$1 million challenge to the sceptics...

[badnews]

I don't know if this was already brought up here but,

Check this out
$1000000 to anyone DISproving existnce of after life...

http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/challenge.html

what do you think is it doible? probably not... probably to many conditions on it to actualy disprove anything... plus how can anyone disprove afterlife - seems stupid....
I actualy knew Victor, he used to be my Law teacher, but I didn't know of his challenge at the time... I wish I did so I could have a bit of a debate with him...

 

[Loon]

Well, he does do a FANTASTIC job of conflating scientific and legal standards of proof, so he's got that going for him.

 

[Jono]

Mmm quite, applying his skills and knowledge of legistic law toward scientific evidence, interesting in a way, haven't read or heard that being the case of many other's pro-survivalisms.

Though of course I do not know how well versed and respected within the law practice he is.
Perhaps Badnews can shead some inside information on this as he was at least partially educated by him?

 

[CFLarsen]

For starters, nobody has ever seen the money.

The "challenge" is a sham. You have to provide evidence that anecdotes more than a 100 years old didn't happen. It is solely up to Zammit and his secret board of judges to decide - in secrecy - if you have proved them wrong or not. And they don't have to give any reasons, either.

Truly dishonest through and through.

 

[Jono]

Yes the challenge is spurious, rebutting past claims and evidence that only exists in some reports at best per se, however aren't there oppositie similarities with the JREF challange?
That they can use the data obtained in anyway they see fit?

 

[Quasi]

Yes the challenge is spurious, rebutting past claims and evidence that only exists in some reports at best per se, however aren't there oppositie similarities with the JREF challange?
That they can use the data obtained in anyway they see fit?

No. The difference is that you need to do the impossible with the VZ challenge, namely proving a negative. There is judging required, and it is a closed jury. Further, the money has not been confirmed. Zam has extremely poor critical thinking skills. Makes me wonder if he really is that great of a lawyer.
The JREF challenge does not require any judging. The conditions and terms are agreed upon beforehand entirely. For example, Uri Gellar only has to bend the spoon as he has on TV etc under controlled conditions. Say, he has to bend the handle greater than 10 degrees in any direction. That is all. A scientific instrument can be used to measure the bend angle. If it is over 10 degrees, he wins, no discussion or judging necessary. So the difference is significant.

 

[vbloke]

this has been thouroghly discussed on this thread already.

from new drkitten
From a fundamental epistemological standpoint, nothing can be refuted under the conditions demanded by Zammit. And he's well aware of this -- he's a lawyer, so he knows exactly what his "Cartesian" standard implies, and why it's not actually used in any court of law.

 

[badnews]

[quite] THE DEBUNKER MATERLIAST clock now:


1457 days !

DEBUNKER MATERIALIST CLOSED MINDED SKEPTIC The Miami materialist James Hamilton Zwinge Randy Clock began in April 2001!! Since then this materialist, closed minded skeptic debunker has been unable to rebut my objective evidence for the afterlife. My evidence is EXPRESSLY STATED - 23 areas of evidence for the existence of the afterlife.This closed minded skeptic materialist will be remembered by his own confession, "I will always have a way out of NOT PAYING..." referring to his own alleged challenge to psychics.
[/quite]

that what he has about randi on his web site...
I don't like it...
having a stupid challenge where he pushes burden of proof on to someone else, and the same time trying to discredit Randi's challenge.

 

[kookbreaker]

And yet there are those that eat it all up.

I much prefer Victor Dammit!

 

[Timothy]

No. The difference is that you need to do the impossible with the VZ challenge, namely proving a negative.

Pet peeve of mine ... this bon mot gets thrown around a lot, and it always makes me cringe.

In fact, it is quite possible to prove a negative, both in the strictly logical sense and the empirical scientific sense. Much depends on how you phrase the question. I can prove (to the standards of anything but Cartesian proof) "There are no ferrets in my desk drawer."

The trouble comes because "proving a negative" frequently involves a postulate where the observations you would make to support the claim are so reaching in scope that it is impractical to observe them in a finite amount of time, or the means to observe them does not (and cannot) exist.

So, proving the negative "There are no ferrets in my desk drawer" takes one opening and examination of my desk drawer; proving the negative "There are no aliens on a planet around Alpha Centauri" is harder, but conceivably possible with future technology; proving the negative "There are no aliens in the universe that travel to less advanced planets and anally probe their inhabitants" is impossible because one has to examine the entire universe before one can offer up a proof; proving the negative "God does not exist" is impossible because at least some people claim that God's undetectability is one of His properties, so the observation by definition can't be made.

It's not the negativity of the argument, it's the vastness of the scope the claim encompasses.

A good essay on the topic is at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html


- Timothy

 

[El_Spectre]

Close minded: adj, anyone who doesn't agree with your particular pet belief.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Here is the important difference between Zammit's challenge and Randi's. Say you claim to have a dragon in your garage, I can never completely disprove it. Even if I completely inspect your garage there is the excuse that it's hiding, or really, really small, or that the perfectly ordinary horned toad in your terrarium is in fact a dragon. On the other hand, if you do indeed have one, all you have to do to prove it to my satisfaction is walk out of your garage with a dragon in tow.

Zammits challenge is akin to asking me to prove the dragon isn't there. Randi's challenge is akin to asking you to some out with it.

 

[T'ai Chi]

No. The difference is that you need to do the impossible with the VZ challenge, namely proving a negative.

From the FAQ on his site

Q9. You are making an offer which is impossible to prove because 'you can't prove the negative'. Can you explain ?

Answer: I am NOT asking anyone to 'prove the negative.' I received many emails from skeptics saying that - but they themselves have not read my challenge - they read the website of some skeptic who deliberately misled them about what I have on my website. Then these skeptics waste my time repeating what some other skeptic has deliberately misrepresented about my offer.

If the reader goes to my home page - it is clearly expressly stated that the challenge is about rebutting the 'EXISTING EVIDENCE.' The evidence is in my book - click on the BOOK on the homepage - you will then see the evidence which has to be rebutted - chapters 3 to 24. Now, that is NOT proving the negative. That is technical evidence which is admissible in a court of law - all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, the High Court of England and the High Court of Australia and in all civilised countries in the world. I state that only lawyers know what technically constitutes admissible evidence. Check with your own lawyer. That skeptical stage magician who has been disseminating negative propaganda to fool the uninformed knows absolutely NOTHING about laboratory experimentation and what constitutes admissible technical evidence.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Took a very brief skim over the "evidence" us skeptics have to explain there. One thing gets me laughing is that EVP is listed on there. Considering that www.skepdic.com lists EVP and its mundane explanations, that should instill some reasonable doubt and have it removed from the list.

Remember something about a recent "true" movie about EVP. They had a clip of the static playing, with subtitles. Wish I could have watched it without the subtitles: Probably wouldn't have subconsciously forced my brain to hear what they were spelling out for me. Thankfully, I've completely forgotten what was allegedly said, so if anyone provides a link to that commercial, I should just be able to cover up the subtitles and listen to the static being static.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

People are generating purported evidence for the afterlife faster than skeptics could possibly debunk each bit. Even if one could prove the general negative, it would be hopeless in this case.

~~ Paul

 

[T'ai Chi]

People are generating purported evidence for the afterlife faster than skeptics could possibly debunk each bit. Even if one could prove the general negative, it would be hopeless in this case.

~~ Paul

Why do you believe it would it be "hopeless in this case"?

~~ jzs

 

[Suezoled]

Why do you believe it would it be "hopeless in this case"?

~~ jzs

because you question it so that makes it obvious that it is.

I'm kidding.
Kinda.

 

[T'ai Chi]

because you question it so that makes it obvious that it is.

I'm kidding.
Kinda.

Well your response made no sense, and I'm not kidding.

I'll wait for Paul's reply.

 

[ShowMe]

I actualy knew Victor, he used to be my Law teacher, but I didn't know of his challenge at the time... I wish I did so I could have a bit of a debate with him...

Let's take a look at the requirements:

"The offeror and the applicant will agree that the applicant has demonstrated the technical skills to rebut the evidence. This is a fundamental and most important condition."

In other words, if Zammit doesn't think you can rebut the evidence, you're not allowed to rebut the evidence.

"The applicant agrees that the level of proof required to rebut the evidence will be the Cartesian test, "beyond any doubt". This means that there has to be absolutely no doubt at all in the minds of the Committee that the 'evidence' has been rebutted."

Beyond ANY doubt? So, if Zammit decides I am worthy to rebut his challenge I have to convince him beyond ANY doubt that he's wrong? That the books he's selling & making money from are a mockery? That the things he's devoted most of his life towards is a sham, and that he's a fool for believing it?

And I need to do this beyond ANY doubt?

Do you seriously believe this is a real challenge?

And who are the judges?

"'The Committee' refers to a group of people expert in afterlife evidence."

So I need to convince experts in something that doesn't exist, that they are fools & they are wrong, beyind ANY doubt?

If I want to claim the JREF $1 million prize all I have to do is prove what I say I can do, if I'm claiming something paranormal. Pretty simple: If I can do it, I get the cash.

For the Zammit prize I have to convince people who truly believe in something that doesn't exist, that it doesn't exist. Beyond any doubt. Not even beyond "reasonable" doubt, but beyond ANY doubt.

So I guess Zammit is admitting, in a sideways manner, that it would be beyond reason to think his chalenge could possibly be won.

 

[Saxon]

Why hasn't he or anyone who produced all the scholarly claims he has propped his argument on won the Randi prize, if the evidence to be refuted passes his own unreasonable standard of proof? By asking that question, have I won the Zammit prize? I know these questions are on everyone's mind. But I'm new here, I just want to make sure I have all the facts straight.


Who would have thought it would be so easy to win a million dollars? Challenges are fun.