[Moderated]Hypothetical Million Dollar Winner

[Kevin_Lowe]

The statistical result would be inference but not proof.

Whether or not that is true, it would still be more than sufficient to win the million dollar challenge

 

[maatorc]

Whether or not that is true, it would still be more than sufficient to win the million dollar challenge

How do you prove it is not 'bunk or trick'?

 

[Gilmar]

How do you prove it is not 'bunk or trick'?

You don't have to prove it is not 'bunk or trick' to win the million. You just have to meet the criteria mutually agreed-upon by you and JREF. If you use trickery, you still win the dough.

 

[steenkh]

You could argue that cloud busting and fasting are not supernatural as they are simply people misinterpreting and mismeasuring natural phenomena, but I think it's unfortunate that the JREF has declared that they are not supernatural, as it confuses an already confused issue.

The MDC uses the term "paranormal" and not "supernatural", but I do not know if there is a difference. The JREF has not declared cloudbusting etc. to be "not paranormal", they have just been excluded from the MDC for practical and legal reasons.

 

[steenkh]

Again, I’m concerned about the methods that determined “success”. Whatsoever the alleged results are - positive or negative - they will be questionable due to sloppy “science” used to reach the supposed result.

Your claim is clearly founded on your imagination. There are many real scientists on this forum, and none have stated that they could not accept a positive result. In the past, real scientists have been asked to conduct the tests, and it would be strange if they would not accept a test they had performed themselves.

And as for the strawman of the sloppy "science", the MDC is not and has never been, science. The MDC is designed to give a clear-cut result that can only be entirely positive or entirely negative. It does not yield "more research is needed", as most scientific experiments do.

 

[steenkh]

How do you prove it is not 'bunk or trick'?

What relevance does this have to the MDC? It is only in your head that the MDC is about finding the truth about ESP.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

How do you prove it is not 'bunk or trick'?

Gilmar has it exactly right.

You do not need to prove it is not bunk or a trick to win the million. You just have to do whatever it was you said you could do.

If you do what you said you could, you win the million, end of story.

 

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
How do you prove it is not 'bunk or trick'?

You don't have to prove it is not 'bunk or trick' to win the million. You just have to meet the criteria mutually agreed-upon by you and JREF. If you use trickery, you still win the dough.

At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.

So what is the point of the above rule?

 

[steenkh]

So what is the point of the above rule?

Please notice that the JREF talks about "evidence", not "proof". This evidence may later turn out to be misleading, but the million is gone by then.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

So what is the point of the above rule?

I guess it's so people can't win the million for demonstrating that they can crochet, or juggle, or something dumb like that.

 

[Gravy]

So what is the point of the above rule?

Because the qualification "or can demonstrate what appears to be evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event, through the use of undetected trickery" doesn't look good on the page, and may encourage magicians or hoaxters to apply, rather than people who believe they have paranormal abilities. In working with the claimants on the test protocols, Randi and the challenge administrators do take steps to eliminate known methods of trickery.

 

[Michael C]

2... There are no scientific trials capable of detecting psi-esp.

What sort of trial is capable of detecting psi-esp, then?

I'd still like to know your answer to this question, maatorc. If there are no scientific trials capable of detecting psi-esp, how can it be detected?

 

[ProbeX]

Your claim is clearly founded on your imagination. There are many real scientists on this forum, and none have stated that they could not accept a positive result. In the past, real scientists have been asked to conduct the tests, and it would be strange if they would not accept a test they had performed themselves.

That a scientist is willing to work on some aspect of Randi’s adversarial tests, does not validate the overall procedure; the tests still do not conform to the scientific process generally acknowledged by the larger scientific community. Also, you will need to put out a call for the “real scientists” you claim are here at the forum (who must be equally trained in the area of human testing), so I can have a reasonable (non-layperson’s) discourse with them about this. So let us pit these scientists against my clinically-experienced “imagination”. Throw down the gauntlet now and we’ll see which of your clinical scientists comes running, and what they have to say on this matter to refute me.

And as for the strawman of the sloppy "science", the MDC is not and has never been, science. The MDC is designed to give a clear-cut result that can only be entirely positive or entirely negative. It does not yield "more research is needed", as most scientific experiments do.

One can’t have it both ways. As long as Randi implores scientists for aspects of his tests, his tests are partially scientific in nature, which is not good enough; fails to meet the criteria for all-inclusive scientific protocol within the true context of scientific human clinical testing. That’s what makes any claim acquired in this way, highly questionable as objective. Science is not something you sample or use outside the clinical context, then disclaim later during evidential claims or outcomes.

Try this: point me to a test of his where the use of one or more scientists are noted. Choose one that you think was set up in a way that conforms to the highest objective standards - up to par with classical scientific standards in context of testing human subjects (now you have two assignments). … Also, understand, “more research is needed” is sine qua non. It is another way of saying the findings need to be verified.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

ProbeX it seems to me that your understanding of scientific methodology is slightly off-beam.

Meticulous controls, especially when dealing with human performance, are absolutely necessary if we want to get highly accurate data. Randi's protocols would be indeed be inadequate to gauge someone's psychic powers to ten decimal places.

Meticulous controls are not necessary when scientifically demonstrating the obvious. An unsupported rock falls and you don't need to measure its acceleration to ten decimal places to prove it. Set off some thermite and you get a violent exothermic reaction, and you don't need to measure the temperature of the reaction to ten decimal places to prove it, nor do you need to analyse the results with a spectrometer.

If someone can dowse or read minds, and we just want to prove that they can do it rather than measure any variables involved precisely, Randi's experiments do the job perfectly well. I don't know of any scientists who would ignore a plainly obvious finding because the obvious was not measured with sufficient precision, as long as the methodology excluded all alterative explanations.

 

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
2... There are no scientific trials capable of detecting psi-esp.
Originally Posted by Michael C View Post
What sort of trial is capable of detecting psi-esp, then?

I'd still like to know your answer to this question, maatorc. If there are no scientific trials capable of detecting psi-esp, how can it be detected?

I gave you a longish answer which was moved.
Briefly, only one actually participating in psi-esp can experientially know, and it cannot be otherwise proven.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

For the purposes of science you don't need to "experientially know" a phenomenon in order to study it or demonstrate that it exists.

If someone else can guess an image at a rate greater than chance, for example, that would constitute scientific proof even though the scientist does not "experientially know" that psi-esp is at work.

 

[maatorc]

1... For the purposes of science you don't need to "experientially know" a phenomenon in order to study it or demonstrate that it exists.
2... If someone else can guess an image at a rate greater than chance, for example, that would constitute scientific proof even though the scientist does not "experientially know" that psi-esp is at work.

1... I am talking about noumena.

2... Not proof; perhaps inference.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

1... I am talking about noumena.

Sorry about that. We'll stick with your terminology for now.

2... Not proof; perhaps inference.

It's not proof that you used psi-esp to send an image into their mind.

It is proof that you can guess an image with a rate of success better than chance. That will win the million and attract scientific interest.

 

[maatorc]

..........

Quote: maatorc
2... Not proof; perhaps inference.

It's not proof that you used psi-esp to send an image into their mind.
It is proof that you can guess an image with a rate of success better than chance. That will win the million and attract scientific interest.

It is too trivial for the JREF to even consider paying $1M.

It is extremely doubtful a rate of success better than chance. will attract any serious scientific attention. This sort of stuff and its statistical variations have been going on for decades.

The presumption by the JREF that such an event would be a major world-wide item is seriously missplaced: It will be something of a yawn.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It is too trivial for the JREF to even consider paying $1M.

This is incorrect. Such a demonstration would indeed qualify, assuming all the other requirements were met.