James Randi — conjourer, critical thinker, skeptic, and friend — did a series of great interviews on Big Think. Here’s one where he talks about spending his life attacking antiscience and its purveyors, specifically Uri Geller and Sylvia Browne.

The interviews are all short, just a few minutes long, and you can access all of them on the Big Think site. It’s well worth your time to hear from this giant of skepticism.

Bonus: the James Randi Educational Foundation just announced they have education grants available! If you’re an educator developing or disseminating critical thinking materials, take a look.

I am very sad to write that Martin Gardner, a skeptical giant and genius by any standard, died today in Tulsa Norman, Oklahoma.

Wikipedia has a list of his remarkable achievements. He was a lifelong friend of James Randi, who has written a brief statement at the JREF page. I’ve heard Randi tell many a tale about him. His love for Martin was worn on his sleeve.

[Update (23 May 2010): Richard Dawkins wrote up his thoughts, and Scientific American, which published a column by Martin for more than three decades, put up a post as well.]

I never met Martin, but he influenced my life anyway. I don’t know exactly how old I was, but I think I was in sixth grade when I found a copy of one of his many books filled with brain teasers and math puzzles. I’ve always loved puzzles, but Martin’s books showed me how to think around some problems, how to take that needed step to the side to see the solution lying beyond… and more importantly, trained me how to find the path to that solution.

Very few people wake up one day seeing the world rationally; it’s a series of steps that takes you there. Eventually you look around and realize it, and when you look behind you you see the footsteps that brought you to that place. Off in the distance, well behind me, but at a critical point in my life, I can see where Martin gave me a nudge. It was a small push, to be sure, just a gentle poke, but with time it acquired vast leverage.

The skeptic community mourns the loss of one of our giants, but we know we’re all better off for the time we had him here.

Picture credit: Wikipedia and Konrad Jacobs, used under a Creative Commons license.

In 2007, James Randi took the stage at TED and apparently had a pretty good time (I still hear stories about it). The folks at TED just put the video up, and it’s a hoot.

I’ll note that Randi was 79 when this was filmed. Could you do this well now? There’s a reason his middle name is "Amazing".

James Randi — one of the founders of the modern skeptical movement, a leading rationalist, thinker, and fighter of antiscience — has made a big announcement: he’s gay.

A lot of us already knew this, although I don’t know how widespread the knowledge is. I imagine this will surprise some folks, but not others. Some may wonder why he waited this long… but he makes it clear why in both his announcement on Swift as well as in his interview with JREF President (and openly gay man) D.J. Grothe on his podcast For Good Reason. D.J.’s interview with Randi is excellent; they discuss how this molded Randi’s life, his thoughts on gay marriage, his frequent mentioning of Sophia Loren (which made me smile), and how this affects (or more accurately, does not affect) the JREF’s mission.

I found out about the announcement right before a friend came to pick me up, and I told him about it. We chatted about it for a moment, and then he asked me, "What difference will this make?"

That’s a darn good question. For me it makes no difference, and wouldn’t had I known or not before the announcement. At some level it’s always interesting to find out personal information about someone you know, or someone you respect — it’s not exactly gossip, just more info that leads to a feeling of knowing someone better. I know most people, certainly an overwhelming majority, will support Randi with this. Some won’t like it, and it may be that a lot of Randi’s detractors will delight in trying to use this against him. I look forward to watching them reap that whirlwind.

In the end, it’s a good thing for the LGBT community, because now yet another person of some stature will lend his own credibility to the movement. Just being open and comfortably gay without making a point of it will establish that this is just another of the many flavors humans come in.

So to answer my friend’s question, this won’t change Randi or the JREF. But there is still a lot of prejudice about homosexuality — and certainly a lot of that comes from "cultural conservatives" as D.J. called them — and the more we have this out in the open, the more people will be used to it. As that happens, that sense of "other" diminishes, and we learn to accept differences and diversity more easily and naturally. And that is a very good thing indeed.

I’m glad Randi has talked about this, and I’m proud of him.

Rebecca posted some nice thoughts on this, too. Picture of Randi courtesy Andy Ihnatko.

Yesterday, James Randi posted an entry on the JREF’s Swift blog about global warming. In it, he expressed some doubt over the consensus that humans are causing global warming. He does not doubt that warming is happening, as he made clear, just the role of humans in that change.

Unfortunately, one source he used in his essay was the Petition Project. This was an attempt by global warming denialists to muddy the climate issue, and one that has been thoroughly trashed — it’s really just as awful as the similarly ridiculous, and just as thoroughly nonsensical, attempt by the Discovery Institute to get a petition by scientists who doubt evolution. Randi also made a claim about the complexity of global warming, and how difficult it is to model, casting some uncertainty on it. As he said, this makes it very difficult for someone not well-versed in the field to come to a well-informed decision on climate change.

I was unaware that Randi had just posted his essay when, yesterday, I wrote a post asking for donations to the JREF. Obviously, the comments focused on Randi’s post. While some were fair, I was taken aback by the vitriol of many of the comments; some people were out-and-out calling Randi a denialist, which is ridiculous. Other comments were worse.

Needless to say, this made quite a splash in the skeptical blogosphere as well. Posts and comments sprouted up everywhere about it. Some were thoughtful, others, um, not so much. I was surprised by how many skeptics were quick to vilify Randi, again accusing him of being a global warming denialist. I got emails from people fearing for the skeptical movement as a whole!

Instead of rending my garments over this, I read Randi’s post carefully, and then sent him a note outlining why the Petition Project is a crock, as well as saying that yes, mathematical models of climate are very complex, but that doesn’t change observations indicating the reality of global warming or our role in it. Randi told me he was writing a followup, so I decided not to say anything about it here until his new post went up. I wanted to make sure I had all the facts before commenting.

Randi posted that followup blog entry today. As I expected, he took the new information into account, admitting that he was unaware of the dubious nature of the petition, and re-affirming that he is not denying global warming is occurring.

So what are we to make of all this?

One is that anyone, everyone, is capable of making mistakes, from grand to minor, from basic ones we never should have made to ones that are inevitable. Skeptics make these same mistakes, too. Even noted skeptics. I’ve done it, Randi’s done it, every human has done it. Apropos of exactly this, Michael Shermer changed his stance on global warming after sufficient evidence swayed him.

Another is that even skeptics can be quick to jump to conclusions based on our own preconceived notions and methodology. Randi made an error, yes. Pointing that out politely and clearly is fine, as can be seen by the fact that he followed up on his post once he was given better data. But the ways in which many people attacked him were, in my opinion, unfair. If someone has a history of spinning the truth, of lying, of distorting reality for their own agenda, then sure, have at them. But when it’s someone who has devoted their life to prying the scales from everyone’s eyes, I think they’ve earned a modicum of decorum when they make a mistake.

Of course, on blogs (either writing them or commenting on them) it’s very easy to simply react. Again, we have all done this, and usually with some regret later. I’ve had to go back and retract things I’ve written when better evidence has arisen, or simply when someone has pointed out where I blew it.

Part of being a skeptic — and it’s a big part — is admitting when you’re wrong.

And finally, there is a really good takeaway point from this: when it comes to reality, no one and no thing is sacrosanct. If something is wrong, it gets called out. That’s what skepticism is all about. If Randi makes a mistake, he gets called on it. If scientists do, or the Pope does, or anyone, then it is up to all of us to speak up. And I think that how we do it is just as important as the content of our claims.

I’ve known Randi many years, and I know that for him, truth trumps all. May all of us be so inclined.

It is with bittersweet feelings that I announce that as of January 1, 2010, I will no longer be President of the James Randi Educational Foundation. On that date, skeptic, podcaster, and all-around good guy D. J. Grothe will take the helm. The JREF has a press release online with more information.

This was a very difficult decision for me. But I’m leaving the Presidency so I can concentrate on some future TV projects I’ve been developing. This has been a dream of mine for more than a decade, and something I’ve worked on very hard, so it’s an opportunity I simply could not pass up. With that in mind, I discussed this with Randi and the other members of the JREF Board of Directors, and we all agreed it was for the best. Not to rationalize this too much, but if this does work out it means I’ll be able to promote skepticism, science, and critical thinking to a much larger audience. This will ultimately benefit the JREF itself, too.

I’m really happy D. J. accepted the role of President in my stead. He is a beloved member of the skeptical community. His podcast, Point of Inquiry, is among the best in the business. He is a thoughtful, intellectual, interesting, and warm person, and will be an outstanding example of leadership when he takes the JREF reins. With D. J. involved, the future of the JREF is stronger than ever.

And this isn’t to say I’m severing all ties with the JREF! Far from it. I strongly believe (if I may use that word) in the mission and goals of the Foundation, and I have no desire to just walk away. I’ll stay on in an informal capacity to advise, impart my rich wisdom, and tell Randi puns. You have to stick with your strengths.

And to belay the obvious question: I can’t disclose any more details about the TV stuff right now. Sorry, but I really can’t. Rules is rules. Trust me, when I have news I can report I’ll be singing it from the rooftops.

The past 15 months have been quite the whirlwind, what with TAM 7, TAM London, Randi’s health announcement, and so much more. The JREF stands solid and tall in the world of skepticism and critical thinking. Being a part of it, representing it, and working with Randi himself has been more than an honor. It’s been, well, amazing.

And finally, I want to thank everyone who has been involved with the JREF: the staff; the circle of magicians, scientists, and skeptics we contact for advice and help; the JREF Board of Directors for accepting me into the fold in the first place, and Randi his own self. Without him, it would just be the EF. And that’s just silly.

And, of course, the JREF community at large across the planet. You are the ones who have made us who we are: a global force of rationality and reason. You know as well as we do that the struggle against the forces of unreason will never end. Without your support, your energy, and your enthusiasm, our ability to stand up for sense and science would grind to a halt. Presidents will come and go, but you will always be there, and that means more to us — more to me — than can be said. Thank you all.

When I was in Florida for Carl Sagan Day, I was happy to see my friend Rachel Dunlop ("Dr. Rachie") from Australia was there too. She was in Miami, heard about the event at the last minute, and drove (on the wrong side of the road) to Ft. Lauderdale to attend.

Rachel is one of the many people who puts together the Skeptic Zone podcast, and she snagged a bunch of interviews at the celebration, including with D.J. Grothe, Randi, me… and my mom. Yes, my mother was there, and D.J. made sure she got to be in the interview as well. You can listen and comment on the podcast, and if you like it why not subscribe to the podcast via iTunes?