$1,000,000 Challenge

[Navigator]

"However, I would suggest that those 'gullible' do not, consider themselves at all to be taken advantage of by the unscrupulous..."

True, there was an interesting story about a Harvard professor who was caught swindling money for a non-existent research facility. When arrested, it was discovered that he himself had been defrauded of part of the money, as a victim of a transparent Nigerian scam...he adamantly insisted to authorities that he had not been duped.

"...something fulfils the need, and that is all that matters."

I suspect that there are indeed people who are compelled to be manipulated, as there are those who 'need' abuse, or 'need' self destructive behavior.

I do not think that everyone who is deceived falls into that category, and efforts to debunk the deceivers, while not a cure all, do serve (IMHO) a valuable purpose.

After all, we try to dissuade people from their various other 'needs', from alcohol, to drugs, to sexual compulsive behavior, even though there are many who are happy to take advantage of that kind of need.
Should we do any less for those who are taken advantage of by charlatans, even if they have developed a symbiotic relationship?

Paul

All well and good - however, trying is one thing and succeeding is another.
How will science convince parents not to teach their children the myth of santa?

 

[DangerousBeliefs]

All well and good - however, trying is one thing and succeeding is another.
How will science convince parents not to teach their children the myth of santa?

You confuse "science" with "scientist".

One is a tool. The other has children.

And why would a scientist care about not teaching children about Santa? Now, teach children that they can't fly off a roof, that's something, but its also not the purpose of science. It's the responsiblity of the parent.

 

[Navigator]

You confuse "science" with "scientist".

One is a tool. The other has children.

And why would a scientist care about not teaching children about Santa? Now, teach children that they can't fly off a roof, that's something, but its also not the purpose of science. It's the responsiblity of the parent.

Well isn't James taking something of a pparental role in all this?
You don't want your children decieved by 'those who trick and use innocent gullibility' do you?

Is a scientist not a scientist when he'she goes home at might and mingles with the family?

I would think that if James was a Father himself or indeed a Grandfather, he would not let this compromise his stand against all things false and deceptive, which are motivated by commercia enterprise.
I would assume that he would never decieve his own children regarding the myth of Santa. I would assume that any fervent believer in truthfullness (call it science) would take a firm and confident stand when it came to parental deception - be an example and in no way allow your children to be decieved by such a myth...

Are my assumptions falsely based?

 

[Oleron]

Have a look at this commentary. It contains some insights into how Randi views Santa-myth.
No need for me to add to this I think.

Randi and Santa

 

[Navigator]

Have a look at this commentary. It contains some insights into how Randi views Santa-myth.
No need for me to add to this I think.

Randi and Santa

Thank You Oleron.

From that link there is this quotation...

Now, just to be clear here, let me tell you that I have no problems with the Santa Claus legend being told to children - up to about five years of age. It's a fun thing, used with kids who haven't yet learned to recognize the difference between reality and fantasy. Snow White and Winnie the Pooh are part of this make-believe period. I'm all for it. But soon after that age, humans begin to examine the world more closely. They find that things don't always happen for the best, that there are disappointments and reversals of expectations. These are the growing-up pains. And certainly, if a child asks a question, in most cases the correct answer should be provided. This teacher was asked; she answered. She gets an A+ from me.

Now here we have the worlds biggest myth.
I have heard the saying 'give me a child for the first five years of it's life, and that person will be mine for the remainder of it's life.'

Something like that - but whoever said it was strongly suggesting that the first 5 years of an individuals life, are the most important for shaping the individuals way of thinking through it's belief systems for the remainder of it's life.

I don't agree that this signifies that there is no way for the child to re-evaluate what it has been taught, but it does make it very difficult, and may be the crux of the matter - the source to which James must go in order to understand what it is he is trying to change in human belief systems.

Belief in an obvious myth - Santa Clause - James "has no problem' with children being taught to believe a lie - 'up to around 5 years old'

Okay - after that the bubble pops. What has the child learned from this?
That parents lie.
The one group in control of a childs innocence and gullibility take the opertunity to reinforce and continue the tradition of lying to those who trust them empathically.
What happens as a result? Not only can parents not be trusted, but the world cannot be trusted.
As children grow, they find things to replace the thing which was taken from them. They explore all these other things which James is critical of - occult, belief in god, etc....to fill the gap left when the discovery that Santa is a myth.
They no longer trust their parents to tell them truth - and discover that their parents know very little about truth.
They rebel
All in the name of 'fun'?

Well okay - so until James and the rest of the scientists start getting real about Santa, his vision to irradicate myth from the human belief ystem will never amount to more than just 'hope based upon myth' itself....

How is science going to get these ones to TRUST science as being TRUTH over that which fills a gap far better than science has been able to do for the individual.?

Identifythe cause...

Something which was lost in the shock of discovery, is regained for the individual in G_D (occult) - But the pattern in believing in the invisible was first unnecessarily promoted in those formative years - the ones James 'has no problem' with.

James has a problem with folk believing in the unproven invisible, apart from when folk are aged five and under.

This inconsistency does not help his cause.

 

[jackmott]

so you are just fishing for something to complain about?

Because this has nothing to do with your original point.

This inconsistency does not help his cause. [/B]

 

[Navigator]

so you are just fishing for something to complain about?

Because this has nothing to do with your original point.

No more than any other sceptic is fishing for the truth right? If one can't handle something obviously inconsistant in James' teaching, then one will miss the point and make the same mistakes fervent believers make in those they respect, admire, look up to and follow after.
Trust

I think it has something to do with my original point -

 

[LTC8K6]

At what age do children reliably learn to tell the difference between a lie and a truth?

 

[Navigator]

At what age do children reliably learn to tell the difference between a lie and a truth?

At what age does an individual have to be before the Truth can be told?

 

[jackmott]

Randi's point is paranormal claims are BS.
the prize and the fact that no one has claimed it illustrates the point.

whether james thinks santa is ok or not is a distant and unrelated issue in my humble opinion.

I just seem to notice this trend that since nobody on this forum can demonstrate anything supernatural, they just find some tiny minutia to complain about instead "oh randis not fair, oh randis santa stance is inconsistence, oh randi is rude"

personally, I don't give a damn. randi is not claiming to be jesus, he is just offering up a million bucks if you can do something paranormal.

No more than any other sceptic is fishing for the truth right? If one can't handle something obviously inconsistant in James' teaching, then one will miss the point and make the same mistakes fervent believers make in those they respect, admire, look up to and follow after.
Trust

I think it has something to do with my original point -

 

[mbuehner]

Paranormal:
not scientifically explainable

Okay - I assume James is somewhat the scientist.
Therefore, HOW can the 'JREF' consider anything being 'paranormal' when the very deffinition of paranomal is not scientifically explainable.

Randi requires that you demonstrate something paranormal, not something impossible. You will notice the verbage is not 'to demonstrate something impossible', which seems to be how you are intepretting paranormal.

Now clearly you cannot demonstrate something impossible, in that you are correct. By its very definition, if you can demonstrate it, it is possible. That would be a self defeating task.

Your definintion of paranormal is incorrect.
"not scientifically explainable"

Now by your personal definition of 'paranormal', paranormal is synonimous with 'impossible', because to a scientist nothing is ultimately "not scientifically explainable". There are only those things which have not been scientifically explained yet . So if someone demonstrates something that hasnt yet been explained by science (telepathy if it exists), that is not necessarilly paranormal, it just has yet to be scientifically explained, and hence is not prize worthy. Assumedly some day its mechanism could be discovered. Using your definition of paranormal, yes Randi's prize is unwinable.

But your definition is flawed.

Here is the definition from this source
education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/35/p0063500.html
"Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation "
(emphasis mine)

Ah, 'scientific explanation' is considerably different than being 'scientifically explanable'. Something subject to scientific explanation must fall within a distinct body of knowledge. Either something can be explaned by the laws of physics as we know them at this time, or it cannot. That is a verifiable challenge.

An example. 1000 years ago alchemy was in vogue. The attempt to change iron into gold was thought to be possible via magic. Now if we all lived and were taking this test 1000 years ago, and i built a nuclear reactor of such design that I turned an iron atom into a gold atom, it would be indistigishable from magic. There was no body of scientific knowledge that could explain that phenominon. Hence, it would be considered by all a 'paranormal' act. I would win the prize if I am not mistaken.

Randi does not demand that applicants perform the impossible, as you suggest. He requires that applicants perform or demonstrate some phenominon outside the range of science as we clearly understand it. If you can figure out how to leap between dimensions, for instance, in some way that science has no explanation for at this time, you could win the prize. Even if 1000 years from now the principle you applied was well understood.

I believe this is a correct interpretation of the contest. If I'm off someone can correct me.

 

[Navigator]

Thank you for that reply mbuehner

I agree with your definition.
(I sourced the one I used from a respected online Dictionary - my mistake for not proving the link - which goes to show, why the rules are in place)
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=paranormal
So James is not saying "These things are impossible - James is saying,:

"I don't know that these things are not possible - I want someone to do the work and show me that these things are real, and for that someone's hard work and commitment, I will pay them a wage of $1,000,000 because they deserve at least that much."

or words to that effect.

And so far no one has been able to work out a way to show James that these things are real.

Maybe the hard work is still in progress...




On Santa

 

[mbuehner]

Nav, I think that is a very plausible way of looking at it. But remember the JREFs goal here as well, there are millions of people running around this planet claiming all types of things that would fit this profile, were they true. Many are bilking people out of money. JREF is simply providing a forum where these people can be challenged.

Basically, if they can fool James Randi and his people and/or demonstrate something that science cannot at this time account for, they can win 1 million dollars. Thats a powerful incentive if these folks running around with their 'powers' wish to prove them. Whats the downside? If they win they establish a powerful new branch of scientific inquiry, if they lose potentially they could either they stop fooling others or stop fooling themselves. I think that is a very worthy goal.

The bottom line is James Randi has stopped an untold number of people from being bilked by spoon benders, and he has probably helped a lot of good intentioned but foolish souls making bad assumptions. Then there are people like me that grew up wanting badly to believe in elves in the garden and gremlins in the basement that instead spend their time more productively, in the best sense of the word. Skepticism isnt a dirty word. I would still love to see elves in my garden, but if I do see one this time, I plan on trapping the sucker for scientific study and a cool million.

The experience of wonder at something that really exists in the world is so much more rewarding than the fairy tales you can so easilly feed yourself. I've been on the other side, I know its true.

 

[Navigator]

Nav, I think that is a very plausible way of looking at it. But remember the JREFs goal here as well, there are millions of people running around this planet claiming all types of things that would fit this profile, were they true. Many are bilking people out of money. JREF is simply providing a forum where these people can be challenged.

Basically, if they can fool James Randi and his people and/or demonstrate something that science cannot at this time account for, they can win 1 million dollars.Thats a powerful incentive if these folks running around with their 'powers' wish to prove them. Whats the downside? If they win they establish a powerful new branch of scientific inquiry, if they lose potentially they could either they stop fooling others or stop fooling themselves. I think that is a very worthy goal.

The bottom line is James Randi has stopped an untold number of people from being bilked by spoon benders, and he has probably helped a lot of good intentioned but foolish souls making bad assumptions. Then there are people like me that grew up wanting badly to believe in elves in the garden and gremlins in the basement that instead spend their time more productively, in the best sense of the word. Skepticism isnt a dirty word. I would still love to see elves in my garden, but if I do see one this time, I plan on trapping the sucker for scientific study and a cool million.

The experience of wonder at something that really exists in the world is so much more rewarding than the fairy tales you can so easilly feed yourself. I've been on the other side, I know its true.

All that you speak of here is worth quoting.
It covers a lot of ground.
....You say...

But remember the JREFs goal here as well, there are millions of people running around this planet claiming all types of things that would fit this profile, were they true. Many are bilking people out of money. JREF is simply providing a forum where these people can be challenged.

I say...
Billions of people are being biked right now - they are all Children - under 5 - a blind eye has been placed over this matter of fact
Santa

And James has something to say about this:Randi And Santa

 

[Yahweh]

But how do you test a medium?

I don't mean exposing phoney-baloney ectoplasm mongers, I mean how can one confirm whether someone is talking to the dead?

It doesn't seem possible.

Has Randi ever tested such a claim? If so, how?

One testing procedure:

Find 10 volunteers, put their picture in a hat.

Ask the medium to draw a picture out of the hat, then use and audio recorder to capture the reading.

Play the reading back to each of the 10 original volunteers. If the psychic is legitimate, the reading should match to just 1 volunteer (the one who's picture was pulled out of the hat), and be rejected by the other 9.

 

[Ladewig]

There are plenty of people who regularly post on this board, myself included, who believe that it is appropriate to not encourage the Santa myth to children of any age. But in any case we are straying a bit from the topic at hand.

Is your biggest complaint about James Randi the stance he takes on Santa Claus? ------------------------

In the case of this being the motivation, there are plenty of people who will pay others to read the Tarot (for past present and future information) which confirms their own subjective points of view. They are happy to pay. [snip]

Yes, but many are not happy after they discover that they have not received what they paid for. It is not hard to find people who paid $50-$500 for a reading with an after-death communicator and walked away realizing that the ADCer is a fraud and the money was wasted. Unlike many other products and services, after-death communication fraud is hard to prove in court, so there is no recourse available.

[unsnip]Thus there is a need.
You need shelter, you pay someone to provide it.
So both parties are motivated by NEED.

In one way, if such needs are met, then for these folk, science has not been able to fill this need.

I agree with the concept that science cannot fulfill the needs of many grieving people, of many curious people, of many worried people, and so forth. Just because science cannot fulfill their needs does not mean that after-death communication, fortune-telling, numerology, palm-reading, and telephone psychics are an appropriate, useful, helpful, or cost-effective method of fulfilling those needs.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

One testing procedure:

Find 10 volunteers, put their picture in a hat.

Ask the medium to draw a picture out of the hat, then use and audio recorder to capture the reading.

Play the reading back to each of the 10 original volunteers. If the psychic is legitimate, the reading should match to just 1 volunteer (the one who's picture was pulled out of the hat), and be rejected by the other 9.

That would only prove some sort of ESP, not talking to the dead.

 

[Dancing David]

Navigator: This thread has some interesting potential:
In that you ask :Why should Randi try to deunk the paranormal.

Very good question!

i would say that there are two kinds of belief:

1. A personal belief that provides some comfort or enjoyment to the believer. (This would cover Santa and religion in general, as well in some of the beliefs of homeopaths, crytal holders, angel believers. pagans like myself, and followers of the psychiatrtic community(that is for WotS).)

2. A personal belief that is used to the advantage of another person for unethical benefit.

a. This would include people who use religion or paranormal claims to defraud other people.( Taking money to see the future or tarot cards to predict stocks)

b. This would include people who use thier religous status or other paranormal status to make money or mooch off of other people.(Convincing people to buy stocks or investment and living off of others)

c. especialy this applies to people who don't get medical treatment because of a mistaken belief.(Like when a Christian Scientist refuses thier children medical treatment.)

Ethics:
I chose this very strongly, as part of my pagan initiation I took an oath to "not use the mystic arts to impress foolish people". I think this includes behaviors like taking money to cast a spell or do a tarot card reading.

Just as it would be wrong for me to sell a product or take adavantage of my clients in social work, I feel practioners of the mystic arts and religous organization have an OBLIGATION to not exploite thier position for personal gain.

So while teaching children the santat myth has certain ramifications , it does not violate a bunch of ethical concerns.

 

[Navigator]

Greetings Ladywig


Is your biggest complaint about James Randi the stance he takes on Santa Claus?

I dont have any complaints about James. If he wishes to encourage the belief in this explotative myth, he is entiled to do so.
If he wishes to turn a blind eye he is entitled....I have started another thread for those who are interested in commenting about the effects of this myth on the llives of those who are encouraged to believe in it.

Yes, but many are not happy after they discover that they have not received what they paid for. It is not hard to find people who paid $50-$500 for a reading with an after-death communicator and walked away realizing that the ADCer is a fraud and the money was wasted. Unlike many other products and services, after-death communication fraud is hard to prove in court, so there is no recourse available.

Why is this then? Did they simply not do the homework? Find someone who has a track record for accuracy. Do the Lawmakers and the Law acknowledge the possibility of life after death, and therefore the possibility of folk communicating with these?
Doe sthe constitution allow the right for people to blow their money any way they see fit? Why is there such a concern for grown adults who are shafted, while blithful ignorance towards kids who get shafted is blind-eyed?
Can you see the double standard creeping all over such arguments?


I agree with the concept that science cannot fulfill the needs of many grieving people, of many curious people, of many worried people, and so forth. Just because science cannot fulfill their needs does not mean that after-death communication, fortune-telling, numerology, palm-reading, and telephone psychics are an appropriate, useful, helpful, or cost-effective method of fulfilling those needs.


I agree. But the fact remains that devolution of the intelligence plows it's curly farrow in the backwaters of ignorance through the free choices of these individuals themselves, and science will have to do more than get their money back for them. It could be that there is this system which has been oin place for centuries, and it seems to help people with these emotional problems...I am not suggesting that it is good or bad. It just is. Why does science wish to change this?
It is a big ask but, just like with Santa, if science doen't have something in which to fill the gap left by the deconstruction of invalid belief systems. then folk will find something else in which to do the job.

 

[apoger]

Why does science wish to change this?

Please stop anthropomorphizing "science". Science isn't people, it's a methodology. Saying "Why does science wish to change this?" is just as silly as saying "Why does cooking wish to change this?" or "Why does math wish to change this?". Science/Cooking/Math are things done by people, these endeavors don't have wishes of their own.