A philosophical challenge for the challenge

Gotta go with GzuzKryt here. I think it may be a straw man to say that the challenger can't win the philosophical debate. What is "their side" of the debate? I don't think most challengers would be going into the debate saying, "all paranormal things are real but unprovable, and if you prove any of them exist, I'll be heartbroken."

On the contrary, I think they're going in saying, "Dowsing is real, I can really find gold, let me prove it. See, the wires pointed down there, and I had no way of knowing which cup the gold was under. Am I right or what?"

Or, "I can talk to dead people. Let me tell you all about your great grandmother. Who else would know that? You don't doubt any more, huh?"

And so forth. The fact that afterward, people will want to study it scientifically and soon come to accept it as a natural phenomenon won't be considered a "loss," because most people doing these things already consider them natural phenomena--real things that actually do exist in the world, rather than tricks of the mind or figments of the imagination.

There are already paranormal investigators who "study" ghosts with cameras and various instruments, or psychic viewers who want their "skills" to be used by police departments alongside DNA testing, fiber analysis and so forth, or dowsers who want to be employed by well drillers and mining companies finding water or minerals.

In general, those who are anti-skeptics are happy to see ghost hunters and psychics and dowsers being employed, because it fits with their worldview that those paranormal things exist. They just skip the step where the paranormal skill needs proven first, and jump right to the step where the paranormal skill can be applied.

If they'd win the challenge to prove the skill, it might seem redundant to them, but it wouldn't be a moral loss. The problem is, they're afraid they might not be able to win, which would topple the house of cards they've already built on believing the skill is real.
 
Ginarley said:
Anyway considering these, if science does find an explanation after observing real "paranormal" activity then it ceases to be paranormal per se - it joins all other scientific theory as part of what we take as normal. We are then back where we started - claiming that no paranormal abilities exist despite the fact someone won the challenge therefore retaining our moral high ground. Essentially science will abosrb any paranormality.

This problem strikes me as a difficult one to get around (from a philosophical point of view) for the challenge. People are perfectly able to win the challenge without defeating the challenges philosophical standpoint, and it occurs to me this also dilutes the power of the challenge to attract challengers - they can't really win the philosophical debate even if they win the money.
Click to expand...

Damn. I had the same thought years ago when I heard about the challenge. And in fact, was reading some commentary on the Web this last week that speaks to these issues.

Some positive, some negative. Before I read the entrie thread here, I wanted to spew out my thoughts on the MDC, because I would bet money somebody else already said it, but I don't want to know they said it yet.

In a philosophical way, it is way cooler if different minds come up with the same thoughts. IMNSHO of course. And because up at the top of the page it is asking me if I have any thoughts, right now. No really, it is like freaky man, I was just thinking about the MDC and THERE IT IS! The computer asking me about it.

Woooooooooooooo

So here are two thoughts which jump in, and like I said, I'm sure they have come up before.

1: If somebody really has powers, why would they need the money? Or want any publicity? They could make money like crazy, real easy, and they wouldn't want anyone to know about it.

2: If somebody demonstrates a new ability, and it is validated by a Pro like Randi, and rewarded with money, then it is going to found by science to be real, not make-believe, and it is no longer mysterious/paranormal/psychic/whatever. Like the Idiot-Savant that can do math in the head, or something like that. (yeah I know, Idiot-Savant is not the correct term, but I forget what it is called now).

Now if both those thoughts are already here, and discussed, and accepted or something, and you already read them or talked them to death, then they seem dull, or boring, or tiresome, (Oh geez, here we go again, didn't we already hash this out last year?)

And I'm sure they are just like that. Because it seems to me those are thoughts that just come up when an intelligent person thinks about it.

I know, I know, I'm just thinking out loud here. Getting my feet wet. And can somebody point me to a thread where newblood can ask stupid questions? Or read a FAQ page. Because I can't find either one of them. :confused:

Thanks in advance.
 
robinson said:
...
I know, I know, I'm just thinking out loud here. Getting my feet wet. And can somebody point me to a thread where newblood can ask stupid questions? Or read a FAQ page. Because I can't find either one of them. :confused:

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Getting your feet wet because the thin ice you walk on is melting from the heat of critical thinking? ;)

The only FAQ on this domain seems to be the one related to the Challenge. Not really what you were looking for, right?

You may sort the threads in this subforum by posts or views. Gives you an idea - if you will endure the hard work of browsing a couple of pages - about what has come up so far. You will discover some topics come up again after a while, etc.

As in any forum where you enter as a rookie: Take your time. Know what you want, search, read, learn. Patience helps.

I strongly suggest to read as many of the Challenge Applications as possible - you may understand what the bread and butter of the Challenge Facilitator (currently Mr. Jeff Wagg) actually is.

Of course, no one can and will keep you from asking stoopid questions. ;)

You may have to brace for stoopid answers. :D
Generally, the regulars around here try not to behave stoopidly.
If you long for stoopidity galore - mosey over to the Religion or Politics Forum. Zing!
 
Ginarley said:
The point of this thread is (was?) not to discuss whether people can win the challenge (which I agree IS simple), but to discuss the implications of winning the challenge, how this may be a deterrent to applying for the challenge, and how one of the purposes of the challenge may in fact not be accomplished even if someone does win.
Click to expand...

GzuzKryzt said:
Which "one of the purposes of the challenge may in fact not be accomplished even if someone does win"?
Click to expand...

Well? :rolleyes:
 
robinson said:
So here are two thoughts which jump in, and like I said, I'm sure they have come up before.

1: If somebody really has powers, why would they need the money? Or want any publicity? They could make money like crazy, real easy, and they wouldn't want anyone to know about it.
Click to expand...

That's quite an assumption, and a mostly untenable one.

First of all, if you actually READ the applicants' claims, many of them are not the sort of things that anyone could "make money like crazy" from. One person claimed to be able to make UFOs appear upon command; another person claimed to be able to make it snow on a given date with six months' notice; a third claimed to be able to telekinetically move a candle flame from side to side. I haven't noticed any glut of want-ads lately demanding UFO summoners....

Beyond that, most of the ways that psychics seem to be able to make money is by demonstrating their skill (e.g. Sylvia). The publicity I would get from beating Randi's challenge, and being able to demonstrate myself as "the medium whom Randi couldn't debunk!" would be invaluable above and beyond the prize money.

Basically -- I don't buy it.

2: If somebody demonstrates a new ability, and it is validated by a Pro like Randi, and rewarded with money, then it is going to found by science to be real, not make-believe, and it is no longer mysterious/paranormal/psychic/whatever.
Click to expand...

So what? That doesn't make it less valuable. People don't pay dowsers because it's mysterious and paranormal; they pay dowsers because they want to find water. People don't pay psychic healers because of the "psychic," but because of the "healer" bit..

There are certainly a few abilities that would be more profitable for being secreted away; the ability to know what card was coming up next in a blackjack deck (and only in a blackjack deck), for example. But those abilities are relatively few and far between.
 
Hello drkitten

I didn't make any assumptions. I just stated some thoughts. There is a difference. Really, there is. ;)

I try to stay clear of assumptions and BS. But stating a thought is a regular human activity, and they are just thoughts put on paper, nothing more. I don't imagine my thoughts are real, but sometimes they might describe reality.

heh

I have read the claims, at it seems like only whackjobs ever bother to apply for the challenge. I was thinking that IF someone had real abilities, the last place they would look for money would be the MDC.


I didn't say anything about the people who tried and failed, or never did step one of the MDC, (get a health checkup, talk to your Doctor).

I don't know how anyone with a power would make money. It seems only the fakes are trying to make money off of "abilities" or whatever. My point was that IF somebody was extra-human they would have little trouble prospering. People with just regular skills do pretty well. Even a hint of paranormal abilities could be an advantage.

I didn't ask you to buy anything.

I don't really know what people pay dowsers or psychic healers for, since I don't visit any of them.

I don't know if there are secret abilities, like prediciting the future, nor do I know how often they would appear. I try to stick to facts that can be verified, and not just make up stuff.

And in that atmosphere, certainly many things considered fantasy or fiction, have turned out to be real.
 
Last edited:
Hello GzuzKryzt

I thought there might be a FAQ on what is acceptable, and what is not. That sort of thing. Finding out the hard way sucks.

Thanks for the tips.

I have read about everything I can find on the MDC, on multiple websites.

Stoopid questions was regarding the system/forum stuff. Nothing can save me from stoopid when it comes to just not knowing S.

(edit) - nevermind the stoopid question. I found the rules here --> ../showthread.php?t=25744

:o

But I long for intelligence, not the mundane. Pointers?

heh :D
 
Last edited:
I mean pointer in the sense of a link to a thread here with intelligent people writing. Not pointers on how to be intelligent.
 
*Yawn*

Is that it? Is that as good as it gets here?

:idea:

Someone needs to stir the pot, rather than smoke it.

:idea:

From another thread,
this is why i only pop in occassionally- there are almost never any new insights. just retreading the same old crap.
Click to expand...

Now that is going to suck. Maybe I should discuss adventures in Wooland or something. Biggest obstacle I see, is WHERE itf does one do this here?
:idea:
 
robinson said:
*Yawn*

Is that it? Is that as good as it gets here?

:idea:

Someone needs to stir the pot, rather than smoke it.

:idea:

From another thread,

Now that is going to suck. Maybe I should discuss adventures in Wooland or something. Biggest obstacle I see, is WHERE itf does one do this here?
:idea:
Click to expand...


Patience, lad.



For enhanced potstir-ish-ness, try another subforum. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php

You want inane drivel, irrelevant arguments, self-combusting logic, bickering and outright nuttery? The Religion http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4 and Politics http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6 is the thing for you. :D
 
ISYN, I want to talk about a lifetime of debunking crap, but not have to come back to find a bunch of nonsense and banter, or worse, veiled flamers bored to death cause they have too much time to spend pouncing on each and every new idea that winds up on the screen.

I mean to say, I have found it more rewarding to actually investigate crap than to dismiss it out of hand. Do some testing, some research, apply the old scientific mind to a problem, rather than scream, YOU ARE AN IDIOT! everytime somebody says they can do something unusual or mystical.

heh -- :D

There must be one thread here like that. Where skeptic meets scepdick, without a bunch of fallicies rearing up, like a bad metaphor coming down from an acid trip.
 
Damn, you slipped in. And this system has no slippage warning.

Well, I've read and read and lurked and thought about adding a comment here and there, but it seems like a huge waste of time. A closed minded skeptic is worse that a close minded woo. At least woo is interesting, on many levels.

Being convinced beyond all doubt that one knows everything, is really F,ing boring to be around.
 
Well, before I get zapped for off topic or waste of timing, I will add that I enjoyed the " Could Scientists grab the million?" topic, and some of the funny stuff.

And, on a philosophical note, it would be surprising if nobody brought up the language barrier in the MDC. It seems logical to me, that if you define the challenge by words that mean, by definition, false or fiction, then it is like telling somebody you will pay them a million bucks if they can show you something that doesn't exist.

Now if the challenge was to show me something nobody has ever proved exist, then I could win the money in a heartbeat. But it wouldn't be a power or special ability, it would just be something nobody has proved or documented yet.

(remember, this is philosophical musing, not statements of fact)

For example, anything that can be observed and repeated, becomes a scientific "event", rather than a special mystical event.

So if you can prove it, and repeat it, it isn't paranormal, it is normal.
















Damn, this thinking stuff is hard.;)

On that tack, if I was to come up with something that could be demonstrated, by anyone, just the act of explaining what it is, would allow you or Randi, or anyone with a brain, to duplicate the research, meaning there would be no need for any testing, or any prize money being awarded.


heh

No really. Please point out any logic errors here.
 
Last edited:
robinson said:
And, on a philosophical note, it would be surprising if nobody brought up the language barrier in the MDC. It seems logical to me, that if you define the challenge by words that mean, by definition, false or fiction, then it is like telling somebody you will pay them a million bucks if they can show you something that doesn't exist.

Now if the challenge was to show me something nobody has ever proved exist, then I could win the money in a heartbeat. But it wouldn't be a power or special ability, it would just be something nobody has proved or documented yet.
Click to expand...

You're trying to set up a false dilemma here. There's a large middle ground between things that don't exist and things that no one has proved or documented. And the Randi challenge is interested specifically in objects that occupy that middle ground.

As a simple example, the ability to move objects by thought alone (TK) is generally considered not to exist, but some people claim not only that it exists (in the abstract), but that they can demonstrate it. Randi claims that they're wrong -- and is willing to put up a million bucks to justify his end of the bet.

So in order to win the bet, you first have to find something that Randi will agree beforehand does not and cannot exist, and then prove him wrong (by demonstrating that it does).
 
robinson said:
ISYN, I want to talk about a lifetime of debunking crap, but not have to come back to find a bunch of nonsense and banter, or worse, veiled flamers bored to death cause they have too much time to spend pouncing on each and every new idea that winds up on the screen.

I mean to say, I have found it more rewarding to actually investigate crap than to dismiss it out of hand. Do some testing, some research, apply the old scientific mind to a problem, rather than scream, YOU ARE AN IDIOT! everytime somebody says they can do something unusual or mystical.

heh -- :D

There must be one thread here like that. Where skeptic meets scepdick, without a bunch of fallicies rearing up, like a bad metaphor coming down from an acid trip.
Click to expand...

robinson,

What you are missing is the fact that a great number of the regular posters here have heard the same claims of paranormal abilities, and arguments supporting them over and over again. New "woos" appear almost every day thinking that they are going to wow us with their arguments. However, though the posters are new, their arguments rarely are. If regular members sometimes seem dismissive of a new member claiming to have some ability, it is because we have heard that person's argument before, numerous times, from numerous previous posters. If someone does show up with vaguely lucid claims and seems to be able to think clearly about what is necessary to test them, you will find an engaging thread...for a while. Eventually, all woos discover one of two things:

1) We will not be fooled by their tricks.

or

2) The powers they genuinely believe they have mysteriously disappear when they attempt a test that contains valid controls.

You see, it's not that we are not interested in testing their claims. It's that we already have. We are always hopeful that one day someone will astound us. We're just not going to hold our breath. We're skeptical, after all.
 
Hello drkitten

drkitten said:
You're trying to set up a false dilemma here. There's a large middle ground between things that don't exist and things that no one has proved or documented. And the Randi challenge is interested specifically in objects that occupy that middle ground
Click to expand...

That is like the third time somebody has tried to tell me what I am doing. You can read what I said. There is no dilemma. This is philosophical musing, working out the thoughts, looking at the semantics of the MDC. I don't know about any middle ground. I know that by definition, the wording of the MDC assures that what is to be proved is considered nonsense, fiction, or fakery.

drkitten said:
As a simple example, the ability to move objects by thought alone (TK) is generally considered not to exist, but some people claim not only that it exists (in the abstract), but that they can demonstrate it. Randi claims that they're wrong -- and is willing to put up a million bucks to justify his end of the bet.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think it is a bet, more of a challenge. A bet has a winner and a loser. If somebody wins the challenge, both parties win. Randi, (and everybody else I would hope), get to exprience something new, and somebody is not only wealthy, but famous perhaps. ( a dubious benefit)

So
drkitten said:
in order to win the bet, you first have to find something that Randi will agree beforehand does not and cannot exist, and then prove him wrong (by demonstrating that it does).
Click to expand...

Ignoring the term bet, this brings us back to the original thought. If it doesn't exist, it can't be proved. If it can be proved, observed, repeated, it is not anything special.

Sure, the first time it is special, but after the demonstration, it is just another thing. And if anyone can be trained to do it, it is mundane.

If the MDC is to see something never before documented or proved, then somebody will win it. If it is limited to a list of "events" that nobody has ever been able to demonstrate, or repeat, then nobody can win.

This speaks to the wording of the MDC itself. The MDC is not offered for a new and unobserved human ability, it is worded to appeal to crackpots and fakes. If it were about something new and mind blowing, that is what it would say.

Right? Moving objects with your "mind" is a ridiculous statement. Because nobody has ever observed a mind, photographed one, touched one, or in any way proved a mind exist. So the definition of a power uses a term that in and of itself, can not pass the challenge.

Of course most agree there is mind, or minds, something more than chemicals and eletricity in the head, but it can't be proved or observed.
 
Hello Gr8wight!

Gr8wight said:
robinson,

What you are missing is the fact that a great number of the regular posters here have heard the same claims of paranormal abilities, and arguments supporting them over and over again. ....

...You see, it's not that we are not interested in testing their claims. It's that we already have. We are always hopeful that one day someone will astound us. We're just not going to hold our breath. We're skeptical, after all.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I understand skeptical. And I can relate to the short temper one gains from endless repeating of crap, the sameness of the deluded, and the feeling that maybe there isn't anything out there that is really something else.
 
And yet, each time a proper claim is submitted, and a protocol agreed on, I think most of us follow the proceedings closely--even if it's been done dozens of times before. I love it when things get tested, I love it when a claimant is specific enough about what they can do to establish a test. It's exciting even if I think I know the outcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom