If you were running a site that considers unusual claims that might be true, even though they're probably not true, would you accept to investigate a claim that a man can fly by flapping his arms? Do you test a man who claims he can sexually arouse a woman just by looking at a photograph of her? (
http://forums.randi.org/showth...?s=&threadid=48320) How about a claim that someone is God? (
http://forums.randi.org/showth...0675521#post1870675521) If a writer told you that he is the Richard Nixon, would that merit your serious attention? And what would you do with a claim that someone could inhale Zyklon B for 15 minutes and survive? (
http://forums.randi.org/showth...?s=&threadid=47833) A man writes and claims that he and his brother make the Sun rise every morning; do you look into that? A chap says he doesn't eat, and hasn't taken nourishment for many years (
http://www.alternativescience.com/randi%27s-letter.html); is that worth your time to investigate? A letter states that no lion will bite the writer (
http://forums.randi.org/showth...?s=&threadid=48126); do you investigate?
Those are just eight of recent ridiculous claims we've encountered that come to my mind; there are literally hundreds more. Do you seriously think that I want to squander the rest of my life examining claims that are very obviously dizzy? When we get dowsing claims, we recognize that these people can be honestly self-deluded, and the hundreds of tests we've done of them ? when they'll actually submit to tests ? have shown that to be true, in every single case. Dowsing is something that is not, on the face of it, an obviously frivolous notion. Nor is the ability to predict earthquakes, nor to sense the presence of a poisonous substance. Those, we can and will test.
On only one occasion was I actually involved in testing a "Breatharian," as the never-eating people like to be known. We staked out the Holiday Inn where he was staying during the test, and watched as he went out to the local Burger King at 2 a.m. and stocked up on huge bags of goodies; that ended the test right there ? but we decided that this was just such a silly activity, that we'd not do it again. We are, after all, grown adults. We have real lives to live.
Recently, in Germany, I watched while a man checked out a huge lab room where we were to test him for the ability to improve the taste of water just by passing his hands over a sealed bottle of it. First, he scanned the room with his dowsing rods for "earth rays" that he said would interfere with the test. He found several spots infested with the "erdstrahlen," and marked those to be avoided. Then he went through a song-and-dance hand-waving procedure that "charmed" the water, and was isolated while another team prepared sets of glasses containing both charmed and un-charmed water. To save you time, I'll sum it up: he got half his guesses right, which is what chance called for. NOW: think for a minute. I and several members of the GWUP ? German Skeptics ? group, spent two days of our lives just looking into this absurd claim, simply because the man seemed to really believe it. Do you seriously think that we should spend any time on scientifically examining Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and guys who say they never eat? Get real!
No, the JREF will not consider such claims as being serious, though some inept and fumbling scientists will waste grant money to do so. To enter into investigating such matters would make us as silly as the claimants. Our refusal does not in any way diminish our validity nor our willingness to examine sensible claims. If you disagree with that statement, I believe that you're in a tiny minority. François, Duc de la Rochefoucauld (1630-1680) had my philosophy down pretty well:
There are people fated to be silly; they not only perform silly acts by choice, but are even constrained to do so by fortune.
I will not voluntarily join the inane in their delusions. That is my choice to make.
