I looked on their website http://www.randi.org/site/ but they don't seem to know either why Youtube suspended them.

However I'm not sure if I can enjoy this. First, it illustrates what (more than desirable) power the anonymous people behind internet organisations like Google, Wikipedia and Youtube have. They thus seem to decide what kind of information comes to us. If any kind of nonsense and violence is allowed on Youtube why would Randi's videos be suspended?

Second, I don't mind adversaries of astrology or the paranormal questioning all kinds of phenomena. Sometimes the results are very good. For example the exposition of Uri Geller http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuaJWLeSmEc as an imposter using magician's tricks is invaluable as counterweight to too much naivety of believers of the paranormal. There needs to be some 'equality of arms' in the investigation of occult matters. Furthermore it sharpens the mind and I still never lost my belief in astrology or the paranormal. Moreover some (especially esoteric) astrologers have done more harm to astrology than any critic ever will be able to.

There needs to be some 'equality of arms' in the investigation of occult matters. Furthermore it sharpens the mind and I still never lost my belief in astrology or the paranormal. Moreover some (especially esoteric) astrologers have done more harm to astrology than any critic ever will be able to.

I totally agree. I think its intellectually healthy to keep up with with what the critics of astrology are saying. A lack of intellectual rigour is one of my main problems with much of modern astrology which, as Eddy points out, is frequently confused and incoherent. I also saw Randi's piece on Uri Geller and thought it was very revealing in regards Geller's none too subtle methods.

From what I could see the British Sun-Sign astrologer Jonathan Cainer was given a fair shot at analysing Hugh Laurie's chart. The fact the interpretation didn't impress seems part of the risk any astrologer takes in offering a delineation. Of course, it is far less likely Randi would have shown this tape if Cainer had done a chart reading that met with enthusiastic approval from Hugh Laurie. I think Stephen Fry's strong scepticism regarding astrology may have influenced Laurie's response.In hindsight it is amusing that Laurie rejects the idea that he will be in the 'limelight' considering his much later success in the hit TV show 'House'. Indeed the chart description offered by Cainer seems quite close to the the fictional character Laurie has become famous with! It has been rumoured that Fry has been a little jeolous about his former comedy partner's success in the US.

Actually the tape still seems to be on YouTube!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDhxcIaC23k

Some time ago a psychic told me that he had been invited to contribute to a Randi TV show by making three predictions. They came true and as the time to make the programme drew near he called the producer to see when he would be interviewed. He was told that the show only wanted those who got it wrong.

I cannot see how a disinterested non-partisan approach to research into the paranormal,astrology &c is helped by selective use of evidence and the less I see of Randi the better,whatever the reason.I cant stand his conceit.

Matthew

I agree that healthy skepticism is good

I do too. But my view of Randi is that he is not, first and foremost, a sceptic but a self-publicist who uses sceptism as his promotional tool.

It is therefore doubly pleasant to see that he is being removed from a popular media outlet.

Tom said:

After all it was Randi's group that tried to prevent hospitals from recording birth times

I didn't realise this but it reminds me of the announcement, here this week, that people are getting certificates to negate their childhood baptisms on the grounds they are atheists. If they are really atheists then there is nothing to reject; if there is no God, the baptism had no effect in the first place.

So, in trying to prevent birth times being recorded, Randi seems to be acknowledging their importance....

.. I suppose, again, anything to get publicity. Perhaps we should delete all references to him on Skyscript!!

amelia wrote:Tom said:

After all it was Randi's group that tried to prevent hospitals from recording birth times

I didn't realise this but it reminds me of the announcement, here this week, that people are getting certificates to negate their childhood baptisms on the grounds they are atheists. If they are really atheists then there is nothing to reject; if there is no God, the baptism had no effect in the first place.

This announcement about the atheists reminds me of the text of 1 Corinthians 8, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... version=47 ; eating meat that had been offered to an idol is allowed but it could affect the ones who are weak in their belief. Perhaps these atheists are just weak in their disbelief .

So, in trying to prevent birth times being recorded, Randi seems to be acknowledging their importance....

I can imagine another reason why the recording of birth times at hospitals should be prevented. Since almost anything is recorded digitally nowadays, preventing the recording of birth times can protect the privacy. I sometimes hear that employers want the birthtimes of applicants. If I ever had to give my birth time when applying for a job that requires assertiveness I'd rather give that fake birth time with say Aries on MC and Leo rising than being rejected solely on ground of my real chart.

Whether one believes in astrology or not, knowing the birthtime thus could be abused by those who believe that one can get information with it. However, I believe knowing the birthdate alone can already give a lot of information.

But my view of Randi is that he is not, first and foremost, a sceptic but a self-publicist who uses sceptism as his promotional tool.

I agree. He has a Houdini complex. Harry Houdini went around exposing fraudulent spiritualists and made quite a reputation for himself by so doing. Randi is a good parlor magician, and Houdini is his hero, so he'd like a reputation for doing the same thing. Get a real life Jim.

A couple of years ago Randi engaged in a debate with Dennis Elwell who claimed, correctly, that Randi's $1 million challenge is bogus and the rules are structured so they would never pay off. Randi objected and a few letters were exchanged. Randi didn't do too well. Gary Phillipson has all the letters produced over on his website for anyone interested.

Tom

The Starbaby debacle was enough for CSICOP (is that the acronym?) to forever lose credibility in my eyes.

I had no idea Randi was trying to shut down Kepler and prohibit recording of birth times, too - that's not scepticism, it's fanaticism.

I've seen atheists proselytising - scary stuff. Though I suppose it's not technically proselytising since they're trying to get people away from belief, but on a few occasions I couldn't tell the fundie Christian from the fundie atheist after a minute or so. Which seems to point to fundamentalism being a human problem more than belief in a deity or deities is.

The baptism revocation thing seems daft. I do get it with the Mormons baptising dead people by proxy (especially Holocaust survivors and other people who died rather than being Christian, or people who have living relatives of other religions) just on the creep-out factor - baptising the dead is taking it too far, and gives me a very queasy feeling. But weird as it is, they're allowed to do whatever they want in their own church, I guess. Though it gives me visions of an afterlife too like here, with people knocking on your door and STILL trying to make you believe the way they do - possibly decent fodder for a fantasy story one of these days

I'm fairly certain baptism doesn't hold if it's forced. I was baptised by a whacked foster family I ended up with when I was fifteen after they pulled both my arms out of the sockets - ouch. Rabbis were so thin on the ground as to be non-existent where I grew up, but I ended up talking to a Catholic priest about it later (they seemed the sanest of the religious around there) and even he said it wouldn't be considered valid by church law. I'd imagine infant baptism even less so.

As for revocation of baptism....talk about petitioning the lord with prayer! Sorry - I have to laugh at that one. At that point, atheism does become a religion.

I know there was a time when psychologist/modern astrologers (God help us) were terribly keen on birth times, too. I can just about imagine that, though I'd rather not. I'd definitely lie if it came to a job application, though after I came here, through some comedy of errors every piece of official identification has a different birth date on it, and none of them are right. It's always fun when dealing with government agencies - when were you born? Uhh...on whose behalf are you asking?

Life is too weird sometimes.

CSICOP PROVES THERE IS NO SOUL

The Committee for the Investigation of the Paranormal announced today that it has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the illogical and superstitious idea that human beings possess a soul has been once and for all been disproved. "Throughout the ages man has operated under the misconception that there exist in each person a spiritual essence called the soul' said spokesperson Kaul Puntz. "This religious superstition has caused enormous human misery and impeded scientific progress for hundreds of years", explained Mr. Puntz.

Apparently this astounding discovery came about as the result of an autopsy preformed on the famous conjuror and well known CISCOP fellow, James Randi. Mr. Randi was alive at the time of the autopsy.

Having spent much of his life devoted to debunking all types of fuzzy logic and superstitious thinking, he decided to make the ultimate sacrifice and donate his body to science while he was still alive. This was a major departure from the normal procedure for autopsies but it was felt it was justified so as to yield results not normally available when dissecting cadavers.

"After an exhaustive search using well established scientific criteria and statistical methodology, it was found that Mr. Randi had no soul. " By being able to do this procedure on a still living body we eliminated the usual excuse that the person being dead their soul would have departed. Since Mr. Randi was alive during most of the procedure this excuse has been removed. "We can now conclude that all of the religious ideas regarding soul are untrue", Mr. Puntz stated confidently. "We will miss our beloved Mr. Randi but I am sure if he had lived he would say that this ultimate sacrifice was well worth it." It was the final act of a man dedicated to exposing the irrational.

When asked if he thought volunteering for an autopsy while still alive was itself irrational, Mr. Puntz flatly denied such an accusation and stated his belief that Mr. Randi will achieve some level of immortality as one of the worlds most committed Skeptics. For generations to come, future skeptics will remember with reverence the selfless sacrifice of this great man.

In lieu of flowers, the memorials are being accepted by the James Randi Memorial Astrological Institute.

In a related story, it was announced today that the long awaited Age of Aquarius began on Nov 3, 2004 and it was predicted that within ten years everything will run by the Department of Motor Vehicles. Additionally, within 50 years there will no need for humans as computers will have taken over the daily activities once preformed by these Homo-sapiens. Human contact will no longer be necessary.

Isaac Bickerstaff reporting....
with slight assistance and technical advice from
James Frazier
The Skeptical Astrologer

I agree that healthy skepticism is good. Honest scientists will tell you that science needs skeptics, and so does astrology. But the operative word is "honest." Randi's criticisms are often dishonest and frankly ignorant

Agree. Randi has a poor understanding of science to claim to be his defendant

I do too. But my view of Randi is that he is not, first and foremost, a sceptic but a self-publicist who uses sceptism as his promotional tool

Agree even more.

Agree. Randi has a poor understanding of science to claim to be his defendant.

I second (or third?) that.
Many of you probably have seen this (astrologer Armstrong vs. Shermer the skeptic):

http://www.petemccormack.com/blog/?p=339
I think it's a very telling example of how "open minded" these guys are. One would think that if you see this kind of evidence (or at least an indication that something is going on) you'd say wow, let's look deeper. Of course, the real-life (I mean academic) science does not always work this way. A lot of it is about making a relatively safe hypothesis within the accepted paradigm and testing it. When something does not work, but is explainable by the paradigm, the hypothesis is refuted/changed, etc. But when something falls out of the paradigm, it is usually thrown out as an "outlier", an experimental artifact, etc. It takes a lot of time to change the paradigm... But maybe the time will come...
[/url]