Why the challenge is illogical.

Js1981 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Umm... No? You do realize the point is not to officially declare psy as true, as even if someone passes it doesn't mean they're real.

The point is to go to the major quacks, Browne, Edwards, Van Prague etc
and ask them "why don't you take the challenge"?

The fact that they don't, proves they're complete frauds.

Randi isn't a scientist. He's more of a cop, catching crooks in action.
 
kerikiwi said:
All it proves is that they have not taken the test.
Click to expand...
Indeed they have not, despite the fact that by doing only what they claim to be able to do they could not only silence those nasty sceptics for ever, but win themselves (or their favourite charity) a million dollars into the bargain.

I think most sensible people can be left to draw their own conclusion as to why they choose not to take the test. And it will be the one GrandMasterFox has drawn.
 
Pixel42 said:
Indeed they have not, despite the fact that by doing only what they claim to be able to do they could not only silence those nasty sceptics for ever, but win themselves (or their favourite charity) a million dollars into the bargain.
Click to expand...
Ultimately they would get much more than the million. They would be able to promote themselves uniquely as passing the MDC and I'm sure they'd milk it for every penny... if only they had any real powers to pass with.

Pixel42 said:
I think most sensible people can be left to draw their own conclusion as to why they choose not to take the test. And it will be the one GrandMasterFox has drawn.
Click to expand...
(underlining mine)

The problem being that it's not usually sensible people who are taken in by these fraudsters. :)
 
kerikiwi said:
No, it doesn't. All it proves is that they have not taken the test.
Click to expand...

Sure, and the fact that nobody found traces of bigfoot (hair, saliva, fur etc) doesn't mean it's not real.

It does prove that the default position is true, they have a chance to prove their worth and refuse to take it. Well, browne did accept it, just haven't came by to collect.
 
Last edited:
GrandMasterFox said:
Sure, and the fact that nobody found traces of bigfoot (hair, saliva, fur etc) doesn't mean it's not found.

It does prove that the default position is true,
Click to expand...

How does it prove that?

What would this "proof" be worth, if the next day the evidence was found after all?

they have a chance to prove their worth and refuse to take it. Well, browne did accept it, just haven't came by to collect.
Click to expand...

And it is quite reasonable to assume that she simply fears being exposed. But proof it is not.
 
kerikiwi said:
Incorrect. The fact that no traces have been found does mean it's not found.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are correct. That was a typo, ment to say it wasn't real.

Rasmus said:
How does it prove that?
Click to expand...
Simple. The default position is not to accept without evidence. The existence of the test is just that, a way of providing evidence.

Rasmus said:
What would this "proof" be worth, if the next day the evidence was found after all?
Click to expand...
Just that. If someone passes the test, it proves that one of the following is true:

1)Paranormal is real
2)The test isn't good enough as non-paranormal passed

Further investigation will more likely show which of these is true.

Ramsus said:
And it is quite reasonable to assume that she simply fears being exposed. But proof it is not.
Click to expand...
Again, let's not get into the whole "what is proof" thing.
It is possible that she had a psychic ability and then was going to take the test but brainwashing aliens from outer space removed her gift and erased her memory and turned her into the quack she is.

Absolute proof you have only in math.

The "fear from exposure" crap doesn't stand for people who go on television and perform reading, can it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GrandMasterFox said:
The "fear from exposure" crap doesn't stand for people who go on television and perform reading, can it?
Click to expand...

Yes it can stand. Performing readings on television is a very different thing from performing readings under controlled conditions.
 
Why is that people who want to claim that "anomalies" in some measurement are significant can't operationally define what an "anomalous" measurement is ahead of time and do honest hypothesis testing?
 
This thread and all the other like it just reiterates how small minded the WOO is.
If you could come up with any proof of the supernatural, any at all that is verifiable that is, it would create entirely new branches of science and make possible technologies that are unimaginable.
The prize money is nothing compared to that.
It’s as if a person claims the powers of Superman but the best they can do with it is move furniture.
 
dlorde said:
Even more so - the more famous they are, the more they have to lose.
Click to expand...

Exactly, if they can't pass an honest test, sure, they have a lot more to lose. That's because they are fraud.

Now, if you're talking from the "what if the test isn't honest" angle, then it's quite simple. All they have to do, is retake the test with someone else and if they pass then, that'll will be in their favour that the test is dishonest.

It's really not that hard.

If they can do what they say they can, there is no logical reason not to take the test.
 
Rasmus said:
I don't think this is the point or aim of the challenge.

It exists not to explain hitherto unexplained phenomena, but to rub it into the face of those that make claims about non-existing phenomena.
Click to expand...
OK I am starting to understand better now...

kerikiwi said:
Are you agreeing that unexplainable things don't exist, that is: everything is explainable?
Click to expand...
Yes, so you may understand why I have trouble with the definition of what is paranormal.

MRC_Hans said:
With the the reservation that 'explainable' does not necessarily equal 'explanation will be found', then yes, this is the skeptic's position.

Hans
Click to expand...
Maybe, but not being able to explain something, correctly or incorrectly, is purely a failure of imagination.

Jekyll's Guest said:
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.
Click to expand...
I do believe that is MY ability, being the OP.

quarky, I am also amazed that some organized crime ring doesn't scam the prize constantly. I wonder how exactly that is prevented and why they aren't doing it.

Stray Cat said:
Ultimately they would get much more than the million. They would be able to promote themselves uniquely as passing the MDC and I'm sure they'd milk it for every penny... if only they had any real powers to pass with.


(underlining mine)

The problem being that it's not usually sensible people who are taken in by these fraudsters. :)
Click to expand...
Maybe that is the big underlying problem, the public knows and yet is complacent to the fact that the paranormal is being passed off as real. I would assume that if they had to admit it was fake, there would be a lot less prestige.

So the basic message I'm getting about the challenge is that it is more of a challenge for the JREF to prove these famous people are fakes, rather than so much of a challenge to someone who may have real paranormal abilities.

Thanks to everyone for helping clarify things.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom