The JREF Million Dollar Challenge Unofficial FAQ

Gr8wight said:
I'm thinking of it in the same way I think of the difference between criminal and civil law. In the analogy of criminal law, the JREF would represent the state, and the burden of proof would fall upon them. However, in civil law, the challenge applicant would represent the claimant, and the burden of proof would fall upon them.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, are either one of you lawyers?

Look, fellas, I'm not a lawyer, either, but I do kind of the same thing JREF does, here, and I do it, quite literally, with a six-inch-thick lawbook by my side. I judge applications made by people to the government, and I judge them according to Federal law. If someone can show they qualify under the law for a benefit, they get it. If they can't show it, I deny them, and I explain exactly why I deny them. If the person doesn't send me a document that I need in order to make a decision, I ask them for it. It is not at all adversarial, and there's none of this defendant - prosecutor - civil - criminal stuff; the analogy simply does not apply. If they qualify, they get it, and I do absolutely nothing to try to keep them from qualifying, other than keeping an eye out for fraud.

I don't see the difference between what I do and what JREF does. There are rules, applicants, a benefit, and an adjudicator. All the applicant has to do is prove that they qualify, under the rules. There is no one presenting arguments against them; the Challenge is set up specifically to avoid that. This entire section of your FAQ should either be rewritten to remove the adversarial tone, or discarded. What Randi and Kramer have to say "off-camera" about individual applicants has absolutely nothing to do with the Challenge, which is why they are not directly involved with the tests. The entire process is designed to be impartial and fair; you do not have fairness and impartiality in an adversarial relationship.
 
Beady (and other's) have a good point. The FAQ should be neutral in tone and content - just providing answers.

I don't have a problem with the FAQ pointing out the difference between a challenge and a contest - I think that's an important differentiation. But in retrospect, I don't think it's necessary to emphasize or cite adversarialism as a key element to the situation.
 
Beleth, a fantastic piece of work. I believe every inquiry JREF gets about the Challenge should have a reply which directs them to this topic.
 
Beady said:
Just out of curiosity, are either one of you lawyers?

Look, fellas, I'm not a lawyer, either, but I do kind of the same thing JREF does, here, and I do it, quite literally, with a six-inch-thick lawbook by my side. I judge applications made by people to the government, and I judge them according to Federal law. If someone can show they qualify under the law for a benefit, they get it. If they can't show it, I deny them, and I explain exactly why I deny them. If the person doesn't send me a document that I need in order to make a decision, I ask them for it. It is not at all adversarial, and there's none of this defendant - prosecutor - civil - criminal stuff; the analogy simply does not apply. If they qualify, they get it, and I do absolutely nothing to try to keep them from qualifying, other than keeping an eye out for fraud.

I don't see the difference between what I do and what JREF does. There are rules, applicants, a benefit, and an adjudicator. All the applicant has to do is prove that they qualify, under the rules. There is no one presenting arguments against them; the Challenge is set up specifically to avoid that. This entire section of your FAQ should either be rewritten to remove the adversarial tone, or discarded. What Randi and Kramer have to say "off-camera" about individual applicants has absolutely nothing to do with the Challenge, which is why they are not directly involved with the tests. The entire process is designed to be impartial and fair; you do not have fairness and impartiality in an adversarial relationship.
Click to expand...

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

I think Beleth's use of the courtroom metaphor was simply in an attempt to explain where the burden of proof lies, and why. Your points are excellent.
 
Another thing that should be part of this FAQ, even though it is already emphasized as part of the rules:

Theories.

Q: I have a theory about my ability.

A: Please keep it to yourself. The JREF is interested in results, not theories. Make certain that what you claim can be demonstrated. Wasting time with theories will only delay your application process.
 
I agree that this is a wonderful piece of work. Here's my $0.02:

* I also dislike the plaintiff-defendant metaphor. The tone of the FAQ should be that it is a fair test, but the burden of proof is solidly on the claimant. Emphasize that if the claimant can really do what he says, winning the prize will be a cakewalk.

* "Breach of contract" - not "breech".

* The "monkeys out of your butt" thing is a little vulgar.

* Saying that the JREF will do everything it can to defeat the claimant is not really true and is too harsh. The JREF will look guard against trickery, but will be happy to pay up on a true demonstration of paranormal ability. The JREF would be out a million bucks, but would go down in history for revolutionizing science. Not a bad price tag.

Also, I disagree that a FAQ would make Kramer's life more difficult, I think it would make it easier. Just go to the challenge applications forum and take a look at the incoherent crap he has to individually respond to. A FAQ, even if unofficial, could still be mentioned by Kramer in a shorter reply to help them understand the process.
 
Gr8wight said:
I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

I think Beleth's use of the courtroom metaphor was simply in an attempt to explain where the burden of proof lies, and why. Your points are excellent.
Click to expand...

I think, however, that this might be a better metaphor for Beleth to use. It's equally clear and more accurate.

Another metaphor that might be useful (again, stressing the challenge instead of competition aspect) is the qualifying stage of major sporting events. To be able to compete at all, you first need to qualify by being able to beat a pre-defined mark, irrespective of who else might or might not be on the team.

For example, to compete at the (2004) Olympic women's long jump, you need to have previously jumped 6.55m. There are a number of other caveats -- for example, "wind-assisted" jumps don't count. The event judge has two basic jobs -- first, to read the tape measure correctly, and second, to make sure that the jump is legal (e..g., not "wind-assisted"). As Beady almost put it in his context, "If someone can show they qualify under the rules for the Olympics, they get it. If they can't show it, I deny them, and I explain exactly why I deny them..... There are rules, applicants, a benefit, and an adjudicator. All the applicant has to do is prove that they qualify, under the rules."
 
THE FAQ will be posted SOON-

The FAQ Beleth submitted was a brilliant start.

After carefully considering much of the criticism the FAQ received here, I amended it to more accurately reflect the JREF's positions, replaced the "butt-monkey" hypothetical with a "bright lights" claim, added many more phenomenon to the "PARANORMAL OR NOT PARANORMAL" section (as that is one of the big issues that people email me about), and added a lot more data I felt was necessary if the FAQ was to truly achieve its intended goals.

I then presented it to Randi, who corrected some statistical errors and then approved it for publication on the JREF website.

It will be posted within 24hours to the Challenge page, just beneath the "Click here to see the application" link.

It is my intention, once this FAQ is posted, to simply refer all inquirers who've already read the rules back to the FAQ.

Part of the point in all of this is to avoid becoming involved is a tit-for-tat shouting match with applicants who don't comprehend the Challenge rules. I think that this FAQ will make all such debates moot. If potential applicants cannot comprehend the rules, they now have the FAQ for a detailed clarification. If that doesn't suffice, they are certainly free to consult legal counsel, but the JREF will feel no obligation to take matters further before an application has been submitted.
 
Kramer,

I think this was an excellent decision on your and Randi's part. I know I'm going to keep the url handy. This way when people join the forums and start posting about stuff covered in the FAQ, that's where I'll direct 'em. :)

And for the record, I'd pay good money to see monkey's flying out of someone's butt. Lights, now... that's not worth the price of admission. ;)
 
Re: THE FAQ will be posted SOON-

KRAMER said:
It will be posted within 24hours to the Challenge page, just beneath the "Click here to see the application" link.
Click to expand...
Of all the scenarios I envisioned happening as I was writing the FAQ, this was the one I saw as the Best Possible Outcome.

Thank you, Kramer, and thank you, Mr Randi.
You have made me euphoric.
:biggrin:
 
kookbreaker said:
Waaah! Kramer killed the butt monkeys!

;)
Click to expand...


OMG, NOW what will we say when a creationist asks "Then why are there still monkeys??" :eek:

Oh - wait. This works in our favor, doesn't it? We can now safely say "What monkeys?" Thanks, Kramer! :D
 
This is absolutely wonderful.

Excellent work Beleth and KRAMER!
 
Well done Beleth, and congratulations to KRAMER and the JREF for adopting the FAQ. This a step in the right direction.
 
Re: Re: The JREF Million Dollar Challenge Unofficial FAQ

Let me start by saying that I think the FAQ is very interesting, a great resource, kudos overall to Beleth.

Having said that...

Can I say that I am a lawyer, and the whole defendant/plaintiff thing seems to me to be (a) ass-backwards and (b) asking for trouble.

new drkitten said:
A few comments : I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at with your "you are the defendant/they are the plaintiff" metaphor, but I also don't really like it.

...

My usual metaphor is exactly the opposite -- the JREF is the defendant, but the burden is on the applicant to follow the procedural rules exactly (or risk having the case dismissed on a technicality) and to prove what they claim.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

and

Beleth said:
RE 2.6 and who is the defendant:
This is tricky. When you get right down to it, it's not like a trial, it's like a duel. The JREF is playing the part of the challenger - the one slapping with the gauntlet - and the applicant is the one whose face has been slapped by the gauntlet. The trick is that it's a "class-action duel", if you will, with one entity (Randi) challenging an entire class of people (those who believe in the paranormal). When one person in that class steps forward and says "I accept", it's not really obvious who is slapping whom. I know that the JREF considers itself the challenger - it's called the Million Dollar Challenge, after all - and so I am abiding by their perception of their role. That's why they got morphed into the "plaintiff" role in the trial analogy.
Click to expand...


Sorry, this makes no sense to me at all. A challenger invites someone to do something. Then that person has got to do it. They have the burden of proof. The challenger just sits back and sees if they can do it. That, in every jurisdiction I am aware of (and I've practiced in several and have had a fair bit to do with many more) makes the challenger the plaintiff.

Gr8wight said:
I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

I think Beleth's use of the courtroom metaphor was simply in an attempt to explain where the burden of proof lies, and why. Your points are excellent.
Click to expand...

And that is why it is upside down because what the analogy explains (if one accepts it) is that the challenger doesn't have to prove their position, and the JREF does.

Per the FAQ
Remember, you're in the role of defendant, and the defendant does not get to choose the rules under which they are judged.
Click to expand...

And neither does a plaintiff, so this is not apt.

Overall, the point is that a defendant can win by doing nothing. A plaintiff must prove what they say in their claim to win.

This analogy is not merely inappropriate it is dangerously wrong.
 
Re: Re: Re: The JREF Million Dollar Challenge Unofficial FAQ

princhester said:
This analogy is not merely inappropriate it is dangerously wrong.
Click to expand...

You're a lawyer, I have some experience writing legal opinions(see my last post), and we have both voiced similar misgivings. I suppose it's inevitable that no one will listen.

It's interesting, however, that even professed skeptics will stubbornly and willingly persist in misinterpretation and misperception.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom