Posted by Wayne Parham [ 67.66.230.67 ] on October 10, 2004 at 11:23:54:

In Reply to: Scientific Inquiry posted by wunhuanglo on August 09, 2004 at 01:08:07:

I heard some comments about James Randi recently, and so I'm here to report the gossip. To tell the truth, it wasn't very flattering about Mr. Randi. He has been invited for interview on a popular 500+ station radio show, and he has consistently turned down the request. To me, this is unacceptable. If Mr. Randi truly wanted the facts to be exposed, then I think he might be willing to be interviewed. If he himself is not willing to be interviewed and investigated, then I am not sure he is worthy of interviewing and investigating anyone else.

The story below is one example of Randi's reaction to a challenge that didn't go his way:

Million-Dollar Psychic Challenge Awaits Brooklyn Girl

You know that I'm pretty skeptical about claims of the paranormal. I'm fascinated by them though too, so I like to read about them, and watch televisions specials and listen to radio shows. It is an interesting subject to me. But I am a skeptic, just like Randi.

On the other hand, I can see how Mr. Randi's zeal to disprove people might lead him to be more prone to obsessive blind ambition than they are. It's like the adage of an irresitable force meeting an immovable object. Both are absolutes, so both are just as unrealizable.

I guess my focus in this post is on zeal, and on how blindly the overzealous can be driven. I'm not sure it is any more important that Randi "shatters the illusion" of a "false claim" than maybe it is he realize that his own interest might make him even more blind. After all, he has a million dollars on the bets and a self-appointed mission to promote a "gospel" of his own making. That million dollars and his unwavering blind mindset that only his version of the truth is real might be more an illusion than the ones he tries to disprove. If he uses arrogance and intimidation to make his case, then he is just as blind as the Vatican charging Galileo.

Replies: