I Want Randi's Million

[kbm99]

I would settle for getting 20 dollars off of Randi in a bar bet.

I'd probably be content to lose 20 dollars in a bar bet, if it involved 20 dollars worth of cocktails at an actual bar.

 

[gnome]

Isn't that kind of mean? Taking some kid you know is doing a nose peek, and making a big formal demonstration out of it that you know is going to publicly embarrass and humiliate her?

Some people need to be kinder gentler skeptics.

How would you have handled it, under the circumstances?

 

[Cyphermage]

How would you have handled it, under the circumstances?

Quietly, and without fanfare. I think it's enough to debunk thick-skinned adults who claim to have powers. Kids doing little tricks should be left alone. Fantasy and imagination are part of the natural state of childhood, and kids should not be held to the same standards of objective reality as older folks, or be stomped on when they pretend to be able to do something special.

Next you'll be telling them there's no Santa, God, or Easter Bunny.

 

[gnome]

Quietly, and without fanfare. I think it's enough to debunk thick-skinned adults who claim to have powers. Kids doing little tricks should be left alone. Fantasy and imagination are part of the natural state of childhood, and kids should not be held to the same standards of objective reality as older folks, or be stomped on when they pretend to be able to do something special.

Next you'll be telling them there's no Santa, God, or Easter Bunny.

I'm not sure what counts as "fanfare" here... personally I think the case is a critical example of how people a) fool themselves and b) support people who are fooling themselves, when they know better. It's important that this story be known.

 

[Cyphermage]

I'm not sure what counts as "fanfare" here... personally I think the case is a critical example of how people a) fool themselves and b) support people who are fooling themselves, when they know better. It's important that this story be known.

One debunked and publicly humiliated Uri Geller is worth a hundred little girls peeking past their blindfolds. One does not use a sledgehammer to crush ants.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Is Natalia still claiming this ability? If so, any "fanfare" is deserved. It will have no effect on her income, but her failure must be highlighted.

 

[Indolent Wretch]

The Law

These all seem unnecessarily fancy to me. Surely the usual telepathy experiment- where a sender in one room is read a list of words, and a receiver in another room records the list simultaneously- could be cheated with a miniature audio transmitter in each person's ear. Sharper Image might not be at that point yet- after all, the transmitter would have to be small enough and camouflaged enough not to be noticed even by keen observers- but it's certainly not any groundbreaking technology.

Edit- Fixed typo.

In the UK, if you got away with this and then admitted that's how you achieved it wouldn't you be liable to a charge of 'obtaining money by deception?' or something similar?

 

[gnome]

One debunked and publicly humiliated Uri Geller is worth a hundred little girls peeking past their blindfolds. One does not use a sledgehammer to crush ants.

Uri Geller represents one facet of hoax psychics--the arrogant attention whore.

The cute/sweet/kindly relative that we not only humor, but promote to others as psychic, to avoid hurting anyone's feelings... probably accounts for at least as much woo in this world. It shouldn't be ignored... that said... if Natalya was mistreated in any way except for the fact that she was there in the first place, I'm interested in suggestions for improvement.

 

[rjh01]

First. Never admit that you cheat. Just keep quiet.
Second. Make sure that you never give any clue on HOW you do it. Be honest on what you claim. Do not claim to have any super-natural powers. This is within the rules.

 

[nathan]

In the UK, if you got away with this and then admitted that's how you achieved it wouldn't you be liable to a charge of 'obtaining money by deception?' or something similar?

It depends on what the contract says. My understanding is that the contract would say 'Do X' not 'Do X via paranormal means', precisely so it does not have to define 'paranormal'. As the contract doesn't specify how X is to be achieved, the applicant cannot (legally) be being deceptive if the applicant does X by (for example) sleight of hand.

 

[gnome]

It depends on what the contract says. My understanding is that the contract would say 'Do X' not 'Do X via paranormal means', precisely so it does not have to define 'paranormal'. As the contract doesn't specify how X is to be achieved, the applicant cannot (legally) be being deceptive if the applicant does X by (for example) sleight of hand.

Not quite...the contract says "Do X using your power"... if it can be shown that the effect was achieved via a method other than the claimed ability, the prize would be invalid. But, there would probably have to be proof--if the test is designed well, it should barely be possible at all.

Let's say someone said they can move thimbles telekinetically. When it came time to demonstrate they point off somewhere and say "What the hell's that?" and when everyone looks, they flick the thimble into its designated bucket with their finger.

