Who judges?

[Beleth]

When you order lunch at a restaurant, who ultimately decides if you get it?

That's what we were talking about when we were discussing the difference between "ability" and "authority". Sure, the cook and the waiter have the ability to prevent you from getting your lunch, but they do not have the authority. If they decided that they weren't going to let you have your lunch, they would be subject to disciplinary action.

 

[drkitten]

That's what we were talking about when we were discussing the difference between "ability" and "authority". Sure, the cook and the waiter have the ability to prevent you from getting your lunch, but they do not have the authority. If they decided that they weren't going to let you have your lunch, they would be subject to disciplinary action.

But in that sense, typically no one at the restaurant has the authority to deny me a meal, once I've paid. I've established a contract with them, and they have to complete it. If they don't, the courts will step in and do evil things to them.

That's more-or-less the situation w.r.t. Randi and his millions. The challenge application and agreed-upon protocol are a contract that specifies that if I do certain things, Randi/the JREF/etc. will do other things. Failure to give me the million after I've passed the test is no more legitimate than failure to give me a meal that I've paid for.

 

[Hauteden]

I believe Rule 8 provides the answer for which you were looking.

8. At the formal test, in advance, an independent person will be placed in charge of a personal check from James Randi for US$10,000. In the event that the claimant is successful under the agreed terms and conditions, that check shall be immediately surrendered to the claimant, and within ten days the James Randi Educational Foundation will pay to the claimant the remainder of the reward, for a total of US$1,000,000. ...

If the agreed upon terms were met the $10,000 check would be handed over immediately by the "independent person." Then in 10 days or less the remainder of the reward would be handed over. So if the test is successful the money must be paid.

I know you asked about who judges a successful test. Rule 12, which Darat quoted before states:

12. EVERY APPLICANT MUST AGREE UPON WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A CONCLUSION THAT, ON THE OCCASION OF THE FORMAL TEST, HE OR SHE DID OR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CLAIMED ABILITY OR POWER. This form must be accompanied by a brief, two-paragraph description of what will constitute the demonstration.

(Emphasis JREF's)

Which to me means the Applicant and JREF must come up with a protocol that clearly defines positive and negative prior to the Formal Test. Therefore judging is not required by anyone, the results are self-evident. In a way you could say that the protocal determines the outcome.

In short JREF and the Applicant play a role in the dispensing of the cash.


Hauteden

<Edited to fix a tyop>

 

[TjW]

Once there is a valid contract in place, even J. Randi does not have the authority to deny the million to a successful applicant. The contract wording is the authority.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Ruach1, have you found a response to Santa666's inquiry yet:

"Can you provide an example (hypothetical or not) where the success is agreed upon, the failure is agreed upon, the protocols are agreed upon and established, yet the outcome is in dispute?"

If not, don't reply at all.

 

[ruach1]

Ruach1, have you found a response to Santa666's inquiry yet:

"Can you provide an example (hypothetical or not) where the success is agreed upon, the failure is agreed upon, the protocols are agreed upon and established, yet the outcome is in dispute?"

If not, don't reply at all.

Gzuzkryzt, can you tell me why cats are so popular as avatars now? I really liked your optical illusion avatar better though I am something of a cat person myself (only one though...).

I heard someone say that they've heard of a challenge like this before, and the challenge/prize provider responded to a test once with something to the effect of: "Well I'm not convinced; you lose." And there really was nothing the test taker could do about it.

And as I read through the thread again (thanks for reminding me about Satan's question), I am still not convinced this couldn't happen. For example, Randi could overview the video of a successful applicant in a double-blind test and say: "Well you (the test givers) obviously didn't see how this person is cheating by doing ______ like I've seen other magicians do before. Its my test. I overule you, and say the test taker was cheating. End of story."

But what if the test taker wasn't cheating? Or knowingly cheating? What are the checks against this happening? Other than a possible lawsuit, I don't see any check against Randi doing something like the above--if he were so inclined-- and I am not saying he is.

Is that what you were looking for?

 

[petre]

Gzuzkryzt, can you tell me why cats are so popular as avatars now? I really liked your optical illusion avatar better though I am something of a cat person myself (only one though...).

I heard someone say that they've heard of a challenge like this before, and the challenge/prize provider responded to a test once with something to the effect of: "Well I'm not convinced; you lose." And there really was nothing the test taker could do about it.

And as I read through the thread again (thanks for reminding me about Satan's question), I am still not convinced this couldn't happen. For example, Randi could overview the video of a successful applicant in a double-blind test and say: "Well you (the test givers) obviously didn't see how this person is cheating by doing ______ like I've seen other magicians do before. Its my test. I overule you, and say the test taker was cheating. End of story."

But what if the test taker wasn't cheating? Or knowingly cheating? What are the checks against this happening? Other than a possible lawsuit, I don't see any check against Randi doing something like the above--if he were so inclined-- and I am not saying he is.

Is that what you were looking for?

Interesting. Have you asked GS yet what they would do in such a case?

 

[Lamuella]

there is a very clear check against Randi doing something like this:

Legal action.

If there was a tape of someone doing something entirely paranormal under test conditions, a tape moreover that both sides agreed was the genuine article, and Randi was refusing to pay out or let that person advance from preliminary testing, he would be sued for breach of contract.

Furthermore, the entire point of an agreed upon test protocol is to ensure that the possibility of cheating is removed. If Randi knew there was a way to cheat, why would he ever let the protocols stand?

 

[Santa666]

there is a very clear check against Randi doing something like this:

Legal action.

If there was a tape of someone doing something entirely paranormal under test conditions, a tape moreover that both sides agreed was the genuine article, and Randi was refusing to pay out or let that person advance from preliminary testing, he would be sued for breach of contract.

Furthermore, the entire point of an agreed upon test protocol is to ensure that the possibility of cheating is removed. If Randi knew there was a way to cheat, why would he ever let the protocols stand?

This answer is precisely why I asked for an example, which I have still not been given. Randi will ony agree to a protocol wherein there lies no room to cheat. He has also stated (through Kramer), should someone still cheat and pass the final test, they will win the million. That means, if you are good enough to fool Randi, and bypass the protocols without being caught, you still win. So, once again, can you answer my question about providing an example. Thanks.


Santa

 

[ruach1]

Interesting. Have you asked GS yet what they would do in such a case?

Who or what is "GS"?

 

[petre]

Who or what is "GS"?

Goldman Sachs, the ones that hold the prize money as negotiable bonds.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I heard someone say that they've heard of a challenge like this before, and the challenge/prize provider responded to a test once with something to the effect of: "Well I'm not convinced; you lose." And there really was nothing the test taker could do about it.

So you heard someone talk about something they heard about regarding a different challenge that sounds similar?

I call intentional troll, as opposed to the other choice.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Gzuzkryzt, can you tell me why cats are so popular as avatars now? I really liked your optical illusion avatar better though I am something of a cat person myself (only one though...).

Please try to quote my nickname correctly.
And, no, I can't tell you "why cats are so popular as avatars now". I frankly do not even care. My current avatar also serves as an optical illusion. ("(...) You can use your your illusion/ let it take you where it may/ we live and learn and then sometimes/ it's best to walk away. (..)" W. Axl Rose.)

I heard someone say that they've heard of a challenge like this before, and the challenge/prize provider responded to a test once with something to the effect of: "Well I'm not convinced; you lose." And there really was nothing the test taker could do about it.

"Evidence, please." (CFLarsen.)

And as I read through the thread again (thanks for reminding me about Satan's question), I am still not convinced this couldn't happen. For example, Randi could overview the video of a successful applicant in a double-blind test and say: "Well you (the test givers) obviously didn't see how this person is cheating by doing ______ like I've seen other magicians do before. Its my test. I overule you, and say the test taker was cheating. End of story."

Speculative, at best.
We have yet to see a successfully performed Preliminary Test, let alone see a Final/Formal Test at all.

But what if the test taker wasn't cheating? Or knowingly cheating? What are the checks against this happening? Other than a possible lawsuit, I don't see any check against Randi doing something like the above--if he were so inclined-- and I am not saying he is.

Is that what you were looking for?

Again: Speculative, at best.

I "was looking" for a specific example given by you, ruach1, of a test protocol, where "(hypothetical or not) the success is agreed upon, the failure is agreed upon, the protocols are agreed upon and established, yet the outcome is in dispute?"

Can you deliver that?

 

[Santa666]

Please try to quote my nickname correctly.
And, no, I can't tell you "why cats are so popular as avatars now". I frankly do not even care. My current avatar also serves as an optical illusion. ("(...) You can use your your illusion/ let it take you where it may/ we live and learn and then sometimes/ it's best to walk away. (..)" W. Axl Rose.)



"Evidence, please." (CFLarsen.)



Speculative, at best.
We have yet to see a successfully performed Preliminary Test, let alone see a Final/Formal Test at all.



Again: Speculative, at best.

I "was looking" for a specific example given by you, ruach1, of a test protocol, where "(hypothetical or not) the success is agreed upon, the failure is agreed upon, the protocols are agreed upon and established, yet the outcome is in dispute?"

Can you deliver that?

My guess. He will not provide such an example. The Challenge is so designed to prevent such an occurance. But, I shall wait for the next response, which likely, will not answer the question.


Santa

 

[GzuzKryzt]

My guess. He will not provide such an example. The Challenge is so designed to prevent such an occurance. But, I shall wait for the next response, which likely, will not answer the question.


Santa

My thoughts exactly.



By the way, do you know the "Evil Santa" from Futurama? What's he like in person? Ho-ho-hizzo?

 

[ruach1]

My guess. He will not provide such an example. The Challenge is so designed to prevent such an occurance. But, I shall wait for the next response, which likely, will not answer the question.


Santa

This is not true. The Challenge is designed as best as can be, but there is no rule saying Randi can't decide on his own if a test is or isn't passed apart from the conclusions of the test givers.

This was the logic behind the original post, and it has yet to be answered definitively--by anyone.

The hypothetical situation I gave? The only answer to that is "Randi will only agree to a protocol wherein there lies no room to cheat." Can you verify this with evidence? No you can't. And I wouldn't expect it from you either. Asking for things you know someone can't give is indication of a weak and lazy mind.

 

[Santa666]

This is not true. The Challenge is designed as best as can be, but there is no rule saying Randi can't decide on his own if a test is or isn't passed apart from the conclusions of the test givers.

This was the logic behind the original post, and it has yet to be answered definitively--by anyone.

The hypothetical situation I gave? The only answer to that is "Randi will only agree to a protocol wherein there lies no room to cheat." Can you verify this with evidence? No you can't. And I wouldn't expect it from you either. Asking for things you know someone can't give is indication of a lazy mind.

I really do not understand the problem here. So many people have quote, posted, and bolded the actual Challenge rules for you. The claimant must state what EXACTLY constitutes a success, what EXACTLY constitues a failure, and then both the claimant and the JREF must agree on a satisfactory protocol for testing. Why, oh why, would the JREF require such criterion unless it was in place to prevent cheating?

I have bolded your statement above.

Once again, per your statement. PLEASE PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE, HYPOTHETICAL OR OTHERWISE, WHERE A SUCCESS IS DEFINED, A FAILURE IS DEFINED, AND THE PROTOCOLS ARE AGREED UPON AND ESTABLISHED, YET THE OUTCOME IS IN DISPUTE IN SUCH A WAY AS YOU HAVE DESCRIBED.

Thank you,

Santa

 

[ruach1]

(hypothetical or not) the success is agreed upon, the failure is agreed upon, the protocols are agreed upon and established, yet the outcome is in dispute?[/I]"

Can you deliver that?

The example, hypothetical or not is not the issue. The issue is: who judges? Can Randi judge a test to be negative when the test givers conclude it to be positive?

I have already given an example of this. Santa666 says Randi won't allow a test protocol where there is room to cheat. Then he says if someone does cheat then they win. Do you see the contradictory nature in this statement? Do you now see there are holes in the Challenge rules?

 

[ruach1]

I really do not understand the problem here.[/B]

Thank you,

Santa

That is obvious. See post #78

 

[Santa666]

The example, hypothetical or not is not the issue. The issue is: who judges? Can Randi judge a test to be negative when the test givers conclude it to be positive?

This is just silly, Randi COULD just say the claimant never even showed up. He COULD just say "April Fool's". He COULD pull out a semi automatic weapon and kill everyone involved. What recourse do you have against him in any of these scenarios. The same ones or similar that you have if he does what you suggest. Unless of course, you can provide an example as I have asked for repeatedly.

I have already given an example of this. Santa666 says Randi won't allow a test protocol where there is room to cheat. Then he says if someone does cheat then they win. Do you see the contradictory nature in this statement? Do you now see there are holes in the Challenge rules?

Perhaps I should have worded my statement better. I am sure Randi would only agree to protocols wherein cheating could not occur. James Randi, and those in the employ of the JREF, are human, and given the unlikely probability cheating could happen, if it did and was not discovered, then the claimant wins anyway. There, is that better?


Santa