• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Should the Randi Challenge be trusted ?

jambo372 said:
It hasn't been unknown for magicians to cheat psychics in tests eg Richard Wiseman recently fixed a test to take advantage of Natasha Demkina.
Click to expand...

Aren't there rules about libel on this forum? What is the basis for your accusation? How exactly was this "fix" carried out?
 
The initial decision to consider a score of 4 hits out of 7 as 'failure' when the probability of getting such a score is less than two per cent is hardly in step with normal scientific practice.
Click to expand...

Do we know if Natasha (and her promotors) agreed to this criterion prior to the test? It can't be a fix if they did.
 
We have already discussed Houdini and Mina Crandon, as you well know Jambo.

Remember this thread where you even admitted she used fraud and trickery at least some of the time.

It's a bit sad when you're just recycling your old arguments now.
 
It can be a fix - if Wiseman changed it afterwards.

I'm just showing that magicians and psychics could be competition for each other and as a result magicians certainly have motive to debunk psychics even if that means cheating.

Here is an example of what I mean by competition :

You go to a performance with a magician levitating, say David Copperfield. He admits trickery is used.

You go to a seance where a medium does the exact same thing, she claims spirits are lifting her up (it doesn't matter whether it's faked or genuine), you believe her.

If you believe the medium you are likely to be far less impressed by a magician doing the same thing. You are more likely to be impressed by something you think is 'real' (even if isn't), than by something you know to be fake.
 
jambo372 said:
---snip---

If you believe the medium you are likely to be far less impressed by a magician doing the same thing. You are more likely to be impressed by something you think is 'real' (even if isn't), than by something you know to be fake.
Click to expand...

But if you know one person is doing it by trickery and admits it, why do you not consider that the person that says it is real is in actual fact using the same method and just lying?
 
It doesn't matter, as long as you believe that it's paranormal you'll find it far more impressive than something you know to be a trick.
 
jambo372 said:
It can be a fix - if Wiseman changed it afterwards.

I'm just showing that magicians and psychics could be competition for each other and as a result magicians certainly have motive to debunk psychics even if that means cheating.

Here is an example of what I mean by competition :

You go to a performance with a magician levitating, say David Copperfield. He admits trickery is used.

You go to a seance where a medium does the exact same thing, she claims spirits are lifting her up (it doesn't matter whether it's faked or genuine), you believe her.

If you believe the medium you are likely to be far less impressed by a magician doing the same thing. You are more likely to be impressed by something you think is 'real' (even if isn't), than by something you know to be fake.
Click to expand...

If Wiseman changed WHAT afterwards? The metal plate in the subject's skull? The titanium hip in the subject's leg?

Natasha's claim was that she has "X-ray vision", and she's "100% accurate". I repair X-ray equipment for a living. You know what I'd call an X-ray machine that can't detect a metal skull plate, and a titanium hip replacement?

A boat anchor.

***edited to correct a name confusion***
 
Natasha never claimed 100 % accuracy.
He could have changed the contract or swapped the cards.
 
He could have changed the contract or swapped the cards.
Click to expand...
Maybe he beat her over the head with an iron bar to put her off.

After all that's the only way we sceptics can make paranormal practitioners look like fraudsters - by cheating.

Because, of course, we've seen Natasha on the cover of so many magazines haven't we?
 
jambo372 said:
Natasha never claimed 100 % accuracy.
He could have changed the contract or swapped the cards.
Click to expand...
Which is more likely:.Dr Richard Wiseman cheating to make it look like Natasha was fake..or Natasha claiming the unlikely claim that she has X-Ray vision and failing to produce results?
 
Azrael 5 said:
Originally posted by jambo372
I am more impressed by psychics like Nina Kulagina who say they use paranormal methods than by magicians like Randi whom I know use perfectly normal mundane methods.
Click to expand...
How do you know the former is any different to the latter?
Click to expand...

I think jambo is saying he is more impressed by magicians who lie about what's going on than those who tell the truth. I'm not quite sure why this should be, but that's what he said.
 
jambo372 said:
Natasha never claimed 100 % accuracy.
He could have changed the contract or swapped the cards.
Click to expand...
Yes... Natasha has done several televison appearences in which she, or her mother, have claimed that "She has never misdiagnosed a patient."

That's sound like a cliam of 100% accuracy in my book.

The only changes made to the contract , were changes made at Natasha's request. Changes which could onlyhave benefitted Natasha.

As far as "swapping the cards"... the "patients" themselves revealed their own conditions after the test was over. In the case of the subject with a plate in his head(that Natash failed to detect), he allowed people to walk up and feel the plate for themselves.

So I ask you again... do you think two of the subjects swapped the metal skull plate and the replacement hip just to confound Natasha?
 
jlam4911 said:
I once had my appendix grow back, but I went to the homeopath and he gave me a 100000000000X dilution of human appendix and, using the principle of "like cures like" my appendix went away again.

Oh, wait. I'm sorry....that was a load of crap. Sorry, my brain went haywire for a moment. Maybe this nice young woman can cure that too.

How about this for a test? Get one person in a cast with a genuinely broken leg, and mix that person in with a bunch of people in casts who have never broken their legs. The game: Find the broken leg. Should be pretty simple.

I guess the hard part would be getting a bunch of healthy people to put on casts...
Click to expand...

No doubt she'd say she can't see through plaster casts. She refused to diagnose people behind a curtain because she says she can only see through cloth that someone is wearing.

:D :D :D
 
Have them on individual beds(or hospital gurneys),no cover,no clues and away she goes..;)
 
rppa said:
How do you know the former is any different to the latter?
Click to expand...


I think jambo is saying he is more impressed by magicians who lie about what's going on than those who tell the truth. I'm not quite sure why this should be, but that's what he said. [/QUOTE]

This is what is so disturbing. jambo has invested so much of his time and energy into this stuff that no matter the moral implications he prefers to believe his psychic friends and heroes even if they are lying. It seems that magicians who tell the truth about what they do are spoiling his little topsy-turvy fantasy land. Black is white, and white is black down jambo's rabbit hole. Even the OP turns everything on its head. This is really DESPERATE clinging to a false worldview. He was probably traumatised when he found out there was no Santa.

Yet, he doesn't believe in Geller. I suspect he thinks Geller just "looks evil" like Derren Brown.

How many serial killers "look evil"? Most tend to look just like normal folk.
 
jambo372 said:
If you believe the medium you are likely to be far less impressed by a magician doing the same thing. You are more likely to be impressed by something you think is 'real' (even if isn't), than by something you know to be fake.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, if someone really had the ability to peer inside my mind and tell what I was thinking, then watching them do it would cease to be impressive or entertaining. The fact that they could do it would be impressive, of course. But as a form of entertainment (which seems to be what you're addressing), watching them repeatedly demonstrate it would become as boring and pointless as watching someone tell how many fingers I was holding up by using their remarkable power of vision, or move a ten-pound block with only the strength of their arm, or distinguish tea from bourbon with nothing but their incredible skills of smell and taste.
 
Jambo372 must still explain how cheating by Randi/JREF is possible within the agreement.

If there were any actual cheating, it would be a breach of the agreement, and the applicant could sue JREF, and probably get the million just on that basis.

JREF can't afford to be caught doing that, it would undermine their entire purpose. The simplest way not to be caught doing it is not to do it. They have no real motivation to take such a risk...

Especially since so far all applicants need no help to cause them to fail to perform (or show up) it seems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom