What Happened to Responsibility?

[Wolfman]

This is something that has been festering in my craw for quite some time now; I raised this issue previously in other discussions, but so far as I can see never received any real response. It was simply ignored.

I am talking about this whole Pear Cables fiasco. Debates here about it seem to focus primarily on whether James Randi can win it, or how it should be set up, or how dishonest Pear Cables is, etc. The issue I do not see being discussed is why on earth JREF is wasting its time on a completely pointless issue, and one that has nothing that I can see to do with the stated goals and purposes of the JREF!

It was explained to me by a member of the JREF staff, in another thread on this topic, that the decision to go after Pear Cables was a decision made by James Randi alone. It is his own personal cause celebre. And that would be fine, if he was using his own time and resources to pursue it. But he's not. He is using the time -- that is, paid time -- of JREF staff to pursue it. He is, in doing so, taking away from time and energy that could be more effectively focused on other, more important issues.

I run a non-profit organization myself. One of the very core principles of that organization is that my first responsibility is to the people who support my organization. I can't simply take their money then use it for whatever personal project grabs my attention.

Now, is Pear making claims that are exaggerated, or without merit? Quite likely. I'm certainly not defending them. But exactly what "negative impact" is this having on society? Who is it that is being "victimized"? Are there elderly grandmothers spending the last of their savings to buy thousand dollar cables? Or grieving mothers who are being bilked of their money based on false promises?

No. The people who are spending (admittedly ludicrous) amounts of money on such cables are people who are spending equally ludicrous amounts of money on other stereo components. Nobody's going out and buying a $50 stereo, then buying thousand dollar cables to make it sound better.

This is an issue which affects an extremely tiny portion of our population...I doubt it would even reach 0.01%. And of those it does affect, I don't feel a terribly great amount of concern for them, considering how much money they willingly put into all sorts of components, some of which have great value, some of which have little or no value. For many of them, it is more about bragging rights (who has the best or most expensive system) than anything else.

So...what is capturing all the attention right now? And what are JREF staff spending time and energy on? A trivial issue which, even if indisputably resolved in James Randi's favor, will have little or no impact on almost anybody.

Meanwhile, much more serious frauds and scams are going on...issues that the JREF should be spending time, energy, and money on.

Do I want to donate money to fund an organization that, apparently, sets its priorities and agendas at the whim of one man? No. Do I want to donate money that I intend to be used to address serious issues that affect a significant number of people, and instead find that organization's time and money being wasted on frivolous and pointless efforts like this? No.

JREF relies on donations. I'll be very, very willing to bet that, if asked, by far the vast majority of those donors would not have agreed to have their donations used in the manner that James Randi has chosen.

As I said elsewhere -- if James Randi is prepared to pay for all costs incurred by JREF, including staff salaries for time spent on it, as well as compensation for the time lost on other more important issues -- then I withdraw any and all complaints. But as it is, I see an organization that serves not at the pleasure of those who support it, but rather at the whim of one single man, who feels he has the right to engage in any petty vendetta he wishes, regardless of whether that actually fits with the stated goals and principles of that organization, or the desires of the people who have so generously supported that organization.

I set up my organization in such a manner that such abuse, or unilateral control by one individual, would be impossible. I did so because I knew that there would come times when my own ego would push me to do something that wasn't necessarily in line with the wishes of those who supported me.

Apparently, that is not the case with the JREF. Everything that I can see -- from how this forum is run, to how the JREF is run -- indicates that it is run at the whim of one man, and whatever peccadillos he may have. The stated goals and purposes of the organization are ignored (or stretched to their breaking point); the wishes of those who generously support that organization are irrelevant.

Forget all the arguments about if James Randi can win the challenge, of if he'll lose, of if the other side will back down. Forget all the debates about how best to set up the test, or what the criteria should be, or who should be involved. The core question, in my mind, is whether this is something that the JREF should ever have wasted time on to begin with.

Of course, if someone can show me how the sale of Pear Cables is actually having a significant detrimental impact on a sizable portion of our society -- like Sylvia Browne, or homeopathic medicine -- please feel free to educate me, and demonstrate how an issue that seems so incredibly tangential and insignificant to me actually deserves to have all this time and energy spent on it.

 

[Darat]

...snip...
I am talking about this whole Pear Cables fiasco. Debates here about it seem to focus primarily on whether James Randi can win it, or how it should be set up, or how dishonest Pear Cables is, etc. The issue I do not see being discussed is why on earth JREF is wasting its time on a completely pointless issue, and one that has nothing that I can see to do with the stated goals and purposes of the JREF!


...snip...

This is where I start to disagree with you. The JREF and Randi have always gone after the "consumer" style pseudoscience whether that be audio cables, magnets to make your wine taste better, identifying a record by it's groves (which if I recall correctly is an example that predates the JREF), or "magic water".

It seems 100% in line with what I have read about the JREF over the years and what Randi has dealt with over the years. I've always made my donations based on what I know about the JREF and this cable instance is exactly the sort of scam I have always been pleased to see the JREF (and therefore Randi) go after. If the JREF did this to the exclusion of everything else I wouldn't be happy about it and probably no longer choose to support it however that's never happened in the past so I can't see what is going to change going forward.

Perhaps you can explain how it isn't in line with what the JREF and Randi have been doing for years? (Have you never read the SWIFT archives going back over the years in which Randi has time and time again made similar challenges?)

 

[bokonon]

The JREF and Randi have always gone after the "consumer" style pseudoscience whether that be audio cables, magnets to make your wine taste better, identifying a record by it's groves (which if I recall correctly is an example that predates the JREF), or "magic water".

It seems 100% in line with what I have read about the JREF over the years and what Randi has dealt with over the years. I've always made my donations based on what I know about the JREF and this cable instance is exactly the sort of scam I have always been pleased to see the JREF (and therefore Randi) go after. If the JREF did this to the exclusion of everything else I wouldn't be happy about it and probably no longer choose to support it however that's never happened in the past so I can't see what is going to change going forward.

Perhaps you can explain how it isn't in line with what the JREF and Randi have been doing for years? (Have you never read the SWIFT archives going back over the years in which Randi has time and time again made similar challenges?)

I tend to agree with the OP. Nobody's health is going to be endangered by purchasing supercables instead of simplecables. Anybody who's going to spend $7000 for wires can presumably decide for himself whether the difference they make in the listening experience is worth the expense, either before or after the purchase. Whether or not someone can actually hear a difference is hardly something I would characterize as paranormal. The number of people affected is miniscule, and they can certainly afford the best professional advice money can buy. Who cares?

On the other hand, if someone is paying a few dollars for magic water, chances are that a LOT of people are paying a few dollars for magic water. It's also likely that the people who are spending this money are being coerced by medical conditions which might benefit from legitimate treatment, and are likely to be people who can't afford to be peeing away a single dollar on something that's ineffective. They're also not likely to have the education necessary to make an informed decision. On so many fronts, this is a more important problem, while magic cables honestly seems like a non-issue.

 

[Darat]

I'm not arguing about personal opinions over which are more "worthy" or not scams for the JREF and Randi to go after just pointing out that the cable scam is the sort of scam that the JREF and Randi have for a long time been going after.

 

[Wolfman]

Thanks for the reply, Darat. I'll answer your question first -- yes, you are quite correct that such issues have been discussed before. I've just never seen any of them dominate JREF or SWIFT to such a huge degree.

JREF has limited resources. Those resources are provided primarily by donors. It is the responsibility of the JREF to use those resources in the most responsible manner possible, so as to best meet the stated goals of that organization, and the purposes for which those donors gave that money. I seriously doubt that you would disagree with this statement...if you do, I'd be curious to hear your arguments.

We have serious issues that are affecting millions of people in the U.S., and millions upon millions more around the world. From psychic frauds, to useless (or dangerous) homeopathic medicines, etc. James Randi, and the JREF, made a statement earlier this year that they were going to start pursuing these issues more aggressively; according to my understanding (and again, you can feel free to correct me about this), one of the main limitations to such aggressive action is the amount of financial resources that the JREF can commit to those actions.

So, in the midst of all of this, with limited resources, what does the JREF decide to spend its time and money on? An issue that affects almost nobody, and which even if resolved to the 100% satisfaction of the JREF, will have no real impact on anything much at all.

Now, lets go back to the issue of the goals of the JREF. I'll concede that yes, one can shoehorn a whole boatload of trivial issues into the JREF's stated purpose. But I seriously doubt that the majority of donors to the JREF are donating their money with these kinds of issues in mind.

Again, let me emphasize, if an issue such as this can be pursued without any detriment to more serious issues, then I will happily retract my statements. But so far as I can see, salaries are being paid for JREF staff to pursue this. Time and energy that could be used on other much more important issues is being used on this issue instead.

Given A) the limitation in resources, B) an obligation to use those resources in a manner that the majority of donors would agree with, and C) the plethora of other issues that are of far, far greater import and significance, I'd argue that while this doesn't violate any literal statements or goals of the JREF, it certainly goes against the spirit of it.

A proviso here -- I readily admit that I'm a relative newcomer, and don't know the inner workings of the JREF. Where I am making statements or assumptions that are plain wrong, please feel free to correct me, and I will amend my own statements/conclusions accordingly.

 

[Michael Redman]

I think it's better to go after scams the debunking of which promise to be effective public teaching opportunities, rather than going after the scams that are doing the most harm. It's better to teach the pubic to spot scams themselves, than to try to shut them all down yourself.

It's easy to demonstrate to people how super cables are a scam. It's much harder to demonstrate to them how alternative medicine is a scam. If you can teach consumers to view claims with a critical eye, that can translate to more important issues.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

Keep in mind that the only reason the cable thing has gotten so much attention is because someone actually accepted the challenge this time. Randi often makes consumer related challenges, but only very rarely does someone stand up and take the challenge.

 

[Wolfman]

I think it's better to go after scams the debunking of which promise to be effective public teaching opportunities, rather than going after the scams that are doing the most harm. It's better to teach the pubic to spot scams themselves, than to try to shut them all down yourself.

It's easy to demonstrate to people how super cables are a scam. It's much harder to demonstrate to them how alternative medicine is a scam. If you can teach consumers to view claims with a critical eye, that can translate to more important issues.

I appreciate the different perspective; however, I have problems agreeing with that particular argument. This is an issue that well over 99% of our population will never face, or care about. By far the overwhelming majority, if seeing an ad for audio cables that are over $5000, will just laugh at the idiocy of anyone who'd spend that kind of money, even if it did work, and move on.

There are tons of people searching for information about psychics, the paranormal, homeopathic medicines, etc. Challenging such people or products means that the JREF reaches a wide audience who otherwise may never hear about or care about the JREF.

By contrast, this issue of the Pear Cables essentially reaches A) those who already know the JREF/SWIFT, and B) a very small community of audiophiles who actually care about such issues.

If the purpose of this was to educate only those who already follow the JREF and SWIFT, I guess I could go along with your argument. But, for the most part, those are the people who are least likely to need such education. They're already 'believers' (not all, I know...but a good number). But this issue is going to do absolutely nothing at all to reach the vast numbers of people out there who are following Sylvia Browne, or refusing crucial medical treatment in favor of quack medicines.

 

[Michael Redman]

I appreciate the different perspective; however, I have problems agreeing with that particular argument. This is an issue that well over 99% of our population will never face, or care about. By far the overwhelming majority, if seeing an ad for audio cables that are over $5000, will just laugh at the idiocy of anyone who'd spend that kind of money, even if it did work, and move on.

People not inclined to take the claim to heart, and willing to laugh at the fools who buy it, might me a more receptive audience to the lesson in critical thinking than people who believe in afterlife survival would be to a debunking of psychics.

There are tons of people searching for information about psychics, the paranormal, homeopathic medicines, etc. Challenging such people or products means that the JREF reaches a wide audience who otherwise may never hear about or care about the JREF.

By contrast, this issue of the Pear Cables essentially reaches A) those who already know the JREF/SWIFT, and B) a very small community of audiophiles who actually care about such issues.

Why do you assume the former would reach a wide audience, but not the latter? Sure, more people are looking for information about those more popular topic, but there is also a far larger pool of information out there on those topics already, which JREF has to compete with for attention.

The way to get attention is not to passively place the results among the resources through which people will search, but to actively promote the results. I would think the media is much more likely to carry a story about the debunking of the amazing new cable technology claims, than yet another study or experiment debunking psychics.

Plus, of course, there is the issue of cooperation of the claimant. It's much easier to demonstrate that a claim is wrong if the claimant will allow you to test the claim.

 

[Wolfman]

Keep in mind that the only reason the cable thing has gotten so much attention is because someone actually accepted the challenge this time. Randi often makes consumer related challenges, but only very rarely does someone stand up and take the challenge.

I appreciate that aspect of it, Jeff. And I'm a supporter of much of the work that Randi does in regards to debunking.

Perhaps this is an issue of speaking with 20/20 hindsight, but Randi could have very effectively raised legitimate questions/issues with Pear Cable claims, without throwing in the Million Dollar Challenge. Despite his claims that "to hear the difference would require paranormal powers", the truth is that Pear Cables were not making any claims of paranormal or supernatural powers. I do not see, personally, how they fit into the stated purpose of the Challenge:

At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.

Randi stretched credulity to the breaking point in shoehorning Pear's claims into the MDC. If Pear did win the challenge, neither they nor Randi would be claiming it was due to supernatural ability; both sides would simply state that the difference in sound quality was discernible to at least some human ears.

Personally, I think that Randi was grandstanding, throwing in the MDC just so that he could say, "Look, here's someone else who refused the challenge". It certainly had nothing whatsoever to do with examination of paranormal, supernatural, or occult powers.

Regardless, because Randi made that decision, the JREF's resources then got tied up -- as I've described above -- when the Challenge was actually accepted.

So yes -- the excitement and fuss that has resulted from this is, in large part, due to the decision of some other individuals to accept the Challenge. But was it responsible to issue that challenge? When there was really no issue of paranormal or supernatural claims? And when acceptance of that challenge would mean that the JREF would then have to commit resources to pursuing it (arguments in this regard have been made already, no need to repeat them).

I appreciate the JREF's stated desire to become more "aggressive"; and if someone comes to the JREF with a claim, however minor, and if they meet the stated requirements for the MDC, then certainly JREF should pursue it.

But that's a big difference from actively issuing challenges.

My opinion -- if the JREF is going to issue public, unsolicited invitations to the Million Dollar Challenge, they should only do so with issues that actually deserve that attention, and the time/energy that will be required if the challenge is accepted. The MDC should not be used -- as it currently seems to be -- as an oversized stick to beat down every opponent that James Randi takes issue with.

 

[Cuddles]

I have to agree with Wolfman here. This just isn't something that hurts people. If someone can afford $7000 for cables, they've already spent far more on other equipment. We're not talking about conning frail old ladies or exploiting vulnerable people who can't afford it, we're just talking about people with more money than sense. In addition, as Wolfman says, there really is very little scope for education here. The vast majority of people have never heard of this issue, and most of those who have really don't care that much.

Considering what Jeff has just said recently in another thread here and here, it appears that the main reason for not going after big targets is a lack of time and money. How much time and money is being spent on this issue that doesn't hurt anyone and hardly anyone knows about? Maybe Randi has been making challenges like this for a long time and this is just one of the first to actually respond, but so what? That doesn't mean it was a good challenge to make in the first place.

The other thing I have a problem with is that this cables issue jut isn't as clear cut as most. Dowsing, for example, doesn't work. Simple as that. It can't perform when tested and couldn't even be possible without breaking several laws of physics. On the other hand, cables can alter audio signals. Some are designed purposely to do so. This isn't a simple case of "This claim isn't possible", it's a case of "This claim is probably crossing the line between possible and excessive exaggeration".

I think Wolfman is correct that Randi has responsibilities to the people who support his organisation. This challenge is being pursued outside the normal channels, which means there is a lot of confusion and poor communication. From the little information we have it is not at all clear who or what is actually being challenged, or even if it is paranormal or not. This might be fine for Randi's personal time, but not when he is spending money donated by others.

 

[Michael Redman]

Regardless, because Randi made that decision, the JREF's resources then got tied up -- as I've described above -- when the Challenge was actually accepted.

Although I do think the cable issue is one of legitimate interest for the Foundation, I think you're largely right about the MDC. By deviating from the stated purpose, this may create at least the appearance that the Foundation is acting on behalf of Randi's personal agenda, and not its own mission.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

I have to agree with Wolfman here. This just isn't something that hurts people. If someone can afford $7000 for cables, they've already spent far more on other equipment. We're not talking about conning frail old ladies or exploiting vulnerable people who can't afford it, we're just talking about people with more money than sense. In addition, as Wolfman says, there really is very little scope for education here. The vast majority of people have never heard of this issue, and most of those who have really don't care that much.

Considering what Jeff has just said recently in another thread here and here, it appears that the main reason for not going after big targets is a lack of time and money. How much time and money is being spent on this issue that doesn't hurt anyone and hardly anyone knows about? Maybe Randi has been making challenges like this for a long time and this is just one of the first to actually respond, but so what? That doesn't mean it was a good challenge to make in the first place.

The other thing I have a problem with is that this cables issue jut isn't as clear cut as most. Dowsing, for example, doesn't work. Simple as that. It can't perform when tested and couldn't even be possible without breaking several laws of physics. On the other hand, cables can alter audio signals. Some are designed purposely to do so. This isn't a simple case of "This claim isn't possible", it's a case of "This claim is probably crossing the line between possible and excessive exaggeration".

I think Wolfman is correct that Randi has responsibilities to the people who support his organisation. This challenge is being pursued outside the normal channels, which means there is a lot of confusion and poor communication. From the little information we have it is not at all clear who or what is actually being challenged, or even if it is paranormal or not. This might be fine for Randi's personal time, but not when he is spending money donated by others.

Outside the "normal" channels? What are you talking about? Randi has ALWAYS made personal challenges.. it's how the challenge started. He sees someone who he thinks might be defrauding the public, and he calls them out.

People give money to the JREF so Randi can do his work. This IS his work.

I'm a bit upset at the sense of entitlement some people on the forum have. I challenge anyone to contact the Red Cross and say "Hey, I donated blood last month.. I really think you should ignore the flood here and focus on the fire there."

Of course, if you don't like what the JREF is doing, you're free not to donate. As far as I can see, Randi has stayed consistent.

 

[Senex]

Of course, if you don't like what the JREF is doing, you're free not to donate. As far as I can see, Randi has stayed consistent.

Mr. Randi has stayed consistent. A fair test will occur when all is said and done. The people who were heretofore members of Randi's group who had issues with this test will be exposed for losing their way. Let's see how this plays out.

 

[sthomson]

The people who were heretofore members of Randi's group who had issues with this test will be exposed for losing their way.

Is this a forum or is it a cult?

 

[Senex]

Is this a forum or is it a cult?

If you looked up what the definition of a cult is before your posted I would have saved my fingers a few pushes

 

[Darat]

Going through the SWIFT archive you will find Randi issuing challenges for a whole range of consumer goods that are/were being promoted with pseudoscience.

I am curious - for those that object to the JREF's latest "audio" challenge what other areas have they issued "challenges" on that are in your view "not in line with the JREF's goals"?

 

[sthomson]

If you looked up what the definition of a cult is before your posted I would have saved my fingers a few pushes

I don't need to look it up, although I will admit that groupthink and ostracism of opposing viewpoints are more global attributes of human society.

On a lighter note, I dreamt last night that I had bought the $7000 Pear Cables on my credit card, just so I could prove once and for all that they didn't work. I woke up worrying about how I would pay off the bill...

 

[Darat]

So the JREF is fulfilling its goals - it's helped make you think critically about your credit card bill....

 

[athon]

I'm more or less in two minds over the whole thing.

The JREF's central mission, if I understand it correctly, is to educate the public on how they can be fooled by people offering or promoting pseudoscientific, superstitious or magical information, products or services. The MDC, TAM, lectures and resources are aimed at creating a means of communicating with the public on these matters. Therefore the cables fall into this category, regardless of whether they damage people or not.

However, the excuses of 'it's Randi's house, it's his rules' always get under my skin. He has taken the responsibility of promoting critical thinking. It isn't about Randi and his challenge, but rather about promoting skepticism using Randi's image and experience and the MDC as tools to reach the public. It's putting the cart before the horse if the 'it's Randi's decision' excuse is touted. And while he might be within his rights to act as he sees fit, that doesn't mean I support the JREF simply because of Randi. I support it because I believe in its mission of educating the public, and if that is compromised then so is my support.

I think there is indeed too much focus on the cables right now, but I don't feel that entertaining the challenge is outside of the JREF's scope.

Athon

 

[quixotecoyote]

I don't see the PEAR challenge as worth throwing a lot of resources at.

I also don't see evidence of the JREF throwing a lot of resources at it.

It got space in SWIFT. What else was spent on it?

 

[Wolfman]

Outside the "normal" channels? What are you talking about? Randi has ALWAYS made personal challenges.. it's how the challenge started. He sees someone who he thinks might be defrauding the public, and he calls them out.

People give money to the JREF so Randi can do his work. This IS his work.

I'm a bit upset at the sense of entitlement some people on the forum have. I challenge anyone to contact the Red Cross and say "Hey, I donated blood last month.. I really think you should ignore the flood here and focus on the fire there."

Of course, if you don't like what the JREF is doing, you're free not to donate. As far as I can see, Randi has stayed consistent.

First, Jeff, I'd like to note that this entire thread puts you and other JREF staff somewhat between a rock and a hard place. Even were you to have similar sentiments, you would essentially be unable to express them publicly, as one of your duties is to support the organization (and the man) you work for. In that regard, I wish to emphasize that my focus is on James Randi, not on the JREF or its staff in general.

That being said, your response here is terrible. Please read again what the JREF itself says about the MDC:

At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.

Now, that is something that I personally am quite willing to donate money to.

However, Pear Cables have nothing whatsoever to do with claims of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power!!! Any claim that it is 'supernatural' or 'paranormal' is James Randi's claim. Not that of Pear, or of anyone who uses Pear's products. In fact, Pear went out of their way to specifically deny there is anything supernatural about it.

If they lose or they win the challenge, it will have nothing whatsoever to do with paranormal abilities. I personally doubt that Pear (or any other individual) will actually win the challenge, but if they do, does anyone here think James Randi is going to say, "Oh, look, they've proven they have supernatural powers, I can no longer deny the existence of supernatural phenomena"? Of course not. Everyone involved -- both Pear and the JREF -- would ascribe it to entirely natural processes. So the "claim" of supernatural abilities made by James Randi is a false claim, one used so that he could somehow manage to shoehorn his personal issue with Pear Cables into the MDC.

But my bigger concern by far with your response is this ridiculous apparent claim that Randi has no responsibility to those who donate money to his organization. Or that complaints about apparent misuse of those donations means that those people have some unreasonable "sense of entitlement".

You are quite correct that people can feel free not to donate to the JREF if they disagree with James Randi's actions. And, if he continues in this vein, I rather strongly suspect that this is exactly what is going to happen. While I appreciate that this is an organization that the set up himself, that does not mean that he is above questioning or criticism, nor that he does not have ethical obligations to those who support him.

Your example of the Red Cross is a terribly weak one. When I donate blood, the Red Cross does not state that the blood will be used for one specific region; it states that it will be used wherever such blood supplies are needed for people who have lost blood.

Let me give you a more accurate illustration of what I'm talking about, again using the Red Cross. Let us say that the Red Cross has a blood donor campaign in which they cite low supplies of blood, and a need for more donors to increase that supply, so that people having surgery, or otherwise in need of blood (ie. hemophiliacs), will have enough blood to take care of their needs.

But after taking those donations, instead of giving that blood to people who need it, the Red Cross instead gives the blood to research laboratories who use it to engage in various experiments requiring blood; and furthermore, because of their decision to do so, other people who actually need blood are not able to get it, because supplies are not adequate.

There would, in such a situation, be legitimate cause for anger and complaint from donors; there would certainly be numerous ethical issues involved; and the Red Cross would potentially face legal actions for its decision to use the blood donated in a manner other than that intended by the donors.

" At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event." That is what this website says about the MDC. Okay, there may be past precedent of James Randi entirely ignoring the stated purpose of the MDC, I'll readily grant that. I'll also readily grant that there are probably millions of trivial and unimportant issues that have little or no impact on anyone, that James Randi could shoehorn into the MDC. If a toy manufacturer claimed that levels of lead in the paint used on their toys was not dangerous, James Randi could claim that "It would take supernatural powers to consume such paint and not get lead poisoning".

Randi has ALWAYS made personal challenges.. it's how the challenge started

Okay, that's fine. I see a big difference between a personal challenge, and an official challenge from the JREF. The former, being a personal challenge, means that James Randi assumes 100% responsibility for all costs and time in pursuing that challenge. He does not issue the challenge, then use the JREF's resources to pursue it. And that is the crux of my concern here. When he issues a personal challenge that ends up taking away JREF resources (limited resources) from other efforts that are much more important, then there's a problem.

I haven't raised this point in the past, but it bears raising now. I'm not just a "member of this forum"; I have, in fact, made an anonymous donation to the JREF in the past (if confirmation of this is needed, I can easily provide info to prove it). That donation was made at a time when I felt that the JREF was using that money to do have a serious impact on those who are doing the greatest damage to our society through lies, fraud, and deception.

Instead, I find an organization in which the leader can apparently act at his own whim, with no accountability to anyone else, even acting in a manner that entirely contradicts the stated purpose of the MDC. An organization that, when facing an issue of limited funds to address a wide variety of issues, uses those funds on tangential and unimportant efforts. An organization which, when I raise objections to it, essentially tells me that:

WE DON'T CARE IF YOU DONATED MONEY OR NOT, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN OR EXPRESS DISAGREEMENT. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T GIVE US MONEY. BUT WE WILL CONTINUE TO ACT IN WHATEVER MANNER WE DEEM FIT, REGARDLESS OF THE OPINIONS AND CONCERNS OF OUR DONORS.

I've raised numerous different issues, but seem to have gotten only two basic replies: A) this does not violate the goals/targets of the JREF, and B) this is nothing James Randi hasn't done before. Since I've written so much, allow me to summarize my responses to those two claims:

A) As argued above, it may not break the letter of the law, but certainly seems to me to break the spirit of the law. Utilizing limited resources on a tangential and unimportant issue -- one that was initiated by the JREF -- when far, far more significant issues need to be addressed, thereby taking resources away from those more important/significant issues. Furthermore, it does violate the stated purpose of the MDC. Unless you folks at JREF are ready to state that if Pear were to pass the challenge, you would all state that the person who won the challenge had supernatural powers. You aren't challenging people making supernatural or paranormal powers at all; you are challenging people who claimed that, within the natural range of human hearing ability, they were able to discern the difference in sound quality using different cables.

B) It may well be that James Randi has done this before. That doesn't mean it is right. Nor does it mean that it cannot be questioned or challenged, or that it should not change.

It most certainly does not mean that those who donate to the JREF have no right to demand accountability for how their donations are used.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I'm with you in spirit Wolfman, but where did you get the idea that the JREF is in any way responsible to its donors? It's not as if you're a shareholder.

 

[Senex]

I'm more or less in two minds over the whole thing.

The JREF's central mission, if I understand it correctly, is to educate the public on how they can be fooled by people offering or promoting pseudoscientific, superstitious or magical information, products or services. The MDC, TAM, lectures and resources are aimed at creating a means of communicating with the public on these matters. Therefore the cables fall into this category, regardless of whether they damage people or not.

However, the excuses of 'it's Randi's house, it's his rules' always get under my skin. He has taken the responsibility of promoting critical thinking. It isn't about Randi and his challenge, but rather about promoting skepticism using Randi's image and experience and the MDC as tools to reach the public. It's putting the cart before the horse if the 'it's Randi's decision' excuse is touted. And while he might be within his rights to act as he sees fit, that doesn't mean I support the JREF simply because of Randi. I support it because I believe in its mission of educating the public, and if that is compromised then so is my support.

I think there is indeed too much focus on the cables right now, but I don't feel that entertaining the challenge is outside of the JREF's scope.

Athon

There would be no million dollars to be had without Randi. This community has affected the way I look at life. I'm not an expert on may fields, but I know there are no supernatural powers. Randi is now taking his beliefs to a consumer group that has money and time on their hands. You can write a book on what I don't know about speaker cables but Randi says the difference can't be heard by human ears and the original speaker people challenged bailed on the test. I see no reason to be less supportive of Randi than I have ever been. It is his house but it has been my experience that no one else's Internet house allows as much rebuttal as this one.

