Challenge applications

[Explorer]

Just a thought.

I would love to know whether the possibility of having to pay out the $1m, has been covered by an insurance policy.

Does anybody know this?

 

[Lamuella]

I agree with what you're saying, I just one to correct one small point in the interest of strict accuracy; it's not Randi's own money, it's the JREF's (it was mostly a donation from one individual, if I remember correctly).

I stand happily corrected. I looked it up and the individual in question was Rick Adams.

 

[Southwind17]

Just a thought.

I would love to know whether the possibility of having to pay out the $1m, has been covered by an insurance policy.

Does anybody know this?

The money's real and exists. Why don't you take the time to read the FAQ on the $1m Challenge link?

 

[EHocking]

Southwind17, you're missing Explorer's aim here.

Which appears to be to find some way to discredit the MDC.
An insurance policy held by JREF against losing the money would be a sure fire indication that JREF is hedging their bet and is not as sure as they claim about the improbability of the paranormal.

At least that's my take on it.

 

[Southwind17]

Southwind17, you're missing Explorer's aim here.

Which appears to be to find some way to discredit the MDC.
An insurance policy held by JREF against losing the money would be a sure fire indication that JREF is hedging their bet and is not as sure as they claim about the improbability of the paranormal.

At least that's my take on it.

I just wonder whether he has Dumbo ears!

 

[Lamuella]

EHocking, I think it's one stage more complicated than that;

If JREF have an insurance policy, it means they're hedging their bets and unsure of themselves.
If JREF don't have an insurance policy, it means that they aren't going to give the money up under any circumstances and the challenge is a fraud.

He's got us coming and going.

 

[Southwind17]

EHocking, I think it's one stage more complicated than that;

If JREF have an insurance policy, it means they're hedging their bets and unsure of themselves.
If JREF don't have an insurance policy, it means that they aren't going to give the money up under any circumstances and the challenge is a fraud.

He's got us coming and going.

The bottom line is there's no 'paranormal'. The MDC's a non-event, and we all know it. That said, many of the challenge applications make for very amusing, light reading.

 

[Lamuella]

The bottom line is there's no 'paranormal'. The MDC's a non-event, and we all know it. That said, many of the challenge applications make for very amusing, light reading.

we don't all know it. If we all knew it, there wouldn't be a point to it happening.

 

[Explorer]

Southwind17, you're missing Explorer's aim here.

Which appears to be to find some way to discredit the MDC.
An insurance policy held by JREF against losing the money would be a sure fire indication that JREF is hedging their bet and is not as sure as they claim about the improbability of the paranormal.

At least that's my take on it.

My point was to find out whether or not JREF behave as any other business, and protect their assets with insurance.

Of course it would be "hedging their bet", nothing wrong with that, in the business context.

I have no interest in discrediting the MDC, why would I, I support the MDC and all that it stands for, and the fact that $1million is on the line is enough for me to know that they are serious in paying out cash in the event of an applicant success. I tend to take a journalistic view and am simply asking a relevant question, which nobody so far seems to know the answer to. It surely is an interesting question though, isn't it?

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Just a thought.

I would love to know whether the possibility of having to pay out the $1m, has been covered by an insurance policy.

Does anybody know this?

There is NO insurance policy. They have $1m in assets. Please read the FAQ Section 3 again.


Read the following link:
http://www.randi.org/site/images/stories/evercore.pdf

I tend to take a journalistic view and am simply asking a relevant question, which nobody so far seems to know the answer to. It surely is an interesting question though, isn't it?

Not trying to discredit you, but part of a journalistic view is to see where answers are given. Some has already told you to read the FAQ. If you had read it, you would have noticed that there is no insurance policy in place.

 

[EHocking]

My point was to find out whether or not JREF behave as any other business, and protect their assets with insurance.

Then why did you not appraise yourself of the facts on this matter when you raised it in 2004?

Has Mr Randi insured himself against a potential payout?

If he has, then I would not put money on it!

You were give the answer then, but it is now 8 years later and you're still trolling the same question.

I have no interest in discrediting the MDC, why would I, I support the MDC and all that it stands for, and the fact that $1million is on the line is enough for me to know that they are serious in paying out cash in the event of an applicant success. I tend to take a journalistic view and am simply asking a relevant question, which nobody so far seems to know the answer to. It surely is an interesting question though, isn't it?

Excuse me if I don't believe your sincerity. As far as I have seen of your posts on the subject ALL you do is question the purpose of the MDC and blithely continue to ignore all and any answers to your criticisms in order to maintain this smear campain.

You've been on this campaign since you arrived.

...His prize is simply publicity for himself and his professional actvities, IMHO...

If you want to complain about quote mining, I'm sure the rest of the posters here will read that short thread (from 2004) for context if you feel I've misrepresented your view.


Also, reading between the lines, you seem also to be an apologist for dowsers. In practically EVERY thread on the subject, and especially wrt the MDC you seem to blame JREF and sceptics on the dowsers lack of success.

Others will see the similarity in your arguments from 8 years ago, vis;

...Experimental design has to start from a totally neutral position, but at the same time test for the effect where apparently, the phenomena seems to be the most prevalent. i.e. in the field.

Creating synthetic environments for testing dowsing IMHO, is flawed science, even if the dowsers themselves agree to it.

It seems that "in the field" should also exclude plywood or any other "barriers" to dowsing in order to be scientific and fair to dowsers.

 

[Explorer]

There is NO insurance policy. They have $1m in assets.

I never doubted for one minute that they had $1 miilion in assets, just read my post above again, where did I question that?

I will repeat the question, do they cover the event of a payout with an insurance policy? You seem to misunderstand my business point. If they pay out $1 million, they will have nothing left, and would have to rely on another donation to continue, if that is their wish to do so.

There is nothing in the balance sheet you linked, that indicates they have no insurance cover. This could be a payment hidden in the "Disbursements". If you can link me to a more detailed statement showing the individual payments, then it would become obvious one way or another.

Please read the FAQ Section 3 again.

Yes, I have,.....and? Again no reference or answers at all to my own question. Unless my speed reading missed a sentence.

Not trying to discredit you, but part of a journalistic view is to see where answers are given. Some has already told you to read the FAQ. If you had read it, you would have noticed that there is no insurance policy in place.

It is true that no mention of an insurance policy is in place, but then in the FAQs, nobody has asked that question, so it is not at all surprising.

Can you provide me with any definitive assistance with my question?

 

[Explorer]

Then why did you not appraise yourself of the facts on this matter when you raised it in 2004?

Congratulations Mr Hocking, I wondered if you remembered that old posting of mine all those years ago. Eight years on, things and people change of course, and the MDC itself has no doubt evolved, along with my own views. Since then I have become an atheist and a secularist, that was a huge mindshift for me. I hope now that I am a more diligent skeptic, than I was eight years ago. Are you?

Excuse me if I don't believe your sincerity. As far as I have seen of your posts on the subject ALL you do is question the purpose of the MDC and blithely continue to ignore all and any answers to your criticisms in order to maintain this smear campain.

I will not excuse you. I am not a liar. The MDC for its imperfections, is still better than not having one at all.

You've been on this campaign since you arrived.
If you want to complain about quote mining, I'm sure the rest of the posters here will read that short thread (from 2004) for context if you feel I've misrepresented your view.

Sorry, I don't understand this.

Also, reading between the lines, you seem also to be an apologist for dowsers. In practically EVERY thread on the subject, and especially wrt the MDC you seem to blame JREF and sceptics on the dowsers lack of success.

I am not an apologist for dowsers, and neither will I be an apologist for the MDC. I simply question the test methods, and the dowser's rampant naivety coupled with their lack of scientific self-assessment. If you read my posts above again, you will see that is evident.

Others will see the similarity in your arguments from 8 years ago, vis;
It seems that "in the field" should also exclude plywood or any other "barriers" to dowsing in order to be scientific and fair to dowsers.

I am pleased that DD has carried out "field" trials, I have certainly not changed my mind about field trials, after eight years. I am again puzzled by your second sentence. Firstly, DD is dowsing for "disturbed earth", and that is not what I was addressing in the past. Disturbed earth obviously has to be covered and obscured in some way to avoid visual clues, and with respect to "plywood", I have already stated that DD's response to that material being a barrier to a "signal" was probably an instant knee jerk comment which he later may regret, following more experiments.

I am going to repeat again very clearly to you what I am saying today, and not 8 years ago.

The dowser should be given the opportunity of pre-trialing the finally mutually agreed MDC test method, if that is at all possible, prior to the MDC actual, in the privacy of his own environment.

I say this so that it will remove any mis-placed confidence. I also suggested a way out for the dowser, if and when he loses confidence as a consequence of the pre-tests, via withdrawal up to four weeks before the test.

Finally, I am not at all concerned with defending dowsers, I only question the methodology. More importantly, I believe that if my suggestion above means that no dowser will ever take the MDC, due to a dose of reality, following pre-tests, then so be it.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Congratulations Mr Hocking, I wondered if you remembered that old posting of mine all those years ago. Eight years on, things and people change of course, and the MDC itself has no doubt evolved, along with my own views. Since then I have become an atheist and a secularist, that was a huge mindshift for me. I hope now that I am a more diligent skeptic, than I was eight years ago. Are you?


I will not excuse you. I am not a liar. The MDC for its imperfections, is still better than not having one at all.


Sorry, I don't understand this.




I am not an apologist for dowsers, and neither will I be an apologist for the MDC. I simply question the test methods, and the dowser's rampant naivety coupled with their lack of scientific self-assessment. If you read my posts above again, you will see that is evident.



I am pleased that DD has carried out "field" trials, I have certainly not changed my mind about field trials, after eight years. I am again puzzled by your second sentence. Firstly, DD is dowsing for "disturbed earth", and that is not what I was addressing in the past. Disturbed earth obviously has to be covered and obscured in some way to avoid visual clues, and with respect to "plywood", I have already stated that DD's response to that material being a barrier to a "signal" was probably an instant knee jerk comment which he later may regret, following more experiments.

I am going to repeat again very clearly to you what I am saying today, and not 8 years ago.

The dowser should be given the opportunity of pre-trialing the finally mutually agreed MDC test method, if that is at all possible, prior to the MDC actual, in the privacy of his own environment. I say this so that it will remove any mis-placed confidence. I also suggested a way out for the dowser, if and when he loses confidence as a consequence of the pre-tests.

Finally, I am not at all concerned with defending dowsers, I only question the methodology. More importantly, I believe that if my suggestion above means that no dowser will ever take the MDC, due to a dose of reality, following pre-tests, then so be it.

I cannot remember a case in which the JREF (or any testing organization) did not encourage self-testing prior to the official test. And even if the applicants were not encouraged (and they were), they still certainly had the opportunity to self-test to their heart's desire. No one at JREF ever prevented them from having this opportunity.

Ward

 

[Olowkow]

No need for insurance to cover a success by an MDC applicant.

A high definition video of someone proving beyond all possible doubt the existence of the paranormal would likely be worth more than a measly $1,000,000. Hubble photos of a guy flapping his way to the moon in the vacuum of space would sell like hotcakes.

 

[Explorer]

I cannot remember a case in which the JREF (or any testing organization) did not encourage self-testing prior to the official test. And even if the applicants were not encouraged (and they were), they still certainly had the opportunity to self-test to their heart's desire. No one at JREF ever prevented them from having this opportunity.

Ward

Thank you Ward for that. I think you missed this bit though:

"I simply question the test methods, and the dowser's rampant naivety coupled with their lack of scientific self-assessment."

I also suggested in a previous post, that the dowser should not even be allowed to take the test without an affidavit proving that self-assessment of the elements of the MDC in private, had been carried out. Why are posters here so selective with their quotes?

 

[EHocking]

Congratulations Mr Hocking, I wondered if you remembered that old posting of mine all those years ago. Eight years on, things and people change of course, and the MDC itself has no doubt evolved, along with my own views. Since then I have become an atheist and a secularist, that was a huge mindshift for me. I hope now that I am a more diligent skeptic, than I was eight years ago. Are you?

You didn't answer the question.

You raised the question on whether the $1MM was "protected" by insurance 8 years ago. A simple email to JREF would have sorted that question for you then. Why, in the interest of journalistic enquiry, haven't bothered to found out yourself, instead of posting this question over and over? You give the impression that, by making these constant digs at the MDC, you have an agenda to discredit the MDC.

I will not excuse you. I am not a liar. The MDC for its imperfections, is still better than not having one at all.

I didn't call you a liar, but the inconsistency of your your postings here so confuse me as to what you actual stance is, that I therefore suspect your motive is to merely undermine the MDC.
For example, compare the above highlighted statement above with this.

Why have the challenge at all? It seems in the JREF case, to be soley for reasons of debunking purposes. Which is OK as far as that goes, and as has been said above, JREF is not a scientific research centre, and therefore by its own admission, the MDC, in the scientific sense, has little value for rational enquiry. I just wish it had.

You see where I am having problems with the consistency on your stance? At nearly every discussion (especially on dowsing) you seem to have issue with the MDC and seem to constantly post small digs at its purpose and execution, such as your "latest" on insurance.

Sorry, I don't understand this.

Ironic, when the sentence was about context. Oh, well.

I am not an apologist for dowsers, and neither will I be an apologist for the MDC. I simply question the test methods, and the dowser's rampant naivety coupled with their lack of scientific self-assessment. If you read my posts above again, you will see that is evident.

I obviously don't.

I am pleased that DD has carried out "field" trials, I have certainly not changed my mind about field trials, after eight years. I am again puzzled by your second sentence.

Not important, I was being sarcastic.

Firstly, DD is dowsing for "disturbed earth", and that is not what I was addressing in the past.

One dowsing claim is the same as another, be it water, oil, gold, disturbed earth. Your issue seems to be that the artificial setting of past dowsing tests was not testing their claim and they should be performed "in the field". Do you consider that edge's (Mike Guska's) test for gold failed because it was done in his local creek? Or that the famous one with the array of buried pipes were so artificial that this was the cause of the dowser's failure?

that Disturbed earth obviously has to be covered and obscured in some way to avoid visual clues, and with respect to "plywood", I have already stated that DD's response to that material being a barrier to a "signal" was probably an instant knee jerk comment which he later may regret, following more experiments.

I am going to repeat again very clearly to you what I am saying today, and not 8 years ago.

The dowser should be given the opportunity of pre-trialing the finally mutually agreed MDC test method, if that is at all possible, prior to the MDC actual, in the privacy of his own environment.

I say this so that it will remove any mis-placed confidence. I also suggested a way out for the dowser, if and when he loses confidence as a consequence of the pre-tests, via withdrawal up to four weeks before the test.

At practically every discussion with every application the first thing they are told is to go an self-test. That they do not is there business...

Finally, I am not at all concerned with defending dowsers, I only question the methodology. More importantly, I believe that if my suggestion above means that no dowser will ever take the MDC, due to a dose of reality, following pre-tests, then so be it.

You give dowsers more credit than they are due, IMO.

 

[Explorer]

You didn't answer the question.

You raised the question on whether the $1MM was "protected" by insurance 8 years ago. A simple email to JREF would have sorted that question for you then. Why, in the interest of journalistic enquiry, haven't bothered to found out yourself, instead of posting this question over and over? You give the impression that, by making these constant digs at the MDC, you have an agenda to discredit the MDC.

No, no agenda. I don't know how many times I have to say it. Its your problem obviously.

I didn't call you a liar, but the inconsistency of your your postings here so confuse me as to what you actual stance is, that I therefore suspect your motive is to merely undermine the MDC.

You said you "doubted my sincerity" That is tantamount to the same thing in my book.

For example, compare the above highlighted statement above with this.You see where I am having problems with the consistency on your stance? At nearly every discussion (especially on dowsing) you seem to have issue with the MDC and seem to constantly post small digs at its purpose and execution, such as your "latest" on insurance.

I have an issue with the execution, not the MDC per se, that is all.

As for the insurance, I am surprised that I am apparently the only one to have asked that question over the last eight years. If they have it, that is fine. If they don't, that is fine too. It is a business question, and if I was running a business, whether it be a skeptic's website or a manufacturing company, I would ask the same question of the executive in charge of the company's assets. Why is that question considered to be undermining the MDC? It is good business practice, and if JREF inc. doesn't have it, then that is the risk that they are taking. If they don't consider it to be risk, that is their perogative. It is simply enquiry, which is what skepticism is all about.

One dowsing claim is the same as another, be it water, oil, gold, disturbed earth.

Is it? That is a sweeping generalisation. On what do you base that assumption?. Ah, they have all failed the testing. Oh well there you are then.

Your issue seems to be that the artificial setting of past dowsing tests was not testing their claim and they should be performed "in the field". Do you consider that edge's (Mike Guska's) test for gold failed because it was done in his local creek? Or that the famous one with the array of buried pipes were so artificial that this was the cause of the dowser's failure?At practically every discussion with every application the first thing they are told is to go an self-test. That they do not is there business...You give dowsers more credit than they are due, IMO.

I will repeat ad nauseum. If the dowsers do not carry out the mutually agreed test method in private, to provide confidence in their abilties or otherwise, certified with a suitable affadavit, then they should not be allowed to take the MDC. That is the true level of credit that I am affording to dowsers. Why cannot you see that?

Who would deny that the natural setting is the best setting for a controlled test? Why should an artificial environment be a better test? Every effort, IMHO, should be to provide controlled testing in the field, as per DDs recent experiments. If we think that dowsing is not real, and a delusion, then the most effective way of deterring future claimants, which skeptics would surely want to champion, is for the existing ones to disprove it from personal revelation through self-discovery.

Epilogue:

That is all I am going to say on the matter now, so that I can move on. It remains that nobody knows whether or not the MDC has insurance, and nobody, apart from me seems to be bothered, so we can leave it at that. I am not an apologist for dowsers, only the test methodology.

 

[sadhatter]

No need for insurance to cover a success by an MDC applicant.

A high definition video of someone proving beyond all possible doubt the existence of the paranormal would likely be worth more than a measly $1,000,000. Hubble photos of a guy flapping his way to the moon in the vacuum of space would sell like hotcakes.

And above and beyond that, what insurance company with one whit of sense would take up a policy that would essentially read like this.

"If we are wrong, you cover our one million dollar bet."

That would just be the stupidest thing in the history of time. If Insurance companies were that moronic, everyone would be taking out insurance, making insane bets, and just splitting the winnings with the person who "won".

Or if that doesn't suit your fancy, every casino would be taking the same kind of insurance, and having nothing but profits.

I don't know where this guy is getting his insurance, but i for one would love to know the number to a company of whom he thinks would offer "Pissing Contest coverage." ( as much as i love the MDC and think it is a valuable resource, this is an accurate description. And by this time we have damn near flooded a field, while the woosters have yet to cause a light drizzle on an anthill.). They seem like a generous if naive bunch of folks.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Thank you Ward for that. I think you missed this bit though:

"I simply question the test methods, and the dowser's rampant naivety coupled with their lack of scientific self-assessment."

I also suggested in a previous post, that the dowser should not even be allowed to take the test without an affidavit proving that self-assessment of the elements of the MDC in private, had been carried out. Why are posters here so selective with their quotes?

But the post to which I was responding was suggesting that the JREF somehow prevented people from even having the opportunity to self-test. If doswers weren't naive and could self-assess scientifically, there would be no dowsers (based on what we know so far). But there aredowsers and the JREF not only allows self-testing, they encourage it.

They also require a media presence and academic affidavits. To set even further requirements would only give ammunition to the people who claim that the JREF is afraid to test people because there's no million dollars or they think they'll lose or whatever. If an applicant has the wherewithal to have a media presence and has affidavits from members of academia, but then is still too stupid to self-test using the agreed protocol, well there's only so much hand-holding the JREF can do.

Ward