Should the JREF prize cover pseudoscience?

[tmackean]

It worries me that the brief of the JREF extends beynd the paranormal or supernatural into the realms of conventional fraud.

It's not that pseudoscience of the type covered by Randi almost every week in his commentaries isn't worthy of being brought to light, rather that I think it potentially compromises what I thought was a message of some clarity; prove the existence of the supernatural beyond doubt and win $1m.

Undoubtedly, devices to change the taste of wine or improve the quality of music are fraudulent, but I've yet to hear any of their creators make supernatural claims to justify their efficacy. This misuse of science is, to my mind, different from claims which exist wholly outside logic and any scientific frame of reference.

What worries me is that perhaps inevitably there will be a device which does have an effect which is initially scientifically inexplicable and does improve the quality of music (or some other application). This is not so inconceivable - we don't yet understand everything about science, and no-one would claim that we did. There are many occasions where a process works through a mechanim which is, as yet, undiscovered. To this date, not all of the properties of electricity are understood, although firms like Intel spend millions pushing the frontiers of this kind of knowledge in their quest to manufacture ever smaller and faster microprocessors.

It woud be a tragedy for just such a mundane occurrence to scoop the JREF prize, because it would make it so much harder to push the case for supernatural skepticism.

What do you think?

 

[CFLarsen]

It isn't about what they claim is the reasons why their products work. It is about what their products is claimed to be able to do.

These people often don't consider their products or abilities paranormal, they see it as perfectly natural. So why claim "woowoo", when you can claim "natural"?

But what a psychic, or a dowser, or a healer is doing, is not natural. It is paranormal, regardless of what they themselves claim.

Don't you find it strange that these people don't apply, regardless of what they say? Hey, if Randi offers me a million bucks, because he thinks that what I can do with a computer is paranormal, I will be at his doorstep as soon as I can get there! Because I can friggin' well show him - under controlled conditions - what I can do. And I'll be a cool million richer.

But these people don't. Odd, eh?

I'm not saying that Randi decides what is really paranormal or not. But he does have a vast experience with this, and if he thinks something is paranormal, he is free to offer the million.

But nobody picks it up. Odd, eh?

 

[tmackean]

Thanks for your reply.

My reading of the JREF commitment is that it currently extends beyond the paranormal into the quite different realm of pseudoscience. The banner at the top of the JREF web page makes a distinction between paranormal, supernatural (although I must admit, those two blur for me) and pseudoscience.

The issue, to my mind, is not how we define the term paranormal, but whether the JREF should cover a different, though equally valid field of skeptical study - cold fusion, polygraphs etc.

I just worry that one day some fake sounding device will walk off with the JREF prize by exploiting some poorly understood scientific phenomenon, and suddenly the cause of rational skepticism towards the paranormal is massively undermined.

That's a scary thought, because the JREF prize has real value in skeptical argument - it's a showstopper. Of course if it's won through paranormal demonstration, then fine, it's fair game.

 

[CFLarsen]

Thanks for your reply.

My reading of the JREF commitment is that it currently extends beyond the paranormal into the quite different realm of pseudoscience. The banner at the top of the JREF web page makes a distinction between paranormal, supernatural (although I must admit, those two blur for me) and pseudoscience.

The issue, to my mind, is not how we define the term paranormal, but whether the JREF should cover a different, though equally valid field of skeptical study - cold fusion, polygraphs etc.

I just worry that one day some fake sounding device will walk off with the JREF prize by exploiting some poorly understood scientific phenomenon, and suddenly the cause of rational skepticism towards the paranormal is massively undermined.

That's a scary thought, because the JREF prize has real value in skeptical argument - it's a showstopper. Of course if it's won through paranormal demonstration, then fine, it's fair game.

I see your point. But...

If someone walks away with the million, that only means one thing: Somebody was able to fool Randi (assuming that it was some fake device). It doesn't mean that a paranormal phenomenon has been proved to exist, or a pseudoscientific device really worked. And it certainly doesn't mean that skeptics were wrong: Naturally, we will want to examine the device, and if it later turns out to be a fake, then skepticism is strengthened.

Skepticism doesn't hinge on the million bucks. It is Randi who (through sponsors) has thrown down the gauntlet: Show me that you can do it!

Randi is, by far, the most visible skeptic around, no doubt about that. But in a few hundred years, when Randi dies, skepticism will still be here, especially if the rest of us continue. Don't forget, this is a pretty young movement, and we are in the process of forming local groups, and discussing what the best strategies are.

 

[tmackean]

Fine points, although I'd like to think that skepticism has existed as long as belief has...!

I still can't shake the feeling that challenging both pseudoscience and the paranormal would be better served by two different bodies with similar educational aims.

 

[drkitten]

I still can't shake the feeling that challenging both pseudoscience and the paranormal would be better served by two different bodies with similar educational aims.

Does it have to be an either-or? I don't think that anyone's stopping you from, for example, establishing an organization to fight pseudoscience wherever you encounter it.... and a lot of the JREF board and membership would be in favor of such an organization and its aims.

More generally, though --- pseudoscience and the paranormal are often closely linked. The "explanations" given for paranormal events are couched in pseudoscientific terms. How often have you seen Kirlian photography trotted out as evidence for auras? Of perhaps more significance is the large overlap between the communites that buy into both (check out the local crystal-hugging shop that offers both magical rituals and therapeutic touch services), and the observation that a good healthy dose of common sense and skepticism is an appropriate treatment for both.