James Randi dies

Multiple news outlets have confirmed that James ("The Amazing") Randi, famed magician, escape artist, and skeptic of the paranormal, has died at the age of 92. Gabe Yuen, one of our faithful commentariat, informed me of this last night. 

Naturally, given the subject matter of this blog, I was frequently in disagreement with Randi's opinions. But now is not the time for criticism. Looking for something positive to say, I remembered a post from 2008 that relied heavily on a chapter in Randi's book Film-Flam! (The exclamation point is part of the title.) I've reproduced it below, with updated links. 

Comments are open but will be moderated with a heavier hand than usual. I'm not a fan of badmouthing the recently deceased, and I'm especially unimpressed with people who try to predict the afterlife experience of someone who's just passed. When it comes to assessing someone's essential spiritual value, I think the best advice is, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." 

 

James Randi as a young man

 

The conning of the fairies

Since I've written two recent posts on Arthur Conan Doyle, I thought I should take up the most notorious incident in his career as a paranormal investigator - the case of the Cottingley Fairies. The story is pretty well known and needs no retelling here; those who are interested can read the essentials in Doyle's own book on the subject, The Coming of the Fairies. The complete text is available online, along with all the photos that featured in the controversy. A much shorter version of the story, with some photos, is found at Wikipedia; unlike some Wiki articles on the paranormal, this one seems to be accurate, at least at the present time.

Probably the most famous criticism of the Cottingley case was presented by James Randi. In his well-known book Flim-Flam!, Randi devotes all of Chapter 2 to an in-depth analysis of the controversy, which includes original research making use of the then-new technique of computer scanning.

I must admit that when I read Doyle's book, I was hoping to find his presentation of the facts more convincing - and hence less damaging to his reputation - than I'd been led to expect. Not that I harbored any doubts about the photos; they are obvious fakes, and their artificiality is immediately apparent to any modern viewer, though people in Doyle's era were considerably less sophisticated in regard to trick photography. What strikes us as clear fakery apparently looked pretty convincing to some people - even presumed photographic "experts" - of that day.

So yes, the photos are undoubtedly fakes; nothing can alter that fact. But if Doyle had presented his case with appropriate qualifying remarks, he might have escaped much of the opprobrium he later suffered. Sadly, he did not. Though he sounds a few notes of caution, the overall attitude of his book is that of a true believer, doggedly certain that these five photos are the beginning of a new era for humanity, a time when the mystical creatures previously seen only by clairvoyants would become visible to us all. No wonder he described the Cottingley photos as "epoch-making."

In his book, elaborate and highly doubtful claims are made on behalf of the photos. It is claimed that the fairies are clearly in motion in the stills, when actually there is little if any blur on the figures - understandably, since they were cutouts. It is claimed that only a photographic genius with the full resources of a studio at his disposal could have attempted such fakes; in reality, the shots were easily done by placing the cutouts in front of a human subject. It is claimed that innocent little girls never lie; well, not all girls are so innocent. 

Though I'm not normally a fan of Randi, I must admit that in Flim-Flam! he makes mincemeat of the fairies - and, with his typically unsparing sarcasm, of Doyle as well. According to Randi, Doyle was "convinced of many irrationalities ... a man who needed such evidence desperately to bolster his own delusions... [and who] spent some L250,000 in pursuit of this nonsense [i.e., spiritualism]."

Doyle himself begins his book with the earnest hope that his arguments for the validity of the photos, even if rejected by the reader, will not prejudice anyone against the idea of life after death, which is to him a separate issue. In this he was surely naive. His exposure as disappointingly gullible in one area of paranormal investigation inevitably colored all subsequent perception of his efforts in other areas. If he could be taken in by two girls playing a childish prank, how can we trust his judgment regarding séances conducted by professional mediums?

Although the photos have been thoroughly debunked, interest in the fairies continues. This Web page, part of a site devoted to the Cottingley area, offers some useful information and links. The Museum of Hoaxes covers the topic and includes all five photos.  Joe Cooper, who wrote a book on the subject, presents the essentials of the case here. An essay rather sympathetic to Doyle was put out by the Arthur Conan Doyle Society*; it makes the point that the original prints were not as clear as the more modern ones (see the comparison at the very bottom of the page).

I have not found anyone who still believes the fairies were real.

---

*2020 update: This website no longer exists. - MP 

Since I've written two recent posts on Arthur Conan Doyle, I thought I should take up the most notorious incident in his career as a paranormal investigator - the case of the Cottingley Fairies. The story is pretty well known and needs no retelling here; those who are interested can read the essentials in Doyle's own book on the subject, The Coming of the Fairies. The complete text is available online, along with all the photos that featured in the controversy. A much shorter version of the story, with some photos, is found at Wikipedia; unlike some Wiki articles on the paranormal, this one seems to be accurate, at least at the present time.

Probably the most famous criticism of the Cottingley case was presented by James Randi. In his well-known book Flim-Flam!, Randi devotes all of Chapter 2 to an in-depth analysis of the controversy, which includes original research making use of the then-new technique of computer scanning.

I must admit that when I read Doyle's book, I was hoping to find his presentation of the facts more convincing - and hence less damaging to his reputation - than I'd been led to expect. Not that I harbored any doubts about the photos; they are obvious fakes, and their artificiality is immediately apparent to any modern viewer, though people in Doyle's era were considerably less sophisticated in regard to trick photography. What strikes us as clear fakery apparently looked pretty convincing to some people - even presumed photographic "experts" - of that day.

So yes, the photos are undoubtedly fakes; nothing can alter that fact. But if Doyle had presented his case with appropriate qualifying remarks, he might have escaped much of the opprobrium he later suffered. Sadly, he did not. Though he sounds a few notes of caution, the overall attitude of his book is that of a true believer, doggedly certain that these five photos are the beginning of a new era for humanity, a time when the mystical creatures previously seen only by clairvoyants would become visible to us all. No wonder he described the Cottingley photos as "epoch-making."

In his book, elaborate and highly doubtful claims are made on behalf of the photos. It is claimed that the fairies are clearly in motion in the stills, when actually there is little if any blur on the figures - understandably, since they were cutouts. It is claimed that only a photographic genius with the full resources of a studio at his disposal could have attempted such fakes; in reality, the shots were easily done by placing the cutouts in front of a human subject. It is claimed that innocent little girls never lie; well, not all girls are so innocent. 

Though I'm not normally a fan of Randi, I must admit that in Flim-Flam! he makes mincemeat of the fairies - and, with his typically unsparing sarcasm, of Doyle as well. According to Randi, Doyle was "convinced of many irrationalities ... a man who needed such evidence desperately to bolster his own delusions... [and who] spent some L250,000 in pursuit of this nonsense [i.e., spiritualism]."

Doyle himself begins his book with the earnest hope that his arguments for the validity of the photos, even if rejected by the reader, will not prejudice anyone against the idea of life after death, which is to him a separate issue. In this he was surely naive. His exposure as disappointingly gullible in one area of paranormal investigation inevitably colored all subsequent perception of his efforts in other areas. If he could be taken in by two girls playing a childish prank, how can we trust his judgment regarding séances conducted by professional mediums?

Although the photos have been thoroughly debunked, interest in the fairies continues. This Web page, part of a site devoted to the Cottingley area, offers some useful information and links. The Museum of Hoaxes covers the topic and includes all five photos.  Joe Cooper, who wrote a book on the subject, presents the essentials of the case here. An essay rather sympathetic to Doyle was put out by the Arthur Conan Doyle Society*; it makes the point that the original prints were not as clear as the more modern ones (see the comparison at the very bottom of the page).

I have not found anyone who still believes the fairies were real.

---

Comments

[Art]

Okay I admit it.... I would have liked to be a fly on the wall to see the look of surprise on James Randi's face when he realized he was out of his body and that he was fixing to enter the Light.

And for the record I highly suspicion that belief is irrelevant. Belief or unbelief is just another way of experiencing more duality and separation. In the end we are all healed and enter that Light.

[Ian]

Several years ago, I would have had a smug smile at hearing about Mr. Randi's death. Nowadays, though, I don't harbor any ill feelings towards him because he was a reminder that critical thinking should not be discarded when you believe in the supernatural; people just starting on their spiritual path need to know that there are con men, charlatans, and frauds out there who will seek to take advantage of them, and - more importantly - that all channeled material shouldn't be accepted at face value, but looked at with a critical eye, and that one can find falsehoods, lies, and (very well hidden) malevolence there, too.

Still, assuming that the spiritual world does exist, I'd love to know what Mr. Randi's first reaction would have been upon realizing that fact.

[Eric Newhill]

Maybe Bruce is gently ribbing Randi right now, "Welcome! What's up? Told ya so"

[Matt Rouge]

Art wrote,

||I would have liked to be a fly on the wall to see the look of surprise on James Randi's face when he realized he was out of his body and that he was fixing to enter the Light.||

And Ian wrote,

||Still, assuming that the spiritual world does exist, I'd love to know what Mr. Randi's first reaction would have been upon realizing that fact.||

And Eric had a funny comment. :)

I suspect that for Randi and others who didn't believe while on Earth, that it's not so much a surprise but more like Roger Ebert's seeing through the "hoax." I.e., one doesn't learn something new but realizes that one had known of the existence of the beyond all along.

I don't have a huge amount of animosity toward Randi either. He did a palpable amount of good exposing actual frauds. I think he was something of a fraud himself with his Challenge. It gave Skeptics the ultimate talking point for decades: "If the paranormal were real, someone could just go win a million dollars--why don't they?"

