• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

'The Myth of the Million Dollar Challenge'

More grousing about testing people who claim they can produce results demonstrably better than chance, in order to win a million dollars? How foolish.
 
Seems like special pleading to me. Is a 5% improvement over chance acceptable in science?
 
The article references Sheldrake, Radin, and Schwartz. I'm surprised they didn't get Sylvia Browne to comment on how "unfair" the challenge is. Looks like a lot of the same old baloney to me.
 
Temporal Renegade said:
Don't know if anyone's seen this or not:

http://dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge

Opinions?
Click to expand...

Pedantic semantic quibbles, often lack of sources and footnotes: As a fair and balanced evaluation of the MDC ultimately irrelevant.

The question, as always: Why would anyone bother to win the measly million when one could go through the proper channels adhering to "scientific standard for acknowledging the existence of causal effects"? A appearance in Stockholm would be dy-no-mite, wouldn't it?



Love your sig, Temporal Renegade.
 
Frost said:
Is a 5% improvement over chance acceptable in science?
Click to expand...

Yes. If it's consistently shown to be an anomaly, it's a problem for science. Imagine if electricity only worked 95% of the time.

I was looking for Dean Radin's name and sure enough, there it was.

Unfortunately, Richard Wiseman's work on ganzfeld left a rather large hole for Radin & Co to exploit and they have. Radin's approach is a bit like modern theology - exploit what gaps are still available and stick to small claims of effect which are difficult to refute.

As the OP link shows, containing a 5% leakage is an enormously laborious task. I can't imagine any serious research group ever having the time or resources to do the thousands of tests required.

The essay is pretty well written and makes a strong attack from a small anomalistic perspective. Very sharp.
 
GzuzKryzt said:
Pedantic semantic quibbles, often lack of sources and footnotes: As a fair and balanced evaluation of the MDC ultimately irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I'll cordially disagree with you here - I'm pretty familiar with the guys he mentions in the article and have researched Radin & Co thoroughly and no glaring errors struck me. I thought it was reasonably well put written.

It's wrong, but very well done. Essentially, he's borrowed Radin's longstanding comments on the MDC and expanded upon them. Usually, that kind of "expose" uses all sorts of blarney, but that one sticks to the [almost] facts.
 
"The effects we demonstrate are extremely subtle and that Nasty Randi wants complicated tests to demonstrate that they are not due to chance." Does that sum it up?

Sheldrake, Radin, and Schwartz don't have to prove anything to Randi. Unfortunately, for them, they have not convinced anyone else either. :p
 
The Atheist said:
I'll cordially disagree with you here - I'm pretty familiar with the guys he mentions in the article and have researched Radin & Co thoroughly and no glaring errors struck me. I thought it was reasonably well put written.

It's wrong, but very well done. Essentially, he's borrowed Radin's longstanding comments on the MDC and expanded upon them. Usually, that kind of "expose" uses all sorts of blarney, but that one sticks to the [almost] facts.
Click to expand...

Since you have an interest - well, two million actually - in being up to date on said matters, your point of view probably is more on the money than mine. (I currently work 63+ hours per week, I may lack the mental sharpness necessary.)



Nonetheless, shouldn't the people disagreeing with the MDC simply seek the proper channels to have their claims evaluated?
 
Last edited:
GzuzKryzt said:
(I currently work 63+ hours per week, I may lack the mental sharpness necessary.)
Click to expand...

63 hours a week? Jesus mate, move to NZ, even the Prime Minister doesn;t work that many hours!

GzuzKryzt said:
Nonetheless, shouldn't the people disagreeing with the MDC simply seek the proper channels to have their claims evaluated?
Click to expand...

What channels are these?

The MDC and every other challenge is set up to find large anomalies and are never going to be able to cope with small ones.

If "chance" is say, getting 21% correct, then getting 22 is well within the margin of error, so isn't ever going to count as a successful test. If the person gets 22% every time over 100 or 1000 tests, then it becomes statistically significant, but ain't going to win any prizes. Psychic work tires one out, doncherknow and it would take years to get through the required number of tests.

That's the ground Radin and the article are exploiting - saying that psi exists, but is very weak. Their premise is quite right, but the conclusion is quite wrong, as I see it.
 
GzuzKryzt said:
Are you offering me a job? :)
Click to expand...

Hell yeah - whatever you can do, we'll find a job for you!

GzuzKryzt said:
Channels adhering to - as the essay says "scientific standard for acknowledging the existence of causal effects".
Click to expand...

That's what Radin is trying to do, but it all comes down to time and effort. Let's suppose for a second that he's right and that some minimal psi/precognition does exist. It has no practical use whatsoever, so there's no incentive for anyone to study it properly and try to figure out what's going on. Not to mention the strong likelihood that nothing at all is found.

(Is it a coincidence that Randi and Radin are anagrams?)
 
Isn't the whole point of the challenge merely for people to demonstrate they can do what they claim to do?

The challenge can't make claims on anything else. If a psychic exists who can do 5% better than chance, and they make that claim, then they have to show that. Most psychics don't make such subtle claims, but rather keep it vague. By agreeing to a protocol, they agree that their abilities can be tested that way.

Not even Randi makes the statement that the challenge proves there is nothing paranormal. The claim can only go as far as stating that of those claims tested, none have demonstrated anything paranormal as compared with what they feel they can do. Could one of them have had very slight psychic powers? Perhaps. But as this is indistinguishable from 'no', why give it extra validity in err of there being something?

I can't help but see a big straw man being burned. Nobody says anything about the challenge proving a negative. However, it does show that people who think they have something significant are most likely deluded or deluding.

Athon
 
athon said:
Isn't the whole point of the challenge merely for people to demonstrate they can do what they claim to do?

The challenge can't make claims on anything else. If a psychic exists who can do 5% better than chance, and they make that claim, then they have to show that. Most psychics don't make such subtle claims, but rather keep it vague. By agreeing to a protocol, they agree that their abilities can be tested that way.
Click to expand...

No question that challengers to date have been all nutters who claim to be able to do millions of times better than chance.

Do you think JREF would accept a challenge which gives 5% better than chance? If it did, how on earth could it be tested? For a 5% chance to become evident, there'd have to be literally hundreds of tests. If you want, I can e mail andyandy and get him to work it out, but it's going to be a prohibitively large number.

I don't think there's any strawman involved here, they're just exploiting a loophole. I have to say that I find it hard to get too upset at these guys - they're very much the paranormal equivalent of liberal Anglicans; just an itty bit of psi/god is enough for them.

I agree with you that the challenge doesn't deny paranormality, but Randi does, and pretty aggressively too, so you can't blame them for having a go. Shows he's been getting to them that they should be so snarky about it.
 
rjh01 said:
I think the article is rather poor quality.
Click to expand...

Not my take at all - it seems to be well written, reasonably well researched (although guilty of the very vagueness it accuses Randi of, but not of the writer's making) and makes a coherent case.

He makes some good and valid points, doesn't make any obviously fallacious comments and has correct grammar - in other words, exactly the opposite of every other article ever written which is critical of Randi & JREF.

How do you see it differently?
 
The Atheist said:
Let's suppose for a second that he's right and that some minimal psi/precognition does exist. It has no practical use whatsoever, so there's no incentive for anyone to study it properly and try to figure out what's going on.
Click to expand...

Casino owners strongly disagree.
 
The Atheist said:
Do you think JREF would accept a challenge which gives 5% better than chance?
Click to expand...

I can't say. Seriously, these days there's a lot of things I couldn't predict on what the JREF would or would not do.

Would I do it? As you say, it would require quite an involved protocol. Then again, I would need to look into it, decide on a protocol which was satisfactory and would produce some sort of result which we both were happy with.

If it did, how on earth could it be tested? For a 5% chance to become evident, there'd have to be literally hundreds of tests. If you want, I can e mail andyandy and get him to work it out, but it's going to be a prohibitively large number.
Click to expand...

Honestly it would be interesting to know what the options would be for such a test. Given my knowledge of statistics I'd be happier having expert advice on the matter.

I don't think there's any strawman involved here, they're just exploiting a loophole.
Click to expand...

What loophole? As we both agree, no contender for the challenge has ever applied on such grounds, and Randi has never said it proves anything. It is merely evidence against such a thing.

I'm sure if Randi was asked if the challenge shows definitively that subtle psychic powers are impossible, he'd not flatly agree.

I have to say that I find it hard to get too upset at these guys - they're very much the paranormal equivalent of liberal Anglicans; just an itty bit of psi/god is enough for them.
Click to expand...

All well and good, and on that front I can't disagree. Does the challenge have anything to say on 'subtle' psychic displays? No. It also can't say anything about anybody who has never applied for it. However, psychics also don't make 'subtle' claims. On that front, it's exactly what it is meant to be - a case of 'put your money where your mouth is'.

I agree with you that the challenge doesn't deny paranormality, but Randi does, and pretty aggressively too, so you can't blame them for having a go. Shows he's been getting to them that they should be so snarky about it.
Click to expand...


I'd be the first to agree that Randi's demeanour is far from cordial or conducive to open debate. However, I can't say I've ever heard him say the challenge denies the possibility paranormality; only that it reduces the likelihood of people who claim such powers being correct. I could well change my mind if you produce an unambigious quote.

Athon
 
I cannot comment on the grammar used. That is not my strong point. However the arguments used are a bit weak.


The JREF need to protect a very large amount of money from possible "long-range shots", and as such they ask for extremely significant results before paying out - much higher than are generally accepted in scientific research
Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe that it would be easier to publish a scientific peer reviewed paper with strong evidence of psychic powers and then successfully defend it then win the MDC as what the paper suggests.



If Randi were genuinely interested in testing unusual claims, then he would also not insist upon odds of at least one million to one against chance for the results. Anyone familiar with scientific studies will be aware that experimental results against chance of say, 800,000 to one would be considered extraordinary; but results this high would be, according to Randi, a “failure.”
Click to expand...

In fact I have never seen a science acticle that gives the odds of something being right. They look for a 'smoking gun.' Something what has been observed that can only be explained by one theory and not another. Then they can say that within certain parameters certain things are true and others are false.

Challenge rule #3 states: "We have no interest in theories nor explanations of how the claimed powers might work." As Sudduth puts it: “Curiously, Randi's challenge itself is saddled with assumptions of this very kind. The challenge makes little sense unless we assume that psi is the sort of thing that, if genuine, can be produced on demand, or at least is likely to manifest itself in some perspicuous manner under the conditions specified by the challenge.”
Click to expand...

What are they saying that psi cannot be produced on demand? In other words does not exist? How does this argument relate to the rule #3?

Do I need to go on?
 
I always love the implications that since no one's won it yet, it MUST be fixed.

Yes, as a matter of fact, it *IS* fixed: It's fixed, so that only someone who actually CAN perform paranormal skills, can win it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom