It occurs to me there's another good reason why magicians aren't out there (as a rule) debunking people who use the techniques.
If you think about it, conjuring is in a kind of mutually assured destruction dilemma. Here's why. If I, or anyone who is involved in magic, see someone's act, we can maybe recreate or at least figure out perhaps 80 -90% (depends on the magician and the act and 90% is conservative, it's not uncommon to be 100%). And, since we value secrecy so much, each of us is vulnerable to exposure by the others. If I go around telling how woo-ish magician X did something, then he's just as capable and could expose what I do (even though I may do it solely for entertainment). Plus there's a great deal of overlap. The same methods can be used to produce a woo claim or just for entertainment. Exposure of the method ruins both.
Even on this forum, we are not allowed to expose magic effects. And, if I remember correctly, Randi didn't show how things were done so much as duplicate them and say he did it with trickery. (I may be wrong in some cases, I'm not that well read in specifics on Randi.)
What magicians are highly skeptical about is a magician (Geller or anyone else) who claims special powers to other magicians -- that's a good way to get laughed out of the room. In fact, there's a catch phrase, "real magic" that is used disparagingly as in: "Yeah, right. He used real magic. Sure."
Still, outside of the craft, we, like everyone else, have room for religious beliefs, alternative medicine beliefs and so on. Those aren't in our purview (as magicians) and we would look to scientists for any debunking if it were of interest.
As a side note, I used to think I became a skeptic because I learned the "behind the scenes" by studying performance magic. I now think I was attracted to magic because I was first of skeptical bent and the fit was a good one.
