$1 million challenge to the sceptics...

[Quasi]

From the FAQ on his site

Zammit has carefully chosen data that cannot be checked. Since it is not falsifiable, it is not scientific. The only approach is to use what we do know about the tricks of psychics and speculate about what happened at that time which is trying to prove a negative. Since we do not have all of the facts this will be easily refuted by VZ.

I agree you can prove there are no ferrets in your desk drawer. I mean more in a scientific sense where you should try to prove what something is rather than what it is not. Statements in science which are worded "X cannot be" or "it is impossible to..." are the weakest kind rather than "x can do this or that." Here, if Zammit is willing to put his theory to the test, Randi is more than willing to help him and Gary Schwartz put together a solid protocol. Neither of them want a real test though, which is why VZ chooses a web site rather than testing. Its a smoke screen with him slaying an army of straw men.

 

[MRC_Hans]

About proving the negative: The point is not that you cannot prove a negative, because obviously, you sometimes can. The fallacy is in the shift of the burden of proof: In any sensible debate, you are not REQUIRED to prove the negative. The onus of proof is on the claimant.

There is a practical reason for this, of course: If you could be required to disprove claims, any debate could be snowed under in hard, or impossible to disprove claims.

Hans

 

[Minkster]

I am making an assumption that this guy doesn't actually HAVE $1m to spare (although could be wrong) so in that case isn't that - allied with the ridiculous conditions that pretty much preclude anyone from winning - tantamount to whatever trade description laws apply in Australia?

I hope people treat this website with the contempt it deserves (including the media, should they ever feel tempted to run with it as a 'balancing' story)

 

[ShowMe]

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?

I thought much the same thing this morning. Perhaps we should make a contest using his rules and offer him $1 million?

If any qualified person can convince a secret committee (of my choosing) beyond ANY doubt that the evidence Zammit presents is true, they'll get $1 million dollars.

Of course, like Zammit, I get to choose who is "qualified".

If it happens they will also win the JREF $1 million, since it would certainly go into the "paranormal" category.

 

[Flange Desire]

I have been in recent email contact with Zammit, and I can assure you that the bloke is a complete loon.

He attempts to shift the burden of proof, and he just loves telling sceptics what they 'must' do to 'satisfy' him.

The use of imperative language (in his emails and in his so-called challenge) clearly indicates that he thinks that sceptical enquiry is some sort of game or personality contest.
This is quite possibly due to the internal turmoil he must experience when his belief systems are questioned.

If you haven't already checked out his site then please do.
It is a real eye-opener, and would be hilarious if it were not so sad.
He endorses just about every quack you can think of!

 

[Matabiri]

Re: Re: $1 million challenge to the sceptics...

"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."

Odd, because trying to find out about this "Cartesian test", Google threw up a chapter of his own book, where he says,

The Cartesian test is, 'doubt anything which can be doubted.'

As all the 'evidence' he presents can be doubted, then by his own arguments it's disproved.

Oh, no, wait, he's moved his goalposts for the 'challenge', hasn't he?