Rather ingenious, as responding to this very simple talking point required a complete explication as to why the Challenge was unfair, disingenuous, and so on.

But in life there will always be such an opponent to one's cause, and Randi played the role of Master Skeptic as well anyone could have. I think he is owed some appreciation for that.

Requiescat in pace!

[Saj Patel]

Worth reading this old Paranormalia post about Randi:

https://monkeywah.typepad.com/paranormalia/2013/02/will-storrs-the-heretics.html

Not to speak ill of the deceased, but also we shouldn't avoid the issue of Randi's pseudo-skepticism.

[Art]

//"Not to speak ill of the deceased, but also we shouldn't avoid the issue of Randi's pseudo-skepticism." - Saj//
---------------------

Well I am very suspicious of free will anyway so I suspicion we are all just playing our parts and everything that happens here happens for a reason and so none of us are really evil but are more like actors playing our parts. Actors and teachers at the same time, teaching each other the things we came here to learn.

And I also believe we will all be healed when we enter the Light due to those overwhelming feelings of oneness and connectedness. What one knows we will all know and so we will realize why we all acted and did the things we do.

[Bernardo]

I am very skeptical that there is an afterlife and Randi made a lot of sense. I remember when I was in college, he was a guest speaker and it was fascinating. I wasn’t into this back then so I didn’t know who he was. Why couldn’t anyone win the $100? He called out frauds like Silvia brown and others who prey on the weak.

[Shaun]

Bernardo, while there are many frauds who prey on the weak there are also many people who genuinely have such abilities. I would recommend that you check out Michael Woodley-of-Menie and Patrizio Tressoldi's mediumship study meta analysis.

[Michael Prescott]

Here is a critical look at Randi's impact on parapsychology labs and serious researchers. I could do without the gratuitous political swipes, and I think the piece perhaps overstates the value of laboratory research (as opposed to field studies and even the dreaded anecdotal account), but it provides a counterbalance to the many encomia lavished on Randi upon his passing.

https://boingboing.net/2020/10/26/the-man-who-destroyed-skepticism.html

[Saj Patel]

Thanks Michael,

Your post was exactly what I was thinking of - The amount of praise lavished on Randi now that he has passed away should be balanced with the truth.

Art -

Having come from a culture that had a caste system in which everyone supposedly was playing a role for the Ur Mind...I feel morally obligated to disagree with your position.

Bernardo -

Look at the link I posted, maybe even read Will Storr's book The Heretics. If Randi was convinced truth was on his side why did he need to exaggerate and even lie?

[Elene Gusch]

I hadn't heard of Randi's death. Thank you for posting this.

I can't help but think of Kurt Vonnegut's hilarious comment to the Humanist Society upon Isaac Asimov's death: "Isaac's in heaven now."

I hope all three are having a marvelous time in the next world and continuing to learn and expand their abilities.

[Robert C Gragg]

Frankly, I wonder what Randi's remarks were when he got TO THE OTHERSIDE? Something like, "Holy CRAP! This is impossible."

[ben kalish]

regarding the article you cited, I read half the comments of that article which was mostly hate so I didn't bother to read the other half but was there any comment that actually made a valid point against the article I would check myself but there is just so much hate that its hard for me to read them without letting it affect me.

[Michael Prescott]

Which article are you referring to, Ben?

[Jake L.]

I think Ben is referring to this article:

https://boingboing.net/2020/10/26/the-man-who-destroyed-skepticism.html

If you made the horrible mistake of reading the comments like Ben and I did, most them were spamming bogus claimss like "THiS mAn is UPseT BeCAusE RaNDI WaS MeAN to COn-ArTISts!!!" (which is not at all what he said, the argument was of course that Randi tended to lump con-artists with genuine people, but why address arguments when you can straw-man your opponent, right?)

I think Ben was wondering if you looked at the comments and find any actually valid counter-point.

But I do have an issue with that article, being that I think the legit good Randi has done was grossly downplayed (ironic considering the article was about not downplaying legit research just because there are greedy frauds a-plenty). I recently watched a video on the many frauds Randi exposed, some of whom were really huge for a time, and I don't think exposing those assholes is a small thing, since those guys were genuine parasites and exposing them probably saved a large number of people.

Yes, I did read the article Saj linked and I did read Michael's article on his treatment of Puthoff and Targ and those things are worthy of critique. But I can't say I agree he did more harm than good like Michael did a long time ago. For instance, if there is an afterlife, it'll exist regardless of what people think, right?

Man, I have a tendency to ramble....

[Saj Patel]

Randi did some good, but I think exposing frauds and then using that reputation to try and ruin careers with lies leaves him morally in the red.

But hey, whatever Judgement he receives in the beyond is obviously not up to me.