A question on the challenge

[Keneke]

What if someone demonstrated "supernatural power" of a sort that had a scientific, yet previously undiscovered, cause? Would the fact that something could be explained scientifically exempt the display from being "paranormal"?

Originally posted by Keneke
What if someone demonstrated "supernatural power" of a sort that had a scientific, yet previously undiscovered, cause? Would the fact that something could be explained scientifically exempt the display from being "paranormal"?

This doesn't really make much sense. Randi is not a scientist and would be the first to admit he isn't qualified to identify previously unknown scientific phenomena. Such an occurance would appear to him as a genuine paranormal event and he'd probably pay off, based on the fact that he couldn't explain it with the knowledge on hand.

Any identification of the previously-undiscovered principle involved would come later, and of course would invalidate the claim. I wonder if Randi would ask for the money back.
:)

[Keneke]

Originally posted by sundog
Any identification of the previously-undiscovered principle involved would come later, and of course would invalidate the claim. I wonder if Randi would ask for the money back.
Quite true. Also, given the assumption that a success (even if disproven at a later date by the advance of scientific knowledge) would be fodder for supporters of the supernatural to claim the existence of it, I wonder if the Million Dollar Prize is a long-term hindrance to unveiling hoaxers.

On the other hand, the demonstration of courage to speak out that it has given skeptics, as well as other benefits such as high visibility of skeptics through shock value, may overcome any future loss of ground.

[MRC_Hans]

From a true Materialist POV, this is a catch 22 in the Randi Challenge: Suppose somebody demonstrates, say, dowsing. Then, since magic does NOT exist, then there must be a yet undiscovered scientific explanation, which invalidates the claim.

But the rules of the Challenge takes care of this; once the contestant and JREF have both agreed on and signed the test protocol and the criteria for success, they are both committed: If the contestant passes the test, he/she wins the prize, period.

The fact that the ability may later turn out not to be supernatural is irrelevant. And this is actually fair enough: Not so terribly many years ago, what YOU are doing right NOW (reading something I just typed, possible on the other side of the planet) was supernatural. Not so any longer.

Hans

[LillyThePink]

I concur - the challenge specifically states that you don't have to demonstrate HOW it (your ability) works, just that it does. And since no one has managed that yet.....

:D

[Keneke]

That answers that half. The other half is: would such an approach backfire and set the acceptance of skepticism back if someone "built a better mousetrap"?

[MRC_Hans]

I dont think so, at least not in the long run. If somebody won the price, there would be a rustle to discover the scientific principle behind the feat. Once it was found, scepticism would stand even stronger.

Hans

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Keneke
That answers that half. The other half is: would such an approach backfire and set the acceptance of skepticism back if someone "built a better mousetrap"?


Genuine skeptics just want evidence, not acceptance.

In the face of evidence, the skeptic no longer has any reason to be skeptical of the, now proven, phenomena..


A skeptic only asks " Wow! How did he do that? ", and starts looking for answers..


A woo-woo says .. " Jeebus Freaking Crist! Magic! " And buys the book..

[gnome]

Originally posted by sundog
Any identification of the previously-undiscovered principle involved would come later, and of course would invalidate the claim. I wonder if Randi would ask for the money back.
:)

I do not believe this would invalidate the claim... since for the test, the claim is formalized to "I can do X under circumstances Y" (fill in the blanks as appropriate).

Discovering how it was done would not make the claim invalid or untrue... unless the method violated the terms of the claim.

Any woo-woo explanation of the effect could of course be debunked by further study.

But it's still a fair win of the money.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Keneke
What if someone demonstrated "supernatural power" of a sort that had a scientific, yet previously undiscovered, cause? Would the fact that something could be explained scientifically exempt the display from being "paranormal"?

I don't think this problem would ever come up.

Remember that what is at issue here is observable behaviour of the natural world. All of us are pretty familiar with what is or is not possible under the basic laws of nature. You are desribing a situation where somebody discovers something that has never before been observed. This is very different from something which has not yet been satisfactorily explained.

You hold an object above the ground and let go - it falls. This has been known even before the theory of gravity was proposed. Another example: it was always known that light could propogate through a vacuum, where sound could not. The earliest theories explaining why were nonsense, but it everybody still knew what they would observe if an experiment was conducted.