• 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:
Of course, the specifics have yet to be released, but I see no reason why the new Challenge must be limited to "big shots" operating in the US. Why couldn't the JREF challenge anyone, anywhere in the world?
Click to expand...

I was always under the impression that the JREF was mostly focused on the US. (I may well be mistaken, mind you ...)

Using the challenge as it was in arguments was simple though: "Really? Well, if that is so go to the JREF and pick up a quick million bucks, then!"

Whereas "there is this guy, who said he would give a million dollars to Silvia Brown if she could prove her skills." is going to be met with blanks stares since nobody here knows her. Also, it doesn't matter if she specifically fails the test. What matters so far was that absolutely every reiki-healer, homoeopath, dowser, etc. could have claimed the money and absolutely nobody ever did.

Then, I am really not sure how many famous psychics, etc. exist anywhere in the world. Maybe it's just ignorance being her usual bliss, but I have never heard of any famous German dowser or psychic. (I have never heard of Sylvia Brown anywhere besides here, either...)

I have heard of Uri Geller, but that's pretty much it.
 
steenkh said:
Because the Challenge is a device for James Randi to get media attention, and he cannot be everywhere at once?
Click to expand...

I don't know what to say. I'm sorry the changes may throw a kink in your debating tactics. Truly. The JREF is doing what it deems is in the best interest of the Foundation, and that may not jive with your preferences. Nothing wrong with that. I suggest starting your own Challenge. That way, you can spend all of your time and energy dealing with the applicants, and use its existence to win all the arguments you want!
 
Rasmus said:
...
I have heard of Uri Geller, but that's pretty much it.
Click to expand...
There are few really internationally known überwoos. Unless you count religious people like Muhammed or the pope. If you read the Swift every week, you must have noticed that he mentions all of the above. In addition to all kinds of more local or regional stuff from all over the world. Of course, living in Florida, he focuses on the USA.

His latest commentary has stories from Canada, USA (several), Vatican, India, UK, Germany, Italy, Japan (video)... Readers writing in from Australia and Norway... OK, so there was nothing about Muhammed, South America or Africa, but they have all been mentioned previously.

The person who has gotten the most attention from Randi is an Israeli. I have even met Randi here in Trondheim. Twice..

As Americans go, he is remarkably international. ;)
 
Ririon said:
There are few really internationally known überwoos. Unless you count religious people like Muhammed or the pope.
Click to expand...

Yeah ... and then, the fortmer is dead and the latter doesn't make any claims that could easily be tested....

If you read the Swift every week, you must have noticed that he mentions all of the above. In addition to all kinds of more local or regional stuff from all over the world. Of course, living in Florida, he focuses on the USA.
Click to expand...

I don't, but I guess I should. Then again, it wouldn't change my argument since I would only know about them because I went out looking for them. For the record: I wasn't blaming the JREF for being centered somewhat locally.

His latest commentary has stories from Canada, USA (several), Vatican, India, UK, Germany, Italy, Japan (video)... Readers writing in from Australia and Norway... OK, so there was nothing about Muhammed, South America or Africa, but they have all been mentioned previously.
Click to expand...

I am sure most places have their fair share of woos. But in my day-to-day live, I don't notice anyone "big". We have tarot readings on TV and fortune tellers at the amusement parks. Every now and then, we have someone non-famous making a big claim - but they usually disappear very quickly.

The person who has gotten the most attention from Randi is an Israeli. I have even met Randi here in Trondheim. Twice..
Click to expand...

Would that be Geller?

Ah, nice to know, if I ever see him around these parts I'll have to buy him a cup of coffee or something.

As Americans go, he is remarkably international. ;)
Click to expand...

Ah, no doubt there.

But being international is one thing, and being internationally known another. But I shall just look forward to what will actually be decided - I am certain they will have thought of these things at least as much as we are, anyway.
 
Rasmus said:
...
But being international is one thing, and being internationally known another. But I shall just look forward to what will actually be decided - I am certain they will have thought of these things at least as much as we are, anyway.
Click to expand...
So you will be reading the commentary this Friday, then? (I feel slightly guilty. Like offering a social smoker a cigarette or introducing a slightly nerdy and obsessive person to World of Warcraft...:) )
 
I admire your change of stance, but don't envy the work involved. I have long read the challenge log on this forum and have been struck by the kind of nonsense you have to put up with. It must be horrible to act as a social worker to people that are often at the least sad, at the worst mentally ill. Shifting the onus to potential applicants makes a lot of sense, it also removes the potential woo-woo criticism of requiring affidavits from people the woo-woo crowd will always consider establishment.

Obviously James Randi has a lot of experience dealing with the media, but the media is the one aspect of this that worries me. Yesterday here in the UK we had a story about an academic called Dr Oliver Curry who announced that mankind will split into two species. A split along the lines of the beautiful people and the ugly dwarves. The story was that silly, and the 'research' was commissioned by a cable TV channel that specialises in breasts and light entertainment. Not that there is specifically anything wrong with breasts and light entertainment. A Google News search for Dr Oliver Curry turns up an effluent tank load of hits, possibly because it was syndicated. It made national news here.

I'm not an academic, but I'm pretty wary of anything that presents an argument that hasn't being argued with in the form of peer review, or at the least published in the form of a paper, rather than a press release. Where this specifically links to the JREF is the inherent attraction of the media to anything, no matter how stupid, no matter how easy to dispute, provided they think there's a buck in it. I hope challenging potential challengers is done in such a way that the media can make money from it. I would suggest slapping Uri Geller with a orange dot painted comedy fish, but it wouldn't help disprove his powers, and it'd be yet another time his smug face is on TV. He will probably say his clairvoyant powers were blocked by negative energy.
 
Last edited:
Reager said:
Please understand the purpose of the Challenge is not to provide skeptics a way to win arguments with idiots. It is a publicity device for James Randi and the JREF. If it's not doing that job well then the Challenge is a failure.
Click to expand...
As super powers don't exist, the purpose of the challenge is very much a device for calling the bluff of all the woo-woos out there who genuinely believe their own delusions.
 
Ririon said:
So you will be reading the commentary this Friday, then? (I feel slightly guilty. Like offering a social smoker a cigarette or introducing a slightly nerdy and obsessive person to World of Warcraft...:) )
Click to expand...

Ah, I don't smoke and I've never played one of them big online games, either. So I suppose you can forgive us boht for my new little vice.

No promises though, since I am about 10 times as busy as I'd like to be ....
 
Reager said:
I don't know what to say. I'm sorry the changes may throw a kink in your debating tactics. Truly. The JREF is doing what it deems is in the best interest of the Foundation, and that may not jive with your preferences. Nothing wrong with that. I suggest starting your own Challenge. That way, you can spend all of your time and energy dealing with the applicants, and use its existence to win all the arguments you want!
Click to expand...
I never said that the JREF cannot do whatever it deems best. The Challenge belong to Randi and the JREF, and he can do whatever he wants. I have already stated that there can be many valid reasons for Randi to change the Challenge, and probably the most important is that Randi might want to spend his life with issues that are more personally challenging than dealing with the kind of people that are attracted to the Challenge.

But this does not change the fact that skeptics are losing a major weapon with this decision, and I have a right to bemoan it. Nobody are going to donate a million dollars to me, so I cannot start my own Challenge, and can in no way quit my job and devote all my time to skepticism. I also doubt that you will find any other Challenge with the strength and reputation of the JREF Challenge, which, by the way, clearly was an international Challenge. This could change, but it will take a long time.

Multi-million-dollar Challenges like the one proposed by the Atheist, have not been seen to work yet, and his will definitely never work as long as he wants to waive the neutrality that is essential to this kind of Challenge.
 
steenkh said:
Multi-million-dollar Challenges like the one proposed by the Atheist, have not been seen to work yet, and his will definitely never work as long as he wants to waive the neutrality that is essential to this kind of Challenge.
Click to expand...
How do you get to that conclusion about multi-million dollar challenges considering that none have ever existed?
 
steenkh said:
I may have misunderstood you, but I had got the impression that you had it ready for business.
Click to expand...
Oh boy, you obviously didn't read much of the thread! :D

It was possibly the least popular idea since the proposal to add bromide to the public water supplies!
 
I'm presuming all questions will be answered in today's commentary as the one from the 13th Oct stated that "Next week" everything would be cleared up.
 
It seems to me that anyone who is in the habit of personally directing woos to the challenge as a debating tactic are not going to be particulary affected. We all still have the option of making our own challenge, in the sense of saying, "if you can prove your claim to me, I'll give you x dollars". Sure, most of us can't credibly put up a million dollars, but I doubt that the actual figure would really make much difference in the context of a personal debate. The point is that anyone challenged in this way is forced to either accept the challenge and fail, or refuse it and try to explain why. That is still a useful tactic, regardless of whether Randi is involved or not.
 
Hmmm .... no

Plasmadog said:
The point is that anyone challenged in this way is forced to either accept the challenge and fail, or refuse it and try to explain why.
Click to expand...

Try actually doing that and let us know what happens. I'm not kidding. Because just saying something like that doesn't make it true. (oh no, how woo)

You might be surprised at the reactions you get from people when you offer them money. Or even worse, publicity AND money.

heh

The real stumbling point was the phrase, "is forced to". I don't like to correct people, but offering a bet to somebody doesn't force them to do anything. Especially when you can't say what the bet is actually about. By that, I mean what will be a result that will win the bet.
 
Last edited:
Plasmadog said:
It seems to me that anyone who is in the habit of personally directing woos to the challenge as a debating tactic are not going to be particulary affected. We all still have the option of making our own challenge, in the sense of saying, "if you can prove your claim to me, I'll give you x dollars". Sure, most of us can't credibly put up a million dollars, but I doubt that the actual figure would really make much difference in the context of a personal debate. The point is that anyone challenged in this way is forced to either accept the challenge and fail, or refuse it and try to explain why. That is still a useful tactic, regardless of whether Randi is involved or not.
Click to expand...
But we would still then need to design a suitable protocol if accepted.
The majority of woos who back down in my presence, however, do so because, they say, they won't be made to "jump through hoops". Not even for $1 million? Then the paltry $1,000 I'm offering is certainly not enough. It's like consultants, who won't even get out of bed unless it's for a minimum of $XXXX per day. Anything less is such a small sum, it falls below their radar. There's still something of a touchstone quality about the figure one million; that's why the game's called "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?", and not, "Who Wants $10 Thousand?"
Anyway, I guess we find out the answer in about 90 minutes...
 
robinson said:
The real stumbling point was the phrase, "is forced to". I don't like to correct people, but offering a bet to somebody doesn't force them to do anything.
Click to expand...

Well, yes it does. There are exactly two options available to someone who is offered a bet: take the bet, or don't take the bet. By offering the bet, you force them to make the choice. You may then use that choice to further your argument with them.

And if someone says that the money on offer is not enough, that is not a reasonable excuse. Call them on it. Whatever excuse is offered, use it against them. That's the whole point of the challenge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom