Thoughts about the JREF Million Dollar Challenge

[robinson]

whatever

 

[JanisChambers]

I have always wonderd, what if somthing simply amazing happens and later on the phenomenon is explained? Even if it was proving 'ghosts' and finding out how they manifest (and no I am not saying I belive in ghosts).

 

[GzuzKryzt]

I have always wonderd, what if somthing simply amazing happens and later on the phenomenon is explained? Even if it was proving 'ghosts' and finding out how they manifest (and no I am not saying I belive in ghosts).

Define "ghosts".

 

[JanisChambers]

Define "ghosts".

Either the mind of a person living in some type of alternate state other than that of their now dead body, or some form of impression of that person left behind in what seems to be a state of being. And before you ask if I am trying to argue for ghosts, I am not, I'm just using them as an example of a phenomenon we consider 'super natural'

More to the point, what if someone wins the challenge by doing or proving something that is thought as genuinely supernatural, and then later not shown to be a hoax, but something that can be explained though the laws of nature and by science. Something truly incredible, but later explainable.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Either the mind of a person living in some type of alternate state other than that of their now dead body, or some form of impression of that person left behind in what seems to be a state of being. And before you ask if I am trying to argue for ghosts, I am not, I'm just using them as an example of a phenomenon we consider 'super natural'

More to the point, what if someone wins the challenge by doing or proving something that is thought as genuinely supernatural, and then later not shown to be a hoax, but something that can be explained though the laws of nature and by science. Something truly incredible, but later explainable.

The reason why I asked for your definition of "ghost" was not that I believed you claim their existence, but to show that it is rather difficult to come up with a coherent (did someone say logical?) definition.

If a claimant performs successfully as described in the mutually agreed upon protocol, s/he wins the JREF Prize. What happens later might affect our understanding of said event, it does not affect the award of the million buckaronis.

Even if the winner provably cheated.

 

[robinson]

randi@randi.org

Let us know how that worked out, robinson.

No problem.

Randi settles into a tufted chair at the head of a long conference table in the library. Behind him, a framed portrait of Isaac Asimov hangs above a brick fireplace.

The walls are lined floor to ceiling with books, 1,800 volumes on subjects repugnant to Randi's heart. Vampires. Witchcraft. Palmistry. Poltergeists. The Bermuda triangle. Atlantis. Bigfoot. Alien abductions. There are books by spiritualist Edgar Cayce and astrologer Jeane Dixon. Shirley MacLaine's Out on a Limb. Linda Goodman's Sun Signs. Stonehenge Decoded. I am Ramtha. What Color Is Your Aura?

http://www.sptimes.com/Floridian/41498/The__quack__hunter.html

 

[robinson]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1628319#post1628319

What I will do is post the most interesting correspondence. I'll also be actively inviting claimants to discuss their challenge ideas with you, our forum members. Though forum members have no official capacity in testing claims, they do have a wide base of knowledge and can offer advice to potential claimants. This is a strong resource, and it shouldn't be ignored.

I'm thinking there won't be much to discuss about challenges now.

 

[robinson]

More thinking

From another thread here, (you can follow the quote as a link to it).

He doesn't have to "accept" my application. The challenge is right there, made by him. Acceptance is up to me, not him.

That is an interesting twist. I never thought about it before, but if someone makes a challenge, as in, "I challenge you to prove you can do something paranormal, and if you accept my challenge, and can prove it, I will give you a Million dollars!", if somebody says that, they are challenging somebody, or some thing.

Of course it is up to the person being challenged to accept. Can we agree on this? How else could it be?



I'm assuming you, dear reader, are familiar with the MDC, so don't quibble here.

 

[robinson]

Now, refreshing my memory with a quick look at the application, what I see, rather than a challenge, is a request for a claim to be made.

Applicant must state clearly what is being claimed as the special ability upon which they wish to be tested...

http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html

Backing up, I see that what is stated on the main page is:

At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

So what I am reading, is that there is a Million Dollar prize, and one must make a claim in order to get it. Five times in the application, "the offer" is used to describe what is being applied for.

That isn't a challenge. That is a prize being offered!

Even so, an offer is like a challenge, it is made, and the other party gets to accept it or not. Obviously. What I'm seeing however, is that while it is an offer, the money is a prize, for doing something, set forth in a contract. What that something is, and what is evidence, is up to each person making a claim.

I'm not sure where this is going. Something seems strange about it. Did something change on April 1st? Was it always worded this way? Was it always a prize? Was it always an offer? What happened to the challenge part of it?

 

[Reager]

Now, refreshing my memory with a quick look at the application, what I see, rather than a challenge, is a request for a claim to be made.

http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html

Backing up, I see that what is stated on the main page is:

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

So what I am reading, is that there is a Million Dollar prize, and one must make a claim in order to get it. Five times in the application, "the offer" is used to describe what is being applied for.

That isn't a challenge. That is a prize being offered!

Even so, an offer is like a challenge, it is made, and the other party gets to accept it or not. Obviously. What I'm seeing however, is that while it is an offer, the money is a prize, for doing something, set forth in a contract. What that something is, and what is evidence, is up to each person making a claim.

I'm not sure where this is going. Something seems strange about it. Did something change on April 1st? Was it always worded this way? Was it always a prize? Was it always an offer? What happened to the challenge part of it?

Huh? You are quibbling semantics over the word "challenge." The rules are what they are. You are also asking about changes that are well documented on this web site. Try reading.

 

[robinson]

heh

I'm assuming you, dear reader, are familiar with the MDC, so don't quibble here.

I knew somebody would start quibbling. Why is that? When somebody is at a loss for reason or logic, they always start quibbling, and next thing you know, they will mention semantics.

It's uncanny I tell ya.

 

[robinson]

Huh? You are quibbling semantics over the word "challenge."

No, I am thinking about what is posted on a website. While it claims to be a challenge, it says it is an offer, with a prize. Not the same thing at all.

The rules are what they are.

Yes, but wanting to issue a challenge, and get to control everything about the situation, and then decide if somebody is allowed to take your challenge, which isn't a challenge, but an offer, with a prize, is more than a little confusing.

You are also asking about changes that are well documented on this web site. Try reading.

Evidence? Where are the changes well documented? As in, where is the old version of the challenge, compared to the changed new version?

 

[Cuddles]

While it claims to be a challenge, it says it is an offer, with a prize.

In what way is offering a prize for doing something not a challenge?

Of course it is up to the person being challenged to accept. Can we agree on this? How else could it be?

It depends how you mean "accept". Of course it is up to a claimant to accept the challenge, but all that means it is up to them to approach the JREF with a claim and a valid test for that claim. It should be obvious to anyone who has actually read the quote in context that that is not what Peter means at all. What he wants it to mean is that it is up to him to simply say "I accept your challenge" and then sit around waiting for the money. "Accept" does not mean simply saying "I accept", it means accepting all the rules and following them in order to take part.

 

[robinson]

In what way is offering a prize for doing something not a challenge?

Well, that is what got me thinking. A prize, an offer, those are things everybody understands. If you offer a prize for building a rocket, or breaking a record, everybody understands that. If you make an offer to pay money for accomplishing something, we understand that, and that there would be rules and conditions. But a challenge, and one that is openly hostile and adversarial in nature, I doubt you could claim it was the same thing. Especially if the prize money was, in advance, assumed to be impossible to win, by the organization "offering" the prize.

It depends how you mean "accept". Of course it is up to a claimant to accept the challenge, but all that means it is up to them to approach the JREF with a claim and a valid test for that claim.

You speak to the crux of the matter. Bear with me, as it is still difficult as to how to put it in words, for the issue is anything but semantics. You say "it" depends. What is it that you speak of here? What is "it"?

Of course it is up to a claimant to accept the challenge, but all that means it is up to them to approach the JREF with a claim and a valid test for that claim.

You see the emphasis I added? I hope that makes it clear the heart of the matter. You say that accepting a challenge means one must now approach and file a claim, as well as create a test, which JREF/Randi will maybe, after a long period of time, accept or deny.

This is true, even now, with the changed challenge. So "accepting" something, now means, filing a claim and jumping through hoops and putting up with sarcastic, insulting, and time consuming interactions with strangers, who will publish all your communications on their website, even if you are never "accepted" as accepting the challenge.

Nice twist. Accepting a challenge has now become something nobody would recognize. And, I know this sounds crazy, but if somebody simply says, "Leave me alone you nutcase", youcan claim THEY didn't accept the challenge! You know, the challenge that is really a prize for doing something, which is not defined, but is, you know, offered.

It should be obvious to anyone who has actually read the quote in context that that is not what Peter means at all. What he wants it to mean is that it is up to him to simply say "I accept your challenge" and then sit around waiting for the money.

I didn't see it that way at all. Unlike many claims made here, he seems to back up everything he says. You might disagree with him, but that is the heart of the problem. If determining what qualifies one as either a claimant, or as a winner, is up to OPINION, up to what one believes, then it has no validity at all.

"Accept" does not mean simply saying "I accept", it means accepting all the rules and following them in order to take part.

And now we come back to a major criticism of things at hand. I can see, from evidence presented, that Peter Morris did follow the rules of the offer, and responded specifically to a challenge issued. The problems seem to be of a sort that can bring negotiations to a grinding halt. And that illustrate a major shortcoming with an offer made, involving a large prize, in cash no less.

Contracts have disputes all the time, in the real world. Working out a contract can be a real pain, there is a lot of law dedicated to such issues. Rarely do we see contracts based on anything as flimsy and insubstantial as what somebody said, or claimed. The entire MDC contract is based on somebody saying somebody else is wrong. If you can prove, according to the provisions, that Randi is wrong, you win the prize.

Who determines what Randi says is right or wrong?

Randi. According to the contract/prize issue.

Who determines what Randi said?

Ahh...now see, there is the problem in this case. There is indeed enough evidence to show Randi made some claims, issued a challenge, and has done so multiple times. Does Randi still get to say what is right or wrong now?

Well, we run into other objections just about now as well.

Randi didn't say it to Peter.

Randi didn't mean it.

Randi isn't always right.

Randi gets to decide who can accept the challenge.

Randi shouldn't waste a minute on this nonsense.

Randi will ... etc etc

You get the point. The only place I see real evidence and clear, no nonsense reporting, is on Peter Morris's website. I'm not judging the issue, I'm pointing out his efforts, reasoning, and evidence have been transparent from day one. His motives are honest, (he wants to prove Randi wrong, and win a million bucks), and he has made no wild claims, or tried to BS anyone.

These are my thoughts.

 

[robinson]

Oh, and part of the ire over this is based on the simple fact that Randi is wrong about water flowing underground. This came up in the original Peter Morris thread about his challenge, and I still remember the ignorance and hostility from people who didn't know this, and tried to defend Randi.

Even when overwhelming evidence was presented that water flows in underground streams and rivers, the people defending moved the goalpost, in mid-stream.

They then said, "well, that is true, water flowing underground, but only in some areas".

I kid you not. This is exactly the kind of semantic game that makes some doubt the honesty and validity of certain people.

It was unbelievable. Links provided upon request.

 

[Cuddles]

Oh, and part of the ire over this is based on the simple fact that Randi is wrong about water flowing underground. This came up in the original Peter Morris thread about his challenge, and I still remember the ignorance and hostility from people who didn't know this, and tried to defend Randi.

Even when overwhelming evidence was presented that water flows in underground streams and rivers, the people defending moved the goalpost, in mid-stream.

This is simply not true. Randi was not wrong. What Randi actually said was that water does not flow in undergound rivers expect in caves. The very definitions of "river" and "cave" mean that any water flowing in a cave is a river and any water flowing underground must be in a cave. Arguing with this is just utter stupidity, but apparently neither you or Peter are prepared to admit this. In any case, Peter is not even claiming to find streams, he is simply saying that Randi was wrong that there is water under most of the Earth and therefore he is owed a millions dollars. Which is just utter nonsense.

Well, that is what got me thinking. A prize, an offer, those are things everybody understands. If you offer a prize for building a rocket, or breaking a record, everybody understands that. If you make an offer to pay money for accomplishing something, we understand that, and that there would be rules and conditions. But a challenge, and one that is openly hostile and adversarial in nature, I doubt you could claim it was the same thing. Especially if the prize money was, in advance, assumed to be impossible to win, by the organization "offering" the prize.

So you are claiming that offering a prize of a million to build a rocket is somehow different from challenging people to build a rocket with a million reward if they do so? I can see how the reason behind the offer/challenge could be different since an offer would imply you simply want it done while a challenge implies you don't think it is possible. However, whatever the case, what has to be done is identical. You build a rocket, you get a million. Simple as that, whether you call it a challenge, an offer or a green spotted camel.

You see the emphasis I added? I hope that makes it clear the heart of the matter. You say that accepting a challenge means one must now approach and file a claim, as well as create a test, which JREF/Randi will maybe, after a long period of time, accept or deny.

This is true, even now, with the changed challenge. So "accepting" something, now means, filing a claim and jumping through hoops and putting up with sarcastic, insulting, and time consuming interactions with strangers, who will publish all your communications on their website, even if you are never "accepted" as accepting the challenge.

What else do you expect? Did NASA issue challenges to design various parts and then hand them out as soon as someone said "I accept"? All challenges, prizes, offers, whatever you want to call them, have rules. Follow the rules and you will probably be accepted. If those rules happen to include you actually saying what you want to do and how it will be tested, what is the problem? If those rules happen to say that your application will be public knowledge, what is the problem? If you can do what you say then there is no problem. It is only if you are lying that there is. Which is the whole point of the challenge in the first place.

Nice twist. Accepting a challenge has now become something nobody would recognize. And, I know this sounds crazy, but if somebody simply says, "Leave me alone you nutcase", youcan claim THEY didn't accept the challenge! You know, the challenge that is really a prize for doing something, which is not defined, but is, you know, offered.

Yes, if someone refuses to take your challenge how would you not be able to say that they refused to take it? What is important is their reason for refusing. So far I have never seen a reason that couldn't be translated as "I am a fraud or delusional".

I didn't see it that way at all. Unlike many claims made here, he seems to back up everything he says. You might disagree with him, but that is the heart of the problem. If determining what qualifies one as either a claimant, or as a winner, is up to OPINION, up to what one believes, then it has no validity at all.

He hasn't backed up a single one of his claims. He has made lots of false accusations and plenty of wild speculation, but that is all. He did not follow the rules, and this has been pointed out. He has not made a paranormal claim. And he has not come up with a valid test.

And now we come back to a major criticism of things at hand. I can see, from evidence presented, that Peter Morris did follow the rules of the offer, and responded specifically to a challenge issued. The problems seem to be of a sort that can bring negotiations to a grinding halt. And that illustrate a major shortcoming with an offer made, involving a large prize, in cash no less.

No, he did not follow the rules. If you read his thread you would know this. Firstly, he made two claims in his application. That may only be a small thing, but it is very clearly against the rules. Secondly, he did not respond to a challenge. A challenge was issued to dowsers to find a dry spot. Peter is not a dowser. Peter does not use the same definition of dry spot as anyone else. Therefore he is not answering that challenge.

Contracts have disputes all the time, in the real world. Working out a contract can be a real pain, there is a lot of law dedicated to such issues. Rarely do we see contracts based on anything as flimsy and insubstantial as what somebody said, or claimed. The entire MDC contract is based on somebody saying somebody else is wrong. If you can prove, according to the provisions, that Randi is wrong, you win the prize.

No. The challenge is to prove Randi wrong about the specific statement that paranormal powers do not exist. It is not an invitation to prove him wrong about any statement he has ever made. The statement that Peter is attempting to challenge was not anything to do with the million dollar challenge. Even if he somehow managed to show that Randi was wrong about his statements on hydrology, all that would do is show that Randi was wrong about his statements on hydrology. It would not prove anything about the paranormal and it certainly would not win him a million dollars.

Ahh...now see, there is the problem in this case. There is indeed enough evidence to show Randi made some claims, issued a challenge, and has done so multiple times. Does Randi still get to say what is right or wrong now?

How is this relevant? Not everything Randi says is the million dollar challenge. Randi made some claims and issued a challenge, yes. Those claims and that challenge were not necessarily part of a different challenge that already existed.

You get the point. The only place I see real evidence and clear, no nonsense reporting, is on Peter Morris's website. I'm not judging the issue, I'm pointing out his efforts, reasoning, and evidence have been transparent from day one. His motives are honest, (he wants to prove Randi wrong, and win a million bucks), and he has made no wild claims, or tried to BS anyone.

These are my thoughts.

If you think Peter has anything resembling honesty, evidence or a lack of nonsense I suggest you get some new thoughts. These ones appear to be broken.

 

[robinson]

What Randi actually said was that water does not flow in undergound rivers expect in caves.

While I doubt that is what Randi said, if it is what was said, it is simply wrong.

The very definitions of "river" and "cave" mean that any water flowing in a cave is a river and any water flowing underground must be in a cave.

That is not correct. A few minutes study of Hydrology will assure you that your definition is not valid.

That being said, what I see Randi saying, is that dowsers have this misguided belief that there are underground streams and rivers everywhere, which is not the case at all. And that all it takes is finding the water source, which is only true in some areas. The science of Hydrology is more complicated than a few sound bytes can convey.

One common misunderstanding seems to be that water and ground geology are the same everywhere. This is simply not true.

 

[robinson]

Here we go again

Originally Posted by Cuddles

The very definitions of "river" and "cave" mean that any water flowing in a cave is a river and any water flowing underground must be in a cave.

That is not correct. A few minutes study of Hydrology will assure you that your definition is not valid.

That being said, what I see Randi saying, is that dowsers have this misguided belief that there are underground streams and rivers everywhere, which is not the case at all. And that all it takes is finding the water source, which is only true in some areas. The science of Hydrology is more complicated than a few sound bytes can convey.

One common misunderstanding seems to be that water and ground geology are the same everywhere. This is simply not true.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Some thoughts off the top of my head on the MDC. These probably apply to many similar challenges by skeptic clubs:


-Overall, IMO it is interesting for reasons of entertainment and getting the 'skeptical good news' out there. But it is not a good platform for Science, except at the most rudimentary 'doing proper experiments is good' level.


-Despite some lip service, such challenges hardly seem unbiased. We typically have a challenge by a club ran by someone(s) who is obviously openly hostile to claims he says he is interested in investigating.


-If one was really honest about testing the phenomena and being impartial, they'd ask you once to take the challenge then if you decline they'd leave you alone. Instead, we get constant bullying to take the challenge, and these 'I wonder why...' and 'probably hiding under a rock' and 'they don't have a use for the money?' comments and cricket sound stuff.


-The mere fact that everyone is entitled to persue the standard channels of Science. Standard channels of science would be testing by actual scientists, peer review, submitting journal articles, presenting at conferences, folliowing the evidence wherever it leads and whatever topics, etc. Standard channels of science are not being hounded by skeptical clubs. Will standard channels of science make you sign a contract? Make you agree that they can use all media of the test (which will probably go into hostile commentary)? Only focus on the big media guys instead of all claims? Make funny cartoons of you? Of course not.


-One challenge won't mean much in terms of science, even many well-known people in the skeptical movement admit that. Science is done by replication.


-If a person passes a challenge, it could be due to chance. If enough people apply to do probability based tests, we'd expect one of them to win by chance, given a probability p of passing the tests and given enough tests.


-The logical fact that if the supernatural/paranormal happened that it would suddenly become a natural/normal thing. A supernatural/paranormal challenge would no longer apply. Even if the money is paid out, for the logical reason discussed it wouldn't mean much.


-Statistics from past tests not able to be obtained easily. It is difficult, it is made difficult one could say, for any interested person, let alone an applicant, to easily see statistical summaries on past tests, broken down by various categories such as type of test, number of successes out of number of trials, and probability of success per each trial.


-Intentionally useless provoking questions to potential applicants like 'why don't you win and give the money to charity?'. The testers can just as easily give their millions to charity too, or at least the interest it gains every year, so I always have a hard time when that question is asked. If the donators didn't donate their money with that in mind, which is the usual response, I'm sure they won't mind donating to charity because they are such nice people. To summarize: these provoking questions get us nowhere. Why? Because it has nothing to do with science. It does, however, have everything to do with playing 'gotcha!' with someone you consider an 'opponent'.


-The history of the challenge shows that it did not start as an open-minded scientific quest to test so-called paranormal things, which is what is implied when one states things like 'I'd love for paranormal things to be true'. It started as a challenge. From wikipedia: "In 1964, when challenged by a medium to 'put his money where his mouth is', Randi put up $1,000 of his own money to the first person who could provide objective proof of the paranormal."


-A founding member of CSICOP, Dennis Rawlings, states that Randi said "I always have an out." in reference to the challenge. The full quote according to Randi is "I always have an out, I'm right!". This doesn't really change things. It is evidence of a really strange offer. You're offering people money to win something you know they cannot win? What is the point again? Is it to expose, to get popularity, or to genually test for so-called paranormal things?


-The testers could have been fooled, which anyone would admit is always more probable than supernatural/paranormal anything existing. More on this with the following remote viewing challenge given by Randi in one of his commentaries (bolding mine):

... if they want to win a million dollars – divided eight ways, I presume – all they have to do is “remote” to Fort Lauderdale and discern what’s in the special “target” locker in my office. It’s a test object best described by

0679
4388
66/27
5 -14

That’s a definitive encoding, since we always call our shots in advance.

A few clever people familiar with cryptography correctly decoded Randi's code. See http://www.crypto.com/blog/psychic_cryptanalysis/. What if instead of some math geeks that this was done by the people Randi challenged? Randi did say "all they have to do" to win the money. Would he hand over the money if they revealed the contents? No, of course not. There would be more hoops to jump through due to contract, as well as it being more probable that some type of trickery occcured.

Especially note the part they write about the encoding being able to be interpreted many ways. Is this an "I always have an out" stuff, that is an intentional way of making something unwinnable, or just an honest oversight by Randi? The problem is, one cannot tell.


-Claims that such organizations are educational. Maybe so, but when was the last time any educational organizations was making fun of people in weekly commentaries? It just doesn't seem proper or helpful.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Who farted?