Banachek taking over the MDC?

[Azrael 5]

Just saw this on Magic Cafe,apparently Banchek has confirmed this on Facebook! Sounds bizarre.
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=372119&forum=15&10

[wardenclyffe]

I asked this is the "Live Challenge Event" thread in the MDC sub-forum. Banachek is taking over from whom? Randi? Alison? If Banachek is running it now, who was running it before?

Ward

[rjh01]

I am surprised that we did not hear this via Swift first. Glad somebody is going to look after the MDC. I only hope they start updating the MDC sub forum. It has not been updated for ages.

[bookitty]

This came up at the demonstration. As I understand it, Allison handles the front end (applications, arrangements) and Banchek will doing the actual test.

Hope this makes sense, I am still very, very tired.

[CynicalSkeptic]

My involvement with the MDC is about to drastically change this month. I am taking full reign of the challenge for the JREF. I hope to make it more accessible to more people who want to attempt it. I hope to make it friendlier and bring more attention to it in the public eye and the media. Passing the challenge will not mean someone is psychic, just as failing does not mean they are not psychic. We would hope that if they passed we would bring more scientific attention to the claimant. Despite the fact we use scientific procedure for testing, it is not to be considered science. For it to be science it would have to be duplicated by others.

I also plan on setting up a separate web site for the challenge and making a few changes in the protocol of the challenge as it stands at this writing. You can find more about the MDC at:

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-faq.html (http://www.celebritydialogue.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=187%3Abanachek-the-mentalist-who-fooled-scientists&catid=43%3Aany&Itemid=41)
Interview linked to from his fb page.

[wardenclyffe]

I still don't understand who had "full reign" of it before Banachek.

Ward

[Allecher]

Maybe that is the point, wardenclyffe. Perhaps the tasks were divided amongst so many folks that no one was focusing on the "marketing" aspect of the MDC.

[rjh01]

I wonder why he plans to set up a new website to handle the MDC? What would he be able to do that would not be so easy on the current one?

Also timing?

[Alan]

Ooh, exciting!

Banachek is great and his comments about the direction of the MDC sound promising.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I still wish JREF would actually "call out" claimants (such as Sylvia Browne) with advertisements and press releases. I would rather the MDC actually target the big money frauds.

Nobody really cares that Anita Ikonen or Connie Sonne failed, but if the Claws were pressured into stepping up, I'll bet her public failure would open some eyes.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Nobody really cares that Anita Ikonen or Connie Sonne failed, but if the Claws were pressured into stepping up, I'll bet her public failure would open some eyes.

You sure? Peter Popoff is back in business.

[Azrael 5]

What is the situation with MDC now? I found a quote from Randi saying the money was being used elsewhere
Our scholarship funds can make better use of the million, and for that reason we will be terminating the prize offer on 6 March 2010.

http://newhumanist.org.uk/1836/they-should-have-seen-it-coming

Explain?

[Alan]

That is from 2008. There was a change of plan.

Here is an update:
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/640-million-dollar-challenge-update-its-not-ending.html
Written by Phil Plait
Wednesday, 29 July 2009 10:00

We have a fantastic announcement to make:

The JREF's famous Million Dollar Challenge will continue!

Last year, we announced that the MDC would end in March 2010 due to the strains on time and effort of the JREF staff. However, after much discussion, we have decided not to terminate the Challenge. Instead, we are in the process of examining how it can be improved, streamlined, and made more efficient so that we can continue to use it to test claims of the paranormal.

[Azrael 5]

That is from 2008. There was a change of plan.

I'll find a link of the update and edit in in.

Cheers Alan. I recall he told me personally in 2009 challenge wasnt ending , I assumed he had changed his mind again! ;)

[Uncayimmy]

I don't like what I've read from him so far. It sounds to me to be more like a paranormal investigation than a nut up or shut up challenge. I especially do not like the language about proving or disproving somebody to be psychic because it presents being psychic as if it's an reasonable possibility. He sounds like VFF spouting her nonsense.

The Challenge should have meaning. He presents it like, "Well, if they pass, scientists should look further. If they don't pass, well, that doesn't mean they are not psychic." Well, then, what does it mean? What's the point of the test? A free shot a million bucks with a shrug if you fail?

I think the challenge should be, "If you pass, we'll be utterly amazed. We'll scrutinize the tests to figure out what we missed in our protocol because we highly doubt that our challenge is actually going to produce some unknown piece of science. By contrast, if you fail to do what you claim to do, then, really, you need to stop squawking about it, and observers should strongly consider that every time a so-called psychic is put under scientific controls, they fail."

[wardenclyffe]

Where are you reading what he's written?

Ward

[Uncayimmy]

Just blog comments so far. For example, in regards to the VFF demonstration he said, "in this case the result was negative and would been just as non important if positive." The reality is that the demonstration was perfectly suited to allow her to show her alleged ablities. It simply lacked the controls to eliminate other explanations. Her failure is quite significant, yet he called it non important. His quotes earlier in this thread seem to echo the same sentiments.

I have a big problem with that.

[Geek Goddess]

I think the challenge should be, "If you pass, we'll be utterly amazed. We'll scrutinize the tests to figure out what we missed in our protocol because we highly doubt that our challenge is actually going to produce some unknown piece of science. By contrast, if you fail to do what you claim to do, then, really, you need to stop squawking about it, and observers should strongly consider that every time a so-called psychic is put under scientific controls, they fail."

You don't hear them talk about it in meeting, live events, Randi being interviewed? I had dinner with Banachek about two weeks ago, and this is the time of thing he has in mind. If you win - you'll be famous. When someone fails to pass a challenge test (every case so far), it's also promoted as that. Why do you think they keep trying to challenge Syliva Browne?

[Uncayimmy]

You don't hear them talk about it in meeting, live events, Randi being interviewed?
I'm not talking about them. I am talking about Banachek. He's the subject of this thread, after all. It sounds to me like he's changing things.

I had dinner with Banachek about two weeks ago, and this is the time of thing he has in mind. If you win - you'll be famous. When someone fails to pass a challenge test (every case so far), it's also promoted as that. Why do you think they keep trying to challenge Syliva Browne?
Under his guidance the only "challenge" was VFF's demonstration, and he stated that her failure was as non-important as if she passed. He did not take the opportunity to point out that her failure was yet another nail in the coffin. But I pointed that out already in this thread.

If you have some additional public comments, I'd be interested in reading them.

[bookitty]

Just blog comments so far. For example, in regards to the VFF demonstration he said, "in this case the result was negative and would been just as non important if positive." The reality is that the demonstration was perfectly suited to allow her to show her alleged ablities. It simply lacked the controls to eliminate other explanations. Her failure is quite significant, yet he called it non important. His quotes earlier in this thread seem to echo the same sentiments.

I have a big problem with that.

You're paraphrasing what was said about a demonstration and applying it to the MDC.

If VFF had chosen the correct person/kidney, would that have been significant?

[Uncayimmy]

You're paraphrasing what was said about a demonstration and applying it to the MDC.
I quoted, not paraphrased, what the person running the MDC said in regards to an MDC demonstration made as part of a presentation about the MDC.

If VFF had chosen the correct person/kidney, would that have been significant?
I have already addressed this several times both in this thread and another in which you participated. I addressed it my blog, which you referenced reading. Why are you asking me yet again to explain this?

There are two major considerations when setting up a challenge. The first is that the protocol must permit the claimant to demonstrate her "abilities." The second is that the protocol must eliminate the possibility of the claimant using any "normal" means to do what she says she can do. The MDC demonstration met the first consideration but not the latter. Therefore, any success would have been insignificant to skeptics (but not to woos, of course).

Failure on her part was most definitely significant because she had ideal conditions to demonstrate her ability. She was taking all sorts of notes indicating that her ability was working. She said it was working. She told everyone that she was confident in her selection. And she blew it.

Banachek treated both outcomes equally, and I think that's ridiculous. It's the same crap VFF has pulled for the last year. She sets up ****** tests where success would be meaningless and then argues that the failure is meaningless as well.

It's like somebody claiming they can dunk a basketball on a regulation 10 foot basket. You hand them a ball and ask them to dunk it on a 9 foot basket, and they can't even get the ball above the rim. Success would have been meaningless, but failure told you that their claim was ********.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Suggestion: Let it go.

Seriously, you bring VFF up way too much, and because of how Banachek treated the MDC re:VFF you oppose him? When you begin a test you are obligated to treat both equally in order to be neutral, regardless of previous results. (Especially as part of a PR thing.)


I think the challenge should be, "If you pass, we'll be utterly amazed. We'll scrutinize the tests to figure out what we missed in our protocol because we highly doubt that our challenge is actually going to produce some unknown piece of science. By contrast, if you fail to do what you claim to do, then, really, you need to stop squawking about it, and observers should strongly consider that every time a so-called psychic is put under scientific controls, they fail."

Yeah, that's so clearly unbiased.

Let it go.

[Uncayimmy]

Suggestion: Let it go.
I have no interest in your suggestions about what I do with my time. Please restrict your comments to the subject of this thread, which is Banachek, not me.

Seriously, you bring VFF up way too much, and because of how Banachek treated the MDC re:VFF you oppose him?
I have expressed my opinions on his conduct this far regarding the MDC. It was his choice to have a demonstration with VFF, not mine. I have been vocal in the MDC forum for quite a while, and my position about what the MDC should be is easily discerned by someone willing to do a bit of research. That his first actions dealt with VFF does not preclude me from commenting on them.

Besides, I have commented on the few other things he's been quoted as saying regarding the MDC. Unfortunately, he's been pretty quiet about things. That's typical of the JREF, though - making a big announcement and then not following through with anything meaningful.

When you begin a test you are obligated to treat both equally in order to be neutral, regardless of previous results. (Especially as part of a PR thing.)
Thanks for demonstrating quite clearly the horrible direction that the MDC is going. This "treat things equally" stuff is why school systems want to teach intelligent design alongside evolution. It's why the press likes to say there is a "debate" about the safety of vaccines, especially with regards to autism.

The JREF puts up $1M precisely because they are not neutral. The challenge exists precisely because we have centuries of paranormal claims that have repeatedly failed to produce anything useful and repeatable. The JREF is not neutral because science is not neutral about these ideas, most of which are simply ridiculous.

The MDC exists as a put up or shut up challenge. If somebody fails to put up, the JREF should made it clear that it's expected that they shut up. The only obligation the JREF has is to be fair. That means that the test conditions should allow the claimant to do what they say they can do.

But neutral? That's silly. Nobody puts up a $1M against $0 when they hold a neutral position.


Yeah, that's so clearly unbiased.
So, Rika, tell me this: Are claimants putting up $1M as well?

Let it go.
Oh, well since you wrote it a second time and put it in bold, you've convinced me. It scares me to think that had you used italics instead of bold I might never have let go. You're a life saver! Thanks so much!

[KoihimeNakamura]

Thanks for demonstrating quite clearly the horrible direction that the MDC is going. This "treat things equally" stuff is why school systems want to teach intelligent design alongside evolution. It's why the press likes to say there is a "debate" about the safety of vaccines, especially with regards to autism.

1) "This "treat things equally" stuff is why school systems want to teach intelligent design alongside evolution." Equivocation; testing claims and teaching are not analogous (durr); hasty generalization (coming from the testing claims to teaching the conclusions of current testing is a generalization) (hurr)

2) "Thanks for demonstrating quite clearly the horrible direction that the MDC is going." Conclusion; but also a slippery slope (how do you know this is a horrible decision?)


The JREF puts up $1M precisely because they are not neutral. The challenge exists precisely because we have centuries of paranormal claims that have repeatedly failed to produce anything useful and repeatable. The JREF is not neutral because science is not neutral about these ideas, most of which are simply ridiculous. 3) "The challenge exists precisely because we have centuries of paranormal claims that have repeatedly failed to produce anything useful and repeatable." Argument from ignorance (Just because no one has proved it yet means it cannot be proven, just that with our current understanding it is impossible.) (also "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.")


The MDC exists as a put up or shut up challenge. If somebody fails to put up, the JREF should made it clear that it's expected that they shut up. The only obligation the JREF has is to be fair. That means that the test conditions should allow the claimant to do what they say they can do.

But neutral? That's silly. Nobody puts up a $1M against $0 when they hold a neutral position. In this case I was using neutral (my fault) as a synonym for fair, but the test performer should generally be neutral regarding the possibility of the test being positive.

So, Rika, tell me this: Are claimants putting up $1M as well? Red herring (the claimants putting up money should not affect the JREF's position on a positive test.)

ETA: Also, I'm sure you know this, but once you have made a conclusion and will not allow change you are now dogmatic, not skeptical. I'm sure you're going to point to the fact no one has succeeded, but that is an appeal to ignorance, so YMMV.

[KoihimeNakamura]

I should clarify something:

I'm not saying you can't make conclusions, but I'm saying a test has to ignore all previous conclusions.

For example, Sylvia Browne has been tested by comparing readings/predictions to reality. So you CAN conclude that she is fake.

But if she were to go for a test... I don't think I'd say around the test she's a fake until after the test was announced. And if she passed, I'd repeat the test.

[Uncayimmy]

1) "This "treat things equally" stuff is why school systems want to teach intelligent design alongside evolution." Equivocation; testing claims and teaching are not analogous (durr); hasty generalization (coming from the testing claims to teaching the conclusions of current testing is a generalization) (hurr)
What do you mean by durr and hurr? As for the rest of it, well, I don't think your points are formed well enough for debate. Sorry.

2) "Thanks for demonstrating quite clearly the horrible direction that the MDC is going." Conclusion; but also a slippery slope (how do you know this is a horrible decision?)
I've already explained this. Several times, actually.

3) "The challenge exists precisely because we have centuries of paranormal claims that have repeatedly failed to produce anything useful and repeatable." Argument from ignorance (Just because no one has proved it yet means it cannot be proven, just that with our current understanding it is impossible.) (also "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.")

If you think that's an argument from ignorance, I'm not sure what I can do to persuade you otherwise. Regardless, what I said is true. The $1M is on the line because James Randi believes it is safe.

In this case I was using neutral (my fault) as a synonym for fair, but the test performer should generally be neutral regarding the possibility of the test being positive.
Why? This is not science. This is a challenge, a one-time (well, two-time) event where the entity issuing the challenge is so confident in failure that they are willing to risk $1M.

Red herring (the claimants putting up money should not affect the JREF's position on a positive test.)
You're missing the point. You called my paraphrasing of the challenge biased, but you fail to realize that the challenge is biased. That's why the JREF puts up $1M and the claimant puts up nothing.

ETA: Also, I'm sure you know this, but once you have made a conclusion and will not allow change you are now dogmatic, not skeptical. I'm sure you're going to point to the fact no one has succeeded, but that is an appeal to ignorance, so YMMV.
What are you talking about when you refer to not allowing change? It seems like you're talking about someone succeeding in winning the $1M. I don't believe it can be done, but if it is done, then it's done. Do you think I would somehow refuse to believe that the JREF forked over the $1M?

Or maybe you're referring to the fact that every paranormal claim so far has wilted under the harsh light of the scientific method. I don't believe any will survive or that we should waste time testing them again. That's not an argument from ignorance nor am I being dogmatic. I'm being reasonable and practical.

Science is littered with abandoned ideas and theories because they failed under scrutiny. Does each generation of scientists need to repeat centuries of tests in order to discard all the crap that people once believed? Of course not. That's why mainstream science builds MRI machines instead of testing people claiming they can see inside the human body.

Groups like the JREF and the IIG are around to deal with the more vocal proponents of these claims. They put up big money to lure these people into submitting to testing because they know the claimants will fail. They negotiate a protocol that is accepted by the claimant, so it doesn't matter if they are "non-believers" or don't "want" the person to pass. The protocol takes care of that.

What I'm saying, which seemed to grab your attention, is that when these people fail to demonstrate their abilities in situations they believe should permit their abilities to work, that is important. Banachek said it was non-important. He said he wants to make it "friendlier" and said that failing the test "does not mean they are not psychic."

I have serious problems with that attitude. There is no such thing as being psychic, but his statement implies that it's a real possibility. The reality is that failing reinforces the notion that psychics do not exist. That message needs to be made clear.

[Uncayimmy]

I should clarify something:

I'm not saying you can't make conclusions, but I'm saying a test has to ignore all previous conclusions.
I find this statement confusing. What do you mean?

The MDC is more of a challenge (hence the name) than a test. The only thing it could be said to be "testing" is whether a claimant can do what they describe under conditions that experts believe eliminate all known methods for producing the required results. The reason $1M is put on the line is because the JREF believes it's not going to happen.

The evaluation of pass/fail is self-evident, so I don't understand why you are bringing up "previous conclusions" as something that must be ignored.

For example, Sylvia Browne has been tested by comparing readings/predictions to reality. So you CAN conclude that she is fake.
By your logic, that's an argument from ignorance. We don't know every prediction she has ever made, and for all we know, she might actually predict something correctly. You seem to be inconsistent.

But if she were to go for a test... I don't think I'd say around the test she's a fake until after the test was announced. And if she passed, I'd repeat the test.
The JREF has called her a fraud. They put $1M on the line because they are so confident in this conclusion. Even if they don't say aloud that she's a fake, everyone knows they think that. Why is it so important to back down from that position simply because she agrees to a test?

More importantly, I have been referring to what happens after the test. She would fail, and the JREF should put this crown on the top of the heap of inaccurate claims and announce her officially and completely debunked. They shouldn't say, as Banachek proposes, "This doesn't mean she's not a psychic."

As for her passing, you may not be aware that the MDC requires two successes. So far nobody has passed the first one. If anyone does, they have do it a second time to claim the $1M. Beyond that, the JREF is not a scientific organization. As Banacheck correctly states, it would be something for scientists to investigate, not the JREF. This is further evidence of how this is a challenge, and a biased one at that.

What's so ridiculous is if someone were to claim the $1M, there are a variety of paranormal explanations to explain their ability, and scientists would have their work cut out trying to test them. Take VFF as an example. Suppose she really did spot the locations of missing kidneys where the odds of doing it by chance were 1 in a million. Does it mean she can see inside the human body? How do we know it wasn't one of her other abilities?

Telepathy: She says she can read minds. Maybe she read the minds of the subjects or the person who set up the subjects.

Super Hearing: She says she can hear red blood cells scraping together, so maybe she was able to hear functioning kidneys and determined which orifice was lacking in sound.

Super Smelling: She claims she can smell stomach contents and urine inside the body. Maybe she used her super smelling to figure out which orifices lacked a kidney.

Talking to Ghosts: She claims she can talk to ghosts, so maybe a ghost listened in during the setup of the test and told her the answers.

Transmitting Light: She claims she can transmit light into the human body and detect the effects. Maybe she fired her lasers into each orifice and read the results.

Those are just her claims. Some claim they can see the future, so how do we know they just didn't peek ahead? Some claim they can travel outside of their bodies. Some can dowse, so how do we know she's not dowsing with the pen she uses to write her notes? Some say they can control the minds of others, so maybe she was a puppet of somebody in the audience. Maybe god told her the answers.

My point is that these paranormal claims are ridiculous, and they should be treated as the ridiculous claims they are. We shouldn't just shrug off failure. We should point out that the results are exactly what we expected and try to get the message out to the public just how silly this stuff really is.

[bookitty]

What I'm saying, which seemed to grab your attention, is that when these people fail to demonstrate their abilities in situations they believe should permit their abilities to work, that is important. Banachek said it was non-important. He said he wants to make it "friendlier" and said that failing the test "does not mean they are not psychic."


Can you please show me where Banachek said that failing the test does not mean that claimants are not psychic.

[Uncayimmy]

Can you please show me where Banachek said that failing the test does not mean that claimants are not psychic.

Post #5 in this thread:

"Passing the challenge will not mean someone is psychic, just as failing does not mean they are not psychic."

He also wrote a blog comment about VFF's demonstration where he said, "in this case the result was negative and would been just as non important if positive." As I have repeatedly stated, the conditions were suitable for VFF to demonstrate her claimed abilities but unsuitable to eliminate other ordinary and mundane means of success. Therefore, I agree with him that a positive result would have been "non important" in regards to how skeptics would view her claim. However, her failure was further evidence that her claims are nonsense.

His two statements, one about an actual demonstration and one about future demonstrations, seem to indicate a change in direction to which I take exception. I am open to clarification, but as of yet I have seen nothing.

I will also say that I am disappointed that he feels the need to start a separate website for the MDC. I consider it a slap in the face to the many people who regularly participate in the MDC forum on this board. I know you have expressed your acceptance of the JREF's seeming disregard of the value of the forums, so we don't need to go down that road again if you have no issues with his decision.

I'm also disappointed but not surprised that nothing has actually happened. The JREF likes to talk about things they are going to do, but quite often nothing ever comes of it. See this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=163828) in the MDC forum. In August 2009 it was announced that exciting changes were coming to the MDC in the spring. So far the only two changes are that the JREF stopped updating the Challenge Applications sub-forum a year ago and Banachek announced he was taking over.

If there's going to be a new website, why isn't it done already? Honestly, it's not rocket surgery. It has been a year since the announcement, so it's not like there hasn't been time. And why make yet another announcement of things to come? Why not just announce it when it's ready?

It seems to me like the MDC is becoming a joke. I'm sure a lot of people found the JREF through the MDC. I know I had a blast reading through challenge applications long before I joined the board. At this point I feel more comfortable referring to it in the past tense and don't feel comfortable referring people to it.

[bookitty]

Post #5 in this thread:

"Passing the challenge will not mean someone is psychic, just as failing does not mean they are not psychic."


His two statements, one about an actual demonstration and one about future demonstrations, seem to indicate a change in direction to which I take exception. I am open to clarification, but as of yet I have seen nothing.


Thank you. I had overlooked that and I do apologize.

It was overlooked because I read it in the context of skepticism vs cynicism, not the MDC. This came up at TAM a few different times. At one point Randi said that he didn't like the word debunkers. It implies that we already know the answers. (This made for some interesting moments in the discussions that followed :D)


I will also say that I am disappointed that he feels the need to start a separate website for the MDC. I consider it a slap in the face to the many people who regularly participate in the MDC forum on this board. I know you have expressed your acceptance of the JREF's seeming disregard of the value of the forums, so we don't need to go down that road again if you have no issues with his decision.


There isn't any reason that an MDC website would distract from the forum. All of the other categories reference outside websites on a regular basis and benefit from them.


I'm also disappointed but not surprised that nothing has actually happened. The JREF likes to talk about things they are going to do, but quite often nothing ever comes of it...

This is a valid criticism. There has been very little activity in regards to the MDC for quite a while now. The reasons are probably mundane - Randi's illness, the changing of the guard, a lack of potential applicants who can get through the process, etc. Whatever the reasons, it's been quiet.

This is incredibly frustrating. I came here because of the MDC as well. It's what the JREF is known for. Banachek's talk about the MDC was great. It's not just about a new website, it's about getting the media involved, bringing the challenge to the applicants, using the showbiz aspects as a learning tools. Terrific stuff.

But since TAM...nothing. It's only been a month, some of the changes will take funds, time and work. I understand that. At the same time, the MDC still seems to stuck in limbo.

[SimpleIrony]

Post #5 in this thread:

"Passing the challenge will not mean someone is psychic, just as failing does not mean they are not psychic."

This isn't in anyway contrary to what Randi has always said about the prize. He has always stated that the challenge doesn't prove that paranormal phenomena don't exist; it only shows that no one has been able to demonstrate that it does (even with a big incentive to do so).

Absence of evidence isn't the same as evidence of absence. The burden of proof is on the people claiming the ability, but their inability to prove it is not the same as proving the contrary.

As for the first part, I would assume you agree that doing something once (no matter how unlikely) could be a fluke, and demands further study.

If anything, the comment just shows a commitment to scientific standards of evidence.

I'm not going to comment on most of the rest of your post because who am I to say you should like or approve of anything? The one thing I will comment on is this:


If there's going to be a new website, why isn't it done already? Honestly, it's not rocket surgery.

I love this.

[Uncayimmy]

Thank you. I had overlooked that and I do apologize.

It was overlooked because I read it in the context of skepticism vs cynicism, not the MDC. This came up at TAM a few different times. At one point Randi said that he didn't like the word debunkers. It implies that we already know the answers. (This made for some interesting moments in the discussions that followed :D)
We've gone over this many times in GS&P. In my mind debunkers don't know the answers - they just know what the answer is not. It's not a ghost. It's not telepathy. It's not aliens. Critical thinking requires looking at all of the evidence and weighing it accordingly, and that means acknowledging that these paranormal explanations never pan out whereas there's a wealth of proven science that offers sound explanations.

I don't think we should get sucked into looking at each claim in isolation out of a fear of being called close minded because the minds that are closed are the ones ignoring all of the scientifically plausible explanations and jumping to unproven fantasy.

There isn't any reason that an MDC website would distract from the forum. All of the other categories reference outside websites on a regular basis and benefit from them.
What do you mean by distract?

These are the JREF Forums. The MDC is sponsored by the JREF. There are countless links from other sites to the JREF website and specifically the MDC. There's a long and rich history of challenge applications here along with a long and rich history of discussions about protocols. I don't see the point in starting another website when everything he needs is right here.

Sure, people could start threads here based on the new site, but that's just extra work. Somebody has to monitor the new site. If there's a discussion board on the new site, it's going to be a pain in the ass. Do we really need another place to discuss it? Do we all need to register on another site just to do what we can already do here? If someone shows up in GS&P spouting a claim, we'll have to refer them to another site rather than just pointing them to the MDC forum and suggesting they start a thread.

I have some experience in this regard. The StopVFF was started in part because the forums here were inadequate to accomplish the goals. For one thing, the moderated threads were hampering discussion. Also, the threads were simply too big (thousands of posts) to be of practical use. The StopVFF discussion board allowed us to organize subject matter into different threads, something we just couldn't do here. And, of course, I also wrote blogs and other articles as resources.

However, there are many people here who never bothered to register on the StopVFF site yet continue to discuss it here. That wasn't unexpected, and I don't blame people for wanting to discuss it here rather than there. Even people who participate on StopVFF make posts here about VFF. Still, though, it's kind of messy. There is overlap in the discussions. There are points and facts that are unique to each site, and that's counter to my goal of having a central location for information.

My point is that there were problems discussing VFF here and clear benefits to creating StopVFF. If I could have gotten a VFF sub-forum without moderated threads and the ability to blog and post articles here, that would have been much better.

I can be convinced that the MDC would benefit from its own site. As it stands now I don't see any problems that need to be addressed nor can I imagine any benefits. I can, however, see problems that will arise.

This is a valid criticism. There has been very little activity in regards to the MDC for quite a while now. The reasons are probably mundane - Randi's illness, the changing of the guard, a lack of potential applicants who can get through the process, etc. Whatever the reasons, it's been quiet.
What I find frustrating is that nobody from the JREF has taken the few minutes needed to post an update, even if it's just to say, "The reason we haven't posted any MDC applications is because we haven't received any." I doubt that's the case anyway. There were 8 applications posted in 2007, 8 in 2008, 11 in 2009 (through August), and none in the last year. That seems a bit odd to me.

This is incredibly frustrating. I came here because of the MDC as well. It's what the JREF is known for. Banachek's talk about the MDC was great. It's not just about a new website, it's about getting the media involved, bringing the challenge to the applicants, using the showbiz aspects as a learning tools. Terrific stuff.

But since TAM...nothing. It's only been a month, some of the changes will take funds, time and work. I understand that. At the same time, the MDC still seems to stuck in limbo.
There have been a number of good suggestions regarding the MDC. It's a shame that Banachek hasn't posted in the MDC forum and that we have to rely on people such as yourself to tell us what's coming.

[Uncayimmy]

This isn't in anyway contrary to what Randi has always said about the prize. He has always stated that the challenge doesn't prove that paranormal phenomena don't exist; it only shows that no one has been able to demonstrate that it does (even with a big incentive to do so).
One of his books is called "Flim-Flam Psychics, ESP, Unicorns and other Delusions." In case you're not aware, flim-flam means deceptive nonsense. The chapter about the challenge is called "Put up or Shut up." He refers to some claimants as "nutties" who are deluded in their beliefs. He refers to the rest as "fakes" as being "unwilling" to take the challenge.

So, I don't buy your claim that Randi believes that failing the test doesn't prove they are not psychic because Randi very clearly believes these people are frauds or deluded. Psychics don't exist, and the possibility simply isn't even on the table. I prefer not to engage in a semantic quibble about what failure in a single test "proves" because I see it as one more example in a huge pile of failures.

Absence of evidence isn't the same as evidence of absence. The burden of proof is on the people claiming the ability, but their inability to prove it is not the same as proving the contrary.
That's a philosophical argument that I find rather silly because it is inaccurately applied here. You see, it's not like there's an absence of evidence. Negative test results are evidence. If 10,000 people hold a match to a piece of iron and it doesn't catch fire, that is evidence that iron is not flammable by a match. Anyone making the claim otherwise is simply wrong. It's downright silly to say, "Well, we did our own test and the iron didn't catch on fire, but we can't say that iron cannot be burned by a match. After all, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

When you climb down from the ivory tower and go out in the real world, you'll quickly realize that absence of evidence is something we rely upon every day. Will the bridge collapse when I drive my car across it? No, because thousands of cars cross it every day. There is an absence of evidence that it's dangerous. Will my shoes turn into serpents? No, because they never have before, and there's no evidence that any such thing has ever happened in the history of the world.

A skeptic can and should live life by making judgment calls about the absence of evidence. Hell, everyone does it to some degree. We'd get nothing done if we did otherwise. The skeptics only obligation in that regard is to accept reliable evidence if and when it is presented. That doesn't obligate him to test every silly claim multiple times looking for evidence nor does it obligate him to equivocate on every single ridiculous claim out there.

As for the first part, I would assume you agree that doing something once (no matter how unlikely) could be a fluke, and demands further study.
No, I don't necessarily agree unless by "study" you mean examine the protocol for flaws and review the video for evidence of cheating. One of the inherent problems with encouraging more people to submit to tests is that it increases the odds of success. If you run enough 1 in 1,000 odds tests, somebody is going to get lucky. The IIG tested Regen Taylor, and his modus operandi is try these tests in the hopes of getting lucky. He wasn't serious about his ability. He just figured he'd spend a few hours for a shot at $50,000. Why not? I've wasted money at a casino doing in effect the same thing.

If anything, the comment just shows a commitment to scientific standards of evidence.
I disagree. The challenge is not science. If it were science, it wouldn't even exist because real scientists don't waste their time on frauds and deluded people making impossible claims. Scientists don't offer financial incentives to the subjects of their studies. They don't broadcast them over the Internet.

The challenge does not prove anything with a positive result, so there's no "standard of evidence" in place. The challenge has a protocol that allows the claimant to do what they claim they can do while at the same time preventing them from using known means to accomplish the task.

Mr. Randi specifically tells claimants he is not interested in their pet theories. If the challenges were scientific, they would be addressing those theories. See my other post about VFF's claims about seeing inside the human body. Since she claims to be able to smell and hear things inside the human body, any test of seeing inside the human body would require her to wear ear plugs and nose plugs. Since she claims she can read minds, the subjects should have been corpses. Then again, she claims to be able to talk to ghosts, so how do you control for that?

My point is that this is not science. It's a bet: $1M versus humiliation (to put it bluntly). The JREF says in effect, "We don't give a **** how you think you can do it. We just believe you can't do it, and we're going to eliminate all known methods at your disposal. So put up or shut up."

If anyone ever passes, it will be through dumb luck, a flaw in the protocol, sophisticated cheating or collusion. Since they have to do it twice, dumb luck is the least likely explanation. I doubt anyone who succeeds will submit to scientific testing. They will take the $1M and take their show on the road.

After all, the paranormal is flim-flam.


I'm not going to comment on most of the rest of your post because who am I to say you should like or approve of anything? The one thing I will comment on is this:
I am presenting my opinion and supporting it. You should do the same. Perhaps we shall enlighten each other or those reading the thread. Everyone has the right to express their opinion, and a discussion forum is the ideal place to do it.

[SimpleIrony]

One of his books is called "Flim-Flam Psychics, ESP, Unicorns and other Delusions." In case you're not aware, flim-flam means deceptive nonsense. The chapter about the challenge is called "Put up or Shut up." He refers to some claimants as "nutties" who are deluded in their beliefs. He refers to the rest as "fakes" as being "unwilling" to take the challenge.

I haven't read the book. I was basing my comments on interviews he had given. Strange that there is such a discrepancy.


I am presenting my opinion and supporting it. You should do the same. Perhaps we shall enlighten each other or those reading the thread. Everyone has the right to express their opinion, and a discussion forum is the ideal place to do it.

I did present and support my opinion. You just responded to it. I also said you had the right to your opinion. Am I missing something here?

[mike3]

That's a philosophical argument that I find rather silly because it is inaccurately applied here. You see, it's not like there's an absence of evidence. Negative test results are evidence. If 10,000 people hold a match to a piece of iron and it doesn't catch fire, that is evidence that iron is not flammable by a match. Anyone making the claim otherwise is simply wrong. It's downright silly to say, "Well, we did our own test and the iron didn't catch on fire, but we can't say that iron cannot be burned by a match. After all, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

When you climb down from the ivory tower and go out in the real world, you'll quickly realize that absence of evidence is something we rely upon every day. Will the bridge collapse when I drive my car across it? No, because thousands of cars cross it every day. There is an absence of evidence that it's dangerous. Will my shoes turn into serpents? No, because they never have before, and there's no evidence that any such thing has ever happened in the history of the world.


However, this is not "absence of evidence" because all that negative evidence exists. Unless by "absence of evidence" they mean "absence of evidence of presence", in which case the argument is technically correct at least up to the point of arguing for an "agnostic" "open" stance (it is flawed to use it to argue for actual presence), but doesn't work since the point is not being argued from the simple lack of positive evidence as from the fact that that lack has remained despite attempt after attempt to turn up that positive evidence. That is evidence, evidence against the claim.

[Uncayimmy]

I haven't read the book. I was basing my comments on interviews he had given. Strange that there is such a discrepancy.

What comments are those?

Here's a comment from November:

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/231-a-direct-specific-challenge-from-james-randi-and-the-jref.html
This Foundation will give you our million-dollar prize upon the successful testing of the ADE651® device. Such test can be performed by anyone, anywhere, under your conditions, by you or by any appointed person or persons, in direct satisfaction of any or all of the provisions laid out above by you.

No one will respond to this, because the ADE651® is a useless, quack, device which cannot perform any other function than separating naïve persons from their money. It’s a fake, a scam, a swindle, and a blatant fraud. The manufacturers, distributors, vendors, advertisers, and retailers of the ADE651® device are criminals, liars, and thieves who will ignore this challenge because they know the device, the theory, the described principles of operation, and the technical descriptions given, are nonsense, lies, and fraudulent.

Prove me wrong and take the million dollars. I am James Randi, citizen of the United States of America, resident in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and thoroughly identified through the James Randi Educational Foundation described at www.randi.org.

Maybe I have to read between the lines to see a friendly "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" message.

Here's another quote:

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/783-this-cruel-farce-has-to-stop.html
No, that is not what the man said, Dr. Snyderman. That's what an incompetent layperson typed for him! I ask you to first go to http://tinyurl.com/y8lku48, and note the section of the video from 12 to 35 seconds, then come back here.

This is yet another obvious example of abysmal, practiced, purposeful ignorance by medical personnel - including Dr. Snyderman and her staff who prepared this piece. I cannot understand how anyone, professional medical person or layman, can continue to believe that the farce known as "Facilitated Communication" [FC] represents anything other than a fantasy that was begun back in 1977...

Granted, it's not directly regarding the MDC, but his tone is pretty clear to me.

Here he comments on psychics:

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/153-swift-february-1-2008.html
Yes, the “legitimate” psychic is that old scam artist Simon Turnbull, who I’ve run into previously, several times. I must admit that Turnbull is certainly as legitimate and accurate as any other psychic I’ve ever met…

Again, the tone is pretty clear to me at least.

I did present and support my opinion. You just responded to it. I also said you had the right to your opinion. Am I missing something here?
You said you would not be responding to the rest of my post because "who am I to say you should like or approve of anything?" I'm just saying that you have the right to do give it a go.

[Uncayimmy]

However, this is not "absence of evidence" because all that negative evidence exists. Unless by "absence of evidence" they mean "absence of evidence of presence", in which case the argument is technically correct at least up to the point of arguing for an "agnostic" "open" stance (it is flawed to use it to argue for actual presence), but doesn't work since the point is not being argued from the simple lack of positive evidence as from the fact that that lack has remained despite attempt after attempt to turn up that positive evidence. That is evidence, evidence against the claim.

I think we agree. :confused: I said that the phrase is inaccurately applied when used to justify the statement, "If you fail a test designed to prove you are psychic it doesn't mean you are not psychic." I have no qualms about saying somebody is not psychic because despite countless tests, it's never been proven once. The one additional failure is like a grain of sand on the beach.

[bookitty]

What do you mean by distract?

These are the JREF Forums. The MDC is sponsored by the JREF. There are countless links from other sites to the JREF website and specifically the MDC. There's a long and rich history of challenge applications here along with a long and rich history of discussions about protocols. I don't see the point in starting another website when everything he needs is right here.

Sure, people could start threads here based on the new site, but that's just extra work. Somebody has to monitor the new site. If there's a discussion board on the new site, it's going to be a pain in the ass. Do we really need another place to discuss it? Do we all need to register on another site just to do what we can already do here? If someone shows up in GS&P spouting a claim, we'll have to refer them to another site rather than just pointing them to the MDC forum and suggesting they start a thread.



A website and a forum offer different ways to approach a topic. A forum is a rowdy democracy, a website is a platform. You mentioned the StopVff site and the problems with having two forums. Had you used your site to write a series of articles, all of the necessary information would have been in one place.

(I am not saying you should have done this, it's only a simplified example. There were a number of reasons why StopVFF needed to have lively forum.)

The MDC is not just for skeptics. Skeptics already know the tricks, they know the techniques, and they know how to find inconsistencies. The skeptical community gets a great deal of entertainment from challenges and there are some great discussions about statistics and loopholes. But it doesn't make them rethink long-held ideas about the paranormal.

If the main purpose of the MDC is educate people outside the skeptical community, these forums might not be the best media. A website or blog can present the case, offer some historical perspective, clearly define the statistics and build up tension in a succinct fashion. There is no wading through extraneous information, dodging people who didn't get the DBAD memo, or straying away from the subject.

There will be behind the scenes chatter and it will happen here. There's a very good chance that someone whose interested is sparked by the MDC website will want more information, they will end up here.

[Uncayimmy]

A website and a forum offer different ways to approach a topic. A forum is a rowdy democracy, a website is a platform. You mentioned the StopVff site and the problems with having two forums. Had you used your site to write a series of articles, all of the necessary information would have been in one place.
To be clear, there is already information about the MDC on this website (randi.org). They already have a blog system in place, even if it's annoying to have to register a second time in order to be able to post. If you Google Million Dollar Challenge, the first result is http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html. It's possible to use permanent redirects to send visitors to the new site, but from what I've read, this can cause some problems with search engine rankings. It's not supposed to, but people have reported problems and Google has made statements that there is some effect. If they go this route, it will require work by the JREF.

If they don't use redirects, then the new site likely won't be found in the rankings for a long while (if at all). All of the existing links out there will still be pointing to randi.org. I'm sure the JREF could link to the new site from their site, but that's kind of silly, don't you think? If they take it down, then there will be a bunch of broken links throughout the galactiweb.

The best bang for the buck is to rework the existing pages on randi.org and use the current discussion forum to preserve its rich history.

(I am not saying you should have done this, it's only a simplified example. There were a number of reasons why StopVFF needed to have lively forum.)
Already understood, but thanks for clarifying.

The MDC is not just for skeptics. Skeptics already know the tricks, they know the techniques, and they know how to find inconsistencies. The skeptical community gets a great deal of entertainment from challenges and there are some great discussions about statistics and loopholes. But it doesn't make them rethink long-held ideas about the paranormal.
Do you believe a goal should be to make skeptics rethink long-held ideas about the paranormal? The challenge exists because the position is already well considered. That's why they put up $1M.

If the main purpose of the MDC is educate people outside the skeptical community, these forums might not be the best media. A website or blog can present the case, offer some historical perspective, clearly define the statistics and build up tension in a succinct fashion. There is no wading through extraneous information, dodging people who didn't get the DBAD memo, or straying away from the subject.
Are you saying that the new site should not contain any discussion whatsoever? If it does, then I would expect that at least some skeptics are going to participate. If it doesn't, this forum will still exist. Would the new site then pretend that this forum doesn't exist and never mention it?

As for the DBAD memo, that's another discussion. I didn't hear the speech nor have I seen it in print (does it exist?), but I would say that James Randi got to where he is by being what some would consider a dick. See my post about his Flim-Flam book. Richard Dawkins is considered a dick by many, and he's quite prominent.

There will be behind the scenes chatter and it will happen here. There's a very good chance that someone whose interested is sparked by the MDC website will want more information, they will end up here.
I'm not seeing the benefit of creating a separate site. I see you as trying to find ways to justify it. What I'm interested in is a critical approach by Banachek. That starts with identifying the specific goals, then examining the current system (the current MDC site and the forums). What follows would be an analysis of the pros and cons of creating a new site.

From my perspective the MDC is most effective when people refuse to be tested. Granted, it would be highly effective if someone prominent took the challenge, but realistically that's not going to happen very often. Taking on all comers is a waste of resources, which is why the JREF implemented more stringent requirements for applying (affidavits, media presence).

I'd like to hear Banachek's perspective, but so far, nada.

[bookitty]

DBAD (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1065-phil-plaits-dont-be-a-dick-talk-at-tam8-now-online.html) Front page today.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions - that the MDC website won't use resources already in place, that it won't link back here, that it won't mention the forums, that it needs a discussion area. It's a valid concern but impossible to answer because there is no way of knowing what the MDC site will look like.

Do you believe a goal should be to make skeptics rethink long-held ideas about the paranormal?

I'm really curious how you got that from what I said. I believe that the MDC is best used as an entertaining teaching tool. The protocol offers numerous opportunities to explain how scams, confirmation bias and even delusion are used to fool people. Personally, I am fascinated by the history of the use of the paranormal as a con and would love to see more of that brought in, but that's just me.

Because the MDC is dramatic, it can capture the attention of people outside the skeptical community and make them rethink their long-held ideas of the paranormal. People love to think that they've got some deeper understanding. Anti-vaxxers think they see through big pharma, 9-11 truthers think they've uncovered government plots, people who believe in ghosts think that their experience is rare and magical.

Among other things, the MDC can be used to show that paranormal happenings are not some incredible experience beyond the ken of man, but rather easily explained psychological phenomena that aren't terribly special.

[Uncayimmy]

DBAD (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1065-phil-plaits-dont-be-a-dick-talk-at-tam8-now-online.html) Front page today.
Thanks. That was convenient.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions - that the MDC website won't use resources already in place, that it won't link back here, that it won't mention the forums, that it needs a discussion area. It's a valid concern but impossible to answer because there is no way of knowing what the MDC site will look like.
I am making deductions, not assumptions. A website for the MDC already exists, so if he says he is going to make a new one rather than update or redesign the existing one, I think I am making reasonable deductions.

If you read my post carefully, I never said that he won't link back here. I asked you how he might handle discussion. You commented on (to paraphrase) the problems with this discussion forum with the implication that the discussions here are contrary to the goals of the MDC. If he links here for discussion, the "problems" still exist. If he starts a new discussion forum, what's to stop people here from going there? He could implement his own moderation to address the problems of "wading through extraneous information, dodging people who didn't get the DBAD memo, or straying away from the subject." Personally, I would consider it a slap in the face to members here to say that their past input is no longer desired. It also creates an additional burden of resources to find someone to moderate a new forum, which I find rather silly since moderation is already in place here.

As for it "needing" a discussion area, I absolutely believe that it does. I find the discussions in the MDC forum intellectually stimulating and fascinating. Once again, if he doesn't add a discussion forum, this one will still exist unless the JREF decides to remove it (at which point discussions would move to GS&P). The "problems" you describe will still exist. Members will have to monitor an additional site to keep up with MDC applications, which is a less effective means of communication. If he does add a discussion forum, then it presents the problems I described already about dual memberships, dual conversations, and extra moderation.

My biggest beef with the IIG (and StopSylvia for that matter) is that the communication is one-way. I find blog comments at least as interesting if not more interesting than many of the blogs I read. And obviously I find discussion forums valuable. As critical thinkers we shouldn't just accept what we're told. When there are errors and omissions, we should be able to point them out. It's also very valuable to hear dissenting opinions. So, yeh, without a doubt I think discussion is necessary.

I'm really curious how you got that from what I said. I believe that the MDC is best used as an entertaining teaching tool. The protocol offers numerous opportunities to explain how scams, confirmation bias and even delusion are used to fool people. Personally, I am fascinated by the history of the use of the paranormal as a con and would love to see more of that brought in, but that's just me.

You wrote, "The skeptical community gets a great deal of entertainment from challenges and there are some great discussions about statistics and loopholes. But it doesn't make them rethink long-held ideas about the paranormal." (emphasis added)

The use of "but it doesn't" implies that it should, so I asked you, "Do you believe a goal should be to make skeptics rethink long-held ideas about the paranormal?" Do you? In what ways would skeptics rethink their long-held ideas?

I agree that the development of protocols is educational, and it has been. Banachek is proposing a change, and I'm interested in what ways he will improve things. I still believe that its greatest benefit comes from the grass roots level. Many skeptics issue challenges on behalf of the JREF (so to speak). It's a great tool in a discussion with somebody making outrageous claims. It's also a great tool when the JREF publicly challenges someone, and they refuse. We skeptics can point this out to people who are sitting on the fence.

As for DBAD, I like it when Randi calls a spade and spade and issues a baiting challenge. As I quoted in another post about ADE651, Randi said in his public challenge, "It’s a fake, a scam, a swindle, and a blatant fraud." I can't see him saying, "Well, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because the ADE651 failed our test doesn't mean that it doesn't work."

Because the MDC is dramatic, it can capture the attention of people outside the skeptical community and make them rethink their long-held ideas of the paranormal.
It can. Do you have any evidence that it has? There have only been a handful of tests over the years, and I have no idea what the outreach was. Did anybody really care that a lady couldn't make Jeff Wagg piss on command? Did anybody outside the skeptical community really care about Connie Sonne's card-guessing game?

The MDC itself is actually painfully boring to watch, so I question whether it can be made entertaining to the masses. Mythbusters has come closest to bringing skepticism to the masses, but most of their "myths" are silly and not geared towards the paranormal. And they recognize that blowing up, shooting, and crashing things is a requirement to keep audiences interested.

I think the existence of the challenge and the calls to "put up or shut up" are far more valuable than somebody actually taking a test. If Banachek has a different vision, it would be nice to hear from him directly.

Among other things, the MDC can be used to show that paranormal happenings are not some incredible experience beyond the ken of man, but rather easily explained psychological phenomena that aren't terribly special.
In my opinion there are much better ways to accomplish that same goal than finding a paranormal practitioner dumb/deluded enough to risk public humiliation after a painful protocol negotiation that can last months or even years.

* There was a video clip of some kid "predicting" numbered balls he would choose from a bag. I posted a couple of frames showing how he was peeking inside the bag.

* My chi video with my kids has about 10,000 views, and I got some good comments. I even challenged somebody to use their chi on me.

* Somebody posted here a video of his kids dowsing for gold, only he lied about what was real gold. It was a perfect demonstration of how dowsing really works.

* Randi posted a video from a dowser where he clearly demonstrated that the dowser was moving the stick.

* In Randi's Flim Flam book he showed pictures demonstrating how a woman was using well known sleight of hand tricks in her demonstration.

* The video clip of Mark Edward and VFF in the restaurant was much more interesting than her IIG test. With a little editing, it would provide a lot of bang for the buck and be much more effective in debunking her.

The "problem" with the MDC when it comes to "explaining" that, as you say, the paranormal is easily explainable is that it all the claimants fail. Nothing is actually explained. There's an implication that without being allowed to use known methods the ability fails, but it doesn't explain all the successes the claimant claims.

The best way to accomplish what you describe is to get these people to demonstrate their abilities, then reveal how it was done. In some cases it is easily spotted on video by those familiar with the techniques. Someone like Banachek could duplicate these feats and reveal how they were done. In the best of all worlds, the claimant sticks around to perform the stunt again, only this time a control is added to prevent them from using trickery.

In other cases such as with cold reading Banachek could deduce the same things the psychic deduces. With hot reading Banachek could dissect the questions and answers. I've seen Randi do that, and the effect is dramatic.

By contrast, it took two years for VFF to finally agree to a test. The test itself was over three hours of watching a woman play musical chairs. Nothing at all was explained. It had its benefits, but being entertaining and reaching outside the skeptical community were not among them.

[bookitty]

From my perspective the MDC is most effective when people refuse to be tested. Granted, it would be highly effective if someone prominent took the challenge, but realistically that's not going to happen very often. Taking on all comers is a waste of resources, which is why the JREF implemented more stringent requirements for applying (affidavits, media presence).


You really are on to something here. There was quite a bit of interest when Randi challenged Sylvia Browne on Larry King. Of course, she dodged away as expected and will continue to do so.

But what if there was a way to keep pressing the challenge on her, James Van Prague, Masaru Emoto, etc. The MDC is a tool to call them out publicly. How can it be used more aggressively? It would be so fun to post huge billboards all around Sylvia Browne's home town that read something like "I'll bet you 1 million dollars that you're as psychic as this chair." (With a photo of a nice Eames era lounger.)

Yes, saying that they aren't psychic isn't the same as challenging them to prove it, so the wording would need some work.

[Uncayimmy]

You really are on to something here. There was quite a bit of interest when Randi challenged Sylvia Browne on Larry King. Of course, she dodged away as expected and will continue to do so.

But what if there was a way to keep pressing the challenge on her, James Van Prague, Masaru Emoto, etc. The MDC is a tool to call them out publicly. How can it be used more aggressively? It would be so fun to post huge billboards all around Sylvia Browne's home town that read something like "I'll bet you 1 million dollars that you're as psychic as this chair." (With a photo of a nice Eames era lounger.)

Yes, saying that they aren't psychic isn't the same as challenging them to prove it, so the wording would need some work.

My opinion is that the MDC should be used as a sledgehammer, and the JREF should take it to the biggest fish. I'm all for publicity stunts, and I bet Banachek would be good at coming up with some. I'm thinking a pre-configured test might be workable. I'm not prepared to present anything specific, but wouldn't it be cool if, for example, the JREF rented a small venue (American Legion Hall) right by where Sylvia Browne was appearing and had a test all set up in advance?

I've also considered the idea of not offering the $1M to the claimant. Instead, the JREF could pick a charity (or a short list or just the United Way). My reasoning is that people have short attention spans, especially the press. Right now the JREF offers the $1M, and Big Fish says, "I'm not not interested in the money." The JREF has to respond with, "Well, you could give it to charity," but that requires a back and forth between both sides. Are reporters going play middle-man to such a conversation? Will readers go back and forth between blogs?

How much better to force Big Fish to say, "I'm not interested in spending a few hours to give $1M to starving children."

The JREF could also raise the stakes by offering to close up shop rather than offering $1M. That makes it an idealogical battle and frees up the $1M to be used on other programs.

And as I outlined in my last post, when it comes to educating people about what nonsense the paranormal is, demonstrations showing what's actually at work would be much more useful. Taking critical thinking to the schools would be a great approach. We need to teach the next generation that when somebody says they can bend a spoon with their mind, the first question should be, "Well, then why do you need to hold it in your hand?" It's sad that so many people missed (and continue to miss) such an obvious point.

[Alan]

The response would likely be:
"Why don't you donate the million dollars to starving children without playing games with a donation that would be so valuable. Is your cynicism more important than their lives?"

[Uncayimmy]

The response would likely be:
"Why don't you donate the million dollars to starving children without playing games with a donation that would be so valuable. Is your cynicism more important than their lives?"

They can say that now. They can say it so long as the $1M is on the line, whether it's given to the claimant, donated to a charity, or burned in a bonfire. I believe that most people would think, "Well, we already know that Randi is an *******. You don't need to be one. Just do it."

[Alan]

The money is in escrow so I don't think it would be able to be donated without a person passing the challenge anyway.

And the person who donated it would have specified that it was for the challenge, so the JREF couldn't donate it for something else.

[Uncayimmy]

The money is in escrow so I don't think it would be able to be donated without a person passing the challenge anyway.
The money is not in escrow. Money held in escrow is money held by a third party on behalf of other parties involved in a transaction. Obviously, 99.9% of the time there is no pending transaction. The money is in a Goldman Sachs account (http://www.randi.org/challenge/goldmansachs.pdf), earning interest. It is set aside in a special account, but it is not held in escrow. During a challenge, the money is not moved into escrow but remains in the GS account.

And the person who donated it would have specified that it was for the challenge, so the JREF couldn't donate it for something else.
According to the JREF, it is not an endowment, it's just treated similarly to one. As for the source of the money, it started with Randi's $10K, and eventually other money has been added. I am not aware of any restrictions on what must be done with it. A few years ago it was announced that the MDC would end in March 2010, and the funds would be used for other purposes. Obviously, they changed their minds.

Are you aware of specific information or were you just speculating without indicating so?

[Alan]

I thought I remembered it being said it was held in escrow on an episode of the SGU podcast. Googling it now shows that this was wrong.

The second bit was speculation (I meant to signal that with "would have" but it wasn't clear).

[Geek Goddess]

According to the JREF, it is not an endowment, it's just treated similarly to one. As for the source of the money, it started with Randi's $10K, and eventually other money has been added. I am not aware of any restrictions on what must be done with it. A few years ago it was announced that the MDC would end in March 2010, and the funds would be used for other purposes. Obviously, they changed their minds.

Are you aware of specific information or were you just speculating without indicating so?

An employee of the JREF told me that the money was set up such that it can't be used for anything else - only the interest can be used.

The JREF is moving slowly on this stuff, but they only have a few employees. Linda retired last year, and all her duties are spread out among the other people. It's not like they have a staff of dozens of people, or even dozens of people who have large amounts of time to volunteer to do some of the things. Outside of the MDC interest, they must rely on donations, and the income from TAM, to pay the salaries, maintain the physical property in Ft Lauderdale, etc

[Uncayimmy]

An employee of the JREF told me that the money was set up such that it can't be used for anything else - only the interest can be used.
To pull a Clinton, what do you mean by can? The FAQ written by Jeff Wagg says that it is "like" an endowment and kept in a separate account to prevent it from "accidentally" being used for something else. A "real" endowment is set up in a such that the funds are truly untouchable in perpetuity, for a predefined period of time, or until certain conditions are met. That Jeff chose to say it was "like" one and because the JREF already announced that it was going to close the offer and use the funds for something else, I disagree that it "can't" be used for something else. I have no doubt that anybody managing funds for the JREF is told that they "can't" touch the MDC money.

The JREF is moving slowly on this stuff, but they only have a few employees. Linda retired last year, and all her duties are spread out among the other people. It's not like they have a staff of dozens of people, or even dozens of people who have large amounts of time to volunteer to do some of the things. Outside of the MDC interest, they must rely on donations, and the income from TAM, to pay the salaries, maintain the physical property in Ft Lauderdale, etc
What does any of that have to do with Banachek taking over the MDC?

Now, if you want to debate the effectiveness of the organization itself, we can do that. It would probably be best in another thread, so I'll just say that in regards to their progress with the MDC (even before handing it off to Banachek), it has been inexcusably slow. Announcing in August that changes are coming in March and then not seeing anything other than another vague announcement by the following August is simply inexcusably slow.

There are several thousands active members on this board, and I'm pretty sure quite a few of us would be willing to volunteer. If the JREF needs extra hands, they should ask. I find your claims of "lack of resources" in the absence of requests for resources by the JREF to be little more than a knee-jerk defense.

[aleCcowaN]

You sure? Peter Popoff is back in business.Not only Peter Popoff is back in business. Just a few minutes ago, the new contextual Google ads in these forums offered me a link to Peter Popoff Ministries website that includes a Miracle Spring Water and Debt Cancellation Kit. :jaw-dropp

[Susan Gerbic]

Not only Peter Popoff is back in business. Just a few minutes ago, the new contextual Google ads in these forums offered me a link to Peter Popoff Ministries website that includes a Miracle Spring Water and Debt Cancellation Kit. :jaw-dropp

Oh my