The Bike Riding Million Dollar Challenge

[jojonete]

First, a quote to begin my point:If somebody offered a prize of million dollars to me if I could demonstrate that I can ride a bike, I would certainly accept the offer.Now, suppose we add the following conditions: The "somebody" who offers the prize is Sylvia Browne. To accept the prize, you have to start by signing and notarizing an application form, written by Sylvia's lawyers. The application form is written in a language you don't speak. If you complain about this, you're told to hire a translator. After all, you're going to win a million dollars, so you can afford it. The application is binding to the laws of a country you've never been to and you know nothing about. If you complain about this, you're told to hire a legal consultant. After all, you're going to win a million dollars, so you can afford it. If you ask for evidence that the money exists, Sylvia sends you a bunch of paperwork in the foreign language you don't speak which, according to Sylvia, proves the money exists and is ready to be awarded. Of course, you can always hire a translator and legal consultant to check the validity of the documents Sylvia sends you. Before your application gets accepted, you are required to provide (at your option) either three notarized affidavits from people who claim to have seen you successfully riding a bike before, or evidence of media presence mentioning your bike riding ability. You are required to provide your own bike. You are required to ride the bike for at least 200 meters for the preliminary test, and at least 1 km for the final test. You are required to provide your own road for bike riding. The road has to be paved, with no bumps or holes on it, and no traffic (otherwise you'd have an "out"). If you plan to use a public road, you're required to talk to local authorities to cut the traffic on the road during the test. After all, you're going to win a million dollars, etc.Now, I'll repeat the quote at the beginning:If somebody offered a prize of million dollars to me if I could demonstrate that I can ride a bike, I would certainly accept the offer.I certainly wouldn't apply for such a challenge. I don't trust Sylvia Browne and I'm not willing to involve myself in a process of hiring experts to win a million dollars to find out if the challenge is really legitimate. Of course, I can only speak for myself. I'd like to see what you think about this, and especially answer the question: given the conditions I've added, would you apply?

Note: This is just what I tried to say near the end of this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3084918), but now I think I've said it clearer and, most important, the subject is on-topic here :)

[Dumb All Over]

Heck yes, I would apply for this challenge in a heartbeat and meet all its requirements. It doesn't seem like much with a million dollars as the reward. In fact, I think you'd be crazy to pass on this.

If I did it twice, would I win 2 million?

[Gr8wight]

Well, if I couldn't really ride a bicycle, I would moan and complain about all of the above endlessly, until the JREF got tired of listening to me and closed my file. Then I would shout out from the mountaintops to all who would listen that James Randi refused to test me.

[Coveredinbeeees]

My lurking days are over. I post!

I would indeed take this challenge!

For fairness I'm going to assume that the language in question is at least as common as English and so finding an interpreter will be less complicated than finding one for, say, Swahili. I am likewise going to assume that the legal system of which you speak is at least as well known worldwide as the legal system of the United States of America. Finally I will assume that the proof of funds offered and the nature of the agreement are at least as impressive and fair, once translated and legally reviewed, as those offered by the JREF.

i know a number of people studying international law to whom I would send the documents, once translated for review. These cover at least 3 different native languages so I might even be lucky enough that the language in question is familiar to them. For their time I would offer 10% of the prize upon my success. I would likewise, if necessary, offer 10% of the prize to an interpreter. I'll be happy to demonstrate my bike riding skills for them to seal the deal. If the whole thing proves to be a scam upon legal investigation then my lawyer can get in on a rather different court case :).

Now, I know what your thinking, these people may also be able to ride a bike. They might ditch me and try for the prize themselves. That's fine though. I so desperately want the world to realise that riding a bike is possible that I'm willing to take that risk. When the world comes to accept bike riding my skills will be in demand ;)

I'll ride my bike in front of my local doctor, my legal advisor and a stunned professor from the local university. No problem, notarised statements sorted.

When Sylvia and I set up the test with a third party group of bike sceptics I will spend enough to hire the running track of a sports centre for an hour or two, assuming I can't convince the manager to let me use it in exchange for a chance at 10% of my prize ($700,000 is plenty for me, I'm not greedy). 200m, 1km, the exercise will do me good.

Oh, but wait. I have to bring my own bike. A whole bicycle. No, sorry, I'll have to pass. I just can't think of a way around that problem :rolleyes:

[IXP]

Of course I would take this challenge.

Then, if Sylvia refused to pay me, I would make sure she was put out of business permanently by my lawsuit.

IXP

[In My Spare Time]

I would accept this challange in an instant and get through all of those hurdles with little trouble. Plus, the foreign language/country thing is a red herring since there are plenty of American/English speaking "psychics" that are welcome to apply for the JREF prize. If you think what you've listed is an insurmountable burden for something you can do, then you have excessive laziness or no appreciation for the value of a million.

[NobbyNobbs]

I'd absolutely apply. One million dollars would solve a lot more problems than the road to getting it creates. Finding a translation, 3 professionals, an empty road, and a bike is nothing compared to trying to pay off a mortgage over the next 30 years.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Damn! First I'd have to learn how to ride a bike. :D

[Bob Klase]

First, a quote to begin my point:Now, suppose we add the following conditions: The "somebody" who offers the prize is Sylvia Browne. To accept the prize, you have to start by signing and notarizing an application form, written by Sylvia's lawyers.

No problem. I've had to go through more than that just to apply for a job that wouldn't pay a million dollars if I spent 10 years working at it.

The application form is written in a language you don't speak. If you complain about this, you're told to hire a translator. After all, you're going to win a million dollars, so you can afford it.

Exactly. I'm going to win a million dollars. I'm the one applying for the million- why should "Sylvia" have to spend thousands of dollars paying for translators for hundreds of people who really can't ride a bike? By the time a couple hundred liars have claimed to have bike riding ability, my million dollars would have been spent on their translators.

The application is binding to the laws of a country you've never been to and you know nothing about. If you complain about this, you're told to hire a legal consultant. After all, you're going to win a million dollars, so you can afford it.

Exactly. I'm going to win a million dollars. I'm the one applying for the million- why should "Sylvia" have to spend thousands of dollars paying for legal consultants for hundreds of people who really can't ride a bike? By the time a couple hundred liars have claimed to have bike riding ability, my million dollars would have been spent on their legal consultants.

If you ask for evidence that the money exists, Sylvia sends you a bunch of paperwork in the foreign language you don't speak which, according to Sylvia, proves the money exists and is ready to be awarded.

Well, if I don't want to take her word for it I can hire a legal consultant to check it out. Since I can ride a bike I'm going to win a million.

Of course, you can always hire a translator and legal consultant to check the validity of the documents Sylvia sends you.

Exactly.

Before your application gets accepted, you are required to provide (at your option) either three notarized affidavits from people who claim to have seen you successfully riding a bike before, or evidence of media presence mentioning your bike riding ability.

I don't see a problem with that unless you really can't ride a bike. And even if you can't ride a bike, how hard is it to find three friends willing to lie for you. And you can probably even find someone who will notarize the affidavits for free.

You are required to provide your own bike.

I'd want to provide my own bike. With a million dollars at stake I wouldn't want them giving me a bike with no handlebars and flat tires.

You are required to ride the bike for at least 200 meters for the preliminary test, and at least 1 km for the final test.

No problem there. It would be rather stupid of them to accept my bike riding ability if I could only ride 4 inches, and it's not like they want me to ride 5000 miles.

You are required to provide your own road for bike riding. The road has to be paved, with no bumps or holes on it, and no traffic (otherwise you'd have an "out").

Did I claim that I could ride a bike on a road. If I did, then why should "Sylvia" pay for a road? She doesn't know I can ride a bike so why should she put out thousands of dollars to pay for a road? If it turns out I really can't ride a bike am I going to give her the money she spent on the road?

Did I require that the road be paved with no bumps or holes in it? If I did, then why should "Sylvia" pay for smoothing the bumps and filling in the holes? She doesn't know I can ride a bike so why should she put out thousands of dollars to pay for road repairs? If it turns out I really can't ride a bike am I going to give her the money she spent on the road?

Did I claim that I could only ride a bike with no traffic around? If I did, then why should "Sylvia" pay for stopping the traffic? She doesn't know I can ride a bike so why should she put out thousands of dollars to pay for that? If it turns out I really can't ride a bike am I going to give her the money she spent stopping traffic?

If you plan to use a public road, you're required to talk to local authorities to cut the traffic on the road during the test. After all, you're going to win a million dollars, etc.

Exactly.

Now, I'll repeat the quote at the beginning:I certainly wouldn't apply for such a challenge.

In that case you're either lying about being able to ride a bike or you're just an idiot. Do you have a job? How many years will you work to earn a million? And during those years, how much money will you spend on transportation to get to you job and back home every day?

You're right- spending a couple thousand dollars and giving up 2-3 days of your life certainly isn't worth a million dollars. Go on back to your $50,000 a year (or less) job and spend the next 20 years getting a million- that's obviously much easier.

[Hokulele]

You are required to provide your own road for bike riding. The road has to be paved, with no bumps or holes on it, and no traffic (otherwise you'd have an "out"). If you plan to use a public road, you're required to talk to local authorities to cut the traffic on the road during the test. After all, you're going to win a million dollars, etc.


Paved road? Where is the fun in that?

<----- See avatar.

[vexed]

First, a quote to begin my point:Now, suppose we add the following conditions: The "somebody" who offers the prize is Sylvia Browne.
I never thought of Sylvia as the 'giving' type... but ok.
To accept the prize, you have to start by signing and notarizing an application form, written by Sylvia's lawyers.
Signatures are easy. Notarizing is like $5 at the bank so $999,995 profit yet.
The application form is written in a language you don't speak. If you complain about this, you're told to hire a translator. After all, you're going to win a million dollars, so you can afford it.
Google Translate, simple and free tool.
The application is binding to the laws of a country you've never been to and you know nothing about. If you complain about this, you're told to hire a legal consultant. After all, you're going to win a million dollars, so you can afford it.
Well, since Sylvia and I both live in the same country, I doubt this is a plausible scenario, so we're throwing this one out. However, I'm unaware of bicycling being forbidden in any country.
If you ask for evidence that the money exists, Sylvia sends you a bunch of paperwork in the foreign language you don't speak which, according to Sylvia, proves the money exists and is ready to be awarded. Of course, you can always hire a translator and legal consultant to check the validity of the documents Sylvia sends you.
I don't need to see the money, I know she has it.
Before your application gets accepted, you are required to provide (at your option) either three notarized affidavits from people who claim to have seen you successfully riding a bike before, or evidence of media presence mentioning your bike riding ability.
Well, my news stations are pretty lame, I'm betting I could get my bike riding skills aired on a slow news day. But the 3 notarized affidavits would be easier, they probably wouldn't even need to see me do it, IT'S RIDING A BIKE!
You are required to provide your own bike.
Done.
You are required to ride the bike for at least 200 meters for the preliminary test, and at least 1 km for the final test.
Can do.
You are required to provide your own road for bike riding. The road has to be paved, with no bumps or holes on it, and no traffic (otherwise you'd have an "out"). If you plan to use a public road, you're required to talk to local authorities to cut the traffic on the road during the test. After all, you're going to win a million dollars, etc.
Once I explained to the local authorities the background story on Sylvia Browne, I'm sure they would go out of their way to help me take her money.


The problem with the OP is that jojonete makes the barriers of entry extremely irrational to keep people from accomplishing the simple task. Yet the JREF $1M challenge, until roughly a year ago, had extremely easy barriers of entry, with irrational claims that couldn't be reproduced - hence NO WINNERS.

[devnull]

jojonete - stop bitching and ride the damn bike already

:D

as someone else has mentioned, all your barriers to entry would only be a problem if I couldnt ride a bike.......... which funnily enough is exactly what the jref experiences.

[Jackalgirl]

You are required to ride the bike for at least 200 meters for the preliminary test, and at least 1 km for the final test.

Understand that this differs from the JREF Challenge significantly. For one, an applicant and the JREF must agree on what constitutes a proper test. Your implication here is that "you" are given requirements which you must meet (presumably without your input). For your hypothetical situation to be accurate, you'd need to say:


You and the tester agree that a reasonable test of your ability would be to ride the bike for at least 200 meters.

Next, the formal test protocol is no different from the preliminary test protocol. To quote the Challenge FAQ (http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/47/37/):

The protocol itself will not be changed, and neither will any of the documents you and the JREF have agreed upon. The final test may be longer, or require more conclusive results through more sets of the test to ensure that the preliminary test was not a fluke.

So you might have to ride 200 meters in a couple of different tries. But if the protocol states 200 meters, 200 meters it is.

For what it's worth, I would totally take this test. If I could reliably and accurately utilize any special psychic or paranormal ability, I would be all over the JREF test.

BTW, I don't think Slyvia is capable of coming up with a Paranormal Challenge that utilizes proper, controlled testing, so that sort of obviates your whole hypothetical situation right there. ; )

[Gravy]

Dear jojonete,

I am sorry that you cannot ride a bike. You're missing out! If you are in the New York City area and wish to learn, feel free to PM me.

–Gravy

[Zax63]

Don't forget the million dollars would just be the tip of the iceberg. Your place in history would be assured. There would be book deals, TV appearances, motivational speaking tours, maybe even a movie deal. I'm sure you could open a Center for Bicycle Training and rake in the cash for life.
Imagine all of the positive publicity for bicycle riding. It might even lead to acceptance for unicycles and tricycles!

Seems like it would be worth the effort to me.

[steenkh]

I think the conclusion is fairly obvious: If we could get a million dollars for something that was as easy as riding a bike, we would be willing to brave all the difficulties that jojonete mentions.

The reason why the million dollars has not been taken long ago is not because of language problems or because the JREF has drafted the contract, but because demonstrating paranormal powers is not as easy as riding a bicycle, despite psychic readings, levitations and many other things being performed daily all over the world. In fact, and this is the raison d'être for the MDC, the absence of serious candidates for the MDC is a strong hint that paranormal powers do not exist at all, but are the result of frauds extracting money from gullible victims.

[jojonete]

Wow! I have to admit I didn't expect such an overwhelming 'yes' response.

As I'm replying to 13 posts (eta: they've grown to 15 while I'm typing), this is going to be long. To keep it tidy, I'll state my main point in the next paragraphs and leave smaller/off-topic comments after the main point.

Yes, I do think one million dollars pays for the efforts required, but you all seem to forget that most of that efforts are not to win a million dollars. They are to check that the challenge is for real. If it is not, much more effort would be neccessary for a legal battle for the million. Now, suppose you hire a translator and a legal consultant and then they tell you that the application form has a loophole and it's worth next to nothing. Then what?

Of course, then you sue Sylvia. Now, suppose the loophole is not obvious enough to warrant legal action. As an example, suppose the legal text allows Sylvia to change the conditions for the test while the test is in progress "to avoid cheating in ways not thought before the test". You can't really expect to win a legal battle against her for including a sentence like this in an otherwise correct challenge. While thinking about this, consider that you know nothing about the legal system to which the challenge belongs (at least, you don't know until you've paid the translator and the legal advisor) and remember that people like Sylvia Browne know how to say things (e.g. that they can talk to the dead) without having legally said them.

Compare to a Nigerian scam: you receive an e-mail from someone offering you a million dollars to help him get out of Nigeria. The e-mail comes with offers of Nigerian documents to ensure you'll be paid. What do you do? Do you hire a translator and a legal consultant to check the e-mail's validity? What makes Sylvia Browne more "trustable" than the Nigerian offer?

Okay, the previous is my serious, directly on-topic answer. Now I'll go for some smaller and/or a little off-topic comments:

My lurking days are over. I post!
Welcome to the forum.

For fairness I'm going to assume that the language in question is at least as common as English and so finding an interpreter will be less complicated than finding one for, say, Swahili. I am likewise going to assume that the legal system of which you speak is at least as well known worldwide as the legal system of the United States of America.

If I got your point correctly, I agree.
Certainly I'm not willing to set a (probably useless) debate about language commonness or legal system well knownness metrics, so I'll go to a practical reply: would you agree that Spanish/Spain is fair (supposing you don't speak Spanish and don't know Spain's legal system)? While probably not as common or well-known as English/U.S., I think it's a useful example to give Americans an idea of what English and the U.S. legal system look like "from outside".

Now, can you guess where I live? ;)

Finally I will assume that the proof of funds offered and the nature of the agreement are at least as impressive and fair, once translated and legally reviewed, as those offered by the JREF.

(bolding mine)

Completely agreed. Indeed I was trying to replicate what the MDC would look like to someone with true paranormal powers, so your fairness points completely make sense to me.

Of course, the bolded part means that you have to spend your money in translation and legal review before having the impressiveness and fairness the JREF offers. This brings on my point at the beginning of this post and (for fairness ;)) this point also applies to the JREF MDC.

i know a number of people studying international law [...].
For their time I would offer 10% of the prize upon my success. I would likewise, if necessary, offer 10% of the prize to an interpreter.[...]
Now, I know what your thinking, these people may also be able to ride a bike. They might ditch me and try for the prize themselves. That's fine though. I so desperately want the world to realise that riding a bike is possible that I'm willing to take that risk. When the world comes to accept bike riding my skills will be in demand ;)

The serious answer to this is in the first paragraphs of this post, now the funny one: I must admit that I actually thought about that. However, I also thought about your desperation for the world to realise that riding a bike is possible so I wasn't going to use that argument..... until you brought it up :)

the foreign language/country thing is a red herring since there are plenty of American/English speaking "psychics" that are welcome to apply for the JREF prize.

Oops! I'm sorry I forgot to mention in the OP that this thread is not intended as an argument about the Sylvia Brownes. Say, it's about Mike Guska, Carina Landin, etc. Well, I mean, about people like these, who haven't applied yet, and assuming they have true paranormal powers.

I agree completely with your point. I, in fact, think that Sylvia Browne, John Edward, etc. have no reason to refuse to apply. Except, of course, that they might not have the powers they claim.

If you think what you've listed is an insurmountable burden for something you can do, then you have excessive laziness or no appreciation for the value of a million.

Well, I admit having a bit of laziness, and I surely admit I have much, MUCH less appreciation for a million dollars than most people I know.
However, I still have some appreciation for the million, and my main reason for not applying is still the one I mentioned in the beginning of this post.

No problem. I've had to go through more than that just to apply for a job that wouldn't pay a million dollars if I spent 10 years working at it.

Of course I don't know what jobs you've applied for, but I never felt the need to hire translators or seek legal advice about foreign laws to apply for a job.

why should "Sylvia" have to spend thousands of dollars paying for translators for hundreds of people who really can't ride a bike?
[...]why should "Sylvia" have to spend thousands of dollars paying for legal consultants for hundreds of people who really can't ride a bike?
[...]why should "Sylvia" pay for a road?
[...]why should "Sylvia" pay for smoothing the bumps and filling in the holes?
[...]why should "Sylvia" pay for stopping the traffic?


She shouldn't, just as she shouldn't expect people to trust her word; and she shouldn't expect people to pay translations and legal advice based only on her word.

I certainly wouldn't apply for such a challenge.
In that case you're either lying about being able to ride a bike or you're just an idiot.
I can actually ride a bike (well, unless it has flat tyres and no handlebars), so I guess the idiot part is the right one. :)

Do you have a job? How many years will you work to earn a million? And during those years, how much money will you spend on transportation to get to you job and back home every day?
You asked.

I do have a job, about 30,000 euros ($45,000) per year, which could lead to think that I could make $1M in 23 years. However, the IRPF (IRS) takes its part, the mortgage (I owe 25,000 euros or $37,000 to the bank) takes its part, I have to eat, etc.

You ask for directly job-related costs. I must say that, due to twists of life, I work 120 km away from my "main" home (the one with the mortgage), so I've had to rent a "second" home near my job. Also, I travel all weekends to my "main" home and back. That's... about 600 euros ($900) per month.

After all this, I still want to keep myself away from international legal battles against people who is clearly much more powerful than me (or is it "more powerful than I"? I never know).

You're right- spending a couple thousand dollars and giving up 2-3 days of your life certainly isn't worth a million dollars. Go on back to your $50,000 a year (or less) job and spend the next 20 years getting a million- that's obviously much easier.

As always: in the challenge, you see a million dollars. In the same challenge, I see a legal battle against Sylvia Browne.
However, I must point out that your "$50,000 or less a year" was quite close. Are you psychic or something? ;)

Paved road? Where is the fun in that?
<----- See avatar.

I have avatars (and signatures) disabled in this forum. Furthermore, I have adblocked most images in the site. Fortunately for you, the first time I saw this post I was not on my computer and not logged on, so I did see your avatar.

Google Translate, simple and free tool.

Are you serious? Would you rely on an automated translating tool to check if you can trust a foreign legal document involving one million dollars?

Well, since Sylvia and I both live in the same country, I doubt this is a plausible scenario, so we're throwing this one out. However, I'm unaware of bicycling being forbidden in any country.

The problem is not that bicycling might be forbidden. The problem is that the legal text in the challenge application and rules might have a different interpretation under foreign law.

The problem with the OP is that jojonete makes the barriers of entry extremely irrational to keep people from accomplishing the simple task. Yet the JREF $1M challenge, until roughly a year ago, had extremely easy barriers of entry, with irrational claims that couldn't be reproduced - hence NO WINNERS.

Which barriers have I set that are not in the JREF MDC, or were not in it until roughly a year ago? I've chosen my requirements to match the ones in the JREF MDC, and I've even given the option to choose between the old-style three-affidavit requirement and the new-style media-presence requirement.
Seriously, if you feel the list of requirements in the OP does not match those of the JREF MDC, I want to know exactly the differences. In fact, if there are important differences, my whole argument collapses.

For your hypothetical situation to be accurate, you'd need to say:

You and the tester agree that a reasonable test of your ability would be to ride the bike for at least 200 meters.

Agreed, but... :)

This comment has quite a bit of nitpick. I mean, I feel I don't need the level of accuracy you ask for to make my point.

However, you're right in your comment, and I also completely admit I shouldn't have made the mistake of setting different distances for the preliminary and final test (200m vs. 1km).

BTW, I don't think Slyvia is capable of coming up with a Paranormal Challenge that utilizes proper, controlled testing, so that sort of obviates your whole hypothetical situation right there. ; )

While I see you're not serious here, I have to point out that this exact argument is used by woos to throw away Randi's challenge.


Don't forget the million dollars would just be the tip of the iceberg. Your place in history would be assured.[...]
Seems like it would be worth the effort to me.


I think the place in history or other rewards outside the challenge don't belong here. The question is: would you apply for Sylvia's bike riding challenge? And I intend it to have some implications about wether regular people with true paranormal powers would apply for the challenge.

Of course, your last sentence answers the question... with one more 'yes'.


If we could get a million dollars for something that was as easy as riding a bike, we would be willing to brave all the difficulties that jojonete mentions.


Agreed. But that is if we could get a million dollars for riding a bike.
My point is: if Sylvia offered the proposed challenge, I wouldn't think I can get a million dollars for riding a bike. I would think I could get a lot of legal trouble for trying to take one million from her.

And I'm surprised I'm the only one here who thinks so.

Let me check... no, no new posts since my last typing. So, I'll post this.

If anyone feels I have not answered some important point, please repost it or at least post a pointer. I may have overlooked something in the 15 previous posts. Thank you.

[JoeEllison]

There's no serious loophole or other legal ridiculousness involved in the Randi challenge, as compared to the fictional bike challenge. Considering the high-profile nature of the challenge, you could get people to donate their expert opinions, and do the whole thing on Larry King Live or some other media source friendly to Randi and/or Browne.

[Czarcasm]

You are ignoring one small difference between the actual MDC and the entirely imaginary one you are proposing-Randi is in the business of exposing frauds, and Sylvia is in the business of being a fraud. They are NOT equal in trustworthyness.

[jojonete]

There's no serious loophole or other legal ridiculousness involved in the Randi challenge, as compared to the fictional bike challenge. Considering the high-profile nature of the challenge, you could get people to donate their expert opinions, and do the whole thing on Larry King Live or some other media source friendly to Randi and/or Browne.

But I can't know there's no serious loophole unless I consult professional advice - for money.

About getting people to donate their expert opinions, it's hard for me to imagine, though not impossible. However, this doesn't prevent a future legal battle for the million in case he refuses to pay.

About doing the whole thing on some media source, I don't see how this affects in any way the credibility of the challenge. Media sources edit their content to match their audiences' wishes. The losing part in the challenge (either the applicant or the challenge creator) could claim that the content was edited to favor the other part.

You are ignoring one small difference between the actual MDC and the entirely imaginary one you are proposing-Randi is in the business of exposing frauds, and Sylvia is in the business of being a fraud. They are NOT equal in trustworthyness.Sylvia Browne and James Randi are actually equal in trustworthiness if skeptics evaluate Browne and woos evaluate Randi. That's why I picked Sylvia Browne for this purpose. If Browne's trustworthiness is a concern for a skeptic when thinking about the bike riding challenge, then it's fair to think that Randi's trustworthiness should be a concern for someone with true paranormal powers when thinking about Randi's challenge.

As of now, my argument has been buried under a few tons of "of course I would take the bike riding challenge!!! who wouldn't?". You're the first in showing some concern about Browne's trustworthiness, and that's the closest I've seen in this thread to an agreement with my position. :)

Czarcasm, would you apply for the entirely imaginary bike riding million dollar challenge hypothetically offered by Sylvia Browne?

[JoeEllison]

:rolleyes:

[Hokulele]

But I can't know there's no serious loophole unless I consult professional advice - for money.


Many professionals are willing to work on contingency fees.

About getting people to donate their expert opinions, it's hard for me to imagine, though not impossible. However, this doesn't prevent a future legal battle for the million in case he refuses to pay.


Contingency fees are not donations, but payment upon success. If a lawyer and translator saw me ride a bike, they would most likely take the challenge. In addition, the lawyer would probably welcome a legal challenge from Sylvia (or whomever), as not only would they get their share of the million, she would end up paying all of his/her other fees as well!

[roger]

The biggest argument against the OP is the dozens of people who have applied and been tested by Randi, none of them incurring the legal costs hypothesized by the OP. It really doesn't take much to apply compared to the very likely payoff if you can do what you claim.

[thaiboxerken]

The OP is an attempt at making a caricature straw-man of the JREF challenge. It failed, but I still can see the attempt.

Jojonet, what could the JREF do to make you feel like the challenge is fair and sincere?

[IXP]

This thread can be summed up pretty simply:

People who claim to be able to ride bikes are much more confident in their claim that those who claim to be psychic.

Why do you think that is, Jojonete?

IXP

[JoeEllison]

This thread can be summed up pretty simply:

People who claim to be able to ride bikes are much more confident in their claim that those who claim to be psychic.

Why do you think that is, Jojonete?

IXP
Because of... a conspiracy against psychics!

[Czarcasm]

Sylvia Browne and James Randi are actually equal in trustworthiness if skeptics evaluate Browne and woos evaluate Randi. That's why I picked Sylvia Browne for this purpose. If Browne's trustworthiness is a concern for a skeptic when thinking about the bike riding challenge, then it's fair to think that Randi's trustworthiness should be a concern for someone with true paranormal powers when thinking about Randi's challenge.A proper response to this nonsense would probably get me banned for life, so let's just say that you have no idea whatsoever about the meaning of "trustworthiness", and leave it at that.
Czarcasm, would you apply for the entirely imaginary bike riding million dollar challenge hypothetically offered by Sylvia Browne?If Sylvia Browne offered me a million dollars free and clear with no strings attached, my first reaction would be to cancel all my credit cards, call the police to check on my house, move my wallet from my back pocket to my front vest pocket, and back away as fast as possible while never taking my eyes off of her for one second.

[Ladewig]

To answer your original question: yes, I would. None of your objections would prevent me from demonstrating a skill as simple as riding a bike in order to win $1,000,000.

As an example, suppose the legal text allows Sylvia to change the conditions for the test while the test is in progress "to avoid cheating in ways not thought before the test".

Your supposition is of little use in this discussion because the JREF Challenge does not contain a clause that change the conditions for the test while the test is in progress "to avoid cheating in ways not thought before the test."

Compare to a Nigerian scam: you receive an e-mail from someone offering you a million dollars to help him get out of Nigeria. The e-mail comes with offers of Nigerian documents to ensure you'll be paid. What do you do? Do you hire a translator and a legal consultant to check the e-mail's validity? What makes Sylvia Browne more "trustable" than the Nigerian offer?

Even ignoring the long history of Nigerian scams, the most basic difference is that the JREF challenge does not ask for personal information such as bank account numbers, tax ID numbers, and so forth. Your analogy is flawed.

[Ladewig]

About doing the whole thing on some media source, I don't see how this affects in any way the credibility of the challenge. Media sources edit their content to match their audiences' wishes.

Given the number of people who believe in psychic powers, I would expect virtually all media sources to publish stories discrediting the MDC while accepting psychic powers. The lack of those types of stories indicate to me that your perception of how the media works is inaccurate.

[devnull]

Jojonete - the million dollars is real, and available. Noone can win the million because noone in the world has any form of paranormal ability.

This is the harsh truth. Deal with it.

[Humphreys]

The biggest difference between the Nigerian Scam and the Challenge is that James Randi is probably the world's best known tester of claims of the paranormal, and is therefore under intense scrutiny. It is easy for an unknown email scammer to get away with fraud, but for Randi to risk a valid legal battle would be disastrous, and insane, given his position.

If the test is not genuine, it would harm the skeptic's cause far more than if someone passed the test, and would literally destroy Randi and the JREF, making the challenge itself become completely pointless for all involved, including Randi.

On top of that, to think someone like Randi would push something as astonishing as proved paranormal abilities under the rug just to keep the money, most of which isn't his, I believe, is patently absurd, seeing as he could make more money as the man who finally found the one true paranormalist and proved it beyond doubt!

Your scenario is completely and utterly ridiculous and ill thought through.

Lastly, it is inconceivable that people with bike riding abilities exist and yet not one of them would step up to the plate in the face of the small efforts outlined above, and the risk factor of the test not being genuine. You are not just taking the test to see if it is genuine, if it is, you get $1 million, and it if isn't, you only lose about $1000. Work out those odds.

To refuse that bet, you'd have to give the challenge about 1000/1 odds against it being genuine! Is that REALLY how you see Randi's challenge, as a 1000/1 shot (or worse) of being legit??? Not to mention the fact you would probably make at least 100 million from being the only proved paranormalist alive, making the odds needed against the challenge being genuine about 100000/1 in order to reject it. My math is poor, but I shouldn't be far off, and I'm sure you get the picture.

[Czarcasm]

I request that this thread be moved to a more appropriate forum, since it has been shown repeatedly that the OP has no relation to the real MDC whatsoever.

[NobbyNobbs]

But I can't know there's no serious loophole unless I consult professional advice - for money.

About getting people to donate their expert opinions, it's hard for me to imagine, though not impossible. However, this doesn't prevent a future legal battle for the million in case he refuses to pay.


Getting free legal advice is not difficult. First, see if any of your family or friends have legal training. If not, and if you make little enough money, most cities have places you can go to for legal advice for free. This will only work if you're dirt poor. If you aren't dirt poor, but still can't afford advice, go to the nearest university that has a law school. Many professors are happy to have case studies for their students to work on. Find a professor of contract law, and ask him if his students can find any loopholes for you.

If there aren't any, and Sylvia still tries to deny you your prize, you can got back to that professor and ask him to try the case for you. Since he knows there are no loopholes, I'm sure he'd be glad to.

[ImaginalDisc]

I would not accept this challenge.





I can't ride a bike.




Furthermore, I know that I can't ride a bike. I don't make money or garner attention by claiming that I can, so I won't lose face by declining the challenge and being honest about why.

[jojonete]

After having written all this post (long as it's a reply to 14 other posts), I'm adding this first paragraph as a summary: I accept that fear for legal battles is not an issue, but I still don't understand why you posters would take more effort to investigate about a bike riding challenge by Sylvia Browne than a possible Nigerian-syle scam by some unknown person.

I have to make clear that I don't believe psychic powers are real and I believe Randi's challenge is legitimate. What I'm discussing here is that people with true paranormal powers (if they exist) may have legitimate reasons to refuse to apply for Randi's MDC. The bike riding challenge is an attempt to show how a person with true paranormal powers that hears about JREF for the first time might see Randi's challenge.

Contingency fees are not donations, but payment upon success. If a lawyer and translator saw me ride a bike, they would most likely take the challenge. In addition, the lawyer would probably welcome a legal challenge from Sylvia (or whomever), as not only would they get their share of the million, she would end up paying all of his/her other fees as well!

I know nobody willing to do this, but then again I admit it's a plausible scenario and I accept the argument. I'm dropping the legal battle argument now.

The biggest argument against the OP is the dozens of people who have applied and been tested by Randi, none of them incurring the legal costs hypothesized by the OP. It really doesn't take much to apply compared to the very likely payoff if you can do what you claim.

You're right on that, so I'm adjusting the bike riding challenge conditions to reflect this: let's add that some hundred people actually applied for it, found no serious legal problems and fell from their bikes before completing the required 200 meters, i.e. they all failed the preliminary test.

I know at least some of you are going to say this is not possible since people can actually ride bikes and do so usually. Keep in mind that believers would say exactly the same about paranormal powers.

The OP is an attempt at making a caricature straw-man of the JREF challenge. It failed, but I still can see the attempt.

I really mean to reflect the MDC rules as close as possible. This means it's not a straw-man attempt.

Jojonet, what could the JREF do to make you feel like the challenge is fair and sincere?

I already feel like the challenge is fair and sincere. I also think they can't do anything else about proving the challenge's fairness and sincerity (I said this in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3084918), look for the sentence "I admit I can't think of anything better that the JREF can do").

However, I think that, even with the JREF doing everything they reasonably can, that's not enough to ensure that a reasonable person with true paranormal powers would apply.

This thread can be summed up pretty simply:

People who claim to be able to ride bikes are much more confident in their claim that those who claim to be psychic.

Why do you think that is, Jojonete?

Being nitpicky, as of now we only have people who is willing to accept a bike riding challenge, not people that has passed one, and we also have psychics willing to take Randi's challenge and not passing it, so the confidence level is about the same.

However, seriously and in direct answer to your question, I think it's because claimed psychics are not real psychics, but claimed bike riders really can ride a bike.

A proper response to this nonsense would probably get me banned for life, so let's just say that you have no idea whatsoever about the meaning of "trustworthiness", and leave it at that.

Fair enough.

If Sylvia Browne offered me a million dollars free and clear with no strings attached, my first reaction would be to cancel all my credit cards, call the police to check on my house, move my wallet from my back pocket to my front vest pocket, and back away as fast as possible while never taking my eyes off of her for one second.

Not sure I understand this either, so let's leave it at that also.

Your supposition is of little use in this discussion because the JREF Challenge does not contain a clause that change the conditions for the test while the test is in progress "to avoid cheating in ways not thought before the test."

But you can't know it doesn't contain it until you translate and legally review it.
Well, you can, a potential applicant who hears from JREF for the first time can't.

However, I've agreed concern about the legal battles is not an issue so I'm ready to drop this point right now.

Even ignoring the long history of Nigerian scams, the most basic difference is that the JREF challenge does not ask for personal information such as bank account numbers, tax ID numbers, and so forth. Your analogy is flawed.

Randi's challenge asks for your real full name and a stamped self-addressed envelope (with your real address). This could easily be all the information asked by a Nigerian scam in their first contact.

Now, if someone asks me for my name and address to give me a million dollars and I suspect it might be a scam, I'll refuse to provide my data. I won't wait until they ask for my bank account number, etc. However, this thread has taught me that about everyone here is willing to get involved into matters I would refuse right at the beginning. I'm not sure other posters would be so quick to reject such an offer.

Expecting arguments that Randi's credibility is better than scammers', I must say that I think applicants shouldn't be expected to trust Randi or the challenge.

Given the number of people who believe in psychic powers, I would expect virtually all media sources to publish stories discrediting the MDC while accepting psychic powers. The lack of those types of stories indicate to me that your perception of how the media works is inaccurate.

Some quotes from another thread:Just about any rube on the street knows who Sylvia Browne is, but there are very few who know who James Randi is.
Answering to the previous comment:
I can't agree with this more.
Down on the same thread:
Virtually no one that I speak to knows who James Randi or Michael Shermer or Daniel Dennett is (They also ignore that Criss Angel and Penn & Teller are actually skeptics themselves)... but they know of a lot of "psychics" and "mediums".

Accepting these statements as true, I would say media sources actually are "discrediting the MDC while accepting psychic powers".

Jojonete - the million dollars is real, and available. Noone can win the million because noone in the world has any form of paranormal ability.

This is the harsh truth. Deal with it.

That's what I think also, though even Randi himself never says that "noone in the world has any form of paranormal ability" (he usually says he has no reason to think paranormal abilities exist).

What I'm trying to say here is that, if someone with true paranormal powers actually existed, he/she might have legitimate reasons for refusing to apply for Randi's challenge. Of course, if you start at the point that paranormal powers do not exist, this thread is useless... and so is Randi's challenge.

The biggest difference between the Nigerian Scam and the Challenge is that James Randi is probably the world's best known tester of claims of the paranormal, and is therefore under intense scrutiny. It is easy for an unknown email scammer to get away with fraud, but for Randi to risk a valid legal battle would be disastrous, and insane, given his position.

I can't accept any argument involving the idea that a potential applicant should know Randi, the JREF or their history. A scenario in which a believer has just heard for the first time about Randi's MDC is quite usual, as we've seen many times in this forum.

Also, the quotes above (the ones that say things like "People know Sylvia Browne but they have no idea who James Randi is") back up that point. From this potential applicant's point of view, James Randi could well be the fake name used by an unknown scammer.

If the test is not genuine, it would harm the skeptic's cause far more than if someone passed the test, and would literally destroy Randi and the JREF, making the challenge itself become completely pointless for all involved, including Randi.

On top of that, to think someone like Randi would push something as astonishing as proved paranormal abilities under the rug just to keep the money, most of which isn't his, I believe, is patently absurd, seeing as he could make more money as the man who finally found the one true paranormalist and proved it beyond doubt!

Same as above, the potential applicant has no idea about all this.

Lastly, it is inconceivable that people with bike riding abilities exist and yet not one of them would step up to the plate in the face of the small efforts outlined above, and the risk factor of the test not being genuine. You are not just taking the test to see if it is genuine, if it is, you get $1 million, and it if isn't, you only lose about $1000. Work out those odds.

To refuse that bet, you'd have to give the challenge about 1000/1 odds against it being genuine! Is that REALLY how you see Randi's challenge, as a 1000/1 shot (or worse) of being legit???

No, I see it as a legitimate challenge. However, someone with true paranormal powers might see it the way you describe, and might have good reasons for it. Also, that are the odds I would give to Sylvia's bike riding challenge if it existed, and that's what I've (so far, quite unsuccessfully) tried to use as an argument.

Not to mention the fact you would probably make at least 100 million from being the only proved paranormalist alive, making the odds needed against the challenge being genuine about 100000/1 in order to reject it. My math is poor, but I shouldn't be far off, and I'm sure you get the picture.

To be honest, I actually considered commenting on your math in the previous paragraph, but your point is clear and the math is not that important on it, so I'll go for the serious answer:

I don't think an additional $100m should "compensate" for the distrust in the challenge's legitimacy. Think about it this way: I offer you X dollars if you only send me $1000. Now, how high do I have to set X to compensate the distrust you surely have in my offer?

I request that this thread be moved to a more appropriate forum, since it has been shown repeatedly that the OP has no relation to the real MDC whatsoever.

I'll leave that decision to mods. If they see this thread as unrelated to the real MDC and decide to move it, so be it.

Getting free legal advice is not difficult. [...]

Accepted this point in this same post.

I would not accept this challenge.

I can't ride a bike.

Would you accept a challenge for clapping your hands? for jumping six times? for saying "We all fall down like toy soldiers" out loud? For distinguishing visually a banana from an orange?

Be warned: if you say you have only one hand, are on a wheelchair, mute and blind, I'll ask if you would accept a challenge for successfully posting a message in this forum. :)

[Czarcasm]

You're having trouble understanding me? I don't see how, but let me clear it up for you.

Slylvia Browne is a liar and fraud who would cheat friend and foe alike, and has done so repeatedly. She leads folks on wild goose chases, goes back on recorded promises, and to dare compare her to James Randi is a direct insult to him and to the intelligence of the people who post here.
Your make-believe "challenge" bears no relation whatsoever to the real MDC.

So glad to be of help in clearing up what I posted before.
Have a nice day.

[Ladewig]

Accepting these statements as true, I would say media sources actually are "discrediting the MDC while accepting psychic powers".

I withdraw the assertion.

[ben m]

After having written all this post (long as it's a reply to 14 other posts), I'm adding this first paragraph as a summary: I accept that fear for legal battles is not an issue, but I still don't understand why you posters would take more effort to investigate about a bike riding challenge by Sylvia Browne than a possible Nigerian-syle scam by some unknown person.

Let me just address this one point. A Nigerian "419" scam is something I get via email. It comes from a person who I've never heard of, whose existence I can't verify, and who (as far as I can tell) doesn't have so much as an Ebay Seller Feedback vouching for him. Indeed, I get hundreds of such emails making basically-indistinguishable offers. A few minutes on Google will confirm that Nigerian 419 emails are well known to be scams, and that potential victims are actively warned off by the State Department, the FBI, Nigerian embassy, and so on. If I got involved but got cheated, I would have no idea who to sue for damages---all I have is a Hotmail address.

On the other hand, James Randi is a well-known public figure. He's been on TV talking about the paranormal for close to 40 years. His prize is publicly advertised, his terms are on the Web for anyone to see, his finances are a matter of public record per normal nonprofit rules. It's one of a very small class of such prizes, all offered with comparable levels of transparency. If something goes wrong, your lawsuit names a real person and a registered nonprofit organization in the State of Florida. Finally, if you want to see other people's experiences, you're not going to go to a FBI web page telling you not to be a sucker----you're going to go to the Challenge email archives and see the actual contracts agreed to by Achau Nguyen, Mike Whatsisname the dowser, and so on.

In other words, in order for James Randi to be a scammer, he'd have to have put his entire career on the line every time he signed a contract. He'd have to know he was losing challenges on the merits, but to count on a team of expensive lawyers to weasel him out of an endless string of lawsuits. The Challenge has been going on for decades and that hasn't happened. (Public record.) Unless you want to invoke a conspiracy theory---"omg randi has been sued a million times but its proberly all covered up by the cia omg plus real psychics are too poor to afford lawyers"---you can't possibly stand by this Randi/419 analogy.

[Bob Klase]

Originally Posted by Bob Klase
No problem. I've had to go through more than that just to apply for a job that wouldn't pay a million dollars if I spent 10 years working at it.

Of course I don't know what jobs you've applied for, but I never felt the need to hire translators or seek legal advice about foreign laws to apply for a job.

I didn't say you'd had to hire translators or seek legal advice. But I'm sure you've had to fill out applications, perhaps get a physical, get a drug test, take other types of tests or evaluations, and jump though other hoops to get a job.

Originally Posted by Bob Klase
Do you have a job? How many years will you work to earn a million? And during those years, how much money will you spend on transportation to get to you job and back home every day?

I do have a job, about 30,000 euros ($45,000) per year, which could lead to think that I could make $1M in 23 years. However, the IRPF (IRS) takes its part, the mortgage (I owe 25,000 euros or $37,000 to the bank) takes its part, I have to eat, etc.

You ask for directly job-related costs. I must say that, due to twists of life, I work 120 km away from my "main" home (the one with the mortgage), so I've had to rent a "second" home near my job. Also, I travel all weekends to my "main" home and back. That's... about 600 euros ($900) per month.

So you're perfectly willing to spend about $285,000 and most of the next 23 years of your life in order to earn $1M in that 23 years, but you don't want to earn $1M in a couple hours or a few days if you have to risk a few hundred on legal advice.

After all this, I still want to keep myself away from international legal battles against people who is clearly much more powerful than me (or is it "more powerful than I"? I never know).

That's your choice. How much would the prize have to be for you to consider international legal battles? 10 million? 100 million?

However, I must point out that your "$50,000 or less a year" was quite close. Are you psychic or something? ;)

I'm psychic the same as Sylvia and all the other proclaimed psychics I know of. I just made a guess with very good odds of being correct.

On the other hand, how would you change the conditions so that you would be willing to take the challenge? Perhaps you want "Slyvia" (or Randi) to just send you $1M cash and you promise to send it back if you fail? Or do you just want them to cut you a check to pay for all your expenses?

[Humphreys]

I can't accept any argument involving the idea that a potential applicant should know Randi, the JREF or their history. A scenario in which a believer has just heard for the first time about Randi's MDC is quite usual, as we've seen many times in this forum.

For a potential $1 million you'd think they'd do some research.

Also, the quotes above (the ones that say things like "People know Sylvia Browne but they have no idea who James Randi is") back up that point. From this potential applicant's point of view, James Randi could well be the fake name used by an unknown scammer.

That's why you'd research a little!

No, I see it as a legitimate challenge. However, someone with true paranormal powers might see it the way you describe, and might have good reasons for it. Also, that are the odds I would give to Sylvia's bike riding challenge if it existed, and that's what I've (so far, quite unsuccessfully) tried to use as an argument.

I would be highly skeptical too, but that's only because bike riding is obviously something people can do, and no one doubts it. However, given that it is very clear many people strongly believe there are no paranormal powers, it's far more reasonable to believe the challenge might be legitimate.

To be honest, I actually considered commenting on your math in the previous paragraph, but your point is clear and the math is not that important on it, so I'll go for the serious answer:

I don't think an additional $100m should "compensate" for the distrust in the challenge's legitimacy. Think about it this way: I offer you X dollars if you only send me $1000. Now, how high do I have to set X to compensate the distrust you surely have in my offer?

Given everything we know about Randi's challenge, and everything that can EASILY be researched and found out, a reasonable person should be willing to accept as little as $2000.

I get your point, I just don't think it's a valid analogy at all. I don't think taking either the bike riding challenge or Randi's challenge is anything like being asked for x amount to be sent in order to receive a greater amount.

Another point to add, obviously Silvia's challenge is going to seem less reliable because bike riding ability is an obvious fact to everyone, so there would have to be a catch to her challenge, whereas paranormal abilities are clearly something many people disbelieve in, so for someone like Randi to put his money on the fact is not far fetched at all.

[jimmygun]

Just a thought, if Sylvia Browne were to offer a million dollar challenge wouldn't it be to someone who can prove they have no paranormal abilities at all? Kinda the opposite of Randi's MDC.

[jojonete]

Sorry for the very late reply. Been far from my internet connection, been busy... you don't want to hear excuses, do you? :)

My last post's main argument was the Nigerian scam part, and it got thrown away by this:

A Nigerian "419" scam is something I get via email. It comes from a person who I've never heard of, whose existence I can't verify, [...] all I have is a Hotmail address.

On the other hand, James Randi is a well-known public figure. [...] If something goes wrong, your lawsuit names a real person and a registered nonprofit organization in the State of Florida.

I'm accepting this argument, and the whole "bike riding challenge" idea falls with it, so I guess my argument is closed.


However, there are some ideas in other posts I'd like to reply to, so there I go:

You're having trouble understanding me? I don't see how, but let me clear it up for you.

Slylvia Browne is a liar and fraud who would cheat friend and foe alike, and has done so repeatedly. She leads folks on wild goose chases, goes back on recorded promises, and to dare compare her to James Randi is a direct insult to him and to the intelligence of the people who post here.
Your make-believe "challenge" bears no relation whatsoever to the real MDC.

So glad to be of help in clearing up what I posted before.
Have a nice day.

Thanks, I understand now. However I don't agree.

The world has believers as well as skeptics. Skeptics agree with you in that Sylvia Browne is a fraud and Randi is not. Believers think that Randi is a fraud and Sylvia is not. That's why a skeptic's words about Sylvia and a believer's words about Randi are roughly the same.
I see no insult in saying that.

I didn't say you'd had to hire translators or seek legal advice. But I'm sure you've had to fill out applications, perhaps get a physical, get a drug test, take other types of tests or evaluations, and jump though other hoops to get a job.

All that is, from my point of view, nowhere near suing Sylvia Browne.

So you're perfectly willing to spend about $285,000 and most of the next 23 years of your life in order to earn $1M in that 23 years, but you don't want to earn $1M in a couple hours or a few days if you have to risk a few hundred on legal advice.

That's your choice. How much would the prize have to be for you to consider international legal battles? 10 million? 100 million?

Of course it's my choice, but I think I can explain why I choose that way.

First, earning one million dollars is not the only goal of my next 23 years of life or my $285K.

And last, and most important, I have a generally quiet life, no real enemies, no real worries, etc. A sudden legal process against someone as powerful as Sylvia Browne would probably disrupt everything way too much. Really, my sleeping well at night is worth more than a million dollars, and more than any quantity of money.

Surely you won't share my point of view, but I have some hope that at least some people in this forum won't think I'm a complete idiot. :)

On the other hand, how would you change the conditions so that you would be willing to take the challenge? Perhaps you want "Slyvia" (or Randi) to just send you $1M cash and you promise to send it back if you fail? Or do you just want them to cut you a check to pay for all your expenses?

No amount of money will make me consider engaging in such legal battles, and as I said in my previous post, I don't think there's anything else they can do. However, that's a different point than arguing about reasons someone might have to refuse to apply.

I would be highly skeptical too, but that's only because bike riding is obviously something people can do, and no one doubts it. However, given that it is very clear many people strongly believe there are no paranormal powers, it's far more reasonable to believe the challenge might be legitimate.

I can't agree with that. Many people consider dowsing as well proven as bike riding. I even remember the old challenge FAQ saying something like "many applicants are surprised that dowsing counts as paranormal, as it's well known that anyone can easily do it". I've been looking for the quote, but I think it was only in the pre-April-2007 version.

[Jackalgirl]

Hi! Sorry I'm coming back at this a full month and a half after your reply, but I just wanted to comment on this a little. In your OP, the line I mentioned said "you are required to ride..." and I pointed out that to be accurate, it should say "you and the tester agree..."
(I'm paraphrasing here out of sheer laziness.) Your reply:

This comment has quite a bit of nitpick. I mean, I feel I don't need the level of accuracy you ask for to make my point.

I'd like to point out that although you don't feel the need for this level of accuracy, this is actually one of the main, major lies about the MDC that is parroted out there by those people who either have something against being tested in general, or specifically hate Randi and the MDC in particular: they state, over and over again, that the Randi dicates what the tests will be, that they're rigged and unfair, etc etc etc.

I feel that it is incredibly important to understand that one of the MDC's strengths is precisely the fact that the claimant must agree that the test is a fair test of his or her abilities. Neither Randi nor the JREF dictate anything, other than the fact that they, too, must agree to the protocol (it's a mutual agreement thing) and that any protocol that is not properly controlled (for causes other than the claim or for trickery) will not be acceptable to them.

Well, so, I guess the test is automatically rigged -- against cheaters (either intentional or not), which is of course a big problem for cheaters. But I hope you get my point.

[Jackalgirl]

The world has believers as well as skeptics. Skeptics agree with you in that Sylvia Browne is a fraud and Randi is not. Believers think that Randi is a fraud and Sylvia is not. That's why a skeptic's words about Sylvia and a believer's words about Randi are roughly the same.

If there were no objective means to compare them, I'd have to agree with you. And if the people talking had different ideas of what the word "fraud" means, I could see that both situations could be true.

Understand, though, that when most of us use the word "fraud", we're talking specifically about someone who promises you a service in return for money and fails to provide that service. This is something that is demonstrable and, being so, means that the words are not the same at all.

Randi promises you a million smackers if you can pass the Challenge in its entirety (which means that you follow the rules, all of them, and fulfill the conditions of the Challenge). No one has ever passed the Challenge and not been paid.

Yes, I realize that there are people out there who claim that he has rigged the test so that people cannot pass the Challenge. But this is a claim that should also be demonstrable: one should be able to look at the applications and find an example. There aren't any. Perhaps there is one and it's hidden. Who knows? But I think this is unlikely. I think that if that happened, given Randi's fame and the fame of the Challenge, that something like this would be all over the news.

I do realize that there are people who claim that paranormal abilities are not well understood and do not function with 100% regularity and reliability, which makes them very hard to test. That's fine. But the Challenge is designed for people who claim to be able to regularly and reliably do something paranormal. If they can do things regularly and reliably (and, in fact, if they're charging people money for it), they should be able to satisfy the conditions of a properly controlled protocol with no problem at all.

So, Randi is not a fraud, at least where the MDC is concerned.

Now, let's talk about Sylvia Browne. She claims that her reliability/accuracy rate is 87%. She charges people $750 per reading. She dispenses medical advice. Her reliability rate, as tracked by available data (www.stopsylviabrowne.com), is well below this; in fact, it's so low that it's neither reliable nor accurate. She is promising people 87% accuracy in return for money, and providing advice that has the potential to profoundly impact people's lives, and I don't mean in a positive way*. So she is demonstrably a fraud (in the afore-defined meaning of the word).

I can't agree with that. Many people consider dowsing as well proven as bike riding. I even remember the old challenge FAQ saying something like "many applicants are surprised that dowsing counts as paranormal, as it's well known that anyone can easily do it". I've been looking for the quote, but I think it was only in the pre-April-2007 version.

It doesn't matter how many people believe that dowsing works -- believing that it works doesn't mean it works. Millions of people believe that ingesting ground up tiger bones will make you sexually potent, and that doesn't make it so either (but it has caused a drastic reduction in the number of tigers). I hope you find that quote, because I'm willing to bet that no challenge FAQ ever said "it's well known that anyone can easily do it". I'd love to see it.

Anyway, if a thing works, it will work in a controlled experiment. If it doesn't work, either the experiment wasn't set up right, or something else is going on, but you should be able to figure it out. If it's so intermittent as to be untestable, then it might as well not be a working thing -- a curiosity, maybe, but not something you'd charge or pay money for, right?

And that's the problem with dowsing. "Many people" swear by it, but how come -- when it comes to actually finding something without knowing that it was there beforehand -- the tests all fail miserably? If it works, shouldn't it work all the time, and shouldn't there be scads of tests that demonstrate it? Heck, if it works, how come it's not taught in elementary and secondary physics curricula?

Surely you won't share my point of view, but I have some hope that at least some people in this forum won't think I'm a complete idiot. :)

Not at all. I appreciate the mental exercise of the OP and ensuing discussion -- thank you! : )

* You simply must read this article (http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com/articles/montel_susanandthemri.shtml). In it, Sylvia tells a woman that the pain she's feeling in her abdomen are caused because, during a previous surgery, some piece of surgical equipment was left inside her. She then advises the woman to go to a doctor and get an MRI, but not to tell the doctor about her previous surgery or that she suspects that something was left inside her. I leave it to your imagination to figure out what would happen to a person if there a) was a piece of surgical equipment inside her and b) if that equipment were metal and that person were subjected to the fields of an MRI machine -- fields which are so strong that they are capable of pulling metal objects across an entire room.

[jojonete]

Well, Jackalgirl, I mostly agree with you in everything, and as far as I can see there's no contradiction between your statements and mine.

A few comments:

I hope you find that quote, because I'm willing to bet that no challenge FAQ ever said "it's well known that anyone can easily do it". I'd love to see it.

I found the quote, and it took some effort since I was quite sure it was in Randi's personal FAQ in the challenge section, but I was wrong: it's in the Encyclopedia entry for dowsing (http://www.randi.org/library/dowsing/) and it says:Many applications that are received at the James Randi Educational Foundation from dowsers will express great wonderment at why the million-dollar prize has not already been awarded, when dowsing is such an easy thing, they say, to demonstrate. Many are amazed that dowsing is eligible for the prize at all, since it is so widely accepted and believed in.

Compare the last sentence to my original mis-quote: "many applicants are surprised that dowsing counts as paranormal, as it's well known that anyone can easily do it". I guess I got it quite right :) even though I confused the source :( however, the real source was written personally by James Randi, so I guess I can say it has a weight comparable to the challenge FAQ :)

Surely you won't share my point of view, but I have some hope that at least some people in this forum won't think I'm a complete idiot. :)
Not at all. I appreciate the mental exercise of the OP and ensuing discussion -- thank you! : )

My "complete idiot" comment was not about the OP, but rather about my "I'd reject an easy million dollar" comment. However, thank you. :)

[Jackalgirl]

I may be misunderstanding you, but it seems as if you're saying that -- by and large -- James Randi said what you said he said.

However, there's a substantive difference between your statement and his.

Your quote:

"many applicants are surprised that dowsing counts as paranormal, as it's well known that anyone can easily do it""

The key part of this sentence is "it's well known that anyone can easily do it." The implication of this is that dowsing is a well-known phenomenon that works.

Now, for James Randi's quote:

Many applications that are received at the James Randi Educational Foundation from dowsers will express great wonderment at why the million-dollar prize has not already been awarded, when dowsing is such an easy thing, they say, to demonstrate. Many are amazed that dowsing is eligible for the prize at all, since it is so widely accepted and believed in.

(I've added the emphasis).

In his quote, there is no statement that dowsing works. It is merely a statement regarding peoples' beliefs. In the first part of the sentence, he is describing what dowsers say. In the second part of the sentence, he is stating that many people accept and believe in dowsing (but at no point does he say or even imply that dowsing works).

Now, your quote is technically correct, in that any person can grab a forked stick or other long, unbalanced thingie, and personally experience the ideomotor effect. But the unwritten substance of it -- that dowsing, as a means to locate hidden substances or objects, works -- is nothing that James Randi has ever said. In fact, he has most emphatically and consistently said that this is not the case.


My "complete idiot" comment was not about the OP, but rather about my "I'd reject an easy million dollar" comment. However, thank you. :)

See? I go misreading stuff all the time. ; )

[jojonete]

But the unwritten substance of it -- that dowsing, as a means to locate hidden substances or objects, works -- is nothing that James Randi has ever said. In fact, he has most emphatically and consistently said that this is not the case.
I completely agree, and I never meant the opposite.

English is not my first language, and I guess I have problems seeing the "unwritten substance" of English words. I understand what you mean, but I can't see it in my mis-quote.

Thanks for pointing it out. Probably other people had taken it "your way" :)