Thoughts about the JREF Million Dollar Challenge

[robinson]

I think the comment by an anonymous person going by the name "Jesus Christ" sums up the feelings about the MDC. While the member of the JREF forum don't speak for Randi or the JREF, it certainly gives the appearance that anyone attempting to apply for the Challenge is going to be greeted and commented on by persons with the social skills of a 6 year old, and a penchant for feces and illogical responses.

Of course the anonymous nature of Internet Chat rooms has always allowed the gross and the social misfit to share equal time with the intelligent and sane, the simple facts of the matter are obvious.

Nobody with a shred of dignity or intelligence would subject themselves to the rash of thoughtless and insulting spew that passes for conversation here. Is it fun? Of course. Does it mean anything? Doubtful.

 

[calebprime]

Some thoughts off the top of my head on the MDC. These probably apply to many similar challenges by skeptic clubs:


-Overall, IMO it is interesting for reasons of entertainment and getting the 'skeptical good news' out there. But it is not a good platform for Science, except at the most rudimentary 'doing proper experiments is good' level.


-Despite some lip service, such challenges hardly seem unbiased. We typically have a challenge by a club ran by someone(s) who is obviously openly hostile to claims he says he is interested in investigating.


-If one was really honest about testing the phenomena and being impartial, they'd ask you once to take the challenge then if you decline they'd leave you alone. Instead, we get constant bullying to take the challenge, and these 'I wonder why...' and 'probably hiding under a rock' and 'they don't have a use for the money?' comments and cricket sound stuff.


-The mere fact that everyone is entitled to persue the standard channels of Science. Standard channels of science would be testing by actual scientists, peer review, submitting journal articles, presenting at conferences, folliowing the evidence wherever it leads and whatever topics, etc. Standard channels of science are not being hounded by skeptical clubs. Will standard channels of science make you sign a contract? Make you agree that they can use all media of the test (which will probably go into hostile commentary)? Only focus on the big media guys instead of all claims? Make funny cartoons of you? Of course not.


-One challenge won't mean much in terms of science, even many well-known people in the skeptical movement admit that. Science is done by replication.


-If a person passes a challenge, it could be due to chance. If enough people apply to do probability based tests, we'd expect one of them to win by chance, given a probability p of passing the tests and given enough tests.


-The logical fact that if the supernatural/paranormal happened that it would suddenly become a natural/normal thing. A supernatural/paranormal challenge would no longer apply. Even if the money is paid out, for the logical reason discussed it wouldn't mean much.


-Statistics from past tests not able to be obtained easily. It is difficult, it is made difficult one could say, for any interested person, let alone an applicant, to easily see statistical summaries on past tests, broken down by various categories such as type of test, number of successes out of number of trials, and probability of success per each trial.


-Intentionally useless provoking questions to potential applicants like 'why don't you win and give the money to charity?'. The testers can just as easily give their millions to charity too, or at least the interest it gains every year, so I always have a hard time when that question is asked. If the donators didn't donate their money with that in mind, which is the usual response, I'm sure they won't mind donating to charity because they are such nice people. To summarize: these provoking questions get us nowhere. Why? Because it has nothing to do with science. It does, however, have everything to do with playing 'gotcha!' with someone you consider an 'opponent'.


-The history of the challenge shows that it did not start as an open-minded scientific quest to test so-called paranormal things, which is what is implied when one states things like 'I'd love for paranormal things to be true'. It started as a challenge. From wikipedia: "In 1964, when challenged by a medium to 'put his money where his mouth is', Randi put up $1,000 of his own money to the first person who could provide objective proof of the paranormal."


-A founding member of CSICOP, Dennis Rawlings, states that Randi said "I always have an out." in reference to the challenge. The full quote according to Randi is "I always have an out, I'm right!". This doesn't really change things. It is evidence of a really strange offer. You're offering people money to win something you know they cannot win? What is the point again? Is it to expose, to get popularity, or to genually test for so-called paranormal things?


-The testers could have been fooled, which anyone would admit is always more probable than supernatural/paranormal anything existing. More on this with the following remote viewing challenge given by Randi in one of his commentaries (bolding mine):



A few clever people familiar with cryptography correctly decoded Randi's code. See http://www.crypto.com/blog/psychic_cryptanalysis/. What if instead of some math geeks that this was done by the people Randi challenged? Randi did say "all they have to do" to win the money. Would he hand over the money if they revealed the contents? No, of course not. There would be more hoops to jump through due to contract, as well as it being more probable that some type of trickery occcured.

Especially note the part they write about the encoding being able to be interpreted many ways. Is this an "I always have an out" stuff, that is an intentional way of making something unwinnable, or just an honest oversight by Randi? The problem is, one cannot tell.


-Claims that such organizations are educational. Maybe so, but when was the last time any educational organizations was making fun of people in weekly commentaries? It just doesn't seem proper or helpful.

The hostility directed at debunkers justifies some mockery in return.

A common-sense interpretation of the challenge is different from an interpretation that defies any and all possible logical nit-picking. The challenge is intended to demonstrate that many superstitions and commonly held beliefs are wrong and have no basis in fact.

If you, T'ai Chi, can dowse, or read minds, or move objects with only the force of your will, you can get the million.

This is the straightforward aspect of the challenge: to show that these things don't exist.

This silly stuff about how the supernatural will become--'logically'--natural is just blowing smoke. If the supernatural becomes natural, we can all go to Carolina in our minds--all bets are off everywhere, anyway.

With a holy host of others standing around me
Still I'm on the dark side of the moon
And it seems like it goes on like this forever
You must forgive me
If I'm up and gone to Carolina in my mind...

You've neglected to mention that this kind of adversarial skepticism functions to oppose con artists of all kinds. Con artists are not morally neutral. They rip people off and make them miserable.

Dishonesty is bad, morally bad. Woo is dishonesty.

Tell me that the actions of breatharians, Scientologists, believers in the reality of Satanic Ritual Abuse are morally neutral, and I'll have more sympathy for the project of logically dissecting every possible tiny loophole in the challenge.

Because no rules written in advance can be airtight, protocols have to be agreed on.

The people who figured out that the code was an ISBN number were gracious enough not to act like they were entitled to the prize. There was a clear intent to demonstrate that no one could figure out the contents of the box through remote viewing. As such, it was an inept challenge. There was no reason for the code. Randi makes mistakes like everyone else.

The forum is not Randi. The forum, of course, in a diffuse way, has a pack mentality. As packs go, it is 'on the side of the angels'--an ironic way of saying that it serves a noble purpose.

“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes”
Mark Twain (American Humorist, Writer and Lecturer. 1835-1910)

“A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”
Winston Churchill (British Orator, Author and Prime Minister during World War II. 1874-1965)

In general, the JREF fights these lies. No, the JREF is not doing science. And yes, education through derision, among other devices, is not some logical or practical contradiction in terms.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

I think the comment by an anonymous person going by the name "Jesus Christ" sums up the feelings about the MDC. While the member of the JREF forum don't speak for Randi or the JREF, it certainly gives the appearance that anyone attempting to apply for the Challenge is going to be greeted and commented on by persons with the social skills of a 6 year old, and a penchant for feces and illogical responses.

Of course the anonymous nature of Internet Chat rooms has always allowed the gross and the social misfit to share equal time with the intelligent and sane, the simple facts of the matter are obvious.

Nobody with a shred of dignity or intelligence would subject themselves to the rash of thoughtless and insulting spew that passes for conversation here. Is it fun? Of course. Does it mean anything? Doubtful.

Touched a nerve, didn't I?

My comments/posts always reflect the personality of the poster/post I refer to. Deal with it.



The name is GzuzKryzt.

 

[T'ai Chi]

The hostility directed at debunkers justifies some mockery in return.

How do you get someone to apply to a challenge by being hostile? It doesn't look like money will do that very well. More importantly, how do you satisfy the goals of education and science by being hostile? How can one seriously claim to be open-minded and fair and impartial while being hostile?

If you, T'ai Chi, can dowse, or read minds, or move objects with only the force of your will, you can get the million.

Same to you, well, "may" is probably more accurate to say than "get", anyway. We saw what happened when someone was able to determine what was in a locker. One can just say that something natural happened, or so and so made a mistake, etc.

You've neglected to mention that this kind of adversarial skepticism functions to oppose con artists of all kinds.

If someone is a con artist, ie a fraud, I suggest you report them to the proper law enforcement agency. Those are places that deal with people who break the laws, not skeptical clubs.

The people who figured out that the code was an ISBN number were gracious enough not to act like they were entitled to the prize.

Um, duh? The point is if a challenge is claimed to be supposedly sound, as in the case with a code and a locked locker, and it is utterly smashed to pieces by someone with no real skill because the challenge maker goofed/was tricked, what does that say about other challenges?

There was a clear intent to demonstrate that no one could figure out the contents of the box through remote viewing.

Again, huh? What if the people claimed they did it via remote viewing instead of admitting they did it using cryptography. You seem to forget Randi said "all you have to do is...", not 'do this, then if you do it then do something else'.

And yes, education through derision, among other devices, is not some logical or practical contradiction in terms.

It is if you expect people, critical thinkers even, to take it as more than just entertainment.

 

[robinson]

My comments/posts always reflect the personality of the poster/post I refer to. Deal with it.

While that might be true, (there is no evidence to back up your claim), the reader of this Forum doesn't know how important and experienced you are, or think you are. We only see your juvenile and stupid response, which adds nothing, and brings the conversation down to the level of an idiotic chat room. Not the impression one would hope for, and certainly not reflective of an organization that promotes skepticism and logical thinking. Of course, you don't speak for the JREF, and for that we can be thankful.

The name is GzuzKryzt.

No, that isn't your name. It is something you made up, and it is dumb. Insisting it is your name, or that anyone should refer to you by such a lame username, is just woo. Wooeeooo. I'm sorry, you are not Jesus Christ. or Geezuz keerice, or any other version of said name.

Deal with it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Some thoughts off the top of my head on the MDC. These probably apply to many similar challenges by skeptic clubs:

Still sneering at the skeptics who out your many woo beliefs?

-Overall, IMO it is interesting for reasons of entertainment and getting the 'skeptical good news' out there. But it is not a good platform for Science, except at the most rudimentary 'doing proper experiments is good' level.

Misplaced criticism.

-Despite some lip service, such challenges hardly seem unbiased. We typically have a challenge by a club ran by someone(s) who is obviously openly hostile to claims he says he is interested in investigating.

Name one example where the challenge was biased in favor of JREF.

-If one was really honest about testing the phenomena and being impartial, they'd ask you once to take the challenge then if you decline they'd leave you alone. Instead, we get constant bullying to take the challenge, and these 'I wonder why...' and 'probably hiding under a rock' and 'they don't have a use for the money?' comments and cricket sound stuff.

What you call "bullying" is what people with a heart call "necessary". You leave out that those who claim evidence/ability of something paranormal bilk gullible and vulnerable people for money.

-The mere fact that everyone is entitled to persue the standard channels of Science. Standard channels of science would be testing by actual scientists, peer review, submitting journal articles, presenting at conferences, folliowing the evidence wherever it leads and whatever topics, etc. Standard channels of science are not being hounded by skeptical clubs. Will standard channels of science make you sign a contract? Make you agree that they can use all media of the test (which will probably go into hostile commentary)? Only focus on the big media guys instead of all claims? Make funny cartoons of you? Of course not.

What you leave out is that the claimants don't use standard channels of science. They don't, because they know they can't do what they claim.

-One challenge won't mean much in terms of science, even many well-known people in the skeptical movement admit that. Science is done by replication.

Misplaced criticism. The JREF Challenge doesn't claim to be the end-all answer.

-If a person passes a challenge, it could be due to chance. If enough people apply to do probability based tests, we'd expect one of them to win by chance, given a probability p of passing the tests and given enough tests.

So? How will you get around this? Don't just criticize, let's hear your solution.

-The logical fact that if the supernatural/paranormal happened that it would suddenly become a natural/normal thing. A supernatural/paranormal challenge would no longer apply. Even if the money is paid out, for the logical reason discussed it wouldn't mean much.

A bald-faced lie. You are perfectly aware that the terms require of JREF to pay the money, should someone pass.

You are accusing Randi of fraud. If you are serious, you should contact the authorities.

-Statistics from past tests not able to be obtained easily. It is difficult, it is made difficult one could say, for any interested person, let alone an applicant, to easily see statistical summaries on past tests, broken down by various categories such as type of test, number of successes out of number of trials, and probability of success per each trial.

By saying that access to the data is "made difficult", you imply that JREF wants to prevent people from seeing the data. That, of course, is yet another lie from you.

-Intentionally useless provoking questions to potential applicants like 'why don't you win and give the money to charity?'. The testers can just as easily give their millions to charity too, or at least the interest it gains every year, so I always have a hard time when that question is asked. If the donators didn't donate their money with that in mind, which is the usual response, I'm sure they won't mind donating to charity because they are such nice people. To summarize: these provoking questions get us nowhere. Why? Because it has nothing to do with science. It does, however, have everything to do with playing 'gotcha!' with someone you consider an 'opponent'.

Such "provoking" questions go to the core of what woos do: They bilk money from the bereaved. If they are so keen on making money from their abilities, a million easy bucks should be a huge incentive. Yet, they don't, because they know they can't do what they claim to be able to do.

-The history of the challenge shows that it did not start as an open-minded scientific quest

Can you make up your mind? Is the Challenge an open-minded scientific quest or not?

to test so-called paranormal things, which is what is implied when one states things like 'I'd love for paranormal things to be true'. It started as a challenge. From wikipedia: "In 1964, when challenged by a medium to 'put his money where his mouth is', Randi put up $1,000 of his own money to the first person who could provide objective proof of the paranormal."

What if it started as a challenge? What is wrong with Randi offering money of his own to see evidence?

-A founding member of CSICOP, Dennis Rawlings, states that Randi said "I always have an out." in reference to the challenge. The full quote according to Randi is "I always have an out, I'm right!". This doesn't really change things. It is evidence of a really strange offer. You're offering people money to win something you know they cannot win? What is the point again? Is it to expose, to get popularity, or to genually test for so-called paranormal things?

Yet another lie. You are perfectly aware of what Randi means: He is confident that the woos can't do what they claim.

-The testers could have been fooled, which anyone would admit is always more probable than supernatural/paranormal anything existing. More on this with the following remote viewing challenge given by Randi in one of his commentaries (bolding mine):

How do you suggest this is solved? You don't come up with solutions, you just bitch and whine.

A few clever people familiar with cryptography correctly decoded Randi's code. See http://www.crypto.com/blog/psychic_cryptanalysis/. What if instead of some math geeks that this was done by the people Randi challenged? Randi did say "all they have to do" to win the money. Would he hand over the money if they revealed the contents? No, of course not. There would be more hoops to jump through due to contract, as well as it being more probable that some type of trickery occcured.

Repeat a lie all you want, it won't come true. The terms of the Challenge are crystal clear: If someone passes, JREF pays.

Especially note the part they write about the encoding being able to be interpreted many ways. Is this an "I always have an out" stuff, that is an intentional way of making something unwinnable, or just an honest oversight by Randi? The problem is, one cannot tell.

As always, you are free to contact Randi. You don't, because you prefer to whine instead.

-Claims that such organizations are educational. Maybe so, but when was the last time any educational organizations was making fun of people in weekly commentaries? It just doesn't seem proper or helpful.

If you were honest, you would also point to the many stories of people getting seriously hurt by superstitious beliefs. Making fun of the most ridiculous beliefs is one way of pointing out how silly they are.

How do you get someone to apply to a challenge by being hostile? It doesn't look like money will do that very well. More importantly, how do you satisfy the goals of education and science by being hostile? How can one seriously claim to be open-minded and fair and impartial while being hostile?

Those Randi is "hostile" to, are people like Sylvia Browne, John Edward, John of God, and others who exploit vulnerable people.

Same to you, well, "may" is probably more accurate to say than "get", anyway. We saw what happened when someone was able to determine what was in a locker. One can just say that something natural happened, or so and so made a mistake, etc.

But that's not what happened, was it?

If someone is a con artist, ie a fraud, I suggest you report them to the proper law enforcement agency. Those are places that deal with people who break the laws, not skeptical clubs.

Since you are accusing Randi of fraud, I suggest you report him to the proper law enforcement agency.

Um, duh? The point is if a challenge is claimed to be supposedly sound, as in the case with a code and a locked locker, and it is utterly smashed to pieces by someone with no real skill because the challenge maker goofed/was tricked, what does that say about other challenges?

What "other" challenges?

Again, huh? What if the people claimed they did it via remote viewing instead of admitting they did it using cryptography. You seem to forget Randi said "all you have to do is...", not 'do this, then if you do it then do something else'.

Because it wouldn't be a proper test: If they claimed to be able to do it via remote viewing, they would have to go through the proper procedure.

It is if you expect people, critical thinkers even, to take it as more than just entertainment.

It is far more than "entertainment". It is a challenge to those who exploit the vulnerable. You don't like the challenge, because it shows with the utmost clarity that the superstitions you yourself believe in, are fake and phony.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

While that might be true, (there is no evidence to back up your claim), the reader of this Forum doesn't know how important and experienced you are, or think you are. We only see your juvenile and stupid response, which adds nothing, and brings the conversation down to the level of an idiotic chat room. Not the impression one would hope for, and certainly not reflective of an organization that promotes skepticism and logical thinking. Of course, you don't speak for the JREF, and for that we can be thankful.

Not only is that funny (and wrong) on various levels, it shows your lack of humor very explicitly - which is of course again funny.

And it implies that your comments are always profound and productive - which is so funny (and wrong) that I thank you for making me smile so brightly.

No, that isn't your name. It is something you made up, and it is dumb. Insisting it is your name, or that anyone should refer to you by such a lame username, is just woo. Wooeeooo. I'm sorry, you are not Jesus Christ. or Geezuz keerice, or any other version of said name.

Deal with it.

Wrong again. Glaring lack of humor, again. Funny. Again.



Um, did you really assume I insist on being called "GzuzKryzt" outside of this forum? Because that would be hilarious. But even you can't possibly be that dense.
Nevertheless, you made my day. After reading "The Steppenwolf" decades ago, I thrive on people displaying such a glaring lack of humor. May I call you Harry Haller from now on?



On topic: Threads like this with vague titles beg to be derailed. I also do not favor so-called theoretical discussions which usually comes along as ventilating of minds polluted by stale brain farts.

I'm still too young to just let old folks gas about their ideas. I'm old enough to consider I should perhaps. We'll see how that pans out.

 

[Mojo]

If you, T'ai Chi, can dowse, or read minds, or move objects with only the force of your will, you can get the million.

Same to you, well, "may" is probably more accurate to say than "get", anyway.

No it isn't: the sentence, "if you, T'ai Chi, can dowse, or read minds, or move objects with only the force of your will, you can may the million" doesn't make sense.

 

[robinson]

Dr. Igor Tolkachev has applied for the Million Dollar Challenge on behalf of Andrew Matevosov, M.D. (and "The VEDI Association") with a claim of remote diagnosis by photograph.

Matevosov claims the ability to give an in-depth diagnosis without ever seeing an individual in person (he only needs to see a photograph of them. We remain unsure whether or not the photograph has to be recent). Matevosov has already created a diagnosis for Randi, which Tolkachev wants to submit as part of the test. We have declined this request.

Tolkachev wants to skip the preliminary test and head right into the big one - he says a preliminary test is unnecessary. We have declined this request.

Tolkachev has stated in his protocol outline that Matevosov will never have to actually come to a testing facility or see any JREF representatives whatsoever. We have declined this request as well.

The VEDI Association still needs to submit proof of media presence, but we hope they'll respond to the above issues so we can continue working on a protocol in the interim.

~Remie

Is there any way to see the application? I can think of an easy way to debunk this claim.

Matevosov claims the ability to give an in-depth diagnosis without ever seeing an individual in person (he only needs to see a photograph of them.

This is a very old claim. It was debunked with ease when it was radionics being used. Which is probably the method employed. Either way, it s easy to debunk, and you can do it using the Net.

 

[hoemaco]

If I want to dissect the challenge logically, I'd agree with some points of Tai'chi. I don't believe that someone winning the challenge would prove the existance of supernatural/paranormal effects. (I think noone denies this, though). But, of course, I do know that is Not the aim of the challenge/prize/callitwhateveryouwish. More on that later.

Also, I could state, as others did before, that simply there's no such thing as paranormal/supernatural. You might call it a play on words, but that's just evading it. I'd personally define nature as involving *everything* around us (including objects, energies, laws of physics etc), thus there can't be anything outside, only things not yet explained by science.
And what happens when we discover an effect that we can't explain? Would we consider it paranormal? Then quantum effects surely would've classified as such in early 20th century (well, even today ;-) ). And what did scientists do? Set up some axioms like 'electrons can only have discreet energy levels in atoms' etc. That surely sounded woo-wooish at the time (or even now for many).
But, of course, that can be justified - as those axioms are only accepted, enhancing the present system, when we have enough experimental proof that they always work within their intended scope. That is, for example, we haven't found any particles for which the uncertainty principle wouldn't apply.
It leads back to that claim made earlier, that one winner in the mdc would change nothing and prove nothing. I think this is also something we don't have to argue about. Well, actually, I think it would have an effect on Mr Randi's and JREF's image, both negative and positive - they'd be found out to keep their words (+), but also proven wrong (-) at least for 'common folks', since for sceptics the above statement applies. It'd also boost the winner's reputation and money.. But I'm talking about science, which wouldn't be affected. Though, as JREF's is rather about public education and anti-fraud, not strict science, these results might be worth thinking about. Someone asked what happens if someone wins, and it's later proved to be scientific. Someone answered that it'll be beyond the mdc. I don't agree with that. JREF's reputation, and the goal we're fighting for, would be seriously damaged in such an incident (and the woowooers really increased). Actually, in any case when someone wins (as we know there're no paranormal things). So I do hope noone will be smart enough to fool JREF and the various helpers around the world (since we're not infallible, are we?)

So strictly speaking, I have to agree that the challenge's logically arguable, wanting proof for something that doesn't exist (if shown, it's only a phenomena yet unproven, with scientific answer somewhere); and scientifically arguable because it does not need statistical proof (ie a large number of people showing the same/similar ability).

Nevertheless, I am a bad natured sceptic (ok, an easy pick on Robinson's current title), not believing in the 'be nice with thy fellows' idea when fellows=enemies (I hope that makes me somewhat less hypocrit than all the christian folks who started wars while 'turning the other cheek'. Yeh, but not humble, for sure ). And not believing in 100% following laws and rules and logic. We have a cause here, which is fighting people who cheat others out of their money and health and life etc. And a cause of educating people to avoid scams, to think rationally. MDC has to be viewed in this light. It is a tool for exposing frauds. If we delve to deep into philosophical questions, then we give way to woo woo people. A little bit of Machiavelli's practical ideas doesn't hurt either. We need to be somewhat aggressive.
I agree though, that being aggressive, we have to try to keep on the morally superior side, that is, debunking claims on scientific basis and being nice with people who seem to be honest. That doesn't apply to known scammers. I'm not nice with them. (Actually, I sometimes do send academic people to warmer climates when I think they cause more harm to our local sci. society than good / yep, i'm not popular ).

Still, I hope that in the next challenge rules, there'll be some refinement on what is paranormal.

Also , I hope that our activities can expand in the future. I think that the written and video materials on the experiments with those few claimants who managed to get examined by, would prove very useful if shown around in net and tv. Though it's hard to believe that people actually agree to cede all these media rights to jref - I wouldn't do it if I knew it'd be broadcast in tv. But then maybe their faces could be blurred or at least their names changed...
Agreeing with Robinson et al, I do sense that very few people know about JREF. Those supporters who gave them the million dollars, could probably give some more to fund a huge tv series that could be shown all around the world. Something like Sagan's Cosmos series or Attenborough's series etc. Those did have their (positive) impact. Media is powerful. We're always talking about woowooers using it. Time for us to use it! (Btw I'm thinking about translating Randi's books to hungarian... there're many of his articles published there,and is well known, but no books...)

PS. sorry for ranting on so long... there's only one thing worse than this, and that's quoting it. which some people do here. please, it's bad practice, takes away ppl's lifeforce

 

[robinson]

Agreed. I really think that quote the entire post then respond with a one liner is dumb.

 

[T'ai Chi]

We alreaedy know that it is possible for the experiment to not be tight, so I don't see what a passing of the challenge would prove. People could just say 'Hey, the experiment wasn't tight', 'JREF got fooled', etc.

See the case with remote viewing the contents of a locked locker that was done by people using cryptology techniques, for example.

 

[robinson]

What strikes me as the most obvious stumbling block for both skeptics and woos, as well as the rational thinker, in regards to the MDC, is the word paranormal. The concept, or word, that means "can not be demonstrated, or scientifically proven", or someting close to that. You can't "prove" something that does not exist, it is the very definition of paranormal.

I'm not defending claims of "paranormal" or "supernatural" powers or events. In fact, by definition those can not be demonstrated or scientifically tested, replicated, measured or recorded. That isn't some esoteric concept, that is how language works. We call stuff paranormal if it can't be scientifically studied, measured or demonstrated. That is what the word means.

Isn't this all just sēmantikos?

maybe. It might just be about that, and about language itself, in the sense of what a word means is quite important, especially in regards to a legal contract that is binding, and involved large sums of money, (cash, bonds, gold, whatever).

While the Woos may exclaim with glee that YES! YES! that is the crux of the matter, in fact, it is a very clever word game, in that the offer is of the nature of "I will pay you a crapload of money of you can prove something that can't be proven".

If one accepts that remarkable tenet, then the next issue is, what is considered impossible?

After an enormous amount of effort is expended deciding if something can't be demonstrated, then the next issue is how do we set up a test to show something that can't be shown.

If you are able to accept that amazing trick of wording, and still insist you have an experiment that can be repeated, it must be whittled down to a form that is both affordable, and acceptable to both parties.

Then, after another round of incredibly complex negotiations, a protocol might be hammered out, and all parties agree. On something tangible.

Then, the first demonstration is done, and because by the very nature of the beast it will not work, the matter is closed, unless you count another hundred and three comments about it.

All this is obvious and clear cut. All matters either too expensive, too complex, or too crazy, are dismissed out of hand.

But we jumped over the essential issue.

The essential issue, IMO, is WHAT is considered paranormal.

What about ESP?

Here we go. ESP, Extra Sensory perception.

What? ESP means all that? Immediately we are plunged into a semantic nightmare. Instead of the obvious meaning, sensing with something other than the known 9 senses, we have all kinds of questionable powers, or abilities, thrown into the mind blender.

And yet, the essential meaning is there, "The term implies sources of information currently unexplained by science."

Leading directly into the matter of that definition again, it refers to "something" that can't be demonstrated, proved, or measured.

So there is one essential obstacle, how to know if something is real, in the sense that you can demonstrate it to another person.

 

[CFLarsen]

We alreaedy know that it is possible for the experiment to not be tight, so I don't see what a passing of the challenge would prove. People could just say 'Hey, the experiment wasn't tight', 'JREF got fooled', etc.

See the case with remote viewing the contents of a locked locker that was done by people using cryptology techniques, for example.

• Can you name one example where the challenge was biased in favor of JREF or not?
  
  
• What is your solution to someone passing the challenge by chance/cheating?
  
  
• Is the Challenge an open-minded scientific quest or not?
  
  
• What "other" challenges are you talking about?
  
  
• Since you are accusing Randi of fraud, have you contacted the proper authorities?

Yes, you can answer the questions, because you don't have me on ignore.

 

[drkitten]

What strikes me as the most obvious stumbling block for both skeptics and woos, as well as the rational thinker, in regards to the MDC, is the word paranormal. The concept, or word, that means "can not be demonstrated, or scientifically proven", or someting close to that. You can't "prove" something that does not exist, it is the very definition of paranormal.

[...]


The essential issue, IMO, is WHAT is considered paranormal.

What about ESP?

Here we go. ESP, Extra Sensory perception.

What? ESP means all that? Immediately we are plunged into a semantic nightmare. Instead of the obvious meaning, sensing with something other than the known 9 senses, we have all kinds of questionable powers, or abilities, thrown into the mind blender.

What a load of tosh. ESP means whatever you, the applicant, want it to mean (provided that Randi accepts your proposal). If you think you can see what's happening on the other side of an opaque partition, it doesn't matter whether you're doing it via a crystal ball, tea leaves, or a forked stick. Just tell me what's going on across that wall.

The only people who care about what the dictinoary definition of "paranormal" is are the people who want to avoid testing their actual claims about the world.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
The essential issue, IMO, is WHAT is considered paranormal.
...

Since this thread is in the MDC subforum: Paranormal (supernatural, occult, etc.) is what the JREF accepts in an application.

 

[ElWampa]

Not my thoughts but:
http://mysticwicks.com/showpost.php?p=3225316&postcount=21

Seems the people over there still think James Randi is a liar. =|

 

[Seventhsally]

Perhaps off topic here, but it is not peer review per se that strengthens an argument, but the disclosure to a group of peers capable (and interested) in reproducing an experiment and achieving the same results. 'Nature' and 'Science' are both respectable, peer reviewed journals, and have published papers that were later shown to be incorrect or incomplete, because the process of publishing to them inspires a larger community to duplicate, or as is sometimes the case, invalidate a claim. Is is this process of feedback that makes peer review important in legitimate scientific inquiry, and dangerous in the fringes. Peers that wear the same blinders as you are likely to reach the same wrong conclusions, thats why repeatability is such an important component of any testing protocol we discuss here

 

[hoemaco]

The only people who care about what the dictinoary definition of "paranormal" is are the people who want to avoid testing their actual claims about the world.

Then it means I have paranormal powers which I don't want to be contested.
Please tell me which one I have... I hope it involves making money, I'm quite a poor student now.

I feel I'm sceptic enough - and it means I'm sceptic with the definitions also, including 'paranormal'. As some of us pointed out so many times, paranormal is something that cannot be proven - not even with winning the challenge. That'd only prove the applicant smarter than jref (though I believe it won't happen, I have confidence in you folks).

But, some of you also have the truth, that we simply don't have to go too deep into logics. JREF's goal is not defining paranormal or proving or disproving it. Its goal is to make people think rationally and not believe scam artists, and to unveil those scammers' machinations to the public. And for that, the challenge can be a good tool; though I believe that in itself, it's not so powerful. As I've mentioned somewhere around, those few TV shows (and live performances, and books) in which they show claimants fail their woowoo are imho the best ways. Of course, it's hard to find a woowooer stupid enough to accept to be tested in front of millions of tv watchers, but not impossible. Also, it doesn't need to actually have them, such as when Mr Randi and others show they can bend spoon with their tricks. I don't have a good knowledge of what goes on in the western world, but as far as I know,there are still not too many such tv shows around, though I know that many, including jref, are trying their best (a notable example is Richard Dawkins).

So I wish to JREF and other sceptic organizations to receive so much money and technical support from their supporters to be able to do more shows! And wish that broadcast companies around the world were more interested in showing these than woowoo shows (that one is even less likely... i've been on tv talking about astronomy, and realising they had an astrologer speaking after me... )

 

[hoemaco]

Peers that wear the same blinders as you are likely to reach the same wrong conclusions, thats why repeatability is such an important component of any testing protocol we discuss here

A very concise and clever wording! I hope you don't take offense, I quoted your post in a hungarian sceptic site (talking about peer-reviews), I liked it so much.