I don't see where philsophical issues crop up at all. Magicians are well aware what real magic would constitute. In this sense, the challenge is not scientific in nature. It exist because so many claim to regularly perform actual magic - actual magic as defined, commonly, as effect producing a cause, to defraud others using misdirection and trickery. In other words, they annul the laws of physics and harness nature in ways that make no reasonable sense, which is perfectly fine, except no reasonable results accompany them either. Science really doesn't even enter into the picture, because the challenge simply exists to verify something is not trickery or misdirection.
Hey guys, sorry for the delay in replying in this thread 
Interesting discussion going on, thanks Robinson!
Going back to GzuzKryzt's question about which purpose of the challenge will not be met if someone wins:
IMO the main purpose of the challenge are to expose fraudsters - at least I'm almost certain that is why it was started. I think several other beneficial purposes exist such as supporting conventional science or perhaps exposing REAL paranormal behaviour since who wouldn't want to see that? But the guts of it is the "put up or shut up" idea.
I've been thinking about this a lot, and have approached it from a different angle. There are four possible outcomes of a test:
1) The applicant is fraudulent and the result negative. This is what has happened to date and it is achieving the purpose well.
2) The applicant is fraudulent and the result positive. This would be a disaster for the challenge since it would serve to actively encourage fraudsters - if you can beat JR, you can beat anyone! It would also badly discredit the scientific process used by JREF.
3) The applicant is genuine and the result negative. There are two possible outcomes - on one hand if it was later proved to be genuine then this would be a disaster for the challenge since it would destroy any credibility it has, and essentially "prove" the "the money isn't real" people right. On the other hand if it is never publically shown to be genuine then it may help expose fraudsters similar to (1) although not in the intended way.
4) The applicant is genuine and the result positive. There are a couple of likely outcomes of this. Firstly fraudulent people would point to the result as justification of what they do (if they can be paranormal then I can be too!). Secondly as science is likely to be able to explain what went on as part of conventional science then the challenge has achieved nothing towards exposing fraudsters at all - it will have had a significant benefit to science obviously but achieved little towards its main purpose.
I may have wandered slightly from my original post but that is what thinking aloud is all about! People that stick to one exact viewpoint religiously are exactly that - stuck!
Interesting discussion going on, thanks Robinson!Going back to GzuzKryzt's question about which purpose of the challenge will not be met if someone wins:
IMO the main purpose of the challenge are to expose fraudsters - at least I'm almost certain that is why it was started. I think several other beneficial purposes exist such as supporting conventional science or perhaps exposing REAL paranormal behaviour since who wouldn't want to see that? But the guts of it is the "put up or shut up" idea.
I've been thinking about this a lot, and have approached it from a different angle. There are four possible outcomes of a test:
1) The applicant is fraudulent and the result negative. This is what has happened to date and it is achieving the purpose well.
2) The applicant is fraudulent and the result positive. This would be a disaster for the challenge since it would serve to actively encourage fraudsters - if you can beat JR, you can beat anyone! It would also badly discredit the scientific process used by JREF.
3) The applicant is genuine and the result negative. There are two possible outcomes - on one hand if it was later proved to be genuine then this would be a disaster for the challenge since it would destroy any credibility it has, and essentially "prove" the "the money isn't real" people right. On the other hand if it is never publically shown to be genuine then it may help expose fraudsters similar to (1) although not in the intended way.
4) The applicant is genuine and the result positive. There are a couple of likely outcomes of this. Firstly fraudulent people would point to the result as justification of what they do (if they can be paranormal then I can be too!). Secondly as science is likely to be able to explain what went on as part of conventional science then the challenge has achieved nothing towards exposing fraudsters at all - it will have had a significant benefit to science obviously but achieved little towards its main purpose.
I may have wandered slightly from my original post but that is what thinking aloud is all about! People that stick to one exact viewpoint religiously are exactly that - stuck!
Hey guys, sorry for the delay in replying in this thread
Going back to GzuzKryzt's question about which purpose of the challenge will not be met if someone wins:
IMO the main purpose of the challenge are to expose fraudsters - at least I'm almost certain that is why it was started. I think several other beneficial purposes exist such as supporting conventional science or perhaps exposing REAL paranormal behaviour since who wouldn't want to see that? But the guts of it is the "put up or shut up" idea.
I've been thinking about this a lot, and have approached it from a different angle. There are four possible outcomes of a test:
1) The applicant is fraudulent and the result negative. This is what has happened to date and it is achieving the purpose well.
2) The applicant is fraudulent and the result positive. This would be a disaster for the challenge since it would serve to actively encourage fraudsters - if you can beat JR, you can beat anyone! It would also badly discredit the scientific process used by JREF.
3) The applicant is genuine and the result negative. There are two possible outcomes - on one hand if it was later proved to be genuine then this would be a disaster for the challenge since it would destroy any credibility it has, and essentially "prove" the "the money isn't real" people right. On the other hand if it is never publically shown to be genuine then it may help expose fraudsters similar to (1) although not in the intended way.
4) The applicant is genuine and the result positive. There are a couple of likely outcomes of this. Firstly fraudulent people would point to the result as justification of what they do (if they can be paranormal then I can be too!). Secondly as science is likely to be able to explain what went on as part of conventional science then the challenge has achieved nothing towards exposing fraudsters at all - it will have had a significant benefit to science obviously but achieved little towards its main purpose.
I may have wandered slightly from my original post but that is what thinking aloud is all about! People that stick to one exact viewpoint religiously are exactly that - stuck!
Or perhaps those people know what they talk about and have made up their minds before opening their noiseholes/sitting down at a keyboard. Sticking a no-no-adjective to a certain viewpoint exposes yours, not the one of the people you criticize.
Your point "which purpose of the challenge will not be met if someone wins" is just like any other speculation about the outcome of a successful Challenge:
A humongous "if". This seems to float your boat, I'd rather work on some actual Challenge Protocols.
"IMO the main purpose of the challenge are [sic] to expose fraudsters - at least I'm almost certain that is why it was started." and "But the guts of it is the "put up or shut up" idea."
Your words, Ginarley. And, um, your point?!?
Perhaps I spend too little time farting in my chair and too much time actually doing something to understand your level of thinking, e.g. "conventional science". How would you define "unconventional science", Ginarley?
The Silence of the Yams
Ahh, how quiet. Indeed. Indeed. Put up or shut up old chap, and yet such silence as will come with the shutting up, leads nowhere.
Ahh, how quiet. Indeed. Indeed. Put up or shut up old chap, and yet such silence as will come with the shutting up, leads nowhere.
Yes, and I want to thank Randi and the JREF for the entire concept. And those people who helped put up the million dollars. It does make for such interesting copy.