Table of Contents:
Jon Herron of Tucson, Arizona, is apparently unaware that Dr. Gary Schwartz of the University of Arizona and I, are old acquaintances. He writes:
I am writing to you tonight due to an appalling story presented on a local news broadcast here in Tucson. After going through the usual national headlines they introduced a teaser for the next segment posing the question about scientific proof of life after death. I was immediately taken aback as I had thought this particular newscast was not as sensationalistic as others. I was proven wrong, however, when they came back with an absolutely disgusting piece of journalism that presented life after death as backed by scientific proof garnered at my very University of Arizona!It seems that there is an obviously tenured Dr. Schwartz who somehow gets grant money to bring in mediums to do readings and arrive at the conclusion that these studies conclusively show life after death! This piece took a whole segment with smiling Dr. Schwartz boasting that anyone who has ever looked at the data has concluded there is something to it and shots of a reading being done with a woman just amazed at the accuracy of it. There are mentions of 80% hit rates as simply too high to be accounted for by chance. Of course what they score as a hit is any tenuous connection to vague references. Predictably not a single skeptic or even mention of possible dissenters from the conclusions and methods of Dr. Schwartz is mentioned.
I am shocked and disgusted that this kind of pseudoscience goes on at my University and that it is presented to my community in this irresponsible manner. I wrote the news station (ABC affiliate KGUN 9) outlining my misgivings and asking why Dr. Schwartz hadn't claimed the JREF prize yet, given he has such irrefutable proof.
Jon, the University just doesn't give a damn. They even turned down my offer to give them the million dollars if they'd just get Schwartz to submit his raw data to this Foundation — as he'd promised to do, in person, some months earlier — and if it proved his claims. They said they weren't interested. Go figure. Here's a university admittedly strapped for money, but turning down a million. Why?
Ask Schwartz. He knows.
More on the preacher who Jacob Spinney bested, this from an anonymous reader:
When I was a student at the University of Maryland in the mid-80s, Tom Short was the leader of the "Campus Crusade for Christ" chapter in College Park. One of his activities was what he called "open-air evangelism." There is a large square on campus, in front of Hornbake Library, and for several hours in the middle of the day in any decent weather, Tom would take to the steps, Bible in hand, and begin preaching to any and all who would come and listen.On most days, a crowd of 50 — 200 would gather to listen, debate, argue, agree, discuss, what Tom had to say. . . . Most of the time, Tom's banter and repartee with the crowd was, at the very least, entertaining. When challenged too directly or too harshly, Tom would usually either spin the question or misdirect and change the topic. Better to try another approach on a surface level than get too deep into a single topic, no doubt, particularly since the "goal" was just to provoke students' interest enough to get them to attend meetings later. . . .
In any case, on a curious whim, I once decided to attend a Campus Crusade meeting, to see if Tom Short would actually delve more deeply into any of the topics that were glossed over during the day on Hornbake Square. Sadly, I was disappointed. My experience was much like that of Jacob Spinney — I asked tough questions (several of the same as listed in Jacob's excellent rebuttal article), and was asked either to get with the program or not return.
No surprise. They can't really make their case, with anyone who actually thinks and reasons. Those processes are anathema to their success. As we've shown repeatedly with the paranormalists, they, too, retreat to safer ground when challenged.
Reader Frank Ward notes:
Regarding the deaths of 251 Muslims at the recent Hajj ritual in Saudi Arabia, my local newspaper (The Blade in Toledo) quoted the Saudi Hajj Minister as saying "All precautions were taken to prevent such an incident, but this is God's will" (Emphasis mine) To which I say: Then why bother with the precautions?
Good question, Frank! I think the answer has something to do with the fact that deities are — as evidenced from their past performances — capricious, jealous, insecure, and malicious. They play with their fearful subjects mercilessly, demanding total subservience, adoration, and surrender, before granting any favors, and even then whimsically withdrawing those boons just to see them jump. They require that we try to act sensibly, but pay no attention to that if they decide they know better...
Ross W. Sargent reminds us that those that die on Hajj are supposed to go straight to Paradise, so that makes it okay by their standards. Now we learn that Prince Nayef Bin Abdul-Aziz, who is also the Saudi Interior Minister, has said that the pilgrims trampled to death during the Hajj simply "met their fate." Gee, I guess murder's okay then, too; the murder victim simply "met his fate." The prince also says that those killed "met their fate because their place and time of death had been decided the moment they were born." Again, more reason for not prosecuting or even trying to prevent murder, right? Should we fly in the face of Allah, who already knows the murder will take place and allows it to happen?
Prince Nayef said that the 2004 pilgrimage season had been "a great success," and that "Those who say otherwise are ungrateful, or hate this country." I see. We disagree with you, so we hate you, Prince?
But this member of royalty shows his deep wisdom by closing with, "Really, we hope Hajj authorities in Muslim states instruct pilgrims to act serenely to prevent any harm to them and others."
The mind boggles at such nonsense.
Adds Ross:
This is the sort of thing that comes to mind when people ask me to respect their religious beliefs. Tolerate, yes, but religion is no more worthy of respect than any other superstition.
Rod Langlands, in Australia, has had a minor victory:
This weekend while working in the garden I came upon a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses at the front door. Instead of shooing them away I cornered them and asked lots of difficult questions. Needless to say, the ducking and weaving and avoidance of reality was breathtaking to see. Even if they don't change their minds, I'm sure the fact that someone actively opposed their beliefs must cause some small amount of thought to occur. At the very least we may appear on a "Do not visit this house" list!
No, Rod, such opposition doesn't bring about any cerebration, believe me. They gave up thinking, long ago. And I hate to tell you, but you're now on a "Be sure to visit this house" list...! You're prime target material! Halleluja!
Asmi Latif has noted the possibility that our cantankerous Danish astrologer just may be misunderstood:
Note that Karen Boesen actually sounds pretty rational if you parse her quotes another way:
People have their own free will, but if they do not use their common sense and listen to the astrologer, then they have to take the consequences.
This could be read as:
People have their own free will, but if they (a) do not use their common sense and (b) listen to the astrologer, then they have to take the consequences.
I guess it's all in the punctuation, Asmi.
Incidentally, Ms. Boesen has been carrying on about claimed errors made by our Danish correspondent, Mogens Winther. She says he misquotes her, but we've seen the original and the professionally-translated text of her published comments, and Mogen is absolutely right.
Karen, either you're a dreadfully inept astrologer, or astrology just doesn't work. I'll opt for both possibilities being true. The record seems to prove both, very well.
Reader Adam Bradley asks a pertinent question about last week's item on German scientist Volkamer who endorses the idea that the eyes "radiate a so-far unknown form of soft-matter radiation which is reflected from the object of vision, without which we would see nothing." Asks Adam:
Do cameras also emit this soft-matter radiation, without which we would see nothing? Because if not, shouldn't all pictures be blank? Since we'd be looking at the picture and not the object that was photographed, all we'd see is blank photographic paper, right?Of course, I'm sure his theory would be quickly amended to say that yes, we had stumbled across such soft-matter emitting materials when we designed the camera.
Reader Germán Buela of Argentina, on the same subject:
I think Dr. Volkamer should explain, since his extromission theory says that some unknown radiation is emitted from our eyes and reflected back by objects to make vision possible, how come we can see stars that are thousands of light years away. Maybe he would say that all these distances are miscalculated or that this stuff actually travels at infinite speed, whichever "explanation" would make his claims more extraordinary, and more revolutionary if true. He most likely decided what he had to "prove" before ever doing any research, much like creationists do.
On the same matter, Jim Shaver of Yukon, Oklahoma, writes regarding this same claim made by Dr. Volkamer, expressing much the same thought:
I would pose the following question to him: If our eyes must radiate something that is reflected back to our eyes from the object we are viewing, how then can we look up at night and see stars from thousands of light-years away? And in good viewing conditions, how can we see other galaxies that are millions of light-years away? What does Dr. Volkamer propose is the velocity of this "soft-matter" radiation? And if its velocity is vastly higher than the speed of light — which it must be to reflect nearly instantaneously from such distant objects — how do our brains form a meaningful image from the combination of such instant (soft-matter) and ancient (light) information? How is it that we still see a star that exploded thousands of years ago, the light of the supernova having not yet reached our eyes? On what is the soft-matter radiation reflecting, when the star we see no longer exists?I realize that it is not your intention to argue with people about their crazy theories, only to challenge them to support their claims with scientific evidence. I just wonder whether Dr. Volkamer has considered such simple problems as this one and many others with respect to his theory.
Believe me, Jim, Dr. Volkamer will have intricate explanations and answers for these questions, deciding that since the rest of science is so ignorant of his discoveries, it's prejudiced against them and has fallen back on those old-fashioned "orthodox" reasoning processes. Or, perhaps, these questions really didn't occur to him before our readers asked them. Hey, it's possible!
And Jeff Casey, in Singapore, suggests that latter possibility:
. . . the only "soft matter" that Dr. Volkamer has discovered is between his ears, very soft. But I don't think it would win the JREF Million Dollar Challenge.