The challenge has succeeded: The thimble is in the bucket. But a review of the tape shows they didn't do it using their power. I don't think they could claim the reward under those circumstances.

 

[nathan]

Not quite...the contract says "Do X using your power"...

Show me the contract. Show me that 'your power' could not be interpretted to mean 'your finger flicking power' Again, my understanding is the contract says words to the effect of 'Perform according to the protocol in Annex A. If you perform at least as well as specified therein, you win 1M$'

The challenge has succeeded: The thimble is in the bucket. But a review of the tape shows they didn't do it using their power. I don't think they could claim the reward under those circumstances.

A review of the tape would show that they did not stick to the protocol, and therefore voided the contract. The JREF is not intending to agree to a protocol where cheating would be possible. If the JREF slip up, then they still award the $1M (as Randi has said).

 

[drkitten]

Let's say someone said they can move thimbles telekinetically. When it came time to demonstrate they point off somewhere and say "What the hell's that?" and when everyone looks, they flick the thimble into its designated bucket with their finger.

My understanding of the way the JREF (meaning: Randi) operates is that this would literally not be possible. Randi would not permit you to be within arm's reach of the thimble, or would handcuff your hands behind your back (using real handcuffs, not the special conjurer's kind), or something similar.

 

[Flange Desire]

Quietly, and without fanfare. I think it's enough to debunk thick-skinned adults who claim to have powers. Kids doing little tricks should be left alone.

In this particular case, the kiddy (and mother) were being fraudulent.
They were claiming superpowers for monetary gain.
This was not a kiddy trick, it was plain old cheat and fraud.

Kids can still enjoy fantasy, whilst you are teaching them valuable skills in critical thinking. But this is not relevent to the case here.
This was just a plain old garden variety bog standard fraud.

 

[Mongrel]

In this particular case, the kiddy (and mother) were being fraudulent.
They were claiming superpowers for monetary gain.
This was not a kiddy trick, it was plain old cheat and fraud.

And when they get debunked they're quite happy to play the "But she's only a child!, Those mean old Sceptics" card. I read the articles as putting the blame squarely on the adults around her, exploiting an easily busted parlour trick.

 

[Ladewig]

Quietly, and without fanfare. I think it's enough to debunk thick-skinned adults who claim to have powers. Kids doing little tricks should be left alone.

I do not understand what you mean by "Kids doing little tricks should be left alone." She came to the JREF, the JREF did not seek her out and force her into a specific protocol.

Fantasy and imagination are part of the natural state of childhood, and kids should not be held to the same standards of objective reality as older folks, or be stomped on when they pretend to be able to do something special.

Next you'll be telling them there's no Santa, God, or Easter Bunny.

And what if she had fooled Randi with her trick. Does anyone here believe that there would have been even the tiniest chance that she would then stand up and say, "It was all a trick. I cannot accept the $1,000,000 because it was all make-believe"?

 

[drkitten]

I do not understand what you mean by "Kids doing little tricks should be left alone." She came to the JREF, the JREF did not seek her out and force her into a specific protocol.

I doubt this.

My understanding is that her parents/handlers are the ones who brought her to the JREF, not that she came to the JREF of her own volition.

 

[gnome]

I doubt this.

My understanding is that her parents/handlers are the ones who brought her to the JREF, not that she came to the JREF of her own volition.

Then it was her parents that did her wrong, not JREF...

 

[Almo]

Attack: Use coherent quantum computation to decrypt the message by simultaneously trying all possible keys.

Attack: Someone at a distant location is imaging the testing location at sub-millimeter resolution with petahertz frequency gravity waves, and is speaking to the psychic by modulating part of the beam with sound and focusing it to dissipate its energy into the bones inside the psychic's head.

Attack: A fly sized nanobot on the wall behind Randi's chair watches him draw the picture, and discloses its contents to the psychic.

I suspect that 1 million is chump change for these sorts of demonstrations.

 

[Cyphermage]

Then it was her parents that did her wrong, not JREF...

I think the JREF should put a lower age limit on the person whose psychic ability is being alleged. As it stands now, greedy parents could drag some unhappy 6-year-old through Hell to try and get their hands on Randi's money.

We don't allow web sites to collect information on pre-teens. The world of debunking is not going to suffer if pre-teens are excluded from this kind of trial by fire.

I have no objection if a 15 year old who knows what he is getting into, wants to try for the million, but when parents show up with their darling 10 year old in tow, who they've trained to perform some trick, they should be turned away at the door.