Hmm... I should have said, "each protocol and accuracy conclusion must be negotiated individually."
Oh. Wait a sec. I did say that.
Ganzfeld million dollar challange?
- Thread starter andy2001
- Start date
- Status
Hmm... I should have said, "each protocol and accuracy conclusion must be negotiated individually."
Oh. Wait a sec. I did say that.
Rasmus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 6,372
Yes, it is "doing it to prove it to others", but at the end of the day, there would be no difference between that and what I do in my basement.
I think the difference here is between "odds" and "confidence" or "failure rate".
If I can do something then there is simply no need to concern myself with how small my chances would be of solving the take if I couldn't do that something.
Let us pick a slightly different example: A magician tries to tell you what card you selected from a normal deck of cards. (Yes, it's a trick and he's cheating but we'll ignore that for the sake of the example.)
What would be his chances of randomly getting the card right ten times in a row?
1.70801981 × 1016, or, in a word: Impossible.
But that wouldn't be a problem at all. We're talking about a magician who knows how the trick is performed. So his chances ought to be near enough 100%. Maybe he'll mess it up once in a while, so we'll give him 99%, or it's a really, really ,really bad magician and he'll only get it right half the time. The odds of getting only 5 cards right out of 10 would still be quite high. (My math fails me, I am getting a rough one in three million chance to get 5 cards right in a row, so any 5 out of 10 would be even better than that, I guess.)
Still, it wouldn't be a problem. An applicant wouldn't have to worry about his chances at all.
Now, The Ganzfield experiments are slightly different, it seems, because the abilities of seem to be only slightly above chance. But even then, there is no real problem. An applicant would only have to state what it is they can do! (And they usually can't, and that speaks volumes!)
We're being asked "what if you had to run very many experiments to show the effect?" and the reply tends to be "well, how many exactly are you thinking of?".
Now, somebody who actually knew that they had an abiulity would be able to answer that question. Even if it's only a small ability they have, because otherwise they couldn't possibly kno that they have any ability at all.
Yes, I know. And you know what, that's remarkably similar to the post of mine you just quoted that says "Of course, as always only the JREF can give an absolute answer.". It's almost as if everyone agrees that only the JREF can speak for the JREF.
As I do not speak for the JREF I cannot "concede" anything. In addition, it would be impossible for me to concede since I have never argued anything else. Rather an odd choice of words really, considering that it apparently has nothing whatsoever to do with my post.
And let's be honest, it really shouldn't be at all surprising so I don't see why you're making such a fuss about it. The JREF is interested, as far as the MDC is concerned, in applications. If you're not making an application, and apparently have no interest in ever doing so, they will have no reason to engage in hypothetical discussions of whether someone else who has no interest in applying could apply.
Personally, I would have expected a reply along the usual lines of "Apply or go away". However, as GzuzKryzt notes, your email demonstrated a clear failure to understand, or deliberate ignoring of, the rules. Include that along with no possibility of any application and I can see why the person dealing with the challenge email would just ignore it, especially if they had actually read the thread you refer to.
The very first MDC rule begins: "I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 [One Million Dollars/US] to any person who can demonstrate ANY [emphasis added] psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions." Then, at the end, there is a note stating: "IMPORTANT: Only claims that can be verified by evidence under proper observing conditions will be accepted. Also, JREF will NOT accept claims of the existence of deities or demons/angels, the validity of exorcism, religious claims, cloudbusting, causing the Sun to rise or the stars to move, etc. JREF will also NOT test claims that are likely to cause injury of any sort, such as those involving the withholding of air, food or water, or the use of illicit materials, drugs, or dangerous devices." See http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html
There is nothing in any of the MDC rules that would prevent a Ganzfeld challenge, and yet several people on this and other threads have stated that they do not believe such a challenge would be accepted. Andy2001 and I are simply requesting a clarification of the MDC rules in this regard.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
If i understand cuddle correctly, to make a study of ganzfield of otehr people at 35% as per such is not a valid claim, but an individual claim to be able to read Zener card 35% of the time, would be one ? That make a lot of sense. Now If i read this correctly, why can't rodney do it too.
I’m engaged in an argument about why nobody has won the Randi prize especially with regard to the Ganzfeld test. I’ve already established that if the odds where one hundred in a hundred million it would take a few years working every day to be 90% to 99% sure of getting this level of significance. And would most likely cost the claimant more than one million dollars But I would like to know exactly what the odds would be and if Randi would even except a claim taking a few years working every day under lab conditions if someone where to apply.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
It’s my opinion that esp is real and has been demonstrated under lab conditions using protocols including but not limited to Ganzfeld. If you are referring to me wanting to apply for the Randi prize this is not something I will be doing.
While the MDC rules seem to be tailored toward individual claims, I again note that the first rule states: "I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 [One Million Dollars/US] to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions."
So, it would seem to me that the conductor of a Ganzfeld experiment could be the person who "demonstrates" a paranormal ability, even if s/he is not claiming that ability. However, if the JREF has a different interpretation, it should clarify that this type of group experiment would not be acceptable, just as it has already clarified that claims of the existence of deities or demons/angels, the validity of exorcism, religious claims, cloudbusting, causing the Sun to rise or the stars to move, etc. are not acceptable.
We're going in circles here. The only way to get an official statement on Ganzfeld is for someone to apply for the challenge. Period. The speculation by myself and others is only that - speculation. Every claim is negotiated on an individual basis. The broad rules allow for a lot of leeway for both the JREF and the applicant. There is absolutely no need for the JREF to expend any effort to rule out a Ganzfeld challenge in advance. Even if they wanted to, it's not possible because "Ganzfeld challenge" is a broad term itself and meaningless without a specific claim and protocol behind it.
Suppose it were ruled out. What do you think would happen if someone actually applied with a Ganzfeld-like challenge? There would be a debate and negotiation as to whether it was really a Ganzfeld-like challenge or something slightly different. And where would we be? Exactly where we are right now - each challenge is addressed on its own merits.
As for the Ganzfeld studies, they had seriously flaws in execution and prove nothing. If you want to debate that, then we can start a thread in General Skepticism and Paranormal forum. Would you participate in such a thread?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
It wasn't an idle question. This is the MDC forum, not General Skepticism. If you or someone else intends to apply for the MDC, then we can discuss that here. If you want to discuss Ganzfeld in general, that should go to General Skepticism. My opinion, but I think the nature of Ganzfeld does not lend itself well to the challenge. It's been said before in other threads, the MDC is NOT a study. It doesn't care about theory. It isn't interested in anyone eking out a tiny statistical aberration over a period of years. Opinion again, but I don't think that's paranormal.
There are more concrete protocols to determine that esp is or isn't real. This Ganzfeld thing is a dead horse as far as the MDC goes.
If it's not listed as something they will not consider, then they will consider it. I could imagine variations on the Ganzfeld experiment that would be accepted. As it was conducted in the actual study, probably not. I believe JREF's objection to Ganzfeld would be grounded in how it was applied and measured, not on the examined ability itself.
So there you are, some forum members feel it would be out of the question, others feel it may be acceptable. That's about all the satisfaction you're likely to get out of a forum post.
None of which has anything to do with my post. You seem to be making a bit of a habit of that.
As I, and GzuzKryzt, clearly pointed out, your email asked that the rules be changed. You don't deny that, do you? As such, you clearly either failed to understand, or simply ignored, the clear statements that no changes to the rules will be made for any applicant.
In the end, it just boils down to this:
Some people think the JREF would accept Ganzfeld for the challenge, others don't. Only the JREF can say, and unless someone actually applies they are unlikely to do so.
The question now becomes - what do you hope to gain from posting here? You're not going to get any more than the above paragraph, and you already know that. You can keep posting the same things over and over and over and over as you have done so far, or you can just accept the answer and get on with your life.
But, my esteemed friend, I have never received an answer from the JREF. The fact that there is disagreement among forum members on whether a Ganzfeld protocol would be an acceptable challenge shows that my question (and andy2001's) is legitimate, and yet the JREF can't be bothered to respond.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Apply for the MDC and you'll have your answer. If you aren't applying for the MDC, there isn't much point to the hypothetical question.
I saw an ad on Craigslist for a used bass guitar. It said "make me an offer." So I asked the guy if he would take $40 cash, a share of Microsoft stock, and a mountain bike. I told him I was not actually making an offer on the bass. I just wanted to know if he would, hypothetically, accept such an offer.
Last edited:
We showed you several ways how to contact JREF. It seems you have tried one once. Have you tried others?
Do you understand that wanting a rule to be changed demonstrates a firm - and very likely deliberate - misunderstanding of the Challenge Rules, and hence provokes an inquiry to be ignored on the grounds that it seems a waste of time?
Rasmus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 6,372
No, it is not a legitimate question.
It might be interesting. Frankly, I would like to know myself.
But it is not legitimate in the sense that it deserves an answer or should be answered: As a hypothetical question, it cannot be answered with any kind of authority* behind it and it cannot be answered without considerable effort.
* Well, yes, it's the JREF and they could just make up an answer. But as it is, the question is far too vague to allow a simple yes or no answer. Any actual application (assuming it's a serious one) would have a lot more detail to it that would influence whether the JREF would accept that particular application.
So, to answer this question, the JREF would have to make the effort of anticipating any likely scenario a potential applicant might come up with and decide if they would accept their hypothetical application.
In the end, yes, it is an interesting question, but none that in any way whatsoever deserves an answer.
Once again, you quote my post but fail to actually respond in any relevant way. For example, what exactly is the word "But" doing at the start there? Try reading what I actually wrote:
"Some people think the JREF would accept Ganzfeld for the challenge, others don't. Only the JREF can say, and unless someone actually applies they are unlikely to do so."
I just explained exactly why the JREF are unlikely to respond, and you come back and say that the JREF are didn't respond. As I said, you are certainly free to repeat these same things over and over again, but I really can't work out what you hope to achieve from it.
I'll put this as simply as I can. The JREF are very unlikely to respond to hypothetical questions. You are asking them a hypothetical question. Therefore, they are unlikely to respond to you.
"I asked the JREF a question and they didn't respond."
"The JREF are unlikely to respond to that question."
"But the JREF didn't respond when I asked them."
"Yes, that's what we just said."
"But people here disagree about what the answer might be."
"Yes. And?"
"The JREF didn't answer when I asked them."
"We know, that's because they're not going to answer hypothetical questions."
"How about if I ask them a hypothetical question?"
"That would be pointless because they won't respond."
"But I already asked them and they didn't respond."
"Are you listening to a word I say?"
"I don't know, maybe I'll ask the JREF."
"Er, what?"
"They didn't respond you know."
"Um. Maybe?"
"I asked the JREF a question a while ago and they didn't respond."
"Are we still talking about the same question?"
"Yes, the one they didn't respond to."
"You mean the one that no-one thinks they're likely to respond to?"
"Yes, they didn't respond to it."
"My cat's breath smells of cat food."
"Doesn't everyone else think it's terrible that the JREF didn't respond to this question that no-one thinks they'll respond to?"
...
Last edited:
So I guess that means the Challenge Rules are set in stone forever and can never be changed. (Except, of course, when the JREF decides to drastically change them, as it has done twice in recent years -- first by introducing out of the blue a "media presence" requirement; and second, by announcing that the Challenge will no longer exist after March 6, 2010.)
- Status