General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: James Randi: debunking the king of the debunkers [View all]CrawlingChaos
(1,893 posts)Randi did lie about the research. He eventually admitted it.
What you posted was yet another one of Randi's ever-changing versions of what happened with Sheldrake. Since Randi has already been shown to have lied about this, it is meaningless.
This thread is about Randi's dishonesty and overall lack of integrity. If you want to debate the validity of Sheldrake's work as a separate issue, that's totally fair and I have no problem with that. But to use Randi's words against Sheldrake is not fair, since Randi has been shown to have zero credibility here. If you're not going to be scrupulous and fair in your assessments, skepticism is meaningless.
I'm curious though - and I'm asking sincerely - why the anger at Sheldrake? Do you actually know anything about him or are you just going by what Randi says? I understand and share the anger toward the Sylvia Browne's of the world, but if someone wants to do psi research (and they certainly love it at the Pentagon), why should that bother anyone? Isn't that what we want - inquiry using the scientific method? If there's nothing to it, it will be self-limiting.
You said Randi didn't lie and Sheldrake did. Can you point to something concrete that supports that assumption because I am truly not seeing it.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):