A critique of the challenge

Far be it from me to be in Randi's cheerleading squad, but that "blog" is one of the biggest loads of crap I've ever seen.

Replied accordingly.
 
And your reply was published. A good reply. Some of what they are saying is just an ill-informed attack on science. I wonder who wrote the other replies? The author himself?

I hope you realise that your e-mail address is on the page. Just click on your name and an e-mail opens with your e-mail address filled in. For proof I will send Atheist an e-mail.
 
Oh dear.. Some of the comments on that blog is so.. what can I say?

Psychic phenomena are affected by negative energy. Just having people around who are "skeptics" can affect the outcome. If "thoughts are things" and consciousness creates reality, being around people who are doubters can affect the outcome. I remember reading in The Conscious Universe by Dean Radin that when people who were being tested got bored their psychic scores lowered. I imagine that any kind of negative energy, hate, anger, jealousy, rage, disbelief, could affect the outcome of a test. That's probably why tests might work one place and not somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Ah, the good old "if it isn't working, it's because of your bad energy, not my inability"

Poor Magic Randi. I, myself, went 8 days without food and water. Proper full-lotus training definitely creates paranormal powers -- telepathy, telekinesis and precognition!
Click to expand...

8 days without food? That I'd like to see...
 
Another one:

I think instead of getting angry with JR, we should just all laugh at and belittle him. He's quite a sad, little man, isn't he? He reminds me of someone who got so mad when they found out "magic", as they knew it, was fake that they became a vigilante.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that someone here is a sad, little man, but it's definitely not Randi.
 
In that response you posted ~

The Atheist said:
Crying over it won't change the fact that "paranormality" does NOT exist in any form
Click to expand...

I'm curious as to what this could mean. Are you inferring that the end of science has come upon us, or have you identified your own private set of acceptably ridiculous phenomena and labelled them "paranormal" in order to subsequently refute them?

Paranormal events are simply those for which we, with our current understanding and current level of scientific ability, have no satisfactory explanation.

To address the article, it does indeed contain much ranting and silliness. However, I would agree that it's not appropriate to exclude certain phenomena on the grounds that they don't occur. To prohibit submission of the very material that is defined to form the basis of the challenges cannot be logical or advisable.
 
Last edited:
I think in one or two aspects, the author makes valid points. The wording of the FAQ does open itself up to this kind of criticism. For example, the point made about when the application draws out over months and the applicant is effectively precluded from complaining about this according to the FAQ.

Now anyone who has read the challenge applications knows exactly what kind of people apply to this thing, and exactly the type of garbage the JREF wants to filter out (things like "I will jump from the grand canyon to prove I can fly") or cases where the applicant makes a non-testable claim and demands it be accepted as one, where jref refusal means they have arbitrarily rejected a 'valid' claim.

From reading the challenge applications, it appears to me that in practice jref operates the challenge truthfully and transparently, but the faq does seem to open itself up to being picked apart in this way.

Maybe the faq could be made a little more robust to avoid these types of accusations. For example, the cloud-busting claim would be rejected because it is untestable, not because it's ridiculous or 'already been proven false', the breatharians' claim would be rejected because it constitutes risk to life and not 'because it is proposterous'.

And finally, to allow the applicant to make accusations of fraud against jref if they desire, BUT for those claims to be sent to an independent mediator at the cost of the applicant.

That way, I believe it means there is no way someone with verifiable supernatural powers could possibly fail to win the million, unless of course, he/she did not possess them at all.
 
Since the author, Michael Prescott, obviously does not use all available information on the JREF Challenge, his critique seems not really relevant. Especially since he seems to take quotes out of context and misrepresent them.
An obvious and simple example:

"[...]In his Personal FAQ at the end of the document, Randi observes,

The [applicants'] claims are sometimes interesting variations on very old misconceptions or delusions, but seldom is there anything that surprises us or that requires very much heavy analysis.

No analysis is needed, since the claimants are delusional.[...]"

a) Mr. Prescott obliterates the word "sometimes" in reference to Mr. Randi's quote.

b) Mr. Prescott obliterates the words "seldom" and "very much heavy" in reference to Mr. Randi's quote.
a) and b) clearly distort Mr. Randi's statements, don't they?

c) Mr. Prescott confuses "applicant" with "claimant".
I quote from http://www.randi.org/research/index.html "[...]Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant". To date, no one has ever passed the preliminary tests."

He should have his blog entries checked by his editor. ;)



Like most people, I consider the JREF Challenge and its execution far from perfect.
However, any valid claim from any applicant would pass the Challenge with flying colours.

Mr. Geller? Ms. Browne? Hello? (Sound of crickets)

Ms. Landin?
 
Personable, you make excellent points (that is, ones I wanted to make). The FAQ is strong on substance, but the style allows those like the blogger to critique it as if its substance was flawed. I agree that the FAQ should be changed as you suggest.
 
I also have a problem with the "so ridiculous it's not worth considering" approach.

Reject a claim if it's untestable or dangerous, but not just because it's silly.
 
I didn't know Randi was a high school dropout. Is that true?

I read all the stuff on the blog, and with a great deal of effort, resisted responding there, leaving a link to here. But having just read how boring another thread has become, maybe an inter-board fight is just the thing to get the terminally bored all fired up and having fun.

heh

Some good points about the challenge, but I only say that because they are similar to ones I brought up before. But in a case like this, I tend to do this problem solving thing, as in, well, what would you do to improve it, rather than just criticize, which is as easy as a run on sentence, like this one.

I mean, it sounds good to say, oh he just dismisses some claims, but think about it, if it was your time, your energy, are YOU going to entertain every nutjob whacko wingnut in the known Universe who thinks they can violate the known laws of physics? Or have unending e-mail, or worse, hand written correspondence, with the mentally unstable? Over an issue which nobody with a rational brain is going to even consider for two seconds as being in touch with reality?










Mores the pity.

I thank God I am an atheist.
 
Last edited:
NorwegianSquirrel said:
Oh dear.. Some of the comments on that blog is so.. what can I say?



Ah, the good old "if it isn't working, it's because of your bad energy, not my inability"



8 days without food? That I'd like to see...
Click to expand...

I'd be more interested in 8 days without water. I'll be happy to monitor the person in a locked room of my choosing!!:D :D :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
baron said:
In that response you posted ~



I'm curious as to what this could mean. Are you inferring that the end of science has come upon us, or have you identified your own private set of acceptably ridiculous phenomena and labelled them "paranormal" in order to subsequently refute them?

Paranormal events are simply those for which we, with our current understanding and current level of scientific ability, have no satisfactory explanation.
Click to expand...

There are no explanations because there has never been any evidence. What you refer to as "paranormal events" are the products of some fevered, often tortured imaginations, nothing more.

What's your date of birth?

M.
 
Indeed. We only need concern ourselves with explanations when it is shown that there is something there to be explained.
 
TheBoyPaj said:
I also have a problem with the "so ridiculous it's not worth considering" approach.

Reject a claim if it's untestable or dangerous, but not just because it's silly.
Click to expand...

I get really annoyed when I see numbskulls like Prescott and others pontificating about how Mr. Randi should spend the million.

Every last applicant is, and always has been, at full liberty to strut their stuff upon the world stage at any time. They don't need Mr. Randi or anyone else's permission.

I don't see any of these deluded fools organizing their own testing using accepted scientific methodology, do you? Why is that? Surely if any of them had the slightest evidence for their claims they would have no problem raising the necessary finance to organize their own testing, and if successful, change the way we see the world.

Sceptics doubt extraordinary claims and demand a level of proof that will prove an extraordinary claim unequivocally.

M.
 
Oh, of course Mr Randi is at liberty to run his challenge however he wants. Whether his attitude strengthens or weakens his argument, however, is open to debate.

To me, dowsing is one of the stupidest claims going. Randi, however, seems to like testing them. Maybe because it's easy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom