Randi always has an out?

[Azrael 5]

This came up in a linked article on another forum.Here is link to this article:
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/skepticorgs/index.htm

For many years this "prize" has been Randi's stock-in-trade as a media skeptic, but even some other skeptics are skeptical about its value as anything but a publicity stunt. For example, CSICOP founding member Dennis Rawlins pointed out that not only does Randi act as "policeman, judge and jury" but quoted him as saying "I always have an out"! (Fate, October 1981)

I see it's just a sentence out of context and not even in the actual article,but does anyone have any info?

 

[Calcas]

This came up in a linked article on another forum.Here is link to this article:
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/skepticorgs/index.htm


I see it's just a sentence out of context and not even in the actual article,but does anyone have any info?

Dennis Rawlins claims the challenge is insincere, and that Randi will ensure he never has to pay out. In the October 1981 issue of Fate, Dennis Rawlins quoted him as saying "I always have an out".[3] Some critics interpret this to mean he will never let his organization lose such a challenge.[4] Others, noting this magazine article grew out of political infighting among the members of CSICOP, believe this quote is being misapplied, and that it refers to the fact that Randi employs safeguards against cheating. Randi has stated that Rawlins did not give the entire quotation.[citation needed] Randi actually said "Concerning the challenge, I always have an 'out': I'm right!"[citation needed], which carries a quite different meaning. Randi claims that the phrase "I always have an out" refers to the fact that he does not allow test subjects to cheat[5], although others have interpreted it as meaning that Randi regards the chances of him having to pay out as non-existent due to his a priori assumption that paranormal phenomena does not exist.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi_Educational_Foundation

 

[CFLarsen]

Amazing how some will perpetuate lies they know to be lies.

 

[Calcas]

Amazing how some will perpetuate lies they know to be lies.

Even more amazing is how some people will believe them.

 

[sophia8]

There's this forum thread:

Regarding Randi's alleged "I always have an out" remark:

"The Rawlins quote has been dangled endlessly. The fact is that the "out" I referred to is the simple fact the tests would be airtight against trickery or misinterpretation. Either Rawlins (for whom I have much respect, despite our falling out) misunderstood, or chose not to understand. I opt for the former." Swift newsletter, vol. 2 no. 2, 1998 (page 3)

Other posts on the same subject say that the full remark was "I always have an out: I'm always right", but no source is given.

EDIT: Beaten to it by Calcas!

 

[Blue Mountain]

Maybe Randi can assist with this

Maybe the Amazing One himself can help shed some light on this. Randi doesn't post here very often, but it would be great to hear his comments on this. (It would also be helpful in removing one or two [citation needed] tags from the Wikipedia article.)

 

[CFLarsen]

Maybe the Amazing One himself can help shed some light on this. Randi doesn't post here very often, but it would be great to hear his comments on this. (It would also be helpful in removing one or two [citation needed] tags from the Wikipedia article.)

There's not much ambiguity in Randi's response.

 

[fuelair]

Even more amazing is how some people will believe them.

Not amazing at all, true believers have no real choice but to believe lies if they want to/need to maintain their delusions/needs.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Rawlings wrote it in print around the time of occurance. Randi's recollection of the event is many, many years later.

But even if Randi is correct, his outlook is insincere. Why test people if he already knows, he is already convinced, he is right as he said?

 

[fuelair]

Rawlings wrote it in print around the time of occurance. Randi's recollection of the event is many, many years later.

But even if Randi is correct, his outlook is insincere. Why test people if he already knows, he is already convinced, he is right as he said?

Possibly a)because you (and others) seem to have missed the part where Randi doesn't do the testing and b)because, like most skeptics, he recognizes that there is a miniscule chance he might be wrong. Also, c)when they fail, a few more of those wasting their time and lives believing might gain some wisdom!

 

[CFLarsen]

Rawlings wrote it in print around the time of occurance. Randi's recollection of the event is many, many years later.

It's "Rawlins". He has a beef with Randi. Why should we believe Rawlins over Randi? After all, Randi was the one who said it.

But even if Randi is correct, his outlook is insincere.

Is it now "insincere" to rely on scientific explanations for supernatural claims? I thought you said were a big fan of science, but obviously, you are not. You are just here for the cheap shots.

Why test people if he already knows, he is already convinced, he is right as he said?

To see if it is real? Because he acknowledges that he could be wrong?

Those are admirable reasons, T'ai Chi.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Possibly a)because you (and others) seem to have missed the part where Randi doesn't do the testing

Are you claiming that Randi has never done the testing? Really?

b)because, like most skeptics, he recognizes that there is a miniscule chance he might be wrong.

No... he clearly, if we believe his quote, said something like "I always have an out. I'm right". Always.

How does that allow for chance to be wrong?

 

[CFLarsen]

No... he clearly, if we believe his quote, said something like "I always have an out. I'm right". Always.

But that's not his whole quote. Again, you leave out the crucial part. You have a history of doing that.

How does that allow for chance to be wrong?

If you want to say that Randi will rig a test to his favor, come right out and say it.

 

[fuelair]

Are you claiming that Randi has never done the testing? Really?

?

No - I'm not interested enough to go back and check, but you feel free to. I am saying that according to the procedure as mentioned several times since my joining by several mods, admins and regulars that it is set up by reps of JREF and the liar or his reps. JREF and the liar agree to a set of rules including the specific thing(s) the liar must do to win. If the liar and JREF agree to such rules as keep the liar from successfully performing whatever cheats he/she had been using to fool the gullible, the test is done, the liar fails and goes home continuing to be a loser (or - though unlikely - the liar turns out to not be lying and tales home a million dollars). I feel free to use the liar thing up to the point where someone wins because I am quite certain no one can demonstrate true psychical effects without cheating involve because there is no functional evidence of such events occuring in the past and lots of examples of liars. Nothing would prevent Randi from being directly involved that I know of but IIRC he is not.

 

[ChristineR]

Randi has done many tests himself, but he no longer routinely does so. Certainly he has always respected the wishes of claimants not to have his negative energy in the room. Most of the tests are very simple, and nothing prevents an honest believer from supervising them and seeing the negative results. On at least one dowsing video, Randi got a priest to turn the water knobs!

So far as I can tell, Randi goes out of his way to prove that the tests are not rigged. The claimants look at the equipment, even provide it if that makes sense. Everything is videotaped. Claimants are encouraged to bring a witness who sees the "right answer" like the priest that supervised the dowsing.

So far as I know, no one has actually taken a test and then claimed that the results were rigged, unless you count Carina Landin.

Randi makes so secret of the fact that he believes all these guys are going to fail. The beauty of the challenge is that if these people could do one-one hundredth of what they claim to do then they could easily take the prize. But none of them can. None.

Really Tai Chi, if you think that there is something to the theory that only believers can fairly run a test then find someone with psychic powers and test him! Most of these tests are ridiculously easy to set up, and you can even ask Randi what sort of cheats you'll need to safeguard against.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Randi has done many tests himself, but he no longer routinely does so.

What does "no longer routinely" mean? Does it mean he still does them just not very often?

Well, either way the claim by "fuelair" of

Possibly a)because you (and others) seem to have missed the part where Randi doesn't do the testing

has apparently been shown to be false, or at least contradicted by your understanding.

Really Tai Chi, if you think that there is something to the theory that only believers can fairly run a test then find someone with psychic powers and test him!

The person, if they are interested in testing their whatever-it-is-they-claim scientically, they should probably follow the standard channels of science, not challenges by skeptical clubs.

 

[CFLarsen]

The person, if they are interested in testing their whatever-it-is-they-claim scientically, they should probably follow the standard channels of science, not challenges by skeptical clubs.

....so why don't they follow the "standard channels of science"?

That's the question you are very afraid to answer.

 

[Number Six]

Even if it were true that "Randi always has an out" it would be relevant only if Randi were the only person willing to entertain the notion of doing these tests. If someone truly had abilities they could show them and if they showed them over and over to many testers and they worked for everybody except Randi then (a) Randi would look like a fool and (b) Randi would be irrelevant. Of course, having a dozen woos certify you and then losing to Randi doesn't qualify as true proof because you didn't test with non-woos, but there are lots of testers in the world besides just Randi and woos.

 

[Mojo]

The person, if they are interested in testing their whatever-it-is-they-claim scientically, they should probably follow the standard channels of science, not challenges by skeptical clubs.

They should put an advert in The Economist?

 

[ObscureReferenceMan]

The person, if they are interested in testing their whatever-it-is-they-claim scientically, they should probably follow the standard channels of science, not challenges by skeptical clubs.

Yes! They should. But I think most of them do not. They are already convinced of their powers. And the 'skeptical clubs' are saying, "We don't believe your claim. Prove it." Which is pretty straight-forward.