Randi and Shermer both strike me as scoundrels, but for completely different reasons. Randi was a showman through-and-through. His history as a "researcher" is laughable, and many of the studies he critiqued illustrated his incompetence. On the other hand, he also debunked a great many charlatans, frauds, shucksters, etc. Complex character, but definitely shady and certainly of questionable credibility.
Shermer has credentials. He got into the business of debunking by 'accident' - i.e. media and etc began calling him to act as "debunker" for random "paranormal" event/claim and he in a way he got typecast. That aside, his research methodologies are often of questionable rigour, his data often unreliable, his claimed results often inconsistent with observed data, etc. One of the sexiest examples of this involves his involvement with Sheldrake's "dogs that know" experiments.
But the fraudulent posturing as a prof is a recent thing. Scandalous.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-10-13 12:20 am (UTC)Shermer has credentials. He got into the business of debunking by 'accident' - i.e. media and etc began calling him to act as "debunker" for random "paranormal" event/claim and he in a way he got typecast. That aside, his research methodologies are often of questionable rigour, his data often unreliable, his claimed results often inconsistent with observed data, etc. One of the sexiest examples of this involves his involvement with Sheldrake's "dogs that know" experiments.
But the fraudulent posturing as a prof is a recent thing. Scandalous.