I have applied for the challenge

Peter Moris,

You are too obssessd with the JREF challenge. Why not take your claim to other skeptic organizations. I hear they pay very well there too.
I'm sure other members here can give you the names of those organizations.

Regards,
Yair
 
Hmm, perhaps Richard Dawkins is onto something with his 'Religion is a misfiring of the falling-in-love response' hypothesis. Peter seems to be displaying such an irrational response wrt his non-dowsing claim. :boggled:
 
Peter and his obsession remind me of a passage from Snow Crash, by Neal Stephenson. Without giving too much away, Stephenson is describing a rather, um, thorough corporate reaction to customers who lie about the time in a "your pizza in 30 minutes or it's free" situation:
...Wired the early Deliverators to record, then analyze, the debating tactics, the voice-stress histograms, the distrinctive grammatical structures employed by white middle-class Type A Burbclave occupants who against all logic had decided that this was the place to take their personal Custerian stand against all that was stale and deadening in their lives: they were going to lie, or delude themselves, about the time of their phone call and get themselves a free pizza; no, they deserved a free pizza along with their life, liberty, and pursuit of whatever, it was f***ing inalienable.
Click to expand...

For anyone who doesn't want to have to read through all of the drek, here's a summary of the arguments:

Peter Morris: James Randi said "find me a dry spot"
Forum: In context, it's clear that he was a) being ironic and/or sarcastic and b) talking to dowsers about dowsing. His challenge -- to find a dry spot -- was to find a dry spot using dowsing techniques.
Peter Morris: But James Randi said "find me a dry spot"
Editorial note: this is the substance of Peter Morris' dialogue on this part. He does not actually reply to the Forum other than to say, "no, James Randi said 'find me a dry spot.'"

Next argument:
Peter Morris: James Randi says that a claim doesn't have to be paranormal to qualify for the Challenge.
Forum: Again, in context, it's quite clear that Randi is talking about people who insist that their claims are not paranormal, but the claims really are paranormal despite what they say. Your favorite example, the "Wine Clip", is the perfect example of a paranormal item claimed by its creators to operate in accordance with known scientific principles. The fact that they say this does not make it so.
Editorial comment: So it is highly ironic that Peter Morris comes here and says "saying it does not make it so," since that is something the members have been saying to him continuously since he started posting here.
Peter Morris: But James Randi says that a claim doesn't have to be paranormal to qualify for the Challenge.

And so forth.
 
Last edited:
Good summary, Jackalgirl.

If anyone is looking for a real-life example of absurdity, this thread and Peter Morris' claim should do it. It's almost pythonian.



Only in the JREF Forum. ;)
 
Oh, and another thing. Peter Morris claims that he has the right to demand independent arbitration as to whether the rejection of his claim was...what, fair? lawful? based on a post in one of Randi's issues of Swift.

As usual, Peter Morris takes things out of context. Here is the full quote from that issue:

There's a new version of the JREF Million-Dollar Challenge now up on this web site. I made small but important changes and additions, some of which were prompted by very wide — unfounded — criticism of the challenge. Here's a selection of some points that irked a chap who just doesn't want the challenge to exist, accompanied by my answers....

"Since claims vary greatly in character and scope, specific rules must be formulated for each applicant."
Jackalgirl notes: this wording is still present on the Challenge Application. This means, quite reasonably, that the rules for any particular attempt cannot be finalized until a claimant steps forward and announces what he or she is going to do — bend spoons, read minds or walk on fire. But it also means that Randi will formulate the rules for each individual attempt at his challenge on an ad hoc basis. And, of course, the claimant has to agree to these ad hoc rules. If he or she does not agree, the contest will not take place at all.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. I will not, and do not, "formulate" any rules without the cooperation and participation of the applicant. If there's any objection, we call in a person we both agree should be properly qualified to decide about the rules. It's always been this way, despite the statements — such as this one — made to the contrary.
Click to expand...

Randi is not talking about the rules that govern the nature of the Challenge here -- i.e., the rule that the Challenge has to be about paranormal claims is not something that is subject to change or discussion. Nor is he saying that the JREF's acceptance or rejection of an applicant on the basis of either a) the paranormality or b) the testability of a claim is something that can be independently arbitrated.

What he means to say (and this is my "reasonable person" interpretation) is that the actual specifics of any given Challenge depends on the nature of what the person is claiming. The details, in other words, of what is to be demonstrated, how it is to be demonstrated, and what the criteria of both success and failure are, must be worked out on a case-by-case basis because every claim is different. And that the details must be acceptable to each parties; if an agreement can't be hammered out, a third person (agreed to by both parties as qualified) can be called in to make a decision.

To be fair, I say "can be called in" because I haven't seen this happen, so far, although I'd have to go through and read all of the currently-available material to make sure I didn't miss an example of this. Generally, what I've seen is either a) the claimant pulling out because a protocol can't be agreed upon, or b) JREF pulling out, and rejecting the claim, because a protocol can't be agreed upon.

However, I think it's perfectly obvious that this statement of Randi's is describing the hammering out of the specifics of the Challenge and its attendant protocol after a claim has been accepted, and does not require JREF to accept independent arbitration as to whether their rejection of a claim is valid.

I expect Peter Morris to respond to any contextual argument such as this by simply repeating "but James Randi says ' If there's any objection, we call in a person we both agree should be properly qualified to decide about the rules', therefore I must be allowed to call for independent arbritration of my claim's rejection!" over and over and over again.

(By the way, and not that this will matter one whit to Peter Morris, but the contract between a claimant and JREF does not exist until JREF has signed off on the protocol. So as far as I know [and I'm a Sonar Tech, not a lawyer, so any actual lawyer (who's capable of comprehending what "context" means) please correct me if I'm wrong], there is no legal obligation on JREF's part to do anything until that contract exists.)
 
Last edited:
Anyway, Peter Morris is just hot air. He never really expected to net a million dollar, and he will not actually sue the JREF, or his legal advisor is also a fool.
 
I really see no other answer than for Peter Morris to sue JREF. I mean, for him to do anything else at this point would be just an admission on his part that his entire arguement is wrong.
 
Shame he was suspended. There is so little to discuss about the MDC these days. This issue is going to be material for the famous targets of the MDC to claim Randi and the Challenge is a fraud.
 
robinson said:
Shame he was suspended. There is so little to discuss about the MDC these days. This issue is going to be material for the famous targets of the MDC to claim Randi and the Challenge is a fraud.
Click to expand...

Meh. If it's an "issue", it's a completely fabricated "issue", based on the fact that the man doesn't comprehend the concept of "context". If other people want to use that as "material" to make claims about Randi and the Challenge being a fraud...well, I personally don't care. People are going to claim Randi and the Challenge are a fraud because they can find no way, consciously or subconsciously, to cheat their way to $1M smackers, and/or are afraid of being publicly shown to not have the special powers they so desperately need to believe they have (or don't want to lose the cash cow they've already got). Peter Morris' method for claiming that Randi is a fraud is, IMO, a particularly stupid way of going about it.
 
Jackalgirl said:
People are going to claim Randi and the Challenge are a fraud because they can find no way, consciously or subconsciously, to cheat their way to $1M smackers, and/or are afraid of being publicly shown to not have the special powers they so desperately need to believe they have (or don't want to lose the cash cow they've already got).
Click to expand...

It isn't that simple. There is a problem with the MDC when it comes to devices, procedures, and methods. While Randi can claim something is "paranormal" by definition, there is no way to apply for the MDC to prove him wrong.
 
robinson said:
There is a problem with the MDC when it comes to devices, procedures, and methods. While Randi can claim something is "paranormal" by definition, there is no way to apply for the MDC to prove him wrong.
Click to expand...
Please clarify. If Randi says 'X is paranormal', but you don't believe X to paranormal, what prevents you applying and getting the <quimby>1M$</quimby>?
 
robinson said:
It isn't that simple. There is a problem with the MDC when it comes to devices, procedures, and methods. While Randi can claim something is "paranormal" by definition, there is no way to apply for the MDC to prove him wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes "devices, procedures, and methods" or the protocols are an issue with any scientific endeavor and cannot be completely predefined. Usually the efficacy of a protocol is determined by the scientific community and peer review. Randi is in the position of having to get it right the first time before the fact. These procedures that many claim that Randi alone makes up as he goes along are also the procedures that the applicant has the same right to make up in the process of deciding protocol. Either party has equal rights in accepting or rejecting any given part of the protocol. Randi does have the extra onus that the elements of the protocol he insist on requiring or rejecting are in good faith i.e., necessary for an honest outcome. Otherwise he's open to legal challenges. The applicant has no similar onus and their fairness is solely determined by the protocol used. Randi has allowed protocols in the past that give the applicant better chances at the MDC than winning the lottery even with no paranormal skills.

Peter hasn't been banned for 8 days now.
 
I think you are missing the point. If one disagrees with Randi, on an issue, procedure, medical cure, or any device that he says is "paranormal by definition", based on his own page, there is no way to apply to win the Million Dollars. Obviously, if I am in error on this observation, you can link me to either a test that was performed, or an application that was accepted, or something to show that anyone who thinks they can prove Randi wrong is able to apply for the challenge.

The wording of the application is specific, and not subject to change.

The text of the current version is as follows, (all quotes are from the current page) http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html:
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. Such demonstration must take place under the following rules and limitations:

1. This is the primary and most important of these rules: Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers and/or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result.
Click to expand...

There is no option to apply to prove Randi wrong about his claims that a device, procedure, cure, or event is paranormal.

Obviously, if this observation is in error, then we can see either an application that illustrates the language and protocol for something besides a personal power or ability, or better yet, an example of something that was actually accepted.

For example, if one has a device, or can demonstrate an event, that is deemed paranormal, (by Randi's own definition), how does one apply? The wording of the challenge rules only states an individual can apply to demonstrate, in the words of the Challenge itself, "a power, or ability".

Before you act on that urge to respond with the obvious, "E-mail Randi or Jeff and ask him", consider that the response, "Apply for the Challenge and quit wasting my time", or "Either state what you can do, or quit bothering me" isn't helpful.

If you can't ask questions about the application, or Randi refuses to discuss the application with you, the spirit of the Challenge is dampened, perhaps soaked with doubt. If you still don't understand what I am commenting on, consider these words from the Challenge Application:

6. This preliminary test is to determine if the applicant is likely to perform as promised during a formal test, using the agreed-upon protocol.
Click to expand...

12. This offer is not open to any and all persons. Before being considered as an applicant, the person applying must satisfy two conditions: First, he/she must have a “media presence,” which means having been published, written about, or known to the media in regard to his/her claimed abilities or powers. This can be established by producing articles, videos, books, or other published material that specifically addresses the person’s abilities. Second, he/she must produce at least one signed document from an academic who has witnessed the powers or abilities of the person, and will validate that these powers or abilities have been verified.
Click to expand...

There is no option to demonstrate an event, a procedure, a device, or any other phenomenon, which Randi has stated is paranormal, or, if you will, bunk.

Not that I think there is any such paranormal, but if somebody with Media Presence wants to apply, there is no option to do so. A partial list of things considered "paranormal" used to be in the FAQ

The following things are paranormal by definition:

Dowsing. ESP. Precognition. Remote Viewing. Communicating with the Dead and/or "Channeling". Violations of Newton's Laws of Motion (Perpetual Motion Devices). Homeopathy. Chiropractic Healing (beyond back/joint problems). Faith Healing. Psychic Surgery. Astrology. Therapeutic Touch (aka "TT"). Qi Gong. Psychokinesis (aka "PK"). The Existence of Ghosts. Precognition & Prophecy. Levitation. Physiognomy. Psychometry. Pyramid Power. Reflexology. Applied Kinesiology (aka "AK"). Clairvoyance. The Existence of Auras. Graphology. Numerology. Palmistry. Phrenology.
Click to expand...
http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html#2.2

Many of those don't involve "powers or abilities demonstrated by an individual" , which brings us back to my observation. There isn't any way to fill out an application, to prove an event or device or procedure, which by Randi's own definition, qualifies for the Challenge.

Of course I'm probably wrong, and some really smart person who has been here since the dawn of time, will point to an application that makes this obvious. I don't care, I would just like to know.
 
Robinson,

I'm not the smart person you're looking for.

However, you raise an issue I was wondering about. I think one important tool to prevent confusion and philosophical nit-picking is the list:

Dowsing. ESP. Precognition. Remote Viewing. Communicating with the Dead and/or "Channeling". Violations of Newton's Laws of Motion (Perpetual Motion Devices). Homeopathy. Chiropractic Healing (beyond back/joint problems). Faith Healing. Psychic Surgery. Astrology. Therapeutic Touch (aka "TT"). Qi Gong. Psychokinesis (aka "PK"). The Existence of Ghosts. Precognition & Prophecy. Levitation. Physiognomy. Psychometry. Pyramid Power. Reflexology. Applied Kinesiology (aka "AK"). Clairvoyance. The Existence of Auras. Graphology. Numerology. Palmistry. Phrenology.

Anything on the list, barring other complications, should be up for the challenge.

IMO, this list should still be in the challenge. That way, we can avoid the whole issue of whether something is really "paranormal", since by definition, anything that is real is part of the natural world.

Instead, the JREF ought to have a list of things that are claimed by others to work, but don't.

There ought to be ways to keep it simple:

"Peter Morris, you say you can dowse, then do it. Stop looking for loopholes. This is about dowsing, not ambiguities in wording."

Nor should the challenge be about some vagueness in Randi's wording about underground water.

In other words, like many other things, this should be a bottom-up process, not a top-down one. The JREF should start with a bunch of things on the list, and shouldn't have to worry that much what top-down definition or word it applies to them.

The list can change gradually over time, if it turns out that some of the things on the list are actually possible, and not 'supernatural', i.e. impossible.

Maybe this has been addressed, and maybe it's not relevant to your point.
If so, I apologise.

caleb
 
Last edited:
calebprime said:
Robinson, Anything on the list, barring other complications, should be up for the challenge.
Click to expand...

You would think so. I brought this up before, in another topic. The odd thing was, dowsing was about the only thing that a protocol could be used as an example.

calebprime said:
There ought to be ways to keep it simple:
Click to expand...

Well, the way I understand it, every claim is different. So about six months have to be spent working out an application.

calebprime said:
In other words, the JREF should start with a bunch of things on the list, and shouldn't have to worry that much what top-down definition or word it applies to them.
Click to expand...

Devil's Advocate: "Yeah, but "what is considered paranormal" is a very important part of the challenge. Keeping it hard to define, allows all kinds of ways to make it hard to apply, and almost impossible to become a challenger."
 
An application gas been offered to Sniffex which holds patent #6344818 for an explosives detector.

http://www.randi.org/jr/081205another.html
Paul Johnson, Sniffex, Inc.
S5215 North O'Connor Blvd.
Suite 200
Irving, TX, 75039
Dear Mr. Johnson:
This is a formal offer to you and your corporation from the James Randi Educational Foundation. We stand prepared to award you our million-dollar prize for a successful demonstration of the Sniffex device that you market.
Details on this offer can be found at www.randi.org/research/index.html on the Internet. For your convenience, I have enclosed a printed-out application form. Simply fill this out and return it to this Foundation, and we will immediately begin arranging a simple protocol – in line with those which you say were done at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
We await your response.
Click to expand...

http://www.sniffexme.com/


EDA: Note:"has" not "gas" LOL
 
Last edited:
Aha! I knew somebody would have a link. Now, before the changes to the challenge, could anybody apply to demonstrate a sniffex? Or just the CEO, Paul Johnson?

In other words, is the challenge limited to certain people, concerning a product or event?
 
robinson said:
Aha! I knew somebody would have a link. Now, before the changes to the challenge, could anybody apply to demonstrate a sniffex? Or just the CEO, Paul Johnson?

In other words, is the challenge limited to certain people, concerning a product or event?
Click to expand...

That would be discretionary per Randi. You obviously don't want someone like Peter saying "poppypoop, of course you can build a detector to sniff explosives". This is because obviously you can as we have built them and are researching better detectors. Just not on the silly science claimed for sniffex. The response of the sniffex design is subject to the same ideomotor effect that dowsing is regardless of the claimed frequency shift mode of operation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom