ChatterBank1 min ago
Uri Geller
87 Answers
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.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
//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://
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://
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.
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.
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..
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.
-- 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.
