Uri Geller

[naomi24]

I’m currently reading ‘The Ghost of Flight 401’, recommended by a fellow ABer. Early on the author speaks about Uri Geller and names scientists who support his incredible claims of spoon-bending, watch-mending, etc, etc., which surprises me. I know James Randi has explained how these 'tricks' can be achieved, but I was under the impression that Uri Geller had also been ‘outed’ by science as a fraud. Has he – or is that just hearsay? I’d be interested in links to any formal papers on the subject.

[naomi24]

It’s imperative to read a book before casting judgement. A while ago I was asked to recommend a book to a book club, which I did. I thought it excellent – the members of the club absolutely hated it.

By way of investigation I read a Barbara Cartland book – once. I now feel qualified to say with conviction that her work is not for me.

[jomifl]

It isn't necessary to read all of a book to discover that it is rubbish.

[naomi24]

True.

[pixie373]

Ludvig, imo, "mind control" could be a genuine representation of what he does. If you are able to get others to come up with the answer you want them to....? That is purely definition and not the same as claiming psychic powers.

[ludwig]

^ Technically true I suppose, but he did change the name of his program from 'Derren Brown - Mind control' to 'Derren Brown - trick of the mind' farily early on, which I took to be a subtle acknowldegement that the first version wasn't really honest enough.

[pixie373]

Yes, although "mind control" sounds a little more sinister to me- although it's temporary.

[Kromovaracun]

Derren has admitted that he was a little dishonest about his work in his earlier career. His rationale (understandably) was that he believed he was only going to be on TV once, so might as well make as many ridiculous claims as he could.

He was called out on some of this by Simon Singh - and rightly, as he was claiming that many of his effects were no more than a superhuman understanding of psychology, which is rubbish.

[ludwig]

That was it krom. He didn't say the illusions were tricks, and he didn't claim they were anything paranormal, he claimed he was brilliant at influencing/planting ideas and reading things like body language etc, which was clearly as far fetched as just claiming it was magic.

[pixie373]

Eh? I think that's right. The man is a total genius at psychology and reading people. The difference is, in theory, with the right knowledge and training, anybody could do it. Supernatural or psychic powers are simply different methods and i don't believe either of those exist.

[pixie373]

Fair enough with your first paragraph, krom- i hadn't known that.

[jim360]

In case you're interested I did have a search for any relevant papers by the authors shown but couldn't find any. Don't think this means there aren't any, though, as the archive I was searching is missing papers I happen to know exist as well, albeit rather early ones, so perhaps they were published too early or in too obscure a source to be included.

I'm inclined to leave it there, as the indications are that the author of "The Ghosts of Flight 401" quoted the scientists correctly, but was too premature in trying to use such quotes as support, and since then Uri Geller's claims have indeed been shown to be fraudulent. If he did have early scientific support he doesn't any more.

[naomi24]

//If he did have early scientific support he doesn't any more. //

In that case I would expect to find refutations in the book but there are none, so I checked out urigeller.com and there are a surprising number of positive testimonials there from some surprisingly big names. Have a look.

http://www.uri-geller.com/uri-biography/uribiog3.htm

[jim360]

Hmm.

I find that first quote puzzling -- the one about Quantum Chromodynamics. Which will have precisely nothing to do with it. And is then repeated further down the page anyway, indicating a rather haphazardly-constructed website.

It's a biased source, his own personal website, and isn't worth giving much weight to. Perhaps those quotes are just "part of the show", perhaps it really is the case that he's shown this to a bunch of scientists who've not previously heard of him and they've opened their mouths too quickly.

He's putting on a show. I think that show would lose a certain amount of value if he kept admitting that he's a fraud, so he's still sticking to the line of being genuine, or at least of not being a fraud even if he's not selling himself quite as strongly as before.

[naomi24]

If the people who have issued those quotes have since changed their opinions, I don't understand why they or their representatives haven't asked for the quotes to be removed from his website.

[jomifl]

Ain't it strange how these bent spoons look just like bent spoons, just as if someone had bent them using the amazing power of Archimedes.. No bends of anything that coudn't be bent using just plain muscle power, no clever little bends at the end or in the stronger parts..just bent where it is easiest...jeeeez..

[naomi24]

Indeed Jom. I can't understand why reputable people haven't distanced themselves from it.

[pixie373]

I admit to trying the teaspoon on top of the TV experiment once when he was on...nothing happened (to my everlasting surprise;-))

[naomi24]

Haaaaa! You haven't got the 'fluence'. ;o)

[pixie373]

Lol! Clearly not!

[jim360]

It could be any number of reasons, including:

-- they still think that way;
-- they don't even know they've been quoted;
-- they do know but no longer care. I don't expect that most of their colleagues will pay much attention to this website so it might have no effect on their reputations;
-- they do know and do care, but the website isn't wanting to remove things they actually said, and the Scientists don't have the time/ money/ motivation to fight a lengthy court battle.

And perhaps plenty of other reasons besides. I guess the only way to know for sure is to ask the people concerned.