Another excuse not to take the $1000000

[Richard]

Beware Pseudo-Skepticism

by Peebrain

On January 29th, 2005, we were talking about the James Randi $1 Million Paranormal Challenge in the chat room. If you don't know what the Challenge is, the short version is that this ex-magician, James Randi, is willing to give a million dollars to anyone who can prove something paranormal. It's common for people to ask us why we don't take the Challenge with all the stuff we talk about on PsiPog. Clearly we qualify for the paranormal, and it would seem like easy money. While talking in the chat room, annie made the observation that the prize was in the form of bonds, and not cash. She tried to explain to me how bonds can be "worth" a million dollars legally, but in reality could be completely worthless.

more at : http://psipog.net/art-beware-pseudo-skepticism.html

 

[Jackalgirl]

Beware Pseudo-Skepticism

The prize is $10000 in the form of a check and then $990,000 in bonds, in reading the Challenge FAQ. If I am not misremembering things (which is often the case, I'm afraid), the bonds are being held in trust by Goldman & Sachs, and can be independently verified. How much information G&S will give -- such as the origin of the bonds and the surity of them being convertable to cold, hard, cash, is something I can't say. Maybe someone else can jump in with more info.

ETA: I still can't think of any valid objection to the following, though: if Randi, Kramer, et al are such odious liars, what better way to stick it to 'em than /win the Challenge/?

 

[Angus McPresley]

Like the winner of JREF challenge wouldn't have $1million in speaking engagements the first week, to say nothing of the book deals and psychic hotline possibilities...

 

[Apathia]

Bonds,
James Randi Bonds. LOL

 

[Jackalgirl]

Silly me, I didn't read far enough. Check out this section on the situation regarding the money. The section conveniently points to:

a) a search page to look up JREF's financial statements, which includes information about the prize money and

b) a link to Goldman Sachs' website, which has more information about the bonds system and contact information for them.

In fact, I think I will contact them, explain the situation, and ask if there is any way to verify, at any give time, that the bonds held for the JREF Challenge are /actually/ "immediately negotiable" (into cash).

 

[jimtron]

if Randi, Kramer, et al are such odious liars, what better way to stick it to 'em than /win the Challenge/?

Exactly. I would urge the folks who believe the Challenge to be bogus, to take it, document everything carefully, and then publish an expose showing that Randi is a fraud (something I've heard him accused of many times). Then, demonstrate your paranormal ability or whatever on TV or to a journalist or university or whatever. That would put Randi in his place (if the Challenge was indeed bogus). On the other hand, if the Challenge is real (which appears to be the case in my view), you get a million bucks. Where's the downside? Oh yeah, if you don't really have your claimed ability.

 

[joesixpack]

As far as I know, any bond may be converted to cash through the secondary market

 

[DangerousBeliefs]

Lamest excuse to date...

 

[Dragonrock]

I'll do it for $1,000,000, but not for $879,276.

That's pretty weak.

 

[T'ai Chi]

, what better way to stick it to 'em than /win the Challenge/?

Or just treat it as interesting, amusing, funny, obnoxious, but not serious, and not a part of the standard channels of science that everyone with a claim has a right to persue if they choose.

I think people find that route more satisfying.

 

[CFLarsen]

Or just treat it as interesting, amusing, funny, obnoxious, but not serious, and not a part of the standard channels of science that everyone with a claim has a right to persue if they choose.

I think people find that route more satisfying.

I'm sure some do. Especially those who claim to be able to do/show something paranormal, but can't even do it once.

 

[Questioninggeller]

The person who wrote the "Beware Pseudo-Skepticism" either doesn't understand banking or is purposely misleading people.

First, you have to understand how bonds work. I was really confused at first - I mean, if Randi is offering a million dollars, how can it be "worthless"? It seems very clear cut.

After reading that the author is likely still confused.

To do that, I e-mailed Randi at the address he provided on his website. I politely pointed out where it said the prize was in bonds in the Challenge rules, and then I asked what corporations issued the bonds, what the interest rates were, and when the maturity dates are.

http://psipog.net/art-beware-pseudo-skepticism.html

Is fairly easy to refer to JREF FAQ:

It's important to realize that if at this point you still doubt that the money exists, your doubt is in the entire American bond system in general and Goldman Sachs specifically, and not with the JREF. There is really not any more evidence the JREF can provide you. For concerns regarding Goldman Sachs, please inquire at their Web site, http://www.gs.com/

http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html#3.2
and
http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html#3.1

 

[lolurigeller]

I don't believe anyone on this planet will ever win the $1,000,000, but just in case of a 1*10^-999999 probability. How much will federal income tax take off the money and how will the pay out work? In installements or one lump some?

 

[AgingYoung]

Hyparxis,

That was funny.

Gene

 

[Jackalgirl]

Or just treat it as interesting, amusing, funny, obnoxious, but not serious, and not a part of the standard channels of science that everyone with a claim has a right to persue if they choose.

I think people find that route more satisfying.

Actually, I think they duck it because they know they'll fail. There's no excuse not to pursue it, /especially/ if you think Randi is a liar and a fraud, if you can actually do something paranormal that you claim you can do. It's /much/ easier to take the safe route -- that is, not be demonstrably proven that you can't do what you claim -- by attacking Randi's credibility, the source of the funds, the makeup of the test, etc, etc, etc, than to take the risk of being proven delusional (or worse, a con).

And I don't even know why /that/ stops 'em. People will believe what they want to believe, even after being proved a con. Popoff is still in business, so is Gellar. <shrug>

 

[Ladewig]

Or just treat it as interesting, amusing, funny, obnoxious, but not serious, and not a part of the standard channels of science that everyone with a claim has a right to persue if they choose.

I think people find that route more satisfying.

Except the dowsers. They seem willing to try the challenge.

As for people finding the standard channels of science more satisfying, one must note the obvious exceptions to that point; for instance Sylvia has done nothing to indicate that she finds science channels more satisfying.

My take on your conter-argument is to ask why don't people pursue both channels - they are not mutually exclusive.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Actually, I think they duck it because they know they'll fail.

There's certainly some in that camp too. But I have trouble when people focus on that as *the* excuse, which is what the skeptical movement and personalities are trying to convince us is the case.

 

[Jackalgirl]

There's certainly some in that camp too. But I have trouble when people focus on that as *the* excuse, which is what the skeptical movement and personalities are trying to convince us is the case.

First, I don't think that that's happening here.

Secondly, it's totally irrelevant what the skeptical movement and personalities think regarding the reasoning behind why people refuse the take the test. The point is that they /do/, rather than just taking the darn test and shutting us up.

 

[T'ai Chi]

First, I don't think that that's happening here.

Secondly, it's totally irrelevant what the skeptical movement and personalities think regarding the reasoning behind why people refuse the take the test.

You do realize your "Secondly" contradicts your "First"?

 

[Jackalgirl]

You do realize your "Secondly" contradicts your "First"?

Not at all. Perhaps I should have clarified and said, "I don't think that everyone involved in the skeptical movement holds my -- Jackalgirl's -- opinion about why people refuse to take the test." Which is what I inferred you were stating from your statement: "But I have trouble when people focus on that as *the* excuse, which is what the skeptical movement and personalities are trying to convince us is the case." No one in this thread, at least, has said that what I have described is "the" excuse.

If you'd like to point me to some examples of messages that demonstrate that "the skeptical movement and personalities" are saying what I'm saying, that'd be cool.

For what it's worth, it's what /I/ think is going on, in /many/, but not /all/, cases. In the other cases, the people are knowing frauds who fear that real, objective testing will remove their cash cow. Sadly, examples such as Peter Popoff show that frauds can be completely debunked and still be able to fleece the unknowing.

But again, ultimately, it doesn't matter what I or any other skeptical person thinks or believes about someone who claims to possess a paranormal ability. I could claim that I fervently believe that it is physically impossible to kick a football between two goal posts from 25 yards away, that doing so would invalidate all the known laws of physics, and that anyone who thinks that this is possible is obviously a blithering idiot -- my opinion is disproven the moment someone actually does it and who's the idiot then?

So, again, the best way to prove that all of us skeptics are unreasoning, close-minded jerks with superiority complexes who dismiss unconventional ideas without reason and paint the world of supernatural phenomena with an overly broad, generalizing brush is to actually go out and /do/ whatever it is a paranormal person claims.