I firmly believe that Randi is correct when he states that the difference in cable performance is undetectable. When a fair test is negotiated I will be ready to ask who thinks the outcome is not clear.

 

[Wolfman]

I'm with you in spirit Wolfman, but where did you get the idea that the JREF is in any way responsible to its donors? It's not as if you're a shareholder.

A good question, and one that bears clarification.

If one is a shareholder, then one has voting rights -- you have a voice in how the organization is actually run, and have power to make changes within that organization. If you disagree with the current direction of the company, even if that direction is fully in compliance with current stated goals, you have power to change those goals, and change the direction of that company.

If one is a donor to a non-profit organization, you have no vote in what that organization does, or how it is run. You have no voice to cause them to change their stated goals, or to tell them how to run their organization.

You do, however, have the right to accountability. For example, anyone who makes a donation to such an organization has the right to have their financial records examined to determine that the money is not being used improperly (ie. to buy a house for the owner). It is not a case that, once the money is donated, the organization has 100% freedom to do whatever they want with that money.

I look at this on two levels -- legal, and ethical.

Legally, there are constraints on how donated funds can be used by a non-profit organization. However, I don't think this is really an issue in regards to the current situation with JREF.

Ethically, if an organization states that funds will be used for a particular purpose, and a donor gives money specifically to support that stated purpose, then the organization has an ethical obligation to use that money A) in the manner that best accomplishes that purpose and B) not to use it for other purposes. If the organization fails on either of these counts, criticism and demands for accountability are fully justified. So let us take those two points, one at a time.

A) The organization has a responsibility to use donated funds in the manner that best accomplishes the stated use of those funds. Is that the case here? The JREF has a huge host of issues it is confronting, and does not have the resources to tackle all of them effectively. It must pick and choose where it will allocate its efforts and its resources. Given my arguments above about how irrelevant this particular challenge is, compared to so many other issues that the JREF should be pursuing, is it responsible or ethical for the JREF to use donors' money in such a manner? Or should donors have the right to complain and insist that the want their money used on effective efforts? Personally, I'd far rather see the money spent on one or two major efforts on issues such as psychic powers and homeopathy, than to see it all pissed away on minor, irrelevant challenges like the Pear Cables challenge.

B) The organization has a responsibility to use donated funds in the manner that they stated they would be used. As quoted above, the JREF states that the purpose of the Million Dollar Challenge is to challenge those who claim to have paranoramal, supernatural, or occult powers. That is most emphatically not the case with the challenge to Pear. Quite the opposite, Pear Cables have been adamant in denying anything supernatural about it whatsoever, and anyone with an iota of common sense knows that the JREF also would not claim supernatural powers were Pear to win the challenge.

This is not an issue of telling JREF how to run their organization. It is an issue of demanding accountability.

 

[quixotecoyote]

...

This is not an issue of telling JREF how to run their organization. It is an issue of demanding accountability.

You know, I learned something. I didn't think donors had any claims on an organization.

 

[athon]

There would be no million dollars to be had without Randi.

While that's not untrue, it'd more true to say that there would be no million dollars if not for the 'anonymous' person who donated it to Randi. And I assume it was because they believed in the work Randi was doing that they donated it, not simply as a random gift for Randi to do as he pleased simply because he was a mate.

If this is a 'Randi Fan Club', I had it all wrong. I thought the JREF stood for a mission, not as a cheer squad for Randi.

Jeff used the Red Cross as an analogy, and I feel it could not be a worse comparison. If the Red Cross were established by an individual with a goal in mind, and you gave blood to the organisation because you supported that goal, I feel you'd be in your right to express concern if that individual felt obliged to use your blood for something that didn't correlate with the mission. For instance, your blood was used not for transfusions but as a test specimen for biological weapons. If people defended the actions of that Red Cross founder, saying 'well it is his organisation', I'd be bloody pissed off.

I support what Randi does and as such, I therefore support the JREF.

It is his house but it has been my experience that no one else's Internet house allows as much rebuttal as this one.

All well and good, but when the response is 'it's Randi's house, he can do as he pleases', I feel cheated. That's the response of a five year old who is having a tantrum, not of a man with a mission. If he makes a decision and offers a reason I disagree with, then fine. I don't have to agree. But for others to simply say 'because it's his foundation' I find rather immature.

I firmly believe that Randi is correct when he states that the difference in cable performance is undetectable. When a fair test is negotiated I will be ready to ask who thinks the outcome is not clear.

As I said before, I agree that the cables lie within the scope of the mission.

I guess I tend to like to think people here follow the aims and mission of the JREF rather than follow Randi for Randi's sake. The former is what intelligent, rational people do. The latter is what cultists do.

Athon

 

[Senex]

If this is a 'Randi Fan Club', I had it all wrong. I thought the JREF stood for a mission, not as a cheer squad for Randi.

Athon

James Randi's name is up front -- you deceive yourself if you don't recognize that.

You have posted 6000+ messages to this forum. Ten times what I have posted. I can't believe you will bail because Randi is supported by people who believe he will prevail on this "Golden Ears"challenge.

 

[Wolfman]

James Randi's name is up front -- you deceive yourself if you don't recognize that.

You have posted 6000+ messages to this forum. Ten times what I have posted. I can't believe you will bail because Randi is supported by people who believe he will prevail on this "Golden Ears"challenge.

Senex,

Are you one of those who agrees with Bush that "If you're not with us, you're against us"?

Questioning or disagreeing with James Randi, or the JREF, on particular issues, does not necessarily mean that we abandon the JREF entirely. The idea that we cannot disagree with him or challenge him without rejecting everything that JREF does is entirely anti-intellectual.

You seem to see this in terms of polar opposites. Either you support James Randi unquestioningly, or you oppose him and don't support him at all. Myself, and Athon, see a whole range of possibilities in between those two diametrically opposed opposites -- where we support some decisions and policies, but disagree with others.

As Athon stated, those who think that "supporting Randi" means accepting everything he does without question, are little better than cultists. This is a forum for skepticism -- and James Randi is not immune from skeptical questioning simply because he started the forum, or the JREF. Quite the opposite -- to argue that questioning or challenging him is wrong is a fundamental denial of everything he and his organization stand for.

 

[Senex]

Senex,

Are you one of those who agrees with Bush that "If you're not with us, you're against us"?

No, but I am one who believes in loyalty. We, at least myself, believes in this website. I learned many things from being a member of this website. I believe money spent on expensive cable is money spent unwisely. I will believe that unless proven wrong.

 

[athon]

James Randi's name is up front -- you deceive yourself if you don't recognize that.

So? It's not the 'James Randi Fan Club'. I came here because I support Randi's work. If it weren't about his work, but about him, I would then move on. However I still feel what he does is important, and feel that it is made stronger by having people with a variety of skills and viewpoints contribute to the cause.

As I keep saying, it's an 'educational' foundation. If that ideal is lost, the name should be changed.

You have posted 6000+ messages to this forum. Ten times what I have posted. I can't believe you will bail because Randi is supported by people who believe he will prevail on this "Golden Ears"challenge.

Whoa, I never said I 'will' bail. I said I would if the foundation proved itself to be only about Randi and not his work.

Wolfman echoes my sentiments perfectly above; the JREF would IMO be a joke if it dismissed the views of the community supporting it. Its biggest hope of succeeding in educating the public is through building a community of people who take up the message of thinking critically about pseudoscience, superstition and magic and promote it further. Without that, it is virtually crippling itself.

As for 'because Randi is supported by people who believe he will prevail on this...challenge', I'm starting to think you haven't read anything I have said. I actually have no problem with this challenge, personally. I humbly disagree with Wolfman on that. However, I do feel it's disconcerting when people defend Randi's actions with statements such as 'it's his foundation'. That should never be a valid excuse for any questionable action on Randi's behalf, and I've seen it offered a number of times by various individuals. Taken to an extreme, if Randi simply withdrew the million and spent it on a castle in Spain for his retirement, that excuse would still be equally valid (it's Randi's million...it's his foundation...it's his challenge) and yet would be an insult to all who have supported the JREF's mission.

If Randi were gone tomorrow, this foundation would suffer a loss of experience and knowledge. But it should still move on with as much focus and dedication as ever, sommething not embodied in the excuse of 'it's Randi's foundation'.

Athon

 

[NobbyNobbs]

I have to agree with Wolfman here. This just isn't something that hurts people.

I'm not so sure. I think this could easily have more far reaching effects than just those few likely to purchase the cables. Suppose the challenge were accepted, and the test and results were publicly known. Suppose too, that PEAR lost. First of all, those few people who were likely to buy the cables learn something. But I suspect that those who were considering purchasing magnetic wine stoppers might as well. Same too with the Q-ray bracelet customers. It might go so far as to make a few would-be homeopathic customers rethink their decision.

Worst comes to worst, people curious about the source of the test discover the JREF and learn a few things they didn't know.

I think it's very worthwhile.

 

[Wolfman]

I'm not so sure. I think this could easily have more far reaching effects than just those few likely to purchase the cables. Suppose the challenge were accepted, and the test and results were publicly known. Suppose too, that PEAR lost. First of all, those few people who were likely to buy the cables learn something. But I suspect that those who were considering purchasing magnetic wine stoppers might as well. Same too with the Q-ray bracelet customers. It might go so far as to make a few would-be homeopathic customers rethink their decision.

Worst comes to worst, people curious about the source of the test discover the JREF and learn a few things they didn't know.

I think it's very worthwhile.

Nobby,

I appreciate your arguments, and certainly do not expect everyone to agree with me. I agree that, if a successful resolution to this were to occur, it could have some degree of positive impact; ie. increase JREF's credibility, highlight consumer issues, etc.

My concerns, as highlighted above, are that A) the MDC is being used in a manner that is entirely contrary to its stated purpose, and B) while a successful resolution could potentially have some positive effects, other efforts on more prevalent issues could have a far greater positive effect. And again, given the limited resources that the JREF has, I believe it is a legitimate issue to look not just at "could this have some minimal positive effect", but "what use of our resources will result in the greatest positive effect?".

On a personal note, it is my impression that in regards to this challenge (and many others) James Randi and the JREF staff did not even expect this challenge to be accepted. The challenge was made with the anticipation that, like many other cases, it would be turned down. Which, based on past experience, may in fact be a valid expectation. I think it is obvious that they were caught by surprise by the acceptance of the challenge; that they had really not expected to have to spend time and energy on pursuing it any further than some accusations printed in SWIFT.

And I guess I have problems with that, too. The MDC can be -- and in the past, has been -- used as a very effective tool for exposing high profile frauds and charlatans. The MDC can continue to be an effective tool for doing that, also.

But in this case, it was used frivolously. And that demeans the MDC, and the JREF.

* It was frivolous to issue a challenge that was not in line with the stated purposes of the MDC

* It is frivolous to use the MDC as an over-sized battering-ram against every minor issue that grabs James Randi's attention

It would have been more than enough to simply write about Pear's claims in SWIFT, and to raise legitimate questions, without mis-applying the MDC and issuing a direct challenge to participate in the MDC. These and other frauds can be very effectively highlighted without having to use distorted logic to squeeze it into the definition used to describe the MDC.

Or, on the other hand, we can trivialize it. Hey, lets take any issue that James Randi finds questionable or offensive, and then find a way to shoehorn it into the MDC.

* Oil drilling companies claim that drilling in Alaska will not damage the local environment. Rather than addressing this claim on rational, scientific issues, James Randi instead says, "For animals to survive immersion in oil would require paranormal abilities, so I challenge them to prove it is possible"

* A car manufacturer claims that its car is safe, despite significant evidence to the contrary. Rather than addressing these claims on rational, scientific issues, James Randi instead says, "You'd have to have superhuman powers to avoid injury in such a vehicle, therefore I am issuing the Million Dollar Challenge to this company"

I've quoted this a number of times already here. The stated purpose of the MDC is to examine/expose claims of supernatural, paranormal, or occult abilities. Nowhere does it state -- or has ever stated -- that its purpose is to examine/expose simple commercial fraud that has nothing to do with the supernatural, paranormal, or occult.

There are already tons of consumer advocacy groups out there that are set up specifically to target products that make fraudulent -- but not supernatural -- claims. That is not the purpose of the Million Dollar Challenge!

Now, if James Randi wishes to change the stated purpose of the MDC, and use it to address anyone who makes claims about a product that they cannot substantiate, that is his prerogative. Personally, I think that such a decision would significantly decrease the relevancy and impact of the MDC, but that is his right to do so.

However, as the current situation stands, nowhere is the MDC defined as being used for consumer advocacy, or pursuing issues of non-supernatural claims made by product manufacturers. The stated goal of the MDC is very clear, and very obvious:

At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.

Now, again -- if I am wrong, and the JREF does actually state elsewhere that the purpose of the MDC is to "offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, that their entirely non-supernatural claims are true", then again, I will be happy to revise my comments in this regard. But, if that were the case, why would James Randi not just issue a straightforward challenge, rather than feeling it necessary to engage in rather ridiculous mental gymnastics in order to try to make his challenge fit the definition of being "supernatural"?

If James Randi wants to use his own personal free time to pursue consumer advocacy issues -- I say more power to him. If James Randi wants to use SWIFT to highlight products that are harmful, overpriced, or fraudulent, but do not fall within the realm of supernatural claims, again I say more power to him...so long as he does not use the MDC.

But when the MDC is indiscriminately used in a my-dick-is-bigger-than-your-dick contest against anyone that Randi personally dislikes, in a manner that goes against the stated purpose of the MDC, and in a manner that uses JREF time, money, and resources that could far better be used on issues that are relevant to the stated purpose of the MDC, then I have problems with it.

 

[Darat]

Usually paranormal is given to mean something like "outside of scientific laws", using that definition the claims that the cable manufacturer's make are 100% a paranormal claim.

Paranormal has always meant this in terms of the challenge if it didn't then homeopathy as claimed by its proponents wouldn't by a suitable candidate for the challenge (as neither would the good good favourite dowsing - as far as the claims of its proponents have it).

 

[Foolmewunz]

Thanks, everyone, for a great thread and discussion.... A discussion I'd like to extend a little bit, assuming that the major opinions have already been fairly stated.



I'm also of two minds on this. I'd like that the foundation has sufficient funds and time to pursue something like this, because although it's not as harmful as homeopathy or a Sylvia or Edwards, baloon bursting always has a place in my heart. It's an enjoyable distraction.

OTOH, I would like to see the JREF taking on the more dangerous targets and if that's not possible (they do tend to run for the hills), then developing more educational programs.

In that respect, if Athon and Wolfman and others could propose specifics, I think it would be interesting. As I mentioned above, going after Sylvia isn't all that simple a proposition. Should The Amazing One stalk her? He's had the challenge out there for multiple years, now, and Sylvia keeps raking in the victims and the bucks. Randi's got a media presence, but obviously can't get the number of major bookings as the voice of sanity that the networks and affiliates (and cable) give to the loons.

On the educational front, I like what Kiless (I believe that's the correct name of the former regular here in Australia - someone of the "old guard" can correct me) was working on down under, a program to get critical thinking instated as part of the curriculum in the public schools.

Is there an opportunity (or possibility) for something in lieu of lobbying state and federal legislative bodies? I realize the JREF couldn't possibly have the funds to put up a lobbying effort, but there are like-minded organiz(s)ations out there. I'd like to see something being done in the USA and elsewhere in terms of bringing the various elected bodies to task over some of the woo that is allowed (the homeopathic medicine area would leap to mind) in advertising and press releases and such. Or pressure on the police to enforce the existing laws (e.g. Philadelphia, recently) on fortune-telling and related psychic scams.

And on those lines, there's the international front. As Randi's pointed out, there are governments out there that not only condone, but promote woo. Again, the limited funds would have to come into consideration, but again, allying oneself with organizations doing similar work in those areas would be a positive thing. (I'd like to see some voices from Asia, the Indian Sub-Continent, Africa and South America at TAM 6, for instance. Even to the extent of funding scholarship visits for worthy individuals.)

These are just generic thoughts. The scholarship fund is a great idea, as are the programs to get more skepticism in the schools. I'd just be curious to see what more the world (our world) expects or wishes from the JREF.

And, if we're to examine the directions of the JREF in the future, my main concern is one that's been mentioned by others at other times. What comes after Randi? Should the foundation, and James Randi himself, be looking for a new charismatic front-man or front-woman? Much of the success (if I may use the term) has been the MDC and the fact that Randi was out there to push it. Will the JREF get the same attention without James Randi? Here's a really unpopular idea: Chris Angell... The guy has years and years ahead of him, knows how to sell his magic, and apparently makes no claims of woo, whatsoever. Does his skepticism extend to other areas, or is he just anti-con-artist-conjuring?

(And by the way, forum contributors are not Foundation members, if I understand correctly - so my voice here is just of a guy who posts on the forum, e.g. an interested bystander, but I concur with Wolfman that anyone who supports a foundation has the right or even the obligation to find out where the funds are being directed. [note to self: contribute to the foundation]. I'm an unabashed Randi fan - both his magic and his career in skepticism - but I'm also an unabashed Elvis fan, yet still cringe when I hear "In the Ghetto". In short, it's not wrong or disloyal to be critical of those you admire. I would think/hope that Randi would be disappointed, ultimately, if we just accepted anything without questioning.)

 

[athon]

OTOH, I would like to see the JREF taking on the more dangerous targets and if that's not possible (they do tend to run for the hills), then developing more educational programs.

I'm always wary of whether the JREF has distinct goals that it aims to achieve, with clear measures being taken and regular evaluations as to whether they're working or not. What is considered 'success' by the JREF? How does the JREF know it's succeeding?

I have a mixture of assumption and hope that the 'education' part is sincere, however in supporting that I'm always eagre to know Randi's definition of education (see my other thread on the topic to avoid a derail here).

In that respect, if Athon and Wolfman and others could propose specifics, I think it would be interesting. As I mentioned above, going after Sylvia isn't all that simple a proposition. Should The Amazing One stalk her? He's had the challenge out there for multiple years, now, and Sylvia keeps raking in the victims and the bucks. Randi's got a media presence, but obviously can't get the number of major bookings as the voice of sanity that the networks and affiliates (and cable) give to the loons.

Randi shouldn't hope to be a one man sheriff of the skeptics (I don't think he feels that, yet I do think others see him in that role), chasing down the baddies and thinking he's making an impact by scaring them off the streets. The MDC, Swift and Randi's efforts are all there to create a public image and attract attention. Then, when the public is looking, there needs to be measures in place to demonstrate what the JREF stands for and why, and done so in as effectivly as possible.

On the educational front, I like what Kiless (I believe that's the correct name of the former regular here in Australia - someone of the "old guard" can correct me) was working on down under, a program to get critical thinking instated as part of the curriculum in the public schools.

Kiless is involved in a philosophy in education project, amongst other things. Getting critical thinking is schools is not difficult, in principle. Having it taught effectively with good resources is the tricky part. The JREF is in a prime position to develop good critical thinking resources for educators to use.

These are just generic thoughts. The scholarship fund is a great idea, as are the programs to get more skepticism in the schools. I'd just be curious to see what more the world (our world) expects or wishes from the JREF.

The scholarship program is indeed a fantastic idea, yet I feel it is undersold and a rather ignored opportunity. As I've said before, we know too little about what the scholarship winners are doing or even why they won the scholarships.

And, if we're to examine the directions of the JREF in the future, my main concern is one that's been mentioned by others at other times. What comes after Randi? Should the foundation, and James Randi himself, be looking for a new charismatic front-man or front-woman?

Well, it is the million dollar question, isn't it? The JREF needs to be in a position that it can not only survive but continue to thrive on Randi's inevitable departure from it. That can't be done if it is constantly seen solely as Randi's house.

Athon

 

[Jeff Wagg]

I apologize for the Red Cross analogy; it was in poor taste and not terribly apt.

However, I stand by everything else I said.

Randi and the JREF are acting in exactly the same manner as always. Nothing has changed. If you think the cable challenge (which actually IS paranormal) is a waste of time, you're in opposition to the donors who think Sylvia Browne and Uri Geller are a waste of time.

And we get those complaints often.. why are we wasting our time challenging people we know don't have any abilities? Why don't we put all the money towards scholarships? Or curriculum building? Or legal issues? Or lectures? Or books? Or medical concerns? Or consumer fraud? Or any of the dozens of other topics we're involved with.

You're claiming that Randi is being irresponsible for engaging in the cable challenge. I'm claiming you're incorrect.

The cable challenge has brought the JREF dozens of media contacts, increased views of our website by 25%, increased our mailing list by 10%, and it has EDUCATED much of the public about an issue they may not have even been aware of. True, many of them may not care about high-end cables, but many of them don't care about psychics either.

If this particular foray into exposing what appear to be frauds doesn't meet your standards, then you have my apologies. Meanwhile, we'll keep on doing what we've been doing for the past 11 years.

EDITED TO ADD:

As for the JREF after Randi's no longer part of the organization, I can only share with you that a solution is being actively worked on, and that the JREF will continue.

 

[Wolfman]

Sorry, Jeff...me again

I apologize for the Red Cross analogy; it was in poor taste and not terribly apt.

No problem; we've all had situations where we write something quickly, then later realize it wasn't really appropriate.

However, I stand by everything else I said.

Randi and the JREF are acting in exactly the same manner as always. Nothing has changed.

I find it curious that you have, time after time after time, ignored the point I've raised about the MDC's stated purpose. All I get is that "Randi and the JREF are acting the same way they always have". Well, Bush and Co. are today acting in pretty much the same way that they did when they started. That doesn't mean that what they are doing is right, or should not be challenged, or is not wrong. I would hope you could raise a stronger defense than that.

If you think the cable challenge (which actually IS paranormal) is a waste of time, you're in opposition to the donors who think Sylvia Browne and Uri Geller are a waste of time.

Okay, now let's get into this "paranormal" thing. You guys are really playing free and loose with the definitions here. James Randi has no more "proven" that it is impossible for regular humans to hear such sounds as Pear has "proven" that it is possible. Pear itself makes no claims whatsoever to paranormal abilities; their claim is that it is completely within the scope of normal human hearing to discern the difference in sound quality.

I think that a more reasonable, and far more rational summary would be, "There are two propositions before us. The first is that it is possible with normal human hearing to discern the difference in sound quality in these cables; or it is not possible with normal human hearing to discern the difference in sound quality in these cables. The purpose of this test is to discern whether or not it is possible." But you guys seem to prefer the proposition that "If it is found to be possible to discern the difference in sound quality in these cables, it can only be due to paranormal abilities, and cannot be due to any normal human abilities." Which I guess I find ridiculous in this context.

you're in opposition to the donors who think Sylvia Browne and Uri Geller are a waste of time.

I appreciate the fact that it will never be possible to satisfy all the people all the time. However, I'd raise the following two points to you:

1) I'd be willing to bet that a far greater number of JREF donors would oppose spending money on an issue like Pear Cables, than would oppose spending money on Sylvia Browne and Uri Geller.

2) It is a very blatant, obvious goal of the JREF to go after people like Sylvia Browne and Uri Geller...its on the front page of the website, its covered in one way or another in almost every SWIFT, etc. I find it hard to believe that a person would donate to the JREF without being aware that this is a significant focus of your work. The same is not true of an issue like Pear cables.

And we get those complaints often.. why are we wasting our time challenging people we know don't have any abilities? Why don't we put all the money towards scholarships? Or curriculum building? Or legal issues? Or lectures? Or books? Or medical concerns? Or consumer fraud? Or any of the dozens of other topics we're involved with.

Yup, appreciate your position entirely. That's why, when I set up my NGO, I set up a very clear accountability structure. First, I established that no decision could be made unilaterally, that it must be agreed upon by a committee. Second, I established a variety of projects for our organization, and gave donors the choice to donate money specifically to the projects they felt were most important. Third, I set up various checks and balances to ensure that when a person donated money for a specific purpose, it was used for that purpose.

JREF seems to lack any such accountability whatsoever. James Randi can unilaterally make decisions about what the JREF does, and how its money is used. When people give donations, they do not designate it as being used for a particular purpose, but rather just throw it into a general fund, which the JREF can use however they want, regardless of the intent/wishes of the donors. And if donors object to how the money is used, they have no real recourse except to "stop giving money".

I'd suggest that most of the problems you raise -- of people disagreeing with how money is used, or complaining that it is used in ways they don't feel are relevant/important/proper -- would be solved by the very simple expedient of setting up specific categories of donations. When people donate, they can choose to donate money to "Supernatural Investigations", "Scholarships", "Curriculum Building", "Legal Issues", "Lectures", "Books", "Medical Concerns", "Consumer Fraud", etc. This would create a clear, logical, and completely transparent system in which complaints would be virtually eliminated (since funds are used specifically for the purposes the donor gives them).

But the JREF -- or at least James Randi -- seems to prefer to have the sole discretion of determining what is important...and anybody else's opinion just doesn't matter. "James Randi has always run the organization this way" "James Randi has always acted this way"

Accept it, or buzz off.

I admit quite readily that this is a matter of personal opinion; and accept that not all non-profits can be (or necessarily should be) modeled on my own. But it seems to me that an awful lot of the "problems" you refer to are specifically because of the unstructured and scattershot approach that the JREF currently uses. What's the JREF's priority this week? Oh...whatever issue James Randi has decided. How will we use the money donors have given us? Oh...however James Randi decides.

You're claiming that Randi is being irresponsible for engaging in the cable challenge. I'm claiming you're incorrect.

Yeah, somehow I wasn't really expecting you to agree with me on that.

The cable challenge has brought the JREF dozens of media contacts, increased views of our website by 25%, increased our mailing list by 10%, and it has EDUCATED much of the public about an issue they may not have even been aware of. True, many of them may not care about high-end cables, but many of them don't care about psychics either.

And that's great to hear.

For comparison, could you tell me how many media contacts the JREF has gotten from pursuing Sylvia Browne or Uri Geller? Or how much views of your website typically increase when James Randi does a live TV appearance to expose Sylvia Browne, or to reveal a Uri Geller trick? Or how much of the public has been educated about these issues when they were not even aware of them before?

Or, more importantly, by comparison -- how many people have been saved from wasting money on Pear Cables, compared to how many people have been saved from wasting money on Sylvia Browne?

I never said that this effort would have no effect. What I said was that the same resources and effort, directed at more important issues would result in more good results. Not necessarily Sylvia Browne. But seriously -- are you trying to tell me that of all the frauds that are out there, the best one that you guys can come up with to issue the MDC to is Pear Cables?

If this particular foray into exposing what appear to be frauds doesn't meet your standards, then you have my apologies. Meanwhile, we'll keep on doing what we've been doing for the past 11 years.

This reminds me of one of Steven Colbert's clips to George Bush during his appearance at the White House Correspondent's Dinner.

The greatest thing about this man is he's steady. You know where he stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday. Events can change; this man's beliefs never will.

It also reminds me of the numerous Chinese companies I've served as a business consultant for that, when you raise questions about their processes, simply say, "Well, that's the way we've always done it." No room to discuss if "the way they've always done it" is the right way, or is the best way.

And on that note, let me close with the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

"That's the way we've always done it" is not, in and of itself, a 'justification' for anything. And I would humbly (well, I'm not that humble) suggest that if you are getting as many complaints as you claim, then perhaps "the way you've always done it" is not the best way.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Okay, now let's get into this "paranormal" thing. You guys are really playing free and loose with the definitions here.

...snip...

Have ot totatlly disagree - teh JREF and Randi seem to use the term paranormal like I've always used it and understood it to be use e.g. something outside of sciecne / against the laws of science and so on.

...snip...
"That's the way we've always done it" is not, in and of itself, a 'justification' for anything. And I would humbly (well, I'm not that humble) suggest that if you are getting as many complaints as you claim, then perhaps "the way you've always done it" is not the best way.

It may not be a justification but it is an effective refutation of your point about donors not being happy about what the JREF is doing with their donations.

 

[TX50]

I agree with "Wolfman". This tedious hi-fi cables saga is irrelevant and
uninteresting to almost everyone. Surely if the distributors of these things
are committing advertising fraud then it's more an issue for consumer
protection organisations rather than James Randi and his "million dollars
paranormal challenge" stunt.