The "Pigasus Award" Ironies ...
Jeff Mishlove
The beautiful lady in the photo above (taken from the website of the James Randi Educational Foundation) is Brenda Dunne, Laboratory Manager, of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory (i.e., PEAR LAB) at Princeton University in New Jersey. Today, I received a lovely, unsolicited e-mail from her commenting on an essay I wrote -- endorsed by the board of directors of the Intuition Network titled, A Manifesto For Psychic Liberation. Here's what she wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Jeffrey,
A colleague just brought my attention to your Manifesto for Psychic Liberation and, as the recipient of James Randi's 2005 Pigasus Award <http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-03/033106mccrea.html>, I feel entitled, nay, obligated to endorse your mission wholeheartedly! Keep up the good work.
Love,
Brenda
-------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I feel obliged to return the favor by saying something about the many ironies surrounding James Randi's "Educational Foundation" and his "Pigasus Award." You see, the "Award" was intended to insult and embarass Brenda Dunne. But, to any educated reader, the satirical award is actually an embarrassment to James Randi and his cult-like followers.
The very symbol of Pigasus is suggestive of the impossible and unbelievable. After all, everyone knows that pigs don't fly -- and anybody who proposes that they do fly is clearly a crank or a simpleton. That is the simple-minded approach taken by James Randi in using this symbol for his satirical award. Typical of the arch debunkers (or, should I say Archie de Bunkers) of this world, the selection of this symbol displayed an ignorance of its deeper mythological meaning and heritage.
For example, the City of Cincinnati used the "flying pig" as an unofficial symbol expressive of the role played by the Wright Brothers, in nearby Dayton, of pioneering the entire field of aviation. The statue, below is displayed in the Cincinnati Airport.
Also, the Nobel and Pulitzer prize-winning novelist, John Steinbeck used a winged pig that he called "Pigasus" in his signature and his exlibris. His wife Elaine relates his sentiment that "Man must aspire though he be earth-bound".
Even more to the point, author Lewis Carroll, in Chapter 9 of Alice in Wonderland, portrayed the flying pig metaphor being used in an effort to stifle the human function of critical thought:
----------------------------------------------
"Thinking again?" the Duchess asked, with another dig of her sharp little chin.
"I've a right to think," said Alice sharply, for she was beginning to feel a little worried.
"Just about as much right," said the Duchess, "as pigs have to fly...."
----------------------------------------------
The irony, with regard to the James Randi Educational Foundation is that, while it claims to encourage critical thinking, it actually functions in some ways to stifle exactly that!
In attempting to lampoon Brenda Dunne, Randi criticized her for claiming that the PEAR LAB experiments showing the direct influence of mental intention upon quantum mechanical random event generators did not involve an attempt to prove the "paranormal." Randi's superficial argument was that direct mental influence is, by definition, "paranormal." However, Brenda Dunne (and her co-author Robert G. Jahn) had written a detailed, scientific book called Margins of Reality: The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World -- explaining how many different lines of scientific inquiry suggest that direct mental influence can be understood as a natural phenomena.
This is precisely the point that I made in my Manifesto For Psychic Liberation where I stated: "The abilities of the human psyche are natural - even though they may be labeled 'supernatural' or 'paranormal.'" (And, I assume that this is why Brenda chose to send me her lovely e-mail at this particular time.)
The other point made by Brenda, to which Randi took particular umbrage, is her (well-justified) claim that Randi's publicity stunt offer of $1,000,000 to anyone who can demonstrate paranormal phenomena to Randi's satisfaction is a "scam."
But, I believe Randi's offer is a scam. And, I will say why I believe it to be so, in very simple terms.
First of all, there is no doubt that Randi has used his alleged offer -- over a period of many years -- to generate enormous publicity for himself and his cult of debunkers.
Second of all, Randi's offer sets himself up as judge and jury. And, of course, he has not the slightest interest in losing the very game that he has created. A true prize would have an independent panel of neutral judges -- and these judges, not Randi, should be in control of prize money, to determine if and when it shall be released.
So while James Randi and his cult go around accusing the general public of falling for a wide variety of psychic scams, they themselves are engaged in perpetrating a scam of an equal and opposite sort. The final irony is that they are the very near a mirror image of the phonies they try to expose.
As long as they set about exposing the true frauds and schemes in the psychic world, they do the world a service. And, I applaud Randi and his ilk for that. But, in their fanatical zeal, they sometimes endeavor to put a stop to legitimate scientific and academic inquiry. (I know this, first hand, as they attempted to interfere with my own doctoral degree program in parapsychology at the University of California, Berkeley.) When they go this far, as they did with Brenda Dunne, they simply reveal the philosophical and moral emptiness of their position.
The great shame is how many people -- even reputable scientists -- have been duped by their publicity-seeking shenanigans.
Access: Public
alice in wonderland
May 2008
Wow, very well written piece, Jeff! I agree that there is definite irony in their use of the flying pig. Some people don't really get it, do they?
I'm really glad that you brought up Margins of Reality - it has been on my to-read-list for years! Glad to get the reminder and the slightly more personal-connection to the author; I think I will try and pick it up soon.
Thanks for this well thought out piece! And congrats on the pigasus!
Hear, hear! This reminds me of some text I wrote and titled, “Scientific Skepticism as Inertia,” which I feel inspired to include here as your wonderful blog entry reminds me of skepticism faced by the Wright brothers while developing the first airplanes. I sense that many people feel a need to slow down the pace of change, which they perhaps feel is coming too quickly for them to assimilate and understand.
Skepticism as Inertia
Rejection of new ideas is the norm in the field of science. New ideas and unusual inventions tend to face the strongest and most vociferous opposition. Such a cautious approach toward adopting new ideas means that some good ideas are dismissed, in order that unproven ideas not be too quickly accepted. Controversy is common among scientists when new hypotheses are first presented, until such time as reproducibility can ensure that experimental results can be repeated again and again according to the scientific method. As a consequence, numerous scientists throughout history have been called frauds by peers who were unwilling or unable to accept something that would require a change in their world view when their ideas were initially presented. Michael Faraday was called a charlatan by his contemporaries when he announced that he could generate an electric current merely by moving a magnet in a coil of wire.
In January 1905, more than a year after Wilbur and Orville Wright had flown their historic first flight at Kitty Hawk on December 17, 1903, Scientific American magazine carried an article ridiculing ‘alleged’ flights that the Wrights claimed to have made. With somber authority, the magazine cited as its main reason for doubting the Wrights the fact that the American press had failed to cover the alleged flights. Others who joined in the skeptic outcry were the New York Herald, the US Army, and numerous American scientists. Only when President Theodore Roosevelt ordered public trials at Fort Myers in 1908 could the Wright brothers confirm their claim and compel even the most zealous skeptics to accept the reality of heavier-than-air flying machines. In actuality, the Wright brothers had been successfully flying their flying machines in public demonstrations for five years before that historic flight, beginning in December 1903.
Most revolutionary modern day inventions, such as the scanning tunneling microscope that was invented in 1981, are still being met with intense skepticism and even ridicule when they are first announced. As physicist Max Planck observed in his book, “The Philosophy of Physics” 1936, “An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning.”
Taking the concept of skepticism as inertia to an extreme, some who call themselves skeptics are so determined to oppose new ideas that they feel are “bad” that they still cling to traditional historically accepted theories, even when popular opinion has since moved on. For example, members of the Flat Earth Society believe that planet Earth is not a sphere, but instead is flat and has five sides, and members of The Man Will Never Fly Memorial Society do not believe in flying machines.
Here is a further response from Brenda Dunne:
Hi Jeff,
This is fascinating stuff. Thank you for your enlightening article. I always appreciate your positive point of view.
Warmly,
Jodi
Note: I have slight modified the essay above today (Wednesday, April 5). Thanks to Loyd Auerbach, I realize that my information about Randi's $1,000,000 prize money is out of date. I had assumed that the money existed only in the form of pledges from Randi's followers. But, as I read his website more carefully, it is clear that funds are kept in an account at Goldman Sachs. So, the information I presented in an earlier draft of this blog, i.e., that Randi did not actually have the money, was inaccurate.
Thanks for the update on the availability of James Randi’s million dollar prize funds, Jeff. Even though the funds are supposedly available, your earlier point about the unliklihood of them ever being awarded still stands.
Most prize funds are typically awarded on some kind of regular basis, which truly shows good faith on the part of the awarding parties. The absence of any such regular awarding of funds is what makes Randi’s so-called “Million Dollar Challenge†such a sham.
It’s these facts that deserve to be brought more clearly into public view, since James Randi prefers to boast that “the money’s there.†I guess I’ve got more of a “show me” attitude on this point, and seeing that the money is sitting safely in a bank account does not indicate to me that Randi has any intention of ever awarding the prize.
It’s good to know that some of us are true skeptics – even voicing skepticism of the voice of skepticism himself when it comes to believing that Randi or his organization would ever part with a single penny of their million dollar “prize” money.
thanks for sharing this Jeff. Randi and his cohorts are so fond of using Occam's Razor on everyone that they forget to use it on themselves. hence the not-so amazing beard :)
anyway, i remembered this post because (serendipitously) Occam's Razor is today's topic on the Dilbert Blog: Occam's Stupid Razor.
the best i could do is to leave a hyperlink in the comment section pointing to this thread.
my point: Occam's Razor is dull if used by dull people.
I came to this post upon reflecting about the Feb 10th article in the NYTimes about the closing of the PEAR lab. I searched the ZAADZ archives, and found this.
As I am interested in reading some of the published PEAR research, I went clicking around on the links above.
In case other are, I add this comment:
A full text PDF of “R. A. Blasband (2000).The Ordering of Random Events by Emotional Expression. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 14 (2), pp.195–216.” is available from the ICRL web site here: http://www.icrl.org/pdf/blasband_orderingrandomevents_jse.pdf