After catching a short video of world renowned psychic Sylvia Browne making a complete fool of herself on The Montel Williams Show (see the video at the end of this post), i’ve become really interested in the debunking of self proclaimed psychics and faith healers. After a quick look around the net, i discovered that Harry Houdini had actually dedicated the late part of his career to debunking such frauds using trickery to convince people that they were blessed with some sort of paranormal powers. Thanks to YouTube and Google Video, i’ve come across a few short documentaries and news pieces mostly surrounding the plight of one man: James Randi, or ‘The Amazing Randi’. A world renowned magician, James Randi spends his off time exposing unbelievable claims of paranormal abilities. He’s spent a good part of his career offering thousands of dollars to anyone who can prove to him that their psychic powers are real. He’s even offered the aforementioned Sylvia Browne ONE MILLION DOLLARS to prove her psychic abilities by simply applying some controls to her demonstration of power. She has yet to take part in his experiment. He’s also known for helping expose spoon bender Uri Geller on The Tonight Show (see the video here) and shedding some light on faith healer/televangelist Peter Popoff’s so-called ‘devine powers’. In the short documentary ‘James Randi in Australia’, Randi disproves the ‘water devining’ phenomena using a series of controlled tests. Very interesting stuff. Check it out at the link below, and also have a look at the great appearance Randi made on ‘That’s My Line’ (hosted by a young Bob Barker) in which he exposes James Hydrick’s ability to move objects with his mind!
Related Link: Google Video – James Randi in Australia
great post!
thanks!
Anyone interested in any of this should check out Pen & Teller’s Showtime show ‘Bullshit’. It’s sort of like mythbusters, but deals with things like ESP, psychics, alien abductions, alternative medicine and so on.
Bullshit has its own bias to it. eg – they dont believe in global warming. Penn Gillette is a pretty hardcore free market libertarian so he does have his own political biases, but my real reason for not liking Bullshit is they dont (and in a way cant) make an interesting case in just half an hour, and i’m not really a fan of the selection of experts they bring in. even on shows where i agree with them i look at it and go “man, you guys could be saying this this this and this and you go with THAT as your big point?”
so yeah, not a fan of Bullshit.
James Randi is awesome though. he has books in stores, I hope to pick one up soon.
It’s pretty obvious that Bullshit expresses biased views and opinions. But I think alot of people get turned off of it when they disagree with something that you personally have a belief in. You say it has its bias because they don’t believe in global warming…do you bring that up because you disagree with them? I’m sure there’s lots of people out there who believe in tarot card reading, and will say the same thing about the show.
I’ve watched the environmental episode, and although they don’t get behind global warming, they don’t completely discredit it. They just remind people that the verdict is still out on certain aspects of it. Also, that episode was shot in 2002, BEFORE an inconvenient truth. It just seems funny that your example happens to be one that you don’t agree with them on.
I’ve seen the 9/11 conspiracy theory episode, and i do think that they chose the two craziest examples they could find. (as they do with most of their interviews) But you have to be reminded that it is a tv show, and it’s number one goal is to entertain and be sensational. I don’t think they hide the fact that they’re bias. They really don’t have to, seeing as most of the topics they cover are so ridiculous.
i dont have a problem with it having a bias, sorry to confuse – however i will admit it can get in the way of enjoying the show. i was just getting it out of the way to bring up my real reasons for disliking the show, and that is their way of arguing…
Yeah, they’re pretty aggressive. But the very first episode of the show explains that they’re overuse of swearing and what not is a replacement for accusations that could end in a lawsuit. So if they think someone is a fraud, they just call them an fucking asshole. Still a little weak, but I think that thus far the show has brought up some interesting takes on certain things that people just assume are ‘legit’.