|
|
|
|
Steve Knight
New Member
4 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 11/20/2003 : 21:41:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Marcello Truzzi:
"...As you may know, my personal belief is that PK does not exist and that Uri is a conjuror. He's also a very good friend. I see him as very much in the tradition of Dunninger and Fred Marion, and I think he does has done a great deal of good in this world. I think the magical community should just have named him Magician of the Year back in the 1970s and let it go at that. Ironically, I suspect that today Uri may have more good friends in magic than Randi has.
I could not agree with this statement less. First off, if Geller is a conjurer, than he is misrepresenting what he does. That is no small thing. Any money he has received by demonstrating his "psychic" abilities was taken under false pretenses. It's one thing to fool people as a magician does. It is another thing dupe people, as Geller does. I wonder when Truzzi decided that lying was commendable? I also wonder exactly what good Geller has done for the world? I can think of many good things Randi has done. I guess it depends on your perspective... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2003 : 23:47:56 [Permalink]
|
Incidentally, when Mr. Truzzi refers to a libel suit against James Randi "won" by Eldon Byrd, it's important to mention that the jury awarded Mr. Byrd a grand total of $0 for his efforts. Apparently, the jury wasn't as impressed with the importance of Mr. Truzzi's testimony as Mr. Truzzi seems to be.
|
Paladin |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2003 : 03:19:02 [Permalink]
|
The enitre site's worth a look. It appears to be mostly a collection of newspaper and magazine articles, including this gem from from everybody's favorite pillar of verasity:
quote:
Weekly World News
May 4th 1999
Vol. 20 No. 32
PSYCHIC BENDS GRANNY'S CHOPPERS...
By PATRICIA GEORGE
LONDON - A shocked granny got a mind-boggling demonstration of Uri Geller's powers when her dentures suddenly twisted like pretzels as she watched the psychic perform on TV!
"I've never been a behever in the supernatural before, but I'm certainly convinced of Mr, Geller's psychic powers now," said Gertrude Marshall.
That aside  , there are some articles critical of Geller, including some that have links. There is also a lot of the usual; photos-through-the-lenscap, touch-healing, and so forth.
http://www.zem.demon.co.uk/uribib.htm
I like Geller. He has a most amusing habit of popping up at odd intervals and making outragous claims; like the stuck display at the Ozzy Olympics for example, which all but had me in hysterics.
You go, Uri!
Edited: Caffine...not...working..., yet..... Ah, there it goes!
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 11/21/2003 03:29:53 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2003 : 18:46:41 [Permalink]
|
Filthy wrote:quote:
The enitre site's worth a look.
Yes and no. The thing I found most lacking about the site is its failure to state its purpose.quote:
I like Geller. He has a most amusing habit of popping up at odd intervals and making outragous claims; like the stuck display at the Ozzy Olympics for example, which all but had me in hysterics.
You'll find a nice bit on him in this James Randi Commentary, about a third of the way down the page, the bit about "On Holiday With The Gellers." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2003 : 19:23:13 [Permalink]
|
I think we've been spammed again.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2003 : 07:32:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I like Geller. He has a most amusing habit of popping up at odd intervals and making outragous claims; like the stuck display at the Ozzy Olympics for example, which all but had me in hysterics.
We were watching the opening ceremony at home and near pissed ourselves laughing when the display got stuck. Poor Cathy Freeman standing there getting drenched as a collective nation willed the bloody thing up.
Probably the fault of some half arsed, lazy Aussie contractor too concerned with getting to the pub on Friday arvo for some beers with the boys......
We Australians are not renowned for our love of doing a job properly....unless it has anything to do with sport or drinking....our ex-Prime Minister held the world record for drinking a yard of beer (2 1/2 pints in 12 seconds) |
Mistakes are a part of being human. Appreciate your mistakes for what they are: precious life lessons that can only be learned the hard way. Unless it's a fatal mistake, which, at least, others can learn from.
Al Franken |
|
|
|
Steve Knight
New Member
4 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2004 : 15:42:20 [Permalink]
|
Dave W. - I felt that all of the pages on my site were self-explanatory in terms of "purpose", i.e. they provide information. For what it's worth I'm a sceptical admirer of Uri's, which unfortunately seems to put me at odds with both "sides".
Regards
Steve Knight
www.zem.demon.co.uk |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2004 : 18:20:27 [Permalink]
|
Steve Knight wrote:quote:
Dave W. - I felt that all of the pages on my site were self-explanatory in terms of "purpose", i.e. they provide information.
Without context on who the various authors are or why their various points of view should carry weight (or not, as the case may be), the information doesn't really inform. Especially true of the "Emails from Marcello Truzzi" page. Data doesn't exist in a vacuum. It takes context to make sense of it.
Also, is there a reason that Randi's numerous short items about Geller in Swift are left out of the Bibliography?quote:
For what it's worth I'm a sceptical admirer of Uri's, which unfortunately seems to put me at odds with both "sides".
I suppose that depends on what "sceptical admirer of Uri's" really means. What are you skeptical of, precisely? What are you an admirer of, precisely? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Steve Knight
New Member
4 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2004 : 18:27:25 [Permalink]
|
Dave: As far as Truzzi goes I felt that he was well enough known among sceptics to need no introduction, which is why I posted the link here. It would be impractical and probably pointless for me to provide potted biographies for all the authors whose articles appear in the bibliography or of the individuals quoted in various contexts; why for example should anyone accept my description of who Randi is and what he's about? If I'd written a negative "biog" of Randi then I'd have met your critera regarding context but you would have undoubtedly dismissed it, with some justification, as just one opinion among many.
Regarding Randi's "Swift" newsletter, I'd previously thought that it had only ever been published in electronic form and so it wasn't included in the bibliography; the internet has countless references to Geller, far to many to list, and I'd decided at the outset to concentrate primarily on printed material. Having done a search this evening I've discovered that early issues were in printed form so I'll be checking over the next few days for references to Geller and adding those to the bibliography.
I'd have thought it obvious what a "sceptical admirer" was sceptical of - his claim to psychic powers. What I admire is his showmanship and technical ability, as did James Randi himself, at least in the early days.
Finally, I would be genuinely grateful if members of this forum took a good look around my site and offered any form of constructive criticism or correction of facts or interpretation.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2004 : 23:31:10 [Permalink]
|
Steve Knight wrote:quote:
Dave: As far as Truzzi goes I felt that he was well enough known among sceptics to need no introduction, which is why I posted the link here.
I'd been what I consider to be a "skeptic" for at least a couple of years before I ever heard of Truzzi, and then I only first heard his name in a sort of history of CSICOP. 20 years ago, he probably was well-known enough to not need any introduction to readers of this site or of yours. Now, I wouldn't be so sure. Even just four years ago, while I knew some of the "big names" in skepticism (Randi, Kurtz, Gardner, and Nickell, for examples), I would have asked "who the heck is Truzzi?"quote:
It would be impractical and probably pointless for me to provide potted biographies for all the authors whose articles appear in the bibliography or of the individuals quoted in various contexts...
This is probably mostly correct for the more-or-less random reporters who do a toss-off story on Geller. I don't even particularly care who they are, or why I should listen to them. But I note what appear to be several regular columnists doing repeated articles on Geller. For the person who doesn't have the time to read every article those people have written which touches on the subject of paranormal powers, some background would probably be appreciated, at least regarding why they've done more than one piece (for example, whether they appear to be, overall, supportive or dismissive of Geller).quote:
...why for example should anyone accept my description of who Randi is and what he's about?
Well, if you are correct, people will accept it. Any skeptic who considers Randi to be sacrosanct or infallible isn't much of a skeptic.quote:
If I'd written a negative "biog" of Randi then I'd have met your critera regarding context but you would have undoubtedly dismissed it, with some justification, as just one opinion among many.
Please, don't assume what I or anyone else will "dismiss." Again, it doesn't speak well of any skeptics you might be trying to reach if you presume that they're unwilling to hear negative words about skeptical "Idols."quote:
Regarding Randi's "Swift" newsletter, I'd previously thought that it had only ever been published in electronic form and so it wasn't included in the bibliography; the internet has countless references to Geller, far to many to list, and I'd decided at the outset to concentrate primarily on printed material. Having done a search this evening I've discovered that early issues were in printed form so I'll be checking over the next few days for references to Geller and adding those to the bibliography.
Swift is one thing I would consider so well-known that its exclusion, in printed or electronic format from a bibliography on Geller would seem odd.quote:
I'd have thought it obvious what a "sceptical admirer" was sceptical of - his claim to psychic powers. What I admire is his showmanship and technical ability, as did James Randi himself, at least in the early days.
Coincidentally, I'm reading Skeptical Odysseys these days, and just after you posted the "sceptical admirer" comment, I ran across this, by Martin Gardner (on page 360 of the hardcover):quote:
...Kurtz called a meeting [in 1976] attended by psychologist Ray Hyman, magician James Randi, sociologist Marcello Truzzi, and myself. This was the beginning of CSICOP. Its first periodical, the Zetetic, was for a short time edited by Truzzi.
It soon became apparent that Truzzi's plans for the magazine were not the same as those of others on the founding board. Truzzi regarded "debunk" as a dirty word. He wanted out periodical to provide scholarly discussions between skeptics and fringe scientists. He disliked calling anyone a crank. Marcello has always had a friendly, at times admiring, attitude towards pseudoscientists and psychic con artists. He seldom perceives them as any sort of threat to science or to the public. Indeed, in recent years he has become a personal friend of Uri Geller; not that he believes Uri has psychic powers, as I understand it, but he admires Uri for having made a fortune by pretending not to be a magician.
Personally, I would share the views of Truzzi (according to Gardner) if I were a social Darwinist. I'm not, however, and so have a hard time condoning the fleecing of the public in any way. If this picture of Truzzi's opinion is one you share, Mr. Knight, I'd be curious to know if you consider yourself to be a social Darwinist or not, at least as far as people like Geller are concerned. In other words, do people who "know better" have a responsibility to inform the public of Geller's non-psychic nature, or do the people who buy into his schtick deserve what they get?
For people who might not know the rest of the story, at least from Gardner's perspective, the next paragraph continues:quote:
For the rest of us on the founding board, to expect our periodical to treat outrageous pseudoscience with respect was like expecting a liberal or socialist magazine to seek articles by right-wing extremists. Of course dialogue is possible with competent scientists who hold controversial views, such as superstring theorists, or defenders of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, but we believe that dialogue with, say, an astrologer or homeopathic doctor or a historian who denies the Holocaust would be as fruitless as exchanging ideas with a flat earther. The dispute with Truzzi could not be resolved, and Truzzi resigned from CSICOP. He took with him the name Zetetic, which had previously been the title of his own periodical. We changed the name of ours to the Skeptical Inquirer.
Lastly, you said,quote:
Finally, I would be genuinely grateful if members of this forum took a good look around my site and offered any form of constructive criticism or correction of facts or interpretation.
Please consider some of the above to be just that.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Steve Knight
New Member
4 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2004 : 16:24:17 [Permalink]
|
Dave: Point taken about Truzzi, perhaps it was a bit presumptuous of me as it was some time before I encountered Truzzi's name myself. In truth my site doesn't provide a good overview of the Geller debate or it's personalities but then it was never intended to. The bibliography was originally a pet project done for my own benefit as was the page on Uri's drawing duplications. Eventually I decided to put them on the net, the only real aim as such was to provide a useful research tool with links to as much raw source material as possible.
My apologies for implying you were an avid "Randi-ite". I generally try not to tar all those on either side of the debate with the same brush, though sadly the stereotype often fits.
The ethics of Uri's claims are something I consciously choose to overlook because I enjoy what he does, i.e. conjuring which I have loved since a child. Those who despise him and debunk him have that right and in many ways I can understand their position; the uncritical acceptance of paranormal claims is something that often drives me to distraction but in Geller's case my personal bias overcomes any sense of moral outrage. Besides, so many conjurers have made similar claims that I'd have to take issue with them too. (see www.zem.demon.co.uk/claims.htm)
"Swift" - None of the online issues I searched contained any mention of Geller. Any references you can provide would be most welcome.
Regards
Steve Knight
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2004 : 17:05:24 [Permalink]
|
Randi's "Commentaries" have been Swift for a several months now, I believe. At least going back to the summer of 2003. I forget the changeover date. See the link I put in my first post to this thread for one mention of Geller in Swift. Searching Randi's site for Geller results in 164 hits.
Will answer your post further soon. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2004 : 21:49:04 [Permalink]
|
Steve wrote:quote:
Dave: Point taken about Truzzi, perhaps it was a bit presumptuous of me as it was some time before I encountered Truzzi's name myself.
Just a single sentence of background, or even just a link to some other site with background, would satisfy many of the folks who might run across you site when just out surfing.quote:
In truth my site doesn't provide a good overview of the Geller debate or it's personalities but then it was never intended to. The bibliography was originally a pet project done for my own benefit as was the page on Uri's drawing duplications. Eventually I decided to put them on the net, the only real aim as such was to provide a useful research tool with links to as much raw source material as possible.
Frankly, the comment I made earlier was simply to point out that you should, somewhere on your site, have the above three sentences, so that people who ask, "but what's this all about" have an answer. It doesn't have to be a big, complex autobiographical page explaining every nuance.quote:
My apologies for implying you were an avid "Randi-ite". I generally try not to tar all those on either side of the debate with the same brush, though sadly the stereotype often fits.
I agree that the stereotype often fits, but you'll always find exceptions. I'm generally able to find some faults in people I think of as "great," just to remind myself that they are, indeed, human. Randi's a good guy, but sometimes he goes too far, and other times not far enough. Those are problems that many people face who aren't me.  quote:
The ethics of Uri's claims are something I consciously choose to overlook because I enjoy what he does, i.e. conjuring which I have loved since a child. Those who despise him and debunk him have that right and in many ways I can understand their position; the uncritical acceptance of paranormal claims is something that often drives me to distraction but in Geller's case my personal bias overcomes any sense of moral outrage.
Unfortunately, I think I've got the opposite problem. Geller's made so many ridiculous claims that it's spoiled any of the entertainment value in his "performances" for me. There appear, to me (once a wanna-be magician without the necessary dexterity or acting skills), to be many good performers in the world who've never claimed that what they do requires "real" magic. As such, it's been so long since I've seen or heard of Geller doing anything new and/or interesting that it's very easy to ignore any superb work he might have done before I was aware of him and his claims.quote:
Besides, so many conjurers have made similar claims that I'd have to take issue with them too. (see www.zem.demon.co.uk/claims.htm)
Which brings us to the next point: Your Randi quotes are over 50 years old. He's obviously turned around since then. Adding one of his more-recent quotes about "turning to the light" might be appropriate. Can't say the same about any of the others, since I don't know most of them well at all. But more-recent Geller quotes might be appropriate also, since he seems to be getting farther and farther away from the mainstream as time goes by.quote:
"Swift" - None of the online issues I searched contained any mention of Geller. Any references you can provide would be most welcome.
Boy, was I wrong about when Swift went online-only. My cheeks are pink.
Now, I understand, Steve, that you're probably not interested in the numerous places in which Randi mentions Geller in passing (for example, "So-and-so, an associate of Uri Geller's..."), but for completeness sake, they're listed below. In fact, other than the books listed first (which you already know about, but other might not), every mention of Geller on the JREF web site is included below. Even if it doesn't help you, Steve, it may help or at least entertain someone else, so here it is...
Randi's Books:A single magazine article:Randi's Commentaries:- October 25, 1999
- February 27, 2000
- March 5, 2000
- May 15, 2000
- June 19, 2000
- September 10, 2000
- Septerber 17, 2000
- September 24, 2000
- OCtober 22, 2000
- November 24, 2000
- December 8, 2000
- December 15, 2000
- December 22, 2000
- December 29, 2000
- February 23, 2001
- March 2, 2001
- March 9, 2001
- March 16, 2001
- March 23, 2001
- March 30, 2001
- April 6, 2001
- April 20, 2001
- May 4, 2001
- June 1, 2001
- June 15, 2001
- July 13, 2001
- July 20, 2001
- July 27, 2001
- August 3, 2001
- August 10, 2001
- http://www.randi.org/jr/08-31-01.ht
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
