How does Randi get away with it?

[Mojo]

Scoman posted: "As for scientists not being able to spot the tricks alledgedly used by psychics, that idea is nonsense. Are we to assume that magicians are the only people capable of spotting charaltans?"

Of course magicians (or conjurers) are not the only people capable of spotting charlatans, but they have particular expertise in spotting (and of course perpetrating) trickery. I recently watched a conjurer, close up, performing a series of tricks with three coins of that were, on the face of it, completely impossible. I have no idea how they were performed. I am sure, however, that a competent conjurer would have had no trouble working out how they were done.

I'm also interested that Scoman seem to think that skeptics are in some way opposed to, for want of a better term, "The Paranormal". It would be wonderful if homeopathy worked, if cancer could be cured by the use of some kind of "zapper", if we really were being visited by extraterrestrials, or we could contact the dead. Unfortunately, it's not a question of what we want to believe, but of what the evidence supports. If I want to cross a busy road, I stop and watch the traffic until I see a gap big enough for me to get across. I don't just rely on a belief that if I walk straight across without looking I'll be OK. Why use a different approach in other situations?

I would be delighted if someone were to win the $1,000,000 challenge as it would mean that something truly astounding had been demonstrated.

 

[amherst]

Actually, I'm not quite sure of what you were referring to here. Could you provide a more specific reference for those of us out of the loop?

He's referring to the "Starbaby" scandal:

George Hansen, pg. 150 of The Trickster and the Paranormal
Under pressure to defend his position, Kurtz was challenged to undertake a scientific study to confirm or dispute some astrological findings of Michel Gauquelin. He and a few colleagues accepted the challenge. Very early on, Dennis Rawlins, an astronomer and member of CSICOP's Executive Council, warned them of serious problems with their approach, and he later volunteered to assist with the calculations for the project. Data were collected and analyzed, and the results supported Gauquelin's findings that the position of Mars at a person's birth was related to sports ability. Rawlins understood that Kurtz's method was flawed and was unconvinced by the data, but he also said that the outcome, favorable to Gauquelin, should be frankly acknowledged. Kurtz was enraged by that advice, and he refused to heed it. Rawlins charged Kurtz with covering up the mistakes, and he repeatedly tried to bring the problems to the attention of other CSICOP members. Rawlins was rebuffed and eventually forced out of the Committee, and a number of other CSICOP members resigned because of the cover-up. Rawlins published a 32-page expose in the October 1981 issue of Fate magazine, and that same month CSICOP adopted a formal policy of not conducting research.

Here is a link to the expose:
http://www.discord.org/~lippard/rawlins-starbaby.txt

Rawlins
I used to believe it was simply a figment of the National Enquirer's weekly imagination that the Science Establishment would cover up evidence for the occult. But that was in the era B.C. -- Before the Committee. I refer to the "Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal" (CSICOP), of which I am a cofounder and on whose ruling Executive Council (generally called the Council) I served for some years.
I am still skeptical of the occult beliefs CSICOP was created to debunk. But I have changed my mind about the integrity of some of those who make a career of opposing occultism. I now believe that if a flying saucer landed in the backyard of a leading anti-UFO spokesman, he might hide the incident from the public (for the public's own good, of course). He might swiftly convince himself that the landing was a hoax, a delusion or an "unfortunate" interpretation of mundane phenomena that could be explained away with "further research."
The irony of all this particularly distresses me since both in print and before a national television audience I have stated that the conspiratorial mentality of believers in occultism presents a real political danger in a voting democracy. Now I find that the very group I helped found has partially justified this mentality.

And here's a link to an analysis of the controversy:
http://www.discord.org/~lippard/kammann.html


amherst

 

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by scoman
We will have to differ on the motive issue. In my opinion it is undesirable to have the body conducting the challenge facing a $1000000 loss if it is won. Perhaps it's just me who finds the idea crazy.

You aren't very insightful, are you? I'm sure Randi would test a person that wasn't interested in the prize, if they so wanted. It could be part of the legal contract, that the JREF money will not be awarded.

Also, there are other organizations that merely test paranormal claims and give no prize as well. CSICOP is one such organization that has yet to produce a successful paranormal claim.

 

[Operaider]

A million dollars is NOTHING!!!!

Think of all the money Randi would make if he discovered someone with ligitimate powers. Think of the headlines

World Renowned Sceptic Makes Remarkable Discovery

The million dollars he gives up would be returned instantly with offers of book deals, movie deals, television appearances, consulting jobs, etc, etc, ...

He could make BILLIONS

 

[Kimpatsu]

A million dollars is NOTHING!!!!

Think of all the money Randi would make if he discovered someone with ligitimate powers. Think of the headlines

World Renowned Sceptic Makes Remarkable Discovery

The million dollars he gives up would be returned instantly with offers of book deals, movie deals, television appearances, consulting jobs, etc, etc, ...

He could make BILLIONS

Not only that, he's be a shoe-in for a Nobel Prize.
Hmmm... I wonder if Randi needs an agent...

 

[Ladewig]

Sorry, am I to take it that you believe the money doesn't belong to anyone with an interest in it? I realise that the JREF is always seeking patrons and benefactors and 'brights' to purchase flying pig merchandise, I just assumed that a million dollars might have been of passing interest. I can't say that I am aware of any serious scientific research which offers its subjects incredible prizes for single demonstrations.

I can help here. Here's a $10,000,000 prize for space flight. In 1977, Paul MacCready won the Royal Astronomical Society's 50,000-pound prize for the first human-powered flight.


You do have a point with the "vested interest" concern. That is why the challenge is set up so that the results do not have to be judged by anyone. The test results are to be self-evident; no third-party judging is necessary. If that is the case, then the vested-interest issue becomes not relevant. That's why claims such as, "I can dowse for gold" have to be quantified into something along the lines of "I can find a one-ounce gold coin placed under one of 7 plastic cups no less than 6 out of every ten tries." Dowsers who are stymied by plastic can specify paper cups or leaded crystal or whatever. The point is that it is the dowser who gets to make a specific, measurable claim before any challenge negotiations take place.