December 12, 2003

Soul for Sale, Confused Cleric, Studied Ignorance, Sylvia's Huge Phone Bill, What's the Question?, Ouija Workings, Unscholastic Scholastic — Again, Feel-Good Pharmacist, Fire-Fighter's Invitation, Rapture Notices, Nostradamus Anniversary, Korean "Healer" Again, The Science of Kirti Betai, Ancaster High Rules!, Amazing in Tokyo, Larry Turns Around, Atheist vs. Agnostic, No Body in UK, and Finland/Sweden Visit...

Reader Dave Finn has been involved in a very interesting experiment in which he has tried to sell his soul on eBay! He shares with us here some of the correspondence that has ensued. It's bizarre, amusing, and rather frightening to discover how an organization handles such a strange situation. We have here theological arguments, matters of integrity, and frustration. David had argued with an eBay representative, Jade, about the actual existence of the human soul. He writes:

I have sent a few things this week regarding my attempt to sell my "soul" on eBay and their rather amusing response. Below I am copying the text of my latest — and what I expect to be the final — correspondence with eBay regarding this matter. I hope I'm not becoming a nuisance to you, although I admit I've enjoyed annoying them a bit. What was originally intended by me as a joke — my asking price for my "soul" was $0.25 — seems to have been taken a bit more seriously than I would have expected. Here is the response I received from eBay after I attempted to post the item:

Hello David,

Thank you for taking the time to write eBay with your concerns. I'm happy to help you further.

If the soul does not exist, eBay could not allow the auctioning of the soul because there would be nothing to sell. However if the soul does exist, then in accordance with eBay's policy on human parts and remains we would not allow the auctioning of human souls. The soul would be considered human remains, although it is not specifically stated on the policy page, human souls are still not allowed to be listed on eBay. Your auction was removed appropriately and will not be reinstated. Please do not relist this item with us in the future.

You may review our policy at the following link: http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/png-remains.html

It is my pleasure to assist you. Thank you for choosing eBay.

Regards, Jade eBay Community Watch

Dave, quicker than an auctioneers gavel, answered:

Jade: Thank you for your response. While I do not agree with your reasoning, I do respect that as a private company you have the right to set your own policies and I have no intention of violating your rules by relisting the item.

I must say, however, that if a purchaser chooses to believe in such a thing as a soul than it should be his right to purchase such an item. While I can certainly see the good sense in disallowing the sale of human organs, which could be seen as encouraging harmful and possibly illegal behaviors, the moral implications of selling a "soul" have no basis other than religious, hence the policy could certainly be described as having a religious bias.

As to the argument that if the soul does not exist it should not be available for sale, I would then also assume that you would disallow the sale of, for example, psychic readings, prayers, feng shui or astrology services, etc. all of which are as unprovable and improbable to be genuine as a soul. I notice however that you have listings for "Healing" crystals, astrology readings and psychic consultations.

You could of course say that the "Healing" crystals, for example, are tangible objects. In that case I would have to say that I also was selling a tangible object, as my offer was for a written title for my soul. I see no difference in selling a piece of paper representing my soul or selling a crystal holding alleged "energies". In my listing I at least made explicit mention that I was not claiming the actual existence of the soul, and that the belief or disbelief was the responsibility of the purchaser. Again it would seem that there is a discriminatory policy at play here based solely on religious grounds.

As I said, however, it's your site and your rules and I agreed in registering to abide by them. You have provided many of us with a good laugh though.

Thank you, Dave Finn.

And he followed up with:

I apologize if my listing violates your policy, however I have reviewed your policy on remains and found no reference to souls. Your policy makes reference only to human body parts. As the body is a physical structure, and as the "soul" is in common definition an intangible metaphysical structure distinct from the body, I do not see where my listing has violated your policy, unless of course you can demonstrate where in the human body the soul is located, at which point the James Randi Educational Foundation has $1,000,000 set aside as a reward for you.

Further, I believe that your prohibition of the sale of this item constitutes a discriminatory bias based on religion.

I respectfully request that my item be reinstated, or that Ebay's policy of religious discrimination in this matter be explained.

Sincerely, David V. Finn

We'll see... I'll bet that if Dave could raise enough interest with a properly interested lawyer, he'd make some news with this. Far sillier matters have occupied the courts and resulted in huge settlements that boggle the imagination. It has all the necessary ingredients: the immortal soul, religious arguments, civil discrimination issues, and fair trade implications. Can you say, "Ashcroft"?


Reader Mike Wood tells us:

I've been a regular reader of your site for a few years now, and reading your weekly commentaries has been a source of much inspiration and amusement. I had an incident some time ago that I just had the idea to relate to you, as it seems relevant given the prevalence of New-Age type spirituality....

Some time ago, before I happened upon the JREF, I was in my senior year of high school. It was a private, Anglican school, so the students had to attend bi-weekly chapel services. Mostly these were pretty quick sessions, a couple of hymns and a reading or two, and we'd be on our way. One day, though, the headmaster went up to the front and gave a little presentation.

The gist of it was that, as the Mayan astrologers predicted, either the world will end in 2012, or a large change in the world will occur between now and then (which leaves one wondering how there could possibly not be a significant change over 12 years). Specifically, the Sun's harmonic resonance will be affected by vibrations from the "astral realms," causing the Earth to be bombarded with rays of love and enlightenment! Ushering in this new era for humanity will be three groups of special children:

1) The SuperPsychic™ children of China, who have the amazing ability to bend spoons with their minds;

2) The Indigo Children, which are apparently kids who have all the symptoms of ADD [Attention Deficit Disorder], but are really alien-human hybrids; and

3) The Amazing AIDS-curing kids of California.

I looked into the third one on the Internet, and every single medically-oriented site that I went to agreed that lab contamination created a false positive — the kids never had AIDS to begin with, which would explain why the tests were negative the second time around....

Obviously this speech elicited a lot of derisive laughter afterwards, but a surprising amount of people were hanging on to his every word. A close friend of mine, in particular, was awed by the headmaster's courage in telling the stories that needed to be told. I shudder to think how many more students were swayed by his rantings.

What bothers me most is not that someone with a degree in Chemistry has these beliefs (although that is troubling), but that this was taught in a school, ostensibly a place of learning and reason. There was no excuse for claptrap like this to be proliferated, with no opportunity for discussion or debate, by one of the most respected figures in the school. And he's still there, preaching away, I'm sure. I wonder what things will be like there 9 years down the road, after the presumed apocalypse fails to happen. It's just a pity there won't be any of us former students there to make him eat his words.

Thanks for a great site, and for pages and pages of quality reading. I'm a great admirer of your work, and here's hoping it continues well after the Mayans say it will, although I somehow can't see anyone claiming the JREF million before 2012....

Mike, when 2012 comes around, and the prophecy is not fulfilled, the nut-cases out there will begin the repair work, re-interpreting the original data and patching it all up. It doesn't make any impression whatsoever on the believers when a prophet goofs; an excellent book that covers this subject is "When Prophecy Fails," by Leon Festinger, 1964. Remember what I've said before: no matter how well you're educated, that doesn't mean you're smart.


Oops! Last week I wrote that Geller had been mentioned by a UK comedian, and got the name and venue wrong. It should have been Graham Norton (not Morton), who works for Channel 4 (not the BBC). My apologies to Mr. Norton.


Reader Scott Romanowski contributes this thought:

In your 5 December 2003 "Commentary" you printed comments from Jawaid Bazyar about genetic programming. I've used that tool to find solution to some problems. I think it's a very interesting tool because once you have a solution, you often can't tell exactly why that particular set of values works. The parts interact in such a rich matter that you can't easily see all the effects a small change would have. It's similar to a real organism that way.

You wrote that some people ignore things that challenge their world-view. I used genetic programming to get a solution to a problem at work. I was the only person in the company that knew about genetic programming, so after getting the solution I taught my co-workers the process. One co-worker, a very devout Christian, did not want to hear about something that "evolved to a solution." He didn't deny that it worked, he just was not interested in learning anything about it. It seemed that protecting his religion-based world-view was more important.

People are constantly developing concepts that force world-views to change. New tools and techniques reveal how limited "the old way of doing it" was. The thought that there may be a large fraction of humanity that won't even consider something new because it might upset something old, scares me. Luckily we're still making progress, but it's at a slower rate than if there weren't any religions fighting against ideas.

Please keep fighting the forces of myth and superstition, and keep giving us such a good example of how effective one person can be.

Not quite, Scott. This isn't just one person — though I make the most noise and get recognized. The JREF is a mass of folks who support our work in one way or the other. They're employees, interns, members, contributors, funders, media people, service providers, and good friends who reach out and touch us in so many ways.

This practiced/willful ignorance is often encountered in this field, and just as frequently in the "hard" sciences. I know of an academic in Canada — a biologist — who once told me that though he taught evolution in his classes, he was easily able to go home and revert to his belief in Creationism. Incredible, is it not?

Scott signs his messages with: "Gamer, amateur astronomer, amateur conjurer. I am a Bright. www.the-brights.net/," and you can meet him at TAM2 in January! Interesting person...!


Reader Christine Engleman comments:

I just had to respond to the letter from Ms. Whiney Leigh Harris about "good" psychics. As I was reading her description, I found myself thinking that this sounds like what a therapist, a counselor, a mentor or even a good friend would do in the situation of young woman in an abusive relationship. Hey, wait a minute, I've done that, I'm a psychic! I have even been right a time or two, which is at least as well as Sylvia does. And another thing, Ms. Harris went on at length about how a "good" psychic would never want the Foundation prize because they do this as a favor to humankind and would never debase themselves with dealing with money. Perhaps then she can explain why Sylvia charges $700 for an hour's reading on the phone?! Surely her phone bills are not that high?

Christine, judging from reports from dissatisfied clients of Sylvia Browne, they don't get much for their money. Instead, they receive masses of information that supposedly deals with their past lives, their far future, and other trivial matters that don't concern them a bit. Lucky numbers, frivolous and obscure connections that might or might not take place, and meaningless streams of names are dished out by Sylvia. And, I think you've got that figure wrong: I seem to recall that it's $700 for half an hour of her claptrap... Which reminds me; just where is Sylvia? She doesn't stay in touch!


I often get communications from people who run on endlessly with comments, ideas, and criticisms of various kinds — and I can't quite tell what sort of a response they like to have. It's much easier when a simple question is posed, but I must say that I dread the heading on any posting that begins with "a short question." Yes, the question may be short, but that doesn't mean the answer will also be short.

Sometimes I simply respond with, "What's your question?" — and the following is a response to that question, if you follow all this...

I don't recall asking a question here, but were there any question I'd ask you, same as anyone else who claims they want to know something, yet can't seem to find it, it would be along the lines of the following: If there WERE something to be found of a supernatural sort, any sort, then upon finding for oneself such existed would obviously mean that if one otherwise known before thing as impossible to exist, did exist, then it stands to reason it could also be said that other impossible things could as well. True?? Sure......why not??

A question for you? Here's one since you asked for one: Why do you, and so many others now and in the past, look to one another for things that none of you neither have, nor even truly seek? Especially, when you're all as blind as the next, and led by the opposite of what you claim to seek?

The answer is obvious, Mr. Randi.... you actually could [sic] care less about finding a way to obtain an ultimate reward for yourself. As for your so-called "search".......you seek only to serve the flesh, cause it's the ONLY thing you know, and you love it more than the thought of anything beyond physical life, which is actually death in the long haul.

Too bad, sir....... regardless of whether you were truly seeking for yourself answers or not, I'd have gladly, and willingly handed over to one who could, and WOULD do the job of showing the world what I have to show them.... I cannot see you fulfilling such a task, much less ever choosing to know for yourself the truth once and for all. Too bad...

I agree. It's too bad that this person — male or female — hasn't mastered the art of expressing a thought in words. Communication is one of the things that differentiates human beings from other animals; we're much better at it than they are, and we should have great respect for our ability to express ideas and thoughts to one another with such accuracy and depth. I've read the above four paragraphs a few times now, and I still can't figure out the meaning — if any is there. Yes, it's too bad, because this writer might have actually had something important and interesting to communicate to me...


Reader Garrie Lim is puzzled:

I remember my friends playing the ouija board in school once, they were caught by a teacher eventually. Instead of bringing them to the principal, he prayed for them (I was from a Methodist school). I do not believe in ghosts, or the supernatural. In fact, I was once a Christian until I discovered your site along with other Skepticism sites. What puzzles me is how these boards work. I've even seen my cousins play it using a pencil instead of a coin. If the boards work, it means that spirits exists, don't they? And if they exist, it would mean some form of religion exists, wouldn't it? There would have to be some kind of God. I hate the feeling of not knowing what to believe.... any ideas?

How I got any ideas? Is the Pope in the woods? Hah! Very briefly, Garrie, the Ouija board is powered by what we call the "idiomotor reaction," in which the person with their hands on the "planchette" — or the pencil, coin, or glass — is unconsciously pushing it about in order to spell out the message that's expected. Look it up. In fact my "Encyclopedia" has an entry on this subject. Buy several copies.


Reader and frequent correspondent Steve Bauer of Portland, Oregon, referring to the item about the children's fortune-telling book offered by Scholastic Books that appeared here recently, informs us:

I am in possession of one copy of TOP SECRET published by Scholastic. The cover reads: "The History Channel Presents HISTORY UNDERCOVER. TOP SECRET: Includes Eight Pages of the Most Mysterious Photos Ever Seen." The author's name is Cameron Barnes.

Chapter 5 is titled, "Psychic Spies" and includes sections on "Psychological Espionage," "Psychic Spies Today," "A Psychic Star," "Precognition," "Modern Dowsing," "ESP and Remote Viewing," and "A Psychic "War?" The back of the book even contains a glossary defining "paranormal" and a multiple-choice quiz which includes a question about "the program for government agencies that required psychic services."

I have written a letter of complaint to Scholastic but have received no reply.

My brother's ex is a grade-school teacher, and she promptly discarded this recent addition to her personal classroom library when I pointed out the contents of this chapter. Smart woman. "Scholastic" appears to be anything BUT scholastic.

But they're selling lots of copies, Steve. Isn't that always the bottom line here? No number of complaints will color their principles for them; only dropping profits mean anything, even in such a sensitive, powerful, and critical business as publishing.


Reader Barry Kendall despairs:

I had a sad experience in a drug store a few weeks ago when I got a subscription filled. I saw a stack of glossy multi-colored booklets on the pharmacy counter. When I leafed through one, I noticed it was plugging alternative medicine: homeopathy, herbalism, iridology, acupuncture, etc. I asked the druggist if this stuff really worked or was just snake oil. It was the druggist herself I spoke to, not a clerk. She replied that she was in favor of anything which made people feel good. After Germany's ignominious defeat in World War I, Hitler made Germans feel good for ten years, anyway.

I have had no science education since grade 12 chemistry in 1957-58. This licensed pharmacist has oodles more science education than I do. Would she take a drug invented by a chemist who thought making people feel good was more important than expertise in chemistry?

Visions of white powder being snorted have started up in my head...


Reader Jim Moore gets a shot at Harris:

I have a comment about the Whitney Leigh Harris commentary, but let me just first that I commiserate with you on being a bit cracky for some people's tastes. I get that myself from some people who read my critiques of the "aquatic ape" theory — some people don't like my style, while others find it humorous and refreshing. I'm not really sure that you (or I) would reach more people with a change in style. Karla McLaren's right, that new age beliefs (or pseudo/fringe science beliefs in the case of my opponents) have a different culture and that this often requires a certain learning process from those adherents before they can "get" what they're seeing, hearing, or reading from a science/reality perspective.

Now, about Whitney Leigh Harris: it seemed to me that she's got a basic misperception as well, one which you didn't address, or perhaps didn't notice. She's describing people who do something very useful and helpful in people's lives, helping them see how events in their lives fit into a broader picture of life, and to help them adjust to life and others. But this isn't being a psychic, this is being a psychologist or counselor. And it's interesting that in that role the psychologist or counselor, the techniques of both cold and hot reading are legitimately used — in fact, they are a major part of those therapists' technique, and are a major part of what they study, although they probably don't refer to them as "hot or cold reading."

Unfortunately there are unscrupulous counselors among the good, helpful ones, and psychics can often be seen as actually part of that group, not necessarily offering precise predictions, but unscrupulous counseling. I think that even if a "psychic" were to try to be scrupulous and helpful at all times, as I'm sure a few do try, they are still being unscrupulous in convincing their clients that supernatural forces are at the base of their understanding and explanations. This takes control — empowerment — away from the client, and this is a terrible thing to do to people who are often grasping for help in their lives. If such "helpful psychics" (sadly few, I fear) really want to help their clients, they should drop the "psychic" mumbo-jumbo and become counselors who have the potential to empower their clients and really help them.

As always, keep up the good work. I hope you have the Amazing Meeting in Vegas again — we can't make it this year, but we're going to be snowbirding it in coming years and Vegas is one of our favorite hangouts.

Jim, now that you've opened that door, I can't resist telling readers that we're officially well over the 300-registration mark, and we're feverishly getting lots of extra exciting things together for TAM2. I've heard from Professor Richard Wiseman, the prominent UK investigator who is Britain's first Professor in the Public Understanding of Psychology, and he's planning to attend. In 2000, Dr. Wiseman was awarded The CSICOP Public Education In Science Award, and in 2002 he received the Joseph Lister Award from the BAAS [British Association for the Advancement of Science]. Since we already have a full roster of speakers, Richard won't be able to lecture for us this year, but I've warned him that I'm going to ask him to do so, next year. TAM2 is shaping up fast, so get your registration in now!


Tim Nightingale observes:

. . . I would like to take issue with the implicit denial of the idea that, "[science] is a tool of corrupt corporations who place profits above people." There is no question in my mind that "science" has been abused by those in power (whether governments or corporations) for hundreds of years. To be taken seriously, scientific research must be shown to be independent, rigorous and properly executed. As your personal experience shows (with Benveniste and homeopathy) it is possible to be a very well-respected and successful scientist and still do bad science. Hence the importance of peer review, and of openness, and of accepting and embracing legitimate dissent. It is never enough to look only at the results and conclusions of an experiment or study. Any answer is virtually worthless if you don't know what the question was, who was asking it, and how they arrived at the answer. And I think this is really at the heart of skepticism — we don't just accept things at their face value — we question them, and we try to do so without too many preconceptions. That is why we are "bright."

I suspect you included that piece [on Genetic Engineering, by Steven E. Cerier] in order to elicit precisely this sort of response. So I thank you for the catalyst and I hope we'll be able to get back to the real business of skepticism next week!

On the same subject, E. Bert Wallace of Campbell University writes:

I know you're very busy, but I thought I'd respond to your call for comments on the short article by Steven E. Cerier (Swift, 28 November 2003).

A general objection I have is the tendency to lump all "true believers" into one massive group. The vast spectrum of all humans who believe in some (any) sort of paranormal phenomena seems too broad to be of much use, except as part of a simplistic "there are two kinds of people in the world" aphorism. While it's true that Osama bin Laden and Billy Graham both believe in a deity, it's equally true (and as useful) that Josef Mengele and Albert Schweitzer were both doctors.

That said, I also take exception to the idea that those who express any belief in the supernatural (again, an incredibly imprecise attempt to define a set) are merely cowards or simpletons who can't or won't deal with the complexities of life. Much religious thought attempts to deal with these difficulties in various ways. No serious religious scholar would argue that life is "simple" once you acquire some magic potion or incantation. Religion and reason are not antithetical.

Finally, it's clear that so-called paranormal "successes stories" — physic predictions that seem to come true, free energy machines that work "in theory," an apparently accurate cold reading, etc. — certainly are trumpeted as "evidence," while far more typical failures are uninteresting and go unreported. However, I'd add that the failures and hypocrisy of religious types — generally involving some combination of sex and money — are much more sensational than the vastly more common activities of such people. "Televangelist caught with male prostitute" or "Cult leader indicted on racketeering charges" beats "Preacher feeds homeless in soup kitchen" or "Christian and atheist have pleasant, thoughtful conversation" any day.

Randi once noted in Swift that many "religious" people applaud his efforts — until he debunks their own particular notions about the supernatural. I'd comment that many of "us" (that silly notion again) aren't as naïve and irrational as all that. I teach at a church-affiliated university with a Statement of Purpose that reads, in part, that the University sees "no conflict between the life of faith and the life of inquiry." Socrates, Newton, C.S. Lewis, and others would agree. Know that thoughtful, rational religious types exist.

For what it's worth (and as I've written to you before), I have great respect for you. I appreciate your exposure of charlatans and insistence on rigorous thought.

Bert, I suggest that the school's Statement of Purpose on "no conflict" works until the matter of standards for evidence is introduced. At that point, the difference between "blind faith" and "evidence-based faith" would make the road rougher....

On this same item, there's more. Reader Erin Butler of Lake Cowichan, British Columbia, Canada, also has a view on Cerier's comments:

One line from Steven E. Cerier's contribution that I will certainly contest: "...I have stopped arguing with the devotees of the metaphysical and alternative medicine because I know they will never change their minds..."

I lived on a small island with an incredible variety of people, including believers and skeptics of various degrees, and have befriended many of both types. But I have seen friends who once believed without doubting, and without testing those beliefs, slowly become more rational. I'm going to take some credit for it, because I would usually be the first person they'd ever heard challenge, however gently, what they believed. Their initial response would be about what you'd expect, but the seed would be planted, and some would even start researching what they had faith in, knowing they would have to defend their position, and they ended up converting themselves.

I'm afraid I also must mention one other bit, regarding GM foods: unfortunately, the corporations that first started working with GM food did such a such a stupid, stupid job of releasing them that they have been the public relations disaster we now know. Never forget that the only reason corporations exist is to make a profit, period. Without that profit, they don't exist. Does this make them Evil? Of course not: it makes them businesses. But no one goes into business to lose money. Thinking otherwise is as foolish and potentially dangerous as believing in guardian angels.

Randi comments: I've seldom had the pleasant experience of an actual conversion. When it has happened, it's been of young people, and is very rewarding. But that's such a very small percentage of those I reach... One such case follows, as reader Lissa Hayes tells us of some changes we've made in her life...

Thank you very much for writing "The Faith Healers." It has been a real eye opener. I only regret not having read it any sooner.

I was born 64 days prematurely in July of 1974, after an auto-immune disorder (diagnosed earlier this year) had already made survival a daily uphill battle. I had a stroke when I was born, which left me with cerebral palsy and, eventually, scoliosis. In my first few years I battled chronic respiratory infections, TB, auto-immune hepatitis, and a few other illnesses. In January, 1981, I began bearing what has seemed to be the eternal burden of insulin-dependent diabetes — by far seemingly the worst condition I've been diagnosed with to date. This made extensive allergies pale by comparison. Many people have told me that I've been an inspiration to them for "sticking it out" for so long because many would have ended their own lives if they had to live with all these burdens for a lifetime. Quite frankly, if it wasn't for the support system I have with my family and close friends, I probably would have ended my life many years ago — intentionally.

In your book, "The Faith Healers," you mention several people who are guilty of mass deception and say that those who don't appear in that book are not necessarily less guilty than those who do. I suppose that means that you won't be writing another book to include the likes of Benny Hinn or Morris Cerullo. I can't blame you; but I sort of wish you would, or at least write another edition to bring it to the attention of many more people than have read your previous books. I guess I am just still really hurt by the way Mr. Hinn fooled my grandmother out of her health and her meager income and the way I was fooled out of part of my income, better health, and (almost) my life by Mr. Cerullo. At the very strong suggestion of Cerullo and a few of his supporters, I went home after a 1990 crusade and stopped taking my insulin for almost 4 days — believing that the diabetes and other health problems were only figments of my imagination. Thus, I nearly ended my life somewhat unintentionally.

If only someone would put a stop to the chicanery of the faith healers and other deceivers without treating those of us who often feel the need to hope against hope as if we had no reason to live. I thank you for being one of the few who at least are willing to speak truthfully without treating people like me as if we are only "victims of the will of God" — as if there is no way that we can contribute positively to society. You see, on the other end of the spectrum — opposite that of faith healers — are the fundamentalists who treat me (and others like me) as if we have so many weaknesses that we don't have strengths or abilities. Thank you very much for being frank and honest without being cruel.

I'm still trying to figure out just why I've had to bear the burden of an auto-immune disorder. Perhaps it is so that I can help in "undercover" research into claims of the paranormal, etc. If you need any further information on such claims and you think I can be of assistance, please feel free to contact me via return e-mail. Thanks, again.

Lissa, I strongly believe that there's no "why" behind your situation, no answer to "figure out." Your determination to stick in there and handle the less-than-ideal hand that Fate has dealt you — cards given you for no reason, but simply as a result of how the real world works — shows me that you're a winner, in spite of the bad start you got. I'm happy that you wrote me, so that I can wave this letter in front of a few friends who simply revel in endlessly telling me how unlucky they are, and that they just don't know how they're going to "make it."

You go, girl!

Still more on that Cerier piece! Reader Serdar Yegulalp comments as follows:

I read with interest the letter from Steven E. Cerier (a fellow New Yorker) and felt compelled to comment. (I'm a longtime reader and enormously grateful for the work you've done to open minds. insert rest of fawning comment here, on with the letter.)

I think one of the key trends he spotted was an increasing distrust with all forms of authority in this country, whether it be governmental or intellectual. If you were around in nineteensixtyoomph and taking part in the general Zeitgeist (or what we now like to conveniently remember as being the Spirit of the much-ballyhooed Times), the buzzwords all had the same dulcet tones to them: Do you own thing. Follow your bliss. Don't let the Man get you down. These are all central concepts to New (W)Age thinking, that the only real authority in life is subjective experience and that you have to decide what works for you; no one else can.

There's a kernel of truth to that, but — pardon the metaphor — it's been over-popped. It's one thing entirely to decide your own path in life, from your schooling to your career to, yes, your intellectual direction in life. That's all fine and only the staunchest prunehead would try and take that from people. It's another thing entirely to assert which laws of physics you're going to ignore because they cramp your style or don't agree with your intuitions. The lines dividing the first form of self-assertion from the second aren't merely being blurred; they're getting paved over. Disobeying the law of gravity is not something you can pull off with a mere act of will unless you're fond of having a lot of broken bones.

I used to entertain a good many more friends who were of a strongly artistic or bohemian bent, and from early on I constantly ran into conflicts with them. Many of them were convinced that Science was Evil and there was just no brokering a deal with that particular devil. They often confused science with technology, or assumed that scientific thinking constituted a fixed body of facts that never changed, so their grasp on what science was wasn't too keen to begin with. It didn't help that they weren't interested in having their opinions brought up-to-date with any facts, and after a while I got real sick of beating my head against the carefully cultivated prejudices of people who only gave lip service to intelligence. I see this sort of behavior a lot among many artistic types, for whom an instinctive distrust of science and technology is practically par for the course. Artists should be among the people helping us move out of the dark ages, not keeping us in them. But that's another letter for another time, I think.

Well, Cerier sure stirred up a lot on interest! And I'm really happy about it! Thank you all for your interesting comments.


"K.S." writes:

Just a little note of thanks for all you have done to debunk these self-proclaimed faith healers and psychic readers. I'm a firefighter with the Washington, DC Fire Department. One day we were sitting in the station and a commercial came on TV for one of these psychic readers. I had mentioned how these readings are bogus. To prove it I called the 800 number and when they asked me for my credit card number I said "you're the psychic, you tell me what my number is." They hung up on me and the guys at the station couldn't stop laughing.

I also did "psychic surgery" one day at a station I was detailed to. One of the firefighters on duty was a strong believer in faith healing. I tried to engage him in conversation about how some faith healers perform their work. It was a futile attempt. He felt I was being used by the devil to challenge his beliefs. Anyway, long story short, I got out my old trusty fake thumb tip, took the gizzards from the chicken that was being cooked for dinner that night and had one of the other guys come into the room where I was and act like he banged his elbow, complained about the pain. I did the old routine in front of the believer. He had a look on his face as if he didn't know if I was the "gifted" one, or the devil. I really had to restrain myself to keep from laughing.

Mr. Randi, I would like to invite you to my firehouse for dinner the next time you're in Washington, DC. And thanks again for all your fine work.

I told "K.S." that he's on for dinner, but to hold those chicken guts...


Reader Keith Stump of Indianapolis, Indiana, refers us to a service that offers to notify family and friends when a Christian gets raptured away into Heaven. What's that all about, you ask? Visit the site at http://www.raptureletters.com/ and you'll see the definition:

The rapture: When all the believers in Jesus Christ, who have been born again, are taken up to heaven. After the rapture, there will be a lot of speculation as to why millions of people have just disappeared. Unfortunately, after the rapture, only non believers will be left to come up with answers. You probably have family and friends that you have witnessed to and they just won't listen. After the rapture they probably will, but who will tell them?

This service, we're told, will e-mail those unfortunates left behind, and explain everything to them. And, I strongly suspect, some heavy proselytizing just might be done, before the rapturing gets underway. Keith is worried, however:

It occurred to me that computer programs are not 100% reliable — the rapture detection subroutine might be faulty. This leaves me very "concerned" that these rapture letters might not get sent out. I propose that we Atheists/Brights/other non-Christians offer these people our services. As persons who certainly won't get raptured away, we could enter into contracts to deliver messages to the families and friends of any raptured-away Christians.

My fees would be quite modest. In case they are worried that I might get religion and inadvertently get raptured, I'd even be willing to tape myself blaspheming the Holy Ghost (I'd have to get instructions on how to do that, I never quite was clear on how to do that one) and send it as part of the package deal to any clients who needed proof that I'd be 100% rapture-resistant.

[Note: In case you aren't aware, "blaspheming the Holy Ghost" is a "sin" that fundamentalist Christians believe is the only one that can never be forgiven and is a certain assurance of being sent to hell. These Christians can't quite agree what exactly the sin entails, but they are sure you don't get to heaven if you pull it off. Personally, I would have thought that genocide or raping babies might count as unforgivable sins, but I guess I am not holy enough to understand these matters.]

As an atheist, I have not warmed up to the term "Bright" at this point; however, when I see anti-Bright stuff like the concept on this website, I have to think maybe the term is apropos.

Keith, maybe just not capitalizing "heaven" in your posting might be enough to send you to The Other Place, and leave you stranded Down Here with us other sinners...


The famous Nostradamus, pseudo-scientist, sayer of bad sooth, and undisputed king of I-told-you-so will have been born 500 years ago on the 14th of December. The Nostradamus Society of America (NSA) and the Nostradamus Museum at Salon, Provence, in France, along with the leading "authorities" among his followers, whose enthusiasm is of course undiminished by the failure of the world to end in July of 1999, as he'd predicted, will be gathering in St. Rémy de Provence, where Nostradamus was born, as well as in nearby Salon, where he worked and died.

Nostradamus, born at St. Rémy in 1503 to a Jewish family that had converted to Catholicism, studied medicine and astrology and worked as a physician. But his biggest claim to fame, of course, is his publication of the "Centuries," a collection of quatrains that believers have accepted as prophecies — despite their dramatic failures to work out.

The museum in Salon has about 25,000 visitors a year. It is based in the house where Nostradamus lived and died. I've been there, and I noted that some TV props and movie items have been incorporated into the artifacts displayed at the site, as if they were the genuine articles.

Five centuries after his death, the weird — and cunning — guy from Salon is still bringin' 'em in at the carnival . . . .


Take a peek at: http://www.thewavemag.com/pagegen.php?pagename=article&articleid=24363

For a laugh or two...


Reader Douglas H. McDonald makes an excellent observation:

I wanted to add this comment about the man supposedly healed by Lee Jae-Rock as referenced in your 5th December commentary. In the full news story to which you provide a link, the following statement is made.

One of them was a 44-year-old who had not walked since his childhood. As he came on stage, it was obvious that his leg was bent like the letter Z. Soon he was walking across the stage and holding up his crutches.

Why would an individual who "had not walked since birth" require the use of crutches? Crutches are devices to facilitate, rather than substitute for, walking. Many persons who walk with the assistance of crutches may at times be able stand or ambulate independently...especially if provided with sufficient motivation and reinforcement. Unsurprisingly, this was ignored by the author of the news story.

I'll add that we were not shown a photo of this man walking while holding up two crutches, only a shot of him being held up by two persons, and he himself holding up one crutch. Were there two crutches? In my experience, this sort of flawed, hyperbolized description of an event that is far less evidential in reality, is typical of the "healers." If a crippled person is at all mobile, the text describes the movement as "dancing," and the act of slowly rising from a wheelchair with great difficulty becomes "springing into action." Sad, cruel, commentaries in a vicious series of lies and fraud that make the basis for the "healing" racket.


That fellow Kirti Betai, who claims I refused to test him, obviously has science at his fingertips. I looked him up in our files, and found that we'd refused his application because he wanted to do a thing involving eating food poisoned with snake venom. Since ingesting this substance isn't necessarily dangerous, and yet might kill the man if he had a cut in his mouth, we declined the idea on ethical grounds. Now I find that he claims he's:

. . . successfully used Polarized Geometric Energy Conditioners in rectifying the geo-bio energy force fields of over 5000 premises effectively harmonizing the polarities (Rectifying the Vaastu/Feng Shui/Geomancy) without any demolition or change.

Wow! What a leap forward in gibberish! Maybe we should just let him drink the poison...?


Reader Victoria Bingham of Ancaster, Ontario, Canada (just west of Hamilton) informs me that we're getting through to her:

I just thought that I'd let you know about the good work that is being done at Ancaster High School. I am a student in a biotechnology program and was doing research for an independent lab study I was required to complete. I stumbled across your site and was amazed at how well it fits into what we are talking about right now. Recently, we started a unit on pseudoscience and watched Mr. Randi's video on uncovering psychic fraud. For our own project, we were required to investigate an area of pseudoscience (e.g. dowsing, ESP, etc.) and design a lab (experiment) to test it. Our teachers are requiring us to look at the fraud behind these various pseudoscience areas and how they differ from real science. Both I and my classmates are thoroughly enjoying the chance to be our own "James Randi" and apply what we know about real science to pseudoscience. I just thought I'd let you know that students will not be fooled by false science any more...well, at least not in this Canadian school, anyway...


Reader Brent DeHut reports:

Today I visited Tokyo Disneyland, which must be at least the third-happiest place on Earth. While taking a short break from the thrilling, often nausea-inducing attractions, my friend and I stopped into a store called The Magic Shop. It sold a variety of parlor tricks in plastic packages, nothing of particular interest... until we stepped into the short hallway connection the Magic Shop to the Disney goods store next door. There, displayed proudly opposite a painting of Harry Houdini, was a lovely poster advertising none other than The Amazing Randi! A very stern looking version of My Skeptical Hero was shown levitating a woman in midair — obviously that could only be explained through supernatural means. If I recall the signature correctly, it was done by an artist named Jayston.

Sadly, the only camera I had was my ineffective mobile phone digital, but I did take this shot. I apologize for the poor quality — I wish I could go back with a better camera. I hope you appreciate your bit of fame here in Japan... it certainly made my day to see you there.

Hmmm. That was "Jayson" who did that poster. I still have a few available that I should offer for sale... As for my "bit of fame" in Japan, I'll have you know that I've done a few TV specials there, one of my books has been published in Japanese, and many years ago, I played a whole tour of night clubs in that country. Here's a better shot of that fine poster...


Larry Parker of Princeton, Texas, writes:

I read the excerpt that mentioned your Johnny Carson/Uri Geller appearance. I wanted to share a similar story with a slightly different conclusion. I read Uri Geller's book as a teenager and must admit, it seemed very believable and almost plausible. Having always been extremely interested in seeing "scientific" proof of extraordinary claims even in high school, I was ALMOST convinced and basically waiting for eventual popular acceptance of paranormal powers that seemed to be just a matter of time. Then I saw you on Carson.

For me, that was also the defining moment. Not only did you show me that Mr. Geller's credibility was very questionable, you also showed that critical thinkers need not be intimidated by the uninformed but vocal majority of "true believers," as Mr. Hoffer called them. Having been raised in a somewhat less-than-intellectual, some would say even "redneck" environment in North Texas, this meant more to me than others might understand. My attempts at open mindedness and critical thinking were often met with derision and total disbelief by my less "enlightened" brethren. (Being SMACK dab in the middle of the "Bible Belt" did not really help a lot either). Your "attitude" showed me I didn't need to be afraid to voice my opinions and my "open" mind could be used in a positive way as opposed to being viewed negatively like my colleagues often seemed to view it.

It was a long, slow process to become totally open and aware without being "ashamed" of it, but if I had to look at one event and one person who I really owe my current enlightened attitude to, there would be NO doubt in my mind that you and that appearance would win with maybe only Socrates, Carl Sagan, Kurt Vonnegut and the entire Louis and Mary Leakey family even being in a distant second place. Like you have always pointed out, believers do not want to hear skeptics and often use the reflex mechanism of blaming the bearer of bad news as an excuse for not critically appraising the actual evidence presented. It's a tradition as old as man itself. Lucky for people like us, they don't burn the messenger anymore.

PS: Of course for us followers of the Rev. Ivan Stang and the Church of the Subgenius, the proper phrase would be "Praise Bob"!!!

I'm a little shaken by being included in such a roster of intellectuals, and I hope there isn't hemlock in my future, but let's not get carried away here, Larry. I'm happy that you heeded my comments, but they're only the results of lots of experience and some basic common sense, not deep cerebration. I work much more from instinct, which in turn is based on observations I've made "under fire" and "in the field." Instinct is both hard-wired into us, and applied along the way, and I've got lots of it. It's been my great fortune to know heavy-hitters on the journey, and to learn from them. Thanks for your participation in this journey to understanding.

Yes, praise Bob!


Ed Graham scolds me... I think....

I want to thank you for your abrasiveness and intolerance. In your on-line newsletter, the excerpt from "Bridging the Chasm between Two Cultures," by Karla McLaren reminded me that I owed you a thank you. For many years, I worked as a talk show host on-air in Baltimore and Washington, DC. Producers seemed to want to book "paranormal" guests. I tried to be nice and logically dispute their credibility. I was met with condescending pity. Asking for the most elementary evidence always brought laughter. It seemed that I just didn't understand. If I pressed, the management told me that I alienated the audience. I did have several really interesting interviews with the Amazing Kreskin over the years.

Thank you for being those things that turned off Ms. McLaren. Keep up the great work.

Just one other item...Why do the "Learning" Channel, the "Discovery" Channel, the "History Channel, and even PBS, have such a vast amount of programming about talking to the dead, Atlantis, the Triangle and other nonsense?

Ed, it's called "money"....


A reader signed just "John" asks...

I was born and raised in middle-class, suburban America. As a typical liberal protestant family of Presbyterians, my religious upbringing amounted largely to singing in the church choir and chasing the girls in my youth group.

However, there were periods where I felt God was a part of my life in a positive way, i.e. making me feel better about my existence and the fact that some questions didn't seem to have any answers. I was always keenly aware of the dangers of religion and the evils it had wrought across history, so I tended to think of myself more as a spiritual person rather then a religious one. Over the years, God has ceased to be a part of my life.

My wife, who grew up Catholic, and I have chosen to not have church or religion as part of our and our children's lives, although we encourage them to be open to those ideas and to evolve their own opinions over time. We feel it is important that they be given the information they need to make their own decision about God, rather then have us try to direct them and thereby not behaving any more rationally then those who promote religious beliefs to their children.

Which leads me to crux of my point: Is it really rational to call oneself an Atheist? Is not accepting one absolute in place of another irrational? Does not the possibility exist that there is a force, or being which does in some way impact our lives? There are quantum forces at work in our Universe that we don't truly understand, and yet we know they are there. Could not the same someday be true of God?

For the record, I consider myself an Agnostic, which I understand to mean someone who believes that you can neither confirm nor deny the existence of such a force/being. To me, that seems a more prudent tact, given that history is full of significant, conscience changing, scientific discoveries. (See Columbus, Einstein, Newton, etc...).

If you have the time, I would welcome your opinion on this matter. If not, perhaps you could point me to some literature that might help clarify it.

John, there is no "absolute" in atheism, the way I understand it: an atheist is a person who finds no evidence to support the existence of a deity. I never say, nor have ever said, that there is no deity; I have only said that I have no evidence to establish that there is a deity. I, too, deny any "absolutes."

As for books, anything by Richard Dawkins will do...


Sid Rodrigues, my excellent friend in the UK, tells me that Crime Scene Office Sean Davies managed to spot an hilarious mistake on the Northamptonshire Police Force web-site, at http://www.northants.police.uk/dna/02.htm He asks, "Maybe you can spot it?" Well, I missed it. Now you try.


Reader Iain Roberts of Stockport, Greater Manchester, UK, re last week's web page, tells us:

[re] . . . Richard Bartholemew, mentioned a report on the BBC about police looking for a missing man in Manchester after a tip-off from a psychic. Although I'm not 100% sure it was the same case, I believe that I saw the "after" story in my local newspaper, the Stockport Times.

The story, about three weeks ago, made the front page and was as Mr. Bartholemew says. I had to read to near the end of the story to find the critical piece of information: the police found absolutely nothing. No body. Not a scrap of evidence relating to the case.

Curiously, the story was not about the police wasting thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money on a wild goose chase. If I were to walk into a police station and say "I have no knowledge about this case signed all, but I have a feeling that you'll find the body in place X", I hope I would be politely shown the door. It seems that in these parts if I also mention that I'm a psychic this justifies a big police operation, with the blessing of the local media. What a relief to know my taxes are being so wisely spent.

Good points, Iain. Just think of how much the US government spends every hour on useless investigations of equally silly matters. A little sympathy, please?


My visit to Finland and Sweden was very successful and very satisfying to me, personally. I'm still very puzzled by the management of Finnair, who transported me from the USA to Finland on a ticket that was marked, "economy," but cost "business class," and offered all the opportunities and conveniences of Business Class...! The Finnair people in Helsinki, standing before a huge sign declaring, "Business Class," told me firmly that their airline did not have a Business Class, but did admit that the seat I was assigned — in the very first row — had better amenities than those in the rear of the plane. Yes, I believe that fully reclining seats, a personal DVD player with a full album of movies, and a few other privileges I enjoyed, were not available to every passenger. And I noted that the Finnair people rolled up that 'Business Class' sign at the desk, right after I called attention to it. What's the mystery here?

But then, Finnair is into a lot of New Age nonsense such as aromatherapy and "brain buttons" in their in-flight magazine, so maybe this is some mysterious vibrational notion they're trying to sell me.

I lectured at the beautiful science center Heureka, just outside Helsinki, to a jam-packed auditorium full of people who are not accustomed to showing up on time: some were there a full hour before the scheduled time for the lecture! I also spoke for the magic club there, imparting some of the finer points of the art of deception. At the end of the week, I hopped over to Stockholm and spoke at a Royal Institute of Technology auditorium to another full house. In between all this I did many television appearances and newspaper interviews, so we really got the word out on a very busy though far too short visit to this part of the world.

I have to express my thanks to all those in both countries who facilitated my visit, and perhaps next time I'm invited there, it will be in slightly warmer weather? Thanks, all.