'The Myth of the Million Dollar Challenge'

[Temporal Renegade]

Don't know if anyone's seen this or not:

http://dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge

Opinions?

[Gravy]

More grousing about testing people who claim they can produce results demonstrably better than chance, in order to win a million dollars? How foolish.

[Frost]

Seems like special pleading to me. Is a 5% improvement over chance acceptable in science?

[VespaGuy]

The article references Sheldrake, Radin, and Schwartz. I'm surprised they didn't get Sylvia Browne to comment on how "unfair" the challenge is. Looks like a lot of the same old baloney to me.

[William Smith]

Don't know if anyone's seen this or not:

http://dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge

Opinions?

Pedantic semantic quibbles, often lack of sources and footnotes: As a fair and balanced evaluation of the MDC ultimately irrelevant.

The question, as always: Why would anyone bother to win the measly million when one could go through the proper channels adhering to "scientific standard for acknowledging the existence of causal effects"? A appearance in Stockholm would be dy-no-mite, wouldn't it?



Love your sig, Temporal Renegade.

[The Atheist]

Is a 5% improvement over chance acceptable in science?

Yes. If it's consistently shown to be an anomaly, it's a problem for science. Imagine if electricity only worked 95% of the time.

I was looking for Dean Radin's (http://deanradin.com/NewWeb/bio.html)name and sure enough, there it was.

Unfortunately, Richard Wiseman's work on ganzfeld left a rather large hole for Radin & Co to exploit and they have. Radin's approach is a bit like modern theology - exploit what gaps are still available and stick to small claims of effect which are difficult to refute.

As the OP link shows, containing a 5% leakage is an enormously laborious task. I can't imagine any serious research group ever having the time or resources to do the thousands of tests required.

The essay is pretty well written and makes a strong attack from a small anomalistic perspective. Very sharp.

[The Atheist]

Pedantic semantic quibbles, often lack of sources and footnotes: As a fair and balanced evaluation of the MDC ultimately irrelevant.

I'll cordially disagree with you here - I'm pretty familiar with the guys he mentions in the article and have researched Radin & Co thoroughly and no glaring errors struck me. I thought it was reasonably well put written.

It's wrong, but very well done. Essentially, he's borrowed Radin's longstanding comments on the MDC and expanded upon them. Usually, that kind of "expose" uses all sorts of blarney, but that one sticks to the [almost] facts.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

"The effects we demonstrate are extremely subtle and that Nasty Randi wants complicated tests to demonstrate that they are not due to chance." Does that sum it up?

Sheldrake, Radin, and Schwartz don't have to prove anything to Randi. Unfortunately, for them, they have not convinced anyone else either. :p

[William Smith]

I'll cordially disagree with you here - I'm pretty familiar with the guys he mentions in the article and have researched Radin & Co thoroughly and no glaring errors struck me. I thought it was reasonably well put written.

It's wrong, but very well done. Essentially, he's borrowed Radin's longstanding comments on the MDC and expanded upon them. Usually, that kind of "expose" uses all sorts of blarney, but that one sticks to the [almost] facts.

Since you have an interest - well, two million actually - in being up to date on said matters, your point of view probably is more on the money than mine. (I currently work 63+ hours per week, I may lack the mental sharpness necessary.)



Nonetheless, shouldn't the people disagreeing with the MDC simply seek the proper channels to have their claims evaluated?

[The Atheist]

(I currently work 63+ hours per week, I may lack the mental sharpness necessary.)

63 hours a week? Jesus mate, move to NZ, even the Prime Minister doesn;t work that many hours!

Nonetheless, shouldn't the people disagreeing with the MDC simply seek the proper channels to have their claims evaluated?

What channels are these?

The MDC and every other challenge is set up to find large anomalies and are never going to be able to cope with small ones.

If "chance" is say, getting 21% correct, then getting 22 is well within the margin of error, so isn't ever going to count as a successful test. If the person gets 22% every time over 100 or 1000 tests, then it becomes statistically significant, but ain't going to win any prizes. Psychic work tires one out, doncherknow and it would take years to get through the required number of tests.

That's the ground Radin and the article are exploiting - saying that psi exists, but is very weak. Their premise is quite right, but the conclusion is quite wrong, as I see it.

[William Smith]

63 hours a week? Jesus mate, move to NZ, even the Prime Minister doesn;t work that many hours!...

Are you offering me a job? :)

What channels are these?...

Channels adhering to - as the essay says "scientific standard for acknowledging the existence of causal effects".

[The Atheist]

Are you offering me a job? :)

Hell yeah - whatever you can do, we'll find a job for you!

Channels adhering to - as the essay says "scientific standard for acknowledging the existence of causal effects".

That's what Radin is trying to do, but it all comes down to time and effort. Let's suppose for a second that he's right and that some minimal psi/precognition does exist. It has no practical use whatsoever, so there's no incentive for anyone to study it properly and try to figure out what's going on. Not to mention the strong likelihood that nothing at all is found.

(Is it a coincidence that Randi and Radin are anagrams?)

[athon]

Isn't the whole point of the challenge merely for people to demonstrate they can do what they claim to do?

The challenge can't make claims on anything else. If a psychic exists who can do 5% better than chance, and they make that claim, then they have to show that. Most psychics don't make such subtle claims, but rather keep it vague. By agreeing to a protocol, they agree that their abilities can be tested that way.

Not even Randi makes the statement that the challenge proves there is nothing paranormal. The claim can only go as far as stating that of those claims tested, none have demonstrated anything paranormal as compared with what they feel they can do. Could one of them have had very slight psychic powers? Perhaps. But as this is indistinguishable from 'no', why give it extra validity in err of there being something?

I can't help but see a big straw man being burned. Nobody says anything about the challenge proving a negative. However, it does show that people who think they have something significant are most likely deluded or deluding.

Athon

[The Atheist]

Isn't the whole point of the challenge merely for people to demonstrate they can do what they claim to do?

The challenge can't make claims on anything else. If a psychic exists who can do 5% better than chance, and they make that claim, then they have to show that. Most psychics don't make such subtle claims, but rather keep it vague. By agreeing to a protocol, they agree that their abilities can be tested that way.

No question that challengers to date have been all nutters who claim to be able to do millions of times better than chance.

Do you think JREF would accept a challenge which gives 5% better than chance? If it did, how on earth could it be tested? For a 5% chance to become evident, there'd have to be literally hundreds of tests. If you want, I can e mail andyandy and get him to work it out, but it's going to be a prohibitively large number.

I don't think there's any strawman involved here, they're just exploiting a loophole. I have to say that I find it hard to get too upset at these guys - they're very much the paranormal equivalent of liberal Anglicans; just an itty bit of psi/god is enough for them.

I agree with you that the challenge doesn't deny paranormality, but Randi does, and pretty aggressively too, so you can't blame them for having a go. Shows he's been getting to them that they should be so snarky about it.

[rjh01]

I think the article is rather poor quality.

[The Atheist]

I think the article is rather poor quality.

Not my take at all - it seems to be well written, reasonably well researched (although guilty of the very vagueness it accuses Randi of, but not of the writer's making) and makes a coherent case.

He makes some good and valid points, doesn't make any obviously fallacious comments and has correct grammar - in other words, exactly the opposite of every other article ever written which is critical of Randi & JREF.

How do you see it differently?

[CFLarsen]

Let's suppose for a second that he's right and that some minimal psi/precognition does exist. It has no practical use whatsoever, so there's no incentive for anyone to study it properly and try to figure out what's going on.

Casino owners strongly disagree.

[athon]

Do you think JREF would accept a challenge which gives 5% better than chance?

I can't say. Seriously, these days there's a lot of things I couldn't predict on what the JREF would or would not do.

Would I do it? As you say, it would require quite an involved protocol. Then again, I would need to look into it, decide on a protocol which was satisfactory and would produce some sort of result which we both were happy with.

If it did, how on earth could it be tested? For a 5% chance to become evident, there'd have to be literally hundreds of tests. If you want, I can e mail andyandy and get him to work it out, but it's going to be a prohibitively large number.

Honestly it would be interesting to know what the options would be for such a test. Given my knowledge of statistics I'd be happier having expert advice on the matter.

I don't think there's any strawman involved here, they're just exploiting a loophole.

What loophole? As we both agree, no contender for the challenge has ever applied on such grounds, and Randi has never said it proves anything. It is merely evidence against such a thing.

I'm sure if Randi was asked if the challenge shows definitively that subtle psychic powers are impossible, he'd not flatly agree.

I have to say that I find it hard to get too upset at these guys - they're very much the paranormal equivalent of liberal Anglicans; just an itty bit of psi/god is enough for them.

All well and good, and on that front I can't disagree. Does the challenge have anything to say on 'subtle' psychic displays? No. It also can't say anything about anybody who has never applied for it. However, psychics also don't make 'subtle' claims. On that front, it's exactly what it is meant to be - a case of 'put your money where your mouth is'.

I agree with you that the challenge doesn't deny paranormality, but Randi does, and pretty aggressively too, so you can't blame them for having a go. Shows he's been getting to them that they should be so snarky about it.


I'd be the first to agree that Randi's demeanour is far from cordial or conducive to open debate. However, I can't say I've ever heard him say the challenge denies the possibility paranormality; only that it reduces the likelihood of people who claim such powers being correct. I could well change my mind if you produce an unambigious quote.

Athon

[rjh01]

I cannot comment on the grammar used. That is not my strong point. However the arguments used are a bit weak.


The JREF need to protect a very large amount of money from possible "long-range shots", and as such they ask for extremely significant results before paying out - much higher than are generally accepted in scientific research

I find it hard to believe that it would be easier to publish a scientific peer reviewed paper with strong evidence of psychic powers and then successfully defend it then win the MDC as what the paper suggests.



If Randi were genuinely interested in testing unusual claims, then he would also not insist upon odds of at least one million to one against chance for the results. Anyone familiar with scientific studies will be aware that experimental results against chance of say, 800,000 to one would be considered extraordinary; but results this high would be, according to Randi, a “failure.”

In fact I have never seen a science acticle that gives the odds of something being right. They look for a 'smoking gun.' Something what has been observed that can only be explained by one theory and not another. Then they can say that within certain parameters certain things are true and others are false.

Challenge rule #3 states: "We have no interest in theories nor explanations of how the claimed powers might work." As Sudduth puts it: “Curiously, Randi's challenge itself is saddled with assumptions of this very kind. The challenge makes little sense unless we assume that psi is the sort of thing that, if genuine, can be produced on demand, or at least is likely to manifest itself in some perspicuous manner under the conditions specified by the challenge.”

What are they saying that psi cannot be produced on demand? In other words does not exist? How does this argument relate to the rule #3?

Do I need to go on?

[Temporal Renegade]

I always love the implications that since no one's won it yet, it MUST be fixed.

Yes, as a matter of fact, it *IS* fixed: It's fixed, so that only someone who actually CAN perform paranormal skills, can win it.

[The Atheist]

Casino owners strongly disagree.

Wrong.

Ever been in a casino, Claus?

Check the way that, in every game where movement is involved - winning wheels, roulette, craps - you can not get a bet on right up until the winner is hit. Roulette bets are never allowed after the ball has fallen from the upper layer, in case you want to try that one and if you've ever craps (which I strongly doubt) you'd know exactly what happens there. Winning wheel bets close before the wheel is even spun, while Tai Sai dice are covered before being thrown. Next time you see a bookie's, pop in and ask the proprietor if you can have a bet 400m from the finish of a horse race while you're at it.

As usual, your ignorance is showing. Casino owners strongly agree with me on this point.

