Just Another Magic Trick?

[tapman]

I have been thinking of the million dollar challenge. Is it just another one of the amazing Randi's magic tricks? I really wonder. There is another magician out there that has offered Randi money to accept his challenge, and Randi has not. Everyone on here said it was a trick, and it was controlled by the magician, and it was a hoax.
Isn't Randi's challenge controlled by him also. Randi is a great magician too, better than the other guy.
Isn't Randi's challenge worthy of skepticism?
If I were a great magician, and was offering a million dollars of my hard earned money, I would make sure no one could win it.
Given that premise, and the fact that Randi is one of the smartest guys around, don't you think Randi's trick million dollar challenge is somehow rigged so no one can win it. I kinda do.
If it is a trick, and no one has been able to win it, doesn't that make it Randi's greatest magic trick of all times. And if you accept that premise, doesn't that make Randi the greatest magician of all time?
Just thinkin
Your friend Tapman

[kerikiwi]

The challengre does not need to be rigged so no one can win it.
No one can win it because the things they claim to be able to do are either lies or delusions.

[plumjam]

I've asked a couple of times, and no one seems able to deny that the final arbiter as to whether the million is won/lost is Randi himself.
If that is so, and the only judge happens to be a guy who has spent his life's work saying one thing, then the chances of him saying another... thus negating the position he has fought for all his life... well, to me at least, that is not a situation conducive to a fair and independent judgment.
The fact that 'skeptics' seem not to question this (on the contrary some of them take the fact that the million has never been won as proof positive that the paranormal does not exist) is comical.
These big money offers are, in the end, cheap publicity stunts.

[kerikiwi]

...
The fact that 'skeptics' seem not to question this (on the contrary some of them take the fact that the million has never been won as proof positive that the paranormal does not exist) is comical.
These big money offers are, in the end, cheap publicity stunts.
Actually, until the prize is won they are not cheap publicity stunts. They are absolutely and completely free publicity.
Can you point us to some of those skeptics who take the fact that the million has never been won as proof positive that the paranormal does not exist?
Or did you just make that up?

[Wowbagger]

I've asked a couple of times, and no one seems able to deny that the final arbiter as to whether the million is won/lost is Randi himself. Randi does not need to be the final arbiter of the million dollars. He is willing to allow a third, independent party, to asses the test results, that the two parties are mutually willing to trust.

Technically, there is no "judging" the test results. It is an empirical test, not reliant on subjectivity. Either the person does what he or she says they can do. Or not.

The fact that 'skeptics' seem not to question this (on the contrary some of them take the fact that the million has never been won as proof positive that the paranormal does not exist) is comical. Anyone who claims the lack of winners is positive proof that the paranormal does not exist is not being a very good skeptic.

[jimtron]

Let's say, for the sake of this argument, that the Challenge is bogus (I've read a lot about Randi and the Challenge, and believe them both to be legit--this is hypothetical). Where are the people with real powers? Forget about Randi, but if you can bend spoons with your mind, or predict the future, how about demonstrating it to someone else, but under proper test conditions, and then shut us skeptics up?

Tapman, do you believe that anyone truly has paranormal powers? If so, please specify. Also, which magician has challenged Randi?

[Akhenaten]

I have been thinking of the million dollar challenge.


There are certainly many aspects of the challenge deserving of some consideration. Many of us do the same thing, I'm sure.



Is it just another one of the amazing Randi's magic tricks? I really wonder.


Oh, so you haven't really been thinking about the challenge at all. Just fantasizing. Fair enough.



There is another magician out there that has offered Randi money to accept his challenge, and Randi has not. Everyone on here said it was a trick, and it was controlled by the magician, and it was a hoax.


There is? He didn't? They did?

How did I miss all of this?



Isn't Randi's challenge controlled by him also.


Nup



Randi is a great magician too, better than the other guy.


Mr Randi is definitely a better magician than the other guy. Somebody told me so.



Isn't Randi's challenge worthy of skepticism?


Everything is.



If I were a great magician, and was offering a million dollars of my hard earned money, I would make sure no one could win it.


That would make you a fairly unethical person. Fortunately, Mr Randi IS an ethical person, so your solution would not work for him.



Given that premise, . . .


Not likely. It's not even a premise; it's just something you made up to describe your lack of ethics.



. . . and the fact that Randi is one of the smartest guys around, don't you think Randi's trick million dollar challenge is somehow rigged so no one can win it.


No



I kinda do.


So you kinda said.



If it is a trick, and no one has been able to win it, doesn't that make it Randi's greatest magic trick of all times.


Is there such a thing as a false trichotomy? If so, this is probably what it would look like.



And if you accept that premise, doesn't that make Randi the greatest magician of all time?


Your poorly constructed premise has nothing to do with your rhetorical question. That might cause you a few difficulties in arguing your point.



Just thinkin


Yep. Only just though.



Your friend Tapman


My friend Tapman what? Lost all his commas in a card game?

[HghrSymmetry]

Where are the people with real powers?

Presumably all over the place. At least there doesn't seem to be a lack of people claiming they have special powers.

Forget about Randi, but if you can bend spoons with your mind, or predict the future, how about demonstrating it to someone else, but under proper test conditions, and then shut us skeptics up?

That's precisely the point...all the claims and abilities disappear when subjected to rigours scientific testing. Apparently these powers are sensitive to scientific observation (insert quantum woo here).

[tapman]

I've asked a couple of times, and no one seems able to deny that the final arbiter as to whether the million is won/lost is Randi himself.
If that is so, and the only judge happens to be a guy who has spent his life's work saying one thing, then the chances of him saying another... thus negating the position he has fought for all his life... well, to me at least, that is not a situation conducive to a fair and independent judgment.
The fact that 'skeptics' seem not to question this (on the contrary some of them take the fact that the million has never been won as proof positive that the paranormal does not exist) is comical.
These big money offers are, in the end, cheap publicity stunts.

cheap or not, they do seem like publicity stunts. Lets face it magicians love to fool people, and love an audience. I seems that when their careers are dwindling they all get on the skeptic band wagon. Penn, Chris Angel, and even Randi and Houdini. Let's face it, no one cared about Penn and teller on the national stage until they came up with the ******** show. Pretty good career boost if you ask me.

Don't get me wrong, I love all these guys, but it does make one a little skeptical that all the magicians become skeptics when they start hitting the skids.
gives them well needed publicity as well as a new audience.

[tapman]

Let's say, for the sake of this argument, that the Challenge is bogus (I've read a lot about Randi and the Challenge, and believe them both to be legit--this is hypothetical). Where are the people with real powers? Forget about Randi, but if you can bend spoons with your mind, or predict the future, how about demonstrating it to someone else, but under proper test conditions, and then shut us skeptics up?

Tapman, do you believe that anyone truly has paranormal powers? If so, please specify. Also, which magician has challenged Randi?

I honestly don't know because I've never seen it myself. However, I do have an open mind to the possibilities. To categorically say that anything supernatural is not possible doesn't seem very thoughtful to me.If science has taught us anything, It is that the world is a place we understand little about.

[tapman]

There are certainly many aspects of the challenge deserving of some consideration. Many of us do the same thing, I'm sure.






Oh, so you haven't really been thinking about the challenge at all. Just fantasizing. Fair enough.






There is? He didn't? They did?

How did I miss all of this?






Nup






Mr Randi is definitely a better magician than the other guy. Somebody told me so.






Everything is.






That would make you a fairly unethical person. Fortunately, Mr Randi IS an ethical person, so your solution would not work for him.






Not likely. It's not even a premise; it's just something you made up to describe your lack of ethics.






No






So you kinda said.






Is there such a thing as a false trichotomy? If so, this is probably what it would look like.






Your poorly constructed premise has nothing to do with your rhetorical question. That might cause you a few difficulties in arguing your point.






Yep. Only just though.






My friend Tapman what? Lost all his commas in a card game?

Ah! well done. I think

[learner]

I have been thinking of the million dollar challenge. Is it just another one of the amazing Randi's magic tricks? I really wonder. There is another magician out there that has offered Randi money to accept his challenge, and Randi has not. Everyone on here said it was a trick, and it was controlled by the magician, and it was a hoax.
Isn't Randi's challenge controlled by him also. Randi is a great magician too, better than the other guy.
Isn't Randi's challenge worthy of skepticism?
If I were a great magician, and was offering a million dollars of my hard earned money, I would make sure no one could win it.
Given that premise, and the fact that Randi is one of the smartest guys around, don't you think Randi's trick million dollar challenge is somehow rigged so no one can win it. I kinda do.
If it is a trick, and no one has been able to win it, doesn't that make it Randi's greatest magic trick of all times. And if you accept that premise, doesn't that make Randi the greatest magician of all time?
Just thinkin
Your friend Tapman
My friend. My understanding of the million dollar challenge is that the money is not Randi's, its donated money.
Any supernatural person able to demonstrate thier powers to an agreed protocol has a legal right to the money.
How has some dullard ( ad hominem, I don't care) that says they can make someone involuntarily pee, by thinking about it, been tricked?

[tapman]

My friend. My understanding of the million dollar challenge is that the money is not Randi's, its donated money.
Any supernatural person able to demonstrate thier powers to an agreed protocol has a legal right to the money.
How has some dullard ( ad hominem, I don't care) that says they can make someone involuntarily pee, by thinking about it, been tricked?


My problem is exactly what you've stated, "agreed protocol". There in lies the trick? I don't really know, just thinking here.

BTW what happens to the interest the million is making. At 5% that's 50k a year. How many years has he had the million, and where is the interest, and who gets the interest. Interesting thought?

[Monza]

All one has to do is read the rules. There is no judge to decide if a challenge is won or lost. The rules are mutually agreed up front between Randi and the claimant. It is a legal contract and can't be "rigged".

[tapman]

All one has to do is read the rules. There is no judge to decide if a challenge is won or lost. The rules are mutually agreed up front between Randi and the claimant. It is a legal contract and can't be "rigged".

C'mon someone as smart as Randi can rig anything. Really.


How many claimants have gotten in to negotiations and walked because the rules were stacked against them.

Again, just wondering.

[learner]

Agreed protocol means that the challenger states how they will demonstrate their abilities. If this amounts to.."just believe me i am reading your thoughts" the demonstration will naturally not be accepted. An alternative/modification will be suggested. It is a challenge after-all. It must be a two way negotiation ( unless course, the challenger proposes a simple workable test not requiring modification) Once a protocol has been agreed by both sides that will prove emphatically that the said abilities will be proven, the demonstration will go ahead. For Randi to be able to trick his way through 20/30 years of tests is hardly believable. how did he personally stop the tester I mentioned previously, involuntarily peeing himself. Remember, Randi doesn't take part in the tests unless invited to do so. He is as often as not in a different continent. ( there is an incontinent joke there somewhere)

[tapman]

Ageed protocol means that the challenger states how they will demonstrate their abilities. If this amounts to.."just believe me i am reading your thoughts" the demonstrtion will naturaly not be accepted. An alternative/modification will be suggested. It is a challenge afterall. It must be a two way negotiation ( unless,of course, the challenger proposes a simple workable test not requiring modification) Once a protocol has been agreed by both sides that will prove emphaticaly that the said abilities will be proven, the demonstration will go ahead. For randi to be able to trick his way through 20/30 is hardly believable. how did he personaly stop the tester involuntarily peeing himself, remember Randi doesnt take part in the tests unless invited to do so. He is as often as not ina different continent. ( thre is an incontinent joke there somewhere)

I'm surprised that you don't see how one would be skeptical of this whole thing. Just because it's Randi doesn't make it true. Remember, he did spend his whole life tricking people. And he did it very well. Wouldn't it be a great trick to set up a challenge and the circumstances so that no one could pass it. Sure keeps you at the top of the skeptics list. Easy to get on tv, and sell books. Sounds like a pretty good way to make a living.;

[learner]

C'mon someone as smart as Randi can rig anything. Really.


How many claimants have gotten in to negotiations and walked because the rules were stacked against them.

Again, just wondering.

They walk because they have been found out and are afraid that they will be shown to be the frauds that they are. Its that simple.

Not wondering

[learner]

I'm surprised that you don't see how one would be skeptical of this whole thing. Just because it's Randi doesn't make it true. Remember, he did spend his whole life tricking people. And he did it very well. Wouldn't it be a great trick to set up a challenge and the circumstances so that no one could pass it. Sure keeps you at the top of the skeptics list. Easy to get on tv, and sell books. Sounds like a pretty good way to make a living.;

How did he stop the peeing. tie a knot in it from a different country? the calim was involuntary peeing.

[tapman]

How did he stop the peeing. tie a knot in it from a different country? the calim was involuntary peeing.

I don't think I care about the peeing as much as you. Your friend. Tapman

[learner]

The challenge, as i understand it is set up to discover if supernatural powers do exist. I'm sure Randi would be delighted if supernatural powers were clearly demonstrated, Can you imagine the t.v. shows he would be in demand for as, the discoverer of someone that has overturned natural laws and demolished science as we know it? I have a feeling he and the million dollar Donner would be a lot richer for it.

Peeing is good, you should care!

[tapman]

The challenge, as i understand it is set up to discover if supernatural powers do exist. Im sure Randi would be delighted if supernatural powers were clearly demonstrated, Can you imagine the t.v. shows he would be in demmand for as, the dicoverer of someone that has overturned natural laws and demolished science as we know it? I have a feeling he and the milliOn dollar doner would be a lot richer for it.


My whole point about how smart Randi is. He sets up a challenge that no one can pass, makes money and gains notoriety for being a skeptic. If someone does pass the challenge, he is the first person in the world to prove paranormal ability(more fame) and publishes the outcome (more money)

As I said earlier, the guy is brilliant.

[PetersCreek]

I'm surprised that you don't see how one would be skeptical of this whole thing. Just because it's Randi doesn't make it true. Remember, he did spend his whole life tricking people.


No one here is arguing that it's true "Just because it's Randi". That would be fallacious reasoning...just as flawed as arguing that it's doubtful "Just because it's Randi"...as you are are doing. You're just trying to poison the well.

You haven't read a single description of the tests on this site, have you?

[learner]

My whole point about how smart Randi is. He sets up a challenge that no one can pass, makes money and gains notoriety for being a skeptic. If someone does pass the challenge, he is the first person in the world to prove paranormal ability(more fame) and publishes the outcome (more money)

As I said earlier, the guy is brilliant.

No, he doesn't make money. the set up of the challenge, financial details etc, is all available for anyone to see from the homepage. The interest pays for the running of the foundation. If it is setup so that no one can pass, then how does it follow that someone can pass? more magic? if he tricks the applicant, the foundation, not Randi, keeps the money. If an applicant passes you're assuming that Randi pockets the spin-off money, I'm sure Randi hasn't given much thought to this outcome, I wonder why?
I should add that i , in no way speak on behalf of the J.R.E.F

[tapman]

No one here is arguing that it's true "Just because it's Randi". That would be fallacious reasoning...just as flawed as arguing that it's doubtful "Just because it's Randi"...as you are are doing. You're just trying to poison the well.

You haven't read a single description of the tests on this site, have you?

I'm not arguing it isn't true just because it's Randi, I am merely skeptical of the challenge. I'm saying it could possibly be a magic trick, and that's ok to do. That is what everyone on this site is doing, being a skeptic.

Is it poisoning the well to be skeptical? I don't think so. So I will take that in a nice way instead of an acusation. I didn't mean to isult you, and if i did, I'm sorry for doing so.

That said, I don't think anyone can honestly say tuning skeptic has been good for magicians, and they have a motivation for doing so.

[badnewsBH]

Tapman, I think you missed learner's point.

He appears to be saying that Randi would most likely have been caught by now if someone he had tested really had supernatural abilities, and Randi had cheated to ensure the applicant would fail. Randi is (from what I hear) a very skilled illusionist, but you're probably giving him too much credit. If there were any applicants with supernatural powers, at least one of them should have been able to overcome cheating, or be able to point it out to observers.

From what I've seen of the MDC, it appears to be a very honest attempt to allow those who believe themselves to possess paranormal abilities the opportunity to prove those abilities under testable conditions. I see little reason why the JREF should want the applicants to fail; observing something that cannot be explained by science (in the paranormal sense) would probably be quite exciting. Also, the conditions of the test are published, I believe, so that everyone knows what to expect. Irregularities in the testing have been questioned before, IIRC, by skeptics on this very site.

I see the MDC as an extension of JREF's efforts to educate people. The multitude of failures in the tests doesn't mean that these powers definitely do not exist, but it does indicate that a lot of people are likely deluding themselves about having such abilities. It appears that the applicant is given ample opportunity to find a protocol he/she can accept, and ensure that he/she is completely ready at test time, before the actual testing begins. In my opinion, this is exactly what is intended for these tests. If the applicant is satisfied with the protocol and the setup at the test site, then nothing should stop the applicant from being successful... other than the lack of the ability that the applicant believes he/she possesses.

[tapman]

No, he doesn't make money. the set up of the challenge, financial details etc, is all available for anyone to see from the homepage. The interest pays for the running of the foundation. If it is setup so that no one can pass, then how does it follow that someone can pass? more magic? if he tricks the applicant, the foundation, not Randi, keeps the money. If an applicant passes you're assuming that Randi pockets the spin-off money, I'm sure Randi hasn't given much thought to this outcome, I wonder why?
I should add that i , in no way speak on behalf of the J.R.E.F

I'm sorry my friend, you have misread what I wrote. I never assumed Randi pockets anything. I like you am a fan of Randi, and enjoy this forum very much.

Yes Randi makes lots of money being a skeptic. So do Penn and Teller. etc, etc. Like I said, with the books and tv, I'm sure it beats diggin ditches

[tapman]

Tapman, I think you missed learner's point.

He appears to be saying that Randi would most likely have been caught by now if someone he had tested really had supernatural abilities, and Randi had cheated to ensure the applicant would fail. Randi is (from what I hear) a very skilled illusionist, but you're probably giving him too much credit. If there were any applicants with supernatural powers, at least one of them should have been able to overcome cheating, or be able to point it out to observers.

From what I've seen of the MDC, it appears to be a very honest attempt to allow those who believe themselves to possess paranormal abilities the opportunity to prove those abilities under testable conditions. I see little reason why the JREF should want the applicants to fail; observing something that cannot be explained by science (in the paranormal sense) would probably be quite exciting. Also, the conditions of the test are published, I believe, so that everyone knows what to expect. Irregularities in the testing have been questioned before, IIRC, by skeptics on this very site.

I see the MDC as an extension of JREF's efforts to educate people. The multitude of failures in the tests doesn't mean that these powers definitely do not exist, but it does indicate that a lot of people are likely deluding themselves about having such abilities. It appears that the applicant is given ample opportunity to find a protocol he/she can accept, and ensure that he/she is completely ready at test time, before the actual testing begins. In my opinion, this is exactly what is intended for these tests. If the applicant is satisfied with the protocol and the setup at the test site, then nothing should stop the applicant from being successful... other than the lack of the ability that the applicant believes he/she possesses.


I agree, but how many people have not accepted the protocol. Being a skeptic, wouldn't you wonder if the protocol is unfair?

Just thinking.

[learner]

Tapman, I think you missed learner's point.

He appears to be saying that Randi would most likely have been caught by now if someone he had tested really had supernatural abilities, and Randi had cheated to ensure the applicant would fail. Randi is (from what I hear) a very skilled illusionist, but you're probably giving him too much credit. If there were any applicants with supernatural powers, at least one of them should have been able to overcome cheating, or be able to point it out to observers.

From what I've seen of the MDC, it appears to be a very honest attempt to allow those who believe themselves to possess paranormal abilities the opportunity to prove those abilities under testable conditions. I see little reason why the JREF should want the applicants to fail; observing something that cannot be explained by science (in the paranormal sense) would probably be quite exciting. Also, the conditions of the test are published, I believe, so that everyone knows what to expect. Irregularities in the testing have been questioned before, IIRC, by skeptics on this very site.

I see the MDC as an extension of JREF's efforts to educate people. The multitude of failures in the tests doesn't mean that these powers definitely do not exist, but it does indicate that a lot of people are likely deluding themselves about having such abilities. It appears that the applicant is given ample opportunity to find a protocol he/she can accept, and ensure that he/she is completely ready at test time, before the actual testing begins. In my opinion, this is exactly what is intended for these tests. If the applicant is satisfied with the protocol and the setup at the test site, then nothing should stop the applicant from being successful... other than the lack of the ability that the applicant believes he/she possesses.

Thanks for your clearly written post, not my strong point. Said all i meant to in one.
Means i can go fishing now! regain the will to live

[learner]

I agree, but how many people have not accepted the protocol. Being a skeptic, wouldn't you wonder if the protocol is unfair?

Just thinking.
Have a look at some of the protocols. I havent seen one yet that wasnt clear, co-designed and able to prove/ disprove said ability.
When an applicant walks, its because they dont get it all thare way. Im sure you will agree, having read some. The procedure involves input and suggestions from a lot of people, enought to weed out any inconsistencies, bias etc,,

[learner]

I'm sorry my friend, you have misread what I wrote. I never assumed Randi pockets anything. I like you am a fan of Randi, and enjoy this forum very much.

Yes Randi makes lots of money being a skeptic. So do Penn and Teller. etc, etc. Like I said, with the books and tv, I'm sure it beats diggin ditches
My apologies. Idid mis-read your post :blush:

[Blackadder]

I agree, but how many people have not accepted the protocol. Being a skeptic, wouldn't you wonder if the protocol is unfair?

Just thinking.

No I (and most of us here) do not wonder if the protocol is unfair, because thousands of us (skeptics) have debated it in the past years and together we came to the conclusion that it is a fair and good protocol.

[tapman]

No I (and most of us here) do not wonder if the protocol is unfair, because thousands of us (skeptics) have debated it in the past years and together we came to the conclusion that it is a fair and good protocol.

I don't know about that. Maybe, maybe not. But not to question it takes away it's validity for me. It's like Born again Christians (which I am not btw)that never question their faith. To me that makes thier faith worthless. It is only in the understanding of something that I become a true believer.

This is just a discussion. I thank you for your input.

[tapman]

My apologies. Idid mis-read your post :blush:

Thanks learner, and enjoy fishing today.

[EHocking]

I agree, but how many people have not accepted the protocol. Being a skeptic, wouldn't you wonder if the protocol is unfair?

Just thinking.Here's the thread on past applicants (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43)and the process to come to a mutually agreed protocol.

A while back, I totted up the applicants and of the 143 applicants at the end of 2007.

Here's the history of the attrition rate.
115 were accepted as meeting the conditions whereby JREF were willing to test their claim.
Only 76 subsequently produced protocols for negotiation with JREF. In 37 applications examiners were found to run the test (not JREF necessarily) and 11 applicants agreed on test dates.
Of them, only 8 went ahead - and all failed.

So, only 2/3rds of applicants put forward protocols for testing after JREF have accepted their application.
In nearly 1/2 of those applications that do follow through, JREF has found someone to conduct the test that are mutually agreable.
But less than 1/3 of those remaining applicants end up agreeing to a test date after all that work.

Please feel free to point out which of these applicants has been treated unfairly or tricked by a magician.

Here's the Challenge FAQ (http://www.randi.org/joom/million-dollar-challenge-faq.html).
Please indicate anywhere that looks like a magic trick being pulled by JREF or that James Randi is making any profit on "his" $1m.

[tapman]

Here's the thread on past applicants (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43)and the process to come to a mutually agreed protocol.

A while back, I totted up the applicants and of the 143 applicants at the end of 2007.

Here's the history of the attrition rate.
115 were accepted as meeting the conditions whereby JREF were willing to test their claim.
Only 76 subsequently produced protocols for negotiation with JREF. In 37 applications examiners were found to run the test (not JREF necessarily) and 11 applicants agreed on test dates.
Of them, only 8 went ahead - and all failed.

So, only 2/3rds of applicants put forward protocols for testing after JREF have accepted their application.
In nearly 1/2 of those applications that do follow through, JREF has found someone to conduct the test that are mutually agreable.
But less than 1/3 of those remaining applicants end up agreeing to a test date after all that work.

Please feel free to point out which of these applicants has been treated unfairly or tricked by a magician.

Here's the Challenge FAQ (http://www.randi.org/joom/million-dollar-challenge-faq.html).
Please indicate anywhere that looks like a magic trick being pulled by JREF or that James Randi is making any profit on "his" $1m.

Your numbers illustrate my skepticism perfectly.
By the time the test dates are made, they all feel the test is not passable so they quit. I said earlier It seemed the test was devised in a way so no one could pass it, and your numbers suggest I'm right.

It all depends on who gives the test. If you wanted to prove your psychic ability to someone who was really in to that type of thing, I'm sure the test would be much different. However, If you have a million dollars at stake(and according to one poster, the interest is where the foundation gets its running money) you want to hold on to it. So you make a test that is so difficult that about 5% of possible test subjects actually make it as far as the actual test. That seems like pretty good odds for the guy that wants to hold on the million, and finance his foundation(according to another poster).

That alone should make anyone skeptical. Shouldn't it?

I'm starting to understand why no one is taking this million dollar challenge seriously.

[EHocking]

Your numbers illustrate my skepticism perfectly.
By the time the test dates are made, they all feel the test is not passable so they quit. I said earlier It seemed the test was devised in a way so no one could pass it, and your numbers suggest I'm right.No, it just illustrates your type of skepticism. You have jumped to the conclusion, like most bleevers actually, that the high attrition rate is fully attributable to JREF being hard-nosed on bleevers. You did this without reading any of the protocol discussions at the MDC thread and you took my numbers as read without checking their veracity. Not skeptical at all.

Instead of jumping to conclusions, read some of the entries on the thread I gave you reference to. THen discuss some points you think that the test was devised so no one could pass.

Remember, there were indeed some applicants that were tested.
Mutually agreed protocols.
All happy.
All failed.

It all depends on who gives the test. If you wanted to prove your psychic ability to someone who was really in to that type of thing, I'm sure the test would be much different. However, If you have a million dollars at stake(and according to one poster, the interest is where the foundation gets its running money) you want to hold on to it. So you make a test that is so difficult that about 5% of possible test subjects actually make it as far as the actual test. That seems like pretty good odds for the guy that wants to hold on the million, and finance his foundation(according to another poster).Read some of the negotiations. You will then be able to form a more informed opinion, rather than baseless speculation.

That alone should make anyone skeptical. Shouldn't it?

I'm starting to understand why no one is taking this million dollar challenge seriously.No you are not. So far you have not demonstrated that you have read and understood the conditions of MDC or read any of the protocol negotiations - you are posing your uninformed opinion, without doing your homework.

This is not being skeptical.

[tapman]

No, it just illustrates your type of skepticism. You have jumped to the conclusion, like most bleevers actually, that the high attrition rate is fully attributable to JREF being hard-nosed on bleevers. You did this without reading any of the protocol discussions at the MDC thread and you took my numbers as read without checking their veracity. Not skeptical at all.

Instead of jumping to conclusions, read some of the entries on the thread I gave you reference to. THen discuss some points you think that the test was devised so no one could pass.

Remember, there were indeed some applicants that were tested.
Mutually agreed protocols.
All happy.
All failed.

Read some of the negotiations. You will then be able to form a more informed opinion, rather than baseless speculation.

No you are not. So far you have not demonstrated that you have read and understood the conditions of MDC or read any of the protocol negotiations - you are posing your uninformed opinion, without doing your homework.

This is not being skeptical.


I respectfully disagree, the numbers say it all. Only 5% of potential testers make it to the test. I think it sounds rigged. You haven't proved to me it isn't.
In fact as a skeptic you would say the same thing about anyones test.
I know you want to believe whick makes you yourself a bleever, that this test is fair, but it really doesn't look fair to anyone.
Why hasn't Randi taken the other magician's test. Answer-for the same reason? rigged? I don't know.

[AndyD]

I'm starting to understand why no one is taking this million dollar challenge seriously.

I'm long past understanding why no one takes you seriously. Give us a break. First you claim you're an oncologist who recommends homeopathy because, unlike other doctors on the forum, you know the truth about it, and you also claim you've experienced an inexplicably accurate psychic reading at the hands of an unknown builder who didn't charge for the experience and when you are outed as a lying troll you congratulate the skeptic who outed you as being a good skeptic and warn everyone else to improve their skepticism. What a croc!

Now you're condemning Randi as a lying cheat who has no intention of ever giving a million dollars to anyone and you do so without presenting a single shred of evidence that any of his tests have been based on flawed or biased protocols or than anyone has actually passed a test yet been denied their winnings.

Skepticism isn't making up stories about your own psychic experiences that never really happened in order to generate a discussion you can participate in - nor is it about making up baseless accusations against someone else for the same reason. Of course, both fit the definition of trolling perfectly.

I think it sounds rigged. You haven't proved to me it isn't.

I think you are responsible for the break-up of no less than a dozen families in the town where you live and probably the culprit who poisoned the water supply two years ago. I further suspect you subject puppies to agonising torture for your own entertainment. Just thinking. Prove me wrong.

Why hasn't Randi taken the other magician's test.

Why haven't you told us what the hell you're on about? What exactly is to be tested here? That Randi isn't psychic? That he uses trickery in his magic shows? That his beard is fake?

Why do you do it? Why do I respond?

[tapman]

I'm long past understanding why no one takes you seriously. Give us a break. First you claim you're an oncologist who recommends homeopathy because, unlike other doctors on the forum, you know the truth about it, and you also claim you've experienced an inexplicably accurate psychic reading at the hands of an unknown builder who didn't charge for the experience and when you are outed as a lying troll you congratulate the skeptic who outed you as being a good skeptic and warn everyone else to improve their skepticism. What a croc!

Now you're condemning Randi as a lying cheat who has no intention of ever giving a million dollars to anyone and you do so without presenting a single shred of evidence that any of his tests have been based on flawed or biased protocols or than anyone has actually passed a test yet been denied their winnings.

Skepticism isn't making up stories about your own psychic experiences that never really happened in order to generate a discussion you can participate in - nor is it about making up baseless accusations against someone else for the same reason. Of course, both fit the definition of trolling perfectly.

Why do you do it? Why do I respond?

Welcome to the discussion. Try to keep your anger checked.
You said Randi was a lying cheat. I said I was a fan, and thought he was brilliant.
Do you think you could pass a test to prove something psychic doesn't exist?

[Rasmus]

I respectfully disagree, the numbers say it all. Only 5% of potential testers make it to the test. I think it sounds rigged. You haven't proved to me it isn't.

the evidence is right here on the site. You're refusal to acknowledge it is not our problem.

In fact as a skeptic you would say the same thing about anyones test.
I know you want to believe whick makes you yourself a bleever, that this test is fair, but it really doesn't look fair to anyone.

You haven't bothered to look. How would you know anything about how the test looks?


Why hasn't Randi taken the other magician's test. Answer-for the same reason? rigged? I don't know.

You have been asked about this and so far haven't given anyone a chance to look at that matter. just an other baseless accusation.

Also, what kind of test could that possibly be? Randi doesn't claim any paranormal powers - so what should they be testing to begin with?

[tapman]

the evidence is right here on the site. You're refusal to acknowledge it is not our problem.



You haven't bothered to look. How would you know anything about how the test looks?




You have been asked about this and so far haven't given anyone a chance to look at that matter. just an other baseless accusation.

Also, what kind of test could that possibly be? Randi doesn't claim any paranormal powers - so what should they be testing to begin with?

Yes I have looked at the test. A one in one million chance. Is that fair. why does someone have to be published etc.. Why out of all the people who want to take the test only 5% actually make it to the test.
Sounds slanted to me. I'm just saying.]]

No need to get upset. These are all good question. Why is it everyone on here gets so upset about everything. Take it easy. Can't you guys talk about something without getting so emotional.

[EHocking]

I respectfully disagree, the numbers say it all. Only 5% of potential testers make it to the test. I think it sounds rigged. You haven't proved to me it isn't.You make the claim that it is rigged - it is up to you to provide evidence of that accusation.
In fact as a skeptic you would say the same thing about anyones test. OH? I thought you said YOU were a sceptic.
I know you want to believe whick makes you yourself a bleever, that this test is fair, but it really doesn't look fair to anyone.The fact that you brought this up in General Skepticism and not in the forum for discussing the MDC (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=8), indicates to ME that you have not read any of the protocols nor any of the discussions on the protocols and are just making wild accusations based on your own bias.

How about joining in at the appropriate forum. Here's a start. There are 3 applications at the MDC Applications forum (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43) that were updated by the JREF representative today.

How about starting a thread in the appropriate forum, Million Dollar Challenge (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=8), and we'll discuss actual applications and why they have failed or gone ahead.

You know, discuss facts.

[Rasmus]

Yes I have looked at the test.

Which one?

Anyway, you need to look at all tests, and the events that led up to either the tests or their cancellation if you want to make the claim - as you did - that the low number of tests carried out was significant.

A one in one million chance. Is that fair.

No. It puts the JREF in considerable danger of losing the money to a fake. The chances should be much worse, say one in one hundred million.

What you fail to grasp is that this is a safeguard against winning the challenge by chance. Winning the challenge by ability may be a little tedious, but your chances should be a lot higher.

Consider I'd claim an ability to look through walls. Easy to test: Someone behind the wall holds up a sign with a number between 1 and 1.000.000 - now my chances of guessing the right number correspond to those in the challenge. But my claim wasn't that I could guess the number! All I have to do is look at it! (So my chance increase drastically and just leave a margin of error for me confusing the digits of the number, or mispronouncing it or something.)

Those odds aren't unfair to the claimants in any way whatsoever.

why does someone have to be published etc.. Why out of all the people who want to take the test only 5% actually make it to the test.

It's a simple nutcase filter. If anyone actually had the abilities they claim to have, then getting some media coverage would be dead simple.

Sounds slanted to me. I'm just saying.

Instead of just saying stuff you might want to think about what you say a little first and consider the replies you're receiving.

No need to get upset. These are all good question. Why is it everyone on here gets so upset about everything. Take it easy. Can't you guys talk about something without getting so emotional.

I have a low tolerance for wilfully ignorant.

[AndyD]

Welcome to the discussion. Try to keep your anger checked.

Let's make an agreement. You stop trolling by making up baseless crap about whatever tickles your fancy and I'll stop pointing out that you're making up baseless crap about whatever tickles your fancy.

You said Randi was a lying cheat. I said I was a fan, and thought he was brilliant.

Trolling 101: Claim to be a huge supporter of that which you are disparaging purely in the interests of "discussion" of course.

You also said that "if it was you", you'd cheat so you would naturally idolise someone you accuse of doing just that.

Do you think you could pass a test to prove something psychic doesn't exist?

Such a test is based on a stupid premise (like "prove to me there is no all-powerful wombat digging craters on Jupiter") but I'll promise to take it just as soon you prove to me that you are not a home-wrecking, water-poisoning, puppy-hating troll. I already asked for that proof and you ignored it, just as you ignored information on what Randi is supposed to prove and just as you ignored calls to produce evidence he's a scammer.

I can only assume that, since you are unable or unwilling to disprove my accusation against you that I must have got it right. Just thinking, my friend.

(I feel a blog article coming out of this nonsense)

[tapman]

You make the claim that it is rigged - it is up to you to provide evidence of that accusation.
[quoteIn fact as a skeptic you would say the same thing about anyones test. OH? I thought you said YOU were a sceptic.
The fact that you brought this up in General Skepticism and not in the forum for discussing the MDC (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=8), indicates to ME that you have not read any of the protocols nor any of the discussions on the protocols and are just making wild accusations based on your own bias.

How about joining in at the appropriate forum. Here's a start. There are 3 applications at the MDC Applications forum (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43) that were updated by the JREF representative today.

How about starting a thread in the appropriate forum, Million Dollar Challenge (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=8), and we'll discuss actual applications and why they have failed or gone ahead.

You know, discuss facts.






Tapmans reply-----

Ok here are some facts. I'm really glad you asked. In the beginning i just wanted to point out I felt the challenge was open to skepticism. Now I know it is.

Go to www.dailygrail.com. "the myth of the million dollar challenge" the people that wrote that are all more qualified than any one here to comment.
It seems all of you have been tricked by master magician James Randi. The challenge is just a magic trick, and you fell for it.

[tapman]

Let's make an agreement. You stop trolling by making up baseless crap about whatever tickles your fancy and I'll stop pointing out that you're making up baseless crap about whatever tickles your fancy.



Trolling 101: Claim to be a huge supporter of that which you are disparaging purely in the interests of "discussion" of course.

You also said that "if it was you", you'd cheat so you would naturally idolise someone you accuse of doing just that.



Such a test is based on a stupid premise (like "prove to me there is no all-powerful wombat digging craters on Jupiter") but I'll promise to take it just as soon you prove to me that you are not a home-wrecking, water-poisoning, puppy-hating troll. I already asked for that proof and you ignored it, just as you ignored information on what Randi is supposed to prove and just as you ignored calls to produce evidence he's a scammer.

I can only assume that, since you are unable or unwilling to disprove my accusation against you that I must have got it right. Just thinking, my friend.

(I feel a blog article coming out of this nonsense)






You said he is a scammer, not me. I said he is brilliant.
cant you discuss anything without getting your little panties in a bunch.
Sounds like you need some anger management little buddy.
I thought most people here were discussing this in a nice way. Why can't you. Refer to my above post. All the proof you need.

[EHocking]

Ok here are some facts. I'm really glad you asked. In the beginning i just wanted to point out I felt the challenge was open to skepticism. Now I know it is.OK. Discussion over.

Go to www.dailygrail.com (http://www.dailygrail.com). "the myth of the million dollar challenge" the people that wrote that are all more qualified than any one here to comment.
It seems all of you have been tricked by master magician James Randi. The challenge is just a magic trick, and you fell for it.Ah, so you don't have any evidence, in fact you don't even have your own opinion, just regurgitating someone else's.

This is probably the lamest trolling you've attempted so far since you joined "Dr" Pat "the psychic" Tapman.

[tapman]

Which one?

Anyway, you need to look at all tests, and the events that led up to either the tests or their cancellation if you want to make the claim - as you did - that the low number of tests carried out was significant.



No. It puts the JREF in considerable danger of losing the money to a fake. The chances should be much worse, say one in one hundred million.

What you fail to grasp is that this is a safeguard against winning the challenge by chance. Winning the challenge by ability may be a little tedious, but your chances should be a lot higher.

Consider I'd claim an ability to look through walls. Easy to test: Someone behind the wall holds up a sign with a number between 1 and 1.000.000 - now my chances of guessing the right number correspond to those in the challenge. But my claim wasn't that I could guess the number! All I have to do is look at it! (So my chance increase drastically and just leave a margin of error for me confusing the digits of the number, or mispronouncing it or something.)

Those odds aren't unfair to the claimants in any way whatsoever.



It's a simple nutcase filter. If anyone actually had the abilities they claim to have, then getting some media coverage would be dead simple.



Instead of just saying stuff you might want to think about what you say a little first and consider the replies you're receiving.



I have a low tolerance for wilfully ignorant.

For me wilfully ignorant is only seeing one side of something, and not taking the time to educate myself on what might be a differing opinion. You can make silly insults at me all day, but it doesn't move the conversation forward.

I get some of your points, they are good and add to what I wanted to know. thank you.

[tapman]

OK. Discussion over.

Ah, so you don't have any evidence, in fact you don't even have your own opinion, just regurgitating someone else's.

This is probably the lamest trolling you've attempted so far since you joined "Dr" Pat "the psychic" Tapman.

I have more evidence to support my claim than you do of yours. I stated my opinion over and over. If you are too closed minded to get it that's not my problem.

That said, you have to admit there is reason for me to be skeptical of the challenge. BTW. I only googled the info after you were crying about evidence. In the beginning it was all my opinion, and i said (regurgitated) nothing that was in the article I read.

It is easy to call me a troll etc. but you have to admit I'm right about the challenge.

[tapman]

I've asked a couple of times, and no one seems able to deny that the final arbiter as to whether the million is won/lost is Randi himself.
If that is so, and the only judge happens to be a guy who has spent his life's work saying one thing, then the chances of him saying another... thus negating the position he has fought for all his life... well, to me at least, that is not a situation conducive to a fair and independent judgment.
The fact that 'skeptics' seem not to question this (on the contrary some of them take the fact that the million has never been won as proof positive that the paranormal does not exist) is comical.
These big money offers are, in the end, cheap publicity stunts.


Agreed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[EHocking]

I have more evidence to support my claim than you do of yours. I stated my opinion over and over. If you are too closed minded to get it that's not my problem.

That said, you have to admit there is reason for me to be skeptical of the challenge. BTW. I only googled the info after you were crying about evidence. In the beginning it was all my opinion, and i said (regurgitated) nothing that was in the article I read.

It is easy to call me a troll etc. but you have to admit I'm right about the challenge.As you say, you've stated your opinion over and over.

You have not produced any evidence to support it.

I pointed you to the JREF FAQ, Challenge Applications and the Application discussion forums - none of which you wished to discuss.

Your "evidence" was vague referral to some site article.

Produce one of their compelling arguments and I'm sure you'll find enough members here to discuss it.

[Rasmus]

For me wilfully ignorant is only seeing one side of something, and not taking the time to educate myself on what might be a differing opinion.

Exactly.

So did you go and read up some of the discussions that led up to challenges not taking place? Did you see that many of the applicants were unable or unwilling to develop a fair protocol that simply limited their opportunities to win either by chance or by cheating?

Or are you wilfully ignorant? Do you refuse to educate yourself about the differing opinion?

You can make silly insults at me all day, but it doesn't move the conversation forward.

I wasn't making silly insults, I was describing your stance based on the things you said.

I get some of your points, they are good and add to what I wanted to know. thank you.

And?

[tapman]

Exactly.

So did you go and read up some of the discussions that led up to challenges not taking place? Did you see that many of the applicants were unable or unwilling to develop a fair protocol that simply limited their opportunities to win either by chance or by cheating?

Or are you wilfully ignorant? Do you refuse to educate yourself about the differing opinion?



I wasn't making silly insults, I was describing your stance based on the things you said.



And?


Do you know what projection is. You are a classic example. Do you refuse to educate yourself of a differing opinion.
Unwilling to develop fair protocol. Fair to whom. My point from the beginning.
Interesting how you continue to make me right.

[chillzero]

I am moving this thread to the correct section for discussing the MDC. Please ensure that from here on, the personal comments are dropped, and you concentrate on identifying evidence regarding how the test is / is not rigged.

[Rasmus]

Do you know what projection is. You are a classic example. Do you refuse to educate yourself of a differing opinion.

I will, as soon as you offer any evidence for your assumptions.

Unwilling to develop fair protocol. Fair to whom. My point from the beginning.

Fair for both sides. You do not have a point. Your objection that a million-to-one chance would be inherently unfair has been addressed. You have yet to respond to that point.

Interesting how you continue to make me right.

Interesting how you keep refusing to address the arguments presented to you.

[Senex]

I had my wrist slapped for speaking unkindly to tapman before. I would like a special one-post dispensation to bend rule 11 or whatever rule it is that prohibits a clear thinking member from eviscerating a troll. Personally, I think ignoring him would be the best strategy but you can't enforce that and new people reply to him that don't know his history.

To keep the post on topic -- protocols are set up for the challenge that both parties agree to. They are set up so you clearly pass or fail. No judgement has ever or will ever be needed as to if your demonstration passed.

[Foolmewunz]

Tapmans reply-----

Ok here are some facts. I'm really glad you asked. In the beginning i just wanted to point out I felt the challenge was open to skepticism. Now I know it is.

Go to www.dailygrail.com. "the myth of the million dollar challenge" the people that wrote that are all more qualified than any one here to comment.
It seems all of you have been tricked by master magician James Randi. The challenge is just a magic trick, and you fell for it.

Tapman,
Are you really citing Daily Grail and Greg Taylor as authoritative on, well... on anything? Just what makes Taylor "more qualified than anyone here to comment". The Daily Grail's never tested a thing, scientifically. They repeat stories, pat themselves and their fellow paranormalists/ufologists on the back, and have an "all the non-news that fits, we print" policy.

There are numerous posters on these forums who have a lot of experience with the MDC, and there are numerous casual members who have read through every thread on every challenge. Yet you think that The Daily Grail is more competent to discuss this?

[tapman]

I had my wrist slapped for speaking unkindly to tapman before. I would like a special one-post dispensation to bend rule 11 or whatever rule it is that prohibits a clear thinking member from eviscerating a troll. Personally, I think ignoring him would be the best strategy but you can't enforce that and new people reply to him that don't know his history.

To keep the post on topic -- protocols are set up for the challenge that both parties agree to. They are set up so you clearly pass or fail. No judgement has ever or will ever be needed as to if your demonstration passed.


are you sure it isn't an attempt by magicians to call themselves skeptics for the benefit of publicity and ultimately money from the books they sell to create "challenges" that cant' be won. Randi is not a scientist. How am I to believe he is capable of conducting a fair scientific test. He is a showman. A great showman, but not a scientist.

[tapman]

Tapman,
Are you really citing Daily Grail and Greg Taylor as authoritative on, well... on anything? Just what makes Taylor "more qualified than anyone here to comment". The Daily Grail's never tested a thing, scientifically. They repeat stories, pat themselves and their fellow paranormalists/ufologists on the back, and have an "all the non-news that fits, we print" policy.

There are numerous posters on these forums who have a lot of experience with the MDC, and there are numerous casual members who have read through every thread on every challenge. Yet you think that The Daily Grail is more competent to discuss this?


My point exactly. Randi isn't a scientist iether. Nothing qualifies him to conduct scientific studies. I love Randi, I really do. He is awsome, but the truth is he is also a genius. And a genius capable of making a challenge no one can win. I think it is his true genius that makes this the best trick he has ever done.

Don't misread me. I know Randi is a good skeptic. I know he is an honest person, and he means well taking bad psychics and such off the street, and we are all behind him. But at the end of the day, he is still a very smart magician.

Isn't this worth consideration?

[Foolmewunz]

My point exactly. Randi isn't a scientist iether. Nothing qualifies him to conduct scientific studies. I love Randi, I really do. He is awsome, but the truth is he is also a genius. And a genius capable of making a challenge no one can win. I think it is his true genius that makes this the best trick he has ever done.

Don't misread me. I know Randi is a good skeptic. I know he is an honest person, and he means well taking bad psychics and such off the street, and we are all behind him. But at the end of the day, he is still a very smart magician.

Isn't this worth consideration?

Considering......


Okay, done! Doesn't work for me. You have your opinion, and that's all it is, and mine differs. I've looked into too many challenges to see anything fraudulent or even flim-flam about the MDC.

You cite the 5% (ultimate bottom line rate) as "proof" of the deception. While you're just asking questions, ask yourself if that's maybe because the vast majority discover during negotiations that their usual parlor tricks aren't going to be allowed.

You are also missing the underlying challenge of the challenge.
You (or a home-building soothsayer of your choosing) make a claim.
You set out what you will do in order to proove that claim.
The Challenge then proposes a protocol to judge (in your eyes, too) fairly whether or not you have achieved what you claimed you were going to do. They don't take someone who claims to be able to find water with a willow branch and then ask them to turn lead into gold. They work out how to test just what claim(s) the claimant(s) is(are) making.

The whole point of Randi being a magician is that many of the tricks being employed by bogus paranormalists are magicians' tricks. They are stock in the trade. Those that aren't basic conjuring even fall back on carney huckster and geek show stuff. Who better than a magician to to debunk other magicians?

If Hawkings or Feynman was running this, I have a feeling you'd object because "well, they're frakkin' geniuses.... they just outsmart people". If Steven Spielberg and George Lucas put their collective millions behind such a challenge, it'd be "oh, sure... hollywood... they just used special effects and computer graphics to trick the claimants into thinking they failed".

In short, you'd likely find fault with anyone running the MDC. It's a convenient dodge for hoaxsters and true believers, because there are still far too many people out there who interrupt many such woo-ish claims with, "Hey, have you heard about the Million Dolllars that magician guy is giving out? You should just apply."

[Senex]

are you sure it isn't an attempt by magicians to call themselves skeptics for the benefit of publicity and ultimately money from the books they sell to create "challenges" that cant' be won. Randi is not a scientist. How am I to believe he is capable of conducting a fair scientific test. He is a showman. A great showman, but not a scientist.

You're lucky my dispensation has yet to arrive. In the interval I will have to make do with calling you kind names such as disingenuous. You enjoy attention and you have succeeded. In the end, whenever you die and your death goes ungrieved all things will equal. (hyperbole is allowed you quick fingered mods ;))

Randi may not have a degree but he certainly could teach many people who do what a double blind test accomplishes. Randi has much to teach in the ways of being fooled, by fooling yourself as well as being fooled by others. I suspect Randi has taught more people how to think in a scientific method as anyone ever has.

There are many scientists, but there is only one Randi.

[dustbunny]

To me it boils down to one simple thing. Why would James Randi spend decades of years exposing these psychics, mediums and any other frauds just to try and fool everyone with a bogus challenge. What would happen to his own credibility in the sceptical field if he wasn't genuine and upfront with people.

I agree with other members that people don't win it because they can't do it. I watched a clip of him in the early 1980's where he debunked a young psychic on television. I watched how the psychic claimed he could move a pencil and flick pages of the yellow pages over just by a few cleverly placed movements of his hand. I sat and tried to figure out how it was done but couldn't. James Randi was introduced afterwards and he showed a $10,000 cheque he carried that he was willing to give to anyone who could show genuine psychic ability.

The solution to the young psychics self claimed powers was so simple. The pencil trick was nothing more than balance and slight handmovement. The page flicking was next, surprisingly it was a breathing trick incorporated between hand movements that turned them over. When asked to turn just one page under a simple controlled test the psychic couldn't do it.

I know one thing if I'd dedicated all these years into getting answers I wouldn't risk destroying it by setting someone up. He has no need to, the ones that profess to be gifted do the work for him.

[Rasmus]

My point exactly. Randi isn't a scientist iether. Nothing qualifies him to conduct scientific studies. I love Randi, I really do.

Yes, of course you do. How could you not? What other logical explanation could there be for your baseless and continued accusations of fraud against him? When's the wedding?

He is awsome, but the truth is he is also a genius. And a genius capable of making a challenge no one can win.

That might well be so. But see, the problem is you need to look at the challenge that he actually did set up. And then you need to explain how exactly that particular challenge has been created in a way that nobody could win it.

We're waiting.

I think it is his true genius that makes this the best trick he has ever done.

I think you still have no sound reason for that opinion.

Don't misread me. I know Randi is a good skeptic. I know he is an honest person, and he means well taking bad psychics and such off the street, and we are all behind him. But at the end of the day, he is still a very smart magician.

Yes, he's a good sceptic and an honest person but you are still accusing him of fraud ...

Isn't this worth consideration?

No. Not in the least. You have nothing to offer and what you give is logical inconsistent. What should we consider?

[AndyD]

I agree with other members that people don't win it because they can't do it. I watched a clip of him in the early 1980's where he debunked a young psychic on television. I watched how the psychic claimed he could move a pencil and flick pages of the yellow pages over just by a few cleverly placed movements of his hand. I sat and tried to figure out how it was done but couldn't. James Randi was introduced afterwards and he showed a $10,000 cheque he carried that he was willing to give to anyone who could show genuine psychic ability.

The James Hydrick debunking. I saw it on Youtube earlier this week. I believe Hydrick may now be hiding in a penitentiary somewhere (that's where you often end up if you spend your life cheating and lying about who you are) - I think he wished he'd had somewhere to hide when Randi challenged him.

Great viewing - for anyone who actually cares about the subject.

[Moochie]

A few times I've wanted to weigh in with a suitable refutation of what the OP implies, but I realize it's all been done before, ad nauseam.

Nothing of interest here.


M.

[dustbunny]

The James Hydrick debunking. I saw it on Youtube earlier this week. I believe Hydrick may now be hiding in a penitentiary somewhere (that's where you often end up if you spend your life cheating and lying about who you are) - I think he wished he'd had somewhere to hide when Randi challenged him.

Great viewing - for anyone who actually cares about the subject.

Thanks AndyD it was youtube where I saw it but couldn't remember the psychics name. When JR showed how the tricks were done I couldn't believe it, so simple, but to the untrained eye it wasn't obvious. Like I said in my earlier quote James Randi doesn't need to set anyone up. His and others work is too important for the challenge to be some kind of elaborate magic trick. If a psychic has nothing to hide take the test and prove us all wrong! I wait patiently. :oldroll:

[Terry]

I've asked a couple of times, and no one seems able to deny that the final arbiter as to whether the million is won/lost is Randi himself.

That isn't true. Read the challenge rules. Both parties agree before the test to a protocol and what constitutes success or failure. The success criterion must be self-evident and not require judging. So for a dowser, it might be something like "Identify the container with water in it correctly, from 10 choices, at least 8 times in 10 trials". (Note, statistics may vary, numbers here are just examples.) If you do it, you get the million, Randi doesn't "judge" whether you succeded or not, it is a mere matter of counting.

[AndyD]

Thanks AndyD it was youtube where I saw it but couldn't remember the psychics name. When JR showed how the tricks were done I couldn't believe it, so simple, but to the untrained eye it wasn't obvious.

Yep, the simplicity of both the trick and the the test were amazing. It's a shame that one side-effect of Randi's myth busting is that some good, simple magic tricks get revealed.

Like I said in my earlier quote James Randi doesn't need to set anyone up.

In the interests of skepticism, can I add that no one "needs" to set anyone up and, despite my "troll" call, I will concede that skepticism can be equally applied to Randi as it can to anyone. It benefits no one to hold heroes unaccountable. But the fact is, no one here has said Randi should not be held up to skeptical analysis if there's something to analyse.

The problem is the OP failed to present any reason for skepticism despite repeated calls for either evidence or a specific claim. It's difficult to play judge and jury on someone when there isn't even a charge.

At least the discussion might serve useful purpose to others who bother to follow the links to all the information they need to form a reasoned opinion on the issue.

I certainly learned something from it ;)

[William Smith]

I respectfully disagree, the numbers say it all. Only 5% of potential testers make it to the test. I think it sounds rigged. You haven't proved to me it isn't.

If you allege the Challenge is rigged you have to bring the evidence.

I do not think the Challenge is rigged but I could be convinced otherwise - if you have some facts, data, evidence to back up your allegation.

The Challenge sounds rigged? Fine. Prove it.

[William Smith]

A few times I've wanted to weigh in with a suitable refutation of what the OP implies, but I realize it's all been done before, ad nauseam.

Nothing of interest here.


M.

Upon rereading, I agree. Classic trolling by tapman.

Next.

[fuelair]

cheap or not, they do seem like publicity stunts. Lets face it magicians love to fool people, and love an audience. I seems that when their careers are dwindling they all get on the skeptic band wagon. Penn, Chris Angel, and even Randi and Houdini. Let's face it, no one cared about Penn and teller on the national stage until they came up with the ******** show. Pretty good career boost if you ask me.

Don't get me wrong, I love all these guys, but it does make one a little skeptical that all the magicians become skeptics when they start hitting the skids.
gives them well needed publicity as well as a new audience.
Uh, not correct on P & T - or much of your other - The show was their second or third and they were quite well known even to non-magician people like me well before that. Honest magicians are pretty much always on the skeptic bandwagon because they know how the supernatural crap/fakery can be done - often by a number of methods - and they are normally good observers (or they would nopt be good magicians. The same goes on the evil/deluded side for psychics/ghost hunters and equivalent liars - they also (except the deluded) know they are faking and fear honest magicians like the plague.

[Olowkow]

Originally Posted by tapman http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3876456#post3876456)
I respectfully disagree, the numbers say it all. Only 5% of potential testers make it to the test. I think it sounds rigged. You haven't proved to me it isn't.


It proves nothing of the sort, unless you are gullible enough to see a number and assume a particular cause for the percentage. It could just as well "prove" that 95% were so loony that they could not manage to find the JREF office to take the test. You need to actually read the applications, in the cases where an application was in fact submitted, and all the crazy negotiations. If you don't come away from that with an understanding of why the MDC is being phased out, or why so few actually are tested, then you are not a reasonable person.

[dustbunny]

Realistically an applicant for the challenge has to have some degree of notoriety or at least an acceptable amount of self professed abilities. Just allowing anyone to participate would hinder the main purpose of the test. It's a shame the MDC will be phased out, Sylvia Browne, John Edward and the rest will sigh with relief (in their own distasteful way). When that happens there'll be no need for excuses. I can't imagine any other test being fairer and more professional than the MDC, it's there to prove or disprove claims from applicants who are willing to take it.

If someone is willing to help the vulnerable, needy, naive, desperate and grieving "good on em" I say whether it's James Randi, Penn & Teller, Robert Lancaster or members like this discussing ideas and spreading the word. As bandwagons go this one's more honest, non profitable and fun.

[blutoski]

I agree, but how many people have not accepted the protocol. Being a skeptic, wouldn't you wonder if the protocol is unfair?

tapman, I think you're confusing us because we find it hard to believe you're so ignorant of the terms of the challenge. Judging by the timestamps on your posts, you've had enough time to do at least a casual examination of the terms.

There is no single 'protocol' to evaluate fairness. Each applicant is making a unique claim, and a protocol is designed to test this claim while minimizing the likelihood that the applicant obtains results through already established conventional means.

There is a section of this forum where the claims and protocols are discussed. Correspondence between applicants and the scientific teams are frequently published. We read them. It's not some sort of mysterious secret - we're not being asked to 'trust' James Randi.

To answer your question more specifically 99.9% of applicants are stalled at the application stage. Most appear to be mentally ill, and cannot describe their claim at all. A surprising number can't even provide correspondence details.

[jimtron]

Randi is not a scientist. How am I to believe he is capable of conducting a fair scientific test. He is a showman. A great showman, but not a scientist.

Who said Randi is a scientist? You don't have to count on him coming up with a fair test--it's up to JREF and the applicant to agree on mutually acceptable rules. If science is important to you, send someone with paranormal abilities to a scientist and tell us how it goes. People obsess about Randi being the judge of what's really paranormal, but I say if you're skeptical of Randi, then:

1) send someone with true paranormal abilities to apply for the challenge, and have that person very carefully document every step of the way. If Randi or JREF pulls any funny business, show us and the world the evidence. AFAIK Randi and JREF are on the up and up, but if not, let's see the evidence.

2) or, have a scientist or someone else, other than JREF, confirm the ability. If someone can really bend spoons with their mind, go to a university or media outlet or somewhere, and demonstrate it in a way that rules out deception, and then enjoy being the first person ever to show real paranormal ability. Then you can put us skeptics and JREF in our place. How come no one has been able to demonstrate supernatural abilities under proper conditions so far? It may be possible, I'm not ruling it out, but if people really can do this stuff, I wish they would put up or shut up (again, with or without Randi).

[steve s]

There's one aspect to this that Tapman is overlooking. I was reading about one of the tests in which a dowser claimed he could locate gold. The protocol that was agreed upon was to have ten upside-down coffee mugs with gold coins being hidden under one of them.

At the start of the test, the dowser was given a trial run in which he was told in advance which mug the coins were under (if I'm not mistaken, everyone is given such a trial run.) He waved his divining rod over the mugs and said that he could tell where the gold was. His powers were working. But as soon as the coins were relocated to an unknown mug his powers disappeared.

So Tapman, please explain how this is rigged? The guy agreed that the protocol was fair. He even claimed his powers were working. So what was rigged?

Steve S.

[NobbyNobbs]

I respectfully disagree, the numbers say it all. Only 5% of potential testers make it to the test. I think it sounds rigged. You haven't proved to me it isn't.

Have you considered the possibility that 95% of those wanting to win the prizesay to JREF, "Trust me, my ability works. Now write me a check." and the JREF responds "No way."? If this is the case, in what way is the JREF rigging anything?

I have more evidence to support my claim than you do of yours. I stated my opinion over and over. If you are too closed minded to get it that's not my problem.


Repeatedly restating your opinion does not constitute evidence.

My point exactly. Randi isn't a scientist iether. Nothing qualifies him to conduct scientific studies.


In case you haven't figured it out yet, Randi doesn't conduct the studies. In fact, so many people think his "dark vibes" ruin their abilities, he makes it a point that he does not need to be present. Third party testers are used all the time.

[maatorc]

The challengre does not need to be rigged so no one can win it.
No one can win it because the things they claim to be able to do are either lies or delusions.

The history of the MDC shows, and any future claims will confirm, that all the claimants cannot demonstrate their claim and those who can demonstrate what the MDC is seeking will not make a claim.

[Dancing David]

I've asked a couple of times, and no one seems able to deny that the final arbiter as to whether the million is won/lost is Randi himself.

that is not how the Challenge works, gosh, such misinformation Plumjam. You should be ashamed. have you ever reasd the Challenge application or protocol. The person who applies is part of the process. Edited for civility

If that is so, and the only judge happens to be a guy who has spent his life's work saying one thing, then the chances of him saying another... thus negating the position he has fought for all his life... well, to me at least, that is not a situation conducive to a fair and independent judgment.
The fact that 'skeptics' seem not to question this (on the contrary some of them take the fact that the million has never been won as proof positive that the paranormal does not exist) is comical.
These big money offers are, in the end, cheap publicity stunts.Edited for civility

[Dancing David]

I am sure that this has been done in the thread but

1. This is the primary and most important of these rules: Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers and/or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result.




EVERY APPLICANT MUST AGREE UPON WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A CONCLUSION THAT, ON THE OCCASION OF THE PRELIMINARY OR THE FORMAL TEST, HE OR SHE DID OR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CLAIMED ABILITY OR POWER.


Want to tell another lie Plumjam?

[Dancing David]

C'mon someone as smart as Randi can rig anything. Really.


How many claimants have gotten in to negotiations and walked because the rules were stacked against them.

Again, just wondering.

The claimant is the one who says what they can do, not Randi. You are showing a real lack of critical thinking, have you read the application?

[Dancing David]

I respectfully disagree, the numbers say it all. Only 5% of potential testers make it to the test. I think it sounds rigged. You haven't proved to me it isn't.

And you are just making an unbased assertion, i am begining to doubt your sincerity. With no data other than your own fantasy you are making claims that are unsupported.

Are you Sheldrake?

[maatorc]

Original post removed as breach of rules 11 and 12.

The proof is in the pudding: no claimant has been able to demonstrate and no one able to demonstrate has claimed.
Further, it is a pseudo-skeptical indemonstrable presumption to say -
Originally Posted by kerikiwi View Post
.......No one can win it because the things they claim to be able to do are either lies or delusions.As to your phishing speculations about "...your teachers...", you are not even beginning to know where I am coming from.

[badnewsBH]

The proof is in the pudding: no claimant has demonstrated and no demonstrator has claimed.


For some reason, multi-quote doesn't like me. Hmm...

Oh well. Maatorc, I think you're making a pretty "indemonstrable presumption" in the second part of your sentence there. No claimant has demonstrated, that's absolutely true. However, there is no evidence for the existence of (and thus, no logical reason to believe in) the "demonstrators" that haven't yet claimed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kerikiwi View Post
.......No one can win it because the things they claim to be able to do are either lies or delusions.


Kerikiwi is making a statement stronger than evidence can reinforce, I would agree on that. However, I'd say Keri's presumption is the safe bet, while yours is the long shot. So far, there seems to be as much evidence for the existence of paranormal abilities in human beings as there is for the existence of unicorns, leprechauns or dragons. All of these things are, by strictest definition, possible. I tend to believe, however, that taking out a second mortgage to fund an expedition to find such things would result only in me being deeper in debt.

[tapman]

If you allege the Challenge is rigged you have to bring the evidence.

I do not think the Challenge is rigged but I could be convinced otherwise - if you have some facts, data, evidence to back up your allegation.

The Challenge sounds rigged? Fine. Prove it.


If you look at dailygrail.com. The myth of the million dollar challenge. You will see a lot of evidence of how the MDC isn't fair.

scientific experiments ar held at a much less prove rate than one in a million. That is ridiculous. That alone leads me to believe it is rigged.

Secondly, Randi is a great magician. His life is tricking people.. He is really good at it. Would you play poker for money with him.

Scientists that have tried the MDC have been put off by Randi because of several different reasons. Read the dailygrail. It goes in to detail.

Everyone on here wants proof, but won't read the site. Why?

Anyone who reads it will find themselves at least skeptical.

I am shocked that everyone here is so easily tricked by a publicity stunt.

[tapman]

Uh, not correct on P & T - or much of your other - The show was their second or third and they were quite well known even to non-magician people like me well before that. Honest magicians are pretty much always on the skeptic bandwagon because they know how the supernatural crap/fakery can be done - often by a number of methods - and they are normally good observers (or they would nopt be good magicians. The same goes on the evil/deluded side for psychics/ghost hunters and equivalent liars - they also (except the deluded) know they are faking and fear honest magicians like the plague.

HONEST Magicians? YOU are kidding right.

The whole magic act is dishonest. They are creating an illusion so you believe something is actually magic. That in itsef is a lie.

Secondly, have you ever read anything about Penn. He brags quite often of being a liar.

Honestly.

[tapman]

It proves nothing of the sort, unless you are gullible enough to see a number and assume a particular cause for the percentage. It could just as well "prove" that 95% were so loony that they could not manage to find the JREF office to take the test. You need to actually read the applications, in the cases where an application was in fact submitted, and all the crazy negotiations. If you don't come away from that with an understanding of why the MDC is being phased out, or why so few actually are tested, then you are not a reasonable person.

Any reasonable person might think otherwise. Nice try.

[Terry]

They are creating an illusion so you believe something is actually magic. That in itsef is a lie.

Nope.

[Terry]

The purpose of a stage magician fooling you is not to make you think that magic is real. It is entertainment. Surely this is obvious?

[tapman]

The purpose of a stage magician fooling you is not to make you think that magic is real. It is entertainment. Surely this is obvious?


Yes illusion. You go to a show, You pay a lot of money to see the show. You are pleasantly fooled. The magician doesn't tell you how he fooled you. You leave happy, and feel you got your money's worth.

You go to a psychic. You pay a lot of money. You are pleasantly fooled. the psychic doesn't tell you how he fooled you. You leave happy, and feel you got your money's worth.

HMMMMM. Interesting to me.

[Terry]

Yes illusion. You go to a show, You pay a lot of money to see the show. You are pleasantly fooled. The magician doesn't tell you how he fooled you. You leave happy, and feel you got your money's worth.

You go to a psychic. You pay a lot of money. You are pleasantly fooled. the psychic doesn't tell you how he fooled you. You leave happy, and feel you got your money's worth.

HMMMMM. Interesting to me.

Except the psychic claims not to be fooling you, and encourages you to base important life decisions on their schtick.

[maatorc]

.....there is no evidence for the existence of (and thus, no logical reason to believe in) the "demonstrators" that haven't yet claimed......

There is no evidence they do not exist.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Tapman, there is no need to re-address issues that have already been addressed. If you wish to discuss the DailyGrail article, please read Randi’s rebuttal in “THE GRUBBIES ATTACK!” article at SWIFT February 29, 2008 (http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/169/1/) and then raise objections to Randi’s comments. We can work from there.

You may note, by simply reading past threads on this very forum, that in the past I have been critical of handling of the MDC and even particulars about particular protocols. However, I have never seen any evidence, or even a reasonable accusation, that the test, which is usually not conducted by Randi, was foiled by some trick. The only exception is the Landin test, which required materials that are exceptionally difficult to obtain and the tester skimped on the protocol. And JREF agreed to re-test. I think this is the exception that proves the rule that Randi and the JREF are not attempting to cheat or pull some magic trick of deceit.

Also, please note that there is formal standard of 1 in 1 million for tests that could depend on chance. There was a recent thread about why there is no defined standard of odds. I have addressed in other posts my hypothesis on how “the myth of one in a million” came about. If you simply look at the protocols that have been accepted, you will find that JREF has accepted protocols well below these odds. In fact, I don’t think any protocol proposed has required these odds. In any event, Randi stated in the article I posted above that he would accept much lower odds.

Tell me: how is the MDC a trick?

[badnewsBH]

There is no evidence they do not exist.


