Sylvia Browne, John Edward, the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Bad Astronomy, and More …
Where is Sylvia?
A Psychic Sylvia Browne has accepted completely the terms of the million-dollar test, which I clearly outlined on a September 3rd appearance with her on the Larry King Live TV show. This is very encouraging, and we’ve been working to get things together on this end. Now it’s Sylvia’s move. All that remains is to determine a date for the test.
Ms. Browne need not devote any more than about 30 minutes to this test, and it will be done by telephone on a day and a time of her choosing. She will give a reading for a person chosen at random from among ten of the persons who applied. There will be no feedback from the subject, and Sylvia has said that she needs none, not even the name of the person—though we insist on providing the name, gender, and age, so that the chosen person will be clearly identified; it would not do to have any doubt about who was the chosen subject. The subject will then consider the reading carefully, and will provide us with a score between 0 and 10 for the applicability of the reading. Following this, either a transcript of the reading will be provided to each of the other nine persons in the target pool, or each will hear an audio tape of the reading, and will similarly score the applicability of the reading.
We await Sylvia Browne’s response. All she need do is choose a week, a day, and a time for the test to take place. She can notify us by e-mail, postal letter, fax, or by telephone call.
John Edward
Medium John Edward’s Crossing Over show was about to tap into the recent WTC tragedy, when Broadcasting & Cable magazine reported that he would “feature attempts to communicate with victims of the September 11th attacks” in several episodes airing next month during November sweeps. (“Sweeps” refers to a period during which pollsters take figures on who watches what on TV, as a guide for rates that can be charged sponsors by the networks for exposure to the public.) Steve Rosenberg, president of Studios USA domestic syndication, told B&C that the shows would “be done tastefully … and won’t be exploitative.” Rosenberg said that the producers had received several phone calls from surviving family members asking to speak to Edward, who claims to communicate with the dead. “It seemed wrong not to do it,” Rosenberg said. What’s “wrong” here, Mr. Rosenberg, is that Edward is doing this farcical, cruel hoax, at all! He’s a vulture, an opportunist who callously feeds on grief and uncertainty, on fear and need. Thankfully the show idea was pulled due to public pressure.
Oh George …!
My comments about John Edward in the last issue of SKEPTIC prompted an attack by a chap we’ll just call, “George,” and I feel I should provide readers with an analysis of his commentary. This is a good example of how difficult it is to get through to those who come to the table poorly prepared …
George apparently perceives (using his five senses and who knows what else) that I’ve “declined” to respond to his comments. Au contraire, Georges! I have a busy life, and I’m often distracted by somewhat more important matters than answering to presumptive criticisms. But it’s Saturday afternoon, we’re waiting for a hurricane to arrive in Florida, and I’ll spend a few minutes to clarify a bit of George’s world view …
He writes:
“An ‘overly rational’ world view would be one which excludes the existence of a sixth sense, the importance of perceptual phenomena such as intuition, and what preliminary scientific data seems [sic] to indicate may be anomalous communications which do not originate in the encephalon (crassly referred to as ‘talking to the dead,’ as in the case of John Edward, the subject of my letter in opposition to Randi’s ‘ ‘Twas Brilling.’”
Oh, enthusiastically agreed to, George! With music! Though I would disagree with the term “overly rational” for the same reason that “overly terminal” would offend my idea of lexicological propriety, I cannot imagine ever excluding the possible existence of more than five senses. I’ve argued for years that there are such things as the sensing of temperature, of pressure, of acceleration, of balance, and others, that might well add to that main list. But I’m sure that George means to chide me for excluding ESP and other possibilities, which I have never done.
I chafe at the fact that folks like George are so fond of ascribing to me a wide spectrum of attitudes, opinions, statements, and convictions that I have never embraced, nor espoused. I certainly have not, ever, stated that such extra-senses as ESP—in it’s variety of identities—cannot or do not exist. I have said only that the evidence for such matters is not sufficient. Santa Claus, too, boasts much evidence, but the quality is poor. Perhaps even George will agree with that evaluation.
Intuition most certainly exists and is a valuable asset in our day-to-day functioning. Some intuition is hardwired into us at birth and some develops from experience. Much to George’s surprise, I’m sure, I have been an ardent consumer of this mode of perception ever since I can remember. Again, it is a presumption by George that I deny the existence of this useful modus. (The difference between intuition and instinct arises here, but is a matter for another time.)
Never use a simpler word when a more profound one is available. Just hope that abstruseness may be mistaken for erudition.
George states that “preliminary scientific data seems to indicate” the existence of an ability to communicate with dead folks. I agree. The words “preliminary” and “seems” are operative words here. As always, I’m willing to be shown—a million dollars worth of willing—but I’ve yet to be presented with even this “preliminary” data, and so I’ve no idea whether it’s scientific, or not. I was promised this data (an old story, I know) but it was never given me. Why? Ask others; I can only suspect the reason.
(For the unsophisticated reader, I will explain that George writes, “encephalon” rather than “brain.” Never use a simpler word when a more profound one is available. Just hope that abstruseness may be mistaken for erudition.)
But George continues:
“To answer your second question, yes. I would advocate that a ‘proper world view’ would cease to right [sic] off experiences and phenomena commonly referred to as belonging to ‘the residue effect.’”
Okay. Agreed. I think.
And,
“It is my opinion that scientists should not dismiss the exigency of examining mediumistic phenomena as potential science fact versus science fiction.”
Again, yes, though I know of no scientist who has advocated dismissing such a possible line of investigation, but I do know of many who decline to pursue the matter simply because the evidence is just so shoddy, or because they have better things to occupy their attention.
George concludes:
“… Mr. Randi, unfortunately, declines to communicate with me presumably because he has made up his mind on the matter.”
There you go again, George, presuming. And wrongly presuming.
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
A recent news item referred to “the Beatles’ guru,” who, it said, is “hoping to use transcendental meditation for world peace.” You guessed it. The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Indian mystic, is back. He claims he taught The Beatles and Mick Jagger about Transcendental Meditation some thirty years ago. Well, I dunno about Mick, but the Beatles dumped the whole thing soon after they started the course. They were practical guys.
The Giggling Guru says all he needs are some “American billionaires” to create his antidote to global terrorism. He says he’ll assemble 40,000 yogis in India, trained in meditation and yogic “flying,” to create a spiritual force field. He needs $1 billion to build housing for the group and to pay their expenses while they meditate for harmony and world peace. That, he says, will “completely stop all this violence.” He says that if enough people gather to meditate and “fly”—that’s hopping about in the seated lotus position like a gigantic wounded frog—it will create a “force field” that can repel hatred and spread happiness in the world’s collective consciousness.
This sounded familiar to me, and a little file-searching came up with a 1982 advertisement by the TM folks that said:
“The World Government of the Age of Enlightenment offers to every government the invincible strategy of defense, which uses the infinite power and intelligence concentrated in the unified field of all the forces of nature. This will neutralize the destructive capabilities of all those who possess the power of destruction found at the electronic and nuclear levels.”
There’s a big difference between illusion and lies.
So such propositions are hardly new. And who might accept such an absurd project? One Pentagon spokesman, Army Major Tim Blair, we’re informed, told The Record newspaper in New Jersey that the Maharishi’s campaign is “a noble effort.” They didn’t ask my opinion …
To the Dark Side …?
An apologist/fan for David Copperfield has scolded the magicians who joined me in regrets over his recent “it’s for real” claim about a prediction trick he did in Germany. She wrote:
It’s a story. Do you think anyone would have enjoyed the illusion if he would have said … I made this prediction but it’s just an illusion, it’s not real … so sit back, relax and enjoy. David wanted you to know that “E.T.” was a puppet … do you think you would have enjoyed the movie if they would have flashed “E.T.” is a puppet every 2 seconds during the movie. I’m not saying that everything David says on stage is made up, because a lot of it’s true … but he’s a performer and this is illusion.
While this lady’s punctuation and spelling leave some confusion about her meaning, there’s a big difference between illusion and lies. Watching “E.T.,” we were prepared for an illusion before we entered the theater. Entering Copperfield’s theater, we’re also prepared that way. But this was not a stage-story, nor a script. It was done outside of that special, privileged, atmosphere, and I am absolutely certain that had David told the media that he’d done a super stunt, a trick, there would have been much more respect for him, and none of the deluded innocents accepting that this sort of miracle can be real.
Also, I’ve received the usual “why-won’t-you-reveal-the-trick” complaints. First, telling you how Copperfield did the trick wouldn’t help one bit. And, this is a trick that legitimate magicians use, to good effect, in their performances. I’m not about to ruin that aspect for them. As for those who choose to decide that I don’t know how it was done, well, that’s tough. I don’t care a whit what you think, and you’re welcome to your delusions. Arguments about, “Uri Geller’s a magician, too,” don’t count, because he insists that he’s not a magician, and doesn’t even know how to do any tricks. When I tell folks how to bend a spoon or read a message sealed in an envelope, I specify that it’s the way I do it, and that Mr. Geller says he does it by divine means.
Bottom line: No, I won’t reveal Copperfield’s method, though for the magicians out there, I’ll comment that had Dr. Jaks not lived, maybe David would have used another method for the trick …
Bad Astronomy, Great Book
A Book Review: Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, from Astrology to the Moon Landing “Hoax” by Philip Plait. Due out soon.
Astronomer Phil Plait, who is the guiding force behind www.badastronomy.com, was enraged, as I was, at the suggestion—promoted by FOX TV in a ludicrous “special”—that possibly the greatest adventure in our history, the Moon landing, was an elaborate, expensive, deliberate hoax perpetrated (for some obscure reason) on the public of the world. But I didn’t write a book about it, as Phil did. In fact, in Bad Astronomy, this wonderful author has provided us with just about every possible hoax, myth, notion, blunder, and bit of quackery that most of us will ever get to hear about—and he grandly and thoroughly erases every one with broad, long, strokes.
In doing my magic act years ago, I used to get a laugh at the end of one small trick, from the remark, “You see? Educational, as well as entertaining!” Well, Phil has provided the reader with both of those features. He gives us more than enough excellent answers to the usual party-bore’s declarations about standing eggs on end at the equinox, the direction water drains north and south of the equator, mirages, the latest UFO “flap,” and his/her astrologer’s latest success at predicting world-shaking events. We usually don’t have effective enough responses to these idiocies, but with Phil’s book firmly in hand, we are better armed and ready to let fly with the facts.
It’s not enough to express doubt about the claim that a “planetary alignment” won’t wipe out life on Earth. You have to have hard data. You can’t just say that astrology is bunk. You need hard data. You can scoff at palmistry and phrenology, but you need the figures and facts to fight it. Phil Plait has given us a readable, erudite, informative, useful, and highly entertaining book that contains simple experiments (thought and practical) and super demonstrations to make each of us into Mr. Wizard when the irrational claim shows up. Bad Astronomy is Good Science. Very good science …