Psychic (Sylvia Browne) Who Said Amanda Berry Was Dead Silent After Berry Is Found Alive

[William Seger]

276. Here, let me help YOU out

Someone else insinuating that Randi lied is not "documentation" that he did, in fact, lie.

However, you seem to have missed a recent example that at least comes closer to your accusation. In Storr's book, he recounts Randi's reply to a question about statements on his Swift blog about believing that drugs should be legalized and drug users should be allowed to "do themselves in" by overdosing. Storr said, "But it’s Social Darwinism." Randi replied, "The survival of the fittest, yes. The strong survive."

That's an appalling thing to believe and to say, for sure, and I certainly won't defend Randi for saying it. But after the book was published, Randi denied saying that he was a Social Darwinist, when in fact the recorded interview proves that following Storr's suggestion that his opinion amounted to Social Darwinism, Randi did say "I'm a believer in Social Darwinism." So, Randi's denial was either a lie or a very faulty memory. It hardly matter, really, because what Randi had written on his blog and did say about drug users in the interview was an example of Social Darwinist thinking, whether or not he used the specific term, so the denial was disingenuous at the very least.

So I cannot defend Randi's denial, but he has since retracted the denial, although he still maintains that he does not recall that part of the interview, and he claims that at the time he was not really familiar with the precise historical meaning of the term:

The unfair suggestion that Mr. Storr tried to provoke me, or that he’s a “bad guy,” is something I must dismiss, since I believe I would have remembered that sort of behavior. In any case, I now know much more about the described encounter, and I maintain that I would never have said I was a Social Darwinist, since I only recently learned in detail what that term really means, and in fact I was quite ignorant of the history of the movement organized around that false idea.

Neither you nor I can say if that disclaimer is a lie or a further evasion, and the only weak defense of Randi's denial of what he specifically said in the interview is that we are talking about an 84-year-old man and an interview that was several years ago, so his memory could have been faulty. But as I said above, I'll admit that his denial of using the specific term was disingenuous in any case. However, the issue we are discussing here is Randi's honesty, and Randi did retract his denial and furthermore has recanted his position on drugs:

I’m well aware that I sometimes “shoot from the hip” and speak on things about which I know very little. In this present situation, I published my personal opinions about drug addiction without knowing very much about the neuroscience behind addiction, or the addiction recovery field. Not only did I say some deeply regrettable and insensitive things, but as I’ve learned more about the questions and issues at hand, I accept that I have been wrongheaded on a number of topics related to these issues. Even at 84, I’m still learning. Please bear with me, folks.

In a recent Tweet, Shorr was gracious enough to say:

Much kudos to James Randi for retracting his statement about our interview. I'm surprised and impressed. Good on him.

So there you go, a documented example of Randi lying, either in fact or spirit, but I have also documented that he retracted his statements, both about the interview and his beliefs about drug users.

So now that we have firmly established that Randi is an imperfect human being, I wonder if you will be so kind as to address my original issue which you continue to evade, which is that it's completely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not paranormal claims have been or can be proved. As I said, anyone who doubts the fairness of the Paranormal Challenge is perfectly free to ignore it and instead provide whatever evidence they feel proves their claims. And yet, after any amount of Randi-bashing that you can dig up, those claims remain unproved. Again, what the Challenge really does is to call public attention to that fact, and I do believe that most people "get it," which is exactly why woo-peddlers instead want to focus on Randi.