Dr Matthew Smith's Million Dollar Challenge

[cgaduck]

Been chatting to Matthew Smith (ex mosthaunted sceptic) regarding his book and million dollar challenge.


Can a skeptic become a psychic... and win a million dollars?

Dr Matthew Smith is a psychologist who is skeptical about psychic phenomena. He becomes his own test subject as he attempts to develop his own psychic ability!

He's looking for input so if you use facebook, you might want to pop in and leave your thoughts.

h t t p: / /w w w .facebook.com/home.php?#!/...35540263151854

[Roma]

I do have a facebook site but have decided not to use it for this,
I have sent a psychic message to Dr.Smith's facebook site instead.

[cj.23]

Matthew's a great chap, and ex--Liverpool Hope Uni probably a better way pf phrasing it than ex-MH :) I got a message from him this morning, and was surprised he had a facebook presence - he is not a fan of facebook - but his blog is here...

http://www.spiritualjunkie.co.uk/

I must admit I have not read it yet :)

(but I am amused to find it mentions me and the Eggheads audition!)

cj x

[rjh01]

I think the million dollars is still safe from this person. Nothing but a publicity stunt.

[cj.23]

I wonder if he might be planning to simply run a Ganzfeld experiment under scrutiny for the MDC. As has been pointed out, it would be fairly straight forward to set up and only take a fairly small amount of time, a few days, to run to succeed in reaching the required odds, or fail. If he serves as the subject I think he will meet the criteria, and I'm pretty sure he can meet the expenses incurred, so I think it will be interesting.

I don't actually know though. As I think I said before, I just assumed he was doing an ethnomethodologiucal study of psychic culture, but good luck to him.

cj x

[dropzone]

I have sent a psychic message to Dr.Smith's facebook site instead.Considering my admiration for Roma, and especially how we have grown so that I like to presume we are friends here, I have not received Dr Smith's Facebook invitation. Other people, from RL friends to pornographers, but neither Roma nor Dr.Smith. Perhaps Dr. Smith could rearrange Robot's antennae? Or tell Will Robinson to get lost for an hour?

How far behind the eight-ball do you start when your name can be dismissed as an obvious cliche? It's from there people who are not stupid retire for at least four years.

[dropzone]

I have sent a psychic message to Dr.Smith's facebook site instead.Considering my admiration for Roma, and especially how we have grown so that I like to presume we are friends here, I have not received Dr Smith's Facebook invitation. Other people, from RL friends to pornographers, but neither Roma nor Dr.Smith. Perhaps Dr. Smith could rearrange Robot's antennae? Or tell Will Robinson to get lost for an hour?

How far behind the eight-ball do you start when your name can be dismissed as an obvious cliche? It's from there people who are not stupid retire for at least four years.

I typed in a response and, before I hit "Submit," it vanished. As I'm a lib, I must ask where you cut us off, 'cuz that pisses me off.

Not considering the folks on the right, who are also hoping to be treated by people who may not agree with them, but would allow them to post their views.

[ThePoliteSkeptic]

I interviewed him recently for my blog (a link I can't post, due to not enough comments) but he was open and friendly. He's getting deeply into some subjects (tarot, crystal ball gazing, etc.) that would make my head hurt. I respect the man, though, and I think he's going to try with all of his might, even if what he's looking for isn't actually there.

[Almo]

I interviewed him recently for my blog (a link I can't post, due to not enough comments) but he was open and friendly. He's getting deeply into some subjects (tarot, crystal ball gazing, etc.) that would make my head hurt. I respect the man, though, and I think he's going to try with all of his might, even if what he's looking for isn't actually there.

The true test is whether or not he dumps the nonsense when the negative results start coming in.

[ThePoliteSkeptic]

Almo, yes. I hope he doesn't end up being the next John Edwards

[cj.23]

Given he does not believe in it to start with and is a well known sceptic in the uK I don't think he will have much to dump!
cj x

[cgaduck]

He's still very much in touch with reality on facebook and really struggled with the two believers who were interviewing him on a local radio station, when I say struggled I mean his obvious scepticism came through giving alternative explanations to anything he has tried so far. He's far more knowledgeable regarding 'why it isn't' as apposed to 'why it might be.' Not a bad place to start from.

[underboyleheating]

First post!

On the subject of the Million Dollar Challenge there is a new book coming out in early November by Robert McLuhan called Randi’s Challenge.

The book expresses the authors thoughts about how psychic phenomenon is downplayed or disregarded in our society. His words not mine! I can’t post a link to the book but I’m sure if you Google his name and the book title it will take you to it!

Cheers

[rjh01]

First post!

On the subject of the Million Dollar Challenge there is a new book coming out in early November by Robert McLuhan called Randi’s Challenge.

The book expresses the authors thoughts about how psychic phenomenon is downplayed or disregarded in our society. His words not mine! I can’t post a link to the book but I’m sure if you Google his name and the book title it will take you to it!

Cheers
Here is a link http://monkeywah.typepad.com/.

[underboyleheating]

Thanks for posting a link rjh01. It might be worth JREF trying to obtain a copy for review purposes.

Cheers

[rjh01]

Doubt it. There is nothing new in there. I have seen it all before. Invalid criticisms of Randi.

Polemicists like Randi consider abuse to be an appropriate response.
I would hardly call Randi's arguments controversial. Nor is he habitually abusive towards people who apply for the MDC.

[Czarcasm]

Thanks for posting a link rjh01. It might be worth JREF trying to obtain a copy for review purposes.

CheersThank you for the press release. I take it you'll be moving on to do the same elsewhere?

[underboyleheating]

Thank you for the press release. I take it you'll be moving on to do the same elsewhere?
No I have no link to the author. I just stumbled across the book while visiting Dr Matthew Smith’s Facebook page and thought it might be of some relevance to JREF.

Cheers

[ranson]

Wow. I just followed the link to that book. Our old JREF friend Anita Ikonen is in the comments, defending skepticism and various Challenge tests in a lucid and straightforward manner. It's sorta weird seeing her arguments dismissed by people coming after.

[Akhenaten]

Wow. I just followed the link to that book. Our old JREF friend Anita Ikonen is in the comments, defending skepticism and various Challenge tests in a lucid and straightforward manner. It's sorta weird seeing her arguments dismissed by people coming after.





Lucid? Relatively speaking, yes.

Straightforward? Only when she parrots the words and phrases that we taught her.

"This is the defense made by paranormal claimants who are oblivious to the scientific method, who are coming to realize that their magical experiences were nothing but confirmation bias, false memory, wishful thinking or outright fraud being exposed, and so the disappointment leads them to blaming it all on the skeptics."
my bolding

In other words, she excludes herself from the ranks of the deluded, since she understands the scientific method and is therefore immune to self-delusion.


But the biggest problem with those comments is the blatant dishonesty.


"I have worked deeply in the skeptical movement for the past three years, investigating my claim of medical perception . . ."

"It was very easy to arrive at a test with both the IIG and the JREF."

Those are two of the more obvious examples of outright lies.

Then we have lying by omission:

"As a paranormal claimant with two skeptic arranged paranormal tests behind me . . ."

and

"Skeptics are able to devise tests that would prove paranormal phenomena."

which is just plain wrong.


So, yes, lucid, straightforward and completely dishonest. I guess 2 out of 3 is statistically significant, at least.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

"Skeptics are able to devise tests that would prove paranormal phenomena."

which is just plain wrong.




Well, no she IS speaking the truth there. The whole MDC is about skeptics devising tests that would prove paranormal phenomena.
What she forgets to mention is that no test has ever given a positive result :)

[DarthFishy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Smith_(actor) as Dr. Who?

:p

[John Jackson]

The whole MDC is about skeptics devising tests that would prove paranormal phenomena.


No. That's just "plain wrong".

[dropzone]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Smith_(actor) as Dr. Who?

:pHow DARE you make such a spruriuos, er, sprureuos, um, INVALID claim, especially how it does NOT deliver Amy Pond, in her warm, but not sexy, cotton chemise into my warm, but not as cold as Scotland, even without a fire, bed?

I'd challenge you, even as it's not THAT cold, except I have this wee lass to keep warm.

(FTR: The "lass" is a dog that was clipped too early for the weather, and Karen Gillian is some 13 years too young for me, according to the Law of Sevens. I am 56. Half that is 28. Add 7 and my earliest soulmate is 35. (this is where it falls down) 2010 - 35 = 1975. I met my wife in 1975. Taking it beyond that makes being attracted to women like Karen Gilliam totally sick.

OTOH, it leaves Sarah Jane Smith, AKA: My First Companion, open for comments noting how she should dump the Scoobie Gang for a weekend at Torquay. But not at Fawlty Towers. I hear their bellhop does NOT, "Speaka the English very well."

[TSR]

How DARE you make such a spruriuos, er, sprureuos, um, INVALID claim, especially how it does NOT deliver Amy Pond, in her warm, but not sexy, cotton chemise into my warm, but not as cold as Scotland, even without a fire, bed?

I'd challenge you, even as it's not THAT cold, except I have this wee lass to keep warm.

(FTR: The "lass" is a dog that was clipped too early for the weather, and Karen Gillian is some 13 years too young for me, according to the Law of Sevens. I am 56. Half that is 28. Add 7 and my earliest soulmate is 35. (this is where it falls down) 2010 - 35 = 1975. I met my wife in 1975. Taking it beyond that makes being attracted to women like Karen Gilliam totally sick.

OTOH, it leaves Sarah Jane Smith, AKA: My First Companion, open for comments noting how she should dump the Scoobie Gang for a weekend at Torquay. But not at Fawlty Towers. I hear their bellhop does NOT, "Speaka the English very well."

.
While *I* on the other hand would wibbly wobbly timmey whimmey all over both of them given the chance as long as that silly mechanical dog wasn't watching.

"Affirmative?"
.

[Tricky]

Keep it on topic please.

[cj.23]

Just in case anyone interested, interview with Dr. Matthew Smith on his current work on his proposal etc on my blog here- http://jerome23.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/million-dollar-psychic-an-interview-with-dr-matthew-smith/

I can cut and paste it here if easier for people?

cj x

[Almo]

Interesting interview.

[wardenclyffe]

And here's a link to the interview that ThePoliteSkeptic did with Smith last fall:

http://thepoliteskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/08/polite-skeptic-interview-matthew-smith.html

Ward

[cj.23]

And here's a link to the interview that ThePoliteSkeptic did with Smith last fall:

http://thepoliteskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/08/polite-skeptic-interview-matthew-smith.html

Ward

Thanks Ward! I had heard of it, and hoped to see it. I shall write and ask if i can link to it from mine. :)

cj x

[Sherman Bay]

I just looked at the reviews of the Robert McLuhan book (http://www.amazon.com/RANDIS-PRIZE-sceptics-paranormal-matters/product-reviews/1848764944/ref=cm_cr_pr_top_link_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0) on Amazon. The following struck me.
Number of reviews expressing ebullient, high praise for it: 13

Number of reviews expressing any doubts whatsoever about McLuhan's conclusions: 0

[Robin]

I just looked at the reviews of the Robert McLuhan book (http://www.amazon.com/RANDIS-PRIZE-sceptics-paranormal-matters/product-reviews/1848764944/ref=cm_cr_pr_top_link_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0) on Amazon. The following struck me.
Number of reviews expressing ebullient, high praise for it: 13

Number of reviews expressing any doubts whatsoever about McLuhan's conclusions: 0
Isn't 13 about the standard number of author self reviews for Amazon?