What if it takes 50 years to "prove" a paranormal effect?

[Soapy Sam]

(Snip)... it seems to me that both "human/machine interactions that involve random physical processes" and "information acquisition in remote perception experiments" are certainly paranormal events, and would qualify for the JREF prize. (.../ Snip)- from the commentary.

Would posters agree these are descriptions of paranormal effects?

Seems to me that throwing a dart, blindfold, at my PC fits description (1), while birdwatching through binoculars fits (2).
Neither description seems paranormal to my thinking, but I'm game to try either for the $1million if Randi agrees. ;)


Perhaps if the PEAR people were doing either, they might have some real data to show for the last quarter century.

Still, the question does occur:-If a genuine paranormal effect did exist, it actually might not be testable on the sort of timescale the JREF tests might permit.
Let's be honest: The JREF test is intended to unfrock charlatans, not to test the statistical evidence of actual research. Its greatest value lies in the persistent refusal of the crooks to take it. Only the sincerely deluded and (maybe one day) an honest paranormal researcher) would be willing to take it.

[jmercer]

The decision whether to accept something as a paranormal claim or not ultimately rests with Randi. If he chooses to accept a claim that will take 50 years to prove, that's fine with me. :)

Charlatans who take the test are essentially pitting their minds against Randi. (And effectively everyone who participates in these forums, as long as Mr. Randi and Kramer continue to accept our input.) That's going to be a very tough combination to beat.

If an applicant is deluded, then it should be moderately easy to uncover that truth.

The only ones who can really take the Challenge and win would be those with legitimate claims... and I think we'd all be crazy-happy-excited if someone actually did demonstrate something paranormal.

A lot of us dread what kind of boost it would give the fakers and self-deluded - but in the end, the opportunity to re-write our understanding of how the universe works overrides that, I think. :)

[dann]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
What if it takes 50 years to "prove" a paranormal effect? That would be a little mean. Then it's not you, but your grandchildren who will be disappointed!

[Soapy Sam]

" If an applicant is deluded, then it should be moderately easy to uncover that truth"- jmercer.

Oh aye. The problem is convincing them of that. I do wonder what the mental collapse rate of JREF interns is. They have my sympathy and admiration.

[davefoc]

Soapy Sam Wrote:Let's be honest: The JREF test is intended to unfrock charlatans, not to test the statistical evidence of actual research. Its greatest value lies in the persistent refusal of the crooks to take it. Only the sincerely deluded and (maybe one day) an honest paranormal researcher) would be willing to take it.

I think this is true to a degree.

At this point in time, if a real paranormal effect existed it is probably too subtle to be detected by the kinds of tests that Randi or Kramer have in mind. I think generations of scientific experiments with null results for a paranormal effect put upper limits on how obvious a paranormal effect is likely to be and a routine JREF challenge involving a preposterously obvious claim by an applicant is not going to succeed at finding a subtle effect.

[Minkster]

Originally posted by davefoc
Soapy Sam Wrote:

I think this is true to a degree.

At this point in time, if a real paranormal effect existed it is probably too subtle to be detected by the kinds of tests that Randi or Kramer have in mind. I think generations of scientific experiments with null results for a paranormal effect put upper limits on how obvious a paranormal effect is likely to be and a routine JREF challenge involving a preposterously obvious claim by an applicant is not going to succeed at finding a subtle effect.

How would you define a subtle effect in this context though?

Surely, if a claim was to establish the validity of a subtle paranormal effect then that is what would be tested, and would be a valid JREF application.

If the claim is so subtle that its impossible to measure it or differentiate it from the norm then it presumably ceases to be paranormal.

But whilst people make sweeping claims then the test protocol will be appropriately 'obvious'