Bias in Challenge Protocol?

I'll say this one more time, and then I'm bowing out. Mind you, what I'm about to say has been said many times here, but I thought I might set it out and bold it:

The Million Dollar Challenge is not there to "prove Randi wrong". Its purpose is to test paranormal and pseudoscientific claims.

When Randi says "prove me wrong", he is saying this in the context of "no paranormal ability or pseudoscientific claim has ever held up under proper testing". That's my paraphrase, but that is essentially what's going on. He's not saying "I am always 100% correct in everything I say, prove me wrong."

Once again, you mention Randi's statement that he will test "non-paranormal claims". I already addressed this, and you ignored me. So I will state again: this statement, which I think is perfectly clear from any reasonable reading of it, is referring to methods or products that claim to be working in full accordance with physical/chemical/etc processes, but which in fact cannot possibly work according to those processes. I can make up a widget and say it will improve the efficiency of your car to 99% and I can also say "it's perfectly scientific! It works by quantum!" and that does not make it so. Wine magnets are an example of this: their makers claim that they work according to scientific principles. They do not. They are, therefore, paranormal gadgets wearing scientific clothing.

I'm sorry that Randi made you so mad that you feel that you have to twist reality like this in order to somehow "get at" him, but Peter, it's not going to work. Because you're simply, demonstrably, wrong.
 
Peter Morris said:
(posted 2nd April 2007, 06:04 PM CDT)
And now a quiz.
<snip>
Click to expand...
... and shortly afterward
Peter Morris said:
(Posted 2nd April 2007, 06:36 PM CDT)
Yeah, as predicted, too scared.

Now, how about actually answering the questions for real?

[sound of crickets]
Click to expand...

After one half hour, Mr. Morris hears chirping crickets, yet he goes three days without response to several posts addressing his comments.

Those crickets must live in some sort of time warp.
 
Well I deliberately stepped out so he couldn't use me as an excuse - and it was good to see a slew of "new to Peter Morris" people looked at what he posted and hey presto they came up with the same questions, pointed out the same facts to him and so on - yet he wouldn't respond to these new people either.

He will return and he will say exactly the same things totally ignoring the many questions he has yet again been asked and yet again has failed to answer.

(Oh and one of his usual tricks will be to quote this post and talk about it - probably mentioning "your great Randi" and other such phrases meant to somehow denigrate me and others who have pointed out his many errors and downright lies over the years. Yet even though he will have time to respond to this post he still won't be able to spend any time answering the many questions he has for literally years avoided that people have with sincerity and civility again asked him.)
 
Darat said:
Well I deliberately stepped out so he couldn't use me as an excuse - and it was good to see a slew of "new to Peter Morris" people looked at what he posted and hey presto they came up with the same questions, pointed out the same facts to him and so on - yet he wouldn't respond to these new people either.

He will return and he will say exactly the same things totally ignoring the many questions he has yet again been asked and yet again has failed to answer.

(Oh and one of his usual tricks will be to quote this post and talk about it - probably mentioning "your great Randi" and other such phrases meant to somehow denigrate me and others who have pointed out his many errors and downright lies over the years. Yet even though he will have time to respond to this post he still won't be able to spend any time answering the many questions he has for literally years avoided that people have with sincerity and civility again asked him.)
Click to expand...
You are correct of course, and this is what separates a troll from someone like, let's say, Edge. Although Edge does disappear from time to time, it is not just so he can spring upon a new crop of skeptics. He does respond to comments and questions (I won't say "answer", but that is more due to his inability to answer than his unwillingness to). And he never trashes Randi.

A troll says (by word and deed), "I am angry and I need to vent." While it is true that everybody vents sometimes, you will rarely see a troll do anything else.
 
paradigm said:
Then communication with you serves no productive purpose for me. Added to Ignore list. Feel free to PM if you wish to engage in sincere discussion at some point in the future. Goodbye.
Click to expand...

You are banning yourself one by one.
 
ProbeX said:
Gnome, even though we likely won't agree about this subject, I appreciate the reasonable & respectful tone you bring to our discussion.

My response to the above is, the initial onus of proper conductivity of testing, is on the person posting the challenge, not on the responding challengers.
That someone agrees to undertake a poorly designed test "challenge", does not justify, nullify or rectify that poor testing approach.

If a person wishes to promote a series of tests as objectively credible, he can't have stakes - even indirectly - in the outcome. Gambling is antithetical to the preservation of objective testing. The admixture is a universally accepted research & testing faux pas.

Though it may seem I'm against Randi himself, I'm not. Debunking charlatans and helping ppl see the ways in which they fool themselves is nobel. It's his haphazard approach that concerns me. Do it objectively or don't do it at all.
Click to expand...
ProbeX way or the highway
 
Czarcasm said:
You've been told multiple times what is wrong with your "application", so... [/quopte]

no, I haven't.

All I've had is people like you claiming that you know better than Randi does how the challenge works. You ignore Randi's own words, and insist it works a different way.


Read the application protocols, fill out an application as set forth by the protocols, and wait for a response.
Click to expand...

Done already.
Click to expand...
 
Tricky said:
LOL. I think I'll take the chance that people can recognize fact for themselves. I see one of the parts you excised was where I explained that if it is an underground stream, then it is by definition in a cave.
Click to expand...

I didn't bother responding to that because you have totally twisted my words around. As usual.

Perhaps you misunderstand the terminology of geology. Water moving through the pores in rock is not a stream.
Click to expand...

No doubt that I do misunderstand the terminology of geology, but at least I understand it better than Randi does.

So, water moves through the pores of rock, right? We've got that straight, haven't we? As in MOVES through the rock. It really MOVES? There's no dispute about that?

And these pores, would you describe themn as caves?

Because Randi says << There is no naturally flowing water underground except in caves. >>

See, Tricky, do you agree with Randi's statement?

Randi says that water does not flow underground EXCEPT IN CAVES. And you say that it moves through pores.

Is he right, and you wrong, huh? Or are you going to tell me that pores ARE caves, so you're both right?

Or maybe James Randi is talking total BS, perchance?


I've snipped the rest of your message because it is a load of strawmen, where you totally misrepresent my words. Please address what I actually say, rather than your own fantasy version.
 
Tricky said:
The fact is that the JREF determines the basic idea of the challenge, not you, and they have told you that your application does not satisfy the specifics of the challenge, i.e. it is not paranormal.
Click to expand...

Yes, JREF does indeed determine the basic idea of the challenge.

And I have followed THEIR definition. To the letter.

Their definition does not match your definition. That is because you do not understand how the challenge works.



IF, by some chance, the guy has simply found a new law of science that the experts have overlooked and the challenge is accepted, then lucky him. This falls into the category of "so unlikely that it's worth the risk".
Click to expand...

I see that you have dodged the question. Again. As so often before.

To restate: What if the guy has simply found some
OLD law of science, which is already known, but RANDI has overlooked? What if he accepts the challenge as set by Randi, says openly that it's not paranormal, that it works on known principles, and Randi is simply ignorant. Would that then be a legitimate claim?
 
Jackalgirl said:
I'll say this one more time, and then I'm bowing out. Mind you, what I'm about to say has been said many times here, but I thought I might set it out and bold it:
Click to expand...

It's also been answered many times, but I'll answer it yet again, as I have done before.

The Million Dollar Challenge is not there to "prove Randi wrong". Its purpose is to test paranormal and pseudoscientific claims.

When Randi says "prove me wrong", he is saying this in the context of "no paranormal ability or pseudoscientific claim has ever held up under proper testing".
Click to expand...

That is exactly right. And I'm applying under that basis.

I am going to demonstrate something that (according to Randi) IS pseudoscience. And note that I've always classed it as pseudoscience, rather than paranormal.

See, the thing is, I make several claims. One of them is that underground rivers exist.

James Randi says that underground rivers do not exist, and that belief in them is a delusion.

According to Randi, merely claiming that they exist is pseudoscience. And pseudoscience is a legitimate claim.

Once again, you mention Randi's statement that he will test "non-paranormal claims". I already addressed this, and you ignored me.
Click to expand...

No, I've discussed it over and over. But I'll do it again to keep you happy.


So I will state again: this statement, which I think is perfectly clear from any reasonable reading of it, is referring to methods or products that claim to be working in full accordance with physical/chemical/etc processes, but which in fact cannot possibly work according to those processes. ... Wine magnets are an example of this: their makers claim that they work according to scientific principles. They do not. They are, therefore, paranormal gadgets wearing scientific clothing.
Click to expand...

Yes, indeed, according to Randi wine magnets can't work.

But just think about this for a moment:

What if Randi should turn out to be mistaken? If it actually works accordinbg to some principle that scientists already know about, but Randi doesn't. That would mean that the device actually works, but isn't paranormal.

suppose the guy sent in his application, and said <<it works, it's not paranormal, Randi is just wrong>> would that be a legitimate application? Or would you be saying that it's not a valid claim, because he admits that it isn't paranormal?


My claim is exactly the same as that.
 
Last edited:
Peter Morris said:
Because Randi says << There is no naturally flowing water underground except in caves. >>

See, Tricky, do you agree with Randi's statement?

Randi says that water does not flow underground EXCEPT IN CAVES. And you say that it moves through pores.

Is he right, and you wrong, huh? Or are you going to tell me that pores ARE caves, so you're both right?

.
Click to expand...

From the American Heritage Dictionary
flow (fl) KEY

VERB:
flowed , flow·ing , flows
VERB:
intr.


1.To move or run smoothly with unbroken continuity, as in the manner characteristic of a fluid.
a.To issue in a stream; pour forth: Sap flowed from the gash in the tree.
Click to expand...
Hmm, the rate of movement of water through some aquiferes, and they can be sandy and gravelly and just pores in rock would not be "run" or "pour" It can take thousands of years to go thousands of miles.

So in common parlance that would not be flow, but more creep.

Still irrelevant to the Challenge Application.


I don't think you can base an application on the basis of Randi's use of the word 'flow'. How does that fit in the Challenge application? Could you recite the verse in the Challenge rules upon which that claim would be part of the Challenge?
 
Last edited:
Mr. Morris, this is getting really tedious.

Go away -- Mr. Randi's not listening, and we're only entertaining you for comic relief.

M.
 
Darat said:
He will return and he will say exactly the same things totally ignoring the many questions he has yet again been asked and yet again has failed to answer.
Click to expand...

No, I always answer questions. It's abuse from trolls that I ignore.

(Oh and one of his usual tricks will be to quote this post and talk about it - probably mentioning "your great Randi" and other such phrases meant to somehow denigrate me and others who have pointed out his many errors and downright lies over the years.
Click to expand...

Okay, Darat. You say that I've told "many downright lies"

Go ahead and name just ONE. Show me ONE occasion on which I have lied.

Choose your very best example. Make a statement that this is the best example that you are able to find, with all others less than that one.

You won't be able do do it. My "lies" exist only in your own fantasies. I tell the truth, and you are unable to handle it.
 
Mr. Morris, this is getting really tedious.

Go away -- Mr. Randi's not listening, and we're only entertaining you for comic relief.

M.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom