Why the challenge is illogical.

[KWifler]

I think the challenge for paranormal abilities is illogical. For one thing, the paranormal is akin to dark matter, in that it is obviously something, but it is not explainable yet. In this way it could be said that the people who discovered dark matter, dark energy, black holes and singularities should get the money.

Another reason I think the challenge is illogical is that it defeats its own purpose in its solicitation with the use of a term which I would consider pseudo-scientific, with which it attracts quacks and whackos specifically. I would consider this to be an anti-scientific pursuit, as it challenges people with a requirement that people approach in an unscientific way, for if they had scientifically proved the existence of their supposedly paranormal ability, it would cease to be paranormal.

In conclusion, I find that the challenge is a form of propaganda which creates a social stigma against paranormal phenomena, and in so doing, stifles the scientific freedom to study and be recognized for the study of such phenomena.

Through my own personal experiences, I have come to the conclusion that anything and everything will eventually be explained scientifically, and the pursuit of the paranormal is simply a way to cheat the currently knowable means of finding success or dominance. Thus, I do not believe in the existence of the paranormal, but I do believe that the million dollar challenge is attainable because of its aforementioned flaws. Some of the people who deserve the prize money are featured on a recent episode of "Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman" in which they detail the ability to sense and control phenomena in ways that are currently not considered to be possible, by using scientific testing. At the very least, it has some entertainment value.

My view of skepticism, at least in its common and mundane form, is a group of people who have been fooled by something, and now they are mad and want to lash out against anything resembling the trickery that fooled them. This is a perception I have built up from personal experience, and I hope that nobody here is this kind of skeptic. I commend people who keep their heads in attempting to debunk tricksters and are capable of accepting true instances of unexplainable phenomena.


Thank You to the people at JREF for this great resource. I look forward to your comments regarding this issue.

PS. I am not good at tags, so if anyone wants to help, please do.

 

[Wudang]

I think the challenge for paranormal abilities is illogical. For one thing, the paranormal is akin to dark matter, in that it is obviously something, but it is not explainable yet.

Why are fakery and delusion not explainable please?

 

[kerikiwi]

Through my own personal experiences, I have come to the conclusion that anything and everything will eventually be explained scientifically,

Before explaining how a pegasus flies, we need to establish that a pegasus exists.

 

[Rasmus]

Thus, I do not believe in the existence of the paranormal, but I do believe that the million dollar challenge is attainable because of its aforementioned flaws. Some of the people who deserve the prize money are featured on a recent episode of "Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman" in which they detail the ability to sense and control phenomena in ways that are currently not considered to be possible, by using scientific testing.

So when can we expect your application for the MDC? I think I once saw mention of a "Finder's fee" for someone who facilitates the application of a future challenge-winner.

Or i this rant just a plug for a TV show?

 

[dtugg]

If they can beat the challenge, why haven't they? Do they not want a million dollars? lol.

 

[Rasmus]

I think the challenge for paranormal abilities is illogical. For one thing, the paranormal is akin to dark matter, in that it is obviously something, but it is not explainable yet. In this way it could be said that the people who discovered dark matter, dark energy, black holes and singularities should get the money.

Uh ...no.

"Not yet explained" isn't the same as "paranormal", otherwise any petty theft or the dent I found in my car the other week would qualify for the challenge.

At the very least, the "paranormal" goes against what we otherwise know. AFAIK black holes et al do not violate known and tested physical laws in any way.

Another reason I think the challenge is illogical is that it defeats its own purpose in its solicitation with the use of a term which I would consider pseudo-scientific, with which it attracts quacks and whackos specifically. I would consider this to be an anti-scientific pursuit, as it challenges people with a requirement that people approach in an unscientific way, for if they had scientifically proved the existence of their supposedly paranormal ability, it would cease to be paranormal.

Just wrong. Proving that something exists doesn't explain how it works or why it is there. The challenge only requires that the former be done and doesn't care about the latter. Explicitly so, even.

In conclusion, I find that the challenge is a form of propaganda which creates a social stigma against paranormal phenomena, and in so doing, stifles the scientific freedom to study and be recognized for the study of such phenomena.

I don't think anyone should be recognized for the study of alleged phenomena if they cannot at the very least prove the existence of said phenomena.

See the post about the Pegasus: There is no way to study the phenomena unless you can first demonstrate that it is real.

Through my own personal experiences, I have come to the conclusion that anything and everything will eventually be explained scientifically, and the pursuit of the paranormal is simply a way to cheat the currently knowable means of finding success or dominance.

I can't even parse that.

Again, the challenge isn't bothered about explanations.

[...]

My view of skepticism, at least in its common and mundane form, is a group of people who have been fooled by something, and now they are mad and want to lash out against anything resembling the trickery that fooled them.

I'd disagree. But even if you're right: So what?

This is a perception I have built up from personal experience, and I hope that nobody here is this kind of skeptic. I commend people who keep their heads in attempting to debunk tricksters and are capable of accepting true instances of unexplainable phenomena.

Show they exist. People will be more than happy to take it from there whilst you're busy counting your money.

Seriously: The challenge encourages science. All it does is to ask people to substantiate their claims. Regardless of any disagreement over the existence of paranormal phenomena: Everybody who does want to research them should always start by defining and quantifying the phenomenon in question.

Take homeopathy: Surely, in order to study homeopathy (its working, its effects, the correlation between substances and diseases or ailments, etc pp.) you would have to show that it does work in the first place! Say you wanted to discuss the efficiency of the color blue as a treatment against some ailment vs. the efficiency of a vacuum (both as main substances - and I wish I was making this up!) Surely, you would have to measure both and thereby establish that they both actually work, right? You would have to establish that they both work better than placebo, too, purely to be able to differentiate the effects of both treatments *even if* there was no disagreement whatsoever that homeopathy would work.

If you were a mind reader, you should be able to appreciate that on the surface your claimed ability would look exactly like the ramblings of schizophrenic person. In fact, assuming you were sane, you ought to want to make sure you weren't experiencing symptoms of schizophrenia even if there as no doubt at all that mind reading was possible as such, simply because you couldn't be sure whether you'd be mentally ill or especially gifted with that particular ability.

 

[This is The End]

<huge snip>unexplainable phenomena<snip>

I would have to say that unexplainable phenomena by definition are phenomena that do not exist; fantasy; not real.

If the phenomena was real it would be explainable phenomena.

The word explainable does not imply that any particular person necessarily can explain it, just that it is possible to explain.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I think the challenge for paranormal abilities is illogical. For one thing, the paranormal is akin to dark matter, in that it is obviously something, but it is not explainable yet. In this way it could be said that the people who discovered dark matter, dark energy, black holes and singularities should get the money.

No, because these phenomena are not paranormal, they are white spots on our map.

Let me try to explain the difference:

In medieval times map makers populated the unmapped part of the world with fantasy lands, sea serpents and other weird creatures. They had no reason to believe any of this existed, except sea-men's tales and old myths. This corresponds to the paranormal.

In the 19th century, the entire coast of Africa was reasonably well mapped, but the interior was unknown and showed up on sensible maps as a white area. Various things were expected to be in there, for a good reason: The Nile and other rivers came out of it, so their sources had to be somewhere, various stuff came down the rivers or over the land, so some things were known about the area. This corresponds to scientific hypotheses like dark matter etc.

Another reason I think the challenge is illogical is that it defeats its own purpose in its solicitation with the use of a term which I would consider pseudo-scientific, with which it attracts quacks and whackos specifically.

I assume the term you refer to is 'paranormal'. Paranormal is not a pseudoscientific term, in that it can be precisely defined and is falsifiable. The definitions on 'paranormal' differ, but since the MDC defines explicitly and precisely how it is to be understood withint the challenge, this is no problem.

I would consider this to be an anti-scientific pursuit, as it challenges people with a requirement that people approach in an unscientific way,

No, quite the contrary: It requires people to approach their claim in a strictly scientific way, namely to show unambiguously that it exists.

for if they had scientifically proved the existence of their supposedly paranormal ability, it would cease to be paranormal.

Wrong. A number of paranormal claims would still be paranormal, even if they were proven to exist. Ghosts, for example: If someone proved that ghosts existed and were indeed the disembodied spirits of dead people, they would still be paranormal.

In conclusion, I find that the challenge is a form of propaganda which creates a social stigma against paranormal phenomena,

Partly right. The challenge is indeed a form of propaganda, and it is meant to create what you might call social stigma. However, since it will award anyone who proves the existence of paranormal phenomena, it is not against them, but against people who wrongly claim to posess paranormal abilities. A goal that a defender of the real paranormal should applaud.

and in so doing, stifles the scientific freedom to study and be recognized for the study of such phenomena.

Not at all. It ecourages scientific study. However, proponents of the paranormal rarely approach it scientifically.

Through my own personal experiences, I have come to the conclusion that anything and everything will eventually be explained scientifically, and the pursuit of the paranormal is simply a way to cheat the currently knowable means of finding success or dominance.

Then you seem to be on the same side as the JREF and other skeptics.

Thus, I do not believe in the existence of the paranormal, but I do believe that the million dollar challenge is attainable because of its aforementioned flaws.

Not because of those flaws, because you are mistaken about those, but the challenge might indeed be won by someone showing the reality of something that is currently, and wrongly, deemed paranormal. The rules of the challenge allow for this, and such a claimant is still eligible for the money, even if a scientific explanation shows up subsequently.

Might I recommend that you read the rules of the challenge?

Some of the people who deserve the prize money are featured on a recent episode of "Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman" in which they detail the ability to sense and control phenomena in ways that are currently not considered to be possible, by using scientific testing. At the very least, it has some entertainment value.

No paranormal claims there.

My view of skepticism, at least in its common and mundane form, is a group of people who have been fooled by something, and now they are mad and want to lash out against anything resembling the trickery that fooled them.

There may be such people, but that is certainly not the norm. A number of skeptics started through some form of disenchantment, but being skeptic is a way of life.

This is a perception I have built up from personal experience, and I hope that nobody here is this kind of skeptic. I commend people who keep their heads in attempting to debunk tricksters and are capable of accepting true instances of unexplainable phenomena.

Most do, but you must realize that everybody needs a basic worldview, a working assumption for reality.

As a skeptic, my working assumption that everything can ultimately be explained in a non-paranormal way. Call it materialism, if you need an -ism for it. Thus, when I encounter something for which no explanation currently exists, I assume that it can be ultimately found in the physical world. Others might assume differently.

Thank You to the people at JREF for this great resource. I look forward to your comments regarding this issue.

You will hardly be disappointed.

Hans

 

[Lamuella]

"the paranormal is very similar to [insert currently popular piece of actual science here]"

 

[MRC_Hans]

"the paranormal is very similar to [insert currently popular piece of actual science here]"

No. The paranormal is fundamentally different from anything that can justly be called science.

Hans

 

[Lamuella]

No. The paranormal is fundamentally different from anything that can justly be called science.

Hans

I think you missed the joke

 

[wardenclyffe]

So when can we expect your application for the MDC? I think I once saw mention of a "Finder's fee" for someone who facilitates the application of a future challenge-winner.

As far as I know, the finder's fee applies only to the challenges offered by the Australian Skeptics and the IIG, not JREF. Still, those other challenges are a good place to start. Passing one of those would almost certainly qualify an applicant for the MDC.

Ward

 

[wardenclyffe]

Back at the turn of the previous century, the Wright Brothers first flew their airplane. They did it in private with very few witnesses. People found it hard to believe that they had flown. The New York Herald wrote, "The Wrights have flown or they have not flown. They possess a machine or they do not possess one. They are in fact either fliers or liars. It is difficult to fly. It's easy to say, 'We have flown.'"

So, cash prizes were offered if someone could prove they could fly. Guess what. People started winning prizes left and right because people really could fly. Prizes were offered for flying the English Channel, and Bleriot won the prize. Prizes were offered for flying the Atlantic, and Lindberg won that prize.

These paranormal prizes have been offered for decades, and yet no one can prove they have the power. It makes one think (or it should).

Ward

P.S. This article: http://www.wright-brothers.org/Hist...owing_the_World/Prize_Patrol/Prize_Patrol.htm was the source of my quote above.

 

[Belz...]

I think the challenge for paranormal abilities is illogical. For one thing, the paranormal is akin to dark matter, in that it is obviously something, but it is not explainable yet.

And you're wrong. Dark Matter produces visible effects and is therefore observable. Paranormal abilities have not yet been observed. That is the point of the test. If those abilities exist, they must have impact on the real world and therefore should be subject to observation.

 

[KWifler]

Kerikiwi, thanks for the illuminating reply.
Rasmus, I must admit that I am very tempted. I must apologize for being so sloppy with termonology, but I find it a bit of a hassle to follow the instructions in the FAQ to find the precise outline of what is paranormal.
Dtugg, maybe they haven't heard of it, or their scientific morality prevents them.
OnlyTellsTruths, I'm sorry but I am incapable of accepting your definition of unexplainable because of my belief that such a thing doesn't exist.

MRC Hans, thank you ever so much for the explanations and examples, and although I disagree with your optimistic view about the MDC specifically, I am sure the other activities that happen at the JREF are worthy of it.

Lamuella, I mostly agree with your sentiments.
Wardenclyffe, thank you for clearing that up. I have no capacity to pursue financial aspirations, or I would have already signed up.

Thanks all for the responses, sorry if I am not as meticulous as you would like, hopefully I will improve in time. I still think, and very pragmatically so, it seems, that the way the MDC is set up could be improved to garner the attention of a more legitimate crowd. Not that the rest of the JREF doesn't do that. If paranormal things really could be shown to exist by any of the people who have been made aware of the challenge, it would have happened by now.

 

[wardenclyffe]

If paranormal things really could be shown to exist by any of the people who have been made aware of the challenge, it would have happened by now.

I agree, so spread the word.

Ward

 

[Rasmus]

the way the MDC is set up could be improved to garner the attention of a more legitimate crowd.

I don't think this is the point or aim of the challenge.

It exists not to explain hitherto unexplained phenomena, but to rub it into the face of those that make claims about non-existing phenomena.

 

[Resume]

If paranormal things really could be shown to exist by any of the people who have been made aware of the challenge, it would have happened by now.

Kind of the bottom line, don't you think?

 

[MRC_Hans]

I think you missed the joke

ops.

Hans

 

[arthwollipot]

...it is obviously something...

No. It isn't. Except in those cases where it is obviously delusion and/or fraud. When you eliminate error, delusion and hoax, you're not left with something, you're left with nothing.