to wage a war when Arjuna's moral nature revolts against the thought of going through with it.

this statement of Randi reminds me of the truths mixed with half-truths you get in the Skeptic's Dictionary.

Quote
Acid Reindeer

Randi appears not to have actually read the [i:430b705e75]Bhagavad-Gita[/i:430b705e75]

But not every human being needs to you know. :) Why would he? No-one has limitless time on their hands and Randi's not religious or a mystic so why would he 'waste his time' reading a religion's holy book? Also there's more specific beliefs and literature of the hare krishnas, rather than the Gita which they share with the whole of Hinduism. We look into cults on this board, we comment on them but we wouldn't read every single ones' holy books.

Randi is dismissive of new age/self help across the board, from Tony Robbins to reiki. I do agree such a 'blanket' of criticism can seem dismissive. He just wouldn't have the time to go into every form of new age belief deeply, however his general criticisms give food for thought and may discourage people from spending their money on 'useless' therapies.

I will probably still do some therapies, workshops etc in the future but Randi's encouraged me to think twice before parting with my money.
Love
Kath

Quote
kath

Quote
Acid Reindeer

Randi appears not to have actually read the [i:b6c1550893]Bhagavad-Gita[/i:b6c1550893]

But not every human being needs to you know. :) Why would he? No-one has limitless time on their hands and Randi's not religious or a mystic so why would he 'waste his time' reading a religion's holy book?

because other people take his statements seriously.

if he had said that ISKCON has made [i:b6c1550893]Bhagavad-Gita[/i:b6c1550893] their holy book but that he won't comment on that book because he hadn't the time to look into it, he would look like an ass but he would have a kind of integrity even if he would have divested himself of some the authority he wants to try to adopt.

instead he purports to say what that book contains and instead of doing the research, takes the lazy route. now, the next time someone looks to Randi as a secondary source they will have picked up on his misconceptions which Randi himself could have easily have addressed.

doesn't critical thinking depend on having, if not, all the facts, as many facts as you get in order to suss out the matter?

or maybe he should forever waive his right to critique any New Age for their misinterpetation of scientific knowledge by saying he does the same thing, as far as religious thought? really, has he heard of consistency?

true confession, I found the [i:b6c1550893]Bhagavad-Gita[/i:b6c1550893] so tedious that I did not even finish the less than a hundred page long translation lacking commentaries. even granted that, I still know more about it than he knows.

Quote

Also there's more specific beliefs and literature of the hare krishnas, rather than the Gita which they share with the whole of Hinduism. We look into cults on this board, we comment on them but we wouldn't read every single ones' holy books.

true. they do pretty much look upon the Gita as the most important one of the lot of them.

in terms of English-speaking ISKCON devotees, they rely not so much on Hindu literature generally as on official ISKCON editions of select Hindu texts. a friend I knew in ISKCON pretty much thought of all editions of the Gita other than the ISKCON one has evil and wrong. he couldn't read Hindi.

Quote

Randi is dismissive of new age/self help across the board, from Tony Robbins to reiki. I do agree such a 'blanket' of criticism can seem dismissive. He just wouldn't have the time to go into every form of new age belief deeply, however his general criticisms give food for thought and may discourage people from spending their money on 'useless' therapies.

yeah. I do have a problem with Randi disseminating incorrect information the same way that I have with the new agers doing the same. especially if he could do more accurate research if he bothered.

Quote
kath
Your criticisms are aimed at things Randi has said or done on a professional level. That someone is 'wrong' in your opinion doesn't make them destructive. Destructive gurus' destructiveness isn't judged by that.

I don't think Randi is personally destructive in the way a cult guru would be. However, he does create misinformation that has to be countered.

Stephen Barrett, on the other hand, actively goes out and tries to destroy individual lives by filing lawsuits and having alternative healthcare practitioners arrested.

[www.quackpotwatch.org]

There are allegations that the "Quackbusters" are really part of a conspiracy by certain people in the medical profession to discredit their competition in the alternative health fields.

The question then becomes, is it true that an organized effort is going on to destroy alternative medicine and thought, using propaganda tactics, intimidation, and harassment?

And, is Randi a part of something like this? My sense is that he's just a grumpy old coot who used to scam people in his acts and therefore thinks everyone scams the way he did.