• 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.

Some Thoughts on Randi and His Challenge

amherst said:
Actually they say that fraud can be shown to have been a possibility in any test, not just that it can be alleged. Big difference. Further, it is quite enough for me to show that Randi has the ability to unfairly get out of any test. He has great motive to do this and it would be incredibly naive to think he would not.
Click to expand...

Whatever, doesn't make any difference. If a claimant passes a preliminary following the protocol, then it would be up to Randi to prove there was fraud, not merely show that it was a possibility.
I did deal with your Yellow Bamboo hypothetical "fraud proof" test. Not in that paragraph but in the one before it:

"It is not my job to sit around and come up with hypothetical ways that fraud could have been shown to have taken place in well conducted experiments. That job is for the Randis and the Hansels of the world."

I now see that you disagree with Hyman and every other competent scientist and actually believe that there is a way to design 100% fraud proof experiments. This is an absurd position and I will discuss it below.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. This does not deal with my YB hypothetical at all. And as I have said, if you are going to throw around allegations that false accusations of fraud will be made by Randi, it is very much up to you to show that it will be done. You can't just allege some crap then say the onus of proof is on everyone else to show you are wrong. Nor have I ever said that it is possible to design 100% fraud proof experiments. Nor you have you proved that "every other competent scientist" believes that to be impossible. The onus again being on you to do so if that is your allegation.


Again, big difference between "allege" and "show possibilities". I think that maybe if you weren't so confused about that distinction you would have much less to find fault with and we could both be saved a lot of time.
Click to expand...

Not much difference and certainly no significant difference in this context. It doesn't much matter whether Randi alleges fraud or shows that it was "a possiblity". Either way, unless he can prove that it in fact happened, in the face of a documented passed preliminary test that followed the protocol, he's stuffed and goodbye million.

You're the one fantasizing if you think Hyman is wrong about this. I've already given you an example of how a secure, seemingly "fraud proof" experiment can be shown to have been "possibly" fraudulently successful. Find me one competent scientist who disagrees with Hyman on this. (Hint: You won't be able to.)
Click to expand...

Not going to play this game. You make the allegations, you find the proof. You say something dumbass like that "every scientist" agrees with Hyman, you prove it.

So you still do agree with me that Randi can "say otherwise" about whether a test followed protocol. I've already acknowledged many times that you think that if there is a dispute over his decision then it can go to court. How was I misrepresenting you?
Click to expand...

I have always agreed that Randi could say otherwise. But what you said was that I agreed with you that Randi has "the ability to dismiss tests". I don't agree that he can dismiss them. I just think he could theoretically say that he thought the protocol was not followed.

Again, you still want to think that if a claimant succeeds in the "preliminary" test then it's all but a guarantee that he will be able to succeed in the "formal" one. Based on the contract which the claimant signs this is not Randi's position.

A more correct "tree analogy" would be to think of the claimant as someone who claims to be able to chop down gigantic trees with only a few strokes of his axe. The "preliminary" test would be to see if the claimant could chop down a pine tree in a few strokes. If the claimant succeeded in doing that then the real "formal" test would take place. This test would be to see if the claimant could, with a few strokes of his axe, chop down a giant, 300 foot high, four ton redwood tree. Even if one succeeds at the "preliminary" test, Randi's contract stated position is that it is still unlikely that he will succeed in the "formal" one. This is why there is a "preliminary" test in the first place. If it was a guarantee that a claimant would succeed in a "formal" test if he passed a "preliminary" one, then the "formal" test would be completely superfluous.
Click to expand...

No, you continue to entirely miss the point. The example you give I think vastly overstates the difference between the preliminary and formal tests (the protocol might be more stringent, but what the claimant does in each case is the same) but anyway it makes no difference. We are talking about a claimant who passes a documented preliminary test while following the protocol, and who wants to take the formal test but Randi won't let him.

In that situation, the onus is entirely on Randi to show why he should not let the claimant go on, or hand over the million.

Let's continue with your example. Amherst just comes to court and says "I chopped down the pine tree as agreed, and now Princhester won't let me have a go at chopping down the redwood, even though I stand ready willing and able to do so." I say "Firstly he didn't really chop down the pine tree following the agreed protocol, and secondly even if I did let him try to chop down the redwood he would fail". Your reply would be "The only thing stopping me from proving that I could chop down the redwood is princhester's wilful breach of contract in refusing to let me try"

The court's response would be "princhester, if you say he breached the protocol on the pine tree, that's up to you to prove. And if you can't prove that, then you have two choices. Hand over the $5000 as damages for breach of contract in failing to let him try to chop down the redwood as you agreed you would, or let him try on the redwood and fail, thereby proving that you are right that he can't do it.

But if you think princhester, that I am going to let you take advantage of your own breach of contract by holding Amherst out of the opportunity to do what you said you'd let him do in order to get the $5000, you've got another thought coming, buddy."

Any way you cut it, if Randi alleges fraud its going to be up to him to prove, and if he can't he's going to get hammered.
 
I guess Amherst's opinion is that Randi is guilty of fraud until proven innocent. I'm glad I live in the USA where a person is considered innocent as a default position.
 
Actually TBK, it's worse than that. Amherst thinks not that Randi is guilty of fraud but that he will be guilty of fraud, just as soon as anyone passes a preliminary.

It's kind of a second order denial of justice. Randi is not only to be considered guilty unless he can prove himself innocent, he's to be found guilty of something before he's even done it.
 
I feel sorry for Randi. He is in such a position of power and authority, with the ability to single-handedly squelch claims and abilities that would revolutionize the world. It's too bad that everyone making these claims has to go through Randi, taking the chance that he will exercise his mighty power and deny the world its rightful due.

Imagine if these folks could just demonstrate their claims on their own, without even talking to Randi. The mind boggles.

~~ Paul
 
Dancing David said:
Maybe Amhearst was a ghost or a poltergeist, he seems to be quiet for now.
Click to expand...
Perhaps someone could copy and paste one of his earlier posts, just to keep his spirit alive. After all, that's all he seemed to be doing; no new arguments presented / all rebuttals ignored. :D
 
So. Let's get this straight. There was a Yellow Bamboo claim. Randi set out to do a preliminary test. The people who were making the claim didn't agree to the conditions. At all. Then somebody decides to go out and do one. This somebody doesn't even make a token effort to observe the protocols of the preliminary test. And so it isn't accepted as a preliminary test. But yet it's magically a successful test. And Randi is bad because, if he can reject a test that was not even nominally remotely close to having the right protocols, then he might conceivably reject any other test, in spite of the fact that this has never happened. And so it's all a Fraud or something.

And people wonder why skeptics lose their patience with woo-woos? We're dealing largely with people who are not only unable to tell the difference between R2D2 and a Shop-Vac but who consider it reprehensible to make a distinction.
 
You people are absolutely disgusting. I do not think I have ever seen a group of people who are more dishonest than you.

Amherst,

Your posts were excellent, but it counts for nothing when you are dealing with very sick individuals such as found here. These people have no desire to discover the truth only to further the AGENDA.
 
the only thing that does not make sense is why you let a brilliant person like amherst even post here. you should have banned his ass and deleted his post on day 1.

by allowing his posts to remain you make it easy for people like me to add to what i already know --- and that is that the whole million dollar prize is NOTHING BUT A BAD JOKE!!!!!!!!!
 
I'm sure you know this already, Olaf, but I just want to confirm that you should not feel any need to back up what you say with facts or logic: such is our tremendous admiration for you that merely stating your conclusions is quite enough for us to know the Truth.

Thank you, Olaf, for bestowing upon us your wisdom. Truly, we are not worthy, and are nothing but sick and disgusting blights upon the shining light of your mind.
 
olaf said:
You people are absolutely disgusting. I do not think I have ever seen a group of people who are more dishonest than you.

Amherst,

Your posts were excellent, but it counts for nothing when you are dealing with very sick individuals such as found here. These people have no desire to discover the truth only to further the AGENDA.
Click to expand...

Please follow the link
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom