Who judges?

[Beleth]

Think of all the equivocating that has been done on this Forum.

The only equivocating I have seen has been done by people who want to squirm out of applying for the Challenge.

If there was a successful applicant, JR could easily explain it away--if he really wanted to (not saying he would)--and the rest of the skeptics might just back him up.

At that time, it wouldn't matter if the other skeptics backed him up. It would matter if a jury backed him up. Because that's who would ultimately decide whether there was a breach of contract or not.

Randi has bent over backwards to quash any allegations that the Challenge is a farce. The money is demonstrably there; Randi himself plays no part in the testing (unless asked to by the applicant); the agreement is binding so that an Applicant who actually does what he says he can do has legal recourse... it just goes on and on. But at the same time there are people who are unfamilar with the actual setting up and history of the Challenge, and they keep raising issues that have been dealt with long ago.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

The "contract" allows for a lot of wiggle room on the part of the JREF. It also allows them to nullify anything and anyone they want. Not that they would, but the application rules allow for the JREF to cancel out anything they so desire--even if they have agreed beforehand with the applicant what will and what will not constitute a positive test result.

No, it does not. that would be a violation of the agreement and I would be able to find any number of attorneys more than willing to accept that case on a contingency basis against the JREF.

 

[ChristineR]

If someone passed the test I'm sure most of us would be asking how he managed to cheat--but Randi would owe the guy a million, no ifs ands or buts.

The JREF won't agree to a test that they think someone can pass. If it can be done, it's not paranormal. But the JREF does agree to all sorts of tests that people claim they could pass.

ruach, you may not realize who simple these tests are. A guy claims he can dowse for metal. A little pile of metal (provided by him) is placed under one of ten randomly chosen coffee mugs. The guy can't find his metal. An astrologer draws up charts. The charts are given to the subjects and the subjects pick out their chart. Their picks are random. A telepath reads a word. His friend in another room writes the word down. The words are completely unrelated.

Do you have something in mind when you talk about a test JR would "quash?" I assume you mean a test that someone might actually pass, but that JR, in a moment of greed and hubris, wouldn't accept. So far as I know JR has never rejected a test without good reason.

And if JR did refuse to test somebody there is an easy solution. Demonstrate your power by having yourself tested in any and every venue you find. When JR goes on the radio and calls you a fraud, call him up and propose your test. If he can't give a good reason for rejecting it, so much the better for you--you'll end up with a lot more than a million dollars in the end.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Even in light of rule seven about not being able to sue the JREF?

That isn't what it says.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

The JREF won't agree to a test that they think someone can pass.

Slight correction -- no test that they think someone can pass using normal, non-paranormal means.

If the person can actually perform paranormal feats, then that person can easily pass. I know that's what you meant, but any ambiguity will be leapt upon, so it is best to be clear.

 

[ruach1]

Since the test results are self-evident, the only possible problem would be if the testers lied. A very simple example might be someone predicting die rolls. Success might be eight of ten rolls. The claiment must clearly indicate 1-6, the die is thrown, everyone looks at it and the die value is written down.

In theory the testers could erase the claiment's guess, or write the wrong die value down. But the claiment would be there, witnesses would be there, and the whole thing is videotaped.

Aye, here's another rub.

Would you put it past anyone to falsify test results if they felt their world would come crashing around them if they didn't? Skeptics, to their merit IMO, are putting up the money and the challenge. Skeptics are also doing the test and giving the results. And we all know how skeptics are always level headed, unemotional, scientific observers who never get personally involved in situations which may seem to challenge the world and how they see it. Right?

Do the rules allow for third party observers like journalists who will report foul play on either side? I don't remember seeing anything in the FAQ.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The "contract" allows for a lot of wiggle room on the part of the JREF. It also allows them to nullify anything and anyone they want. Not that they would, but the application rules allow for the JREF to cancel out anything they so desire--even if they have agreed beforehand with the applicant what will and what will not constitute a positive test result. Even if the results favor the applicant, the application doesn't stipulate that Randi can't just throw them out at will. Randi could see the videotape and conclude the test-giver(s) was wrong and that they somehow did not achieve the "necessary scientific observing conditions" he envisioned when he agreed to the protocols. Rule seven disallows for legal action agaisnt the JREF if they feel contract has been broken--which even furthers the JREF's dominant position.

The results don't require interpretation. It's not like it's a Presidential election or anything...

 

[Beleth]

Even in light of rule seven about not being able to sue the JREF?

You mean the rule that ends with the sentence "[FONT=arial, helvetica]However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize[/FONT]"?

If that is the case, then my lack of legal proceedings has been made known. However, rule seven seems to shut the door on any complaints on the part of applicants and opens the door to allow the JREF to do just about anything.

Rule Seven says basically "if you are hurt or embarrassed during the execution of the Challenge, you will not sue us." It specifically does not say "if you succeed and we don't pay you, you will not sue us." In fact, it takes great pains to specify that that is not what is meant.

 

[ruach1]

Ruach1,

Are you intentionally ignoring the clear responses to your question. The rules of the Challenge state both the claimant and the JREF must agree before hand EXACTLY what constitutes a success and what constitutes a failure. It additionally states James Randi will not have any input on the outcome once agreed upon. Several people have even copied and pasted the exact wording from the Challenge Rules themselves. What precisely are you looking for besides that very straight-forward wording. No judging, predetermined successes or failures, no interference from JR; I am not sure what more you are asking for.


Santa

first bolded: I am not ignoring anyone on this thread.

second bolded: I do not see in the application rules that which you have stated.

I am not trolling or trying to cause trouble. Simply after reading the rules, I came to see that the rules do not state who has the final say on whether the test result is positive or negative.

Remember Yellow Bamboo? Even Randi thought there might be something there. But on further review it was shown the YB group was not demonstrating paranormal powers. From what I saw, Randi and the JREF were right. However, where in the rules does it stipulate who has the final say on the test results--the test-givers or Randi?

This test was not a simple yes or no, did or didn't, found the water in the cup or didn't. There was judging involved, and if it can happen in one case, then it can happen in another.

 

[Beleth]

Would you put it past anyone to falsify test results if they felt their world would come crashing around them if they didn't?

You are confusing skeptics with cynics. My world would not come crashing around me if someone demonstrated a paranormal ability. Actually, I couldn't wait for that to happen; I'd be the first one at the patent office.

Skeptics, to their merit IMO, are putting up the money and the challenge. Skeptics are also doing the test and giving the results.

A person or group of people agreeable by both sides do the test and give the results. It's understandable that the JREF would pick level-headed skeptical people. But the Applicant is charged with selecting test-givers they agree with as well.

Do the rules allow for third party observers like journalists who will report foul play on either side? I don't remember seeing anything in the FAQ.

Nope, there is nothing like that in the FAQ. The rules allow for anything that is mutually agreed upon; if that includes journalists, then so be it. IIRC there have been a handful of high-profile cases where journalists have been present.

 

[ruach1]

you mean apart from the rule that says "JR will have no say concerning test results unless he himself is giving or overseeing the test"?

Where does it say that in the rules?

 

[Beleth]

Remember Yellow Bamboo? Even Randi thought there might be something there. But on further review it was shown the YB group was not demonstrating paranormal powers. From what I saw, Randi and the JREF were right. However, where in the rules does it stipulate who has the final say on the test results--the test-givers or Randi?

This test was not a simple yes or no, did or didn't, found the water in the cup or didn't. There was judging involved, and if it can happen in one case, then it can happen in another.

Wasn't the YB success criterion "knock a person off their feet without touching them"? How does that require judging?

 

[ruach1]

You are confusing skeptics with cynics. My world would not come crashing around me if someone demonstrated a paranormal ability. Actually, I couldn't wait for that to happen; I'd be the first one at the patent office.

A person or group of people agreeable by both sides do the test and give the results. It's understandable that the JREF would pick level-headed skeptical people. But the Applicant is charged with selecting test-givers they agree with as well.

Nope, there is nothing like that in the FAQ. The rules allow for anything that is mutually agreed upon; if that includes journalists, then so be it. IIRC there have been a handful of high-profile cases where journalists have been present.

You mean they're not the same?

Not even cut from the same cloth?

(here we go again... )

 

[drfrank]

To my knowledge, the Yellow Bamboo were never properly tested by the JREF, so that isn't a valid example. Someone on the forums (iirc) in the area offered to do an informal test on them, and tips were given on how the testing should proceed.

However, most of the suggested protocol was ignored (filming at night, plenty of people running around etc.), and thus the results really weren't meaningful as they left enormous holes open for cheating.

An idealised Yellow Bamboo test would have been quite simple: either you hit them around the head soundly with a staff, or you get thrown back without them touching you.

Oh, for a staff and a member of the Yellow Bamboo

[edit]Damn my slow typing, such that four additional posts were added before I'd finished mine

 

[Timothy]

I don't think that anyone has yet answered the point of rauch1's initial question. The waters got muddied because of the "self-evident" and "judging" semantics. Let's phrase it another way.

"Who has the authority to validate that the results of the test met the agreed upon criteria, and pronounces the test a success or a failure?"

Example: If I claim that I can make a coin land heads up 20 times in a row, who verifies that the side that landed upwards was *in fact* heads and that it happened *in fact* 20 times, and that any other criteria were met? Even in cases where the outcome is "obvious," someone has the authority to pronounce the test valid and either a success or a failure.

One would be tempted to assume it's Mr. Randi, since the Challenge starts out "I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 to any person ..." and unless Mr. Randi has specifically delegated the responsibility to another party, the question is open.

I believe that this level of detail, though, has not been addressed because no one has ever passed the preliminary challenge.

If one is concerned about who does the validation, write it into the protocol.

- Timothy

 

[ChristineR]

Aye, here's another rub.

Would you put it past anyone to falsify test results if they felt their world would come crashing around them if they didn't? Skeptics, to their merit IMO, are putting up the money and the challenge. Skeptics are also doing the test and giving the results. And we all know how skeptics are always level headed, unemotional, scientific observers who never get personally involved in situations which may seem to challenge the world and how they see it. Right?

Do the rules allow for third party observers like journalists who will report foul play on either side? I don't remember seeing anything in the FAQ.

I think the presense of outsiders is usually part of the protocol. I'm pretty sure journalists have been at some of these tests. There are practical limits on how many people you can have around, but I don't think the JREF could refuse the right to have someone you trust to give you support.

 

[Santa666]

Real life example

Ruach1,

Perhaps an example would be beneficial. Can you please provide a hypothetical scenario where a clamaint and the JREF both agreed upon what is an success and what is a failure, agreed upon a complete test protocol, and proceeded to the test, then somehow, the result became less than obvious and Randi could pull out of his obligation. Please, any hypothetical example will do.

Also, rule 7, in its entirety, is below.

When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial or professional loss, or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize.

There is a a caveat in the above and I bolded it. This is there because he could be sued for breach of contract if he did not follow through with his end of the bargain.

Please also clarify for me, you state the rules allow JR to "pick up his ball and leave anytime". Where exactly is that listed in the rules? Is this just your POV?


Santa

 

[Beleth]

"Who has the authority to validate that the results of the test met the agreed upon criteria, and pronounces the test a success or a failure?

Ahhhh. Yes. "Authority" is different than "ability", and I think we all got mired in "ability". Anyone who is a witness to either the test istself or to a recording of it should have the ability to validate the results of the test.

But who has authority to declare that the Challenge has been won would obviously be someone from the JREF, if not Randi himself. And that decision could always be appealed through the legal system.

I suppose that you could say that, ultimately, the Supreme Court of the United States has the authority... but that's not a very useful answer in my opinion.

 

[Plasmadog]

As has been pointed out numerous times, an accepted claim is a legally binding contract, in which the criterion for success and failure are specified in terms that are as clear and unambigous as possible. Both parties negotiate and agree on these criterion before signing.
After the test, both parties should be able to agree on the outcome. In case of disagreement between the JREF and the claimant, the courts have the final say. This does not need to be explicitly explained in the rules becasue it is a fundamental principal of contract law.

 

[ruach1]

Ahhhh. Yes. "Authority" is different than "ability", and I think we all got mired in "ability". Anyone who is a witness to either the test istself or to a recording of it should have the ability to validate the results of the test.

But who has authority to declare that the Challenge has been won would obviously be someone from the JREF, if not Randi himself. And that decision could always be appealed through the legal system.

I suppose that you could say that, ultimately, the Supreme Court of the United States has the authority... but that's not a very useful answer in my opinion.

Yes. That's it. Now you see "where I'm coming from." The authority to say who passed and who didn't is not stated in the application. That's that wiggle-room I was talking about. Basically, the JREF can do just about whatever they want, and other than spending mucho denero on lawyers and legal fees on a case that certainly has no precedent, there is precious little applicants can do if they feel they have passed the test and have been denied "passed test status" by an authority that holds applicants in very low esteem.

Plasmadog, any objections to the above logic? You seem to maintain a good legal mind.