challenge history

[Carn]

Sure, why should Randi be expected to keep his word. Merely because he promises that the test is carried out independently, why should anyone take him at his word?

Randi:
We do say that we stay within scientific boundaries when designing the protocol and implementing any tests. To achieve this, we call upon proper academic and scientific expertise to advise us and/or actually conduct the tests.

Only this morning I received the following statement from our ALIENROCKWHEREDIDITCOMEFROM.com applicant (after many long weeks of protocol negotiations) as his means of escaping the test and backing out of the Challenge:

"I will not allowa non scientist or a scientist with no experience in high energy to conduct experiments on my gemstone."

Sorry, Peter Morris, in this case Randi did not brake any promise, he only promises that in those cases, where for creating a scientific test the advice or direct help of a scientist is needed, one is contacted.
This means, that is JREF thinks that a test can also be designed and conducted by a non-scientist, they might choose not to contact one on the issue without braking any promise.

Look at the quote from the applicant, he states that he will not accept a non-scientist or a scientist without experience in high energy to conduct tests, so JREF suggested someone which did not meat the requirement of the applicant, but he does not complain, that JREFs choice violates the independant condition.

So the problem is about negotiation, applicant believes a high energy scientist is needed, JREF does not believe so, and both sides fail to convince the other side about why high energy scientists would or would not be neccesary.

Of course now the questions remain why applicant thought this point to be crucial enough to withdraw and what kept JREF from coming up with someone the applicant would be happy with.

For first i guess either for searching a way to escape or realy the sincere believe that non experts would endanger themselfes.(which sounds strange because as far as i know from his web site he sent got back the rock to different labs via normal packet services, why is he endangering poor delivery men that way?)

For the second i guess either it would cost them too much money or effort(JREF is not funding para research, they are only paying for succesful para research) or the reasons for insiting on high energy scientist, were so strange/wrong, that JREF decided there is no chance to ever find a reasonable aggreement, remember that has happened dozens of times before and why should they waste time.

(But KRAMER, why weren't you a bit more tolerant, the poor guy has been exposed to a strange new radiation that kills insects for more than 3 years, its very likely his brain was damaged and persons with malfunctioning brain deserve a lot of tolerance? )

Carn

 

[richardm]

The things this guy says his rock can do are pretty straightforward, aren't they? It can kill insects, melt ice, and sundry other "amazing" things.

All the guy has to do to win the million dollars is show that it can do these things. They should be self-evident, if it really can.

The only reason you'd need a high-energy physicist (what is that? One who drinks a lot of tartrazine?) would be to explain how it does those things. Randi's not interested in how it does it, just whether it does or not. And once Mr. Rock has won the million, there'll be no shortage of physicists who want to have a prod at it.

In the meantime, why should Randi pay the expenses for someone highly qualified to come and watch ice melt? He shouldn't; because it's simply not required to win the prize.

This should be obvious to all, but instead it's thrown up as an example of obfuscation.

If the rock can do what is claimed, it wins the million. Everything else is, as has already been said, just excuses.

 

[BPSCG]

Yeah sure. You are unwilling or unable to put the case files online yourself, there's always some excuse.

And that's a damned good one, too. It doesn't take much of an imagination to see JREF being tied up in endless lawsuits if it were to put the case files online.

 

[alfaniner]

Apparently Peter Morris is the type who needs a meteorologist to tell him which way the wind is blowing.

Well, I know which way the wind is coming from, and from which of Peter's orifices...

 

[drkitten]

I've posted links where Randi promises the tests will be carried out by independant scientists. we've seen that this test fell through because Randi was unwilling to have it tested by independent scientists.

I've seen no such links. I've seen the link where Randi promises to "call upon proper academic and scientific expertise to advise us and/or actually conduct the tests," but that doesn't commit him to having the testing performed by scientists. Similarly, he promises to " that the test would be "done by independent, capable, qualified, third parties," which again doesn't commit him to having the test done by scientists, unless there's some reason that one needs to be a radiatinon physicist in order to be qualified to perform the test.

Part of the reason that Randi is so successful is because he is "qualified" (and the people he selects are similarly "qualified"), not in academic credentials, but in the detection of stage magic. Scientists, to put it bluntly, are often too credulous for their own good when it comes to detecting outright frauds and fakes.

But, on the other hand, I haven't read the correspondence files. I can't for the life of me think of why one would need a physicist on-hand to figure out whether or not ice melts (heck, my eight-year old niece could do that), but perhaps there's something subtle going on that the applicant is having a problem explaining. Or perhaps the applicant is simply confused. I admit my sympathies are with Randi on this issue.

 

[Operaider]

Some of you seem to forget that the tests are run by the Jref. This means that the person accepting the challenge will not get all of his demands met, if the Jref finds them unreasonable. I'm sure that if "Mr. Rock" were able to come up with a significant reason why a scientist was needed, the possibility or bringing one in would be examined. But, so far no one has provided any reason why a scientist is necessary. All I've heard is

I will not allow a non scientist or a scientist with no experience in high energy to conduct experiments on my gemstone.

Well, we don't all get what we want in this life

As for the quote that has been posted:

We do say that we stay within scientific boundaries when designing the protocol and implementing any tests. To achieve this, we call upon proper academic and scientific expertise to advise us and/or actually conduct the tests.

This merely states that if Randi feels he needs a scientist's opinion in order to construct the test, he is allowed to call in a scientist. If he is able to construct a test without one, which I imagine he could do in this case, then he is not required to go through the expense and hassle of finding one.

Let’s say someone claimed they could channel the spirit of Einstein. Would you need to bring in an expert in subatomic particles just because the test concerned the creator of the atomic bomb? No, it would be over kill. Just like bringing in a scientist with “experience in high energy” in order to test if ice melts would be over kill

 

[vancouverskeptic]

Mr. Rock wants a scientist with...

experience in high energy

This point has been half made already a couple of times, and I'd like to finish it off: there is simply no such thing as a scientist with "experience in high energy," whatever that even means, unless we want to get Bruce Banner to evaluate the alienrockwherediditcomefrom. Good grief.

In other words, I'm not sure it's even necessary to resort to the argument that we don't need a rocket scientist to identify a successful rocket launch (although it's a fine plan b). In this case, the challenger has specified a condition that is ambiguous to the point of absurdity. What sort of scientist, exactly, would satisfy the challenger? The challenger clearly simply does not know what kind of scientist he wants.

No wonder Kramer found that exasperating! I find it exasperating just sitting here thinking about it, and I didn't even know that the Million Dollar Challenge existed until a couple of weeks ago.

Peter, we haven't heard from you for a while -- care to rebut again? I still think that you've got a decent point about the promise of independent evaluation, although I am totally agreeing with everyone that there is no requirement that the challenger should have the right to demand overqualified testers.

 

[Doubt]

Dalton does not appear to be a con artist. Based on our e-mail exchanges, he really does think his rock is keeping the ice from melting. Unfortunately, he is not prepared to deal with any alternative explanation. At least twice e-mail exchanges I suggested that he try his experiment with an ordinary rock. The first time I asked him this he barely acknowledged the request. The second time he just ignored it.

Dalton’s objection to me doing the test is based on the notion that the rock is dangerous. But his rock has not harmed a human yet.

The supposed characteristics of the rock don’t match any known type of non-ionizing radiation. The known characteristics of different types of non-ionizing radiation vary quite a bit.

An expert on radio waves and microwaves would not automatically be an expert at thermal radiation. An expert in either of those two categories would not necessarily be an expert in optics.

There are no experts on unknown forms of non-ionizing radiation.

Then there is that little problem about radiation transferring energy. Just a small thermodynamics problem. Any known form of radiation emitted from any source to or through the ice would not acquire energy from the ice. It would transfer energy to the ice. The end result is that the ice would melt faster or be unaffected by it.

 

[KRAMER]

A chap applied for the test, and asked that the test be carried out by an independent scientist.

Randi refused. Explain that. [/B]

OK, Peter, I'll engage you on this for a while to see if we just might get somewhere. Here's your chance to exhibit a sense of reason.

"A chap", you say?

What "chap"? What's his name? What's his claim? Come on, Peter. Tell me what I need to know.

Did he apply? If so, I will check his file and report on this within an hour of my having received the necessary information. If he never applied for the Challenge, there's nothing to discuss.

So until you tell me WHO this "chap" is, you're being as anecdotal as any applicant who makes a claim and wants us to take him seriously without a demonstration. We won't even do that, and I won't communicate with you any further than this if your idea of fairness is to toss out accusations with zero evidential support.

So tell me the name of the "chap", and I'll respond in specific.

But before you do, allow me to say this:

If an applicant claims he can fly, and insists on being tested by a scientist, I'm very sorry, Peter, but dragging some poor scientist out of his lab or away from his students is just not gonna happen. We don't need a scientist to test such a claim.

Heck, we could even have YOU go out there and test that.

On second thought...

 

[Marrena]

I'm laughing at myself reading this thread because I'm actually feeling sorry for you guys going through all that bother and then everyone backing down. Makes me want to do the challenge out of pity and a helping hand, rather than outright greed. Although a million dollars would be a nice bit of pin money.

What depresses me is that egg thingummy. If those worldwide egg recording devices with their impressive statistics don't convince, how can I? That's going to take the wind out of anybody but the most crazed person's sails.

 

[Marrena]

I just realized that post sounds kind of crazed if you don't know what I'm talking about. When I was posting here a year or so ago, there was talk of some kind of very sensitive electronic devices posted around the world that recorded minute fluctuations in energy, seemed to have statistical significance when correlated with striking world events, like 9/11.

When the skeptics chalked up the influence to variation in electrical current from people turning on radios, TVs and computers, then I knew the challenge was a lot harder than it sounded.

 

[Zep]

Sure, why should Randi be expected to keep his word. Merely because he promises that the test is carried out independently, why should anyone take him at his word?

Incidentally, that was not an answer to the question posed. It was an evasion. Would you care to try again?

 

[Carn]

When the skeptics chalked up the influence to variation in electrical current from people turning on radios, TVs and computers, then I knew the challenge was a lot harder than it sounded.

Don't you think the challenge should be soft?

I mean most claims, although those applying seldom seem to realize, would disprove among other things casaulity, energy conservation and/or momentum conservation on a non quantum scale.

This principles have been observed for 300 years(casaulity even longer, greek philosophers already were convinced about it), with never being broken under proper observing conditions. And quantum mechanics only violates on a very small scale, was at first disbelieved even among those who derived the methematics and someone like Einstein spent years unsuccesfully to disprove quantum, though he had some tough arguments(EPR-Paradoxon).

Whoever tries to disprove those principles, JREF is just the first step that would allow to dismiss trickery and self delusion(something scienctist can be bad at), then difficult things like why and how would be required which would quickly lead to the construction of countless experiments aimed at the contradictions there would be to known science.

And then there would be the universe left to be convinced that these principles can be broken(meaning countless observations would have to be explained).

Not something like, i managed JREF tests, so now for all time its ultimatively proven that science is wrong, that would take something like 30 years+, at least quantum mechanics took that long and it did not disprove everything.

Ok, a bit ranting, sorry,

Carn

 

[Carn]

Makes me want to do the challenge out of pity and a helping hand, rather than outright greed. Although a million dollars would be a nice bit of pin money.

That implies you have something that might be sufficient.
Or did i misunderstand you?

Carn

 

[Zep]

I just realized that post sounds kind of crazed if you don't know what I'm talking about. When I was posting here a year or so ago, there was talk of some kind of very sensitive electronic devices posted around the world that recorded minute fluctuations in energy, seemed to have statistical significance when correlated with striking world events, like 9/11.

When the skeptics chalked up the influence to variation in electrical current from people turning on radios, TVs and computers, then I knew the challenge was a lot harder than it sounded.

I think you read the wrong reports about the EGGs. No-one attributed any fluctuations to "people turning on radios, TVs and computers" as far as I remember. There were indeed fluctuations, but the problem was that the major ones occured when nothing notable at all happened.

There was much to-do that there was an "upswing" at or prior to 9-11. Until someone pointed out that much larger fluctuations happened close to that time but when nothing major was happening in the world. And then when some major events WERE happening, the EGGs recorded no noticeable fluctuations.

Then the long-term EGG readings were processed but not compared to any "major events", and I understand it was found that there was nothing beyond expected fluctuations for the devices due to random internal and external influences.

Finally, and importantly, there was no agreement reached on what constituted a "major event" anyway. Earthquake? Flood? Major road crash? Military strike? Suicide bomber? Medical breakthrough? No any agreement on WHERE these events might be. For example, there was a heavy reliance on the data from USA-only "events" as being significant, when in fact these EGGs were spread around the world. And since the whole world was involved, what might be a major event in, say, Australia might not even be worth mentioning in the USA.

In summary, no-one could agree what constituted a "major event" because it was all so entirely subjective (do you understand this term?). And subjective measurements in parapsychology have been responsible for just about all the problems it has had in being acceptable science.

 

[Marrena]

Yes I understand what subjective means.

Perhaps all that was discussed after I left the board. Now I am tempted to try to find the website again and get a further view. The data I looked at did seem to correlate with major world events--yes I know that classification is subjective, but it wasn't the way you describe--and it was statistically significant.

By the way, there's nothing in my view of the paranormal that would cause the laws of physics to be thrown out. Of course not. Maybe some slight effect in unusual circumstances that modifies things a bit, kind of the way Einstein didn't throw out Newtonian physics. And I think proving it will be as tricky and subtle as proving Einstein's theories.

Science has its flaws too--it avoids areas where subjectivity factors in, and also is unduly influenced by popular opinion and conservative thinking. For example, in my area of expertise, for most of the last century it was accepted by the scientific community that there were no actual aphrodisiacs, and that any ingested substance that improved sexual performance was entirely due to the placebo effect. It wasn't studied because it has a notorious cachet and of course a highly subjective field of research. Yohimbe has had a folk reputation as an aphrodisiac for centuries, but it wasn't rigorously studied, even though the potential money to be made from a true aphrodisiac far, far outweighs say a million dollars. Then along came Viagra, with the deep pockets of a pharmaceutical company looking at a patent. That study got done. Afterwards it was noted that yohimbe works along the same principles. Even then, yohimbe itself wasn't studied, it was the patentable extract yohimbine that was, and sure enough it works like Viagra. (By the way, any men reading this yohimbe also has many of the same side effects as Viagra and should not be taken by anyone with heart problems, and safest to take it under the supervision of a doctor).

I'm running into the same thing with my study. I could have taken the low road and sold it direct as a folk remedy for women, but I tried to be scientific and conduct a study. Couldn't get funding, even though I have an offer to publish in a respected medical journal and a very well-respected supervising investigator (who was involved with the failed tests of Viagra in women). Two fruitless years I spent. So now I am going the low road after all and am going to publish a popular book without a clinical trial. It's made me quite cynical about the scientific community.

 

[Carn]

I'm laughing at myself reading this thread because I'm actually feeling sorry for you guys going through all that bother and then everyone backing down. Makes me want to do the challenge out of pity and a helping hand, rather than outright greed. Although a million dollars would be a nice bit of pin money.

What depresses me is that egg thingummy. If those worldwide egg recording devices with their impressive statistics don't convince, how can I? That's going to take the wind out of anybody but the most crazed person's sails.

Repeatins myself, but what sort of claim you would use to go for the million?
If you explain, then maybe someone has an idea how it could be tested without relying very much on statistics, which leaves as you seem to think too much freedom for JREF to dodge paying money.

Carn

 

[Marrena]

You are putting words in my mouth. As far as I knew, the statistics did prove that the EGG things worked, and then it was wriggled out of by chalking up the variation to electrical fluctuations due to increased television usage. But I'm happy and relieved if the case was that the statistics themselves did not show an effect.

I came here with the idea of testing my belief in my astrological prowess. I've had surprising success in predicting a person's rising sign after knowing them well and looking at the rest of their chart. After putting my astrological skills to the test here yesterday, I realize either they're not good enough or astrology is wrong, and I'm guessing my remarkable string of rising sign predictions is just lucky chance. Either way, I can't pass the test.

Am just wishing someone offered a similar test for the ability to dramatically increase women's libido and give them the ability to have easy and fast vaginal orgasms. That I am certain I can do. If someone could wave their magic wand and produce an MD willing to be principal investigator and work pro bono so that I could be in compliance with IRB laws in this country, I would be very pleased. But enough whining. I'm veering, I'm sorry.

 

[Ashles]

Am just wishing someone offered a similar test for the ability to dramatically increase women's libido and give them the ability to have easy and fast vaginal orgasms. That I am certain I can do.

Are you saying you have the ability to increase women's libido and cause them to reach orgasm faster?

Then don't bother with the JREF - set up your own website and training centre and you will be a millionnaire in about 2 weeks.
Write a book about it.

If you can really do this for the majority of women who are currently unable to do this then you will be set for life and I am sure we will be reading about you in the future.

Just make sure it's not another thing you believe you can do with no real evidence that you actually can.

 

[Tricky]

You are putting words in my mouth. As far as I knew, the statistics did prove that the EGG things worked, and then it was wriggled out of by chalking up the variation to electrical fluctuations due to increased television usage. But I'm happy and relieved if the case was that the statistics themselves did not show an effect.

That was indeed discussed at length here, though I can't find the thread. As I recall, one of our more... um... interesting posters, Lucianarchy, was at the helm of the effort to credit these stories. I seem to remember taht the statistics were not really supportive, as the spike happened before the attack. Also, the spike was well within the range of normal variation, and required metastatistics (i.e. massaging the data) to make it look even vaguely significant.

I came here with the idea of testing my belief in my astrological prowess. I've had surprising success in predicting a person's rising sign after knowing them well and looking at the rest of their chart. After putting my astrological skills to the test here yesterday, I realize either they're not good enough or astrology is wrong, and I'm guessing my remarkable string of rising sign predictions is just lucky chance. Either way, I can't pass the test.

Thank you for your honesty. It is very refreshing for believers in the paranormal. However, I would still appreciate a reply to my questions over there in your astrology thread. I am not trying to insult or trap you, but just see how you have worked your way around these problems that confounded me to the point I dropped my belief in astrology. Here they are again, for your convenience.

• What is it about the date/time of birth that is so special. After all, the time of birth and period of gestation can vary widely. In fact, in many cases labor is induced, meaning that the person is born at a time that is different from when they "should have been born". Could your personality traits be that strongly influenced by when the doctor's golf game finished?
  
• What is it about birth itself that fixes the traits? It cannot be passage through the birth canal, or else ceasarian section babies would have no horoscope. Is it the time when they take their first breath? That wouldn't make much sense, because they are getting oxygen all along from their mother.
  
• What is it about the stars and planets that influences people? Is it gravity? Radiation? I've heard it said that the celestial objects do not influence the traits at all, but rather the planets are influenced by the same things that influence the traits. However, this still suggests some sort of force or energy.
  
• Since we are finding out that more and more of our human traits are determined, or at least influenced by genetics, wouldn't it make sense that your astrological sign was determined at the point of conception, rather than birth? That, after all, is when your genetic makeup is set. Are all astrological calculations nine months off?

Am just wishing someone offered a similar test for the ability to dramatically increase women's libido and give them the ability to have easy and fast vaginal orgasms. That I am certain I can do. If someone could wave their magic wand and produce an MD willing to be principal investigator and work pro bono so that I could be in compliance with IRB laws in this country, I would be very pleased. But enough whining. I'm veering, I'm sorry.

I would be very happy to participate in such a study.