challenge history

[steenkh]

I see no reason why Doubt should not be considered independent. I think that by "independent" is meant "somebody who is not staking a million dollars in this". It does not mean "impartial".

 

[CFLarsen]

Yeah sure. You are unwilling or unable to put the case files online yourself, there's always some excuse. So you tell me that I must either accept your word for it, or fly to Florida to check it for myself. You wanna pay my ticket? Then I'll be happy to come and see. Of course, you could always put the archives on line, but we all know that's never gonna happen.

I suspect that you are equally critical of Gary Schwartz, then?

He has denied access to his data, but also says that if you come to Arizona, he will show it to you.

 

[kookbreaker]

FACT #1 Randi said "we call upon proper academic and scientific expertise to advise us and/or actually conduct the tests."

"Proper" does not mean that any oddball 'expert' must be obtainted by Randi just because the applicant demands it. Randi is not under an obligation to find a left-handed albino pipe welder just because the challenger demands one in the negotiation phase.

FACT #2 A guy applied for the test, and asked Randi for a scientific expert to design and conduct the test.

FACT #3 Randi refused to honour his promise.

These do not follow given the illegitimacy of the first claim.

Why is it unreasonable to ask for the test to be performed by a scientist?

Why do you need an obscure and undefined specialist to test something whose result is essentially out of his field?

What motive did Randi have for refusing the request?

An unreasonable demand.

You need to answer these questuions.

Done

Screaming "this test is simple" doesn't cut it. Randi made a promise. He broke it. That's his doing, and nobody else's fault. A broken promise is a broken promise, however you twist it.

And saying you'll get the services of a proper and qualified tester does not mean that you are obliged to get any expert, any time.
Had the applicant demanded a paleobotanist with at least 2 years experience in the Antarctic, a large meteor collection, and a carry permit it would likewise have been rejected.

Randi is a liar. [/B]

No, he is not, you are a pednatic and petulant child.

 

[Peter Morris]

The constant pigheadedness and illogical vitriol with which Peter Morris continues to table-thump over an issue that many have tried to logically explain to him and which he just refuses to understand make me wonder whether he has some major beef with the jref...

Look, yours is a typical response:

"constant pigheadedness"

Insult used as a substitute for argument.

"illogical vitriol"

Insult used as a substitute for argument.

"table thump"

Insult used as a substitute for argument.

"many have tried to logically explain to him"

Gotta love that declaration of victory there. There have been NO attempts to logically explain things to me. All you do is insult, deny the facts,

"refuses to understand"

What's to understand? Just give me one good reason why this test shouldn't be performed by a scientist.

Randi has promised that his tests are designed and conducted independently from himself Why shouild he get away with breaking his promise?

 

[Peter Morris]

I suspect that you are equally critical of Gary Schwartz, then?

He has denied access to his data, but also says that if you come to Arizona, he will show it to you.

Red herring.

But since you ask, I'm no fan of Gary Schwartz either. My point has never been belief in the paranormal. My point is that Randi attacks the paranormal in a totally dishonest fashion. He says and does anything to discredit the paranormal, and doesn't care about the truth of what he says.

 

[Vikram]

What's to understand? Just give me one good reason why this test shouldn't be performed by a scientist.

Randi has promised that his tests are designed and conducted independently from himself Why shouild he get away with breaking his promise?

Would any scientist with a Ph.D. do? Or is a "high-energy physicist" mandatory?

Just trying to clarify your stance here.

 

[Vikram]

By the way, Peter, have you read Kramer's response on another thread?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44920&perpage=40&pagenumber=2

The JREF is willing to allow Dalton to get any scientist he might want to the test. Do you still feel Randi is being unjust?

 

[apoger]

Look, yours is a typical response:

As was yours.
Rather than supply evidence to back up your claim you are just repeating the same nonsense over again.

There have been NO attempts to logically explain things to me.

That you fail to recognize many attempts to do just that, tells us volumes about your agenda.

Just give me one good reason why this test shouldn't be performed by a scientist.

The JREF has promised to use proper expertise.

The JREF seeks to determine results. As far as I can tell the entire claim rests upon the result of ice melting. I see no reason why a scientist, indeed one of the "high energy" variety would be needed to determine if ice has melted.

Of couse I could be wrong.
By all means please explain:

- Why do we require a scientist to determine if ice has melted?
- Why must he/she be a "high energy" scientist?
- Why do you insist that "we call upon proper academic and scientific expertise to advise us and/or actually conduct the tests" is somehow a promise that the JREF will provide the claimant with any expert that they demand?

 

[CFLarsen]

But since you ask, I'm no fan of Gary Schwartz either. My point has never been belief in the paranormal. My point is that Randi attacks the paranormal in a totally dishonest fashion. He says and does anything to discredit the paranormal, and doesn't care about the truth of what he says.

But do you think that Gary Schwartz is wrong, too?

 

[steenkh]

What's to understand? Just give me one good reason why this test shouldn't be performed by a scientist.

Strange, DALTON himself did not demand a scientist until he realised that his own experiment was so flawed that he had to stall. The argument why the test should not be performed by a scientist is this: A scientist is not needed to determine if ice melts or not.

Now, give a good reason why the test should be performed by a scientist, especially a high energy scientist, whatever that is. And don't come up with "because DALTON says so".

And, BTW, what is a scientist? Does it have to be an accredited one, or just a person who is able to perform a scientific test?

Randi has promised that his tests are designed and conducted independently from himself Why shouild he get away with breaking his promise?

As far as we know the test is going to be performed independently of Randi. Where do you have information that it is not so?

 

[Peter Morris]

Would any scientist with a Ph.D. do? Or is a "high-energy physicist" mandatory?

Just trying to clarify your stance here.

a reasonable quesstion which deserves an answer. As always, I answer reason with reason.

In my opinion someone is qualified to design and conduct the test if they fulfill the following conditions:

• Qualified to at least MSc level or equivalent.
  
• At least two years' professional experience of conducting scientific research.
  
• Some direct experience in the particular subject being tested. It doesn't require a specialist in that field, but the tester must have some recognised qualification that includes that subject, or substantial experience gained during his research career.
  
  In this particular case, a PHD biologist with experience studying the pathology of HIV would not be a suitable tester.
  
• Independent - not connected to the JREF in any way. Not a member of the JREF. Not someone who donates money to the JREF. Not someone who is a regular reader of Randi's books and articles.
  
• Sceptical, but open minded enough to take a look at the claim without prejudice. Not someone who has previously attacked similar claims in any big way.
  

By all means, let a magician appointed by the JREF attend the test, and see if he can spot any cheating going on. But leave the design and conduct of the test to professionals

 

[Peter Morris]

As was yours.
Rather than supply evidence to back up your claim you are just repeating the same nonsense over again.

Given over and over. The fact that you refuse to see it is your fault.

 

[Peter Morris]

Strange, DALTON himself did not demand a scientist until he realised that his own experiment was so flawed that he had to stall. The argument why the test should not be performed by a scientist is this: A scientist is not needed to determine if ice melts or not.

Now, give a good reason why the test should be performed by a scientist, especially a high energy scientist, whatever that is. And don't come up with "because DALTON says so".

A) Because Randi promised it, so it is reasonable to hold him to his word.

B) Because it has to be done independently of Randi to ensure fairness. Someone directly connected to JREF might cheat to hold on to the $1M. Randi himself has recognised this, and promised that the test will be carried out by independent qualified persons to ensure that Randi isn't in a position to cheat.

Now, please give a reason why it SHOULDN'T be performed by a scientist. And don't come up with "because RANDI says so."

 

[CFLarsen]

Qualified to at least MSc level or equivalent.

Why?

At least two years' professional experience of conducting scientific research.

Why two? Why not three?

Some direct experience in the particular subject being tested. It doesn't require a specialist in that field, but the tester must have some recognised qualification that includes that subject, or substantial experience gained during his research career.

Why? The terms of the challenge are crystal clear: The result must be self-evident. So why the need for a scientist?

Independent - not connected to the JREF in any way. Not a member of the JREF. Not someone who donates money to the JREF. Not someone who is a regular reader of Randi's books and articles.

Whaa??? Are you going to impose censorship now?? You cannot keep up with the latest in trickery and flimflamflummery?

Sceptical, but open minded enough to take a look at the claim without prejudice. Not someone who has previously attacked similar claims in any big way.

Why do you want an inexperienced person? Wouldn't it be better to have someone who knows how to do it?

By all means, let a magician appointed by the JREF attend the test, and see if he can spot any cheating going on. But leave the design and conduct of the test to professionals

But that is what Randi advocates. Read the goddamn terms of the challenge.

 

[apoger]

As always, I answer reason with reason.

Then why have you failed to answer my questions and that of others?

Let's recap the simple questions from a few posts down:

- Why do we require a scientist to determine if ice has melted?
- Why must he/she be a "high energy" scientist?
- Why do you insist that "we call upon proper academic and scientific expertise to advise us and/or actually conduct the tests" is somehow a promise that the JREF will provide the claimant with any expert that they demand?

Some direct experience in the particular subject being tested. It doesn't require a specialist in that field, but the tester must have some recognised qualification that includes that subject, or substantial experience gained during his research career.

Ok... what "scientist" is qualified to determine if ice has melted? Would this be "high energy" scientists?


Couldn't we replace the entire need for a scientist with a cup and a ruler?
If the ice melts and runs off into a cup... the ice has melted. If there is no run-off and the ice is the same size, the experiment is a success. Simple, impartial, objective. No need for the intervention of a "high energy" scientist as far as I can tell. Unless of course you can explain otherwise.

Given over and over. The fact that you refuse to see it is your fault.

Never given.
The thread is here for anyone to read. Who do you think you are fooling?

 

[Peter Morris]

By all means, let a magician appointed by the JREF attend the test, and see if he can spot any cheating going on. But leave the design and conduct of the test to professionals

But that is what Randi advocates. Read the goddamn terms of the challenge.

And yet he refused to do so on this occasion.

 

[CFLarsen]

Never given.
The thread is here for anyone to read. Who do you think you are fooling?

We see this all the time.

The Superstitious claims to have given the answers, to have shown the evidence. They repeat this claim over and over again, hoping that we in time accept that they have, and forget to check if they have done so in the first place.

Check the claims. Don't stop pointing out that the claims have never been backed up. A lie repeated becomes truth, unless countered with facts.

 

[Peter Morris]

Then why have you failed to answer my questions and that of others?

Let's recap the simple questions from a few posts down:

- Why do we require a scientist to determine if ice has melted?

Answer given over and over and over.

Randi fan : Why do we require a scientist to determine if ice has melted?

Peter : You don't. You needs an independent scientists to ensure that the test is FAIR. Randi says that he will remove himself from the test, so that it is FAIR. If JREF does the test, they might cheat to keep the cash. Let it be donbe by an independent scientist, that proves its fair. Randi promised he would do this.


Randi fan : You haven't answered. Why do we require a scientist to determine if ice has melted?

Peter : You don't. You needs an independent scientists to ensure that the test is FAIR. Randi says that he will remove himself from the test, so that it is FAIR. If JREF does the test, they might cheat to keep the cash. Let it be donbe by an independent scientist, that proves its fair. Randi promised he would do this.



Randi fan : I cannot see an answer. You can't answer. I know i'm right. Why do we require a scientist to determine if ice has melted?

Peter : You don't. You needs an independent scientists to ensure that the test is FAIR. Randi says that he will remove himself from the test, so that it is FAIR. If JREF does the test, they might cheat to keep the cash. Let it be donbe by an independent scientist, that proves its fair. Randi promised he would do this.



Randi fan : Lallalalalalala ICANT HEAR YOU. Just answer this: Why do we require a scientist to determine if ice has melted?

Peter : You don't. You needs an independent scientists to ensure that the test is FAIR. Randi says that he will remove himself from the test, so that it is FAIR. If JREF does the test, they might cheat to keep the cash. Let it be donbe by an independent scientist, that proves its fair. Randi promised he would do this.



Randi fan : Scream! you haven't answered. I cannot see an answer. I refuse to see it. I know you can't answer. There's no answer there. there isn't there isn't. Waaaaaah You can't possibly have answered. You're refusing to answer. Boo hoo hooo. Why do we require a scientist to determine if ice has melted?

Peter : You don't. You needs an independent scientists to ensure that the test is FAIR. Randi says that he will remove himself from the test, so that it is FAIR. If JREF does the test, they might cheat to keep the cash. Let it be done by an independent scientist, that proves its fair. Randi promised he would do this.

And so on.

Really, how many times do I have to repeat it before you acknowledge that I've given the answer.?

This is so tiresome.

 

[CFLarsen]

And yet he refused to do so on this occasion.

There is no need for one on this occasion. If a statistician is needed to compute the odds, Randi will call in an expert. But it doesn't require an expert to determine if DALTON's claims are true.

Why did DALTON not demand an expert from the get-go?

Do you think you could answer the rest of the questions?

 

[Peter Morris]

We see this all the time.

The Superstitious claims

And I see this all the time.

The Desperate have no answer, so

a) Deny that I said the words that are in plain sight.
b) Put words in my mouth.

I disagree with Randi so therefore I'm superstitious. If I were a genuine sceptic I would excuse Randi's lies like Larsen does. Anyone that comments on Randi's dishonesty must be a believer.

Folks, I have said over and over that I am NOT a believer, I am just appalled by Randi's dishonesty in his attacks. Larsen knows this, but chooses to misrepresent me. Larsen here displays the very same types of dishonesty that makes me oppose Randi.