[DevilsAdvocate]

They are correct that the JREF Million Dollar Challenge (MDC) is not a scientific test or scientific research. It is a challenge. More specifically, it is a challenge to those who claim proof of abilities or phenomenon that have not been scientifically proven. It is simple: shut up unless you have proven your claim through standard scientific methods (generally accepted peer reviewed articles, etc.) or by passing the MDC.

The MDC simply provides a shortcut to prove a claim in a one shot challenge rather than go through that nasty long process of getting you claim actually accepted by the scientific community.

They are correct that the JREF MDC does not work well for parapsychology claims of very small differentials from chance. (They claim the MDC requires a 1/1,000 chance followed by a 1/1,000,000 chance, which I have seen I these forums, but Kramer confirmed to me that this is not actually true. If the chance percent is set at 1/1,000, it is the same for both the preliminary and final. Some people has extrapolated that this would be a 1/1,000,000 chance to pass 1/1,000 chance twice. I think the 1/1,000 chance standard came from some very old interview Randi did years ago. Based on the MDE application posted, JREF seems to generally shoot for something outside 2 standard deviations from the norm, but has agreed to much less with total chance for two trials even being way under 1/1,000,000 and closer to 1/100,000 or even close to 1/10,000).

Of course, if they believe that it would be easier to get the standard scientific community to accept their conclusions, or even their hypothesis, instead of the “unfair” MCD, then why have they not done so? They site studies done as long ago as 1998 that they tried to submit to the MDC. OK, so for whatever reason, you didn’t get it into the MDC. By your claims it is much easier to scientific studies published. OK. Where are they? It’s been TEN YEARS since then. And this is based on research that has been ongoing for SEVENTY YEARS!!!

Researchers:
You don’t have to pass the MDC. Only kooks that make claims with no scientific backing need to pass MDC for approval. REAL scientific claims only need to gain the acceptance of the scientific community. There was about FORTY YEARS of data collected that showed nothing until it was not only spin, but meta-spin. Then another TWENTY YEARS of data collected that was still not accepted by the scientific community and certainly not passed the MDC. Then another TEN YEARS where you claim to have conclusive proof that could have passed the MDC, but yet have not even accomplished the more simple task (by your claim) of getting a standard accept peer reviewed article about you work accepted by the scientific community.

If you can prove what you claim you can prove, then do it! I’m not an expert on peer-reviewed journals, but expect you will be and should be under more scrutiny than most other scientific claims. You have not established trust in the scientific community. Even peer-reviewed studies are expected to be repeatable by many other independent agencies before the conclusions of the study are accepted. Even a case where two agencies reproduced results but eight others did not would come under heavy scrutiny and suspicion of data tampering or at least faulty protocols. Most hypotheses are based on known science and are expected to be true, but your claims are contradictory to known science and are expected to be false. That why extraordinary claim require extraordinary proof—they do not have the mountain of currently known evidence to support them.

If you have proof, James Randi can deny you all he wants, but James Randi cannot hold back the truth. If you have real, solid, scientific results, you will have no problem getting those published in standard accepted peer-reviewed journals and have hundreds of well established scientists replicate their results in their own tests and create a revolution in scientific understanding. That is, if you can do it. Can you do it?

Forget about the MDC. It is just a challenge to flush out the little boy charlatans. If you are the real deal, prove it in the real community of science. If you can’t play with the big boys, get off the playground.

We have nothing but data that is in some cases know to be corrupt or invalid which compiled into more data that is compiled and spun for favorable results, which is still unacceptable and therefore recompiled and reanalyzed into meta-data which is spun in order to get a possible effect very slightly greater than chance.

DO YOU SEE A PROBLEM HERE? Why is it so hard to do a test that produces significant effects that anyone can consistently reproduce—just like every other scientific study that is accepted.

Your claims have not only not passed the MDC, but also have not passed the standards of accepted science. FOR SEVENTY YEARS.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!!! How many more decades of no results do you expect that we should accept?

[DevilsAdvocate]

My post above was a bit long. Here's the condensed version:

The JREF Million Dollar Challenge is a quick shot at obvious frauds and not a scientific test. The MDC is not the end-all determiner of the existence of the paranormal. You can always prove paranormal stuff through normal scientific channels. To date, nobody has proven anything accepted as paranormal through the MDC, similar challenges, or normal scientific study.

So the MDC has served its purpose. Standard scientific procedure can take it from here. SEVENTY YEARS of investigation of ESP and such has turned up nothing but statistic spins. The link in the original post sites studies done 10 years ago: Still no results. As the link suggested, peer-reviewed papers require much less confidence than the MDC. So, in past TEN YEARS, where are the peer-reviewed papers and scientific community acceptance of these claims?

The scientific community does not accept these claim because they are unsupported and bogus-just like have been for the past seventy years. IT has been SEVEN DECADES and we still get no conclusive results. Why? Because there is nothing there.

SHUT UP UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING!

[rjh01]

Wrong.

Ever been in a casino, Claus?

Check the way that, in every game where movement is involved - winning wheels, roulette, craps - you can not get a bet on right up until the winner is hit. Roulette bets are never allowed after the ball has fallen from the upper layer, in case you want to try that one and if you've ever craps (which I strongly doubt) you'd know exactly what happens there. Winning wheel bets close before the wheel is even spun, while Tai Sai dice are covered before being thrown. Next time you see a bookie's, pop in and ask the proprietor if you can have a bet 400m from the finish of a horse race while you're at it.

As usual, your ignorance is showing. Casino owners strongly agree with me on this point.

Is this done because somebody might use supernatural powers to predict the result or is it due to something else, eg the odds change significantly when there is only 400 meters to go in a horse race?

I believe The Atheist is involved in gaming. When was the last time someone was refused a bet because they had any sort of supernatural powers?

I may have misunderstood something, so I apologise in advance if I have.

[The Atheist]

Is this done because somebody might use supernatural powers to predict the result or is it due to something else, eg the odds change significantly when there is only 400 meters to go in a horse race?

For horse racing, it's more to the point that even if it takes 5 seconds to have a bet, the horses have already gone 50m, physically impossible stuff.

I don't think it's deliberate that casinos cease betting due to supernatural concerns, my point to Claus was that the opportunity isn't there. But, bookies and odds setters do quote odds on lots of supernatural events - usually 10,000:1.

People who run casinos and bookmaking operations are above all pragmatists - if they rate something a 10,000:1 chance, why not remove the opportunity? Probably nowadays a lot of the timing is traditional rather than for any specific reason, other than needing a cut-off somewhere. With CCTV covering every table, all the issues are pretty moot anyway.

I believe The Atheist is involved in gaming. When was the last time someone was refused a bet because they had any sort of supernatural powers?

Never.

Bookies love these guys.

Customer: "I'd like a ten pound bet on Jesus returning to earth by 2010.

Bookie "Certainly, sir, I'll give you 10,000:1, to win hundred grand, ok?"

The customer hands over his money, the bookie banks it and forgets about it. Happens every day - either that, or some other idiot stuff. If lots of people started betting that it might happen, the odds would reduce, but few people are willing to put their money where their mouths are.

An excellent example: Bookies have long taken bets on "alien life being discovered" which people used to consider being a UFO landing on the lawn of the White House, and accordingly paid the typical 10,000:1 - no doubt some people are still sitting on tickets to that effect. Nowadays, that life is provable lots of different ways and a few dead bacteria on Titan would suffice, therefore bookies will only give you around 500s on that nowadays, which is a huge movement 1/200 of the opening price.

I may have misunderstood something, so I apologise in advance if I have.

My fault, I was being deliberately vague.

[The Atheist]

The link in the original post sites studies done 10 years ago: Still no results. As the link suggested, peer-reviewed papers require much less confidence than the MDC. So, in past TEN YEARS, where are the peer-reviewed papers and scientific community acceptance of these claims?

SHUT UP UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING!

You're way off track with the ten year time frame.

If you can read whatever lingo Bierman speaks, his recent history is here (http://m0134.fmg.uva.nl/publications/), while Radin's is here (http://deanradin.com/NewWeb/activities.html). How do you think Randi's appointment diary for 2007 stacked up against Radin's?

The only tiny concern is that Radin is saying they have something, he is saying that ongoing testing - by actual scientists - is happening, and he's right. The scientists doing the peer review bit are other parapsychologists, which is what you'd expect. Does a doctor review structural engineering tests? Who else but a parapsychologist could review psi tests?

How many actual scientists are involved (or care) about what findings the Department of Parapsychology and Romantic Arts at Binglebonk University makes?

As someone pointed out in another thread - lots of the places now embracing psi are actual universities with actual reputations as centres of learning.

Maybe, as a result of decades of engineering graduates saying to arts graduates: "Big Mac and large fries, please" the arts guys are going to have the last laugh? Adelaide University. Manchester. University of Maine. Lots of others - and what do they all offer? Full-blown classes and degrees in paranormality/supernatural/pseudoscience. Accordingly, they can all verify each others' confirmation biases and tell fairytales.

The fact that the article is so vitriolic means that maybe there's mileage in the MDC yet.

[rjh01]

I forgot to mention this one, which is a real beauty for showing how bad the article is

Lastly, despite James Randi's assurances that applying for the prize is a simple matter, this seems not to be the case. A number of the more 'general' applicants have waited multiple years to have their claim tested; one of the more recent, Carina Landin, went through a 3 year process just to reach the preliminary test, and after failing her test (achieving above chance results, but not to a significant level) found that her protocol had not been adhered to...

Facts
She only got 12 / 20 right. What does chance results mean? Having 20 guesses on a yes no question you are unlikely to get exactly 10 right.
She scored better on the old diaries, something she said she could not do.
The cause of the delay was nothing to do with JREF.
The protocol was ambiguous. It is not correct to say it was not adhered to.

Here is the link to the thread CARINA LANDIN, Swedish Friend of the DEAD (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=32779)

[buzz lightyear]

Great link TA.

Dean Radin's page makes interesting reading.

I particularly liked this:

*******************************

The most important indication of a shift from Stage 1 to Stage 2 can be seen in the gradually changing attitudes of prominent skeptics. In a 1995 book saturated with piercing skepticism, the late Carl Sagan of Cornell University maintained his life-long mission of educating the public about science, in this case by debunking popular hysteria over alien abductions, channelers, faith-healers, the "face" on Mars, and practically everything else found in the New Age section of most bookstores. Then, in one paragraph amongst 450 pages, we find an astonishing admission:
At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images "projected" at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation.

****************************************

Particularly since Carl Sagan seems to be the darling of many of the inmates in this forum.

[CFLarsen]

Wrong.

Ever been in a casino, Claus?

Several. Once a year, for a week, I live in one.

As usual, your ignorance is showing. Casino owners strongly agree with me on this point.

Try to follow your own line of reasoning. You said that:

Let's suppose for a second that he's right and that some minimal psi/precognition does exist. It has no practical use whatsoever, so there's no incentive for anyone to study it properly and try to figure out what's going on.

So, we are not talking about a situation where people don't have paranormal powers. We are talking about a situation where people do have paranormal powers.

Would casino owners allow such people to gamble? No.

Therefore, they disagree with you when you say it has no practical value. Strongly.

[buzz lightyear]

And while I am on the subject of links, this is not a bad one.

http://www.globalonenessproject.org/videos/deanradinclip6

[chillzero]

Buzz, Please take any further discussion of Dean Radin, or anything else off topic to the Paranormal section.

[athon]

Great link TA.

Dean Radin's page makes interesting reading.

I particularly liked this:

*******************************

The most important indication of a shift from Stage 1 to Stage 2 can be seen in the gradually changing attitudes of prominent skeptics. In a 1995 book saturated with piercing skepticism, the late Carl Sagan of Cornell University maintained his life-long mission of educating the public about science, in this case by debunking popular hysteria over alien abductions, channelers, faith-healers, the "face" on Mars, and practically everything else found in the New Age section of most bookstores. Then, in one paragraph amongst 450 pages, we find an astonishing admission:
At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images "projected" at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation.

****************************************

Particularly since Carl Sagan seems to be the darling of many of the inmates in this forum.

Is there a reason you decided to cut the quote short:

I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true

They could be true. So could aliens visiting the earth, ghosts being the spectral forms of the departed, and yowies visiting my grandmother for nightly storytelling. Each could be true...given evidence. Until then they are no different to any other baseless figment of our imagination.

However, he doesn't think they are valid as there is zero evidence of it.

If you're going to quote Sagan, do him the justice of quoting his paragraphs in their entirety, rather than taking the convenience of selecting the words you feel represents what you'd like him to say.

Athon

[CFLarsen]

Is there a reason you decided to cut the quote short:

It's not the first time this particular quote has been misquoted this way. It's a common trick.

[Cuddles]

As others have said, the article is utter bollocks. It's nothing more than a big straw man. The challenge tests what people claim. End of story. If Radin and others want to look for an effect that no-one has ever claimed exists, they can, but they can't criticise Randi for looking for something else entirely. If someone ever applied for the challenge with such a claim, Randi would have to make a decision on whether it was testable or not. Unfortunately, I expect most claims of that kind would not be, however, until someone actually applies, it's irrelevant.

[Klaymore]

DAdvocate has it exactly right: The challenge ain't a scientific test to prove that psychic powers or the supernatural exist, or don't exist. It is, in effect, a public-relations tool to demonstrate objectively that no one (even those who make their living as psychics or whatnot) can demonstrate such powers under test-conditions.

Now, whether the scientific community accepts 1% over chance or 5% over chance or 1000% over chance to be probative is not really relevant. Randi has $1,000,000. Randi says if you can demonstrate the ability to beat (roughly) 1/1000 odds with your psychic power, then you can earn the million. In fact, sometimes he doesn't even require odds... just that you can, for instance, summon one little flying saucer to land in a public park.

The only thing that really struck me about the posting/essay/article/whatever we're calling it was the assertion that the Challenge was going to cease in 2010. That was news to me, but I haven't been paying much attention lately.

[Cuddles]

The only thing that really struck me about the posting/essay/article/whatever we're calling it was the assertion that the Challenge was going to cease in 2010. That was news to me, but I haven't been paying much attention lately.

http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/144/1/#i4
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102667
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102964

[petre]

Without making the concern of casinos over small percentages the focus of the discussion, I thought I'd add just a tad more. I understand CFL's point that a 5% advantage over chance would give a player the edge in many games (the house advantage on many games is 4% or less). With a 5% edge, I could retire to playing games of chance. At least, until I got blacklisted and refused entry. They're private property, so if someone did come along that could win consistently they'd eventually be simply barred from playing.

I'm not certain exactly the point TA was getting to, but I thought I'd add more detail on what he was describing. In games based on kinetics (roulete, winning wheel, etc) the bets are not allowed after the motion has begun because even without supernatural powers one can calculate roughly what the result will be from limited information. There are actual cases of people using high-speed photography to capture the velocity (speed and direction) of the ball in roulette and placing a late bet on the projected winner. It's not a 100% accurate method to be sure, but with even a 5% chance to predict the winning number, that's a HUGE advantage. It's so effective, that even with rules in place against late betting, they STILL try it by placing bets when attention is diverted elsewhere (and end up getting caught anyway by the zillion cameras in casinos).

Personally, I'll support the contention that (contrary to the original claim that sparked this tangent) even a small effect can be of great use (and in most cases 5% is going to be of value to someone out there). However, it is also possible that there is an effect that is real, but very infantesimal to the point that it would actually be of no use (occurs on average every 1000 years, etc).

[Stone Island]

1 million to 1 seems fair to me given that these are "special" skills that aren't generally duplicable. If you claim to produce cold fusion I can look at your schematic, read your protocol, and attempt to replicate your experiment in my own lab. I can't do that with your special psi ability.

[The Atheist]

Would casino owners allow such people to gamble? No.

Therefore, they disagree with you when you say it has no practical value. Strongly.

Wow, your level of understanding just keeps dropping. "Fractionally"; check it out.

The well-placed remarks from Athon are right on the money.

It's not the first time this particular quote has been misquoted this way. It's a common trick.

Just like all good "woos", your defence of his quite correct point is pathetic.

With a 5% edge, I could retire to playing games of chance. At least, until I got blacklisted and refused entry. They're private property, so if someone did come along that could win consistently they'd eventually be simply barred from playing.

Given that the psi effect being promoted is one which operates "fractionally before" an event - and Radin & Co do talk in microseconds - therefore, stopping the bets when they do is a guarantee that this type of psi [even if it were real] would be irrelevant in a casino.

[CFLarsen]

Wow, your level of understanding just keeps dropping. "Fractionally"; check it out.

You didn't say "fractionally", but "minimal". If psi is shown to exist, it must be measurable.

Even a minimal, measurable advantage will get you kicked from the casinos. They don't even like it if you count cards.

Just like all good "woos", your defence of his quite correct point is pathetic.

Nonsense. Leaving out the last part makes it seem as if Sagan believed in these things. It's selective quoting - pure fraud.

Given that the psi effect being promoted is one which operates "fractionally before" an event - and Radin & Co do talk in microseconds - therefore, stopping the bets when they do is a guarantee that this type of psi [even if it were real] would be irrelevant in a casino.

Instead of relying on loose quotes from the Internet, "The Conscious Universe" gives us a much clearer picture of what Radin actually claims:

Summary
The studies described in this chapter suggest that daily fluctuations in casino and lottery payouts are not due to pure chance. Some fraction of the payout rates appears to be related to daily fluctuations in the average psi ability of millions of gamblers. We know this because the payout rates fluctuate in ways that are consistent with what we independently know about environmental influences on psi performance. This provides additional support for one implication of the field-consciousness studies discussed in chapter 10: psi effects are probably more pervasive than we've thought. In fact, in some realms, the scientific controversy has been finessed for decades. Quietly, and without any fuss, psi applications are already being used.
"The Conscious Universe", Chapter 11 "Psi in the Casino", p.188

And yet, Las Vegas is doing fine. As are places like Atlantic City, Monaco, and Macau.

It always helps to do one's homework.

[The Atheist]

You didn't say "fractionally", but "minimal". If psi is shown to exist, it must be measurable.

Obviously, which is my point, and if you'd read any of Radin's "work" you'd know exactly what he's talking about. The preconception element occurs only fractionally before the event. Your next subject has no relevance:

It always helps to do one's homework.

It certainly does, and you've failed yours - that is a different effect entirely. As usual, you've incorrectly conflated two subjects. You want to argue about that one, go ahead. The two streams are independent of each other - on one hand Radin claims precognition (although he doesn't use that term) and the other, telekinesis. Even with lottery and casino numbers, he's actually right - the statistical likelihood does not exactly match the results. The reasons for that have nothing to do with telekinesis, but simply how probability works.

Even you should be able to separate those two issues.

[Temporal Renegade]

Pedantic semantic quibbles, often lack of sources and footnotes: As a fair and balanced evaluation of the MDC ultimately irrelevant.

The question, as always: Why would anyone bother to win the measly million when one could go through the proper channels adhering to "scientific standard for acknowledging the existence of causal effects"? A appearance in Stockholm would be dy-no-mite, wouldn't it?



Love your sig, Temporal Renegade.

Thanks. :) Feel free to use it.

[CFLarsen]

Obviously, which is my point, and if you'd read any of Radin's "work" you'd know exactly what he's talking about. The preconception element occurs only fractionally before the event. Your next subject has no relevance:



It certainly does, and you've failed yours - that is a different effect entirely. As usual, you've incorrectly conflated two subjects. You want to argue about that one, go ahead. The two streams are independent of each other - on one hand Radin claims precognition (although he doesn't use that term) and the other, telekinesis. Even with lottery and casino numbers, he's actually right - the statistical likelihood does not exactly match the results. The reasons for that have nothing to do with telekinesis, but simply how probability works.

Even you should be able to separate those two issues.

Oh, dear.

I can only reiterate: Do your homework.

Which part(s) of Radin's book do you want to discuss? Your choice.

[buzz lightyear]

Is there a reason you decided to cut the quote short:



They could be true. So could aliens visiting the earth, ghosts being the spectral forms of the departed, and yowies visiting my grandmother for nightly storytelling. Each could be true...given evidence. Until then they are no different to any other baseless figment of our imagination.

However, he doesn't think they are valid as there is zero evidence of it.

If you're going to quote Sagan, do him the justice of quoting his paragraphs in their entirety, rather than taking the convenience of selecting the words you feel represents what you'd like him to say.

Athon

No Athon, I was not quoting Sagan, I was quoting Radin quoting Sagan.

And he was quoting Sagan to make the point that even hardened skeptics begin to change their attitudes at what he calls the transition from Stage 1 to Stage 2.

Perhaps you should read the entire article.

And chillzero, perhaps you should read the article which was proposed for discussion by Temporal Renegade. The subject contains reference to the experiments of Dean Radin in relationship to the MDC.

Therefore discussion of Dean Radin is hardly "off topic".

[The Atheist]

Oh, dear.

I can only reiterate: Do your homework.

Which part(s) of Radin's book do you want to discuss? Your choice.

You mean you can only reiterate it because you realise you were on the wrong channel at the wrong time? Fancy you changing the subject again.... That's a new tactic for you, Claus! I will start a thread elsewhere purely on Radin - Buzz can join in as well. I'll come back and edit in the url for it.

In fact, I've started it up already - here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3470489#post3470489).

But the whole casino thing has given me an idea which can cover off both topics - the psi effect on casino odds and casino-owners' attitude towards it, all in one go.

At the next Tim-Tam, get together ten friends forum members and go to a roulette wheel.

Pick a number and bet exclusively on it. The other ten will stand behind you and concentrate on making the ball land in that number. No doubt the pit-boss will ask what the hell's going and you can explain that you're attempting to change the chances by using psi/telekinesis.

Let me know what he says.

[The Atheist]

Therefore discussion of Dean Radin is hardly "off topic".

I agree with you entirely, but I've started a new thread to ensure it doesn't all get chucked out.

[CFLarsen]

No Athon, I was not quoting Sagan, I was quoting Radin quoting Sagan.

And he was quoting Sagan to make the point that even hardened skeptics begin to change their attitudes at what he calls the transition from Stage 1 to Stage 2.

Radin's explanation:

In science, the acceptance of new ideas follows a predictable, four-stage sequence. In Stage 1, skeptics confidently proclaim that the idea is impossible because it violates the Laws of Science. This stage can last from years to centuries, depending on how much the idea challenges conventional wisdom. In Stage 2, skeptics reluctantly concede that the idea is possible, but it is not very interesting and the claimed effects are extremely weak. Stage 3 begins when the mainstream realizes that the idea is not only important, but its effects are much stronger and more pervasive than previously imagined. Stage 4 is achieved when the same critics who used to disavow any interest in the idea begin to proclaim that they thought of it first. Eventually, no one remembers that the idea was once considered a dangerous heresy.
An excerpt from The Conscious Universe, Chapter 1 (http://www.deanradin.com/Chapter1.html)

Male bovine manure: "Stage 1" and "Stage 2" are not separate stages. Skeptics fully acknowledge that ideas of psi (to pick an example) is possible - but they also acknowledge that if psi is real, it will violate the Laws of Science.

Radin knows this - he is not stupid - but he chooses to mischaracterize the position of skeptics, to make it look as if skeptics grudgingly begin to agree with his wacky notions.

It's the "Schopenhauer Trick"; Schopenhauer's quote:

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

is often abused by woos to indicate that their superstitious beliefs are in the process of being validated by new discoveries and reluctantly - I'll bet that's where Radin got it from - acknowledges that the woos were right all along.

But "all truth" does not pass through these stages. Lots of true ideas are accepted without ridicule or opposition, violent or otherwise. Einstein's theory of relativity was largely ignored until 1919, when experimental evidence proved him right. He was not ridiculed, and no one violently opposed his ideas. The Schopenhauer quote is just a rationalization, a fancy way for those who are ridiculed or violently opposed to say, "See, I must be right." Not so.
Michael Shermer, "Why People Believe Weird Things", Chapter 3: How Thinking Goes Wrong

Or, to quote Bob Park:

"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right."

[Stone Island]

Kuhn v. Popper anyone?

[Gr8wight]

My post above was a bit long. Here's the condensed version

I liked the long version. Very well said.

[IXP]

Atheist and Larsen,

I believe the two of you are talking past each other orthogonally.

If I understand Larsen's point, he is referring to the fact the that article mentioned in the OP says the MDC is useless in (dis)proving effects on the order of 5%. In a casino, a 5% advantage would have you owning the casino in a short time. The house advantage at Black Jack (depending on the rules) and Craps is about 0.5%.

Atheist is interpreting Larsen's statements in terms of Radin's pre-cognitive experiments and saying that they are only a fraction of a second (if I get his 'fractional' term correct.) And saying that casino's guard against this.

Atheist: if this is a correct interpretation, do you seriously think the restrictions on betting after the roulette wheel is spun or the horses have left the gate are based on worry about precognition? I doubt it. Can you show me that these restrictions were instituted only after Radin's or other similar research?

IXP

[The Atheist]

I believe the two of you are talking past each other orthogonally.

We do that quite a lot. It's a bit of an art form, but you can learn to do it.

Atheist: if this is a correct interpretation, do you seriously think the restrictions on betting after the roulette wheel is spun or the horses have left the gate are based on worry about precognition? I doubt it. Can you show me that these restrictions were instituted only after Radin's or other similar research?

IXP

Not at all - I'm saying the possibility for precognition in Radin's terms doesn't exist.

As to the means of testing for a 5% anomaly, I'm waiting with bated breath for the details.

[IXP]

Okay, I thought your were both saying something that was true!

As to the means of testing a 5% psychic ability, I just posted it in the other thread,

It would take 3900 trials. This is not totally out of the question, it could be done in two days (record prediction, toss a coin, record result, repeat) 15 seconds per trial 4 trials per minute 240 trials per hour, 1920 trials per (8 hour) day. I would volunteer my time if Radin would show up.

IXP

[godofpie]

Who is Riley G Matthews? He posted a response to the article linked in the OP and claims that Randi owes him $3000? His web page seems a kinda hokey and he claims to be a "mentalist". I searched his name but I could find no mention of him in the forums.

[The Atheist]

Who is Riley G Matthews?

I see he was MIA for 9 years up to 2007. A crook and fraud, away without explanation for nine years....

Where the hell could he have been?

[petre]

Given that the psi effect being promoted is one which operates "fractionally before" an event - and Radin & Co do talk in microseconds - therefore, stopping the bets when they do is a guarantee that this type of psi [even if it were real] would be irrelevant in a casino.

There's the missing piece, thanks. It does make using such an advantage in a casino much more difficult, but there is still a use for such a talent in video slots (and most promissing, I think, in video poker). Finding a machine suited for using such an ability would require rather specific knowledge on how (not why) it works though. Certainly, if the timing is so small of an interval that a human is unable to react fast enough to take advantage of it, then it won't be useful in any game. But then, if it were THAT miniscule, a person could not even utter a prediction before the result was known, and its existance could never be determined anyhow.

[William Smith]

I see he was MIA for 9 years up to 2007. A crook and fraud, away without explanation for nine years....

Where the hell could he have been?

"I'll take Jailbirds for 100 Alex."

[godofpie]

I see he was MIA for 9 years up to 2007. A crook and fraud, away without explanation for nine years....

Where the hell could he have been?
Jail comes to mind.

I guess I should have refreshed the page before I posted.

[kookbreaker]

I see he was MIA for 9 years up to 2007. A crook and fraud, away without explanation for nine years....

Where the hell could he have been?

Last I had heard, he was trying to earn a living as a 'stuntman' or extra actor. For a while he had removed all indications of his psychic stuff from his website and seemed to be playing it clean. This is about when Geller was trying to hitch his star to that Street Magic guy and was distancing himself from the creepy Riley.

Oh look! The old Riley G FAQ! (http://www.skepticfiles.org/skep2/rileyfaq.htm)

[chillzero]

Please take further discussion not directly related to the MDC to another thread. Thanks.

[ObscureReferenceMan]

I liked the fact that George Simpson chimed in with his two cents. Definitely the kind of guy you want on your side. :D

[The Atheist]

I liked the fact that George Simpson chimed in with his two cents. Definitely the kind of guy you want on your side. :D

Sure, but do take note of the fact that the writer of the article and his buddies - some of whom have impressive scientific credentials - don't want anything to do with George, Sylvia Browne or other "claimed" psychics.

[JoeTheJuggler]

How about looking at it this way, is it fair to expect JREF to give away $1,000,000,000 on an event that isn't very confidently NOT a chance event?

In other words, if the standard were just 1:1000, then after 1,000 applicants, the million dollar prize would very likely have been awarded to someone for a chance event.

It's their money, they get to set the standard for claims based on probability. In practice, though, most of these type of claimants start off claiming to do their thing 100% of the time.

What went on in PEAR or other paranormal "research" labs is wholly irrelevant to JREF's MDC.

[The Atheist]

How about looking at it this way, is it fair to expect JREF to give away $1,000,000,000 on an event that isn't very confidently NOT a chance event?

I think you have a couple too many zeroes in there, but you're right - the MDC can only be paid to an extraordinarily unlikely event. The writer of the referenced article has no problem with that, but their contention is that we use it a stick to beat psi with, yet the MDC is, and has always been, incapable of fitting into a challenge for the weak psi effects the writer claims.

Randi seems incapable of stating terms as to what he would accept, throwing it back on the challenger as is his wont. Given that the "weak psi" people spend more than a mio on their various university-funded research projects, what incentive is there for them to apply unless Randi makes the first move?

Right now, it's a stalemate.

[steenkh]

Randi seems incapable of stating terms as to what he would accept, throwing it back on the challenger as is his wont.
How could it be otherwise? The nature of paranormality is that each claim is different. If Randi stated conditions before the claim was presented, he would be accused of making it impossible for people with similar, but slightly different claims to apply. Randi actually makes it easy for the claimants to present a claim; he just has to accept it as paranormal, and then a protocol can be negotiated on the basis of the claim. Randi has never rejected claims from parapsychologists merely because the phenomena are hard to detect, but everybody are well aware that the closer you get to random chance, the test will be more complicated and expensive. Effectively they can become untestable for the MDC. Many other claims are rejected as untestable, like for instance the religious claims, which are very similar to parapsychological claims.

[CFLarsen]

I think you have a couple too many zeroes in there, but you're right - the MDC can only be paid to an extraordinarily unlikely event. The writer of the referenced article has no problem with that, but their contention is that we use it a stick to beat psi with, yet the MDC is, and has always been, incapable of fitting into a challenge for the weak psi effects the writer claims.

Randi seems incapable of stating terms as to what he would accept, throwing it back on the challenger as is his wont. Given that the "weak psi" people spend more than a mio on their various university-funded research projects, what incentive is there for them to apply unless Randi makes the first move?

Right now, it's a stalemate.

Wrong. The only reason why Radin hasn't applied is not because he claims that psi is too small to be detected to win the million (mainly because he doesn't claim this), but because he knows his data doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[Cuddles]

but their contention is that we use it a stick to beat psi with, yet the MDC is, and has always been, incapable of fitting into a challenge for the weak psi effects the writer claims.

Which is fair enough. Except that what the writer claims has nothing to do with what the majority of people who believe in "psi" claim. To confuse this with another thread, if I define "bike" as "a large, saltwater fish covered in poisonous spines" then I would be perfectly justified in saying a test to see if I can ride a two wheeled machine with a saddle and haddlebars is irrelevant to my claims. However, this would have absolutely nothing to do with the claims by millions of other people that they can ride a bike.

This is no different. Millions of people make claims that the MDC can, and does, test. The fact that a few people make claims which it can't test is irrelevant. Randi can happily say that no-one has ever demonstrated what the vast majority of people would consider to be psychic powers, and no amount of arguing "I mean something different" will change that.

[The Atheist]

Randi can happily say that no-one has ever demonstrated what the vast majority of people would consider to be psychic powers, and no amount of arguing "I mean something different" will change that.

The only problem with that is that Randi doesn't put it like that.

[CFLarsen]

The only problem with that is that Randi doesn't put it like that.

How does he put it, then?

[The Atheist]

How does he put it, then?

Haha! The profanity filter killed off my first plan.

CFLarsen, since I can't link to it, you will need to search Randi.org for a mildly profane word which starts with BULL and has four letters after it.

It will produce 41 separate issues of Randi's Swift where he uses the term to describe various types of paranormality. You should be well aware that Randi neither minces words nor pussyfoots around.

[rjh01]

The word is ********.

[CFLarsen]

Haha! The profanity filter killed off my first plan.

CFLarsen, since I can't link to it, you will need to search Randi.org for a mildly profane word which starts with BULL and has four letters after it.

It will produce 41 separate issues of Randi's Swift where he uses the term to describe various types of paranormality. You should be well aware that Randi neither minces words nor pussyfoots around.

You can email me the quotes at editor@skepticreport.com.

[The Atheist]

The word is ********.

Smart *****!

[CFLarsen]

Smart *****!

I haven't received the quotes from you yet.

[P-Motion]

They say perpetual motion is allowed. I have written the people would would make this decision and have heard nothing.
This is something that would recieve intense scrutiny. Yet have never heard a word.

[godofpie]

They say perpetual motion is allowed. I have written the people would would make this decision and have heard nothing.
This is something that would recieve intense scrutiny. Yet have never heard a word.
If you start a thread in the Million Dollar Challenge area of the forum I am sure you will get a response.

[William Smith]

They say perpetual motion is allowed. I have written the people would would make this decision and have heard nothing.
This is something that would recieve intense scrutiny. Yet have never heard a word.

Prove it.

[Gr8wight]

They say perpetual motion is allowed. I have written the people would would make this decision and have heard nothing.
This is something that would recieve intense scrutiny. Yet have never heard a word.

The challenge rules in this area have been clearly stated. If you have a working perpetual motion machine, the challenge is open to you. If you do not have a working perpetual motion machine, then you are a theorist, and the JREF has absolutely zero interest in speaking to you.

Do you have a working perpetual motion machine?

[GreyICE]

Oh, no no no. If you have plans for a working perpetual motion machine, PLEASE post them. I haven't had a good laugh in a while.

Also, allowing each claim to be evaluated separately is the only way to do it fairly. I mean lets just take one little woo, say, ghosts. You have the people who say they can summon ghosts in a seance, the people who claim that they see ghosts hovering around, the people who talk to spirits at special times, the people who say ghosts appear at the scene of a tragic accident or violent death, the people who think ghosts have a message to impart to their loved ones, etc. How the hell do you fairly design tests for each one of those, then expand it to every form of woo in the world without going crazy? Better to devise one for a specific woo, then see if it passes or fails.