James Randi Interview

IrishSideOfMoon

Hi Guys,
We recently had a very entertaining and enjoyable interview with James Randi. We covered Critical Thinking and some of his more famous debunking cases. He had just come back from The amazing Meeting 7 which was held out in Vegas and was in good form. Link provided below, feedback very welcome.

http://irishsideofthemoon.blogspot.com/search/label/Irish%20Side%20Of%20The%20Moon%20Interviews

---

Regards,

Shane
http://irishsideofthemoon.blogspot.com/
http://twitter.com/IrishSideOfMoon

rikerdonegal

I work on the show, with Shane (the OP) and now that we've concluded the first season of interviews, I can definitely say Randi was my favourite guest.

I love this interview. I feel like I could comb it for quotes and fill several pages with self-evident wisdom.

He's a great guy.

====
http://irishsideofthemoon.blogspot.com/

condra

With all due respect:

Massive WTF with regards to your website/blog and YouTube channel. Are you free-thinking skeptics or looney conspiracy theorists?

Your interview with James Randi was utterly cringeworthy and I'm astounded he agreed to it in the first place. You ask him about Dave von Kleist? WHAT? Don't insult the mans intelligence. Then have the audacity to recommend some reading for him.
Imagine talking to Richard Dawkins on the telephone and trying to convince him to read David Icke.

Regarding your website. I don't see the link between scientific skeptic and master debunker James Randi, and 911 nutjob Dave vonKleist, delusional psychotic David Icke, or pretentious conspiracy twat Michael Tsarion, etc.

There is a HUGE difference between scientific skepticism and cultural paranoia.

I think you might be more interested in this section here, boards.ie -CONSPIRACY THEORIES:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?forumid=576

rikerdonegal

womoma wrote: »

Are you free-thinking skeptics or looney conspiracy theorists?

Oh, I don't think we would want either label, to be honest.

Why do we have to be either one of those?

IrishSideOfMoon

womoma wrote: »

With all due respect:

Massive WTF with regards to your website/blog and YouTube channel. Are you free-thinking skeptics or looney conspiracy theorists?

Your interview with James Randi was utterly cringeworthy and I'm astounded he agreed to it in the first place. You ask him about Dave von Kleist? WHAT? Don't insult the mans intelligence. Then have the audacity to recommend some reading for him.
Imagine talking to Richard Dawkins on the telephone and trying to convince him to read David Icke.

Regarding your website. I don't see the link between scientific skeptic and master debunker James Randi, and 911 nutjob Dave vonKleist, delusional psychotic David Icke, or pretentious conspiracy twat Michael Tsarion, etc.

There is a HUGE difference between scientific skepticism and cultural paranoia.

I think you might be more interested in this section here, boards.ie -CONSPIRACY THEORIES:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?forumid=576

Hi Womoma,
First thanx for taking the time to both listen to the interview and in turn post a reply. Like Michael already stated in his reply we neither claim nor want any of those titles that you associate with us.

The James Randi interview was a favorite of the team as a whole, we as a team and then on an individual level got a lot from James and the material he presents. James is a straight talking guy who doesn't pull any punches. It’s fair to say had his intelligence been insulted he would have been the first to say.

What is coming up a lot from the the research is peoples assumptions myself included that James is a "debunker" or in your case a "Master Debunker" James himself has stated many times that he does not see himself as a Debunker and if anyone is going to cringe it would be him at titles people bestow onto him.

I don't see the link between Richard Dawkins and David Icke. It’s an example given out of context which often happens. Critical Thinking doesn't just apply to People claiming to bend spoons or remote view etc etc, it’s a skill set that can applied to any topic.

Now 9/11 is still to this day a highly emotive subject. The interviewer was merely asking James had he looked at this subject matter and what was his opinion, for two reasons 1)as stated above its highly emotive and we would be interested in his opinion from the skill set he brings to the table 2) James is located in the New York, New Jersey area. After he had stated his views the interviewer did make reference to Dave Von Kliest, but also to Richard Gauge and Architects & Engineers for 9/11.

I don't want to label you with any titles so will say nothing more than you see merit in the philosophy of Skepticism by your participation on this forum, that being the case you have to look at the material that people on the other side of the debate present no matter how much you may disagree with it at the outset, that’s a hard skill to require to look at material without letting you biases interfere and contaminate the material before passing judgment.

Again I do appreciate your feedback and will try and take any of the constructive feedback on board. I do however take issue with belittling of people through name calling. You have every right to criticize the material, the interviewer, the questions etc but to bring debate down to gutter level cause you don’t agree with peoples view of the world in my opinion shows not only lack of respect for yourself, but also the view point you are trying to represent.

---

Regards,

Shane
http://irishsideofthemoon.blogspot.com/
http://twitter.com/IrishSideOfMoon

condra

IrishSideOfMoon wrote: »

Again I do appreciate your feedback and will try and take any of the constructive feedback on board. I do however take issue with belittling of people through name calling.

If you felt belittled by being *asked* if you were a looney conspiracy theorist, I think you may need to develop a tougher skin.

Either way, if you're going to make a mockery of the massacre of 3000 people by giving weight to 911 conspiracy theories, you will need to get used to being called names, and much worse things than a "looney conspiracy theorist". I'm sure if you talked to some of the families of 911 victims, they could think of a few.

Anyway, incase it wasn't clear, my main point was that interviewing James Randi, in the same series as those other people, is a bit like interviewing Jimmy Hendrix in the same series as Peter Andre and S Club 7.

I consider Randi a man of science, and a true skeptic, not a conspiracy theorist or a "fringe" celebrity. That's my opinion anyway.

While I expect you might reply, I'd rather not enter into a debate on this so forgive me if this is the last I say on the matter.

I am however curious to read the views of other skeptics on your Randi interview, website, etc. Perhaps I overreacted.

rikerdonegal

I appreciate that womoma has no interest in turning this into a debate and that's fine with me.

I accept that if womoma can't see a link between our guests in Season One then the fault is OURS not our listeners. We covered the links between guests, in depth, in our 10th and final show for the current block and - thanks to womoma - we will strive even harder to make in clear in our next block of shows.

womoma has made clear their desire not to reply on this matter so I will leave it to somebody else - who has not posted in this thread - to throw their opinion into the ring.

What I will say is this:

And this, like everying in our show, is based on our perceptions of things. And they are at fault then that is where the fault lies.

womoma wrote: »

If you felt belittled by being *asked* if you were a looney conspiracy theorist, I think you may need to develop a tougher skin.

It is my perception that if I am *asked* am I a 'looney conspiracy theorist' then I am being disrespected and my argument is being ridiculed. That is simply my perception, of course, but being asked 'are you a lunatic?' does not seem - to me - as being conducive to critical debate. Rather I would see it as labelling. A tactic to disempower and render further discussion pointless. Which is why I responded the way that I did. Simply saying I did not choose to be labelled in any way and refusing to enter into debate with a person that I had perceived as having made up their mind.

An even better example is an old example. The question: "Are you still beating your wife? Yes or No?" indicates more about the person asking the question than the person getting it. Saying "are you crazy?" to somebody is, I believe, an indication of what you believe about them. It says, to me, "I have made up my mind."

People are, of course, entitled to make up their minds. And I am entitled to have my own opinions and perceptions and express them in fair way. I am also entitled, I believe to keep my mind open and ask questions and look at things that people simply accept in a new way to see if I can learn from my thought processes.

womoma wrote: »

Either way, if you're going to make a mockery of the massacre of 3000 people by giving weight to 911 conspiracy theories, you will need to get used to being called names, and much worse things than a "looney conspiracy theorist". I'm sure if you talked to some of the families of 911 victims, they could think of a few.

Again, my perception of this comment is as follows: It is a standard tactic used to disempower an opposing viewpoint. We have discussed this more than once on the show. "How dare you think that? Is is disrespectful the the dead?" is an emotive way to keep the issues closed. Imagine a old black and white murder mystery where a suspect had been arrested and the private detective was discouraged from asking the Butler if he had an alibi for the time of the murder because it was somehow diespectful to the victim to wonder if somebody other than the suspect murdered him.

It is a train of thought that I do not find logical.

But that is just my own honest perception.

I'm sorry that we insulted you on such a deep level by including Mr. Randi in our programmes. We honestly revere the man and his way of looking at the world is a cornerstone of the way we approach all our topics. Having been in touch with the man, and his people, on more than one occasion we honestly do not feel that he has been insulted by use.

But, then, just like everything I had said here, that is just my honest perception of things based on my own examination of the evidence.

====
http://irishsideofthemoon.blogspot.com/

nozzferrahhtoo

For James Randi fans, you might enjoy the fact that he wrote the opening post to the new Atheist Ireland Group Blog:

http://blog.atheist.ie/?p=13