I Want Randi's Million

Beady said:
Er, if this is known, then there's nothing paranormal about it and the demonstration fails.
Click to expand...

I suppose it might come down to the exact wording. Without actually supporting my guess with evidence (it's early and I'm tired), things will often be worded something like "using only a stick I will locate the water" or some other such stipulation. Evidence that the applicant used something besides the stick (like a metal detector in his shoe) would then indicate protocol violation and an invalid test.
 
petre said:
I suppose it might come down to the exact wording. Without actually supporting my guess with evidence (it's early and I'm tired), things will often be worded something like "using only a stick I will locate the water" or some other such stipulation. Evidence that the applicant used something besides the stick (like a metal detector in his shoe) would then indicate protocol violation and an invalid test.
Click to expand...

This scenario makes me curious... Jeff, happen to be listening? (looks around)

Bare bones:

Applicant makes claim of paranormal ability to perform task X with ability Y.

Protocol is negotiated, preliminary test is performed successfully.

Randi suspects that applicant used trick Z instead of ability Y.

Under what circumstances can the formal test be adjusted or denied, to correct for trick Z? Does it matter if Randi's suspicion can be proven by examining the tapes of the preliminary?
 
gnome said:
Randi suspects that applicant used trick Z instead of ability Y.
Click to expand...

If task X can be duplicated without ability Y, then does Y really exist? Or, more exactly, if ability Y can be duplicated by other means, does it exist?

IOW, to quote National Geographic, if a natural explanation will suffice, why resort to a supernatural explanation?
 
Since no one has mentioned it yet, isn't most of this speculation much like paying 100,000,000 to win 10,000,000? Why put large quantities of money, which would very likely exceed one million dollars, into the research and development of a device or devices to win a Challenge that won't even reimburse you for the intial cost? This type of technology would net one much more profit backed by a large corporation willing to invest. Just the two cents of an old man.

Santa
 
rjh01 said:
Can anyone give me a case where someone tried to win by cheating? How they were caught?
Click to expand...

In "Flim Flam" I remember a case of a family's "Haunted Table" that it was discovered they were moving with their palms. He required them to place their palms in a spot with poor leverage, and the effect disappeared.
 
Beady said:
If task X can be duplicated without ability Y, then does Y really exist? Or, more exactly, if ability Y can be duplicated by other means, does it exist?

IOW, to quote National Geographic, if a natural explanation will suffice, why resort to a supernatural explanation?
Click to expand...

Because a supernatural power is redundant, doesn't mean it's nonexistent.
 
I can get from London to Glasgow by aeroplane. That doesn't nullify the existence of the bicycle.

Many challenges are just intended to show that an effect exists. It doesn't matter if that effect is valuable.
 
Beady said:
It seems like it *should* be, from an evolutionary standpoint, because it would offer no advantage. I really doubt that Natural Selection has a category labelled Parlor Tricks.
Click to expand...

"God doesn't do parlor tricks." (Uncle Al) Does she? ;)
 
Beady said:
It seems like it *should* be, from an evolutionary standpoint, because it would offer no advantage. I really doubt that Natural Selection has a category labelled Parlor Tricks.
Click to expand...

I have a friend who can make his eyes vibrate in a really disturbing way. I have another who is double-jointed and can do all sorts of funny things with his elbows. I sincerely doubt either of these abilities provide an evolutionary advantage.

Nature contains plenty of parlor tricks. Remember that evolution affects an entire species, but not every individual within that species gets the same effect. All effects are little accidents of nature- if they provide an advantage, then over time they become more common (and that's only if it's genetic.)
 
Beady said:
It seems like it *should* be, from an evolutionary standpoint, because it would offer no advantage.
Click to expand...

Evolution includes lots of things that appear to offer no advantage. Look up "spandrel" sometime.

As a simple series of examples -- there is to the best of my knowledge no evolutionary advantage associated with most of the traits studied in high-school genetics. Blue eyes vs brown eyes? Hand clasping with left thumb on top vs. right thumb on top? Arm folding with left/right arm on top? Ear lobe present or absent? Ability or inability to roll the tongue? Dimples or no dimples? Hair whorl clockwise or anticlockwise?

All of these traits are known to be genetic; none are known to offer any advantages.
 
Isn't that kind of mean? Taking some kid you know is doing a nose peek, and making a big formal demonstration out of it that you know is going to publicly embarrass and humiliate her?

Some people need to be kinder gentler skeptics.
 
Thanks for those two cases where cheating was involved. Looks like in both cases it was all amateur stuff. Not much time or effort had gone into how to fake it.
 
Beady said:
Yet, look at how many were fooled.
Click to expand...

People have a psychological need to believe in woo. Some have even hypothesized that we may have a "God Gene", due to collective memes offering a survival advantage and natural selection doing the filtering, so that we are now somewhat hardwired to fabricate community held religious or supernatural nonsense.
 
Cyphermage said:
People have a psychological need to believe in woo. Some have even hypothesized that we may have a "God Gene", due to collective memes offering a survival advantage and natural selection doing the filtering, so that we are now somewhat hardwired to fabricate community held religious or supernatural nonsense.
Click to expand...
It's important to seperate "woo" from what is an expression of the human spirit. Wanting to transcend one's natural limitations and not be in conflict with nature is what makes us human. Without it, life would be onerous and meaningless. The desire for happiness and certainty is also universal - there is no "God" part of the brain that can be isloated without first encroaching on what makes us human in the first place. The drive of Newton was half a religious drive. The scientist and seeker are on the same path, one just craves objective certainty and the other, subjective. The more intelligent people become, the more they will want to overcome their limitations. These days, the perverted antics of those playing on this human need for material gain is widespread, mainly because people aren't ready to be altruistic for the sake of it. The need for certainty, permanence, and happiness will exist for as long as the laws of nature in this universe don't accomodate an ever expanding collective human ego. Star Wars, Harry Potter, drugs, or scientific advacements, won't ever be enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom