This is pretty good advice, in fact. But Rob Beschizza (I think Snoop Dogg got a hold of his name) makes the case a lot more eloquently in Wired Magazine. He gives 10 reasons not to screw with Randi, and he makes an excellent case.
-
About Bad Astronomy
Phil Plait, the creator of Bad Astronomy, is an astronomer, lecturer, and author. After ten years working on Hubble Space Telescope and six more working on astronomy education, he struck out on his own as a writer. He's written two books, dozens of magazine articles, and 12 bazillion blog articles. He is a skeptic and fights the abuse of science, but his true love is praising the wonders of real science.
The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking, movie reviews, and all that) can be found here.
Contact me: The Bad Astronomer "at" gmail "dot" com
Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009. Science Getaways
Subscribe to BA
Death from the Skies!
Order a copy of Death from the Skies! from Amazon, or Barnes and Noble.
"If things worked the way I wanted them to, any reporter about to do another 'sensational' story on deadly meteors would consult this volume, and bang! common sense would find its way into the news. How strange would that world be?"
-- Adam Savage, Mythbusters
"Reading this book is like getting punched in the face by Carl Sagan. Frightening, but oddly exhilarating."
-- Daniel H. Wilson, author of How to Survive a Robot UprisingSocial/Networking/Cool Stuff
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space- DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
- A Planet of Viruses: Autographed Book Sale
- Animal Friendships: My cover story for Time magazine
- The Future of E-books–podcast of my interview on Wisconsin Public Radio
- Thursday, February 16: Science and social media panel in New York
- A Scientific Jonah: My profile of Joy Reidenberg in tomorrow’s New York Times
Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.
Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us
November 6th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
And Fremer dives in with Comment Number One to that post. Outstanding!
Excellent post, too.
November 6th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Greatest quote ever:
“We may disagree with Randi on certain points, but we ignore him at our peril.”
-Carl Sagan
November 6th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
I liked this one:
“The only thing that stinks worse than Bad word deleted by The Bad Astronomer, is Bad word deleted by The Bad Astronomer”
-Rob Beschizza
November 6th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
I love watching the “wooie-woo-woos” spin, spit, sputter and spew as they drown in the depths of their own shallows. Randi rules!
November 6th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Let us not forget tip ten:
Do have paranormal powers.
So obvious, and yet so rarely followed.
I also liked the You Tube video; “James Randi exposes Uri Geller and Peter Popoff.” For some reason, seeing Uri Geller squirm on the Tonight Show was immensely satisfying.
November 6th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
The challenge is a fake. If you apply for it, you will be ridiculed, jerked around, and summarily rejected without ever being given a fair test.
November 6th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Ha, I loved that Youtube video they linked to of Randi foiling Uri Geller
I can’t believe they gave Geller a job on that Phenomenon show after that thorough whipping…Johnny’s probably rolling in his grave.
November 6th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Danny, please don’t use bad words when commenting.
Ken, nice try, but you’re completely wrong. This has been documented.
November 6th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
As someone who is a very active member of Randi’s foundation, I’ve delt with Mr. Randi more than a few times. I’m not going to go off into an “OMG I KNOW RANDI” kinda thing, but he’s the type who will personally respond to emails as long as you have something which actually is worth his attention and meaningful to ask/say. He’s pretty accessible like that, which I think is a great thing.
I disagree with him on a few matters from time to time and generally I’ve found he’s… well a little stubborn, but that’s kinda his personality. That having been said he’s not unreasonable. Strong willed, yes. A bit course from time to time, maybe. But never really irrational. This may be simply an effect of the years of exposure to high-intensity stupid which he has endured and the fact that he’s probably had to roll his eyes and give a sigh that says “oh not this again, I wish they’d at least be creative” more and more often.
The thing that people criticize him about is that he always assumes from the get go that any claim of something which is paranormal or in the classic fields of “woo” is false. Every time he walks in with the pre-conceived notion that he already knows it’s just a lot of bull and he can confidentially write it off.
This would tend to be a pretty bad problem if not for one fact… it has turned out that this assumption has been born out and never proven wrong each and every single time. Randi is biased, yes that’s true. But he’s biased toward the facts, which is probably not a bad thing.
But anyway, he’s definitely someone who’s contributed a lot by bring things to people’s attention and his combination of being persistent, very difficult to fool and willing to take off the gloves. So although I don’t “worship” Randi, as some claim his “followers” do, I sure as hell think he’s a great guy and worthy of a lot of thanks.
Here’s a cartoon I made that kinda shows why he’s important, to the naysayers: http://depletedcranium.com/?p=14
And also… the challenge is legit. Seriously… don’t go questioning if the million exists or if the rules are written to allow you to get cheated. That’s all been over time and time and time and time again. Do some research. They work hard as hell at the JREF to do everything they can to make the challenge on the up-and-up and as fair as possible. And some of the lines are just getting SOOOOO old.
November 6th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Bad, it has been documented.
Have you read:
http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43
…and counted up the the applications?
I have.
How many people have applied?
How many people have been given a fair test?
How many have been ridiculed and summarily rejected?
-Ken
November 6th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Please point to one applicant that could be considered by someone without a victim complex as having been “ridiculed,” Ken. Gimme a break…
November 6th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
“How many people have applied?”
About 1,000
“How many people have been given a fair test?”
About 60 got that far. The rest didn’t agree with proposed protocols.
“How many have been ridiculed and summarily rejected?”
Plenty
November 6th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Here’s something interesting. Didn’t know what other thread to post it:
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060124_political_decisions.html
November 6th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
>> Here’s something interesting. Didn’t know what other thread to post it:
We already knew ideologues can’t think straight.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Sorry Ken, I’m afraid you’re wrong on that one. Believe me the people who work the challenge try damn hard to get the thing done, but the problem is almost everyone either can’t agree to the protocol, doesn’t follow through, backs out, or doesn’t even stand up to the most basic initial tests or qualifications.
Yes, a few people have been administered a preliminary but it has always fallen apart there. Do they get ridiculed? Sometimes. MAny are genuinely wacky to the point where it’s hard not to see humor.
But it’s endlessly frustrating how few of these applications and the big words behind them ever pan out once they try to get the thing to happen. Some people cry about some simple rule or say they’ll do it and then say it has to be changed. A few go through the process and then fail completely.
That is why the rules were revised this past April. I know two of the people who work on applications very well and it’s frustrating as hell trying to get it to happen.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
OK, let me point out that I doubt that is actually Rob Beschizza who posted that comment, and I frown mightily on using other peoples’ names when commenting. Please find some way to show me you are actually Rob Beschizza, or I will delete that comment.
And do you have any citations for the numbers you quoted?
November 6th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Randi has really inspired me. I’m glad he’s able to do what he does. He is also an entertaining magician.
November 7th, 2007 at 1:23 am
Phil, I don’t know if the numbers he gives are true or not, but they do sound reasonable for “formal” preliminary tests.
Randi has done some tests of people for tv shows or promotions, but those fall apart quickly. But there’s really a lot of difficulty getting people to commit to any procedure no matter how much they bend over backward.
Do people get ridiculed? Yeah, but generally the ones who deserve it. There are many people who come in with big words but won’t really follow through. A lot of others who claim they can do something and they’ll totally take the challenge…. except for (insert dumb excuse)…
Point is, they get more than a generous fair shake.
November 7th, 2007 at 5:32 am
> How many people have applied?
Lots.
> How many people have been given a fair test?
All of them.
Of course, the fast majority of claimants have backed out the moment they realized that their tricks and frauds wouldn’t function under competently designed experimental controls that don’t assume the claimant is necessarily going to be as honest as you are.
> How many have been ridiculed and summarily rejected?
Have you read some of the applications? If you find yourself unable to state your claim and state your accuracy (or even your name) with any sort of coherence, of course your application is going to be rejected. Like anywhere else, the staff at JREF are under no obligation to have their time wasted by crank applications. Do your homework first.
And if you go in rude and start mouthing off at Randi, he’s under no obligation to sit there and quietly take the abuse.
I’ve written to Randi a few times. He’s always responded with a brief, and unfailingly polite word.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Randi is the hoopiest there is, and watching Geller squirm on the Tonight Show completely changed my viewpoint on paranormal “phenomenon”.
drbuzz0,
If you get a chance, you might want to mention to Randi that some of the texts in the JREF library are well out of copyright, and that it would be a huge benefit to society in general to allow and encourage volunteers to digitize them and make them freely availaible.
November 7th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Reason #11 not to mess with Randi – The Amazing Meetings (T.A.M.s) rule! See you at T.A.M. 6.
November 7th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Randi is the only person I know who has been on Johnny Carson and met heads of state and is a worldly figure who, if i have a valid point or question will personally respond to my e-mails. He has done this 4-5 times in the last year. I agree that he is biased…….towards a fact based society
It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
– Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
November 7th, 2007 at 10:15 am
@ Ken:
What Randi does is simply ask people to do what they claim they can do. Simple as that. If I mention that I play cello and someone asks me to play for them, I don’t get angry because they just want to hear me play. If I were to get defensive and start with the “are you calling me a liar?” routine, it would cast some doubt on my ability, wouldn’t it?
“The lady doth protest too much…”
November 7th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
[...] [Via Bad Astronomy Blog] [...]
November 8th, 2007 at 4:57 am
In German, Beschizza alsmost sounds like beschissen… which means as much as F*-ed up. I’m not implying anything, but if Snoop were German, it would’ve made sense for sure!
November 13th, 2007 at 12:43 am
“Randi will make faster work of you than Chuck Norris if you underestimate him.”
Sigh. Please don’t equate Randi with that raving fundy crackpot.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
[...] demonstrate their craft or beliefs. (Plait gets all my envy when he talks about his friendship with James Randi and Penn [...]