Randi did what?

[GIThruster]

I admit what little I know of Sheldrake's theory seems wild past imagining and he might be a kook, but this does not excuse the fact Randi claimed to have examined the evidence when he had not. This is what I hold against Randi.

This other link above is interesting but I would just note, it is a flawed analysis. Where the author writes:

"He views this attack as a refusal to look at the evidence he has collected over the years on this topic; however, none of his experiments have ever been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, suggesting that there is no compelling evidence in the first place."

he is supplying a silly argument. It should be obvious Sheldrake is correct that there are no scientific journals that would even consider publishing such a thing, and Sheldrake says so himself (not for want of having submitted his findings to such journals.) So arguing that lack of publication is somehow lack of evidence is silly in the extreme.

Yes, Sheldrake may be a nut, but yes, Randi misreported that he had viewed the evidence when he had certainly not, and under those conditions it is not unusual that neither Sheldrake nor the pet's owner want anything to do with Randi. Asking for the data well after having misrepresented it, is just a rhetorical ploy. As I said, I'm no longer a fan of Randi for this reason.

[ladajo]

And what about Sheldrake's lying about what Randi said in the other instance?

[GIThruster]

Not sure about what Sheldrake lied about but I'm no supporter of his anyway. The point is, Randi has this reputation for being fair and looking at the evidence, and he did not in this case look at the evidence, and yet still said he did. That disqualifies him as trustworthy.

Sheldrake may never have been trustworthy. I don't know and it doesn't seem to matter to me nearly so much as the hit on Randi. We can't from his behavior expect him to give people a fair shake. That makes the prize worthless.

[ladajo]

I think you are making more of it than it is. And, you are doing so by giving Sheldrake more credit than he is due.

You have not read the cited Dog World article, so it is hearsay what was actually in it.

You are taking Sheldrake's interpretation of the Randi quote at face value, vice in context.

You are taking Sheldrake's (and others) out of context opinions of Randi statements and actions as pure fact.

Maybe Randi's choice of wording of that particular sentence is poor, but what were the sentances before and after it?

Sheldrake's core argument is based on that sentence. He also only focuses on his side of email/message exchanges. Given a history of seeing what he wants to see it makes his intrpretation of the situation suspect.
Granted, Randi may also be suffering from a bit of seeing what he wants in this argument, but his history demonstrates less so of these symptoms than Sheldrake.

Another thing I find amusing about Sheldrake is that folks appeal to authority based on his beginning days where he got a PhD in biologic sciences. Then he went off the rails. I offer to those that htink it gives him validation that I have know many folks with advanced educations and experience who are/were completely off their rockers.

[ladajo]

Not sure about what Sheldrake lied about but I'm no supporter of his anyway

Read the link.

He claimed Randi made a statement he never made from an article on sceptic group operations by another sceptic.