A philosophical challenge for the challenge

[Gr8wight]

Hello drkitten



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.



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

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.

robinson,

It is possible that you misunderstand the purpose of the challenge. The JREF one million dollar challenge is aimed squarely at those who claim to have "paranormal" abilities that are generally considered to be non-existant. The JREF is not a scientific organisation looking for something truly "new." They are an educational foundation whose mandate is to promote critical thinking about those things that people are commonly fooled about. The patently false and undemonstrable claims of people like psychics, dowsers, and purveyors of religious, audiophile, wine aging, and other relics are exactly who the challenge is aimed at.

The philosophical debate about whether something "paranormal" that has been demonstrated to be real is or is not any longer paranormal has no bearing on the challenge itself.

 

[drkitten]

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.

Why? It's a hell of a lot of money for, frankly, not much work.

They've tightened up the rules slightly in the past year or so, mainly with the three affidavits rule. But it still amounts to getting a million dollars for what amounts to two afternoons' work plus a bit of paperwork -- and for many of the target audience of the challenge, it's two afternoons of what they do for a living on a regular basis.

For myself, I teach at a university. I can't imagine anyone being silly enough to offer me large sums of money to "prove" that I can, in fact, grade papers and drink coffee.... but I also can't imagine my being silly enough to turn it down. That works out to, what, $500,000 a cup?

I have some friends in computer programming. Again, if you offered them $1,000,000 to prove that they can write computer programs, they'd be all over that.

If you have abilities, it's a lot of money for not much work at all. And, frankly, I could use the money right now -- we had some pipes break earlier this month, and I need a few floor in a few rooms. I could buy some nice flooring for a million bucks -- and I'm sure I'm not the only person on this forum who needs to do some home repairs. Or pay some medical bills. Or whose car is going thunk-thunk-thunk in an inconvenient way.

I simply can't imagine going home and telling my partner "Well, honey, I think I've figured it out. We're just not going to be able to get a new floor, because it will cost too much money and I can't figure out any way to get it except by writing James Randi and doing my job in front of him."

 

[robinson]

Hey there gnome!

I know what you mean. I wish MORE people would be tested. It is very entertaining. A final comment on the language and spirit of the MDC, and I got to go do real stuff. (but yeah, this is fun)

Firewalking.

Once it was considered woo. Or just made up. Or something mystical. But it was none of those. Anyone can do it. I've done it. Randi can do it. It is now "scientific", because scientist have done it.

I could even post a video on youTube of my drunken self doing it, over and over. Walking barefoot on really hot coals, (because it is not fire walking, but hot coal walking)

Without getting burned.

Win the money? No way. If that was still considered paranormal it would win the money, but it is not.

Just an example of how the MDC is after something that is not considered real, rather than something new and undocumented.

Now until I actually read how walking on hot coals is possible, without getting burned, I wouldn't do it. But after a scientist explained it was possible, I did it without a thought.

My drunken buddies thought I was insane of course, and I did some woo crap beforehand just to mess with them, but it isn't anything paranormal at all.

Fun still, but not supernatural.

 

[drkitten]

Hello drkitten



That is like the third time somebody has tried to tell me what I am doing.

Yes, because you clearly don't understand it yourself.

I don't know about any middle ground.

Obviously. But ignorance on your part is hardly something the rest of the forum should respect.

I know that by definition, the wording of the MDC assures that what is to be proved is considered nonsense, fiction, or fakery.

"Assures"? I'm not sure I follow you there. But it certainly assumes that, on the basis of long experience and hard evidence, that it is.

Of course, assumptions can be disproved. And you get a cool million if you can.

But the Randi Foundation doesn't think that you can.

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 is simply wrong, as a glance at athletic history would indicate.

Prior to 1954, nobody had ever been able to demonstrate (let alone repeat) the athletic feat of running a mile in less than four minutes. Roger Bannister did that for the first time on May 6, 1954. It's since been done repeatedly, but it had to be done for a first time if it is to be done at all.

Pick your own favorite sports record if you don't like that example. Prior to 1968, no one had ever longjumped 28 feet. Also prior to 1968, no one had run 100m in less than 10.0 seconds. Then someone did it the first time. We're still waiting (as far as I know) for the first 100m Javelin throw.

The Randi challenge is for someone to do for the first time something that Randi believes will never be done.

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.

This is, not to put too fine a point on it, bullsh*t.

Randi has accepted challenge applications that claim this very ability -- see Beth Clarkson's application for an example. If she had been able to do what she had claimed, she would have passed.

 

[robinson]

One more time

Damn, sucked into yet one more reply.

robinson,

It is possible that you misunderstand the purpose of the challenge. .....
The philosophical debate about whether something "paranormal" that has been demonstrated to be real is or is not any longer paranormal has no bearing on the challenge itself.

Well, this topic is all about the issue of the challenge, is it not? I mean, if you can't be a sceptic about a sceptic, what can you say?


I don't know stuff I don't know. And while some may have beat this horse long after it expired, the FNGs are still going to do it anyway.

The way I read it, it says, "psychic, supernatural or paranorma" and "or occult power or event. "

Bt definition (who's definition?), all those words mean stuff that is considered bogus, false, superstition or just idiocy.

As I see it. So it really is about just proving idiocy is idiocy. Educating the stoopid. It isn't really about finding something unseen, something mystical, beyond our present knowledge.

Again, just thoughts on the challenge itself. Were just talking here. As it has been said, you can't change the challenge, but it might change you.

 

[drkitten]

The way I read it, it says, "psychic, supernatural or paranorma" and "or occult power or event. "

Bt definition (who's definition?), all those words mean stuff that is considered bogus, false, superstition or just idiocy.

Key words in the definition above (not a bad one, although there are better ones) -- is considered.

Specifically, to be eligible for the JREF Challenge, the challenger must offer something that the JREF (meaning: Randi) considers to be bogus, false, superstition, and/or idiocy.

The JREF considering something to be false does not mean that it is false. The JREF is not known to be infallible; the JREF does not consider itself to be infallible, nor would any dispassionate observer.

You win the money if you can show that the JREF's opinion is wrong.

 

[robinson]

Having too much fun here

Randi has accepted challenge applications that claim this very ability -- see Beth Clarkson's application for an example. If she had been able to do what she had claimed, she would have passed.

To put it so you might understand, moving something with your mind is a nonsense phrase, in scientific terms.

Because the term "mind" itself can not be proved. Sure, in the Wikiality of our social order most of us accept the term, but it is not scientific. Science goes by observable events, measurable reality, things that can not be measured, observed, or examined do not exist to science. I know that sounds harsh, but that is science.

OK that is a bold statement I know. But if you are going to use a term like "mind", the burden of proof is on you, not me. Prove "mind" exist, and you can get a Nobel prize or something.

Now if you said, "Move something without using your body, your breath, or any device or other person", that would be mind boggling.


























heh

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
The way I read it, it says, "psychic, supernatural or paranorma" and "or occult power or event. "

Bt definition (who's definition?), all those words mean stuff that is considered bogus, false, superstition or just idiocy.

As I see it.
...

As you see it.

I simply say: "We do not have evidence. Given what we know so far about reality, 'psychic, supernatural or paranormal' actions seem possible only in the realms of imagination."

I will gladly endure getting proven differently today.

 

[robinson]

Stop responding!

Specifically, to be eligible for the JREF Challenge, the challenger must offer something that the JREF (meaning: Randi) considers to be bogus, false, superstition, and/or idiocy.

The JREF considering something to be false does not mean that it is false. The JREF is not known to be infallible; the JREF does not consider itself to be infallible, nor would any dispassionate observer.

You win the money if you can show that the JREF's opinion is wrong.

If that statement is true, (and I doubt it is), then JREF could publish an exact list of "things, powers and/or events" that it considers to be false, or at least unproved. No weaseling around. I can't think of anything more subject to change that what is considered "paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event."

 

[robinson]

As I see it

As you see it.

I simply say: "We do not have evidence. Given what we know so far about reality, 'psychic, supernatural or paranormal' actions seem possible only in the realms of imagination."

I will gladly endure getting proven differently today.

Well, I'm not shy about my opinion. Is there an official list somewhere that states what is considered to be "psychic, supernatural or paranormal", for the purpose of the MDC?

I can't find it.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Well, I'm not shy about my opinion. Is there an official list somewhere that states what is considered to be "psychic, supernatural or paranormal", for the purpose of the MDC?

I can't find it.

Try this http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html

And this, scroll to the bottom http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html

 

[robinson]

Thanks Gzuz, (btw, I love that user name)

Ahhh! The list!!

"Dowsing. ESP. Precognition. Remote Viewing. Communicating with the Dead and/or "Channeling". Violations of Newton's Laws of Motion (Perpetual Motion Devices). Homeopathy. Chiropractic Healing (beyond back/joint problems). Faith Healing. Psychic Surgery. Astrology. Therapeutic Touch (aka "TT"). Qi Gong. Psychokinesis (aka "PK"). The Existence of Ghosts. Precognition & Prophecy. Levitation. Physiognomy. Psychometry. Pyramid Power. Reflexology. Applied Kinesiology (aka "AK"). Clairvoyance. The Existence of Auras. Graphology. Numerology. Palmistry. Phrenology."

 

[robinson]

WTF? These are not on the list?

Does that mean they are for real?

UFOs. "Bigfoot" & "Yeti" (or other legendary creatures). Anything that is likely to cause injury. "Cloud-busting". Claims of a Religious or Spiritual nature. Exorcism and/or Demonic Possession. The Existence of Chakras. The Existence of God. Reincarnation. The Existence of the Soul or "Astral Bodies".

 

[drkitten]

To put it so you might understand, moving something with your mind is a nonsense phrase, in scientific terms.

No, it isn't. Read the Clarkson application.

Because the term "mind" itself can not be proved.

It need not be. Randi is willing to stipulate the meaning of the term.

OK that is a bold statement I know. But if you are going to use a term like "mind", the burden of proof is on you, not me.

No, the burden of proof is applied jointly and resolved via stipulation.

 

[drkitten]

UFOs. "Bigfoot" & "Yeti" (or other legendary creatures). Anything that is likely to cause injury. "Cloud-busting". Claims of a Religious or Spiritual nature. Exorcism and/or Demonic Possession. The Existence of Chakras. The Existence of God. Reincarnation. The Existence of the Soul or "Astral Bodies".

It means that the evidence for their non-existence (as obtained by testing) is not as clear and uncontrovertible as it is for the items on the other list (such as phrenology and psychokinesis).

Consider Bigfoot. It's not unreasonable -- although it's highly unlikely -- that there is a large as-yet-undiscovered primate wandering the woods of the Northwestern United States. It certainly violates no known law or theory of biology.

Similarly, there is little evidence for the inefficacy of exorcism, precisely because no one has come up with a meaningful definition of the "soul" or "demons" that permits testing. As the FAQ notes, "The JREF is unaware of a manner in which it might be proven that demons exist (or god, or angels or "elementals", for that matter), while remaining open to any suggestions that might change their opinion in this regard. So, if someone can suggest a test protocol that would conclusively verify such things, the JREF would be willing to hear about it." As long as it remains an untestable claim, it is therefore outside the scope of JREF testing.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Thanks Gzuz, (btw, I love that user name)

Ahhh! The list!!

"Dowsing. ESP. Precognition. Remote Viewing. Communicating with the Dead and/or "Channeling". Violations of Newton's Laws of Motion (Perpetual Motion Devices). Homeopathy. Chiropractic Healing (beyond back/joint problems). Faith Healing. Psychic Surgery. Astrology. Therapeutic Touch (aka "TT"). Qi Gong. Psychokinesis (aka "PK"). The Existence of Ghosts. Precognition & Prophecy. Levitation. Physiognomy. Psychometry. Pyramid Power. Reflexology. Applied Kinesiology (aka "AK"). Clairvoyance. The Existence of Auras. Graphology. Numerology. Palmistry. Phrenology."

For your reading pleasure, robinson, as well as for helpful information about the bread and butter of the Challenge Facilitator, check out the Challenge Applications. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=43

You will see what floats the JREF's boat paranormalwise.

 

[drkitten]

If that statement is true, (and I doubt it is), then JREF could publish an exact list of "things, powers and/or events" that it considers to be false, or at least unproved.

You've already been pointed to a list. Of course, it's not an "exact" list, because both science and woo-woo practices evolve. If someone could demonstrate ESP in a well-controlled scientific setting, he would be likely to take ESP off the list, just as "transmutation of elements" or "violation of the law of conservation of mass" would have been in JREF-style list from the 1800s, but not today.

Similarly, if I came up with a new line of sewage -- find your true love by matching your heights, or something like that -- he would probably accept that even though it's not on the list.

 

[gnome]

To put it so you might understand, moving something with your mind is a nonsense phrase, in scientific terms.

Because the term "mind" itself can not be proved. Sure, in the Wikiality of our social order most of us accept the term, but it is not scientific. Science goes by observable events, measurable reality, things that can not be measured, observed, or examined do not exist to science. I know that sounds harsh, but that is science.

OK that is a bold statement I know. But if you are going to use a term like "mind", the burden of proof is on you, not me. Prove "mind" exist, and you can get a Nobel prize or something.

Now if you said, "Move something without using your body, your breath, or any device or other person", that would be mind boggling.

heh

That is precisely how it might be worded when negotiating the actual protocol. It is not necessary to agree on the definition of "mind" to agree on a test and the test restrictions. Most people that decide to delve into semantics aren't interested in establishing a fair test--which is better done by negotiation than by waving dictionaries

The challenger says: I can do this, under these circumstances!
JREF says: Could you still do it if, x, y, and z?
Challenger: Sure, except for Z. That screws up the vibes.
JREF says: How about W instead of Z? From your description that shouldn't cause a problem.
Challenger: Ok, I can perform under conditions X, Y, and W.

voila. A protocol has been arranged. No need to agree on the semantics of the power. Just the test restrictions and criteria for success.

 

[Almo]

*Yawn*

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



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

I find that this is one of the best places to get in a discussion about politics, religion, philosophy and math. I've seen many thoughts that were new to me, and new ways of looking at issues. It's just that the topic of "what's the point of the challenge" has been done already, and so solidly, that there's not a lot of point in rehashing it AGAIN. Part of that is because the Challenge really is quite simple.

 

[Gr8wight]

Damn, sucked into yet one more reply.



Well, this topic is all about the issue of the challenge, is it not? I mean, if you can't be a sceptic about a sceptic, what can you say?


I don't know stuff I don't know. And while some may have beat this horse long after it expired, the FNGs are still going to do it anyway.

The way I read it, it says, "psychic, supernatural or paranorma" and "or occult power or event. "

Bt definition (who's definition?), all those words mean stuff that is considered bogus, false, superstition or just idiocy.

As I see it. So it really is about just proving idiocy is idiocy. Educating the stoopid. It isn't really about finding something unseen, something mystical, beyond our present knowledge.

Again, just thoughts on the challenge itself. Were just talking here. As it has been said, you can't change the challenge, but it might change you.

Isn't that what I just said?