Just Another Magic Trick?

[learner]

The challenge, as i understand it is set up to discover if supernatural powers do exist. I'm sure Randi would be delighted if supernatural powers were clearly demonstrated, Can you imagine the t.v. shows he would be in demand for as, the discoverer of someone that has overturned natural laws and demolished science as we know it? I have a feeling he and the million dollar Donner would be a lot richer for it.

Peeing is good, you should care!

 

[tapman]

The challenge, as i understand it is set up to discover if supernatural powers do exist. Im sure Randi would be delighted if supernatural powers were clearly demonstrated, Can you imagine the t.v. shows he would be in demmand for as, the dicoverer of someone that has overturned natural laws and demolished science as we know it? I have a feeling he and the milliOn dollar doner would be a lot richer for it.

My whole point about how smart Randi is. He sets up a challenge that no one can pass, makes money and gains notoriety for being a skeptic. If someone does pass the challenge, he is the first person in the world to prove paranormal ability(more fame) and publishes the outcome (more money)

As I said earlier, the guy is brilliant.

 

[PetersCreek]

I'm surprised that you don't see how one would be skeptical of this whole thing. Just because it's Randi doesn't make it true. Remember, he did spend his whole life tricking people.

No one here is arguing that it's true "Just because it's Randi". That would be fallacious reasoning...just as flawed as arguing that it's doubtful "Just because it's Randi"...as you are are doing. You're just trying to poison the well.

You haven't read a single description of the tests on this site, have you?

 

[learner]

My whole point about how smart Randi is. He sets up a challenge that no one can pass, makes money and gains notoriety for being a skeptic. If someone does pass the challenge, he is the first person in the world to prove paranormal ability(more fame) and publishes the outcome (more money)

As I said earlier, the guy is brilliant.

No, he doesn't make money. the set up of the challenge, financial details etc, is all available for anyone to see from the homepage. The interest pays for the running of the foundation. If it is setup so that no one can pass, then how does it follow that someone can pass? more magic? if he tricks the applicant, the foundation, not Randi, keeps the money. If an applicant passes you're assuming that Randi pockets the spin-off money, I'm sure Randi hasn't given much thought to this outcome, I wonder why?
I should add that i , in no way speak on behalf of the J.R.E.F

 

[tapman]

No one here is arguing that it's true "Just because it's Randi". That would be fallacious reasoning...just as flawed as arguing that it's doubtful "Just because it's Randi"...as you are are doing. You're just trying to poison the well.

You haven't read a single description of the tests on this site, have you?

I'm not arguing it isn't true just because it's Randi, I am merely skeptical of the challenge. I'm saying it could possibly be a magic trick, and that's ok to do. That is what everyone on this site is doing, being a skeptic.

Is it poisoning the well to be skeptical? I don't think so. So I will take that in a nice way instead of an acusation. I didn't mean to isult you, and if i did, I'm sorry for doing so.

That said, I don't think anyone can honestly say tuning skeptic has been good for magicians, and they have a motivation for doing so.

 

[badnewsBH]

Tapman, I think you missed learner's point.

He appears to be saying that Randi would most likely have been caught by now if someone he had tested really had supernatural abilities, and Randi had cheated to ensure the applicant would fail. Randi is (from what I hear) a very skilled illusionist, but you're probably giving him too much credit. If there were any applicants with supernatural powers, at least one of them should have been able to overcome cheating, or be able to point it out to observers.

From what I've seen of the MDC, it appears to be a very honest attempt to allow those who believe themselves to possess paranormal abilities the opportunity to prove those abilities under testable conditions. I see little reason why the JREF should want the applicants to fail; observing something that cannot be explained by science (in the paranormal sense) would probably be quite exciting. Also, the conditions of the test are published, I believe, so that everyone knows what to expect. Irregularities in the testing have been questioned before, IIRC, by skeptics on this very site.

I see the MDC as an extension of JREF's efforts to educate people. The multitude of failures in the tests doesn't mean that these powers definitely do not exist, but it does indicate that a lot of people are likely deluding themselves about having such abilities. It appears that the applicant is given ample opportunity to find a protocol he/she can accept, and ensure that he/she is completely ready at test time, before the actual testing begins. In my opinion, this is exactly what is intended for these tests. If the applicant is satisfied with the protocol and the setup at the test site, then nothing should stop the applicant from being successful... other than the lack of the ability that the applicant believes he/she possesses.

 

[tapman]

No, he doesn't make money. the set up of the challenge, financial details etc, is all available for anyone to see from the homepage. The interest pays for the running of the foundation. If it is setup so that no one can pass, then how does it follow that someone can pass? more magic? if he tricks the applicant, the foundation, not Randi, keeps the money. If an applicant passes you're assuming that Randi pockets the spin-off money, I'm sure Randi hasn't given much thought to this outcome, I wonder why?
I should add that i , in no way speak on behalf of the J.R.E.F

I'm sorry my friend, you have misread what I wrote. I never assumed Randi pockets anything. I like you am a fan of Randi, and enjoy this forum very much.

Yes Randi makes lots of money being a skeptic. So do Penn and Teller. etc, etc. Like I said, with the books and tv, I'm sure it beats diggin ditches

 

[tapman]

Tapman, I think you missed learner's point.

He appears to be saying that Randi would most likely have been caught by now if someone he had tested really had supernatural abilities, and Randi had cheated to ensure the applicant would fail. Randi is (from what I hear) a very skilled illusionist, but you're probably giving him too much credit. If there were any applicants with supernatural powers, at least one of them should have been able to overcome cheating, or be able to point it out to observers.

From what I've seen of the MDC, it appears to be a very honest attempt to allow those who believe themselves to possess paranormal abilities the opportunity to prove those abilities under testable conditions. I see little reason why the JREF should want the applicants to fail; observing something that cannot be explained by science (in the paranormal sense) would probably be quite exciting. Also, the conditions of the test are published, I believe, so that everyone knows what to expect. Irregularities in the testing have been questioned before, IIRC, by skeptics on this very site.

I see the MDC as an extension of JREF's efforts to educate people. The multitude of failures in the tests doesn't mean that these powers definitely do not exist, but it does indicate that a lot of people are likely deluding themselves about having such abilities. It appears that the applicant is given ample opportunity to find a protocol he/she can accept, and ensure that he/she is completely ready at test time, before the actual testing begins. In my opinion, this is exactly what is intended for these tests. If the applicant is satisfied with the protocol and the setup at the test site, then nothing should stop the applicant from being successful... other than the lack of the ability that the applicant believes he/she possesses.

I agree, but how many people have not accepted the protocol. Being a skeptic, wouldn't you wonder if the protocol is unfair?

Just thinking.

 

[learner]

Tapman, I think you missed learner's point.

He appears to be saying that Randi would most likely have been caught by now if someone he had tested really had supernatural abilities, and Randi had cheated to ensure the applicant would fail. Randi is (from what I hear) a very skilled illusionist, but you're probably giving him too much credit. If there were any applicants with supernatural powers, at least one of them should have been able to overcome cheating, or be able to point it out to observers.

From what I've seen of the MDC, it appears to be a very honest attempt to allow those who believe themselves to possess paranormal abilities the opportunity to prove those abilities under testable conditions. I see little reason why the JREF should want the applicants to fail; observing something that cannot be explained by science (in the paranormal sense) would probably be quite exciting. Also, the conditions of the test are published, I believe, so that everyone knows what to expect. Irregularities in the testing have been questioned before, IIRC, by skeptics on this very site.

I see the MDC as an extension of JREF's efforts to educate people. The multitude of failures in the tests doesn't mean that these powers definitely do not exist, but it does indicate that a lot of people are likely deluding themselves about having such abilities. It appears that the applicant is given ample opportunity to find a protocol he/she can accept, and ensure that he/she is completely ready at test time, before the actual testing begins. In my opinion, this is exactly what is intended for these tests. If the applicant is satisfied with the protocol and the setup at the test site, then nothing should stop the applicant from being successful... other than the lack of the ability that the applicant believes he/she possesses.

Thanks for your clearly written post, not my strong point. Said all i meant to in one.
Means i can go fishing now! regain the will to live

 

[learner]

I agree, but how many people have not accepted the protocol. Being a skeptic, wouldn't you wonder if the protocol is unfair?

Just thinking.

Have a look at some of the protocols. I havent seen one yet that wasnt clear, co-designed and able to prove/ disprove said ability.
When an applicant walks, its because they dont get it all thare way. Im sure you will agree, having read some. The procedure involves input and suggestions from a lot of people, enought to weed out any inconsistencies, bias etc,,

 

[learner]

I'm sorry my friend, you have misread what I wrote. I never assumed Randi pockets anything. I like you am a fan of Randi, and enjoy this forum very much.

Yes Randi makes lots of money being a skeptic. So do Penn and Teller. etc, etc. Like I said, with the books and tv, I'm sure it beats diggin ditches

My apologies. Idid mis-read your post

 

[Blackadder]

I agree, but how many people have not accepted the protocol. Being a skeptic, wouldn't you wonder if the protocol is unfair?

Just thinking.

No I (and most of us here) do not wonder if the protocol is unfair, because thousands of us (skeptics) have debated it in the past years and together we came to the conclusion that it is a fair and good protocol.

 

[tapman]

No I (and most of us here) do not wonder if the protocol is unfair, because thousands of us (skeptics) have debated it in the past years and together we came to the conclusion that it is a fair and good protocol.

I don't know about that. Maybe, maybe not. But not to question it takes away it's validity for me. It's like Born again Christians (which I am not btw)that never question their faith. To me that makes thier faith worthless. It is only in the understanding of something that I become a true believer.

This is just a discussion. I thank you for your input.

 

[tapman]

My apologies. Idid mis-read your post

Thanks learner, and enjoy fishing today.

 

[EHocking]

I agree, but how many people have not accepted the protocol. Being a skeptic, wouldn't you wonder if the protocol is unfair?

Just thinking.

Here's the thread on past applicants and the process to come to a mutually agreed protocol.

A while back, I totted up the applicants and of the 143 applicants at the end of 2007.

Here's the history of the attrition rate.
115 were accepted as meeting the conditions whereby JREF were willing to test their claim.
Only 76 subsequently produced protocols for negotiation with JREF. In 37 applications examiners were found to run the test (not JREF necessarily) and 11 applicants agreed on test dates.
Of them, only 8 went ahead - and all failed.

So, only 2/3rds of applicants put forward protocols for testing after JREF have accepted their application.
In nearly 1/2 of those applications that do follow through, JREF has found someone to conduct the test that are mutually agreable.
But less than 1/3 of those remaining applicants end up agreeing to a test date after all that work.

Please feel free to point out which of these applicants has been treated unfairly or tricked by a magician.

Here's the Challenge FAQ.
Please indicate anywhere that looks like a magic trick being pulled by JREF or that James Randi is making any profit on "his" $1m.

 

[tapman]

Here's the thread on past applicants and the process to come to a mutually agreed protocol.

A while back, I totted up the applicants and of the 143 applicants at the end of 2007.

Here's the history of the attrition rate.
115 were accepted as meeting the conditions whereby JREF were willing to test their claim.
Only 76 subsequently produced protocols for negotiation with JREF. In 37 applications examiners were found to run the test (not JREF necessarily) and 11 applicants agreed on test dates.
Of them, only 8 went ahead - and all failed.

So, only 2/3rds of applicants put forward protocols for testing after JREF have accepted their application.
In nearly 1/2 of those applications that do follow through, JREF has found someone to conduct the test that are mutually agreable.
But less than 1/3 of those remaining applicants end up agreeing to a test date after all that work.

Please feel free to point out which of these applicants has been treated unfairly or tricked by a magician.

Here's the Challenge FAQ.
Please indicate anywhere that looks like a magic trick being pulled by JREF or that James Randi is making any profit on "his" $1m.

Your numbers illustrate my skepticism perfectly.
By the time the test dates are made, they all feel the test is not passable so they quit. I said earlier It seemed the test was devised in a way so no one could pass it, and your numbers suggest I'm right.

It all depends on who gives the test. If you wanted to prove your psychic ability to someone who was really in to that type of thing, I'm sure the test would be much different. However, If you have a million dollars at stake(and according to one poster, the interest is where the foundation gets its running money) you want to hold on to it. So you make a test that is so difficult that about 5% of possible test subjects actually make it as far as the actual test. That seems like pretty good odds for the guy that wants to hold on the million, and finance his foundation(according to another poster).

That alone should make anyone skeptical. Shouldn't it?

I'm starting to understand why no one is taking this million dollar challenge seriously.

 

[EHocking]

Your numbers illustrate my skepticism perfectly.
By the time the test dates are made, they all feel the test is not passable so they quit. I said earlier It seemed the test was devised in a way so no one could pass it, and your numbers suggest I'm right.

No, it just illustrates your type of skepticism. You have jumped to the conclusion, like most bleevers actually, that the high attrition rate is fully attributable to JREF being hard-nosed on bleevers. You did this without reading any of the protocol discussions at the MDC thread and you took my numbers as read without checking their veracity. Not skeptical at all.

Instead of jumping to conclusions, read some of the entries on the thread I gave you reference to. THen discuss some points you think that the test was devised so no one could pass.

Remember, there were indeed some applicants that were tested.
Mutually agreed protocols.
All happy.
All failed.

It all depends on who gives the test. If you wanted to prove your psychic ability to someone who was really in to that type of thing, I'm sure the test would be much different. However, If you have a million dollars at stake(and according to one poster, the interest is where the foundation gets its running money) you want to hold on to it. So you make a test that is so difficult that about 5% of possible test subjects actually make it as far as the actual test. That seems like pretty good odds for the guy that wants to hold on the million, and finance his foundation(according to another poster).

Read some of the negotiations. You will then be able to form a more informed opinion, rather than baseless speculation.

That alone should make anyone skeptical. Shouldn't it?

I'm starting to understand why no one is taking this million dollar challenge seriously.

No you are not. So far you have not demonstrated that you have read and understood the conditions of MDC or read any of the protocol negotiations - you are posing your uninformed opinion, without doing your homework.

This is not being skeptical.

 

[tapman]

No, it just illustrates your type of skepticism. You have jumped to the conclusion, like most bleevers actually, that the high attrition rate is fully attributable to JREF being hard-nosed on bleevers. You did this without reading any of the protocol discussions at the MDC thread and you took my numbers as read without checking their veracity. Not skeptical at all.

Instead of jumping to conclusions, read some of the entries on the thread I gave you reference to. THen discuss some points you think that the test was devised so no one could pass.

Remember, there were indeed some applicants that were tested.
Mutually agreed protocols.
All happy.
All failed.

Read some of the negotiations. You will then be able to form a more informed opinion, rather than baseless speculation.

No you are not. So far you have not demonstrated that you have read and understood the conditions of MDC or read any of the protocol negotiations - you are posing your uninformed opinion, without doing your homework.

This is not being skeptical.

I respectfully disagree, the numbers say it all. Only 5% of potential testers make it to the test. I think it sounds rigged. You haven't proved to me it isn't.
In fact as a skeptic you would say the same thing about anyones test.
I know you want to believe whick makes you yourself a bleever, that this test is fair, but it really doesn't look fair to anyone.
Why hasn't Randi taken the other magician's test. Answer-for the same reason? rigged? I don't know.

 

[AndyD]

I'm starting to understand why no one is taking this million dollar challenge seriously.

I'm long past understanding why no one takes you seriously. Give us a break. First you claim you're an oncologist who recommends homeopathy because, unlike other doctors on the forum, you know the truth about it, and you also claim you've experienced an inexplicably accurate psychic reading at the hands of an unknown builder who didn't charge for the experience and when you are outed as a lying troll you congratulate the skeptic who outed you as being a good skeptic and warn everyone else to improve their skepticism. What a croc!

Now you're condemning Randi as a lying cheat who has no intention of ever giving a million dollars to anyone and you do so without presenting a single shred of evidence that any of his tests have been based on flawed or biased protocols or than anyone has actually passed a test yet been denied their winnings.

Skepticism isn't making up stories about your own psychic experiences that never really happened in order to generate a discussion you can participate in - nor is it about making up baseless accusations against someone else for the same reason. Of course, both fit the definition of trolling perfectly.

I think it sounds rigged. You haven't proved to me it isn't.

I think you are responsible for the break-up of no less than a dozen families in the town where you live and probably the culprit who poisoned the water supply two years ago. I further suspect you subject puppies to agonising torture for your own entertainment. Just thinking. Prove me wrong.

Why hasn't Randi taken the other magician's test.

Why haven't you told us what the hell you're on about? What exactly is to be tested here? That Randi isn't psychic? That he uses trickery in his magic shows? That his beard is fake?

Why do you do it? Why do I respond?

 

[tapman]

I'm long past understanding why no one takes you seriously. Give us a break. First you claim you're an oncologist who recommends homeopathy because, unlike other doctors on the forum, you know the truth about it, and you also claim you've experienced an inexplicably accurate psychic reading at the hands of an unknown builder who didn't charge for the experience and when you are outed as a lying troll you congratulate the skeptic who outed you as being a good skeptic and warn everyone else to improve their skepticism. What a croc!

Now you're condemning Randi as a lying cheat who has no intention of ever giving a million dollars to anyone and you do so without presenting a single shred of evidence that any of his tests have been based on flawed or biased protocols or than anyone has actually passed a test yet been denied their winnings.

Skepticism isn't making up stories about your own psychic experiences that never really happened in order to generate a discussion you can participate in - nor is it about making up baseless accusations against someone else for the same reason. Of course, both fit the definition of trolling perfectly.

Why do you do it? Why do I respond?

Welcome to the discussion. Try to keep your anger checked.
You said Randi was a lying cheat. I said I was a fan, and thought he was brilliant.
Do you think you could pass a test to prove something psychic doesn't exist?