• 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

T'ai Chi said:
The changes amount to more moving away from Science.
Click to expand...
It has never been claimed that the MDC is science. It is a PR vehicle that exposes the inability of woo-woos to live up their claims. The tests themselves are conducted using scientific methods, and this has not been changed. Now, as before, there is no doubt that scientists will take a great interest in examining a claim that has won the MDC, and accordingly the benefit for science is the same as before.
 
The Atheist said:
Plus, asking to become involved in a judicial system which has both found OJ Simpson not guilty of killing his ex and her bloke, and also convicted him of murdering them and ordered him to pay damages, seems like an exercise in futility.
Click to expand...
Point taken, but I think a quote from John Paul Jones belongs here:

"He who will not risk, cannot win."

Mr Randi did not say he was assured of winning each case against fraudulent claims that had done damage to people, heck no attorney can assure that. What he has indicated is that he will enter the arena, fight the gladiatorial contest, and stand bloody and scarred, seeking the Emperor's (jury's) thumbs down signal, when he (the foundation) can.

That's a bit more energetic than sitting in the stands, eating the bread, drinking the wine, and cheering.
A few comments on the statement of policy
REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS

As of April 1, 2007, we will require two major qualifications of all those who will be eligible.
Click to expand...
The choice of April 1st, April Fool's Day, is brilliant. :D
First, any applicant will be required to have a media profile. Note: something more authoritative than an offhand reference during a local TV newscast or a paragraph in a local shopper handout, will be required. The second requirement will be that the applicant must provide an endorsement of an academic nature. That means some sort of validation from an appropriately-qualified academic. This does not include the local chiropractor or Sunday-school teacher.
Click to expand...
I think this is a sound policy. In medicine, this is called triage.
We may be prepared to possibly waive the requirement for a preliminary test as soon as these two qualifications have been validated. In such a case we will be prepared to move right into the second phase: the formal test.
Click to expand...
Danger, Will Robinson, be very careful of collusion, with this much money at stake. I trust the JREF, being filled with skeptics, will keep a weather eye to collusion between endorsers and claimants.

In a related matter to activism in court, or activism via litigation, is it the intention of the Foundation to sue religious organizations in court, along the lines of the Dawkins "religious rearing of children is child abuse" principles?

I presume not, but I figure it is worth asking.

One last thought: with the more assertive stance, expect site hacking and cyber attacks on JREF electronic assets.

I was an active member of a gaming forum a few years ago, and it got hit with two DOS attacks . . . over games. Over someone's livelihood (however strange) I'd expect a more robust response.

DR
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
In a related matter to activism in court, or activism via litigation, is it the intention of the Foundation to sue religious organizations in court, along the lines of the Dawkins "religious rearing of children is child abuse" principles?
Click to expand...

I would assume not. The challenge is meant as a PR thingy to raise awareness of general wooness and fraud, as well as to promote critical thinking. Attacking well established religions would only serve to alienate the majority of the world and would cause Randi to be seen as a rabidly anti-religion crackpot, rather than someone who is actually trying to help people.
 
Darth Rotor said:
...snip...

In a related matter to activism in court, or activism via litigation, is it the intention of the Foundation to sue religious organizations in court, along the lines of the Dawkins "religious rearing of children is child abuse" principles?

I presume not, but I figure it is worth asking.



...snip...
Click to expand...

Since the JREF is not an atheist organisation and is not about promoting atheism wouldn't that be a change to the whole Foundation rather then just the Challenge?
 
Darat said:
Since the JREF is not an atheist organisation and is not about promoting atheism wouldn't that be a change to the whole Foundation rather then just the Challenge?
Click to expand...
This language is what caused me to ask the question, and I feel the fool for not having pasted it into the post/reply to Atheist.

Sloppy me. :(

MEDIA RELATIONS

We will henceforth be pursuing the media from a different angle, pointing out to them that we have items of general public interest and importance to offer them. We will emphasize that education should include equipping students to use critical thinking. We will make the media aware that we are also prepared to go after religious claims – if and when they can be actually examined. And, religious claims will be treated exactly as any other paranormal claims
Click to expand...
.
That's a fairly broad policy statement, and I am not sure if it is aimed at Faith Healers primarily, or any and all religious teaching of any sort, with emphasis on the "students critical thinking piece." Perhaps I read too much into this, but that is why I ask the question.

For example, what are the Foundation's position on the various Pakistani Madrasas, particularly those in the Northwest, and how do you intend to get the mesage about critical thinking to them?

Are they too subject of your policy's scope? Too poor to sue? (Yes, that was snarky.)

I realize I may be reaching toward a version of reducto absurdum. The Foundation has finite resources, and time, and will doubtless pick its fights. A sound policy would be to eat the elephant one bite at a time, but what does the religious elephant look like for purposes of this policy?


ETA: changed hasn't finite to has finite. Double negative PWN'd me.

DR
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
This language is what caused me to ask the question, and I feel the fool for not having pasted it into the post/reply to Atheist.

Sloppy me. :(

.
That's a fairly broad policy statement, and I am not sure if it is aimed at Faith Healers primarily, or any and all religious teaching of any sort, with emphasis on the "students critical thinking piece." Perhaps I read too much into this, but that is why I ask the question.

For example, what are the Foundation's position on the various Pakistani Madrasas, particularly those in the Northwest, and how do you intend to get the mesage about critical thinking to them?

Are they too subject of your policy's scope? Too poor to sue? (Yes, that was snarky.)

I realize I may be reaching toward a version of reducto absurdum. The Foundation hasn't finite resources, nor time, and will doubtless pick its fights. A sound policy would be to eat the elephant one bite at a time, but what does the religious elephant look like for purposes of this policy?

DR
Click to expand...

Surely the same as it always has done?
 
Darat said:
Surely the same as it always has done?
Click to expand...
How is that an answer? The change in stance has a ripple effect on a variety of policy proclamations, so the message being sent is that "same as it ever was" is NOT what the future holds.

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
How is that an answer? The change in stance has a ripple effect on a variety of policy proclamations, so the message being sent is that "same as it ever was" is NOT what the future holds.

DR
Click to expand...

It's an answer because there is nothing in the announcement that indicates that the JREF's stance toward religion has changed.
 
Darth Rotor said:
That's a fairly broad policy statement, and I am not sure if it is aimed at Faith Healers primarily, or any and all religious teaching of any sort, with emphasis on the "students critical thinking piece." Perhaps I read too much into this, but that is why I ask the question.
Click to expand...

It seems more likely that this is aimed at various "miracles" such as faith healing, bleeding statues and the like, rather than religion in general. Notice that the statement didn't say "religion", it said "religious claims". There is a world of difference between attacking someone's beliefs and attacking claims that a rock is bleeding, the former would only drive people away but the latter can help to educate them.
 
Cuddles said:
It seems more likely that this is aimed at various "miracles" such as faith healing, bleeding statues and the like, rather than religion in general. Notice that the statement didn't say "religion", it said "religious claims". There is a world of difference between attacking someone's beliefs and attacking claims that a rock is bleeding, the former would only drive people away but the latter can help to educate them.
Click to expand...

I'd also assume this wouldn't be targeted at the "Jesus in a tree" and "Mary in a Window" sort of stuff, because there's nothing to target. It's impossible to refute the fact that the tree bears a striking resemblance to Jesus... to someone.

Active, ongoing miracles are at least possible to investigate.
 
Cuddles said:
It seems more likely that this is aimed at various "miracles" such as faith healing, bleeding statues and the like, rather than religion in general. Notice that the statement didn't say "religion", it said "religious claims". There is a world of difference between attacking someone's beliefs and attacking claims that a rock is bleeding, the former would only drive people away but the latter can help to educate them.
Click to expand...
That makes sense, thanks Cuddles. I suppose Jesus on the piece of French Toast is below the radar on this one. :D

DR
 
steenkh said:
It has never been claimed that the MDC is science.
Click to expand...

Ahem:

Supporting and conducting research into paranormal claims through well-designed experiments utilizing "the scientific method" and by publishing the findings in the JREF official newsletter, Swift, and other periodicals. Also providing reliable information on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims by maintaining a comprehensive library of books, videos, journals, and archival resources open to the public.

Assisting those who are being attacked as a result of their investigations and criticism of people who make paranormal claims, by maintaining a legal defense fund available to assist these individuals.
To raise public awareness of these issues, the Foundation offers a $1,000,000 prize to any person or persons who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability of any kind under mutually agreed upon scientific conditions. This prize money is held in a special account which cannot be accessed for any purpose other than the awarding of the prize.
Click to expand...
 
With the announced changes, the utilization of "the scientific method" concerning claims will most likely still be in effect.

Do you see that differently, T'ai Chi?
 
Supporting and conducting research into paranormal claims through well-designed experiments utilizing "the scientific method" and by publishing the findings in the JREF official newsletter, Swift, and other periodicals. Also providing reliable information on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims by maintaining a comprehensive library of books, videos, journals, and archival resources open to the public.

Assisting those who are being attacked as a result of their investigations and criticism of people who make paranormal claims, by maintaining a legal defense fund available to assist these individuals.
To raise public awareness of these issues, the Foundation offers a $1,000,000 prize to any person or persons who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability of any kind under mutually agreed upon scientific conditions. This prize money is held in a special account which cannot be accessed for any purpose other than the awarding of the prize.
Click to expand...


Hmmm...

If some event or ability can be measured, repeated, observed and verified, it is, by definition, scientific.
 
Please folks, let's not get into a ridiculous argument over whether "doing science" means anyone or anything employing the scientific method at any time vs. whether "doing science" is restricted to "what scientists do" or what-have-you. Common sense says that, while the MDC protocols utilize *some aspects* of the scientific method, the JREF as an organization and the MDC has never been about scientific research or similar activities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom