A recording of Randi’s order to switch off cameras qualifies for the million?

[Phrenolo]

In the latest commentary, Michael Roll blasts Randi for allegedly ordering cameras to be switched off when allegedly confronted by a scientist at a TV studio. Randi’s response is to say that producing a recording of this alleged confrontation would win Roll the million dollar prize. Is Randi actually claiming that proof of him suppressing opposition, at least in this case, qualifies for the million? While I am a staunch supporter of Randi, (and I am clearly a lurker, obvious from my lack of posting) I am concerned that a seemingly reckless flaunting of the prize to reward unqualified circumstances may work against him. I give Randi the benefit of the doubt; he may be venting or over-stating. But still, this troubles me. What do you think?

[crimresearch]

I think Randi believes that the chances of such a video actually existing are roughly the same as the chances of a paranormal claimant making their case...

And since all that money is sitting around not going anywhere for a while, might as well put it to dual use.

[T'ai Chi]

In the latest commentary, what's with Randi writing (from a letter from 2001)

"This is our suggested "Qualified Panel" of Ph.D. scientists who have already agreed with this Foundation to examine the data gathered by Dr. Schwartz."

I may be wrong, but Shermer, one of the panel, has a PhD in the history of science. Does that count as being a "scientist"?

It also seems a little coy of Randi to say

"And, as Roll full well knows, I did not call Josephson a scoundrel; I don't know him that well."

But Randi said

", and I think it is the refuge of scoundrels, in many aspects, for them to turn to something like quantum physics"

Since Josephson clearly turns to quantum physics, Randi is implying Josephson to be a scoundrel.

Additionally, what "Andras" wrote

"Not only is the idea behind homeopathy thoroughly ridiculous nonsense, but there have been zero, count them, zero double-blind studies or tests that have proven or even hinted at the effectiveness of homeopathetic remedies."

is false (and no, I personally don't feel homeopathy has much going for it). A quick PubMed search revealed a few double-blind studies that have hinted at the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies, thus providing counter-examples to "Andras"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14587684

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15741420

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14587682

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12676041

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11896746

I expect "Andras" to move the goalposts.

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by Phrenolo
In the latest commentary, Michael Roll blasts Randi for allegedly ordering cameras to be switched off when allegedly confronted by a scientist at a TV studio. Randi’s response is to say that producing a recording of this alleged confrontation would win Roll the million dollar prize. Is Randi actually claiming that proof of him suppressing opposition, at least in this case, qualifies for the million? While I am a staunch supporter of Randi, (and I am clearly a lurker, obvious from my lack of posting) I am concerned that a seemingly reckless flaunting of the prize to reward unqualified circumstances may work against him. I give Randi the benefit of the doubt; he may be venting or over-stating. But still, this troubles me. What do you think?


I suspect Randi's contention that the event never happened would make undoctored footage of the event paranormal in his eyes.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by jzs
...I may be wrong, but Shermer, one of the panel, has a PhD in the history of science. Does that count as being a "scientist"?.
I would say so, since Shermer also has a Bachelor's and a Master's degree in Experimental Psychology.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by jzs
Additionally, what "Andras" wrote

"Not only is the idea behind homeopathy thoroughly ridiculous nonsense, but there have been zero, count them, zero double-blind studies or tests that have proven or even hinted at the effectiveness of homeopathetic remedies."

is false (and no, I personally don't feel homeopathy has much going for it). A quick PubMed search revealed a few double-blind studies that have hinted at the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies, thus providing counter-examples to "Andras"....I did a review of this lot in an earlier post, and some more was added a little further down the thread. All it amounts to is that some people think there's something there at the borders of statistical noise (hardly a ringing endorsement of a wonderful healing modality!), but they can't be sure. The homoeopaths like to make a big fuss about it though.

The relevant post is here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870619770#post1870619770).

Rolfe.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
I would say so, since Shermer also has a Bachelor's and a Master's degree in Experimental Psychology.

So I can be called "scientist" now?

SWEET! ! !

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Rolfe
All it amounts to is that some people think there's something there at the borders of statistical noise (hardly a ringing endorsement of a wonderful healing modality!),


Well, "Andras" said was there were "zero" studies that "even hinted".

Well, A study that is statistically significant certainly does hint, hence being a counterexample to "Andras".

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by Phrenolo
While I am a staunch supporter of Randi, (and I am clearly a lurker, obvious from my lack of posting) I am concerned that a seemingly reckless flaunting of the prize to reward unqualified circumstances may work against him. I give Randi the benefit of the doubt; he may be venting or over-stating. But still, this troubles me. What do you think?

This stype of post gets old. Someone joins the forum who claims to "support" Randi, but attacks him with no proof. For example, a year ago a woman posted a "watch dog" site that claimed Randi was withholding the prize. It was later revealed she was connected to the author of the website who just wanted to stir up trouble because they believed in the paranormal, and didn't like Randi's work.

If such evidence exists, they would show it. It'd be a great media frenzy.

[Phrenolo]

Someone joins the forum who claims to "support" Randi, but attacks him with no proof.I hardly think that my comments qualify as an “attack� on Randi.
I was simply surprised to see Randi suggest that the prize is not limited to paranormal claims, even though I doubt he was being serious. I wondered if others were equally surprised.

If such evidence exists, they would show it. It'd be a great media frenzy.I agree. And showing it would bolster Roll’s case. The likelihood of us seeing it makes the million very safe.

[alfaniner]

I'm not so sure that Randi should be so frivolous with tossing out the Challenge for non-paranormal events. (Granted there's virtually no chance of someone winning it for this.) And even though it would be highly unlikely that he would have said such a thing, just last week he gave an example of someone else being "absolutely sure" of remembering one thing and being shown the real events which proved him wrong.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by jzs

It also seems a little coy of Randi to say

"And, as Roll full well knows, I did not call Josephson a scoundrel; I don't know him that well."

But Randi said

", and I think it is the refuge of scoundrels, in many aspects, for them to turn to something like quantum physics"

Since Josephson clearly turns to quantum physics, Randi is implying Josephson to be a scoundrel.


This is false both in logic and in rhetoric. In logic, of course, "All A are B, X is a B" does not imply "X is an A." In rhetoric, if Randi had actually said those words in that order, one might be justified in finding the link, but the actual linkage between Josephson and "scoundrel" was made by Rolls.

Josephson is a genuine expert on quantum mechanics and does not, as Randi described it, `[use] a totally different language from the regular English that we are accustomed to using from day to day to merely say, "Oh that's where the answer lies, because that's all very fuzzy, anyway."' I suspect that Josephson himself would be among the first to distance himself from this as a description of his work.