LongFuzzy
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2005
- Messages
- 401
The reason the high profile ones tend not to take the challenge (even when they have said they would) is that they know they can't win it and they know that even in their world that could effect their livelihood (saying that Popoff comes to mind).
Maybe, but doesn't Popoff still make millions off his 'ministries'?
I'd suspect a minor setback for the 'Pros', but they would still have
their faithfull followers.
-LF
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Neither Randi nor the "(supposedly) impartial test-givers" have a final say. The test protocol will be agreed in advance so that success or failure is self evident. Either the results themselves say that the applicant have passed, according to the agreed conditions, or they don't.
For example, if we're talking about a dowser, it might be agreed in advance, as part of the protocol, that if the dowser correctly identifies which of five sealed cups contains water in eight out of ten attempts, they have passed. If the dowser only finds the cup with the water seven or fewer times in their ten attempts, they have failed; if they find it eight or more times they have passed. There is no judging; nobody gets a "say". Either the applicant has passed or they haven't, according to a protocol that has been agreed in advance.
The suggestion that judging is involved is merely a strawman constructed by people (and their supporters) who need an excuse for not taking a test which, if their claims were genuine, they would easily be able to pass.
Exactly: why get into a test in which you're not allowed to cheat when you're a fraud and you know it.
You're suggesting that introducing subjective judgment of some sort would make the procedure fairer?
Last edited:
Hawk one
Emperor of the Internet
If you had read this thread properly, the answer will be "The results will declare a winner."
That's impossible. If a claimant succeeds someone has to compile/look at the results and make a statement.
Last edited:
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Everyone involved in the test can look at the results and know if the test was a success or not. End of story.
If success meant 7 or more but the result was 6 then it was a failure. What is the problem? The results will be on film so it cannot be reasonably disputed.
If success meant 7 or more but the result was 6 then it was a failure. What is the problem? The results will be on film so it cannot be reasonably disputed.
From a semantic superfreak's point of view: Granted.
Though you might also say that "someone" in this case only has to act as a mediator to announce what became evident through the "results".
Ririon
Cool cat
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2005
- Messages
- 2,059
So you want to know how the (hypothetical) press conference will be organized? Is that it?
It strikes me that the problem here is the underlying assumption that Randi is not interested in honest inquiry, but is a closed-minded bigot who's decided in advance that the prize is unwinnable. I.e., even if a genuine telekinetic clearly demonstrated an awesome power (say, levitating a car with the power of his mind), Randi would simply say, "Well, I don't know how he did it, but as psychic powers do not exist, the levitation was definitely performed by trickery, so I refuse to pay up."
This underlying assumption is that Randi will always find a loophole to avoid payment, even when faced with a genuine psychic. It's like the British stage magician and conjuror Paul Daniels. In his television shows, Daniels has a section called the "Bunko Booth". He dresses like a carnival shyster from the early 20th century, and invites members of the audience on stage, to whom he teaches a simple magic trick. If they can then reproduce the trick exactly as he taught them, Daniels offers to pay them a chunk of money, and will normally wave a thick wad of real banknotes around at this point for dramatic effect (he is, after all, an entertainer). As you may guess, however, no one has ever won Daniels's challenge, because he then tricks them into making a mistake with the magic he has just taught. For example, you probably all know the trick whereby you line up three tumblers, and place the two at either end face-up, and the third in the middle face-down. Then, with three deft moves turning over two glasses each at a time, you end with all three glasses right-side up. Well, Daniels taught this trick to a member of the audience, and then invited the man to replicate the trick to win the money. However, as I noticed immediately, Daniels then reset the table with the two glasses on either end face-down, and the one in the middle face-up, so by replicating the hand moves, the man ended with all three glasses face-down instead of right-side up, and so Daniels then gleefully declared that the man had failed, and kept the money. Now, this is TV light entertainment and doesn't cause the participants any real heartburn, as they are there to be tricked and baffled in the name of entertainment. The claim I see being made here, however, is that Randi would pull a similar stunt in order to cheat the claimant out of the $1 million. IOW, Randi will never play fair. An example might be that our car-levitating psychic declares in advance that he performs his psychic feats by making a magic gesture with his right hand. When he comes to be tested for the challenge, however, he uses his left hand to make the gesture, and although the car clearly rises 10 feet above the ground, Randi then declares that the claimant failed, not because the car failed to fly (it clearly did), but because he used the wrong hand. IOW, Randi will find a petty excuse to deny payment of the $1 million even in the face of evidence that everyone else would consider perverse not to accept.
Personally, I think this says more about the mindset of the apologists for woo than it does about Randi being ethically challenged, but I leave it to the rest of you on this board to make up your own minds.
This underlying assumption is that Randi will always find a loophole to avoid payment, even when faced with a genuine psychic. It's like the British stage magician and conjuror Paul Daniels. In his television shows, Daniels has a section called the "Bunko Booth". He dresses like a carnival shyster from the early 20th century, and invites members of the audience on stage, to whom he teaches a simple magic trick. If they can then reproduce the trick exactly as he taught them, Daniels offers to pay them a chunk of money, and will normally wave a thick wad of real banknotes around at this point for dramatic effect (he is, after all, an entertainer). As you may guess, however, no one has ever won Daniels's challenge, because he then tricks them into making a mistake with the magic he has just taught. For example, you probably all know the trick whereby you line up three tumblers, and place the two at either end face-up, and the third in the middle face-down. Then, with three deft moves turning over two glasses each at a time, you end with all three glasses right-side up. Well, Daniels taught this trick to a member of the audience, and then invited the man to replicate the trick to win the money. However, as I noticed immediately, Daniels then reset the table with the two glasses on either end face-down, and the one in the middle face-up, so by replicating the hand moves, the man ended with all three glasses face-down instead of right-side up, and so Daniels then gleefully declared that the man had failed, and kept the money. Now, this is TV light entertainment and doesn't cause the participants any real heartburn, as they are there to be tricked and baffled in the name of entertainment. The claim I see being made here, however, is that Randi would pull a similar stunt in order to cheat the claimant out of the $1 million. IOW, Randi will never play fair. An example might be that our car-levitating psychic declares in advance that he performs his psychic feats by making a magic gesture with his right hand. When he comes to be tested for the challenge, however, he uses his left hand to make the gesture, and although the car clearly rises 10 feet above the ground, Randi then declares that the claimant failed, not because the car failed to fly (it clearly did), but because he used the wrong hand. IOW, Randi will find a petty excuse to deny payment of the $1 million even in the face of evidence that everyone else would consider perverse not to accept.
Personally, I think this says more about the mindset of the apologists for woo than it does about Randi being ethically challenged, but I leave it to the rest of you on this board to make up your own minds.
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Perhaps there's a certain amount of projection involved.
Kimpatsu, could please specify to which poster(s) you refer to? Thanks.
Possibly, with some apologists for woo. Others (not normally claimants, but those who honestly believe that psychic powers exist, and who see themselves as defenders of honest inquiry) are utterly convinced that Randi is determined to ignore the large pool of genuine psychics in the world for his own perverse egotistical ends. Consequently, when people fail preliminary tests, they leap to the conclusion that it was because Randi or the testers cheated, not because the claimant lacks the powers they say they have.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
The problem seems more that this large pool of allegedly genuine psychics seems to be determined to ignore the challenge.
I've spoken to more than a few apologists for these "genuine psychics", all of whom claim their heroes avoid the challege because they know it is rigged by Randi to ensure their failure.
But maybe we're projecting again...
Doesn't the person who started this thread fall into that category? He seems to be nitpicking in order to find the likely excuses Randi will use when a genuine psychic inevitably wins the challenge.
Additionally, not all the people of whom I'm thinking post here (we're mostly evil doubters and skeptics, after all). For example, on one martial arts-related noticeboard I used to frequent, the administrator is utterly convinced that there are great Chinese kung fu masters who can project their chi energy to knock you over remotely from distances of up to 20 feet. When I suggested these people should immediately apply for the $1 million, and having dealt with the (almost inevitable) refusal that "these are spiritual men, and performing for base profit is against the rules", he then resorted to "The challenge is a farce, because Randi will cheat anyway."
I spoke to a self-proclaimed psychic healer here in Tokyo. She claims to have healed people of cancer using just essential oils and her psychic gift. When I suggested the $1 million, she replied that her power will fail her if she's made to "jump through hoops", and she then added "Randi would just cheat, anyway".
What to do?
Last edited:
Good question. Convincing "believers" with facts contradicting their belief seems very difficult.
It's been said before: These "believers" have invested a great part of their lives into their belief system. The longer done, the more invested. Reaffirmed, time and time again.
We can offer a fact-based discussion. It's up to them to become part of it.
Absolutely! As Mojo pointed out, there's a great deal of projection involved here. Because the believers are emotionally so close to their position that they can't afford to lose their faith as their ego would go with it (as the famous saying goes), they assume that skepticism is an equally faith-based position, and that die-hard skeptics like Randi will always feel emotionally driven to defend their corner, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Having said that, I do find that the believers set the bar too low when pursuing inquiries of this nature. Like Targ and Puthoff, they are determined to change the protocols to favour and flatter the ("psychic") testee. In "The Truth About Uri Geller", Randi likens this to the rats designing the maze. As any fule no, however, psychic powers simply MUST exist, because otherwise men of god like Benny Hinn and Peter Popoff, not to mention Uri Geller, John of God, and Sylvia Browne, must be lying... and that couldn't possibly be true!... could it...?
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
I'll try not to reiterate what has already gone before, but I will have to in order to clarify some of the points you raise.
1.
As has been pointed out - the Challenge protocols are negotiated so that the results, and therefore success or failure of the trial, are self-evident. (see 2nd para of The Challenge Application).
2.
Not so.
The Challenge Agreement is between the applicant and James Randi (represented by JREF) - last sentence of the 3rd para "This offer is administered by the JREF, and no one may negotiate or make any changes, except as set forth in writing by James Randi (JR). "
James Randi signs the Agreement and authorises the protocols for the trials.
If the preliminary trial is not performed by JREF, JREF may find or assign a 3rd party to conduct the trial on it's behalf. Such an assignation is done in writing and in doing states that the 3rd party is conducting on the authority of JREF and for all intents and purposes (legally) represents JREF.
James Randi signs the Agreement, the protocols for the trials and the assignation of authority of the 3rd party.
JREF or James Randi cannot overrule the results, since the 3rd party IS (contractually) JREF.
3.
James Randi signs the Agreement, the protocols for the trials and the assignation of authority of the 3rd party.
TheBoyPaj
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 1,640
In other obscure-UK-TV-references-guaranteed-to-confuse-Americans, Derek Nimmo was not a real vicar. Which is, you know, a bit like people who pretend to be mediums.
And Wilf Lunn's inventions didn't work.