It won't be as useful as it could be with a representative sample. There are all kinds of things that could skew the results.
Of course I am screwing with the data as well. Because people who say huh? what are you talking about? I tend to TELL them about it. So it is hardly a scientific poll, because I am changing things.
(edit)
Ha! You slipped in. Yes, I am screwing with things. Everytime I tell someone I change the numbers. So what? Its educational either way.
(edit)
Ha! You slipped in. Yes, I am screwing with things. Everytime I tell someone I change the numbers. So what? Its educational either way.
Last edited:
But this rubbish - and you immediateley demonstrate it yourself by using Woods as an example. I you look at bell curve demonstrations of the greatest sportsman of all time, you will see one name who transcends everyone else: Don Bradman, the Australian cricketer. His performances would be remarkable beyond the comprehension of most sportsmen. His average at international level is 99.94 - a figure which is a full 35.00 ahead of the next competitor.
The point is that there are occasionally freakishly successful competitors in sport. These are competing, however, against fellow humans. They are doing nothing more than operating at the top end of human ability within that field. With cricketers, Bradman played against human bowling; Tiger Woods competes against human opponents; ditto Ali; ditto Babe Ruth.
None of them have ever claimed that their abilities are derived from anything other than practice, ability, a good eye, and reflexes. (OK, some may thank god etc for their abilities, some may have claimed inspiration etc, but none have ever put that to the test).
In sport, as with almost all human endeavours, you are competing against fellow humans. Any performance against them defeats human abilities; it in no way defies physical laws or demands a supernatural (or even inexplicable) rationale.
Of all things to claim "I'm better than everyone else at it" is the one which most demands judgment in physical terms and in the constraints of the laws of physics - simply because the comparison is specifically within a human competitive context. If someone has supreme abilities it should actually be a surprise if they don't win frequently. You tend to see this in very technical disciplines and sports. Squash has a long record of seeing champions who are pretty much unbeatable while they are at their peak. Likewise, you see athletes such as Ed Moses, who won enough successive races in top competition to destroy a 64/64 challenge.
What *would*, perhaps, qualify for the challenge would be a claim such as "I can hit a baseball 900 yards", or, "I can run 100 metres in 5 seconds", or "I can bowl a cricket ball at 250 mph". I'm sure you know the sort of thing: these are the things which physics tell us to be impossible.
Beating all the competition on a regular basis isn't, though.
Except of course, Randi frequently isn't within 1000 miles of the test. (As no one has ever got past a pre-lim)
Rasmus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 6,372
No, but it's a fair example.
Only problem is that the objection behind the example doesn't hold up: You don't have to demonstrate that you are particularly good dowser, fortune teller or mind reader.
Even if you were an incredibly bad dowser all you'd have to be is a "dowser", i.e. beat random chance.
If, in a world without golf, I claimed to be a golfer all I would have to do is finish one hole within the normal rules of golfing. No need to get out so many hits under par, let alone beat a (then fictional) Tiger Woods.
Challengers would be much worse of than they are now, if we did indeed test their ability like any extraordinary, but non-paranormal ability. Then, challengers would have to be really good at what they are doing, rather than be able to just do it.
Or maybe I just don't understand the objection? AFAIK if anyone claims a small ability, the protocols will reflect that. Of course, if someone claims that they are the best golfer in the universe, they should have no objections if I demanded that they'd beat Tiger Woods in no less than three games out of five.
Yup. That's how good he is.
Amazing, even.
But that doesn't fit the axiom of the large pool of genuine psychics...
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,686
Well, some people are always going to be stubborn illogical unreasonable knuckleheads, and for those people it doesn't matter what changes are made to the challenge. I was addressing steenkh's concerns that changing the challenge so that it isn't open to everyone will weaken its effectiveness. I think that with the change it can still be almost as effective as it was.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,394
Go ahead and let us in on it. I only know of one other Kiwi who isn't a member here who has ever heard of the challenge, but we're a long way from the action.
My own guess is that if over 5% know about the challenge (before you told them!
), I'd be surprised. Come on, man, 'fess up!logical muse
LogMu
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,050
P1: Obviously, there are real psychics, spoon benders, mediums, etc.
P2: None (of those who have applied) have won the challenge.
C: Therefore, the challenge must be either be rigged or otherwise incapable of correctly testing the applicant.
Formally, this is a valid, if somewhat awkward, argument, however, it is not sound.
Due to its validity it has high appeal. I've heard people make the claim that "Randi cheats coz nobody's won it and you'd think with all the psychics that someone musta by now".
I like the challenge as it is, because I often encounter woo-woos who claim marvellous powers in the martial arts, and here's $1 million as a superb weapon against them.
BTW, DA, one woo-woo I know here claims to have healed cancer using just essential oils and "psychic massage" (sic), but won't apply for the $1 million because she "won't be made to jump through hoops". Not even for a cool million dollars...
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,686
Begs the question. The Challenge is to prove that P1 is True. By simply stating that it is True begs the question.
It should be fairly easy to explain to most reasonable people, especially if you relate it to a skeptical experince that the believer had where they thought someone was telling them something they thought was false.
If I challenge anyone to throw a baseball 25 miles, and no one ever win, does that mean A) I cheated or B) no one can throw a baseball that far. If I cheated, what is there to prove that?
Of course then, this opens up discussions of what evidence there is that Randi has cheated--pointing out that Randi doesn't administer the tests. And why are there so many psychics if they aren't real? Want to hear about fraud, phonies, hot reading, cold reading, and so on? Go to JREF's website and check it out!
Of course the changes to the challenge don't change how these types of discussions would go anyway.
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
There are simple ways to show that there is no evidence for paranormal abilities. To work out what these are you must ask 'what would life be like if such abilities are common? For example if 0.01% of the population could solve crime.' Then you would sometimes see job ads asking for such people to be employed by the police force. Where are these ads?
You can also ask the reverse 'what would life be like if there were no such abilities but some people could fake it?' Answer - As it is now. If nothing else it would generate a lot of debate.
You can also ask the reverse 'what would life be like if there were no such abilities but some people could fake it?' Answer - As it is now. If nothing else it would generate a lot of debate.
But of COURSE there are genuine psychics; they must be legit; they're on TV!
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,686
Bugs Bunny: What's up, doc?
Dr. Spock: Live long and prosper.
Curly: Wooooooooo wooo wooo woo woo woo!
I hope JREF announces something soon so that we can actually talk about Changes To The Challenge.
Kimpatsu, I fully agree with your point that a potent weapon will be lost with the JREF no longer accepting applications from laypersons.
DevilsAdvocate, you hit dead centre in post #217. The argument does indeed not change much, it will take just a little more work to argue it.
Basically, it is the old ploy used by advertising buffs (and anyone alse wanting to push his product): Repeat³.
As long as we have the facts on our side, we can't lose in the long run. We may have to settle for a draw, a tie, a dead race in the short term. Even face losses: More Geller TV time, more Browne Fudge, etc.
Comes with the territory.
Persistent patient power prevails.
DevilsAdvocate, you hit dead centre in post #217. The argument does indeed not change much, it will take just a little more work to argue it.
Basically, it is the old ploy used by advertising buffs (and anyone alse wanting to push his product): Repeat³.
As long as we have the facts on our side, we can't lose in the long run. We may have to settle for a draw, a tie, a dead race in the short term. Even face losses: More Geller TV time, more Browne Fudge, etc.
Comes with the territory.
Persistent patient power prevails.
logical muse
LogMu
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,050
You'd think so, wouldn't you?
You know the challenge is to prove P1. I know the challenge is to prove P1, or at least that one person can do something paranormally.
A lot of people out there, though, take it as read. I have had conversations with people who are convinced the challenge is a scam because obviously someone would have won it by now.
This really is a pretty hard one to get over, sometimes.
Those [rule-8] heads who put this [rule-8] on TV need to be held to account for the psychological damage they do.
I strongly believe that many many of the current US woos would not be so, if they recieved a strong and constistent message that the crap they believe in is well.... crap. Rather that the message they currently get, which is that it is real.