Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What are your thougths on James Randi?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

For years I have been an avid reader of the James Randi Educational Foundation on the Internet. I love the way he bares the illogical, irrational, and just plain wacko side of our existance.

In the past James Randi has been grouped with Ayn Rand as a 'dangerous' person, which according to the Internet he considered an honor.

I was just wondering how other Objectivist see him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For years I have been an avid reader of the James Randi Educational Foundation on the Internet.  I love the way he bares the illogical, irrational, and just plain wacko side of our existance.

In the past James Randi has been grouped with Ayn Rand as a 'dangerous' person, which according to the Internet he considered an honor.

I was just wondering how other Objectivist see him?

I read some years ago in a catalog put out by Second Renaissance Books that James Randi debunks things that are unworthy of debunking because they are arbitrary statements. But in spite of that mild criticism they approved of him enough to include him in the catalog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For years I have been an avid reader of the James Randi Educational Foundation on the Internet.  I love the way he bares the illogical, irrational, and just plain wacko side of our existance ...

I was just wondering how other Objectivist see him?

Randi does a lot of good in debunking certain claims made by con-artists like Uri Geller. And he has properly placed the burden of proof on those making the claims of supernatural abilities, with his $1 million "Paranormal Challenge."

His career as a "skeptic" seems to arise from a genuine respect for the truth and desire to expose fraud in science. His skepticism, as far as I can tell, is not the insidious "there is no truth" type. It is the sincere, "where's the evidence" type.

I don't know how familiar Randi is with Objectivism. But I think he is somewhat misguided when it comes to ethics. On his Web site he writes:

"A species has an obligation to survive. That's brought about by the application of greed and selfishness by every individual of the species. In homo sapiens we like to modify that procedure by considering the well-being of our fellows, not to the point where we ourselves will suffer unduly — though admirable and memorable examples of genuine altruism certainly exist and would seem to deny that prime directive — but (from a practical view) that practice does act to preserve the species as well as the individual."

http://www.randi.org/jr/040403.html

It is difficult to understand how selfishness and altruism both "preserve" the individual, as Randi seems to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is difficult to understand how selfishness and altruism both "preserve" the individual, as Randi seems to believe.

Reciprocal altruism can be beneficial to you if you do it in a time of surplus (when it won't hurt you) because it obligates the other person to return the favor at some point in time when you will need it. This works well on the small scale, it certainly creates "community", but not such a good idea in the world of big business, where you can't exactly count on the feeling of obligation.

One might see a long-term self-interest in donating blood, canned foods, or (as ARI did) free Ayn Rand books to universities. Doing your part to cure disease, hunger, and irrationality can always come back to benefit you (tho, again, only possible in a time of surplus).

According to your quote, Randi seems to hold this view in part ("not to the point where we ourselves will suffer unduly"), but he also refers to genuine altruism (when you don't expect any return benefit) as "admirable". This seems to imply the kind of altruism you do sheepishly because it's a behavior expected of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reciprocal altruism can be beneficial to you if you do it in a time of surplus (when it won't hurt you) because it obligates the other person to return the favor at some point in time when you will need it. This works well on the small scale, it certainly creates "community", but not such a good idea in the world of big business, where you can't exactly count on the feeling of obligation.

BTW, this is not altruism given Rand's definition of altruism as destruction of value. This is more like non-contractual investment. The "obligation" is optional, but a rational person would recognise the implicit trading nature of such assistance, given the chance that the tables might be turned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, this is not altruism given Rand's definition of altruism as destruction of value. This is more like non-contractual investment. The "obligation" is optional, but a rational person would recognise the implicit trading nature of such assistance, given the chance that the tables might be turned.

I'm using the sociobiological definition, I believe first put into theory-form by Robert Trivers in 1971. I can see why Rand's philosophical definition of altruism would not include reciprocal altruism; technically it isn't really "altruism".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I learned about O'ism, I took a class in my psych major called "investigating paranormal activity" and used one of Randi's books (Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions) as a textbook. It was taught from the small s skeptical perspective and debunked many of the popular notions of horoscopes, faith healing, ESP, etc. Basically, the class was a excersise in applying the scientific method to a particular claim or ability.

The funny thing was even though we debunked everything, the prof half-heartedly joked that we could probably make more money using what we knew to pass ourselves off as mystics rather than scientists. I didn't want to go that route of course, but i did play a joke on one of my friends, telling him that i took a personality course where we learned how to draw conclusions based on pure observation. I spouted some jargon and then handed him my "assessment" of him which was really one of those "vague, applies to everyone" horoscopes. He was sweating as he read it, muttering nervously, wondering if i had hired informants to spy on him.. hehehe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm using the sociobiological definition [of altruism], I believe first put into theory-form by Robert Trivers in 1971. I can see why Rand's philosophical definition of altruism would not include reciprocal altruism; technically it isn't really "altruism".

The term "altruism" was coined by Auguste Comte in 1851 in an attempt to form a new religion that replaced God with society. The term comes from "alter" which means "other" and literally means "otherism" or putting others above self.

Ayn Rand uses the term exactly as Comte did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a friend who was a fan and admirer of Randi for several years. One of the things Randi is attributed as saying is, "If you drop 100 reindeer from the top of the skyscraper, and all of them fail to fly and plummet to their deaths, then you have not proven that reindeer can't fly. You have simply observed that those particular reindeer did not fly at that particular time and place."

That is Skepticism ('Big S"), big time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
"A species has an obligation to survive. That's brought about by the application of greed and selfishness by every individual of the species. In homo sapiens we like to modify that procedure by considering the well-being of our fellows, not to the point where we ourselves will suffer unduly — though admirable and memorable examples of genuine altruism certainly exist and would seem to deny that prime directive — but (from a practical view) that practice does act to preserve the species as well as the individual."

http://www.randi.org/jr/040403.html

It is difficult to understand how selfishness and altruism both "preserve" the individual, as Randi seems to believe.

He seems to fall squarely into the secular humanist camp. Although, his position on "altruism" in the cited quote is quite vague. It isn't clear if "considering the well-being of our fellows" is a form of egotistical benevolence or sacrificial selflessness. While he suggests the collectivized entity "species" as being a proper beneficiary to an individual's actions, he doesn't explain why the preservation of the species is contrary to each individual acting in his own selfish interest.

Nevertheless, he's extensively knowledgeable on a wide range of popular issues and seems to have the resources necessary to get himself noticed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He seems to fall squarely into the secular humanist camp. Although, his position on "altruism" in the cited quote is quite vague. It isn't clear if "considering the well-being of our fellows" is a form of egotistical benevolence or sacrificial selflessness. While he suggests the collectivized entity "species" as being a proper beneficiary to an individual's actions, he doesn't explain why the preservation of the species is contrary to each individual acting in his own selfish interest.

Nevertheless, he's extensively knowledgeable on a wide range of popular issues and seems to have the resources necessary to get himself noticed.

Randi is widely knowledgeable and quite a good polemicist. He's far from being an Objectivist or even a libertarian, though. Have you noticed he's been pushing this group called "Brights"? They're very confused. But Randi thinks government should be protecting everyone from irrational frauds. I disagree. He's also pretty anti-American, even though he points out frauds all around the world. He doesn't appear to think people should be responsible for protecting themselves. That said, he's a heck of a lot better than Uri Geller!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

I am a huge follower of Randi's, been so for more than 12 years. I can see where a lot of you might think the way you're thinking, but I don't think it's the whole picture. For instance:

He doesn't appear to think people should be responsible for protecting themselves

and

It isn't clear if "considering the well-being of our fellows" is a form of egotistical benevolence or sacrificial selflessness.

This is not entirely true. One of the main purposes of his educational foundation is to educate people so that they can protect themselves. He would rather everyone in society be armed with Carl Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit" because he sees the massive amounts of people being conned, scammed, and robbed because of their own naïveté - sometimes resulting in their own deaths. But failing that, he does feel the government should be protecting people from being flat out robbed by others posing as psychics, astrologers, and faith healers. I'm not certain that is mutually exclusive with Objectivism. Does Objectivism only view stealing when it is at the point of a gun? Doesn't fraud and manipulation also constitute robbery?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...he does feel the government should be protecting people from being flat out robbed by others posing as psychics, astrologers, and faith healers. I'm not certain that is mutually exclusive with Objectivism. Does Objectivism only view stealing when it is at the point of a gun? Doesn't fraud and manipulation also constitute robbery?
The immorality of faith healers and astrologists, saying they're the real thing, is clear. Illegality is a different issue.

In the typical case, it is not fraud but an ideological issue. The customer has faith and wishes to act on that faith rather than on reason. The government should not stop that.

There have been some really egregious examples. For instance, I remember seeing a documentary about a church that took tens of thousands of dollars from its parishioners and invested it in some foreign businesses. The money multiplied for the first couple of years, because it was a ponzi scheme. When the scheme unravelled and the government pursued the case, they found that the money had not been invested but donated. The whole scheme had been sold as having God's blessing, and the parishioners were told that God's blessing would come only if the money was freely donated to the church, who would invest it and share the rewards. It was sad to see some of the old women who had lost their life's savings. However, they were adults, and their priest has given them no firm guarantees. If the government had stopped those pensioners from donating, it would be inserting itself between their freely-made conclusions and reality, in a situation where they hurt nobody but themselves. Assuming that they were competent to contract, that is not the role of government.

In essence, people had the right to be very, very irrational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The immorality of faith healers and astrologists, saying they're the real thing, is clear. Illegality is a different issue.

If a faith healer claims he can cure your cancer and he doesn't, then he has comited fraud. Likewise if someone claims he'll invest your money and doesn't. Or if your accoutnant says he'll pay your taxes and doesn't. Fraud is a missrepresentation of intent, a lie if you will or a false promise, made within the context of a contract that's either explicit or implicit (any deal struck between two people where terms are agreed to is a contract, be it written or not). And fraud is and should be illegal.

In essence, people had the right to be very, very irrational.

Yes, they do. That's why in cases of fraud the law requires the victim to press charges. If you're satisfied with the healer's non-cure, or a con man's non-investment of your money, that's your problem, not the government's. But if you were taken in by a scam, regardless of the reason, and there was fraud involved, you're entitled to some form of redress.

To be fair most scams are easy to see through. A little knowledge of medicine tells you faith healing is impossible. Add a little knowledge of statistics, too, and you'll know that invariably some cancer patients who visit faith healers are bound to experience spontaneous remission. A little knowledge of finance tells you a 150% return on your investment in one year is a flat out fantasy.

I've read that con artists operate under the premise that people want to be fooled. they want wishful thinking to be real (hey, who wouldn't?) and get taken in by empty promises, transparently false ones, because they wish they were true (they accept the primacy of consciousness in that regard). In other words, a con man needs the voluntary cooperation of his victim to make the scam work; and you can't be scammed unless you allow yourself to be.

That doesn't change the fact that the scammer was knowingly and willfully engaging in fraud, with the itnent to rob his victims of their money. Be they stupid, ignorant, irrational or impulssive, they are victims.

BTW some faith healers can be very convincing. I saw Randi on TV once performing "psychich surgery" ona volunteer. he did appear to be reaching into the pateint's body and extractng organs without cutting him open, causing any bleeding or any pain. Of course it was just a stage magic trick any competent magician can perform.

So it is a valuable service to educate people about such scams, lest they fall victims to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A species has an obligation to survive. That's brought about by the application of greed and selfishness by every individual of the species. In homo sapiens we like to modify that procedure by considering the well-being of our fellows, not to the point where we ourselves will suffer unduly - though admirable and memorable examples of genuine altruism certainly exist and would seem to deny that prime directive — but (from a practical view) that practice does act to preserve the species as well as the individual."

If I sacrifice my life to save my children or my wife is that not an altruistic act, but one which is permissible in Objectivism considering the value I place on those people, and even "perpetuates the species" (as my children will have more children and I will not)?

In the same vein, if I sacrifice myself on a battlefield in order to preserve my country, and therefore my way of life for all those blessed to be living in a (relatively) free, democratic and liberal society is that not an altruistic act, but one that also helps to ensure the survival of a value?

So then is all altruism wrong? Or is it the unthinking compulsory acts of societal contrition that are wrong? I'm of the opinion that it is the latter that is the bane of modern mans existence and a construct of the mystics of faith and pull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I sacrifice my life to save my children or my wife is that not an altruistic act, but one which is permissible in Objectivism considering the value I place on those people, and even "perpetuates the species" (as my children will have more children and I will not)?

Your error lies in the choice fo the term "sacrifice." Giving your life for your children, or your country, is not a sacrifice. You choose to do it because they represent a value you wish preserved more than your life. You gain by that choice. A sacrifice is the exchange, voluntary or not, of a value for a lesser value or a non-value. For example, would you give your life for the children of a randomly chosen stranger? Would you give your life for the preservation of North Korea? To tone down the emotional level, would you give up a weekend trip for the sake of a weed or a bug?

So then is all altruism wrong? Or is it the unthinking compulsory acts of societal contrition that are wrong?

Both.

People often use the wrod sacrifice as meaning enduring hardship or giving up one thing to save another. If you choose to subsist on plain, insipid but cheap food for a few months or years in order to save money to start a business, you are enduring hardship. But as you are acting to achieve a greater value, you are not engaging in sacrifice. If you were to endure the same hardship in order to, say, give the money away to the homeless because it's your duty, and you don't find any value in doing so, then you are acting in sacrifice for others.

Does a priest commit legal, actionable fraud if he says you will go to heaven if you only follow his prescriptions?

Yes. But you can't disprove his unsuported assertion. Since you'd bring charges against the priest, the burden of proof would be on you.

The law does not question the validity of anyone's beliefs, BTW. I'm not sure whether it should on certain criminal and civil cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. But you can't disprove his unsuported assertion. Since you'd bring charges against the priest, the burden of proof would be on you.
If someone goes in for some service (whether destination heaven, or cancer healing) that he understands is based on the supernatural, I don't think the law should support any case he might bring amounting to a claim that the supernatural did not work in this particular instance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what is wrong with it being illegal to make supernatural claims in the first place? It reminds me of an amusing anecdote James Randi said recently where they just passed a law in the UK requiring psychics to post the disclaimer "For entertainment purposes only" and Randi opined that it's just one step away from requiring churches to post "For Entertainment Purposes Only" on their doors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what is wrong with it being illegal to make supernatural claims in the first place?
Sample law: "Every church that promises an after-life shall bear a notice on every door, with the following lettering -- in letters that are black on a white background, and at least 4 inches high: 'Church is for Entertainment Purposes Only. Patrons are advised that there really is no other life after this one- by order'" B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone goes in for some service (whether destination heaven, or cancer healing) that he understands is based on the supernatural, I don't think the law should support any case he might bring amounting to a claim that the supernatural did not work in this particular instance.

Should the government be the arbiter of what is and isn't natural law? Think about it carefully.

I don't suppose any church has ever been sued for failing to deliver a soul to heaven. I don't think any judge with three working neurons would allow such a suit. Remember the plaintiff has the burden of proof. So how would you go about prooving there is no heaven, or whether or not a particular soul reached it?

But psychic and faith healers ought to be fair game, especially since their "treatments" don't do anything at all. I wonder if they get sued more often than doctors. Probably not, which is indeed a sad commentary.

The thing is some patients will get better regardless of treatment. Sometimes cancer patients undergo "spontaneous remission," which medical science cannot explain (often the same patients succumb to the same cancer, or to a diferent type, years later; sometimes decades later). Many infections will clear up through immune system action and simple support measures (fluids, rest, cold packs, etc). Therefore some people who obtain fraudulent treatments do get better. Combine this with the lack of understanding of the worth of annecdotal evidence, and you have reasonable people trying "alternative medicine" as a reasonable choice.

Oh, and then there's aslo tradition and culture. For the better part of human history Man had nothing but his immune system, fluids, rest, etc as a defense against disease. Lots of things were tried, and some worked after a fashion at least to relieve symptoms. Bottom line is every culture developed folk remedies, prayers and rituals for the sick. A lot of people in the West ahve not completely abandoned those traidtions merely because modern medicine can now do something useful against disease. I doubt there's a single hospital in the West without a chappel of some sort. I don't condone this, I merely attempt to explain it.

Less rationally you have recent immigrants to the West who really believe whatever nonsense they grew up with. Voodoo, santeria, various animist religions, curses, spirits, witches, etc etc. If your average American sophisticate will pray to God to please help his sick child, even if he believes medicine is the best option, what can you expect from truly ignorant people raised in an environment of irrational superstition?

So, am I defending irrational people who make irrational choices? No. But I want to point out that the greater evil is neither ignorance nor irrationality, but the people who take advantage of the ignorant and the irrational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should the government be the arbiter of what is and isn't natural law?
I agree that the government ought not to be, in this type of context.

That is the reason I do not think there should be laws against faith-healers qua faith healers. Sue them as healers, but if they represented themselves as faith healers, then an adult customer (a "rational man") must be presumed to have gone into the contract with the understanding that the result is only as good as faith. How can the plaintiff accept that faith does work and then sue the defendant when it doesn't in his particular instance? I can understand if he was given some guarantee of results, or if he was given some type of specific detail of past performance. Without such a guarantee, he would have to prove that the faith was not strong enough, or was pretended, or something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...