As I noted, one of the first things I encountered while looking into organized "Skepticism" was that it had a long record of well documented dishonesty and fraud that has been successfully masked with a facade of truth seeking and scientific integrity. I came across that record behind the cover story by the most casual of research practices, looking for it and checking the evidence used to support the charges. That's something we were taught to do in Jr. high when they started teaching us how to write research papers. It is something that is regularly not done when looking at the claims of the "Skeptics". Looking at the reaction of the "Skeptics", the self-promoted uphoders of evidence based truth and science, to the responsible external critics might provide a clue into why most journalists go with the PR hand outs given them by the "Skepticism" industry. To criticize them will get you a massive and concerted attack. That was seen in the sTARBABY scandal, when it was one of their own who exposed the Nixonian cover-up and the founding incompetence of the scandal with hard facts and science. It is, if anything, more so to any fact-based external critics. And in no other area of reporting is that more true than when looking into the real record of James Randi.
In looking at the petroleum and gun industries, creationism, climate change denial, Sarah Palin, and other phenomena the character of their PR operations is most accurately seen as industries. Those industries around some core of interest generate jobs and careers and a hierarchy. There are people who make their living from advocating and promoting the interests of their industry, some of them make a career of it, some of them make a small fortune find fame through becoming synonymous with the alleged principles they claim to represent. Wayne LaPierre is a shill for the gun industry who has a large following and the power to pervert national, state and local governments based on his PR. Sarah Palin is an industry and brand name in herself. When someone gets that big, others in their industry have a lot to lose by challenging them and might gain by going along with their promotion. It's rare for a gifted, Machiavellian type to find both the opportunity and the back bone to challenge the biggest names who economics might misidentify as their competitors.
Needless to say, or at least one wishes it were needless to say it, science is supposed to filter out such interests in order to protect its results from at least the crude and obvious forms of self-interest. The failure to exclude that should be seen as making statements claimed to be scientific suspect and impose a burden on the one making the claims to show that their interest hasn't biased their results. But that is not the case when it is a matter of "Skeptical" interest. By propping up ideological materialism, the "Skepticism" industry is frequently given carte blanche to promote its ideology as "science", often by professional scientists who work in "Skepticism" as a side job or a retirement career. In those cases the use of a legitimate scientific identity for purposes of self interest does nothing for the integrity of science while allowing even open frauds to escape exposure. That is exactly what the sTARBABY scandal consisted of. The collective body of science has had decades to notice and do something to correct this and, with a small number of exceptions, it has chosen to maintain the facade of its colleagues. In the face of that the media out of both ignorance and cowardice, helps maintain that facade.
Needless to say, or at least one wishes it were needless to say it, science is supposed to filter out such interests in order to protect its results from at least the crude and obvious forms of self-interest. The failure to exclude that should be seen as making statements claimed to be scientific suspect and impose a burden on the one making the claims to show that their interest hasn't biased their results. But that is not the case when it is a matter of "Skeptical" interest. By propping up ideological materialism, the "Skepticism" industry is frequently given carte blanche to promote its ideology as "science", often by professional scientists who work in "Skepticism" as a side job or a retirement career. In those cases the use of a legitimate scientific identity for purposes of self interest does nothing for the integrity of science while allowing even open frauds to escape exposure. That is exactly what the sTARBABY scandal consisted of. The collective body of science has had decades to notice and do something to correct this and, with a small number of exceptions, it has chosen to maintain the facade of its colleagues. In the face of that the media out of both ignorance and cowardice, helps maintain that facade.
James Randi is, as I noted yesterday, the most famous figure in the "Skepticism" industry. His wrinkled little bearded old face has been to it what the gecko is to Geico or Flo is to Progressive. Randi and his friends have created a situation in which his credibility is intrinsically bound up to the ideological effort of "Skepticism". Any major exposure of James Randi's numerous crimes against the truth would seriously damage the "Skeptics" brand, any serious research into parapsychology which produces significant positive results will expose their industry to serious doubt.
There is no more widely known aspect of the Randi con than his "million dollar challenge". Many people have noted that even in the face of overwhelming experimental data supporting something such as telepathy, the immediate response by those who will not or cannot understand that data will be "Why haven't you won the Randi challenge?" I will deal with the fraud that the "million dollar challenge" has always been in detail later. For now, Randi gets to control every aspect of it and the ever morphing rules of it. The fraud that the Randi challenge is has been documented for decades. In fact, as part of his expose of the sTARBABY scandal, Dennis Rawlins quoted Randi, his ideological ally in "Skepticism" and his personal friend as saying to him that he would never have to pay as he always had an out, a "$10,000 challenge back then. It should never be forgotten that Randi is a deceiver and escape artist by profession, his entire stock and trade depends on getting away with deception and covering up reality.
Scientists who man parts of the James Randi "Educational" Foundation certainly know that there is nothing scientific about his phony challenge. Yet they participate willingly, enthusiastically in the fraud. Those in the "Skepticism" industry who also work in science obviously know the rules are rigged to never have to pay out even if the "million to one" "challenge" is met.
Any scientist who is associated with James Randi, any of those who promote his "challenge" as if it had any kind of scientific value or any intellectual integrity must be asked, would they be willing to have their work judged by the same standards they promote?
Would any of the scientists who participate in the James Randi "Educational" Foundation or his "Amazing" events submit their work or the work they have cited to the standards of the Randi Challenge? Would they accept those as disqualifying the controlled research into their professional field?
There is no more widely known aspect of the Randi con than his "million dollar challenge". Many people have noted that even in the face of overwhelming experimental data supporting something such as telepathy, the immediate response by those who will not or cannot understand that data will be "Why haven't you won the Randi challenge?" I will deal with the fraud that the "million dollar challenge" has always been in detail later. For now, Randi gets to control every aspect of it and the ever morphing rules of it. The fraud that the Randi challenge is has been documented for decades. In fact, as part of his expose of the sTARBABY scandal, Dennis Rawlins quoted Randi, his ideological ally in "Skepticism" and his personal friend as saying to him that he would never have to pay as he always had an out, a "$10,000 challenge back then. It should never be forgotten that Randi is a deceiver and escape artist by profession, his entire stock and trade depends on getting away with deception and covering up reality.
Scientists who man parts of the James Randi "Educational" Foundation certainly know that there is nothing scientific about his phony challenge. Yet they participate willingly, enthusiastically in the fraud. Those in the "Skepticism" industry who also work in science obviously know the rules are rigged to never have to pay out even if the "million to one" "challenge" is met.
Any scientist who is associated with James Randi, any of those who promote his "challenge" as if it had any kind of scientific value or any intellectual integrity must be asked, would they be willing to have their work judged by the same standards they promote?
Would any of the scientists who participate in the James Randi "Educational" Foundation or his "Amazing" events submit their work or the work they have cited to the standards of the Randi Challenge? Would they accept those as disqualifying the controlled research into their professional field?
That is an entirely rhetorical question because the answer is clearly no. Little to no science could meet the ever shifting, clearly fraudulent standards of the Randi Challenge. Yet these scientists promote it as having some kind of value in discovering the truth. The question for those who go along on the basis of those scientists' reputation is why they aren't discredited for their part in the con. Why hasn't science done anything about it?
No comments:
Post a Comment