• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.

Challenge Question...

Cavemonster said:
No, it would be ONE thing previously beyond our understanding that we now have the amazing opportunity to learn more about.

And as we continue to study the tank levitator, things could go a couple ways.

1) It is shown to be a trick of some kind, is not replicable or otherwise does not transform scientific knowledge.
Click to expand...
ex hypothesi - not allowed

2) We discover how it harnesses physics we're familiar with in new and unexpected ways. Great! That's how science and human knowledge move forward!
Click to expand...
See above

3) We discover that it contradicts known physical laws consistently. Even better! Physics was rewritten by Einstein and now we'd be rewriting it again! Nothing that breaks skepticism.
Click to expand...
No, it destroys the laws of physics. Let's see your new, rewritten rule: Physics as per Newton + Einstein er, except with regard to levitating tanks about which we know nothing.

4) We fail to discover how it works. No problem. Lot's of mysteries take time. Science often takes decades to answer questions, some may take centuries. There is no time limit. One thing that will always be true is that very little is discovered by throwing up your hands and saying "It's magic"! We continue to study and maybe someday incorporate it into a useful model of the world.
Click to expand...
This one will not be amenable to a solution in the fullness of time. It will never be solved.


No matter how the rules of physics and logic change or are revised from observation, some things are true and some things are not- it is the job of skepticism to rigorously discover and hold to the best strategies for finding the truth and rejecting what's false. Whether those effective rules are science and logic, or unicorns and magic spells, as long as truth exists, there will be more effective ways to reach it. The content of the JREF may change, but the guiding principles will always have merit.
Click to expand...
Well, now you have strayed too far. Maybe the 'rules' will only be intelligible to and interpretable by witch doctor types, steeped in the dark arts and accessible only to them no matter how hard the rest of us try. I might change from levitating tanks to inexplicable cures for cancer. The premise of the thread allows us to posit anything at all so long as it works and cannot be attributed to anything we know.

The only universe where skepticism would be irrelevant is one where everything experienced is arbitrary and unpredictable. But knowledge of such a state is a logical contradiction. You can't logically conclude that nothing can be logically concluded. And even if it were possible to arrive at such a state, it would take much more to even approach it than a floating tank.
Click to expand...
Our universe would incorporate a logical contradiction and thus be arbitrary and unpredictable if someone demonstrated that its fundamental laws could be violated at will in a way which we could not comprehend. Like there was a God or something.
 
anglolawyer said:
Our universe would incorporate a logical contradiction and thus be arbitrary and unpredictable if someone demonstrated that its fundamental laws could be violated at will in a way which we could not comprehend. Like there was a God or something.
Click to expand...

It would incorporate an apparent contradiction. Not necessarily the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge said:
How, in the event of a winning challenger, could anyone be certain that the demonstrated ability would never be explained?
Click to expand...

You couldn't but so long as it remained unexplained it would be indistinguishable from the state of affairs in which it would never be (which we can stipulate anyway, since this is a thought experiment).
 
anglolawyer said:
I am suggesting that a genuine, verified, repeatable (not essential but desirable for doubters) and unfalsifiable phenomenon that called into question the existence of fundamental physical laws would not allow you to retreat to a small corner of the universe and pretend everything was still valid in that corner.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is essential and would be the key to my reaction to someone winning the challenge. I'd go, "WHOA!, that's really strange. Let's do the test again just to make sure." Or I'd look for a variant of the test to explore its wider applicability.

IOW, winning the challenge will not, by itself, overturn existing scientific paradigms. It would certainly open up avenues for further exploration using the same tools of existing science.
 
SezMe said:
Yes, that is essential and would be the key to my reaction to someone winning the challenge. I'd go, "WHOA!, that's really strange. Let's do the test again just to make sure." Or I'd look for a variant of the test to explore its wider applicability.

IOW, winning the challenge will not, by itself, overturn existing scientific paradigms. It would certainly open up avenues for further exploration using the same tools of existing science.
Click to expand...

OK. I gave it my best shot and concede the forum may just somehow or other survive the challenge being won. :). But, as a matter of the rules, do they in fact require repeatability? I mean, once the test conditions are set and passed that's it, right? The Foundation is down a million.
 
anglolawyer said:
But, as a matter of the rules, do they in fact require repeatability? I mean, once the test conditions are set and passed that's it, right? The Foundation is down a million.
Click to expand...
The test conditions include repeatability in that there are two tests, which assuming the usual 'beat odds of 1:1000' success criteria means there's only a 1 in a million chance a successful challenge was down to luck.

But because of the possibility of systemic error (see the 'faster-than-light neutrino' result) scientists always want to see a successful replication by more than one team before accepting any experimental finding. So whilst the Foundation would indeed be down a million as soon as the applicant passed the second and final test, Sezme is right that the usual scientific investigation (multiple replications, the publication of papers in recognised peer reviewed journals) would be required before the scientific community would be satisfied of the existence of the new phenomenon.
 
Pixel42 said:
The test conditions include repeatability in that there are two tests, which assuming the usual 'beat odds of 1:1000' success criteria means there's only a 1 in a million chance a successful challenge was down to luck.

But because of the possibility of systemic error (see the 'faster-than-light neutrino' result) scientists always want to see a successful replication by more than one team before accepting any experimental finding. So whilst the Foundation would indeed be down a million as soon as the applicant passed the second and final test, Sezme is right that the usual scientific investigation (multiple replications, the publication of papers in recognised peer reviewed journals) would be required before the scientific community would be satisfied of the existence of the new phenomenon.
Click to expand...

Thanks. That clears it up.
 
anglolawyer said:
Suppose Jesus landed, gave adequate proof of his existence, levitated a tank and said 'everything you see, I made and I can unmake, every scientific law is not a law at all but something I can change, destroy, reverse, annul, erase etc. There is no reality except the one I put in your heads to keep you (and me) amused.'
Click to expand...
Yes, in that case, we might consider giving up the forum.

If Jesus really could be proven to be true, and if he and the other Christian gods really are as mean as described in the Bible, I would be busy grovelling before the Son of God, and would not have time to post here anyway.
 
Suppose Siva came, instead of Jesus.

While the reaction of skeptics might be as described, and the MDC would be awarded, and the Forum might continue, what do you think would be the reaction of the Christian religions?

I think that most of the leaders of the more fundamentalist organizations in the United States would say that this is all a trick of Satan.

[/derail]


(I wonder if there is a guaranteed retirement fund for the Pope.)
 
Just as a matter of interest, suppose someone beast the challenge with some law-defying thing that neither they nor we understand, I dunno, say they can predict future events. We can study it all we want but no one else can do it and while we can observe and describe the phenomenon in minute detail that's as far as we get. Does that have any profound implications or does it just mean that whereas before we had our Universe, now we have that Universe exactly the same but with this weird phenomenon in it and we can just carry on as if nothing much happened?
 
I can't see life carrying on as normal if someone proved to be able to foresee the future, because obviously what they had to say would affect everybody. This ability has mindboggling implications which would have to be addressed (see the film Minority Report for one example). Paradoxes would abound.
 
anglolawyer said:
Just as a matter of interest, suppose someone beast the challenge with some law-defying thing that neither they nor we understand, I dunno, say they can predict future events. We can study it all we want but no one else can do it and while we can observe and describe the phenomenon in minute detail that's as far as we get. Does that have any profound implications or does it just mean that whereas before we had our Universe, now we have that Universe exactly the same but with this weird phenomenon in it and we can just carry on as if nothing much happened?
Click to expand...

Doesn't it depend entirely on the demonstrated phenomenon?

If Jesus came down and levitated a tank, then yes, virtually everything would be different. If someone were able to correctly and repeatedly distinguish a vial of water from a vial of homeopathic solution, then A] life would go on pretty much as it did (after all, the curative aspects of homeopathy have not been proved by this demonstration) and B] skeptic boards would still have to deal with

9/11 conspiracies
after-death communication
infinite energy devices
extra-terrestrial visitations
using irises to diagnose illnesses
human magnetism
Nostradamus "predictions"
Bible "prophecies"
Scientology claims
Hindu yogis (yogin?) who don't eat or drink
astrology
etcetera
etcetera
etcetera

It all depends on the demonstrated phenomenon,
 
Last edited:
anglolawyer said:
Yes, but in this thread we are assuming that someone wins the million dollar challenge by proving the existence of some psychic force. The OP asks what would happen then and I am arguing we would all have to pack our bags and go home. What would Randi say? He would be forced to admit that, while there are a lot of fakers out there there are also powers beyond our understanding capable of truly magical things = woo = forum shutdown.
Click to expand...

Let's say I were to show I had the ability to thrust my hands forward and create and throw fireballs at people. Fireballs that don't seem to require fuel or oxygen and continue on until they hit something. I'd win the million dollar challenge, wouldn't I?

But that doesn't prove that anyone else can hunch over and create a field of electricity around themselves. It doesn't mean anyone can extend their arms 20 feet and pull them back on demand. It doesn't mean anyone can kick or punch dozens of times per second.

No, even in the extremely specific supernatural skillset of being a live-action Street Fighter character that doesn't require CGI, I've only proven that I, and I alone, can do one thing. It means nothing for any other power, and it means nothing for any of the rest of the supernatural or paranormal claims.

My ability to hadouken doesn't let other people talk to ghosts. It doesn't even mean ghosts exist. Skepticism still applies to everything else.
 
Pixel42 said:
I can't see life carrying on as normal if someone proved to be able to foresee the future, because obviously what they had to say would affect everybody. This ability has mindboggling implications which would have to be addressed (see the film Minority Report for one example). Paradoxes would abound.
Click to expand...

I was hoping someone else would say that and I assume clarevoyance is among the things Randi would pay a million bucks to see.
 
anglolawyer said:
I was hoping someone else would say that and I assume clairvoyance is among the things Randi would pay a million bucks to see.
Click to expand...

Yes, the MDC will accept applications for remote viewing, precognition, and other forms of clairvoyance.

It will also accept applications for clairaudience and clairgustance - although no one ever claims the power of remote tasting - very strange.
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
I can't see life carrying on as normal if someone proved to be able to foresee the future, because obviously what they had to say would affect everybody. This ability has mindboggling implications which would have to be addressed (see the film Minority Report for one example). Paradoxes would abound.
Click to expand...
I read an article last night that explored the possibility that the future affects current events at the quantum level. It was based on genuine physicists doing published research. It is certainly controversial and not mainstream but it's not wacko either.
 
Ladewig said:
Yes, the MDC will accept applications for remote viewing, precognition, and other forms of clairvoyance.

It will also accept applications for clairaudience and clairgustance - although no one ever claims the power of remote tasting - very strange.
Click to expand...

Clairaudience? I can do that.:) Do I get a million?

(Thanks for correcting my spelling btw.)
 
Something I've been wondering ever since I first heard of the challenge, it's a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any "paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event".

'Paranormal' is defined as something that is "outside the range of normal experience or scientific explanation", so firstly we must ask 'normal experience for who?' I've never been in an airplane, so flying would be outside of my 'normal experience', but secondly there are lots of things that are currently 'outside the the range of scientific explanation', infact that's what science is for, to try to find out the answers about things that we didn't previously know. We currently don't know what triggered the big bang, ergo, that question is currently 'outside the the range of scientific explanation', so doesn't that make the big bang event, by definition, 'paranormal'?

'Supernatural' means something that is 'not subject to the laws of nature', but if a 'paranormal phenomina' were to be proven, wouldn't science re-write 'laws of nature' to include this newly discovered phenomina? Wouldn't the act of observing a supernatural event then make that event a 'natural' event? If it's something that can be proven to happen, then it's 'natural', right?

And 'occult'?
Occult means "knowledge of the hidden" and usualy refers to "knowledge of the paranormal", yet 'paranormal' is something that is "outside the range of scientific explanation"..... if someone has 'knowledge' of something, it's no longer 'outside the range of scientific explanation' so the term "knowledge of the paranormal" makes no grammatical sense whatsoever because it's literaly a contradiction in terms.

Is the foundation having a laugh at everyone else's expence by wording the challenge in such a way as to make the challenge impossible? Or can I just say that the big bang event is 'outside the current range of scientific explanation', claim my money and be on my way?


Yours Faithfully... but totaly confused....

Slacker.
:confused:
 
If you have an ability that you think is paranormal then send JREF an e-mail asking. If you get them to agree that it is and you have the ability then after you have demonstrated that ability twice then you will win a million dollars. It does not matter if they realise that the ability is not paranormal after you win, as long as you demonstrate what you claim you can do you win. This is a simplified version of the truth. There are a lot more steps involved.

Most people back out after they apply because they do not have the ability that they claim. There are only a few who submit themselves to a test and they all lose.
 
BowlOfRed said:
Welcome. Before getting into specifics, can I ask if you've read the FAQ for the challenge? It may answer some of your questions.
Click to expand...

Yes I have, It states that they are using 'Webster’s Online Dictionary' which defines “paranormal” as “not scientifically explainable" or "supernatural.”

But that's my point, if it can be 'proven' to exist then it becomes something that can be studied, which means that it can then be considered as 'scientifically explainable' while at the same time being re-defined as 'natural' as opposed to 'supernatural'. Remember, science doesn't neccessarily have to be right about something to make it 'scientifically explainable', it just has to put an explanation forwards, a plausable hypothesis or theory, until an explanation can be proven.

To me, it just seems like the act of observing such a thing naturaly takes it out of the game, according to the wording used in the challenge.
 
And then the very next sentence says:
Within the Challenge, this means that at the time your application is submitted and approved, your claim will be considered paranormal for the duration. If, after testing, it is decided that your ability is either scientifically explainable or will be someday, you needn’t worry. If the JREF has agreed to test you, then your claim is paranormal.
Click to expand...

So redefining it as natural later doesn't get them off the hook for the money.
 
Loads of people who claim to have a paranormal ability have taken the challenge. Any one of them would have won it if they had been able to do what they said they could do.

Dowsing, homeopathy, psychic ability - all of these and more are phenomena which millions of people claim are demonstrable, and all are eligible for the MDC. So no, I don't think JREF are "having a laugh".
 
BowlOfRed said:
And then the very next sentence says:
"Within the Challenge, this means that at the time your application is submitted and approved, your claim will be considered paranormal for the duration. If, after testing, it is decided that your ability is either scientifically explainable or will be someday, you needn’t worry. If the JREF has agreed to test you, then your claim is paranormal."

So redefining it as natural later doesn't get them off the hook for the money.
Click to expand...

That's the part that's confusing me. If it is decided that someone's ability is either scientifically explainable or will be someday, then by definition (using 'Websters Online Dictionary') it is not 'paranormal', yet the JREF are essentialy claiming here that they may contradict the definition of 'paranormal' if they so wish to do so.

So who is deciding what is paranormal and what is not paranormal here? The JREF? Or is there an unbiased third party involved?
 
Last edited:
SlackerBabbath said:
That's the part that's confusing me.
Click to expand...
I really don't understand why, it's perfectly clear. There are certain phenomena which are currently considered paranormal. JREF offers a prize of $1m to anyone who can demonstrate one of them. Anyone who thinks they can do so can apply, and if JREF agree that their claim is paranormal they accept the application, mutually agree a suitable test protocol, and run the test. If the applicant passes the test they get a million dollars.

If anyone ever wins the prize then obviously that would prompt scientific research into the demonstrated phenomenon, and it way well be that a scientific explanation is eventually found. But the person who first demonstrated it would still be $1m better off.
 
SlackerBabbath said:
So who is deciding what is paranormal and what is not paranormal here? The JREF?
Click to expand...

Basically yes.

If you can prove that something they don't think is real actually is real, you win the money. You and JREF agree between you beforehand exactly what you need to do to win.
 
That's a common enough question, and for now at least the answer is simple. Supernatural is whatever Randi decides. The ability to hear the difference between expensive audio cables and cheap ones, for example, wouldn't normally be considered paranormal for most purposes, but for the challenge, it is. Because Randi said so. It's his million, he gets to make the rules. But he's an old man, and he won't be with us forever.
 
SlackerBabbath said:
That's the part that's confusing me. If it is decided after testing that someone's ability is either scientifically explainable or will be someday, then by definition (using 'Websters Online Dictionary') it is not 'paranormal', yet the JREF are essentialy claiming here that they may contradict the definition of 'paranormal' if they so wish to do so.

So who is deciding what is paranormal and what is not paranormal here? The JREF? Or is there an unbiased third party involved?
Click to expand...

I added the highlighted part above. The test would be over and the million dollars will be in your pocket. Science can do what it wants after that, but you will be a millionaire. So you would have helped discover something new for science. It would no longer be paranormal, but you would still have won the money.

Ward
 
arthwollipot said:
That's a common enough question, and for now at least the answer is simple. Supernatural is whatever Randi decides. The ability to hear the difference between expensive audio cables and cheap ones, for example, wouldn't normally be considered paranormal for most purposes, but for the challenge, it is. Because Randi said so. It's his million, he gets to make the rules. But he's an old man, and he won't be with us forever.
Click to expand...

Technically, it is because JREF accepts the claim, not Randi. Of course Randi will likely have a great deal of input into what the JREF accepts.

There have been dozens of threads here over many, many years regarding the question of the meaning of “paranormal” and whether something considered paranormal that is proven was in fact normal and therefore not paranormal in the first place, etc.

There have been applicants who push the line from people who claim no paranormal abilities but who can beat the odds at certain tasks, to physicists and astronomers who can demonstrate something not currently popularly accept by mainstream scientists.

Within the context of scientific inquiry, the term “paranormal” is meaningless. Ultimately you end up in a philosophical quandary of semantics.

In science, there is no absolute truth. Or absolute falsity. Everything could be overturned by evidence. But within context, the meaning of “paranormal” is easily understood by most people. Within the context of the MDC, the “paranormal” is whatever JREF considers to be so far outside of known science as to be impossible. At least that is how I would define it (although I didn’t give it much thought).

If you delve too deep, you find a Wittgensteinian conundrum that does not actually exist in a practical sense. ;)
 
SlackerBabbath said:
To me, it just seems like the act of observing such a thing naturaly takes it out of the game, according to the wording used in the challenge.
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly right, If one actually observed a paranormal event it would enter into the realm of reality, it would be a fact. JREF is betting on the fact that things commonly considered "paranormal" have not been observed an never will.

IXP
 
If a US Court rules that person has paranormal abilities would that qualify as a win, or does the person still have to take the challenge through JREF?
 
DDWW said:
If a US Court rules that person has paranormal abilities would that qualify as a win, or does the person still have to take the challenge through JREF?
Click to expand...

If a person tries to take it through the US Courts, of all places, rather than through a scientific process, it's already full of fail. The rest is just pointing and laughing.
 
rjh01 said:
Doubtful. Though if a US court does make a ruling in suggesting that a person may have paranormal abilities I can predict a strong reaction from JREF.
Click to expand...
James Randi himself has been the target of many lawsuits, some of which could have been a de facto recognition of supernatural powers by the court.

There have also been examples of criminal lawsuits where the court had to decide if the defendant was a crook or a person with supernatural abilities. Thankfully, as far as I know, the courts have come down on the side of reason.

Finally, there has been examples of mediums and clairvoyants who have been called to use their powers for as witness statements, and again, they have been dismissed by the courts.

But I see no insurance that the judge will not support woo, except of course, that such verdicts - if they ever happen - will hopefully be appealed.

In other countries, notably Saudi Arabia, but I think also in some African countries, people have been condemned to death for witchcraft, and while the unhappy defendant is a victim in these cases, I think there are cases where defendant himself believed he had powers, in that case the courts have effectively supported their beliefs.
 
Last edited:
I have seen courts convict, when all knew there was no conviction to be had.

I have seen courts NOT convict when all knew that conviction was the correct thing to do.

I have even seen judges state that although they were quite aware, that the law required them to find in favour of unjust decisions.

The JREF challenge is even more impartial than all of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom