Well, I haven't found anything with him talking about not
knowing whether people believe or not. He only speaks about
evidence but he does make assumptions that "blind faith" is
real. No evidence of that outside of the words people use.
I like James Randi and I admire skepticism generally speaking
and I'm a fan of fraud busting... but he can be a little
hard-headed.
Here's the thing: Police don't use psychics because they
necessarily believe. Psychics don't need to necessarily believe.
It's true that its irrelevant whether they believe what they
say. Being a magician, he knows all about effective
manipulation, which he uses to debunk fraudsters.
But they use psychics for a reason James Randi might likely
_not_ agree with: It's practical psychology.
Like a magician who is honest when they say they're going to
fool you and then they do, psychics do the very same thing, but
in their own way.
He speaks a lot about blind faith; that is _precisely_ speaking
about belief.
How do you KNOW if someone has blind faith or if they're
pretending? You don't. It's not something we can ever know. But
he does talk about it a lot _as if_ it's a real thing. All that
being said, and I could be wrong, I'm generally a fan of James
Randi, even if I think he goes a little too far with his
politics of it all, but that's his mission.