What, precisely, qualifies as evidence that something doesn't exist? Personally, I'd like to point to the numerous tests for paranormal ability done by the JREF and others that have found no evidence, and reiterate that this would seem to indicate the non-existence of aforementioned ability.

Of course, whatever your answer, Maatorc, the end result isn't relevant. The claim that these abilities exist is yours to buttress. I am not required to establish evidence of the non-existence of the chupacabra, Loch Ness monster or one eyed, one horned, flying purple people eater (apologies to Barry Cryer). The null hypothesis in any such test should be that these things do not exist. The existence of such cannot simply be assumed as fact; evidence to indicate that any of these examples is physically real must be presented before such a claim has merit.

If it is your opinion that paranormal abilities are available to people, so be it. I'd love to have such powers, and it would be fascinating if they were real. The evidence doesn't bear this out, unfortunately, and I've yet to see reason why I should believe what the evidence doesn't support.

[maatorc]

1...What, precisely, qualifies as evidence that something doesn't exist?
2...Personally, I'd like to point to the numerous tests for paranormal ability done by the JREF and others that have found no evidence......

1...There are here two things: people who have abilities and the abilities themselves. I was referring to people who have abilities.

2...The absence of evidence of such abilities from people or organizations unqualified and unable to demonstrate such evidence does not prove such abilities do not exist.

[kerikiwi]

1...There are here two things: people who have abilities and the abilities themselves. I was referring to people who have abilities.

2...The absence of evidence of such abilities from people or organizations unqualified and unable to demonstrate such evidence does not prove such abilities do not exist.

1. You can't have one without the other.
2. How would organizations have abilities?
I think you need to have another go at editing this..
Perhaps along the lines of: 'the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'?

[William Smith]

Tapman, there is no need to re-address issues that have already been addressed. If you wish to discuss the DailyGrail article, please read Randi’s rebuttal in “THE GRUBBIES ATTACK!” article at SWIFT February 29, 2008 (http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/169/1/) and then raise objections to Randi’s comments. We can work from there.

You may note, by simply reading past threads on this very forum, that in the past I have been critical of handling of the MDC and even particulars about particular protocols. However, I have never seen any evidence, or even a reasonable accusation, that the test, which is usually not conducted by Randi, was foiled by some trick. The only exception is the Landin test, which required materials that are exceptionally difficult to obtain and the tester skimped on the protocol. And JREF agreed to re-test. I think this is the exception that proves the rule that Randi and the JREF are not attempting to cheat or pull some magic trick of deceit.

Also, please note that there is formal standard of 1 in 1 million for tests that could depend on chance. There was a recent thread about why there is no defined standard of odds. I have addressed in other posts my hypothesis on how “the myth of one in a million” came about. If you simply look at the protocols that have been accepted, you will find that JREF has accepted protocols well below these odds. In fact, I don’t think any protocol proposed has required these odds. In any event, Randi stated in the article I posted above that he would accept much lower odds.

Tell me: how is the MDC a trick?

The 1 in 1,000,000 figure applies by simply combining two tests with each of them providing a 1 in 1,000 possibility of success by chance.

In the current negotiations with Pavel Ziborov, the goal is to develop a test which allows for a sufficient number of trials and having a possibility of success by chance of - you guessed it right - around 1 in 1,000.



Tapman, I read the dailygrail.com page you linked to. I did not find the evidence you promised. Perhaps you should try to provide your own arguments.

If you want to actively and constructively help an applicant, join the discussion about Pavel Ziborov's protocol. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82062)

Are you up to it?

[tapman]

The 1 in 1,000,000 figure applies by simply combining two tests with each of them providing a 1 in 1,000 possibility of success by chance.

In the current negotiations with Pavel Ziborov, the goal is to develop a test which allows for a sufficient number of trials and having a possibility of success by chance of - you guessed it right - around 1 in 1,000.



Tapman, I read the dailygrail.com page you linked to. I did not find the evidence you promised. Perhaps you should try to provide your own arguments.

If you want to actively and constructively help an applicant, join the discussion about Pavel Ziborov's protocol. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82062)

Then you will all say Tapman is the best skeptic of all of us. He is the only one that wasn't blinded by their adoration of James Randi enough to be a true skeptic.

Hail Tapman, Hail Tapman, I can just hear it now.

Are you up to it?


If you couldn't find any evidence that might suggest the MDC is not up to scientific standards in the article, then maybe you will want to read it again. There are several statements by scientists that prove otherwise.

Go ahead and attack the scientists now in true JREF form.'

When Randi discloses the truth about this challenge one day, how will all of you feel.

I will feel like he is the greatest magician of all time. I will feel he has created an illusion that went on for decades, and everyone believed the illusion. I will believe he is the greatest showman of all time. I will believe he is truly a genius, unrivaled by anyone.

[tapman]

Except the psychic claims not to be fooling you, and encourages you to base important life decisions on their schtick.

Last I checked, magicians don't claim to be fooling you either. When Penn and teller did thier bullet catching trick on network tv, did they open the show by saying Ok everyone we are not really catching the bulllit in our mouth. No, they created an illusion that it was really being done.

[William Smith]

If you couldn't find any evidence that might suggest the MDC is not up to scientific standards in the article, then maybe you will want to read it again. There are several statements by scientists that prove otherwise.

Go ahead and attack the scientists now in true JREF form.'

When Randi discloses the truth about this challenge one day, how will all of you feel.

I will feel like he is the greatest magician of all time. I will feel he has created an illusion that went on for decades, and everyone believed the illusion. I will believe he is the greatest showman of all time. I will believe he is truly a genius, unrivaled by anyone.

Please don't Michael Moore my quotes, tapman.

I read the site you linked to thoroughly. I found a lot of strawmen and innuendo. However, you were asked to provide your evidence. So far, you came up short.



I invite you again to join the discussion about Pavel Ziborov's protocol. Are you up to constructive work?

[Akhenaten]

Last I checked, magicians don't claim to be fooling you either.

Nor do actors keep dropping out of character to remind us that they are simply pretending. Do you take this to mean that actors are trying to fool us?


When Penn and teller did thier bullet catching trick on network tv, did they open the show by saying Ok everyone we are not really catching the bulllit in our mouth.

Probably not. Should all non-fiction carry a similar disclaimer? (albeit with the grammar and spelling corrected.)


No, they created an illusion that it was really being done.

Or can they actually catch bullets in their mouths and they're just creating the illusion that they're really good magicians.

[tapman]

Please don't Michael Moore my quotes, tapman.

I read the site you linked to thoroughly. I found a lot of strawmen and innuendo. However, you were asked to provide your evidence. So far, you came up short.



I invite you again to join the discussion about Pavel Ziborov's protocol. Are you up to constructive work?

Why do you call them strawmen. Do you have better qualifications than they do. Does Randi? I have provided evidence. Just because you don't think it is credible doesn't make it so. Like I said, these are scientists. Unless you have proof they are lying, you must accept what they say as the truth.

What is the innuendo you are talking about. You haven't proven there is any innuendo at all, and you haven't proven anyone is a strawman.

You have come up short. You can't just claim someone is a strawman without proof of that. If you give me proof, I will shut up about the so called strawmen. Till then, it is proof.



After all, that is what you are asking me to do.

[Rasmus]

If you couldn't find any evidence that might suggest the MDC is not up to scientific standards in the article, then maybe you will want to read it again. There are several statements by scientists that prove otherwise.

Moving around goalposts much?

Your claim was that the challenge is rigged, not that it is "unscientific".

Never mind that the points raised on that page have been addressed, too, and that you have been pointed to the rebuttal. Even if the standards of the challenge were unreasonably high when compared to regular scientific tests it doesn't follow that the challenge couldn't easily be won much less than it's fraudulent or rigged in any way whatsoever.

Go ahead and attack the scientists now in true JREF form.'

Their points are irrelevant to your claims. It doesn't matter how likely or unlikely it is that I could achieve something by chance if my claim is I can achieve it by will, effort, paranormal powers or by means of a well-trained pet swamp dragon.

When Randi discloses the truth about this challenge one day, how will all of you feel.

And your point is?

I will feel like he is the greatest magician of all time. I will feel he has created an illusion that went on for decades, and everyone believed the illusion. I will believe he is the greatest showman of all time. I will believe he is truly a genius, unrivaled by anyone.

Yes, but you've already demonstrated that you think there is no difference between an admitted magician and a regular con artist ...

[tapman]

Moving around goalposts much?

Your claim was that the challenge is rigged, not that it is "unscientific".

Never mind that the points raised on that page have been addressed, too, and that you have been pointed to the rebuttal. Even if the standards of the challenge were unreasonably high when compared to regular scientific tests it doesn't follow that the challenge couldn't easily be won much less than it's fraudulent or rigged in any way whatsoever.



Their points are irrelevant to your claims. It doesn't matter how likely or unlikely it is that I could achieve something by chance if my claim is I can achieve it by will, effort, paranormal powers or by means of a well-trained pet swamp dragon.



And your point is?



Yes, but you've already demonstrated that you think there is no difference between an admitted magician and a regular con artist ...

Everyone else on here seems to get it, why are you always so far off? What makes you think I have demonstrated I think magicians are con artists. I think they are brilliant. I have said this many times, and I mean it. You don't ever quite get the real meaning of what is said here do you.

[William Smith]

Why do you call them strawmen. Do you have better qualifications than they do. Does Randi? I have provided evidence. Just because you don't think it is credible doesn't make it so. Like I said, these are scientists. Unless you have proof they are lying, you must accept what they say as the truth.

What is the innuendo you are talking about. You haven't proven there is any innuendo at all, and you haven't proven anyone is a strawman.

You have come up short. You can't just claim someone is a strawman without proof of that. If you give me proof, I will shut up about the so called strawmen. Till then, it is proof.



After all, that is what you are asking me to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[tapman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Again, typical for JREF.

Why does everyone on here want proof, but have none to offer for their own claims.
You claimed these particular men were strawmen. prove it, or shut up. I'm willing to.

[Hokulele]

Why does everyone on here want proof, but have none to offer for their own claims.


Because you are the one making the claim (that the MDC is a "trick"). The burden of proof is on you.

You claimed these particular men were strawmen. prove it, or shut up. I'm willing to.


You may want to reread the link. I don't think you know what a strawman is.

[Rasmus]

Everyone else on here seems to get it, why are you always so far off? What makes you think I have demonstrated I think magicians are con artists.

Because you made a few posts to the effect that they deceive their audiences about the nature of their shows. If I see a magician I do not for a moment think that they really cut the woman in half.

I think they are brilliant. I have said this many times, and I mean it. You don't ever quite get the real meaning of what is said here do you.

That you think they are brilliant doesn't address anything I've said.

Never mind the continuous discrepancy between calling them "brilliant", even "honest" on one hand and accusing them of fraud on the other. (and it would be fraud and not a brilliant, intelligent performance if the MDC really was rigged. People invent time and money into it without the reasonable expectation to just witness a magical performance.)

[chillzero]

I've put this thread on moderated status due to the inability of some to stay civil and on topic despite prior warnings.

maatorc - you have other threads to discuss your theory. This one is not to be derailed further on that topic. They will not be approved in this thread.

Everyone else. Stay on topic, and address the topic instead of each other.

[dustbunny]

Again, typical for JREF.

Why does everyone on here want proof, but have none to offer for their own claims.


I still believe James Randi would never jeopardize his credibility or the respect he's gained over many years.

The MDC will probably be remembered as one of the most famous challenges ever. It was designed to be fair and agreeable by the applicants. The only people that fear it are the ones who make false claims. Unfortunately I don't think it would matter whether JR was a magician, doctor or a famous news reporter, etc. Someone would find a reason to question it. Wanting proof of these psychics abilities is what the MDC is all about.

We all differ in our opinions but are asking for the same thing, evidence. I just hope that one day we'll get it.

[Kuko 4000]

tapman, if I've understoof you correctly, you think that the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge is just a trick.

If so,

how could we or someone else prove to you that it is not a trick, but an actual, real life challenge worth million dollars to the person that can prove his / her paranormal abilities?

What kind of evidence would it require for you to see that there is nothing fishy going on on JREF's end?

Think about it and let the forum know, thanks.

[Ashles]

I respectfully disagree, the numbers say it all. Only 5% of potential testers make it to the test.
And the reasons why are well discussed and explained elsewhere.

I think it sounds rigged.
This is the real issue. You have decided it is rigged and any amount of explanation why it cannot be (Randi isn't involved in early testing, testing can take place on different continents, results must be mutually agreed...) will simply not sway you.

That isn't scepticism.
That is someone who has already decided and cannot by swayed pretending to be a sceptic.

The WHOLE POINT of a magician/illusionist being a sceptic is that they can identify trickery on the part of the claimants. Paranormal claims are where over the years trickery has been used over and over again.

Magicians tend to be sceptical because they know far better than most how easy it is to create 'paranormal' illusions.
And magicians don't become sceptical lae in their careers (they already know how these scams can be carried out) - but they can only really become publicly sceptics when their careers are established well enough.

If you were serious about criticising the challenge as trickery or rigged you would do better to pick a test that has been carried out and explain why you think it was specifically rigged.
Maybe follow up - speak to the claimants. test them yourself.

Because as it stands your entire argument seems to be you think it's rigged just because you do.

[buzz lightyear]

I have been thinking of the million dollar challenge. Is it just another one of the amazing Randi's magic tricks? I really wonder. There is another magician out there that has offered Randi money to accept his challenge, and Randi has not. Everyone on here said it was a trick, and it was controlled by the magician, and it was a hoax.
Isn't Randi's challenge controlled by him also. Randi is a great magician too, better than the other guy.
Isn't Randi's challenge worthy of skepticism?
If I were a great magician, and was offering a million dollars of my hard earned money, I would make sure no one could win it.
Given that premise, and the fact that Randi is one of the smartest guys around, don't you think Randi's trick million dollar challenge is somehow rigged so no one can win it. I kinda do.
If it is a trick, and no one has been able to win it, doesn't that make it Randi's greatest magic trick of all times. And if you accept that premise, doesn't that make Randi the greatest magician of all time?
Just thinkin
Your friend Tapman

This clause is the crux of the problem with the MDC, Tapman.


8. When entering into this challenge, as far as this may be done by established legal statutes, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, and/or against any persons peripherally involved, and/or against the James Randi Educational Foundation. This applies to injury, and/or accident, and/or any other damage of a physical and/or emotional nature, and/or financial and/or professional loss, and/or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize, once it is properly won in accord with the protocol.

If you win, fine and dandy, BUT, if by some "inconsistency" as in the Carina Landin case, you cant jump through the hoop, tough bickies! Old Jimmy can ridicule you, your ideas, in fact do anything he wants to do and there is sweet bugger all you can do legally about it.

Also there is this:

IMPORTANT: Only claims that can be verified by evidence under proper observing conditions will be accepted. Also, JREF will NOT accept claims of the existence of deities or demons/angels, the validity of exorcism, religious claims, cloudbusting, causing the Sun to rise or the stars to move, etc. JREF will also NOT test claims that are likely to cause injury of any sort, such as those involving the withholding of air, food or water, or the use of illicit materials, drugs, or dangerous devices.

I would have thought that once you had rendered JREF free from the possibility of legal liability it would be a simple case of "do whatever it takes".

You are correct Tapman, the MDC is a very cleaver magician's trick, and as the log of applicants shows it is only the foolhardy and poor who dare to venture up on stage with a master performer.

[lionking]

Tapman, don't you realise that many, if not all, contributing to this thread would be delighted if the MDC was won as it would constitute a previously unknown or unproven branch of science? If the rules were unfair they would have been torn apart by forum members long ago.

[tapman]

tapman, if I've understoof you correctly, you think that the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge is just a trick.

If so,

how could we or someone else prove to you that it is not a trick, but an actual, real life challenge worth million dollars to the person that can prove his / her paranormal abilities?

What kind of evidence would it require for you to see that there is nothing fishy going on on JREF's end?

Think about it and let the forum know, thanks.


Best question so far. Thank you. Really got me thinking.

I think there should be a pool of say 100 scientists that are familiar with things paranormal. They (the pool of 100) should be chosen by the quality of their methods for testing by other scientist that don't have any connection with things paranormal, but are well versed in testing methods.

They (the pool of 100)should come up with an acceptable standard of what percentage of right or wrong answers constitutes that the person being tested (the testee... couldn't help myself) is actually psychic. The standard should be far above chance, and mutually agreeable (by the pool of 100)that a degree of correct answers of this magnitude would be considered psychic.

When a subject is to be tested, this pool of 100 scientists names should be put in to a lottery ball type machine(the type you see in bingo perhaps), and ten of them will be randomly picked by the lottery ball machine with the oversight of both Randi and the subject, and anyone else that wants to bear witness.

This final ten will then get together and formulate a test that is agreed on by all ten members that will test the subject. Not what a magician thinks, or even a crazy claimant, but actual scientists.

The test and data collected by the testers will be watched over by a panel of scientists that are not related to the test, or anything paranormal. Just a groop that is an overseer.

The test will also be given to ten other randomly picked people to make sure the results are well below that of the self proclaimed psychic.

If the results are agreed upon by the ten scientists to prove "ability" the million is awarded.

This could all be easily financed by the interest from the million $.


A test like this couldn't be refuted by anyone ever. A crazy psychic, or a magician. Every one picked at random, double blind, you know real sciency type stuff. Not a magician creating an llusion.

Just a thought

[tapman]

Because you are the one making the claim (that the MDC is a "trick"). The burden of proof is on you.




You may want to reread the link. I don't think you know what a strawman is.

Sure I do Hoke. Debate term. However, if you are claiming someone is playing the strawman, or being a strawman, you will need to prove it in some way to make it acceptable in a debate or otherwise it is insignificant.

Nice to hear from you Hokulele.

[tapman]

Because you made a few posts to the effect that they deceive their audiences about the nature of their shows. If I see a magician I do not for a moment think that they really cut the woman in half.



That you think they are brilliant doesn't address anything I've said.

Never mind the continuous discrepancy between calling them "brilliant", even "honest" on one hand and accusing them of fraud on the other. (and it would be fraud and not a brilliant, intelligent performance if the MDC really was rigged. People invent time and money into it without the reasonable expectation to just witness a magical performance.)


Thank you once again for illustrating my point for me.

I never acused anyone of fraud. That is what you said, not me.

first of all, anyone who invested in the challenge knows Randi is a great magician and showman. Secondly, The million dollars would have to be spent on something to be fraud. It is sitting in the bank, right where it always has been. (or is that a magic trick too). Lastly, no one could ever call anyone out on it because no one has won, and the money still sits there.

Lastly, anyone putting money in the challenge knows it can never be won. People aren't stupid. Are they?

[Crundy]

Just a note about Randi using magic tricks to make the applicant fail: It should be noted that Randi has not actually attended any prelim tests for a while. They are carried out by trusted test centres in his absence. Not a single failed applicant has claimed that they failed because of trickery, they always use excuses like "There was a painting on the wall that was messing with my psychic energy", or "The weather wasn't nice enough for the test", or a similar excuse which seemed to be absent when they did the open trials before and after the blind trials (where they did quite well!).

[Kuko 4000]

Thanks for the answer tapman, but do you see the problem here?

As has been noted many times, scientists are not experts in fooling people. There could easily be cases where the scientists could be fooled by a normal ability claimant, it would at least be much more likely than if the test was co-designed by a person who is an expert in fooling people and who would knew what things to look for when designing it.

If, on the other hand, you trust your pool of scientists to know their stuff at least as well as Randi, would you accept a test designed by Randi and his team but approved by the pool of scientists you had in mind?

[Kuko 4000]

Tapman, don't you realise that many, if not all, contributing to this thread would be delighted if the MDC was won as it would constitute a previously unknown or unproven branch of science? If the rules were unfair they would have been torn apart by forum members long ago.

Exactly, I would be absolutely thrilled to witness something paranormal in my lifetime.

[Rasmus]

Oh please!

There still hasn't been a single word on how the tests are rigged. We are now down to "I simply don't trust him!", and all the elaborate dancing around randomly selected scientists don't do a thing to support the idea that the tests are in any way unfair, let alone unbeatable, as they are now.

Again: Please show us how exactly the tests are rigged. Pointing out that if Randi designs the test he could design something into the protocols isn't enough.

[petre]

Best question so far. Thank you. Really got me thinking.

I think there should be a pool of say 100 scientists that are familiar with things paranormal. They (the pool of 100) should be chosen by the quality of their methods for testing by other scientist that don't have any connection with things paranormal, but are well versed in testing methods.

They (the pool of 100)should come up with an acceptable standard of what percentage of right or wrong answers constitutes that the person being tested (the testee... couldn't help myself) is actually psychic. The standard should be far above chance, and mutually agreeable (by the pool of 100)that a degree of correct answers of this magnitude would be considered psychic.

When a subject is to be tested, this pool of 100 scientists names should be put in to a lottery ball type machine(the type you see in bingo perhaps), and ten of them will be randomly picked by the lottery ball machine with the oversight of both Randi and the subject, and anyone else that wants to bear witness.

This final ten will then get together and formulate a test that is agreed on by all ten members that will test the subject. Not what a magician thinks, or even a crazy claimant, but actual scientists.

The test and data collected by the testers will be watched over by a panel of scientists that are not related to the test, or anything paranormal. Just a groop that is an overseer.

The test will also be given to ten other randomly picked people to make sure the results are well below that of the self proclaimed psychic.

If the results are agreed upon by the ten scientists to prove "ability" the million is awarded.

This could all be easily financed by the interest from the million $.


A test like this couldn't be refuted by anyone ever. A crazy psychic, or a magician. Every one picked at random, double blind, you know real sciency type stuff. Not a magician creating an llusion.

Just a thought

Curious, you believe the best way to make the test more fair is to remove the claimants entirely from the discussion in deciding how the test of their own ability would be conducted? Do they even consult applicants first, or do they just pick an ability at random? "You're gonna get tested for levitatation." "Dang, I was hoping for remote viewing."

I am perhaps being a bit unfair. Allow me to lower the bar as much as I can imagine in order to promote positive discussion, and give your idea the maximum possible chance to demonstrate an improvement over the way the challenge is currently run. Select any challenge applicant or potential applicant (you can find threads for many of these in the Challenge Applications subforum) and describe how the above process would have been applied to it, and how the end result would have better furthered the stated purpose of the JREF.

[Kuko 4000]

To tapman,

I can't edit my earlier post anymore, but here's something I forgot to add:


If, on the other hand, you trust your pool of scientists to know their stuff at least as well as Randi, would you accept a test designed by Randi and his team but approved by the pool of scientists you had in mind?

OR, if the test was designed by the pool of scientists and approved by Randi?

[Hokulele]

Best question so far. Thank you. Really got me thinking.

I think there should be a pool of say 100 scientists that are familiar with things paranormal. They (the pool of 100) should be chosen by the quality of their methods for testing by other scientist that don't have any connection with things paranormal, but are well versed in testing methods.

They (the pool of 100)should come up with an acceptable standard of what percentage of right or wrong answers constitutes that the person being tested (the testee... couldn't help myself) is actually psychic. The standard should be far above chance, and mutually agreeable (by the pool of 100)that a degree of correct answers of this magnitude would be considered psychic.

When a subject is to be tested, this pool of 100 scientists names should be put in to a lottery ball type machine(the type you see in bingo perhaps), and ten of them will be randomly picked by the lottery ball machine with the oversight of both Randi and the subject, and anyone else that wants to bear witness.

This final ten will then get together and formulate a test that is agreed on by all ten members that will test the subject. Not what a magician thinks, or even a crazy claimant, but actual scientists.

The test and data collected by the testers will be watched over by a panel of scientists that are not related to the test, or anything paranormal. Just a groop that is an overseer.

The test will also be given to ten other randomly picked people to make sure the results are well below that of the self proclaimed psychic.

If the results are agreed upon by the ten scientists to prove "ability" the million is awarded.

This could all be easily financed by the interest from the million $.


A test like this couldn't be refuted by anyone ever. A crazy psychic, or a magician. Every one picked at random, double blind, you know real sciency type stuff. Not a magician creating an llusion.

Just a thought


The way the Challenge is worded, you could present this as part of the protocol, and depending on how it was implented, it could very well be accepted. The testing protocol is agreed upon by both parties, not just the JREF.

Sure I do Hoke. Debate term. However, if you are claiming someone is playing the strawman, or being a strawman, you will need to prove it in some way to make it acceptable in a debate or otherwise it is insignificant.


No, I don't think you do understand. A person does not play and cannot be a strawman. In debating, a strawman is an easily rebutted caricature of a real point in use. Wikipedia explains it very well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).

Nice to hear from you Hokulele.


Likewise.

[Almo]

There are numerous posters on these forums who have a lot of experience with the MDC, and there are numerous casual members who have read through every thread on every challenge. Yet you think that The Daily Grail is more competent to discuss this?

I showed up on this forum because I was curious about the MDC having seen it on the BBC Horizon show about homeopathy (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml). I read through EVERY challenge thread. I painfully followed through as applicant after applicant turned out to be nutty, self-deluded, or looking for some way to cheat the test.

The only exception that comes to mind was the one person who went through with the GSIC test. I remember when Prophet Yahweh backed out by asking to bring armed guards.

I've read enough to stand by the integrity of the MDC and Randi. I have seen no evidence at all that there is anything dishonorable about either.

[badnewsBH]

8. When entering into this challenge, as far as this may be done by established legal statutes, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, and/or against any persons peripherally involved, and/or against the James Randi Educational Foundation. This applies to injury, and/or accident, and/or any other damage of a physical and/or emotional nature, and/or financial and/or professional loss, and/or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize, once it is properly won in accord with the protocol.

If you win, fine and dandy, BUT, if by some "inconsistency" as in the Carina Landin case, you cant jump through the hoop, tough bickies! Old Jimmy can ridicule you, your ideas, in fact do anything he wants to do and there is sweet bugger all you can do legally about it.



Buzz, I don't think you're appreciating what that clause is supposed to mean.

I've seen plenty of clauses like it in other agreements, like EULAs for various software installations. All it says (from what I can read) is that the JREF is not responsible for damages that the applicant suffers while being tested. This means that the applicant can't sue the JREF for losing revenue if someone sees the result of a test, and decides not to pay the applicant for the use of his/her alleged paranormal ability. It also protects the JREF from an applicant participating and claiming injury during the test, which could otherwise lead to a civil court case; this is addressed in the other snippet you listed below, which I'll get to momentarily.

That clause does not entitle anyone associated with the JREF to commit libel or slander against the applicants, if that's what you imply. On the other hand, nothing is stopping anyone from ridiculing the ideas or beliefs of the applicants, from what I can tell; I'm not positive, but stating the belief that dowsing is utter nonsense doesn't appear to qualify as either slander or libel.

Legalities aside, the testing protocols and results appear to be out in the open. If Randi or any JREF representative were badmouthing someone over the results of a test, and that treatment was unjustified because of a bad test, it seems that others could read up about it and decide the truth for themselves. Additionally, I've yet to see any evidence of anyone being mistreated in the manner you describe. Ms. Landin was given another chance to be tested once the mistake in the testing procedure was found, and it appears that the communications around this test were all conducted politely and respectfully on both sides.

Remember, the people involved are attempting to design protocols that are as devoid of bias as possible. To engage applicants or discuss them in a manner opposite to that isn't productive or conducive to the JREF being supported by the skeptical public. The JREF is a charitable organization, IIRC, and I wouldn't think that being obnoxious or insulting toward people (even those whose ideas strike its members as ludicrous) would increase the donations they receive.



Also there is this:

IMPORTANT: Only claims that can be verified by evidence under proper observing conditions will be accepted. Also, JREF will NOT accept claims of the existence of deities or demons/angels, the validity of exorcism, religious claims, cloudbusting, causing the Sun to rise or the stars to move, etc. JREF will also NOT test claims that are likely to cause injury of any sort, such as those involving the withholding of air, food or water, or the use of illicit materials, drugs, or dangerous devices.

I would have thought that once you had rendered JREF free from the possibility of legal liability it would be a simple case of "do whatever it takes".



I don't see the relevance here. The MDC is about testing claims that are testable, to see if the applicant does indeed possess paranormal abilities (or the cleverness necessary to fake them). If the test results don't speak for themselves, the test really isn't valid (or was done incorrectly, as occurred with Ms. Landin). On the subject of refusing to perform tests that may be injurious, I should think you'd be giving JREF reps more credit. The rule is there, in my opinion, for several reasons, among which could be...

1. To prevent any possibility of liability. Even with clause #8 considered, there is still the chance that a civil case would be heard. Of course, there's also the possibility of criminal charges in some cases (drug possession, negligence leading to injury or death, etc.)

2. Ethical considerations. This, I think, is more the reason. I get no indication from what I've read at this site that anyone associated with JREF wants to see people hurt to prove their points. I imagine the majority of applicants, like people in general, are of a good sort, who honestly believe they have paranormal abilities and intend harm to no one. JREF doesn't appear to be conducting the MDC in order to flog people into disbelieving claims of the paranormal.



You are correct Tapman, the MDC is a very cleaver magician's trick, and as the log of applicants shows it is only the foolhardy and poor who dare to venture up on stage with a master performer.



Tapman may well be correct, but so far, there's been little to no evidence in support of that position. To date, the evidence appears to support the notion that the JREF have done a pretty good job of conducting the MDC in a fair manner.

[yairhol]

Tapman, you are unwilling to listen. I'm sure this has been said before but I'll say it anyway.

First of all, let's not even talk about the $1M challenge. Let's talk about the preliminary tests since no one has succeeded in those either.

Randi does not run the tests himself. In fact, some of the preliminary tests are done in other countries/regions where a university professor or other representative appointed by the JREF is handling the test. Randi himself is nowhere near to that place.

Magic has nothing to do with not succeeding in the tests.
The person taking the test just has to do what he claims he can do.
That person can also bring another person to watch the test.
If you say you can see through walls and you actually CAN see through walls, then I'm sure Randi cannot do anything to prevent that from succeeding in the test (if Randi was present there...again I'm talking about the preliminary tests).

[The Professor]

I have been thinking of the million dollar challenge. Is it just another one of the amazing Randi's magic tricks? I really wonder. There is another magician out there that has offered Randi money to accept his challenge, and Randi has not. Everyone on here said it was a trick, and it was controlled by the magician, and it was a hoax.
Isn't Randi's challenge controlled by him also. Randi is a great magician too, better than the other guy.
Isn't Randi's challenge worthy of skepticism?
If I were a great magician, and was offering a million dollars of my hard earned money, I would make sure no one could win it.
Given that premise, and the fact that Randi is one of the smartest guys around, don't you think Randi's trick million dollar challenge is somehow rigged so no one can win it. I kinda do.
If it is a trick, and no one has been able to win it, doesn't that make it Randi's greatest magic trick of all times. And if you accept that premise, doesn't that make Randi the greatest magician of all time?
Just thinkin
Your friend Tapman

I agree! These thoughts have been crossing my mind too!
I will be finding out soon.

[Jackalgirl]

Howdy, TP --

Tapman, as far as I can tell, never responded to some basic facts about the Challenge. The big one is this:

The demonstration (that is, the preliminary test) is run according to a protocol developed by and acceptable to both the claimant and JREF. Conditions for success and failure are clearly spelled out.

Tapman has suggested that James Randi is so smart that he can rig the tests so that such rigging is undetectable by the claimant. However, he has yet to every demonstrated that this has ever happened.

I personally don't believe that it is so, because I believe that someone with genuine powers -- most especially the people (like Sylvia Browne) who claim to be able to regularly and reliably utilize those powers -- would have a test protocol so incredibly simple that there would and could be NO ARGUMENT possible. It'd be like, "hey, I'm psychic." And James Randi would be like, "cool, how 'bout you tell me what's in my safe?" And the psychic would say, "okay. It's a 1974 edition of the March issue of Playboy, signed by Hugh Hefner as follows: 'from one amazing guy to another, yours truly, Hef.'" And James Randi would be, like, "Dude, here's your check for $10,000. Jeff will be along with the other $990,000 within ten days." It'd be so easy you'd have to laugh, if you weren't crying in sheer amazement at how humanity's understanding of how the physical universe works is going to change entirely, and maybe communications with our eventual outpost on Mars won't take as long since we'll be able to have psychics on either end, how cool would that be?

Why is it so dang hard? Not because Randi is trying to make it hard (which is what tapman is suggesting). It just ends up being ferociously hard, because it has to be a properly-controlled demonstration, and these powers just poof! vanish when the demonstration is properly controlled. Drat.

Edited to add: the formal test is also conducted according to a mutually-agreed protocol. Just wanted to make sure that's clear.

[steenkh]

Tapman has suggested that James Randi is so smart that he can rig the tests so that such rigging is undetectable by the claimant.
Randi must be real smart when he can rig tests that take place in far away countries like Sweden, and Randi has never been present at the test!

[Jackalgirl]

Randi must be real smart when he can rig tests that take place in far away countries like Sweden, and Randi has never been present at the test!

You mean, like the one at the end of which the JREF discovered, and admitted publicly (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=32779), that the test had not been carried out per the protocol? The one that JREF is now working with the claimant to re-do? I know. It's perfidious.

[DarthFishy]

Sometimes I wish I was psychic. Then I could apply for the test. Win the Million. Show everyone the challenge is real. And then donate the money back to the JREF.

Of course that would kind of be against the whole point of the challenge, but it's a thought.

[EHocking]

Sometimes I wish I was psychic. Then I could apply for the test. Win the Million. Show everyone the challenge is real. And then donate the money back to the JREF.

Of course that would kind of be against the whole point of the challenge, but it's a thought.
The conspiracy theorists would have field day.

[Ysidro]

Randi must be real smart when he can rig tests that take place in far away countries like Sweden, and Randi has never been present at the test!

It's obvious Randi has paranormal abilities that allow him to do this! That means he could pass his own challenge!

I wonder what the rules for that would be....

Seriously though, this is essentially what tapman is saying: that James Randi is able to affect events on another continent and with such ability that no one can actually detect it thereby proving it exists!

Why is this reminding me of 9/11 twoof all of a sudden?

[Crundy]

Seriously though, this is essentially what tapman is saying: that James Randi is able to affect events on another continent and with such ability that no one can actually detect it thereby proving it exists!

Why is this reminding me of 9/11 twoof all of a sudden?

Occam's Razor anyone?

[Mongrel]

Occam's Razor anyone?


Pfft - I laugh at you and your so-called "Logic" :D

[Metullus]

I have just today found this thread. After reading a score or so of posts I decided to review the Challenge Applications threads with an eye to judging the reasonableness of the protocols and their development. I have yet to find one that appeared to be in any way disadvantageous to the claimant, assuming, of course, that the claimant could in fact perform as claimed. I have not found any protocol that afforded Randi (or his proxy) the opportunity to cheat. I have found at least one instance (Paul Carey) where Randi insisted that the claimant provide his own psychic "receiver" instead of one provided by JREF so that there would be no question of the fairness of the test.

If there is an overarching theme in the claim and protocol negotiation process it is this: testing of their claims is the last thing that applicants want to do.

[Crundy]

If there is an overarching theme in the claim and protocol negotiation process it is this: testing of their claims is the last thing that applicants want to do.

No, they all want to be tested, they just want to be tested under conditions that even a five year old could pass without knowing what their ability is meant to be. Pavel seems to be a good example of this at the moment. He came to the forums with a very very firm "I can see the content of a photo inside an envelope". As the thread went on, it became more and more apparent that he can't do this, unless the choice is 50/50 and he gets as many goes with it as he needs. As other people pointed out, the easiest way to test would be to have seven blank photos and one with a picture on, and he has to find the photo. If he can do what he says he can do then this would be a breeze. He has said he cannot do this, which to me states that he cannot do what he says he can and is suffering from confirmation bias in all his self tests which he excells at.

It's a shame, because he's a nice guy and does truly believe he is psychic. I would want nothing more than for him to see that his ability is a delusion, and then join the forums as another convert.

[William Smith]

No, they all want to be tested, they just want to be tested under conditions that even a five year old could pass without knowing what their ability is meant to be. Pavel seems to be a good example of this at the moment. He came to the forums with a very very firm "I can see the content of a photo inside an envelope". As the thread went on, it became more and more apparent that he can't do this, unless the choice is 50/50 and he gets as many goes with it as he needs. As other people pointed out, the easiest way to test would be to have seven blank photos and one with a picture on, and he has to find the photo. If he can do what he says he can do then this would be a breeze. He has said he cannot do this, which to me states that he cannot do what he says he can and is suffering from confirmation bias in all his self tests which he excells at.

It's a shame, because he's a nice guy and does truly believe he is psychic. I would want nothing more than for him to see that his ability is a delusion, and then join the forums as another convert.

...or provide substantial evidence for his claim in two controlled tests and invite the self-proclaimed skeptics to convert.

[/Devil's Advocate]

[sanguine]

Reading through this thread, I'm struck by the idea that "months of negotiations" to work out a proper protocol is some tactic by JREF to put off potential testees.

I'm a biologist. When I submit a research article (a paper describing some recent, novel, and hopefully important research I've carried out) to a journal for publication, it is farmed out for outside review by several other researchers. They then comment on its quality and recommend to the publication's editor that is be accepted, rejected, or sent back for additional experiments to test things I may have missed, but which they think are important. The third result is the most common.

This entire "negotiation" can takes months and months, at the end of which I will send the revised research in again, and the editor can review it and see if I've done the correct additional work to meet the bar set by those reviewers.

I am, nonetheless, not "put off" by this effort, or the time spent. After all, I've achieved my results in controlled testing in my own research environment, and I am confident of them, and of their importance and their need to be communicated to the rest of the world. If my peers say they want a few more tests, I'm okay with spending the time to do those tests and resubmit the research.

...and that's for a research paper where there's a good chance I'll be paying a thousand bucks in publication fees because academic journals have tight margins. If I were standing to pick up a flat million dollars, I'd be happy to spend years negotiating a proper protocol (although I'd hope, as a scientist, to be able to come up with one much, much faster than that). I mean, unless you're already independently wealthy, how does a million stack up against your annual salary? Surely it's worth the time spent on sporadic emails and forum posts for a couple months leading up to the test.

[EHocking]

Reading through this thread, I'm struck by the idea that "months of negotiations" to work out a proper protocol is some tactic by JREF to put off potential testees.This is not a serious reason, merely the bleating of bleevers who want to slag of Randi and any non-bleevers. The pattern is quite obvious.
<snip>
This entire "negotiation" can takes months and months, at the end of which I will send the revised research in again, and the editor can review it and see if I've done the correct additional work to meet the bar set by those reviewers.Now you come to the crux of it.

You and your peers, spend months on a protocol/paper. Most applicants are not JREF member peers. I'm not accusing anyone of wilful ignorance here either, many applicants know nothing of double-blind protocols (most think it means wearing two blindfold) or probability, so immediately become overwhelmed by the process. For the detractors, this is seen as JREF beating up on the Challenge applicants, because more often that not the ARE wilfully ignorant if it allows them to baselessly criticise non-bleevers.
<snip>Surely it's worth the time spent on sporadic emails and forum posts for a couple months leading up to the test.
You'd think so wouldn't you. An most of your peers here would to.;)

[Metullus]

No, they all want to be tested, they just want to be tested under conditions that even a five year old could pass without knowing what their ability is meant to be. *snip* My take is that they generally would be happy to demonstrate their "abilities", just as they have presumably done to their friends and relatives, as a sort of performance, rather than test their "abilities".

The difference between a performance and a test is what trips them up.

[jimtron]

Surely it's worth the time spent on sporadic emails and forum posts for a couple months leading up to the test.

Right. Plus, it wouldn't take so long if applicants would read the rules and figure out just what exactly it is they can do before engaging in MDC discussions.

[Crundy]

Right. Plus, it wouldn't take so long if applicants would read the rules and figure out just what exactly it is they can do before engaging in MDC discussions.

This seems to be the main problem, actually defining what a person can do. See this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=117841) for an example. People just waffle and stray off topic and talk about how they can 'create energy' and how they want to "show you the matrix" (as one example did) without explaining exacly how they can demonstrate it. They know they can do something special, they just don't know what, or how to show it to others.

The example above is good. The applicant claimed they could make their hand feel so light that it could float off the table, but it doesn't because gravity pulls it back down :boggled:

[The Professor]

Is this the guy? The video is very confusing at Best!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMrgr1yR3k0
I'm still confused about who was telling what with any accuracy, but bottom line, I think it is what you are talking about.
Thanks
Dave

[kookbreaker]

Is this the guy? The video is very confusing at Best!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMrgr1yR3k0


Why? Because of all the propaganda and posturing that this Callahan person has sprinkled all around it?


I'm still confused about who was telling what with any accuracy, but bottom line, I think it is what you are talking about.
Thanks
Dave

Who are you replying to?

[The Professor]

The man who started the thread. Who else? :)
I want a telescope!