I should point out, as reader Ross Sargent reminds me, that "scientist" Rupert Sheldrake in the UK, also believes in this out-of-the-eye nonsense. In a Skeptical Inquirer article by David F. Marks and John Colwell at http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/staring.html, we read that
Rupert Sheldrake (1994) has a radically new theory of perception. Contrary to commonly held and, so Sheldrake believes, possibly mistaken assumptions, we do not see images of things inside our brains. The images, in fact, may be outside us: "Vision may involve a two-way process, an inward movement of light and an outward projection of mental images." Imagine, for example, that as you read this page rays of light are traveling from the paper and print in front of you, into your eyes, and from there into the visual processing centers in your brain. At the same time this is happening, Sheldrake suggests that your images and perceptions of these very words are projected outwards through your eyes into the world, ending up exactly where the page and print are. There is no conflict between the real page and the imaged page because they look identical and occupy the same area of space. In the case of illusions and hallucinations, the images do not coincide with the things outside us but involve projection, an outward movement of images, nevertheless.
Don't blame me! It's Sheldrake's notion, not mine! He gets this insanity as a result of not knowing how to conduct a proper someone-staring-at-the-back-of-your-head experiment. I'll gladly cough up the million for a successful demonstration of that experiment, but Sheldrake appears not interested. He bases his rejection of my offer on an unwise and incorrect statement I made some years ago, which he chortles over — particularly because I readily admitted to the error, as soon as I was challenged on it. Mind you, the folks concerned with that statement then also refused to win the million because they were annoyed at me. Wouldn't you think that a million dollars could make up for a lot of annoyance?
Is Rupert Sheldrake ready yet to take the million dollars? Wouldn't take long, and should be cheap and easy to test, Rupert. Rupert? Hello? You there...?
Reader Robert Matthews writes:
Upon reading the story of Natalya in the February 6th Commentary, I was reminded of Linda Anderson, of whom you wrote in "Flim-Flam!" Both claimed the power of x-ray vision and both had medical pretensions. As I was reading, the perfect test of Natalya's powers occurred to me: present her with a dozen normally-clothed North American men and ask her which of them are circumcised and which are not.Circumcision is, after all, surgery which leaves an obvious scar, and the test has the advantage of requiring no medical proof or even close examination; the gentlemen can merely drop their pants before an adjudicator and prove her right or wrong.
Okay! A good test, though I can see certain aspects of it that I'd rather avoid. In any case, I don't think we'll ever have the opportunity of applying any test to this girl. While we're on the Natasha/Natalia/Natalya matter, I'm now informed that all are the same name, Natasha being an informal form of the others. Well, that's one question settled. However, none of the three girls is willing to be tested by us. She now says that she does not like it when people approach her without faith. In what, may I ask?
The Granada TV people have never gotten back to me. Strange. They were gung-ho to see me offer the JREF million dollars to this young girl, and now they seem to have lost all interest! For that matter, Natalya Lulova, who's right here in Brooklyn, has also dropped from the scene. We expected that dowsing-rod inventor and salesman Jim Thomas would fall silent — which he did, and dear old Sylvia is still hiding under that rock. What's with these people?
Well, just read the following letter from the head of "Bryan Research," in Tucson, Arizona. This, folks, is typical of the sort of thing we deal with every day. The original letter was emphasized in red typing, and the illustration here is of the signature area, where I've blacked out his typed name. His actual signature appears twice.
Randi -Thank you for sending me the challenge form. The methods contained therein are clear, concise, and scientifically correct. Problem: Other powers, of the non world nature, do not comply with human demands. They do what, when, where, and how they please to do. As I stated in my former letter to you, these others in the energy state consider humans to be stupid, slow moving beings, who are hunted for their energy potential, and slave abilities. They, in the other energy worlds, refuse to be subjected to such testing procedures. These beings will not perform for their supper as you require them to do. Thus, your demands for such proofs are impossible. Such would never be permitted by them.
There are ways into their worlds, but- only by their rules. Too bad, Randi, such is the way it is.
I know of one way in. Such is useless: to you, because of both system problems, and attitude problems on your part. They, the energy powers, will never accept you in your current belief form. I could not bring you before them now. They would hate you most thoroughly, and an attack upon you would most certainly result from such a joining.
Conclusion: Nice try, but no cigar. You have things all bass aackward. Best future action- Desolve your foundation, and enjoy the money in any carnal way you choose. Have the greatest Roman orgy ever seen or done. Forget such nonsense as yours, and truly enjoy the money ---------- and yourself.
Please do not contact me in any way. Your foolishness even endangers me, as well.
Have a nice carnal life. Please do.
[signed]
It's obvious that this man lives in an alternate universe, one populated by spirits and malevolent entities for that his imagination not only invented, but continues to nourish and embellish. This is entirely the result of (a) poor education, and of (b) a retreat to fantasy that he appears to need more than the reality which threatens him. I have published this here so that you will understand the kind of correspondence that we have to deal with here at the JREF; this is not a particularly exceptional example, at all, and it doesn't even display a wide spectrum of delusions. How fearful he is, how terrified of being attacked by fictional beasties. Notice that he, the victim of this cruel delusion, takes pity on me!
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos suggested, re our recent Feng Shui comments on efforts to get that claptrap introduced into the California building codes:
Okay, next time they build something, get six Feng Shuis independently to make recommendations. Then take the average.
Paul's point is that none of these mystical experts ever agree; it's like a horoscope. Garrison Hilliard asks:
I just want to know what happens when Feng Shui contrasts with the fire codes for easy egress.You have a difficult Chinese Fire Drill.
Ian Sneddon, in Edmonton, Canada, offers these observations:
I have been following your commentary for several years now, enjoying it immensely. I appreciate the blunt way in which you tear apart the ramblings of believers. You do come across as a curmudgeon sometimes, but I don't think any purpose is served in sugar coating the message. We need people who will stand up and honestly point out how nonsensical the claims are.I would like to share my views on something that really irritates me: how society conditions people to be polite and respectful of sincere believers — especially if they are not out for material gain. I infer that there are supposed to be some who aren't out for material gain, as opposed to Sylvia Browne, Uri Geller and the infomercial crowd I see trying to sell books and devices that don't work.
I am struck by the laziness of the believers. There are important questions for scientists and philosophers to investigate — but what they (scientists and philosophers) do is hard work and the results are never certain or final. The believers are like bad math students who want to copy the answer from someone else so they don't have to figure out how to answer the questions on their own. They look for someone who will tell them an answer. THE ANSWER? Well, they have no way of telling it is THE answer, they just want any answer they can use — and if it doesn't work they will just look for someone to give them another.
Are we supposed to respect reiki practitioners who perform their "service" for free, as good people trying to help others?
If I needed plumbing work done and a neighbour offered to do it for free, we could say "nice neighbour." But if the neighbour was useless at plumbing, so that I needed to get someone else to fix the problem anyway — then the neighbour would have just wasted my time. We wouldn't respect someone so unaware of his limitations. We would see that this neighbour just got in the way and prolonged the problem, keeping me from finding a solution.
But how is this different from what pseudoscience does, in all its forms? Pseudoscience impedes the search for the truth. The task of increasing our understanding of the world around us is too great for us to do all on our own — we have to rely on others. And science is our best tool for this, as the scientific community will do most of the work for us. Pseudoscience just adds distracting noise.
That is not to say that I expect science will someday produce an infallible understanding of the world around us. But when scientists announce a new finding, it usually means they have done a lot of work for us to test and support their findings (cold fusion is an exception), and we can have some confidence in the results they report. Even in the case of cold fusion, other scientists did the work for us and let us know the finding was wrong, before we wasted billions of tax dollars trying to turn it into a new power source. When scientists are wrong, other scientists catch this and they tell us about it.
These are the people who deserve our respect. They get paid for it, true, through salaries and research grants. But they do valuable work for us. I have more respect those who provide valuable services or information for a price than those who provide nothing for free. The value is not in providing answers, it is in doing the work for us to test the answer and ensure it is the best answer we can come up with at this time.
Where is the respect in society for people who perform this work for us? Why is there so much adulation for Sylvia Browne instead of you, Mr. Randi, when you do real work of sorting through the nonsense to find the facts? I think I answered my question already: she provides answers for the lazy.
Please keep up the good work. You do more than entertain; you help people to sort out what is real from what is illusion, and show them how to do this on their own.
Obviously, Ian, though I agree with your comments, you're preaching to the choir, here. I will suggest this to you and to all of our readers: write to your media outlets, show up in the audience when a "psychic" is scheduled to appear locally, complain loudly when you see pseudoscience being promoted — especially if it's promoted in your school system. No business or agency can afford to ignore complaints, if enough come in on any one subject.
Make a fuss!
There have been numerous good comments on the new page format here, as put in place by webmaster Jeff Kostick. Also, we're looking into the arrangements needed to put our Encyclopedia up here for ready reference. Soon, I promise.
The next Amaz!ng Meeting is shaping up, we've already booked some of the speakers, and eight persons have already inquired about costs so they can get their registrations in early. As part of the plans, I've been scheduled to do my regular college-circuit lecture, just as it appears to my usual audiences. That includes some minor miracles, of course, as proof that you, too, can be deceived!
Next week, we'll tell you about the latest developments in the state of Georgia, which appears to be heading the way that Kansas did some months ago by denying that evolution exists. Somehow, Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas any more...
And, we'll look into how successful "psychics" have been in recent kidnap and murder cases that have been big news items.
