Changes To The Challenge

[Reager]

I find the proposed change to the challenge to be problematic. Apparently, mr. Randi no longer wants to waste his time on the myriad claims by unknown persons, and wants to concentrate on those with a high profile.

This, to me, seems to indicate that the challenge will now be reduced to be a media stunt only. Where we used to be able to argue that the JREF wanted to give the million to anyone who could demonstrate something paranormal, this will no longer be true. The JREF will now only go after pure scam, and leave perceived paranormality behind.

Not necessarilly. The JREF can still, presumably, offer the Challenge to anyone, scammers and non-scammers alike.

We will no more be able to tell people with outragious claims that they can get a million dollars if they can demonstrate their claim.

Depending on how the Challenge is reworked, this may not be the case either. For example, the Challenge could still be open to anyone to apply, but the JREF would not have to be under any obligation to accept any random applicant, as it does now. The standards for who would be accepted as an applicant could be tightned, and strictly adhered to.

I find it a pity, but I can imagine that it is much easier to handle for a reduced JREF, and there will never be any tests at all, because the high profile scammers will stay away from the challenge.

Well, given that the Challenge is primarilly a publicity tool, that's the whole point...these people won't agree to be tested because they can't do what they claim.

 

[CFLarsen]

Let's see what the changes amount to first, shall we....?

 

[hcmom]

I disagree with this. Aside from the fact that you can't prove a negative, it seems to me that the purpose of the Challenge is to offer woos an opportunity to either

a) prove their theory scientifically, thereby changing the way we look at the world forever,

or, failing that

b) sit down and shut up, because you've been proven to be a quack.

Rather than setting out to prove there is nothing paranormal, I believe Randi would be delighted if someone came along who could do just that.

If the purpose of the Challenge is b, it's a dismal failure...hehehehehe

 

[petre]

There are numerous smaller skeptic organizations offering similar (smaller) challenges. I suggest passing one of those would probably get enough attention to then move on to the JREF.

Think of it as an extension of the affadavit requirement. You'll now just need to get famous enough that hundreds of people would sign affadavits for you

 

[steenkh]

Let's see what the changes amount to first, shall we....?

If you insist

 

[CFLarsen]

If you insist

That is my way...

 

[Questioninggeller]

Taking on the "big names" is important, but so is preventing unknowns from becoming the "big names." Right now I am able to tell those who claim a paranormal ability to simply do Randi's challenge. Do what you claim and get a million dollars. It is a great conversation ender; just do what you claim on the day of the challenge and prove you are "real" and get a million dollars.

 

[tkingdoll]

Taking on the "big names" is important, but so is preventing unknowns from becoming the "big names." Right now I am able to tell those who claim a paranormal ability to simply do Randi's challenge. Do what you claim and get a million dollars. It is a great conversation ender; just do what you claim on the day of the challenge and prove you are "real" and get a million dollars.

Great, so at the moment all the resources the JREF put into the challenge are so you can end conversations quickly?

Ever heard of Return on Investment?

 

[dogjones]

When is this press release coming out then? I thought it was supposed to be this week - I had my eye out for it in the commentary. Stop leaving me hanging!

 

[steenkh]

Great, so at the moment all the resources the JREF put into the challenge are so you can end conversations quickly?

Ever heard of Return on Investment?

You make it sound like something trivial. I think it is a gr5eat argument of value for all skeptics at all times that the JREF offers a million dollars for a demonstration of a paranormal claim, and that it has not been taken, despite no lack of applications. That everybody can apply but nobody has come close despite that they can themselves define the rate of success that they are able to achieve is an important lesson - the "E" in "JREF".

If only a few can apply, and only those few are those who will never do it, all sorts of criticism can be levelled at the challenge: that it is only a media stunt, that it does not test those with real paranormal abilities, and so on.

Now, as Claus has pointed out, we need to see what changes are being made. Randi is probably aware of the problems of down-sizing the challenge, but he seems to be grappling with practical problems, too, such as how the JREF can survive when he is no longer there, or he can no longer put in the workload that he is doing now. And he might also think that he could spend his old age (if he ever grows old) doing more interesting things than deal with 90% nut-cases, and so the challenge might eventually have to go.

 

[tkingdoll]

You make it sound like something trivial. I think it is a gr5eat argument of value for all skeptics at all times that the JREF offers a million dollars for a demonstration of a paranormal claim, and that it has not been taken, despite no lack of applications. That everybody can apply but nobody has come close despite that they can themselves define the rate of success that they are able to achieve is an important lesson - the "E" in "JREF".

Oh no, I totally agree (and have said on many occasions) that the "take this challenge then" argument is a very useful one. It really is. But my point is, as much as it's a handy bit of ammo for skeptics to use in conversations with people who are never going to take the challenge anyway, in very real terms it has a cost attached for the JREF. A real, tangible cost.

And what I was pointing out is that "shutting someone up" is perhaps not enough return on that investment any more.

 

[Reager]

Oh no, I totally agree (and have said on many occasions) that the "take this challenge then" argument is a very useful one. It really is. But my point is, as much as it's a handy bit of ammo for skeptics to use in conversations with people who are never going to take the challenge anyway, in very real terms it has a cost attached for the JREF. A real, tangible cost.

And what I was pointing out is that "shutting someone up" is perhaps not enough return on that investment any more.

I agree. Also, while the Challenge may be well known in skeptical circles, and even amongst paranormalists, the general public has never heard of it. Hopefully, the Challenge will be reformulated and utilized so as to raise the profile of both the JREF and the Challenge...

 

[steenkh]

Oh no, I totally agree (and have said on many occasions) that the "take this challenge then" argument is a very useful one. It really is. But my point is, as much as it's a handy bit of ammo for skeptics to use in conversations with people who are never going to take the challenge anyway, in very real terms it has a cost attached for the JREF. A real, tangible cost.

Yes, I agree.

And what I was pointing out is that "shutting someone up" is perhaps not enough return on that investment any more.

But it is not just used to "shut somebody up". The most effective use is to tell doubters about all those claims that are never tested because the claimants chicken out, or who are tested but fail. I am quite sure that I have sown the seed of skepticism in a number of such cases, although mostly, of course, I have been preaching for the choir!

 

[tkingdoll]

But it is not just used to "shut somebody up". The most effective use is to tell doubters about all those claims that are never tested because the claimants chicken out, or who are tested but fail. I am quite sure that I have sown the seed of skepticism in a number of such cases, although mostly, of course, I have been preaching for the choir!

But that's such an intangible benefit, it can't really be measured. And when an organisation is looking at where to spend its money, the best results are those that can be proven.

I completely agree that it's important and useful, but...well, OK, I'll pass it back to you. The unmeasurable benefit that you describe above: put a value on it. Tell me how much you think that benefit is worth per annum, in dollars.

 

[steenkh]

I completely agree that it's important and useful, but...well, OK, I'll pass it back to you. The unmeasurable benefit that you describe above: put a value on it. Tell me how much you think that benefit is worth per annum, in dollars.

I do not think unmeasurable benefits can be measured in dollars. The value would change from person to person, and what is important is what it is worth for Randi. How much is it worth to convince a single doubter? That would depend on which doubter. One of my acquaintances might be worth very little, but a politician might be worth a lot.

If you ask me how much I would pay for keeping the challenge alive and kicking, I could put a value on it. Not a great value, but multiplied with all the other skeptics who would put a similar value on it, it might add up to a substantial sum.

But I do not think that money is the real issue here, but rather what Randi would like to spend his time on. And his time is in any case priceless.

 

[tkingdoll]

I do not think unmeasurable benefits can be measured in dollars.

You're right, which is why they are often the first thing to be ditched in business. The intangible benefits are hard to value, but if you are spending money (or time) on them, you should be able to justify it.

I guess what I'm saying is, show me the evidence that the challenge is still worth what it costs (in time and money).

 

[drkitten]

I do not think unmeasurable benefits can be measured in dollars.

Unfortunately, this means that "unmeasurable benefits" are the first to go when actual dollars must be cut.

 

[steenkh]

I guess what I'm saying is, show me the evidence that the challenge is still worth what it costs (in time and money).

I think you can only judge such evidence from the response of JREF's sponsors to a call to support the challenge.

Randi has hinted that the JREF is in financial trouble, but that seems more to be due to storm damage than to a lack of suitable income. Several people at this forum have offered their time free to support the challenge, and it is not clear that the challenge is changed because of lack of money or time. I do think, however, that Randi is fed up with dealing with the kind of people who apply for the challenge, and that is important. If you want to look at it in economic terms, I think the challenge is losing some of its worth for Randi as he is considering his future.

 

[Reager]

I think you can only judge such evidence from the response of JREF's sponsors to a call to support the challenge.

Randi has hinted that the JREF is in financial trouble, but that seems more to be due to storm damage than to a lack of suitable income. Several people at this forum have offered their time free to support the challenge, and it is not clear that the challenge is changed because of lack of money or time. I do think, however, that Randi is fed up with dealing with the kind of people who apply for the challenge, and that is important. If you want to look at it in economic terms, I think the challenge is losing some of its worth for Randi as he is considering his future.

Just to clarify, I believe Randi's public comments regarding storm damage concerned his house. I have visited the Foundation headquarters recently, and the building is quite intact.

 

[The Atheist]

<<The Atheist quickly detaches the scanner so he can post in this thread.>>

Strangely, I'm with CFLarsen on this:

Let's see what the changes amount to first, shall we....?

Conjecture's fun, I guess.

I hope I can ask this simple question, however. Why bother issuing a notice on 29/9/06, saying:

Hello,

There are rumors floating about, so I will make this pre-announcement:

There are major changes coming to the challenge. The primary change is that the challenge will be pro-active rather than reactive.

What does this mean?

Stay tuned for the press release in the next week.

all that, and then not stick to the time frame, which by my calendar shows today to be 7/10/06. That would be 8 days, which, unless USA has robbed weeks as well as how to write the date, is over a week.

I see. You're worried by rumours, which certainly haven't reached these far shores, so issue a statement saying, ok, "We'll clear it all up in a week" then don't.

For christ's sake, someone either spill the beans or make a decision. Can't be too hard, guys. Look, I'm not trying to rattle anyone's cage here (believe it as you see fit) but this is all beginning to look a bit ordinary from a professional organisation.