Who judges?

[Santa666]

Are there some things worth dying for? If so, are there some things worth lying for?

The Challenge serves multiple purposes.
--It serves as something of a dam holding back some of the claims of psychics, woos, charlatans and others from a receiving public.
--It serves as "the hammer of the skeptics" bashing paranormal claims.
--It serves as a plank helping to hold up the worldviews of many skeptics.
--It serves as a signpost showing the world that claims should be tested by science.
--It also serves as a flag waving to the world that the paranormal is not real and you should not give money to it, let it shape your reality, or "bet your life" on it.

In my opinion, the Challenge serves these purposes well and probably others about which I have not thought. Therefore, shouldn't this world-serving Challenge deserve the best rules possible?

So, exactly how many laws and statutes should the Challenge rules cover? Should it just include contractual law? Perhaps laws against murder and rape should be included as well? Embezzlement clause? Sure, throw it in. Stipulations against being beaten with a crowbar by Randi, well, we cannot be sure Randi won't do that, since the rules do not state he can't. What would you like the rules to say to clear up any confusion. Please do not forget to include all other laws which are not implicit in the rules.


Santa

 

[TjW]

And what if Randi gives the million, but curses the applicant and his family unto the fortieth generation?
Perhaps more frightening, under those circumstances Uri Geller is likely to extend his psychic powers on the winner's behalf. And we've all seen what has happened to the sports teams he's "helped".

 

[Darat]

I agree wholeheartedly.

But those rules... There's nothing in there that says "who has the final say."

If either party of a contract believe that there has been a breach of the contract they can take the matter before a court, so in the case of the Challenge the person who has the final say is a judge of the USA judiciary system.

 

[Thing]

Ruach1,

Are you proposing an extra challenge rule? If so would you care to suggest how it might be worded?

 

[TheBoyPaj]

if you will provide a pictogram of said sign I will be a nice boy for a whole year. Like Stewie Griffin. Also, I will wet my frickin' pants.

Well, evidently it would look like this:

And the weird thing is, I didn't even have to make that. Just googled for it.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Well, evidently it would look like this:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehost/131244698ca7d0986.jpg[/qimg]

And the weird thing is, I didn't even have to make that. Just googled for it.

"Blast! Dam' You All!

Lois, change me. You can start by wiping down my button. Circular motion only."

 

[petre]

Are there some things worth dying for? If so, are there some things worth lying for?

The Challenge serves multiple purposes.
--It serves as something of a dam holding back some of the claims of psychics, woos, charlatans and others from a receiving public.
--It serves as "the hammer of the skeptics" bashing paranormal claims.
--It serves as a plank helping to hold up the worldviews of many skeptics.
--It serves as a signpost showing the world that claims should be tested by science.
--It also serves as a flag waving to the world that the paranormal is not real and you should not give money to it, let it shape your reality, or "bet your life" on it.

In my opinion, the Challenge serves these purposes well and probably others about which I have not thought. Therefore, shouldn't this world-serving Challenge deserve the best rules possible?

Perhaps he would like to see some additional rules:

13. If the observers declare the challenger has won the challenge, but Randi doesn't want them to get the $1 million, Randi still has to let them win the money since the previous rules say that's what should happen.
14. If Randi decides he doesn't like rule #13, he still has to follow it anyway.
15. If Randi decides he doesn't like rule #14, he still has to follow it anyway.
16. If Randi decides he doesn't like rule #15, he still has to follow it anyway.
17. If Randi decides he doesn't like rule #16, he still has to follow it anyway.
18. If Randi decides he doesn't like rule #17, he still has to follow it anyway.
19. If Randi decides he doesn't like rule #18, he still has to follow it anyway.
20. If Randi decides he doesn't like rule #19, he still has to follow it anyway.
.
.
.
Just how many of these would be sufficient to cover your concern?

 

[juryjone]

Well, evidently it would look like this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehost/131244698ca7d0986.jpg

And the weird thing is, I didn't even have to make that. Just googled for it.

About once a day I find a post on this forum that makes me d*** happy to be here.

This one made my week.

 

[Lamuella]

Ok. I scanned the Challenge Applications. Take Bich Ba Do for example (hypothetical). Say he did his thing on someone, and he passes the test--according to the test-givers at PHACT. What is stopping Randi from saying, "Well I know for a fact there is no such thing as qigong, therefore, he fails the test" thereby overuling the test-givers conclusions of a passed test?

As people have said: because if he clearly and deliberately overrules those who administered the test, he is IN BREACH OF CONTRACT.

If I sell a short story to a magazine, there's nothing to stop them from not paying me, changing the author's name, and printing it anyway. Nothing except that they would be in breach of contract and I would sue them.

You have to understand that the challenge document, once signed, is a legally binding document, an agreement entered into by both parties. If the other party thinks they have been wronged, they have the opportunity to seek restitution.

Can you imagine a bigger defeat for the skeptical community than if James Randi was sued by a psychic and lost? With that in mind, there is a huge amount to stop him from breaking the contract he makes with the challenge applicants.

What will stop him from just saying "it's nonsense, you lost" to a successful applicant? The thought of the huge lawsuit against him. The thought of his reputation, and by extension the reputation of skeptics worldwide, being dragged through the dirt. The thought of every single snake-oil salesman on planet Earth saying "See? He IS a quack! That's why the challenge ruled against my magic homeopathic magnetic quantum underpants!" and selling them to a public who now distrust skepticism and by extension science.

 

[Lamuella]

Because "they" could simply take your credit card and max it out on crack and hookers.

not that I have extensive - or any - experience in this area, but I didn't think there were many hookers and crack dealers who took credit cards

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Of course there are. Do I have to show you the sign again?

 

[Lamuella]

if a hooker took a credit card, where in the world would she swipe it?

Please don't answer that question.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

if a hooker took a credit card, where in the world would she swipe it?

Please don't answer that question.

In the crack?

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Does this thread, at this point, serve the JREF mission?

 

[GzuzKryzt]

(Rushing back to the topic.)

Ok, ruach1, please submit an addition or clarification - worded accordingly in a sentence or paragraph - to any "holes" you see fit.
Or clarify an already existing rule to eliminate "judging" test results, as discussed in this thread after being brought up by you. Please remember to apply common sense.

 

[Lamuella]

In the crack?

That was terrible. Awful. Absolutely reprehensible.

I salute you.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

That was terrible. Awful. Absolutely reprehensible.

I salute you.

In basketball, you would get the credit for the assist to this alley-oop.

 

[ruach1]

Ruach1,

Are you proposing an extra challenge rule? If so would you care to suggest how it might be worded?

Would it really matter if I were?

I guess there could be a stipulation stating that the test-givers who conclude a test was passed by a claimant cannot be overruled by Randi. This would negate some of the claims of self-interest that have been waged against Randi and the JREF concerning the Mill Challenge-- such as these: http://www.alternativescience.com/james-randi.html

 

[ruach1]

As people have said: because if he clearly and deliberately overrules those who administered the test, he is IN BREACH OF CONTRACT.

If I sell a short story to a magazine, there's nothing to stop them from not paying me, changing the author's name, and printing it anyway. Nothing except that they would be in breach of contract and I would sue them.

You have to understand that the challenge document, once signed, is a legally binding document, an agreement entered into by both parties. If the other party thinks they have been wronged, they have the opportunity to seek restitution.

Can you imagine a bigger defeat for the skeptical community than if James Randi was sued by a psychic and lost? With that in mind, there is a huge amount to stop him from breaking the contract he makes with the challenge applicants.

What will stop him from just saying "it's nonsense, you lost" to a successful applicant? The thought of the huge lawsuit against him. The thought of his reputation, and by extension the reputation of skeptics worldwide, being dragged through the dirt. The thought of every single snake-oil salesman on planet Earth saying "See? He IS a quack! That's why the challenge ruled against my magic homeopathic magnetic quantum underpants!" and selling them to a public who now distrust skepticism and by extension science.

Lamuella,

I thank you for your level-headed responses to this thread. The legal matters have been addressed quite well; once again thank you for your responses. However, you are a couple steps ahead of me. My question is not if one can sue for breach of contract. My question is: who judges? Do the test-givers have the final say if a claimant passed a test? Or can Randi overrule them if he so chooses?

Darat says its Randi's Challenge, so its Randi's Challenge--he gets to decide. Yet if he has the final say, then he is open to criticism like the ones in the link in my previous post: as professional or lacking thereof as it may be.

There is no rule stipulating who has the final say.

I'm sorry if this has caused a little (sic)

There's too much of this already in the world, IMO.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Would it really matter if I were?
...

Most likely: Yes.

Why?

Because you started the thread saying, among other things:
"(...) However, nowhere (nowhere) does it state who judges a positive or negative test result and who makes the final decision concerning failure or success.
(...)
If there is no rule allowing the test-givers to officially pronounce success or failure, what's the point in applying when the JREF can just nullify the process at will without fear of legal reprisals?"

We asked you to come up with a specific amelioration to the points you brought up.
And I ask again, ruach1: Can you deliver?
How should the Challenge Rules sound to stifle your doubts about "judging" test results?