"Challenge" gives misleading impression of science

[JeremyBlye]

The way the million dollar challenge is currently worded, it sounds like if I took a piece of material that I call "magical" because its properties are beyond the current understanding of scientists, that I could just find a couple scientists to admit this, submit the "magical material" and win $1,000,000.

That is insane. If that really is how you view science, then I'll gladly take your million dollars.

Trying to get people to critically view and scientifically approach wild claims is a _good_ thing. I applaud that. But it is a travesty to treat science as if it is purely empirical - a list of facts - devoid of an underlying untestable philosophy.

In particular, this really bothers me:
2.2 What is the definition of “paranormal” in regards to the Challenge?

Webster’s Online Dictionary defines “paranormal” as “not scientifically explainable; supernatural.”

Within the Challenge, this means that at the time your application is submitted and approved, your claim will be considered paranormal for the duration. If, after testing, it is decided that your ability is either scientifically explainable or will be someday, you needn’t worry. If the JREF has agreed to test you, then your claim is paranormal.

If you actually mean the paranormal is something that cannot currently be explained scientifically (which seems to be implied above), then I can give a huge list of paranormal things and events by this definition as could any kid with a highschool reading level. So this evidently cannot be what you mean.

Yet if you then conclude this to mean paranormal is something that can _never_ be explained scientifically, then this literally comes down to a matter of faith. If it is not currently explainable, scientists will have faith their method could in time come up with an explaination. Therefore it is a tautology that the scientific method can never verify the paranormal. And thus even in principle the money cannot be won and this is a big scam.

Put clearly: This contest is offensive to those believing in the paranormal because it is unfair. And it is offensive to those believing in science, because ultimately we have to admit this is a trick as indeed the contest is unfair. Inviting people to engage in a one-sided fight which they then proceed to lose does not show strength -- it convinces no-one and shames your cause.


Either change the way you present science, or give me a $1,000,000 when I submit a "magic" substance which when dipped into a cauldron of liquified air "magically" gains the ability to carry current with no detectable resistance. No one in the entire world can currently scientifically explain this "magical phenomenom".

[laca]

Either change the way you present science, or give me a $1,000,000 when I submit a "magic" substance which when dipped into a cauldron of liquified air "magically" gains the ability to carry current with no detectable resistance. No one in the entire world can currently scientifically explain this "magical phenomenom".

Or... You could read the challenge application again:

I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 [One Million Dollars/US] to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions. Such demonstration must take place under the following rules and limitations:


Now please tell me how that "magical" substance is to be considered your ability?

[Rasmus]

The way the million dollar challenge is currently worded, it sounds like if I took a piece of material that I call "magical" because its properties are beyond the current understanding of scientists, that I could just find a couple scientists to admit this, submit the "magical material" and win $1,000,000.

Keeping laca's comments in mind: Yes, you might be able to do that.

That is insane. If that really is how you view science, then I'll gladly take your million dollars.

So what miraculous material do you have and what are the impossible attributes that it has?

Trying to get people to critically view and scientifically approach wild claims is a _good_ thing. I applaud that. But it is a travesty to treat science as if it is purely empirical - a list of facts - devoid of an underlying untestable philosophy.

I don't see how the MDC does that.

In particular, this really bothers me:


If you actually mean the paranormal is something that cannot currently be explained scientifically (which seems to be implied above), then I can give a huge list of paranormal things and events by this definition as could any kid with a highschool reading level. So this evidently cannot be what you mean.

No, that's not what it means. It means, on a very basic level, that what you demonstrate is *impossible* rather than *not currently understood well enough to be adequately explained*

Yet if you then conclude this to mean paranormal is something that can _never_ be explained scientifically, then this literally comes down to a matter of faith. If it is not currently explainable, scientists will have faith their method could in time come up with an explaination. Therefore it is a tautology that the scientific method can never verify the paranormal. And thus even in principle the money cannot be won and this is a big scam.

*yawn*
I hope you do not think you're being original here?

Put clearly: This contest is offensive to those believing in the paranormal because it is unfair. And it is offensive to those believing in science, because ultimately we have to admit this is a trick as indeed the contest is unfair. Inviting people to engage in a one-sided fight which they then proceed to lose does not show strength -- it convinces no-one and shames your cause.

There is no one-sided fight.

I continue to be amazed how the MDC is being frequently misunderstood. I couldn't think of anything more simple than the concept:

1. Claim that you can do something that the JREF things is impossible for you to do.
2. Demonstrate that you can do it without cheating.
3. Walk away with a heap of money.

It doesn't matter if what you can do can in theory be explained or will be explained later or weather it is perfectly normal and straightforward or if it requires magic and the reversal of the laws of physics. You do what you say you can do, you get the money.

Either change the way you present science, or give me a $1,000,000 when I submit a "magic" substance which when dipped into a cauldron of liquified air "magically" gains the ability to carry current with no detectable resistance. No one in the entire world can currently scientifically explain this "magical phenomenom".

Does everyone in the world agree that it is theoretically impossible for this to happen, though? Which known and tested and confirmed laws of physics does this experiment violate?

[TSR]

The way the million dollar challenge is currently worded, it sounds like if I took a piece of material that I call "magical" because its properties are beyond the current understanding of scientists, that I could just find a couple scientists to admit this, submit the "magical material" and win $1,000,000.
.

It might sound like that if one hadn't read for comprehension, as has been pointed out.

.
If you actually mean the paranormal is something that cannot currently be explained scientifically (which seems to be implied above), then I can give a huge list of paranormal things and events by this definition as could any kid with a highschool reading level.
.

Do post such a list of abilities that cannot be explained scientifically which can be objectively tested under controlled conditions agreeable to all?

.
Either change the way you present science, or give me a $1,000,000 when I submit a "magic" substance which when dipped into a cauldron of liquified air "magically" gains the ability to carry current with no detectable resistance. No one in the entire world can currently scientifically explain this "magical phenomenom".

.

Low temperature superconductivity can certainly be scientifically explained -- look up the Ginzburg-Landau theory, the BCS theory and the Coleman-Weinberg model and get back to us, m'kay?

.

[GzuzKryzt]

...
If that really is how you view science, then I'll gladly take your million dollars.
...

It seems you are adressing the JREF.

This is the JREF Forum. If you post a thread, it is usually solely for the benefit of forum members. JREF Staff posts here, but very unfrequently.

If you want to address JREF Staff directly, try challenge@randi.org

Or simply contact the General Manager Jeff Wagg via PM if you want to bring your issue to his ears.



Welcome to the forum.

[JeremyBlye]

Now please tell me how that "magical" substance is to be considered your ability?
I explained very clearly what I claimed I could do, and what result that science cannot currently explain would ensue. Are you saying there is an additional requirement that I prove no one else can do this? If in the mere act of demonstrating my "magical" recipe, if you learn it, does it disqualify my ability immediately?

No, that's not what it means. It means, on a very basic level, that what you demonstrate is *impossible* rather than *not currently understood well enough to be adequately explained*
This goes against the scientific method itself. You cannot prove that something is impossible to science. If this is how you define paranormal, then again, your challenge is impossible by definition and thus unfair.

Let me remind you that something even as simple as conservation of energy from classical newtonian mechanics, later was shown cannot be proven for all cases in General Relativity. Science is a method. You instead seem to think science is a list of facts, and want people to prove there is something that goes against these facts. That is an incredibly misleading view of science.

*yawn*
I hope you do not think you're being original here?
No. No I do not.
That is why I am upset that this challenge is misrepresenting science despite these obvious complaints.


1. Claim that you can do something that the JREF thinks is impossible for you to do.
2. Demonstrate that you can do it without cheating.
3. Walk away with a heap of money.
So very very much is hidden in those first two statements. You are skipping over the problem I am complaining about in doing so.

Low temperature superconductivity can certainly be scientifically explained -- look up the Ginzburg-Landau theory, the BCS theory and the Coleman-Weinberg model and get back to us, m'kay?
First, the specifics of my example aren't pertinent to my complaint.
Second, instead of trying to 'end' the argument by trying to talking down to me, maybe you should read up on those theories. Of the three things you listed, only BCS gives an explanation for the following: effective attraction between two negatively charged particles, which under current understanding is necessary to scientifically explain superconductivity. However, it is well known that BCS DOES NOT EXPLAIN superconductivity in materials that superconduct when dipped in liquid nitrogen (so called 'high-temperature' superconductors). There are entire conferences devoted to the fact that it has been decades since this phenomenom was discovered and it is still beyond current understanding.


To follow up on previous comments, science cannot prove things like telepathy and such are impossible. It can only, based on its philosophical principles, demonstrate that it is very unlikely ... therefore science should expect very convincing evidence to accept it. So you cannot use impossibility as a criterion. On the flip side though, considering naming a phenomenon by scientists as them understanding it is incredibly misleading about the subject. You are considering many things to be science that are not, in order to shape the contest accordingly. Coupled with the fact that this is done in the name of upholding science, ultimately besmirches it. The correct solution would be instead to clearly define what you mean by paranormal.


The point is: As currently worded, the challenge comes off as goading people into a one-sided fight and it gives a misleading impression of science. The terms need to be better defined to rectify this.


EDIT:
GzuzKryzt,
Thank you. Before supporters can opennly discuss solutions to a problem, we first need to agree on the specifics of the problems. Once we get to working on a solution, and if we come up with a reasonable solution that many people can get behind ... sure, we can contact the General Manager. But at the moment, it would be unfair to approach him with ideas produced in a vaccuum. If a small handful here cannot come to partial agreement, then my sentiments on science clearly are not backed by this society and my complaints evaporate for it merely becomes apparrent that that is how the society wants to portray science, which of course they are free to do. My complaint only holds if they are unintentionally portraying science this way.

[drkitten]

This goes against the scientific method itself. You cannot prove a negative.

No one's asking you to PROVE a negative. It's merely that our best theories at this point conclude that such-and-such is impossible.

Superconductivity is not believed by science to be impossible, for the quite good reason that it is demonstrated. Helium-3 superfluidity is similarly not believed to be impossible, for exactly the same reason. Telepathy is believed to be impossible, and thus would qualify.

However, you don't need to do something "impossible" to qualify for the challenge, either. Neither Bigfoot nor Nessie are impossible, just very, very improbable given the balance of the evidence. If you think you can demonstrate their existence conclusively, the million awaits you.

[drkitten]

:
1. Claim that you can do something that the JREF thinks is impossible for you to do.
2. Demonstrate that you can do it without cheating.
3. Walk away with a heap of money.



So very very much is hidden in those first two statements. You are skipping over the problem I am complaining about in doing so.

Nothing at all is "hidden." In fact, the solution to your (non-)problem is now in large boldface letters for your consideration.

If the JREF accepts your claim as paranormal, it will accept your application. If it does not accept your claim as paranormal, it will not. If your complaint is that Webster incorrectly conflates "explanation" with "knowledge of," take it up with Webster, not the JREF.

[Fnord]

The way the million dollar challenge is currently worded, it sounds like if I took a piece of material that I call "magical" because its properties are beyond the current understanding of scientists, that I could just find a couple scientists to admit this, submit the "magical material" and win $1,000,000.

That is insane. If that really is how you view science, then I'll gladly take your million dollars.
.
Unfortunately for you, Randi's crew would then have a turn at analyzing your mystery material, and only if they found it inexplicable would you stand a chance of winning the million.

It's in the details, kid. It's all in the details...

[roger]

May I suggest you're getting really wrapped up over definitions and wording, rather than the intent of the challenge.

Intent of the challenge:

I can read your mind.
JREF: prove it.

I can predict next week's lottery.
JREF: prove it

Here's a chemical reaction you can't explain
JREF: that has nothing to do with us.

There are people making claims about very unlikely things that have been tested many times in the past, and JREF is saying "put up or shut up". Getting into a dictionary definition of paranormal is not the point. It's trivial to find a chemical reaction or something that science doesn't currently understand. That's not the intent of the challenge.

Nor, in any way is the challenge a scientific stand. The point is somebody claims they can do something that seems very dubious, and the JREF says "do it and I'll give you a cool million". It in no way purports to be doing science, to be part of the scientific method, or to prove that the alleged ability is in fact impossible. It's very simple. You claim to be able to do something, JREF says "prove it".


H

[JeremyBlye]

drkitten,
You are doing exactly what I was complaining about. You are treating science as if it is a list of facts, instead of a method.

Is that really how this society views science?

However, you don't need to do something "impossible" to qualify for the challenge, either. Neither Bigfoot nor Nessie are impossible, just very, very improbable given the balance of the evidence. If you think you can demonstrate their existence conclusively, the million awaits you.
So by your definition, the discovery of living Coelacanths was a paranormal event!? What about discovery of life on the ocean floor?

Your portrayal of science is very insulting to me.

.
Unfortunately for you, Randi's crew would then have a turn at analyzing your mystery material, and only if they found it inexplicable would you stand a chance of winning the million.

It's in the details, kid. It's all in the details...
If JREF can explain high temperature superconductivity, they will most likely receive of nobel prize. It is beyond current understanding.

Regardless, please focus less on the specifics of my examples, and more on the point of the examples.

[D'rok]

May I suggest you're getting really wrapped up over definitions and wording, rather than the intent of the challenge.

Intent of the challenge:

I can read your mind.
JREF: prove it.

I can predict next week's lottery.
JREF: prove it

Here's a chemical reaction you can't explain
JREF: that has nothing to do with us.

There are people making claims about very unlikely things that have been tested many times in the past, and JREF is saying "put up or shut up". Getting into a dictionary definition of paranormal is not the point. It's trivial to find a chemical reaction or something that science doesn't currently understand. That's not the intent of the challenge.

Nor, in any way is the challenge a scientific stand. The point is somebody claims they can do something that seems very dubious, and the JREF says "do it and I'll give you a cool million". It in no way purports to be doing science, to be part of the scientific method, or to prove that the alleged ability is in fact impossible. It's very simple. You claim to be able to do something, JREF says "prove it".


H

QFT.

[drkitten]

drkitten,
You are doing exactly what I was complaining about. You are treating science as if it is a list of facts, instead of a method.

Is that really how this society views science?

No. But it's apparently how people with bad reading comprehension view it.


So by your definition, the discovery of living Coelacanths was a paranormal event!? What about discovery of life on the ocean floor?

First, it's not my definition. And it's not Webster's, either. It's JREF's.

Second, yes, JREF would probably pay for the discovery of living Coelacanths; cryptozoology (think Bigfoot and Nessie) are well-established woo-woo claims that Randi has spent a lot of time debunking.

Of course, you'd have to predict the specifics of what you'd find in fairly close detail; merely stating "there's something out there that science hasn't yet found" isn't a paranormal claim. But if you think that the 1918 sighting of Carcharodon megalodon off the Australian coast was real, and are prepared to prove it by producing incontrovertible evidence of such a fish,.... yes, that will probably win you Randi's million.


Your portrayal of science is very insulting to me.

That's okay. Your portrayal of stupidity is very insulting to science. I'm sure both you and she will recover.


Regardless, please focus less on the specifics of my examples, and more on the point of the examples.

All right, I've given you a different example. Yes, you can probably win Randi's million for showing something that scientists believe not to be true, even if it's not "scientifically inexplicable."

[Fnord]

If JREF can explain high temperature superconductivity, they will most likely receive of Nobel prize. It is beyond current understanding.

Regardless, please focus less on the specifics of my examples, and more on the point of the examples.


JREF does not have to explain something that can be predicted by ordinary scientific means (i.e., relativity, superconductivity, gravity, et cetera).

Now, if your claim would be "I can make this wooden chair exhibit superconductivity by force of will alone", and then actually did it without resorting to trickery, you could win the million.

But to say, "I have a piece of matter that exhibits an already-known physical property, and it does so outside the parameters of any previously-known material", then you would not have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning the money.

Superconductors already exists, and can be clearly demonstrated to exist. Every year, the maximum known temperature limit increases, if only by a little. You would have to produce a material that exhibits a property that is NOT already known to science. If you have truly created a room-temperature superconductor, then you should demonstrate it to a group of scientists (with a few stage magicians in the audience), and then sit back and await your Nobel prize.

Cavorite comes to mind; this is a fictional material - "An antigravity metal; when it cools, whatever it covers will be impervious to gravitational forces." - conceived of by one Mr. H. G. Wells.

Anti-Gravity is a theoretical force. Presently, there is no known demonstration of this force (or the control thereof) that can not be explained by trickery, instrumentational tolerances, or operator error.

If your "Magical" material turned out to be the 21st-century equivalent of Cavorite, then you might stand a chance of winning the million. Of course, you might have to share it with the descendents of Mr. Wells, but that is beside the point.

The point is, you have to come up with something that is not a mere extrapolation or extension of known physical laws or material phenomena. You must produce something that is truly miraculous - a magical stone that raises the dead and/or cures all known diseases without an apparent power source. Now that would be miraculous!

[laca]

I explained very clearly what I claimed I could do, and what result that science cannot currently explain would ensue. Are you saying there is an additional requirement that I prove no one else can do this? If in the mere act of demonstrating my "magical" recipe, if you learn it, does it disqualify my ability immediately?


Do you make the "magical" substance yourself? If not, how can you claim any paranormal ability? If someone gives me a device I can read minds with, am I paranormal?


The point is: As currently worded, the challenge comes off as goading people into a one-sided fight and it gives a misleading impression of science. The terms need to be better defined to rectify this.


No. There are a lot of people claiming paranormal abilities. This challenge is there to give them the opportunity to prove those abilities under controlled conditions.

[JeremyBlye]

May I suggest you're getting really wrapped up over definitions and wording, rather than the intent of the challenge.
As I stated in the first post:
"Trying to get people to critically view and scientifically approach wild claims is a _good_ thing. I applaud that."

If that is the intent (as I hope), that is great. Then the challenge should try to reflect this intent more closely, instead of what it currently does which is give a misleading impression of science.

Pause and take a critical look at many of the responses here. It is clear this misleading impression of science runs amuk. There are still people responding claiming scientists currently can explain high temperature superconductivity ... their evidence, well, it has been observed; it has been acknowledged; it has been named. But science is not a list of facts, nor is science taxonomy. Science is a philosophy and a method.


If you want people to critically view and scientifically approach wild claims. Wouldn't it make sense to not give a misleading impression of science?

It's trivial to find a chemical reaction or something that science doesn't currently understand. That's not the intent of the challenge.
I agree whole-heartedly, which is why I feel the challenge and FAQs should be clear on the society's stance on what is paranormal without making misleading statements about science. Can we agree on that too?

So by your definition, the discovery of living Coelacanths was a paranormal event!? What about discovery of life on the ocean floor?First, it's not my definition. And it's not Webster's, either. It's JREF's.
YES, and that is the problem.
If you don't consider that a problem, I guess there is nothing further to discuss.

JREF does not have to explain something that can be predicted by ordinary scientific means (i.e., relativity, superconductivity, gravity, et cetera).
You missed the reason I used that as an example: high temperature superconductivity can NOT currently be predicted by scientific means.


Clearly there is a disconnect here.
Let's start over.
Let's discuss:
1] How would you define the separation of "science" and the "paranormal"?
2] Do you agree with JREF's portrayal of this separation?

[Fnord]

You missed the reason I used that as an example: high temperature superconductivity can NOT currently be predicted by scientific means.

It has been predicted by scientists using scientific means, as far back as the mid-1980's (maybe sooner). I should know, since I helped set up some of the first copper-oxide and rare-earth superconductor experiments at MSU's Physics & Astronomy Department, back when Drs. Bass, Carlson, Cowen, Duxbury, and Harrison were running things in the Condensed Matter groups.

Then, as now, it was only a matter of time and persistence, since experimentation by trial-and-error and extrapolation therefrom are also part of that "scientific means" you mentioned.

[Ysidro]

Is it just me or does it seem like the OP is getting hung up on the idea that the Challenge is supposed to be some super duper scientific study instead of a "go ahead and prove you can do something that shouldn't be possible without trickery" PR stunt (and a mighty fine PR stunt it is!)?

[HghrSymmetry]

Aye, what Ys said.
---
JB, you don't have to make it that difficult. If an ability can be demonstrated, bingo, collect your loot.

[GzuzKryzt]

...
Let's discuss:
1] How would you define the separation of "science" and the "paranormal"?
2] Do you agree with JREF's portrayal of this separation?


I think you are inventing an assumption which has very little - if any - merit in reality. I agree with roger: Perhaps you seem to get caught up in semantics.

From what I have read from official JREF Staff - Randi, Jeff Wagg, The Bad Astronomer, Alison Smith, etc. - they do not equal the MDC with actual science.

Please consider that you may have thoroughly misread and/or misunderstood something.

The MDC is a challenge - to those who claim extraordinary things. It is not science and not scientific per se. Where did you get that from anyway?

[arthwollipot]

1] How would you define the separation of "science" and the "paranormal"?In this context, "whatever the JREF says it is."
2] Do you agree with JREF's portrayal of this separation?Since the million dollars belongs to the JREF and it is therefore up to them to decide its disposition, yes.

[rsaavedra]

The MDC is a challenge - to those who claim extraordinary things. It is not science and not scientific per se. Where did you get that from anyway?
My guess, because rigurously verifying that something is or isn't the case through empirical means in controlled/repeatable conditions is always generally regarded as "scientific." Also, using proper probabilities/statistics to determine whether the results can or can't be explained by chance gives the exercise a strong "scientific" fragrance.

To JeremyBlye: the challenge wasn't created to give the right impression of science. If anything, it was created to give the right impression of skepticism.

[skoob]

If JREF can explain high temperature superconductivity, they will most likely receive of nobel prize. It is beyond current understanding.The MDC isn't about explaining anything, see Challenge Application Rule 3 (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html):

We have no interest in theories nor explanations of how the claimed powers might work; if an applicant provides us with such material, it will be ignored and discarded.The MDC is about challenging people to demonstrate, under controlled conditions, what they've publically claimed to be able to do. If you can communicate telepathically then, as far as the MDC is concerned, it doesn't matter how you are doing it as long as you can demonstrate your ability in a controlled environment which eliminates all known means of communication.

There are plenty of phenomena which can easily be demonstrated to exist, despite currently lacking satisfactory scientific explainations. Take for instance gravity. It's trivial to demonstrate that it exists-- without knowing exactly what causes it to work.

[DevilsAdvocate]

The way the million dollar challenge is currently worded, it sounds like if I took a piece of material that I call "magical" because its properties are beyond the current understanding of scientists, that I could just find a couple scientists to admit this, submit the "magical material" and win $1,000,000.Oh, yes. This again. There are, perhaps, nearly a hundred threads on this topic over these many years. Search and delve in, my friend. They go into the sublime, the metaphysical, and the philosophies of definitions. They all bottom out at a general understanding of what is meant by “paranormal”. There is no such thing, if there was such a thing, it would not be such a thing---blah, blah, blah.

The JREF MDC challenges those that claim that they are psychics, dowsers, telekinetic, clairvoyant, have ESP, can tell your future, and so on that has NO basis in science. The JREF understands that scientists are always discovering new things that have a basis in science that have not yet been explained.

Yes. Fine line. It has been walked upon before. If you use some common sense, you will get further. ;)

If you have suggestions about how JREF would better word the terms of the MDC to convey the "common sense" understanding of the challenge, by all means please present them.

[thaiboxerken]

The way the million dollar challenge is currently worded, it sounds like if I took a piece of material that I call "magical" because its properties are beyond the current understanding of scientists, that I could just find a couple scientists to admit this, submit the "magical material" and win $1,000,000.

So what's stopping you?

[Pixel42]

JREF have always made it perfectly clear that, once they have accepted a claimant's application as paranormal and agreed a protocol, a successful test will result in them handing over the $1m. Even if it subsequently emerges that the demonstrated phenomenon is scientifically explicable the applicant will keep the $1m, though of course sensible people will realise that the awarding of it does not then constitute proof of the paranormal. There is also a small chance that an applicant will successfully cheat, despite the best efforts of JREF to eliminate that possibility, in which case he/she will also get to keep the $1m.

JREF clearly feel that both these small risks are worth running in order to demonstrate to the general public that

a) people who genuinely and sincerely believe they have paranormal abilities are being inadvertantly fooled into thinking so by well known and well understood phenomena such as confirmation bias, the Forer Effect and the ideomotor effect

b) con artists who deliberately exploit these phenomena to scam gullible people dare not apply for the $1m challenge because they know full well they do not have the paranormal powers they claim to have

The fact that the $1m has remained unclaimed for however many years it is now would suggest that their risk/benefit analysis was correct.

[remirol]

Clearly there is a disconnect here.
Edited for Rule 12 violation.Let's start over.
Let's discuss:
1] How would you define the separation of "science" and the "paranormal"?
2] Do you agree with JREF's portrayal of this separation?
Already begging the question.

1. Irrelevant, because...
2. ...the JREF is not portraying anything. It is a challenge, not an experiment. If you can do what you say you can, and the JREF accepts what you say you can do as paranormal, then you get the money.

It is not intended to be held up as an example of science. End of story.
Do not make personal attacks.

[Fnord]

Is it just me or does it seem like the OP is getting hung up on the idea that the Challenge is supposed to be some super duper scientific study instead of a "go ahead and prove you can do something that shouldn't be possible without trickery" PR stunt (and a mighty fine PR stunt it is!)?
.
I get the impression that the OP thinks that any barbershop lawyer can weasel his way around the rules and legally claim the money without having to demonstrate anything supernatural at all.

[Toke]

It is not that complicated.
If you have invented levitation and have a working backpack model, you could pick up the JREF million before publicating your discovery, and heading off to stockholm.

[remirol]

.
I get the impression that the OP thinks that any barbershop lawyer can weasel his way around the rules and legally claim the money without having to demonstrate anything supernatural at all.

It would be more amusing if these people just applied, rather than spent endless hours in theoretical ponderings over whether or not such a thing was possible and somehow the JREF could be "fooled" in this fashion.

Somehow, despite having an entire forum chock full of experts in a variety of fields, it's expected that nobody is going to spot an example of superconductivity and say "no, that's not paranormal, we aren't testing this claim".

[Sunray Breaker]

To follow up on previous comments, science cannot prove things like telepathy and such are impossible. It can only, based on its philosophical principles, demonstrate that it is very unlikely ... therefore science should expect very convincing evidence to accept it.
Exactly. And if you have very convincing evidence, bring it!!! That's all we're saying. If you're such an authority on the scientific method, why not take a million dollar challenge to discredit JREF's interpretation of science by showing them what you can do. It's pretty straight forward. JREF has the same basis for what is or is considered paranormal as pretty much anyone else...You're just looking to complain in my opinion. Aside from simple legal jargon that you're looking WAAAY to into, all they are asking is, state your claim and prove it! Period! What is so hard to understand?


So by your definition, the discovery of living Coelacanths was a paranormal event!? What about discovery of life on the ocean floor?
Your portrayal of science is very insulting to me.
Once something has been discovered, it leaves the realm of paranormal and enters the rigorous gauntlet known as the scientific method.

[Fnord]

... so, to any wooist cut from the same cloth as the OP I would say, "Put up or shut up!"

But that's just me, right?

[UncaYimmy]

It seems to me, Jeremy, that you are concerned about something that is not actually a problem. Take a moment to review the challenge applications submitted over the years. To the best of my knowledge they have been exactly what the JREF has been seeking. Nobody has submitted "scientific" claims. It's all psychic or clearly fraudulent nonsense. The challenge has not created any confusion about what science really is. Can you demonstrate where your concerns have manifested themselves in practice?

You seem to be hung up on the term explainable. I suggest you go hang out in the Science and/or Philosophy forums here. While humans can "explain" things, ultimately we come down to the fundamental forces of the universe, which cannot be explained any further. They just are what they are. Thus in a sense nothing can be fully explained because if you keep asking "why?" about anything it comes down to, "Because that's how the universe works."

That's just how things are, but it doesn't get in the way of science. More importantly, it doesn't get in the way of the challenge.

[JeremyBlye]

It has been predicted by scientists using scientific means, as far back as the mid-1980's (maybe sooner). I should know, since I helped set up some of the first copper-oxide and rare-earth superconductor experiments at MSU's Physics & Astronomy Department, back when Drs. Bass, Carlson, Cowen, Duxbury, and Harrison were running things in the Condensed Matter groups.
NO. To this very day the mechanism of high temperature superconductivity is beyond the grasp of scientists. Do we know it exists? YES. Do we know how to reproducably create a material with that property? YES. Does this mean the scientific method has explained it yet? NO. (EDIT: Here's a result of a quick google search, which starts with a very very brief summary of the status ssrl.slac.stanford.edu/research/highlights_archive/pseudogap.html ) Am I claiming this is beyond current scientific understanding? YES. Am I claiming that this is ultimately, and for all future times, beyond the scientific method? NO. Do I believe / have 'faith' that eventually the human race can figure it out? YES. But to claim things like the high temperature superconducting mechanism are scientifically understood just because the phenomenon is known is not only wrong, but severely missing the point of that example.

It will be a big breakthrough if someone figures it out. The fact that people here keep claiming it is explained only proves my point that this society is giving a very misleading impression of science.

Let me point out another example:
So by your definition, the discovery of living Coelacanths was a paranormal event!? What about discovery of life on the ocean floor?
Your portrayal of science is very insulting to me.
Once something has been discovered, it leaves the realm of paranormal and enters the rigorous gauntlet known as the scientific method.
This is the very thing I am complaining about. SCIENCE IS NOT A LIST OF FACTS. Including something in your list of facts does not make it suddenly understood. MANY people here (not everyone) seem to have the very misconseption of science that I am complaining about.

I have decided to stop posting here. Some are straight out insulting instead of discussing:
Reminol: Yes; [there is a disconnect] between your ears.
While numerous others seem like they are willfully ignoring what I am writing:
Fnord: ... so, to any wooist cut from the same cloth as the OP I would say, "Put up or shut up!"
thaiboxerken: So what's stopping you [from applying]?
Reminol: It would be more amusing if these people just applied

MY INTENT IS NOT TO COLLECT 1M$.
Come on people. I have explained numerous times (and from the very TITLE) that the point of this topic is that I feel this society misrepresents science.

To consider discovery of living Coelacanths as a paranormal event or life on the ocean floor as paranormal really _really_ irks me.

It has become clear that the majority here are going to willfully ignore what I am actually saying in order to 'have fun arguing'. So I am done with you. I thank the few others that have clearly read what I wrote and made helpful comments. It is appreciated.

I will leave with some final comments:
As I stated in the very first post, and have repeated in another post, "Trying to get people to critically view and scientifically approach wild claims is a _good_ thing. I applaud that."
The long list of failed attempts, people who have failed to demonstrate the paranormal under controlled settings, is indeed a useful tool. Even better is publically displaying the protocals, so adamant believers can get a glimpse of the type of critical thinking with which one should actually approach such claims. Like it or not, there are huge populations of people in the US that do not know how to scientifically approach something. I merely want the impression of science that this society presents (which, its intended purpose or not, this society does) to be accurate. The very definition of terms of the challenge does not do this, and the supporter's public discussions on these boards makes it even worse.

Science has often had trouble with incorrect public perception of it. I just wish "debunking" and "critical thinking" societies would not contribute to this problem. I tried. For those that carefully read and considered, thank you.

[thaiboxerken]

You're wrong, Blye. The JREF isn't really interested in the particulars of how a person thinks their flavor of superpower works, whether it's psychic, quantum, magic or alien technology. The challenge is about testing whether or not the person can do what they claim.

Superconductors are known to exist because they've been discovered and tested. Maybe we don't know how they work, or the exact mechanisms, but there are scientific tests that we can do to show that they really do, indeed, exist. So it's not about explaining a phenomena, but of showing that such phenomena is real.

[JeremyBlye]

Am I claiming superconductors are paranormal? NO. As should be obvious from my posts.
I request that you please reread to understand the point of my posts.

Good bye. This thread is yours to devolve however you wish now.

[In My Spare Time]

Am I claiming superconductors are paranormal? NO. As should be obvious from my posts.
I request that you please reread to understand the point of my posts.

Good bye. This thread is yours to devolve however you wish now.

From "I'm new here and mad at you" to "I'm leaving angry" in 6 posts. How does that compare to the records?

[laca]

NO. To this very day the mechanism of high temperature superconductivity is beyond the grasp of scientists. Do we know it exists? YES. Do we know how to reproducably create a material with that property? YES. Does this mean the scientific method has explained it yet? NO.


So what? What does this mean? Did you read the $1M application? How would this qualify?


Am I claiming this is beyond current scientific understanding? YES. Am I claiming that this is ultimately, and for all future times, beyond the scientific method? NO. Do I believe / have 'faith' that eventually the human race can figure it out? YES. But to claim things like the high temperature superconducting mechanism are scientifically understood just because the phenomenon is known is not only wrong, but severely missing the point of that example.


And you are severely missing the point of the MDC. I ask you again: even if the HTS is not yet scientifically explained, how does that make it your ability? Unless it can be considered an ability of yours, it hasnothing to do with the MDC. So all your posts are essentially a waste of time.


MY INTENT IS NOT TO COLLECT 1M$.
Come on people. I have explained numerous times (and from the very TITLE) that the point of this topic is that I feel this society misrepresents science.


And we feel that you are misunderstanding the challenge and that you misrepresent facts.


I will leave with some final comments:
As I stated in the very first post, and have repeated in another post, "Trying to get people to critically view and scientifically approach wild claims is a _good_ thing. I applaud that."
The long list of failed attempts, people who have failed to demonstrate the paranormal under controlled settings, is indeed a useful tool. Even better is publically displaying the protocals, so adamant believers can get a glimpse of the type of critical thinking with which one should actually approach such claims. Like it or not, there are huge populations of people in the US that do not know how to scientifically approach something. I merely want the impression of science that this society presents (which, its intended purpose or not, this society does) to be accurate. The very definition of terms of the challenge does not do this, and the supporter's public discussions on these boards makes it even worse.


Please try to understand what has already been explained to you: the challenge is not about bringing up something that is not yet scientifically explainable. There are plenty of examples of that. It is about an ability that is unexplainable. That one word makes all the difference. Ability.


Science has often had trouble with incorrect public perception of it. I just wish "debunking" and "critical thinking" societies would not contribute to this problem. I tried. For those that carefully read and considered, thank you.

You quote an item out of the MDC FAQ out of context (i.e. without the actual application text) and go on ranting about how this forum's members mistreat science and you.

I can't say for others, but I won't miss you a bit. Nor did you make any impression on me. Good bye. And may the science be with you.

[laca]

Am I claiming superconductors are paranormal? NO. As should be obvious from my posts.
I request that you please reread to understand the point of my posts.


And we request that you reread to understand our posts. Your claims are worthless. And still you go mumbling on. Read the challenge application.


Good bye. This thread is yours to devolve however you wish now.

Why do I suddenly feel that this is not the end of it?

[Ysidro]

Why do I suddenly feel that this is not the end of it?

If you're right, you're still not getting the Million. :p

[Fnord]

Good bye. This thread is yours to devolve however you wish now.

.
You'll be back.

I hope that you will prove me wrong, though. Please feel free to do so.

;)

[thaiboxerken]

Am I claiming superconductors are paranormal? NO. As should be obvious from my posts.
I request that you please reread to understand the point of my posts.

Good bye. This thread is yours to devolve however you wish now.

You're claiming that the MDC is misrepresenting or making a caricature of science. It is not. The MDC is about establishing whether or not a paranormal phenomena actually occurs or not. It's not about whether or not there is a scientific explanation for such phenomena. I hope you come back to read and become educated as to what the MDC is all about.

[RoboTimbo]

Do you make the "magical" substance yourself? If not, how can you claim any paranormal ability? If someone gives me a device I can read minds with, am I paranormal?

Actually, one only has to demonstrate something paranormal. If someone gave you a device that allowed you to read minds and you were the one who applied for the Challenge and demonstrated the ability to read minds, you would win the million.

You don't have to have a paranormal ability yourself. We went through this with The Professor. Actually, this sounds a lot like his ranting about "not scientifically explainable..."

Not that it matters here because:
Good bye.
Bye Blye.