Mojo
Mostly harmless
Why the challenge is illogical.
- Thread starter KWifler
- Start date
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Then take away the well known sources of error that even sincere and mentally healthy people are prone to and we don't have any unexplained things. That's what Randi's test has repeatedly shown.
We cannot, of course, completely rule out the possibility that the next person to claim a paranormal ability will prove to be correct. But given how many sincere and mentally healthy people who held that belief have already been proved wrong it looks increasingly unlikely.
Am I am not only talking about the mid point but if anomally happens maybe the research technics aren't sufficient?
Look at the base of each science, big bang for example:
What is the difference for Big Bang of Existance of God?
None, both are emprirical not possible to prove.
All variables are purely philosophical.
Whole Big Bang theory is a theory based on Effect whithout any variables so the conclusion is only philosophical.
You can't get to the source of an experiment when you only know the final result. Whole theory is only created so it makes sense under supposly plausible variables also man made.
Dark matter - same thing, man made conclusion to fit into unexplored yet world, could be totaly wrong.
In 1000 years people can laugh at us as much as we laugh at peoppe who thought our planet is flat.
We make up a theory and then base whole science on that.
Philosophers do exactly the same it just the result is as untouchable as the experiment.
Every science is a man made up conclusion based on something which we can touch but the conclusion is impossible to be proved.
Every argument I see, people mostly care to proof which group is right but both can be wrong in the assumption.
Look at the base of each science, big bang for example:
What is the difference for Big Bang of Existance of God?
None, both are emprirical not possible to prove.
All variables are purely philosophical.
Whole Big Bang theory is a theory based on Effect whithout any variables so the conclusion is only philosophical.
You can't get to the source of an experiment when you only know the final result. Whole theory is only created so it makes sense under supposly plausible variables also man made.
Dark matter - same thing, man made conclusion to fit into unexplored yet world, could be totaly wrong.
In 1000 years people can laugh at us as much as we laugh at peoppe who thought our planet is flat.
We make up a theory and then base whole science on that.
Philosophers do exactly the same it just the result is as untouchable as the experiment.
Every science is a man made up conclusion based on something which we can touch but the conclusion is impossible to be proved.
Every argument I see, people mostly care to proof which group is right but both can be wrong in the assumption.
Last edited:
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
Yeah, not so much.
Have another look into the science with a truly open mind. You'll see that it makes a lot more sense than you assume.
It does but mostly under our present conditions. Look at physics, atronomy, chemistry etc etc
All our assumptions can be contradicted just we contradicted everything from before.
Past sciences also seemed definiete to those generations.
Just saying that we aren't inteligent enough to act like we have definitive knowledge. All unexplained occurances got only philosophical sense by Us under our conditioning and could be as wrong as th science from before.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Dark matter is just the name scientists have given to whatever is causing an effect they have observed. There are various ideas about what it might be, but no-one claims to know for sure. An observation has been made, they don't know what's causing it, they're trying to find out. What's to laugh at, even in 1000 years when the answer will presumably have been found out?
Nothing you are saying seems to be relevant to how the $1m challenge goes about evaluating the truth of specific claims.
Jekyll's Guest
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 29, 2010
- Messages
- 2,207
I have the amazing ability to make people post in this thread.
Don't worry if it takes a while, my ability is akin to dark matter and sometimes has to warm up first.
I'd prefer my million as a check, I'd rather not pay the 30k Paypal fee.
Don't worry if it takes a while, my ability is akin to dark matter and sometimes has to warm up first.
I'd prefer my million as a check, I'd rather not pay the 30k Paypal fee.
If the prize is ever won it will be through an awesome degree of cheating.
I wrote a short story about this. I think it would make a decent movie:
A team of professionals is assembled; akin to a high tech bank job:
A couple of top-notch magicians; computer geeks; electronics wiz-kids; etc.
The test scenario is carefully rehearsed with respect to the actual conditions of the testing rigors and setting. It won't be easy. And it will cost a lot; perhaps half as much as the prize.
In the movie version one of the electronic wireless devices fails...yet the test passes anyway...leaving the cynical cheaters wondering if perhaps the paranormal actually did come into play.
People exit the theater confused; educated; entertained.
The movie makes several million bucks.
The cheaters confess and give the money back to Randi and co.
Plus a large donation to help keep up the good work.
Win-win?
I've broached this subject in the past on this forum.
It was met with understandable disdain.
Yet it is here; amongst the skeptics; scientists; magicians that the only possible winning of the prize could be designed.
Imagine the press!
Suddenly rational thinking would become a front page issue.
(I'll go back to my room now and think about my sin.)
I wrote a short story about this. I think it would make a decent movie:
A team of professionals is assembled; akin to a high tech bank job:
A couple of top-notch magicians; computer geeks; electronics wiz-kids; etc.
The test scenario is carefully rehearsed with respect to the actual conditions of the testing rigors and setting. It won't be easy. And it will cost a lot; perhaps half as much as the prize.
In the movie version one of the electronic wireless devices fails...yet the test passes anyway...leaving the cynical cheaters wondering if perhaps the paranormal actually did come into play.
People exit the theater confused; educated; entertained.
The movie makes several million bucks.
The cheaters confess and give the money back to Randi and co.
Plus a large donation to help keep up the good work.
Win-win?
I've broached this subject in the past on this forum.
It was met with understandable disdain.
Yet it is here; amongst the skeptics; scientists; magicians that the only possible winning of the prize could be designed.
Imagine the press!
Suddenly rational thinking would become a front page issue.
(I'll go back to my room now and think about my sin.)
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Not quite correct. The BB is an extrapolation of out present observations, within the rules we have found to be consistent. In other words, it's basically like seeing a train coming out of a tunnel and assuming that the tunnel has an entrance somewhere.
God in no such extrapolation (unless you subscribe to some vague god-of-the-gaps).
Wrong. It is theoretical. It is one (and most think the best) consequence of out present observations.
It could be totally wrong, but it builds logically from our present knowledge.
No. We don't laugh at people who thought Earth was flat because we now know better. We laugh at those who kept thinking it because the bible seems to say so, in spite of the fact that the Greek had shown that it is round about 1000 years earlier. That is a laughing matter.
No, you obviously have no idea how science works.
No. Science is built on facts. We may be mistaken, but we build on the best facts we can obtain.
Hans
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
It's hard to tell, but I think you're saying that science can change arbitrarily. This is not the case. Science builds on what has come before, adding details and very occasionally overturning previously held understanding. Dmitri Mendeleev worked out that the elements fit into a table. Subsequent chemists worked out what fit into the gaps in that table. Now we're working on extending that table. That doesn't mean that the idea of the table is wrong. Science doesn't arbitrarily change like fashion. It continually improves itself by describing nature more and more accurately as time goes by. Past science isn't discarded, it is used as a foundation of current and future science.
BINGO!
What is more, there has been actual "measurements" and "quantifiable / reproducible" data collected.
This is exactly the aim of the "challenge"... Cut out the noise, the non sequiturs and the crap and actually demonstrate your woo is true, repeatably and quantifiably through proper testing protocols.
I agree. All one has to do is devise a way to defeat double blinded test design and protocol. I believe it can be done, it is just that no one has been clever enough to do it yet and I doubt that it would be repeatable without detection in any case.
With enough science all things are possible.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
So because science could be wrong the challenge is illogical?
Science necessarily must be wrong, and frequently so, otherwise science would never know when it was right!
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2001
- Messages
- 14,864
If someone is contemplating applying and isn't sure whether their ability would count as paranormal, there are two things that can be done:
1 - Asking JREF directly.
2 - Posting a description of the circumstances required and the expected effect here. Granted we can't speak for the JREF but we can certainly shed some light on the question. We might even be able to suggest a practical test.
1 - Asking JREF directly.
2 - Posting a description of the circumstances required and the expected effect here. Granted we can't speak for the JREF but we can certainly shed some light on the question. We might even be able to suggest a practical test.
What does the test prove?
Who would give a **** to apply besides a lunatic after all those years?
Is a stage magician debunking lunatics a definitive knowledge?
Do we know what and how to test?
It is pure enterntainment exposing conman and that is great role of the test.
Would I take this test as a scientific eplanation - never.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Whether or not the applicant can do whatever it is they claim to be able to do.
People who have little or no knowledge or understanding of the ways in which their perceptions can be mistaken, have inadvertantly allowed their cognitive biases to fool them into believing something that isn't true, and have then invested heavily in that belief.
That seems to be the category most applicants who get as far as taking a test belong to.
Someone who has made a living out of exploiting peoples' cognitive biases is ideally qualified to design test protocols which eliminate them (and to spot attempts to take advantage of them to cheat).
What: whatever paranormal ability the applicant claims to have.
How: using the scientific method.
It can be quite entertaining, certainly, but it can also be very educational for those willing to learn.
A JREF test is not a scientific explanation of anything, it's a demonstration of how easily people can fool themselves into believing they have paranormal abilities which they do not actually possess.
How could one add anything to such a complete demonstration of wanton obtuseness?