I have applied for the challenge

[robinson]

Oh thats right. My mistake. Nevermind Darat.

 

[Darat]

Sure. Are you willing to let me? I can come by your foundation and go through every application you have recieved. I've already gone through most of what you have online. But according to your statistics, there are many more. Sounds like a wonderful idea.

Any objections?

As others have said I am not a JREF employee nor do I represent them however in the past I have seen JREF folk saying that people may call in at the JREF.

 

[drkitten]

I hope they do reject abilities that can be explained scientifically, because it would mean the applicant could no longer go around pretending their powers are paranormal.

I believe they do, and have in the past. The most famous one is a person who claimed the "ability" to look at a record and to determine what song was on it. Could do it, too. But even the person with that ability did not consider his ability to be paranormal; he just regarded it as the result of training and experience.

I vaguely remember another one where a person had the "paranormal ability" to make the fish in her aquarium move to the other side when she put her hand next to the tank. As Randi put it "she calls it 'paranormal,' I call it 'frightened fish.'"

 

[Peter Morris]

You are absolutely correct. You have, however, already stated your motives. You want a million dollars. Do you believe that the maker of the wine clip is so incredibly wealthy that he wouldn't be interested in one million dollars as well?

no, I'm surte he'd want a million dollars. The trouble is, under your interpretation of the rules, he's not entitled to it, even if his product works.

Here's the thing. If the wine clip worked; if it really made some change to the tannins of the wine that was actually detectable, by taste, or any other method; and if that change made use of a well known, previously studied process, then the guy who makes it needs only bring to Mr. Randi's attention the evidence. Show him the studies explaining it, and Mr. Randi would immediately retract his statements, apologise to the person, and recommend everyone go out and buy one.

Bob DOES claim to make use of a well-known previously studied process. It's described in Randi's article, with an indication that Randi does not believe a word of it.

So, if he's telling the truth, he can accept Randi's challenge, spend months negotiating a protocol, pay all the expense for the tests himself, show in double blind tests that his product works as described and win ... an apology. No money, though, because it's not paranormal.

so, a couple of questions.

1) Why should Bob bother applying ?

2) If he doesn't apply, does that show anything at all about him?

 

[Peter Morris]

Hello Peter.

Hi, Robinson. Thanks for all your comments.

I can't go on long about this, because unlike some people, who seem to have unlimited time and energy to spend on this forum, I don't.

I know exactly what you mean.

In regards to your main point, there is great irony afoot, and something is going to happen soon. While I think I understand your point(s), the MDC is crafted so that you can't win. You can't even get a hearing. Because of the very wording of the agreement. But I think you know that, and are holding Randi's feet to the fire. It really is about exposing a flaw in the challenge, proving Randi has been wrong about stuff.

Right?

No. I tried that path before, it didn't go well. This is different. It occurred to me that I could use that flaw to my own ends, make a million dollars from them. This is about the money, not about exposing him. Exposing him is the means to an end, the real purpose is getting money.

 

[Peter Morris]

A valid consideration for someone in your position is to closely examine your position when you are the only person who is out of step with the rest. It doesn't invariably mean that you are the one that is wrong, but it is certainly worth giving more than cursory consideration to that possibility.

The strange thing is, whatever I say, everyone else says the exact opposite.

Some time ago, I made the claim that the challenge was dishonest, after a successful test Randi would just say "it's not paranormal" and refuse to pay. Everyone disagreed with me. Everyone else told me that Randi would never do such a thing.

Now, I've considered their arguments, re-thought my position, and I have realised that I was wrong then, and everyone else was right. I admit I was wrong. I've changed my mind. Now I say that Randi will not, indeed cannot back out and say "it's not partanormal."

And you know what? Everyone else has changed their minds too. Now I'm the only one left still saying that. It's almost as if they were doing it deliberately.

I notice that you haven't had the courtesy to address the issue about shared DNA.

I'm not going to get sidetracked into discussions of old issues. Nor do I have the time to address every single point in every single post. No further discussions will be entered into on this subject.

 

[JackPT]

Bob DOES claim to make use of a well-known previously studied process. It's described in Randi's article, with an indication that Randi does not believe a word of it.

If the wine magnet maker could convince enough scientists that his wine magnets work, he should patent it in France double-quick.

So, if he's telling the truth, he can accept Randi's challenge, spend months negotiating a protocol, pay all the expense for the tests himself, show in double blind tests that his product works as described and win ... an apology. No money, though, because it's not paranormal.

If the wine magnet could be shown to work scientifically we'd all have one. Especially the French. The wine clip is supposed to work as follows (from here):

The Wine Clip uses principles of magnetics to improve the taste of wine as it is being poured out of the bottle. The effect is instantaneous, and has been found by many wine professionals to result in a genuine improvement in flavor and mouthfeel, especially when used on red wines.

Using magnets to treat fluids – water, fuel, wine, etc. - is not a new idea, and the technology has been applied successfully in many industries. What causes the effect has been the subject of some debate, but it is generally thought that passing a conductive fluid through a properly designed magnetic field has an effect on the polar molecules in the fluid.

In wine, it is believed that the large, polymerized tannins in wine that normally result in a high degree of astringency are broken up or otherwise affected, resulting in a less astringent, “softer” flavor.

The Wine Clip may also accelerate aeration, by drawing higher concentrations of oxygen to the wine as it is being poured. In contrast with most gases, oxygen is highly magnetically susceptible, and is attracted to a magnetic field. This would explain testimony from wine experts that The Wine Clip instantly produces the benefits of time consuming aeration.

If it works that way then it's paranormal. That is not scientific. So if Bob claims the above and he proves it he is proving a paranormal claim.

The premise is that

so, a couple of questions.

1) Why should Bob bother applying ?

Because he makes paranormal claims on his website, and there's a $1,000,000 if his claims are true.

2) If he doesn't apply, does that show anything at all about him?

Yes. He makes claims that can't be validated by science, and doesn't want to have his paranormal claims about a wine clip challenged, because they may not work.

 

[Peter Morris]

Assuming your claim is true, I see two possibilities:

1) These great underground rivers are well known by science, and Mr. Randi was just talking through his hat.

If number one is the case then your claim should be rejected.

Number one is what I'm claiming. However, the whole point is to expose people talking through their hats. If Randi is talking through his hat - and I contend that he is - then every good sceptic should wish to see him made to prove HIS false claims.

 

[JackPT]

Number one is what I'm claiming. However, the whole point is to expose people talking through their hats. If Randi is talking through his hat - and I contend that he is - then every good sceptic should wish to see him made to prove HIS false claims.

The whole point isn't to expose people talking through their hats. That would be too general a definition.

 

[Apathia]

The strange thing is, whatever I say, everyone else says the exact opposite.

Some time ago, I made the claim that the challenge was dishonest, after a successful test Randi would just say "it's not paranormal" and refuse to pay. Everyone disagreed with me. Everyone else told me that Randi would never do such a thing.

Now, I've considered their arguments, re-thought my position, and I have realised that I was wrong then, and everyone else was right. I admit I was wrong. I've changed my mind. Now I say that Randi will not, indeed cannot back out and say "it's not paranormal."

And you know what? Everyone else has changed their minds too. Now I'm the only one left still saying that. It's almost as if they were doing it deliberately.

That's not what I said.
I say that Randi will not use "it's not paranormal" as an excuse to back out of the contract once made.
However, if there is no real paranormal, psudoscientific, or unscientific claim, then there will be no testing and there will be no challenge.
If James Randi says, "I worded things poorly. Geologists have confirmed water does move underground, but not to the exaggerated claims some dowsers make. Mr. Morris is correct in saying that it does and that sometimes dilling takes some care to get the best results," then the claim collapses before the claim is accepted. This is the most likely outcome, unless you go for something that is actually in dispute by geological experts. Perhaps that would be huge underground rivers between England and France. Your current claim isn't unscientific enough, so you're going to have to get unscientific to get it accepted. And then good luck with whatever unscientific assertion you make.
You claim hasn't been accepted for the challenge yet. If the JREF were to reject it on the grounds that it's not paranormal, psudoscientific, or unscientific, but just an argument around some things James Randi said, this is not at all the same thing as your claim being accepted and it later being found to be scientific after all and the JREF reneging on a legally binding contract.
Mr. Randi does from time to time say inaccurate things in his commentary and usually corrects them. But his mistakes don't amount to a scientific appraisal of what's paranormal and what's not. The JREF will consult experts on the matter of your claim. If they say its unscientific, then the JREF might consider your claim worthy of the Challenge, provided they don't see it as a primarily a contention between you and Mr. Randi. In that context it would be thrown out for professional reasons.

 

[Apathia]

The whole point isn't to expose people talking through their hats. That would be too general a definition.

Ditto! The challenge has nothing to do with James Randi "talking through his hat."
The acceptability of a claim for the Challenge will be determined by the JREF based on the claim itself. James Randi is not the JREF.

 

[Left Hand of Dorknes]

Number one is what I'm claiming. However, the whole point is to expose people talking through their hats. If Randi is talking through his hat - and I contend that he is - then every good sceptic should wish to see him made to prove HIS false claims.

Hi, again, Peter! (I spoke with him over at Straight Dope; when his thread was closed there for excellent reasons, I poked around here to see how far the challenge had gotten).

Every good skeptic should wish to see him made to disavow his false claims, sure--why should we wish to se him made to prove something false?

And he has disavowed his false claims, as I showed you repeatedly. Every piece of evidence you offered to show him denying underground rivers contained, within the evidence itself, Randi's qualification of the claim so that it was no longer false.

And that's exactly what I, a good skeptic, wanted to see.

Why would we want to see a foundation semi-independent from him forced to stretch an irrelevant and unsigned contract they've made to cover the unqualified and incorrect versions of statements from him? Even if he hadn't qualified them, even if he were battier than Carlsbad Caverns, JREF would have no responsibility toward his statement.

Daniel

 

[patrick767]

You're still pushing this underground river crap? Yesterday I read part of your two year old thread about it. Talk about obsessed...

 

[Peter Morris]

Ditto! The challenge has nothing to do with James Randi "talking through his hat."
The acceptability of a claim for the Challenge will be determined by the JREF based on the claim itself. James Randi is not the JREF.

Actually, it has everything to do with James Randi talking through his hat.

Randi issued the challenge to "prove me wrong and win a million dollars."

Proving him wrong, ie talking through his hat, is what it's all about.

 

[NiallM]

Actually, it has everything to do with James Randi talking through his hat.

Randi issued the challenge to "prove me wrong and win a million dollars."

Proving him wrong, ie talking through his hat, is what it's all about.

Where has he said this to you?

 

[Apathia]

Proving him wrong, ie talking through his hat, is what it's all about.

Previously you replied to me

BTW, this is completely wrong. I want to use the MDC to get rich. And isn't that the point?

 

[JackPT]

Where has he said this to you?

As far as the Internet goes the only place James Randi said that was here:

http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-06/060906just.html#i4

Unfortunately the context is entirely unrelated to Peter's pet bugbear. He seems to regard a statement made to someone else, in an entirely different context, as somehow relevant, just look at the mention of the wine magnets in this thread...

 

[case sensitive]

Actually, it has everything to do with James Randi talking through his hat.

Randi issued the challenge to "prove me wrong and win a million dollars."

Proving him wrong, ie talking through his hat, is what it's all about.

Do you mean proving anything Randi ever says is wrong? How big of an ego does he have?

I think someone is wasting his time.

 

[NiallM]

As far as the Internet goes the only place James Randi said that was here:

http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-06/060906just.html#i4

Unfortunately the context is entirely unrelated to Peter's pet bugbear. He seems to regard a statement made to someone else, in an entirely different context, as somehow relevant, just look at the mention of the wine magnets in this thread...

I rather thought that much.

Of course he mentioned wine clips etc, but when I confronted him about his comments on shaded DNA he refused to discuss that. How strange.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

All that matters:

1. Peter Morris sends his proper application.
2. JREF accepts.

Shall we wait to let this happen first?