A lot of psychics I've seen on the net have jumped on the "The money doesn't exist" thing by saying there was some guy who passed the test and Randi refused to give him the money. My suggestion is to include that question on the FAQ with an explanation that the man never claimed any paranormal ability (which he didn't, he claimed an ability which was basically down to knowledge of how records worked, and an encyclopedic knowledge of classical music.)
Yeah, but that wasn't the only one. There's also the episode regarding Joko Tri and the Yellow Bamboo crowd (the first test).
The section might get a bit big if you have to explain each claim separately.
I'd say 'Nobody has sufficiently passed the preliminary trials. If you have information to the opposite effect, we invite you to browse our challenge application section'.
Something like that. Make it sound better
The section might get a bit big if you have to explain each claim separately.
I'd say 'Nobody has sufficiently passed the preliminary trials. If you have information to the opposite effect, we invite you to browse our challenge application section'.
Something like that. Make it sound better
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
Just wondering if there may be a need for some "time limit" stipulation on determining whether a test is successful or not. I know each claim is different, but compare the claim of someone who for example, claims he can make a tree grow into a perfect circle shape (which would take many years), and someone who claims to differentiate between magically treated and untreated water (which should only take a few hours at most).
If the water-checker said he needed three weeks on his own to make his decision, this would seem to be out of the realm of reasonable observing conditions.
If the water-checker said he needed three weeks on his own to make his decision, this would seem to be out of the realm of reasonable observing conditions.
A Forthcoming FAQ addition...
Randi and I have discussed the problem of our wasting so much time with claims that can only be called "silly". I know, I know, most of them are silly, but some are just utterly absurd, and that's what we're talking about here.
Far too much time is offered to applicants who are, well, distanced from reality. It stretches our resources to the breaking point when we spend untold weeks and months negotiating with applicants we know will never agree to a test.
In an effort to weed out the fantasy mongers, we are adding the following to section 4.3 of the Challenge FAQ:
========================================
Also, if your claim seems extraordinarily implausible (such as: "I can place my thoughts within the minds of others"...or,
"I can make lights shoot out of the top of my head"), you will
more than likely be asked to submit three (3) notarized affadavits from professional individuals - doctors, lawyers, professors...no barbers, dishwashers or busboys - stating that they have witnessed this phenomenon and can offer no rational explanation for it. In fact, if you have such a claim and wish to see the application process expedited, don't wait to be asked; provide it along with your application.
========================================
I think that this quite possibly will discourage a lot of applicants from even applying, assuming of course that they've carefully read the FAQ, which I'm not holding my breath on.
I also think it's eminently fair. You have an extraordinary paranormal claim. Great. Has anyone else witnessed it?
It also may force applicants to test their belief/delusion/claim before they submit it for consideration, and that's a good thing.
The addition should be up within days. It certainly can't hurt.
Randi and I have discussed the problem of our wasting so much time with claims that can only be called "silly". I know, I know, most of them are silly, but some are just utterly absurd, and that's what we're talking about here.
Far too much time is offered to applicants who are, well, distanced from reality. It stretches our resources to the breaking point when we spend untold weeks and months negotiating with applicants we know will never agree to a test.
In an effort to weed out the fantasy mongers, we are adding the following to section 4.3 of the Challenge FAQ:
========================================
Also, if your claim seems extraordinarily implausible (such as: "I can place my thoughts within the minds of others"...or,
"I can make lights shoot out of the top of my head"), you will
more than likely be asked to submit three (3) notarized affadavits from professional individuals - doctors, lawyers, professors...no barbers, dishwashers or busboys - stating that they have witnessed this phenomenon and can offer no rational explanation for it. In fact, if you have such a claim and wish to see the application process expedited, don't wait to be asked; provide it along with your application.
========================================
I think that this quite possibly will discourage a lot of applicants from even applying, assuming of course that they've carefully read the FAQ, which I'm not holding my breath on.
I also think it's eminently fair. You have an extraordinary paranormal claim. Great. Has anyone else witnessed it?
It also may force applicants to test their belief/delusion/claim before they submit it for consideration, and that's a good thing.
The addition should be up within days. It certainly can't hurt.
Lisa Simpson
Unregistered
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2004
- Messages
- 21,960
As I posted in the Julli Henning thread, this is highly insulting to barbers, dishwashers and busboys. Doctors, lawyers, and professors (isn't Gary Schwartz a professor?) can be just as gullible as those without formal education.
Will the signatories of the affidavit have to be officially notaries public (by USA law standards - are their special rules for Florida?) ?
If not, there is the potential here to swap one sort of administrative headache with another: namely, protracted haggling over who meets the definition of a "professional individual".
Just a thought.
If not, there is the potential here to swap one sort of administrative headache with another: namely, protracted haggling over who meets the definition of a "professional individual".
Just a thought.
No
It's not a point to haggle over. The point of all this is to encourage the applicant to seek the opinion of others before submitting their application. If we acheive that, fine.
If the applicant choses to deceive us (and further deceive himself) by submitting false affadvits or some other such subterfuge, well,
in the end, he'll suffer more ambarrassment over failing the preliminary test than the JREF ever would from accepting 3 worthless affadavits.
It's not a point to haggle over. The point of all this is to encourage the applicant to seek the opinion of others before submitting their application. If we acheive that, fine.
If the applicant choses to deceive us (and further deceive himself) by submitting false affadvits or some other such subterfuge, well,
in the end, he'll suffer more ambarrassment over failing the preliminary test than the JREF ever would from accepting 3 worthless affadavits.
webfusion
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 9,795
haggling and niggling
JamesM is absolutely correct, since the definition of "professional" is highly subjective. A hairdresser/barber must undergo rigorous licensing procedures and have passed both a course of study and written & practical exams.
My wife just completed such a course and I venture to say, it was a difficult and extensive (not to mention expensive) process.
Please get rid of the mention of "barber" in the FAQ, since that occupation is not an unskilled trade by definition.
http://careerplanning.about.com/gi/...lanning&zu=http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos169.htm
JamesM is absolutely correct, since the definition of "professional" is highly subjective. A hairdresser/barber must undergo rigorous licensing procedures and have passed both a course of study and written & practical exams.
My wife just completed such a course and I venture to say, it was a difficult and extensive (not to mention expensive) process.
Please get rid of the mention of "barber" in the FAQ, since that occupation is not an unskilled trade by definition.
http://careerplanning.about.com/gi/...lanning&zu=http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos169.htm
Beleth
FAQ Creator
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2002
- Messages
- 4,125
Re: Re: Re: A Forthcoming FAQ addition...
I'd propose screening out the clinical cases by requiring one (1) affidavit from the one class of people qualified to do so: mental health professionals. The FAQ already advises the applicant to discuss their application with their physician/psychiatrist; all that needs to be changed in the FAQ is to require documentation that this discussion actually occurred.
How will requiring affidavits from lawyers screen out the genuinely clinical cases?new drkitten said:
I'd propose screening out the clinical cases by requiring one (1) affidavit from the one class of people qualified to do so: mental health professionals. The FAQ already advises the applicant to discuss their application with their physician/psychiatrist; all that needs to be changed in the FAQ is to require documentation that this discussion actually occurred.
Re: Re: Re: Re: A Forthcoming FAQ addition...
Because most of the genuinely clinical nutcases don't have access to lawyers who would write such affidavits.
The problem with requiring affidavits (or singular) from mental health professionals is that most people aren't in a position to request such affidavits. Similarly, most people aren't necessarily in a position to request such an affidavit from (specifically) a lawyer. But almost everyone who isn't a total screaming nutjob has a friend in some sort of position that could be regarded as "professional" -- a teacher, a clergyman, a professor from college, a lawyer, or some other authority figure.
Beleth said:
Because most of the genuinely clinical nutcases don't have access to lawyers who would write such affidavits.
The problem with requiring affidavits (or singular) from mental health professionals is that most people aren't in a position to request such affidavits. Similarly, most people aren't necessarily in a position to request such an affidavit from (specifically) a lawyer. But almost everyone who isn't a total screaming nutjob has a friend in some sort of position that could be regarded as "professional" -- a teacher, a clergyman, a professor from college, a lawyer, or some other authority figure.
Beleth
FAQ Creator
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2002
- Messages
- 4,125
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Forthcoming FAQ addition...
I'm sorry, I'm fundamentally against the JREF forcing someone who is not on their payroll to do part of KRAMER's job for him.
Here's an example. I know of someone who is the CFO of a medium-sized agricultural product company. This company does business with farmers from around the globe. Would he count as "professional" enough for an affidavit signed by him to be accepted? Now, what if I told you that he is also big into TM, and spends two hours a day practicing his levitation skills?
Or perhaps one of my co-workers. We are both IT professionals, yet he is, for example, such a fundamentalist Christian that he is home-schooling his children to keep them away from evolution. What if one of us says an applicant is a nutcase and the other one says he isn't?
I wouldn't ask a psychologist to represent me in court, and I wouldn't ask a lawyer to determine whether I was a nutcase or not. There are things professionals in a certain field are good at that professionals in a different field are not good at. It's just that simple.
That's an assumption I am not as comfortable making as you are. It's quite plausible that a nutjob and an unscrupulous lawyer meet up and form a team. I would imagine that this is quite likely, in fact, especially if the nutjob has spent any time in the legal/prison system.new drkitten said:
So I have to wonder what the affidavit requirement is for. Is it to increase the chances that the nutcases get proper help? Or is it to burden someone else, someone who is in no position to judge the sanity of a potential applicant and whose job description does not include "assist the JREF in processing Challenge applications", with pre-screening applicants?
I'm sorry, I'm fundamentally against the JREF forcing someone who is not on their payroll to do part of KRAMER's job for him.
Again, why would an affidavit from a random authority figure qualify in the determination of whether the applicant is a nutjob or not?
Here's an example. I know of someone who is the CFO of a medium-sized agricultural product company. This company does business with farmers from around the globe. Would he count as "professional" enough for an affidavit signed by him to be accepted? Now, what if I told you that he is also big into TM, and spends two hours a day practicing his levitation skills?
Or perhaps one of my co-workers. We are both IT professionals, yet he is, for example, such a fundamentalist Christian that he is home-schooling his children to keep them away from evolution. What if one of us says an applicant is a nutcase and the other one says he isn't?
I wouldn't ask a psychologist to represent me in court, and I wouldn't ask a lawyer to determine whether I was a nutcase or not. There are things professionals in a certain field are good at that professionals in a different field are not good at. It's just that simple.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Forthcoming FAQ addition...
I have no objections to burdening unscrupulous lawyers. In fact, I applaud it.
I also believe that you're mistaken in whether or not our hypothetical unscrupulous lawyer would be in a position to judge the sality of a potential applicant. This is not, after all, a forensic examination as to sanity for purposes of supporting a legal plea, or something of similar stature. The person from whom the affidavit is requested simply has to attest that the powers the applicant claims are real, which they can presumably judge from the personal experience that KRAMER by definition lacks.
Obviously I can't speak for KRAMER and the JREF, but as far as my personal opinion goes, any of you three would be legitimate.
Remember that the affidavit does not ask the person directly to espress an opinion on sanity. The affidavit should address "that they have witnessed this phenomenon and can offer no rational explanation for it." -- in other words that there is actually a phenomenon there to study. It's not even necessary that the applicant actually not be a nutcase, as long as the phenomenon is there. But the JREF has wasted a lot of time, effort, and resources corresponding with people about effects that exist only in the privacy of their own minds. Your CFO may, in fact, practice TM. He may even have "seen" levitation performed -- but that's because TM-style levitation is a parlour trick to fool the gullible. He's probably not going to sign off on a statement saying he's seen something which has no basis in reality, not even a trick.
And if his Aunt May claims to talk to leprechauns, he may or may not believe her. But he's not going to say that he's seen them himself unless he's willing to lie for her.
So why the requirement for a "professional"? A few reasons spring to mind. First, it's harder (if not entirely impossible) for a person to function as a professional while being screamingly, hallucinatingly insane. Second, most professionals have at least some training/skill in "critical thinking." Third, and most importantly, most professionals also have a notion of professional credibility. If you have a better way of making sure that the writer of the affidavit isn't just lying to keep Aunt May happy, I'm sure the JREF would like to hear the suggestion.
Beleth said:
I have no objections to burdening unscrupulous lawyers. In fact, I applaud it.
I also believe that you're mistaken in whether or not our hypothetical unscrupulous lawyer would be in a position to judge the sality of a potential applicant. This is not, after all, a forensic examination as to sanity for purposes of supporting a legal plea, or something of similar stature. The person from whom the affidavit is requested simply has to attest that the powers the applicant claims are real, which they can presumably judge from the personal experience that KRAMER by definition lacks.
Obviously I can't speak for KRAMER and the JREF, but as far as my personal opinion goes, any of you three would be legitimate.
Remember that the affidavit does not ask the person directly to espress an opinion on sanity. The affidavit should address "that they have witnessed this phenomenon and can offer no rational explanation for it." -- in other words that there is actually a phenomenon there to study. It's not even necessary that the applicant actually not be a nutcase, as long as the phenomenon is there. But the JREF has wasted a lot of time, effort, and resources corresponding with people about effects that exist only in the privacy of their own minds. Your CFO may, in fact, practice TM. He may even have "seen" levitation performed -- but that's because TM-style levitation is a parlour trick to fool the gullible. He's probably not going to sign off on a statement saying he's seen something which has no basis in reality, not even a trick.
And if his Aunt May claims to talk to leprechauns, he may or may not believe her. But he's not going to say that he's seen them himself unless he's willing to lie for her.
So why the requirement for a "professional"? A few reasons spring to mind. First, it's harder (if not entirely impossible) for a person to function as a professional while being screamingly, hallucinatingly insane. Second, most professionals have at least some training/skill in "critical thinking." Third, and most importantly, most professionals also have a notion of professional credibility. If you have a better way of making sure that the writer of the affidavit isn't just lying to keep Aunt May happy, I'm sure the JREF would like to hear the suggestion.
Beleth
FAQ Creator
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2002
- Messages
- 4,125
1) KRAMER has stated that the purpose of the affidavit requirement is to "weed out the fantasy mongers", no matter what the wording of the affidavit is. If that is indeed the purpose, then the set of people qualified to sign the affidavit should be limited to professionals suited to weeding out fantasy mongers - i.e. health care professionals in general, and mental health professionals specifically.
2) One of the consequences of setting up a process such as the Challenge, with its easy-sounding (to some) requirement and large reward if successful, is that it's going to attract a lot of fantasy mongers. That's just how it is. If it is too much work for them, they should stop offering the Challenge, or hire more people to handle the workload.
Think of the Challenge as a bird feeder. The JREF wants to attract birds (legitimate applicants), but they're also annoyed at the number of squirrels (fantasy mongers) who try to feed from the bird feeder. Instead of dealing with the squirrels themselves, they have essentially ordered their neighbors to shoo squirrels away from their bird feeder.
There are better ways to shoo the squirrels away than this affidavit idea. The FAQ was one. Posting correspondence here, and getting the community's feedback, is another. And I'm sure that there are other ones.
2) One of the consequences of setting up a process such as the Challenge, with its easy-sounding (to some) requirement and large reward if successful, is that it's going to attract a lot of fantasy mongers. That's just how it is. If it is too much work for them, they should stop offering the Challenge, or hire more people to handle the workload.
Think of the Challenge as a bird feeder. The JREF wants to attract birds (legitimate applicants), but they're also annoyed at the number of squirrels (fantasy mongers) who try to feed from the bird feeder. Instead of dealing with the squirrels themselves, they have essentially ordered their neighbors to shoo squirrels away from their bird feeder.
There are better ways to shoo the squirrels away than this affidavit idea. The FAQ was one. Posting correspondence here, and getting the community's feedback, is another. And I'm sure that there are other ones.
Beleth said:
Why?
Weeding out the fantasy mongers, as the JREF defines it, hardly requires professional-level skill. If I need the weeds pulled in the garden, I needn't hire a professional farmer. If all I want is a sandwich, I shouldn't bother a Cordon Bleu graduate. And I needn't call upon the Regius Professor of Geography to answer whether Ottawa is the capital of Canada.