Some questions about the Million Dollar Challenge

[Bjarke Roune]

I'm writing an article about the Million Dollar Challenge for my homepage, and I have some questions about it. Before I get into that, I just want to congratulate especially Kramer for the challenge. Especially the recent applicants in the "Challenge Applicants" forum have all been handled very well and professionally. It must be very tough to remain so reasonable and civil considering the huge amount of b*llshit he must deal with.

If you know the answer to any of the following questions, I would be grateful if you would tell me on this forum or via mail.

As far as I can see, the "Challenge Applications" forum only contains information about four (4) actual Million Dollar Challenge tests, and these are

James Blunt at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=46041

Jim Dunn at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=50254

Cameron Johnson at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=56495

Angela Patel at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=52345

Have i got every test on the forum on that list? Are there full details of any other Million Dollar Challenge tests somewhere else?

Also, I would like some more information on some of the above 4 applicants, so if anyone knows, that would be helpful. I think most of this information ought to be displayed in the forum, so that the Million Dollar Challenge can be as credible an argument against the supernatural as is possible.

* James Blunt
Did he think the test was conducted fairly? (it doesn't seem to say)
What reason did he provide for the failure, if any?

* Jim Dunn
Obviously some correspondence is missing from this file, especially at the end. As far as I can see, nowhere does it say exactly how many days the test ended up spanning (2,3 or 4?), and it does not say what dates the test spanned.

Also, there was a dispute about some obituaries, but no details are given. Where did these obituaries come from, who died and how many people died? What did Jim say was wrong with the obituaries and what were his arguments?

Also, all the links in the file are broken.

* Cameron Johnson
What reason did she provide for the failure?

I also have some general questions:

Most tests are recorded on video. Is it possible to download or otherwise obtain these videos?

In the past, claims have been rejected due to absurdity (http://www.alternativescience.com/randi's-letter.htm). Does this still happen? If so, are all such immediate rejections posted on the forum?

At this time, is all new official correspondence with applicants posted on the forum? If not, what is not posted?

 

[Mojo]

* James Blunt
Did he think the test was conducted fairly? (it doesn't seem to say)

The agreed protocol was for Bertha and I to randomly place a penny, a nickel, a five-dollar gold piece, a silver dollar and a hunk of aluminum, one each, in five bags. Then Mr. Blunt used a home made sensing device to determine which was which. He had three tries to conduct this experiment.

(My emphasis)

He would have a hard time contending that the test wasn't fair, as he will have agreed to the protocol in advance. That's one of the rules for the challenge.

From here
1. This is the primary and most important of these rules: Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. This is the primary and most important of these rules.

(my emphasis)

 

[Bjarke Roune]

True, but he might still have objected to the way the test was carried out, while having no problem with the protocol. He also might have changed his mind after the test.

 

[SwissSkeptic]

Have i got every test on the forum on that list? Are there full details of any other Million Dollar Challenge tests somewhere else?

Achau Nguyen was tested, too.

ETA: Welcome aboard

 

[Bjarke Roune]

doh!

Thanks SwissSkeptic, I'll add him to my list.

I feel pretty stupid, because Achau was the case that really got me interested in the Million Dollar Challenge, and I've been following the case closely. I've even got a post in the thread about him too. Guess i skipped him in my search of the forum due to thinking "oh yeah, I know about that one".

 

[Bjarke Roune]

Perhaps I should add that the article I'm writing will try to present the argument "no one has taken the million dollars, so it seems that paranormal powers are atleast extremely rare, and they probably do not exist". In order to do this fairly, I will have to present the strongest argument I can that The Million Dollar Challenge is actually just a fraud or atleast completely unfair - hopefully that argument will be pretty unconvincing.

It seems there was another test

"Yellow Bamboo" at
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=52068

Af first, I understod the file to say that Australian Skeptics had completely taken over, and that the Yellow Bamboo people were no longer going for the Million Dollar Challenge, but some other prize in Australia. Reading it again, it does seem to say that the test was actually for the million dollars. Unfortunately, the file says very little about the actual test. The link to "added footage" is broken (added to what, btw?). It would be nice to see some of the correspondence with the australian skeptics.

I came to revisit this file due to the following article. It seems the Yellow Bamboo people claim they passed the test and Randi backed out. I don't believe that, but especially in light of this, it would be nice with some more details.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/2/prweb106721.htm

 

[SwissSkeptic]

Did you check out this thread about the YB fiasco?
Since the link doesn't work anymore you should ask Australian Skeptics for the video, it's a must see

 

[Jon.]

It's important to note, also, that all of these applicants failed on their preliminary tests. None ever made it to the million-dollar test itself.

 

[Bjarke Roune]

I should have read the FAQ more closely/recently, since one of my questions is answered there. Specifically, the question

"In the past, claims have been rejected due to absurdity (]http://www.alternativescience.com/randi's-letter.htm). Does this still happen? "

is answered in the FAQ by

"There are some claims that are far too implausible to warrant any serious examination, such as the "Breatharian" claims in which the applicant states that he can survive without food or water. Science conclusively tells us all we need to know about such matters, and the JREF feels no obligation to engage applicants in such delusions."

I have no idea how JREF evalutes the plausibility of these things, though. Most paranormal claims seem equally and totally implausible to me.

 

[Bjarke Roune]

Thanks to SwissSkeptic, who made me see the wisdom of searching the regular forum for information, not just the official challenge log. I've dug up the information I asked for about Jimm Dunn this way:

"Obviously some correspondence is missing from this file, especially at the end."

Much of this correspondence and further information is here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=50265

"As far as I can see, nowhere does it say exactly how many days the test ended up spanning (2,3 or 4?), and it does not say what dates the test spanned."

From the 23rd to the 26th of december 2004.

"Also, there was a dispute about some obituaries, but no details are given. Where did these obituaries come from, who died and how many people died?"

The links are still broken, but a post in the thread linked to above gives the following link, which is not broken.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13655288

"What did Jim say was wrong with the obituaries and what were his arguments?"

I'd still like to know this.

 

[SwissSkeptic]

I should have read the FAQ more closely/recently, since one of my questions is answered there. Specifically, the question

"In the past, claims have been rejected due to absurdity (]http://www.alternativescience.com/randi's-letter.htm). Does this still happen? "

is answered in the FAQ by

"There are some claims that are far too implausible to warrant any serious examination, such as the "Breatharian" claims in which the applicant states that he can survive without food or water. Science conclusively tells us all we need to know about such matters, and the JREF feels no obligation to engage applicants in such delusions."

I have no idea how JREF evalutes the plausibility of these things, though. Most paranormal claims seem equally and totally implausible to me.

This raises a very interesting question: How implausible does a claim have to be in order to be "too implausible"?

I've always been under the impression that Randi usually doesn't want to test Breatharians because of safety issues, not because of the inherent absurdity. After all, the purpose of the JREF prize is to go after absurd claims.

Then, I remembered Tyrone Shoelace and suddenly understood that there has to be some kind of "absurdity" caveat to rule out claims that obviously don't seem to have any other purpose but to waste KRAMERs and Randis time.

 

[Bjarke Roune]

Yes, I think that question is interesting too.

The claim of Tyrone Shoelace was that if you put his dog into a bathroom with turds in the toilet, the turds would disappear. I find that quite believable. I think Tyrone Shoelae should be rejected because his claim is not paranormal, not because it is absurd. I actually think Tyrone might even have been sincere, though I agree that it does smell like a prank claim.

 

[SwissSkeptic]

Yes you're right. Bad example on my behalf since there's obviously nothing paranormal in this claim. (Although I still think "Tyrone" was just trying to annoy KRAMER - the name kinda gives it away.)

So is there an example of a claim that has been rejected due to its absurdity?
I remember Randi saying "We will also not test for Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny" in response to a breatharian. This sounds like the test has been rejected due to its absurdity. On the other hand, just a couple of weeks ago he challenged "Jasmuheen" in his commentary, another breatharian.

The challenge application even explicitly states that breatharians claims won't be tested due to their likeliness to cause physical harm.

JREF will also NOT test claims that are likely to cause injury of any sort, such as those involving the withholding of air, food or water, or the use of illicit materials, drugs, or dangerous devices.

So I guess it all comes down to who Randi wants to see tested (mostly people with lots of followers), which is only sensible since the JREF has very limited resources.

ETA: As KRAMER just kindly pointed out, people with followers never get tested by the JREF. My last paragraph is wrong and should read:
Randi seems to challenge mostly people who have followers, but since they don't apply (too much to lose?), the tests that are actually conducted by the JREF don't feature high-profile woos.

Edited again cos I kan't spell

 

[Ducky]

Honorable mention to the upcoming test of the GSIC chip by forum member LostAngeles who took up the testing when the original applicant stopped negotiating protocol and because insulting.

This thread is a good read.


Welcome.

 

[Ashles]

Perhaps I should add that the article I'm writing will try to present the argument "no one has taken the million dollars, so it seems that paranormal powers are atleast extremely rare, and they probably do not exist". In order to do this fairly, I will have to present the strongest argument I can that The Million Dollar Challenge is actually just a fraud or atleast completely unfair - hopefully that argument will be pretty unconvincing.

In order to do that it might be interesting for you to read a list of excuses for not taking the challenge and the reasons why those excuses are not valid.

 

[Bjarke Roune]

posted by Jon.
It's important to note, also, that all of these applicants failed on their preliminary tests. None ever made it to the million-dollar test itself.

Yes, that is important.

Posted by SwissSkeptic
So I guess it all comes down to who Randi wants to see tested (mostly people with lots of followers), which is only sensible since the JREF has very limited resources.

Thanks for digging up information for me - I appreciate it.

If indeed it comes down to who Randi happens to want to see tested, then the Million Dollar Challenge cannot be used as an argument against the paranormal. The believers will say: "Well, Randi only wants to test the frauds and only those he wants to test are actually tested, so it's hardly a surprise no one has won the million yet." However, looking at the challenge forum, it doesn't seem that applicants are rejected simply because Randi doesn't want to test them.

This leads to the question of whether or not all correspondence is actually posted to the challenges forum, especially when it comes to claims that are quickly rejected. If not, the challenge is not really half as open as it appears at first sight. Actually, I think the credibility of the challenge hinges critically on this very question. The posts in the challenge forum makes the challenge appear to be run in a fair manner. If that impression is genuine, it becomes very hard to find serious flaws in the way the challenge is run.

When I say credibility, I mean credibility in the eyers of someone very skeptical who is doing his best to find fault with the challenge. I do not myself have many doubts that the challenge is genuine, but then I don't believe in the paranormal.

My tentative impression is that all halfway reasonable correspondence, or perhaps even really all correspondence, is posted to the challenge forum at this time. Clearly this has not been the case in the past, though. One example is the Yellow Bamboo case, which is written as though there has not been any controversy about the matter. The Jimm Dunn topic is also clearly lacking much of the correspondence.

Before the challenge forum, it seems the challenge has been completely closed. I've not looked into that yet, though.

Posted by fowlsound
Honorable mention to the upcoming test of the GSIC chip by forum member LostAngeles who took up the testing when the original applicant stopped negotiating protocol and because insulting.

This thread is a good read.

Welcome.

Thanks, I'll look into it.

Posted by Ashles
In order to do that it might be interesting for you to read a list of excuses for not taking the challenge and the reasons why those excuses are not valid.

Thanks. That is certainly interesting, and I'll have to look at these excuses and the reasons for them being not so good in the article.

 

[jmercer]

My tentative impression is that all halfway reasonable correspondence, or perhaps even really all correspondence, is posted to the challenge forum at this time. Clearly this has not been the case in the past, though. One example is the Yellow Bamboo case, which is written as though there has not been any controversy about the matter.

The Yellow Bamboo organization approached JREF about the challenge, but stopped corresponding. (As stated in the challenge thread.) They were apparently then challenged by a local skeptical organization and the results (video, etc.) were posted and made available to us here.

Access to that "test" by the third party was simply reported on (with some commentary). Since - according to the Challenge thread - YB stopped sending emails, what would you have liked Kramer to post?

 

[jmercer]

Regarding Jim Dunn - after the initial set of emails and his subsequent failure to demonstrate his "powers", he started faxing stuff to JREF.

To show that stuff would have required scanning in the fax images and posting them in the thread... for no apparent reason. According to Kramer's last post in that Challenge thread, it was simply more protests and arguing about his failure.

I'm not sure what you're driving at here... those last two examples may indeed be incomplete - but that seems to be due to the actions (or inactions) of the participants and not JREF.

 

[Ashles]

If indeed it comes down to who Randi happens to want to see tested, then the Million Dollar Challenge cannot be used as an argument against the paranormal. The believers will say: "Well, Randi only wants to test the frauds and only those he wants to test are actually tested, so it's hardly a surprise no one has won the million yet." However, looking at the challenge forum, it doesn't seem that applicants are rejected simply because Randi doesn't want to test them.

I think it is important not to take SwissSkeptic's comment out of context, (or to think that any of us actually speak for the JREF here).

SwissSkeptic was only talking about the testing of a type of challenge that is not normally tested by the JREF. The JREF can make exceptions to the prohibited challenges.
The general rule on those ones seems to be initially to prevent disturbed or deluded or fraudulent people injuring themselves.

Maybe you might think you could win the challenge by just not eating for 50 days. You might honestly believe you could do it by sheer willpower, but not think about potential consequences. That's why the JREF, as a rule, does not generally entertain these types of challenges in the first instance.
But certain types of challengers with followers might be merely charlatans enjoying the media attention and their followers adulation. Randi may sometimes think that they can be tested without no real risk of danger. That's his call to make.

But for all the more regularly testable claims (no danger involved) Randi does not pick and choose which to test. If they say they can do it they will (barring any real risk of mental issues) get tested.

I'd hate to think that anyone got the impression that Randi only picks people to test who he knows will fail because, as you say, that observably isn't the case.

For example can anyone find any example anywhere of Randi refusing to test a paranormal claim (where there is no health risk involved)?

This leads to the question of whether or not all correspondence is actually posted to the challenges forum, especially when it comes to claims that are quickly rejected. If not, the challenge is not really half as open as it appears at first sight. Actually, I think the credibility of the challenge hinges critically on this very question. The posts in the challenge forum makes the challenge appear to be run in a fair manner. If that impression is genuine, it becomes very hard to find serious flaws in the way the challenge is run.

This forum is obviously not the only information outlet in the world.
If anyone applied to the JREF challenge and was turned down for no good reason they could (and would) shout it to the rooftops.

They could announce it wherever they liked and as a result Randi would be forced to explain his rejection, or offer a test, or seriously damage the credibility of the test.

Apart from anything else, if they actually had the claimed ability they could get into the media in about 4 seconds flat. And get all the publicity they could require.

But that hasn't hapened, and I am not sure why anyone would think it would. Once someone starts going down the secret conspiracy and information being withheld route then they end up believing whatever they want.

I agree with jmercer, I am increasingly perplexed as to what you are looking for. It is hard to see how the Challenge could be much more transparent or fairly run, and you say you personally think it is genuine. So what are you looking for? An example where the JREF didn't publicise all correspondence or reasoning as well as it could have? Well such examples probably exist. But what would that demonstrate?

I'm getting a bit confused here.

 

[Bjarke Roune]

I can certainly understand that my inquiry seems fishy. I'm trying to think of every way that there could possibly be something crooked about the challenge. This means I'll be looking at many accusations that are completely off the mark. Please, just because I'm trying to make the best case for some (possibly ridicoulous) argument in this thread, that doesn't mean I think it is a good argument, and if I include it in the article, it certainly will not be presented unanswered. I'm not writing this article for the skeptics, though I hope it will hold some interest for them. I hope to avoid preaching to the choir, and this means taking peoples' concerns seriously. You are free to think I'm wasting my time

Posted by jmercer
The Yellow Bamboo organization approached JREF about the challenge, but stopped corresponding. (As stated in the challenge thread.) They were apparently then challenged by a local skeptical organization and the results (video, etc.) were posted and made available to us here.

Access to that "test" by the third party was simply reported on (with some commentary). Since - according to the Challenge thread - YB stopped sending emails, what would you have liked Kramer to post?

Doing a search for "yellow bamboo" on the JREF forums results in 105 threads. Many of those are very lengthy. Searching for "Achau Nguyen" results in only 9 threads. Yellow Bamboo has been all over the internet claiming to have passed the preliminary test and Randi have engaged that in his commentaries several times. The Yellow Bamboo controversy is perhaps the most talked-about applicant of all. Yet, the controversy is not mentioned at all on the challenge log. They must have sent email to JREF about them claiming to have passed the test.

Obviously, that is not an attempt to put a lid on it, as Randi repeatedly and at length engaged the issue in his commentaries. The point is just that the challenge log did not tell the whole story.

Posted by jmercer
Regarding Jim Dunn - after the initial set of emails and his subsequent failure to demonstrate his "powers", he started faxing stuff to JREF.

To show that stuff would have required scanning in the fax images and posting them in the thread... for no apparent reason. According to Kramer's last post in that Challenge thread, it was simply more protests and arguing about his failure.

The missing correspondence is not only the faxes. A thread about Jim Dinn in this forum has several posts by Kramer posting new information about the case. This information is not in the challenge forum. Also...

Posted by Kramer
Well, I asked Jim for the phone number of the reporter he refers to in his claim letter. Jim responded by giving me a phone number, but hardly the one I requested.

... we don't get to see the email exchange where Kramer got the phone number (this might have been a telephone conversation, in which case the point is moot).

Posted by jmercer
I'm not sure what you're driving at here... those last two examples may indeed be incomplete - but that seems to be due to the actions (or inactions) of the participants and not JREF.

I think Kramer chose to leave parts out because he did not think they were relevant or important, and for all I know, he was completely correct.

Perhaps I should give a bit more context of why I think these things are relevant. My first reaction to looking at some of the criticisms of the challenge on the internet was: "Look at the damn log on the damn JREF page! How can anyone possibly construe this as anything but sincere, patient and serious conduct?" Unfortunately, if only some data is posted, this argument is less strong, since then the log is not an impartial and complete source of data on the case. Leaving out the part about Yellow Bamboo claiming to have passed the preliminary is an example of this.

Unfortunately for my devil's advocate alter ego, JREF has never claimed that the log is a complete source of information, and leaving some things out certainly is not evidence of anything bad. One example is that Kramer said that he did not want to further engage Jim Dunn in his delusions, as that might be detrimental to his mental health. That is clearly a legitimate reason.