Just Another Magic Trick?

[Dancing David]

I am sure that this has been done in the thread but

1. This is the primary and most important of these rules: Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers and/or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result.

EVERY APPLICANT MUST AGREE UPON WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A CONCLUSION THAT, ON THE OCCASION OF THE PRELIMINARY OR THE FORMAL TEST, HE OR SHE DID OR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CLAIMED ABILITY OR POWER.

Want to tell another lie Plumjam?

 

[Dancing David]

C'mon someone as smart as Randi can rig anything. Really.


How many claimants have gotten in to negotiations and walked because the rules were stacked against them.

Again, just wondering.

The claimant is the one who says what they can do, not Randi. You are showing a real lack of critical thinking, have you read the application?

 

[Dancing David]

I respectfully disagree, the numbers say it all. Only 5% of potential testers make it to the test. I think it sounds rigged. You haven't proved to me it isn't.

And you are just making an unbased assertion, i am begining to doubt your sincerity. With no data other than your own fantasy you are making claims that are unsupported.

Are you Sheldrake?

 

[maatorc]

Edited by chillzero: 

Original post removed as breach of rules 11 and 12.

The proof is in the pudding: no claimant has been able to demonstrate and no one able to demonstrate has claimed.
Further, it is a pseudo-skeptical indemonstrable presumption to say -

Originally Posted by kerikiwi View Post
.......No one can win it because the things they claim to be able to do are either lies or delusions.

As to your phishing speculations about "...your teachers...", you are not even beginning to know where I am coming from.

 

[badnewsBH]

The proof is in the pudding: no claimant has demonstrated and no demonstrator has claimed.

For some reason, multi-quote doesn't like me. Hmm...

Oh well. Maatorc, I think you're making a pretty "indemonstrable presumption" in the second part of your sentence there. No claimant has demonstrated, that's absolutely true. However, there is no evidence for the existence of (and thus, no logical reason to believe in) the "demonstrators" that haven't yet claimed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kerikiwi View Post
.......No one can win it because the things they claim to be able to do are either lies or delusions.

Kerikiwi is making a statement stronger than evidence can reinforce, I would agree on that. However, I'd say Keri's presumption is the safe bet, while yours is the long shot. So far, there seems to be as much evidence for the existence of paranormal abilities in human beings as there is for the existence of unicorns, leprechauns or dragons. All of these things are, by strictest definition, possible. I tend to believe, however, that taking out a second mortgage to fund an expedition to find such things would result only in me being deeper in debt.

 

[tapman]

If you allege the Challenge is rigged you have to bring the evidence.

I do not think the Challenge is rigged but I could be convinced otherwise - if you have some facts, data, evidence to back up your allegation.

The Challenge sounds rigged? Fine. Prove it.

If you look at dailygrail.com. The myth of the million dollar challenge. You will see a lot of evidence of how the MDC isn't fair.

scientific experiments ar held at a much less prove rate than one in a million. That is ridiculous. That alone leads me to believe it is rigged.

Secondly, Randi is a great magician. His life is tricking people.. He is really good at it. Would you play poker for money with him.

Scientists that have tried the MDC have been put off by Randi because of several different reasons. Read the dailygrail. It goes in to detail.

Everyone on here wants proof, but won't read the site. Why?

Anyone who reads it will find themselves at least skeptical.

I am shocked that everyone here is so easily tricked by a publicity stunt.

 

[tapman]

Uh, not correct on P & T - or much of your other - The show was their second or third and they were quite well known even to non-magician people like me well before that. Honest magicians are pretty much always on the skeptic bandwagon because they know how the supernatural crap/fakery can be done - often by a number of methods - and they are normally good observers (or they would nopt be good magicians. The same goes on the evil/deluded side for psychics/ghost hunters and equivalent liars - they also (except the deluded) know they are faking and fear honest magicians like the plague.

HONEST Magicians? YOU are kidding right.

The whole magic act is dishonest. They are creating an illusion so you believe something is actually magic. That in itsef is a lie.

Secondly, have you ever read anything about Penn. He brags quite often of being a liar.

Honestly.

 

[tapman]

It proves nothing of the sort, unless you are gullible enough to see a number and assume a particular cause for the percentage. It could just as well "prove" that 95% were so loony that they could not manage to find the JREF office to take the test. You need to actually read the applications, in the cases where an application was in fact submitted, and all the crazy negotiations. If you don't come away from that with an understanding of why the MDC is being phased out, or why so few actually are tested, then you are not a reasonable person.

Any reasonable person might think otherwise. Nice try.

 

[Terry]

They are creating an illusion so you believe something is actually magic. That in itsef is a lie.

Nope.

 

[Terry]

The purpose of a stage magician fooling you is not to make you think that magic is real. It is entertainment. Surely this is obvious?

 

[tapman]

The purpose of a stage magician fooling you is not to make you think that magic is real. It is entertainment. Surely this is obvious?

Yes illusion. You go to a show, You pay a lot of money to see the show. You are pleasantly fooled. The magician doesn't tell you how he fooled you. You leave happy, and feel you got your money's worth.

You go to a psychic. You pay a lot of money. You are pleasantly fooled. the psychic doesn't tell you how he fooled you. You leave happy, and feel you got your money's worth.

HMMMMM. Interesting to me.

 

[Terry]

Yes illusion. You go to a show, You pay a lot of money to see the show. You are pleasantly fooled. The magician doesn't tell you how he fooled you. You leave happy, and feel you got your money's worth.

You go to a psychic. You pay a lot of money. You are pleasantly fooled. the psychic doesn't tell you how he fooled you. You leave happy, and feel you got your money's worth.

HMMMMM. Interesting to me.

Except the psychic claims not to be fooling you, and encourages you to base important life decisions on their schtick.

 

[maatorc]

.....there is no evidence for the existence of (and thus, no logical reason to believe in) the "demonstrators" that haven't yet claimed......

There is no evidence they do not exist.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Tapman, there is no need to re-address issues that have already been addressed. If you wish to discuss the DailyGrail article, please read Randi’s rebuttal in “THE GRUBBIES ATTACK!” article at SWIFT February 29, 2008 and then raise objections to Randi’s comments. We can work from there.

You may note, by simply reading past threads on this very forum, that in the past I have been critical of handling of the MDC and even particulars about particular protocols. However, I have never seen any evidence, or even a reasonable accusation, that the test, which is usually not conducted by Randi, was foiled by some trick. The only exception is the Landin test, which required materials that are exceptionally difficult to obtain and the tester skimped on the protocol. And JREF agreed to re-test. I think this is the exception that proves the rule that Randi and the JREF are not attempting to cheat or pull some magic trick of deceit.

Also, please note that there is formal standard of 1 in 1 million for tests that could depend on chance. There was a recent thread about why there is no defined standard of odds. I have addressed in other posts my hypothesis on how “the myth of one in a million” came about. If you simply look at the protocols that have been accepted, you will find that JREF has accepted protocols well below these odds. In fact, I don’t think any protocol proposed has required these odds. In any event, Randi stated in the article I posted above that he would accept much lower odds.

Tell me: how is the MDC a trick?

 

[badnewsBH]

There is no evidence they do not exist.

What, precisely, qualifies as evidence that something doesn't exist? Personally, I'd like to point to the numerous tests for paranormal ability done by the JREF and others that have found no evidence, and reiterate that this would seem to indicate the non-existence of aforementioned ability.

Of course, whatever your answer, Maatorc, the end result isn't relevant. The claim that these abilities exist is yours to buttress. I am not required to establish evidence of the non-existence of the chupacabra, Loch Ness monster or one eyed, one horned, flying purple people eater (apologies to Barry Cryer). The null hypothesis in any such test should be that these things do not exist. The existence of such cannot simply be assumed as fact; evidence to indicate that any of these examples is physically real must be presented before such a claim has merit.

If it is your opinion that paranormal abilities are available to people, so be it. I'd love to have such powers, and it would be fascinating if they were real. The evidence doesn't bear this out, unfortunately, and I've yet to see reason why I should believe what the evidence doesn't support.

 

[maatorc]

1...What, precisely, qualifies as evidence that something doesn't exist?
2...Personally, I'd like to point to the numerous tests for paranormal ability done by the JREF and others that have found no evidence......

1...There are here two things: people who have abilities and the abilities themselves. I was referring to people who have abilities.

2...The absence of evidence of such abilities from people or organizations unqualified and unable to demonstrate such evidence does not prove such abilities do not exist.

 

[kerikiwi]

1...There are here two things: people who have abilities and the abilities themselves. I was referring to people who have abilities.

2...The absence of evidence of such abilities from people or organizations unqualified and unable to demonstrate such evidence does not prove such abilities do not exist.

1. You can't have one without the other.
2. How would organizations have abilities?
I think you need to have another go at editing this..
Perhaps along the lines of: 'the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'?

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Tapman, there is no need to re-address issues that have already been addressed. If you wish to discuss the DailyGrail article, please read Randi’s rebuttal in “THE GRUBBIES ATTACK!” article at SWIFT February 29, 2008 and then raise objections to Randi’s comments. We can work from there.

You may note, by simply reading past threads on this very forum, that in the past I have been critical of handling of the MDC and even particulars about particular protocols. However, I have never seen any evidence, or even a reasonable accusation, that the test, which is usually not conducted by Randi, was foiled by some trick. The only exception is the Landin test, which required materials that are exceptionally difficult to obtain and the tester skimped on the protocol. And JREF agreed to re-test. I think this is the exception that proves the rule that Randi and the JREF are not attempting to cheat or pull some magic trick of deceit.

Also, please note that there is formal standard of 1 in 1 million for tests that could depend on chance. There was a recent thread about why there is no defined standard of odds. I have addressed in other posts my hypothesis on how “the myth of one in a million” came about. If you simply look at the protocols that have been accepted, you will find that JREF has accepted protocols well below these odds. In fact, I don’t think any protocol proposed has required these odds. In any event, Randi stated in the article I posted above that he would accept much lower odds.

Tell me: how is the MDC a trick?

The 1 in 1,000,000 figure applies by simply combining two tests with each of them providing a 1 in 1,000 possibility of success by chance.

In the current negotiations with Pavel Ziborov, the goal is to develop a test which allows for a sufficient number of trials and having a possibility of success by chance of - you guessed it right - around 1 in 1,000.



Tapman, I read the dailygrail.com page you linked to. I did not find the evidence you promised. Perhaps you should try to provide your own arguments.

If you want to actively and constructively help an applicant, join the discussion about Pavel Ziborov's protocol.

Are you up to it?

 

[tapman]

The 1 in 1,000,000 figure applies by simply combining two tests with each of them providing a 1 in 1,000 possibility of success by chance.

In the current negotiations with Pavel Ziborov, the goal is to develop a test which allows for a sufficient number of trials and having a possibility of success by chance of - you guessed it right - around 1 in 1,000.



Tapman, I read the dailygrail.com page you linked to. I did not find the evidence you promised. Perhaps you should try to provide your own arguments.

If you want to actively and constructively help an applicant, join the discussion about Pavel Ziborov's protocol.

Then you will all say Tapman is the best skeptic of all of us. He is the only one that wasn't blinded by their adoration of James Randi enough to be a true skeptic.

Hail Tapman, Hail Tapman, I can just hear it now.

Are you up to it?

If you couldn't find any evidence that might suggest the MDC is not up to scientific standards in the article, then maybe you will want to read it again. There are several statements by scientists that prove otherwise.

Go ahead and attack the scientists now in true JREF form.'

When Randi discloses the truth about this challenge one day, how will all of you feel.

I will feel like he is the greatest magician of all time. I will feel he has created an illusion that went on for decades, and everyone believed the illusion. I will believe he is the greatest showman of all time. I will believe he is truly a genius, unrivaled by anyone.

 

[tapman]

Except the psychic claims not to be fooling you, and encourages you to base important life decisions on their schtick.

Last I checked, magicians don't claim to be fooling you either. When Penn and teller did thier bullet catching trick on network tv, did they open the show by saying Ok everyone we are not really catching the bulllit in our mouth. No, they created an illusion that it was really being done.