• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Changes To The Challenge

Reager said:
Except 1) the interest from the Challenge does not provide all of the JREF's operating cash, and 2) the worldwide publicity and fame that will occur as a result of a succesful demonstration of paranormal powers will be worth well more to the JREF (financially and otherwise) than the interest.
Click to expand...
I agree, but that's the argument that some use.
 
roger said:
I agree, but that's the argument that some use.
Click to expand...

Point is...it's a bogus argument, and anyone who is not already heavily biased against the Foundation can see that. So why let it tie the JREF's hands?
 
GzuzKryzt said:
...try the link above again and simply type "randi" in the field labeled "Organization Name", etc...
Click to expand...

Initially I tried randi foundation and it drew a blank so I tried putting more details in. Just plain randi shows a foundation with assets
  • $2,166,757
That's pretty cool. People can claim Mr. Randi is bluffing about the money but they'd have to ignore the reported fact that he's flush. :)

Hey SchemeGene (1000 points and a bow to everyone who gets this reference!),
(Gene, the salutatory address was meant in good spirits.)
Click to expand...

I get this reference in the sense you bestowed it on me but I don't get it in the sense that I know what it means. Does this mean I have to give you a curtsey back plus the 1000 points?

Gene
 
AgingYoung said:
$2,166,757 That's pretty cool.
...
Click to expand...

Quite some bucks, right? :)

AgingYoung said:
I get this reference in the sense you bestowed it on me but I don't get it in the sense that I know what it means. Does this mean I have to give you a curtsey back plus the 1000 points?

Gene
Click to expand...

The term "SchemeGene" was bestowed upon one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Okerlund
by one of the most prolific wrestlers ever, Shawn Michaels.

Given "Mean Gene's" attempts to parlay his penache into buckaroos, the term "SchemeGene" seems quite a witty caricature - which you would definetely not attribute to Shawn Michaels, because they don't come more airheaded like "The Heartbreak Kid". (Well, except for Buff Bagwell.)

And, finally, since you tried to come up with a PMM scheme, it seemed to fit. (Allrigth, I#m wasyted, butt i still qualifeis.=
 
GzuzKryzt said:
Does this help: http://tfcny.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/esearch.php ?
Search for: randi
Click to expand...

Been looking at the above document. James Randi does not get paid $141,083 to sit behind a desk. One of his functions is giving lectures for which JREF gets paid. Some numbers

Program Expenses $361,988. This includes $90,454 on Randi's salary. Program Expenses will include things other that lectures. It is not clear to me how much of this is for lecture expenses.
Income from Lectures $200,505.

Randi gets paid $18,541 for fund raising. The balance of $32,088 is for 'Management and General'.

$90,454
$18,541
$32,088 +
--------
$141,083

In short Randi is an asset.
 
GzuzKryzt,

Your point,
  • And, finally, since you tried to come up with a PMM scheme
isn't quite on the money. I've tried numerous schemes! Also I'm still trying! Yes indeed, I haven't given up. Nothing extraordinary was ever accomplished by a reasonable person. When I half way try I can be so unreasonable. I can't imagine why the idea of perpetual motion draws out the savage in people though. I'm not seriously trying to bilk anyone with the idea. I know I've offered to hand over all my thoughts on the idea to anyone that would give me 2 million dollars but that's not a serious effort to bilk anyone. No one with that sort of money would hand it over for the simple thoughts I have. Would they? Anyone?? lol. Maybe I'm not charging enough. I want 15 million now. :)

rjh01,

The evidence is that Mr. Randi is very unusual. I don't think you could pay him to sit behind a desk. Some people can't sit still and I think he's one of them. In his case though, it would be his desk at his organization. If he would want to just sit behind a desk that would be his business. I can't picture him doing that. I'd say he's more than an asset. He's the driving force behind this whole idea. That's why it's called The Randi Foundation.

mean Gene
 
GzuzKryzt,

Of course you can. It's not an original quote. I don't know who first said it. I don't think you should give me the credit. Reasonable people think alike. It takes a maverick with different ideas and persistence to change the way reasonable people think about things.

mean Gene
I like that moniker.
 
I'm looking for that quote and found one similar....

  • " ... the most important results in daily life are to be obtained, not through the exercise of extraordinary powers, such as genius and intellect, but through the energetic use of simple means and ordinary qualities, with which nearly all human individuals have been more or less endowed ..." Samuel Smiles

mean Gene
 
Dumb All Over,

For the sake of argument I'll give you your point.
  • No it doesn't. It takes simple, sound evidence.
Could you kindly describe the most significant thing you've ever accomplished in your life using that sort of reasoning? My point is that if you accept what most everyone thinks to be true you're not too likely to look for and find evidence of anything contrary. Since you’re a reasonable person you're most likely going to find evidence to support your reasonable beliefs.

mean Gene
 
For what it's worth there is indeed historical evidence in addition to present scientific thought that would lead any reasonable person to conclude that
  • science doesn't explain everything in our reality
  • scientific thought has evolved and is presently evolving

I think sometimes people imagine that everyone is equal and have equal rights. That's a fiction. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the only thing that would convince you that a pmm is possible would be a working model. If the ideas I have about perpetual motion were viable and I could produce a machine why would I explain it to you before having Randi test it? It makes no sense to me to give you evidence so you can see the truth of the matter before I show Randi.

mean Gene

eta:
GzuzKryzt,

Since you're being nice I'll let you buy into to the ideas at the 2 million rate.
 
AgingYoung said:
...
mean Gene

eta:
GzuzKryzt,

Since you're being nice I'll let you buy into to the ideas at the 2 million rate.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the offer, Gene. I'll wait until you have a working PMM. (Hint: You can patent it first, then snatch up the JREF mil en passant to your rise as Master Of The Multiverse.)
 
GzuzKryzt,

When I become Master of the Multiverse I might have to appoint you to some special position. Maybe sitting behind a desk keeping track of what people are thinking and doing and issuing a 'bolt of lightning' to those that are thinking out side the box. Dr. GzuzKryzt Zapper! Earthlings beware!!

mean Gene
 
Dumb All Over said:
No it doesn't. It takes simple, sound evidence.
Click to expand...

Errr...ummm...I know better than to step into this, but history has shown over and over, and still does, that simple, sound evidence has failed to convince skeptics, naysayers and cynics, and even fellow scientist. Over and over and over. It is so common, it doesn't even seem unusual, to have some new idea, or invention, dismissed, reviled, or ignored. Or attacked, ridiculed, mocked and destroyed.

Or just not believed. Of course there are far more crackpot ideas, inventions, scams and crazy stuff that actually turn out to be woo, but that doesn't change the history of REAL breakthroughs being ground under the heavy feet of idiots, fools and scientist.

All that being said, PM is not going to happen. Anymore than the worlds religions are going to go away.
 
AgingYoung said:
Dumb All Over,

For the sake of argument I'll give you your point.
  • No it doesn't. It takes simple, sound evidence.
Could you kindly describe the most significant thing you've ever accomplished in your life using that sort of reasoning?
Click to expand...
I would say that any significant accomplishments I've made in my life were always based on that kind of reasoning. Most of the mistakes I've made, however, are because I neglected to use that kind of reasoning.
AgingYoung said:
My point is that if you accept what most everyone thinks to be true you're not too likely to look for and find evidence of anything contrary.
Click to expand...
I don't accept what everyone thinks is true without sound evidence. The vast majority of human beings believe the existence of god is true, whether there's sound evidence to back it up or not. I have never encountered such evidence. A surprisingly large number of Americans believe the events of 9/11 were the result of a vast government conspiracy. Again, I've seen no credible evidence for this. Lots of people believe lots of things. Just because a large number of people might share a belief is not sufficient evidence to make it true.
AgingYoung said:
Since you’re a reasonable person you're most likely going to find evidence to support your reasonable beliefs.
Click to expand...
You seem to have put the cart before the horse. It's not that way at all. I don't tend to formulate beliefs and then search for supporting evidence. On the contrary, I like to allow good, sound evidence to mold my beliefs.
 
robinson said:
Errr...ummm...I know better than to step into this, but history has shown over and over, and still does, that simple, sound evidence has failed to convince skeptics, naysayers and cynics, and even fellow scientist. Over and over and over. It is so common, it doesn't even seem unusual, to have some new idea, or invention, dismissed, reviled, or ignored. Or attacked, ridiculed, mocked and destroyed.
Click to expand...

I detect fallacy within these statements. You deserve the benefit of a doubt. Before deconstruction of the above, it would be helpful if you could give an example.
 
I don't tend to formulate beliefs and then search for supporting evidence. On the contrary, I like to allow good, sound evidence to mold my beliefs.
Click to expand...
There is good sound evidence to believe that science doesn't accurately describe reality and that scientific thought has evolved and is evolving.

When someone studies mechanics and specifically as it relates to the conservative nature of gravity all the various ideas that prove gravity is are studied and explained. People are led to their understandings based on all these ideas with perfectly legitimate explanations. Also when you’re looking at any given example there are numerous ways of analyses.

Often though when people consider the idea that gravity isn’t a conservative force they defer their thinking to conclusions others have come to without any consideration of how those conclusion were arrived at. Your point

  • I don't accept what everyone thinks is true without sound evidence
causes me to think you’ve considered the evidence and have arrived at the same conclusion; that is ‘gravity is a conservative force’. Unlike you, most people just accept an idea without examining the reasoning behind it. I’m led to believe you’ve considered the evidence and, having considered it, think it sound.

I think I’m looking at a sufficiently unique model that could be proof that gravity isn’t a conservative force. This model isn’t what is normally considered when explaining why gravity is conservative. This model is a serious departure from anything I’ve looked at or anything I’ve seen presented.

All that said, I know the only thing acceptable even to people that accept the idea that gravity is a conservative force based on other's conclusions is a working model. I'm very slowly trying to build one. I'm not trying to be slow about it.

Gene
 
Last edited:
Dumb All Over said:
I detect fallacy within these statements. You deserve the benefit of a doubt. Before deconstruction of the above, it would be helpful if you could give an example.
Click to expand...

I think any educated person in this modern world could give you examples. Everything from X-rays to airplanes have been considered far fetched, fanciful, ridiculous, even considered nonsense at the time of their practical applications.
And even more so twenty years before the fact. Plate tectonics, cellular endosymbiosis, ions, real hard science stuff, as well as life in the deep oceans, and life without sunlight, or oxygen. All of these concepts, or hard realities, were considered by the most learned of men, to be woo.

Actually, most educated people have no idea of what really happened with great discoveries. It isn't taught much. And this instant dismissal of ideas is ancient. I can guess it happened to the first person who used fire, or cooked meat. The rest of the tribe probably cracked his skull open for his efforts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom