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.