A New Challenge for Randi [Archive]

a_unique_person

12th January 2006, 05:32 AM

Given that the "Challenge" (through no fault of the JREF) is stuck in an eternal "Twilight Zone" of never actually getting past first base of trying to just prove that anything remotely paranormal is true, I would like to posit a new facet to the challenge.

It is that a someone can actually prove that an accepted theory of science is false. By this I mean that someone can prove that evolution is false, anthropogenic greenhouse warming is false, gravitation is false, etc.

"String Theory", which is, as I understand it, a theory which is very much a work in progress, would not be a part of the challenge, for example.

Such a change in the JREF challenge would move the goal posts enough to make the "challenge" something which would at least get some real interest. Through no fault of the JREF, pretty well all of the challenge amounts to nothing more than dealing with lunatic crackpots and fraudulent charlatans who are nothing more than a total waste of time and space.

By moving the goal post slightly, the challenge becomes remotely interesting. Science up against those who pretend to unseat science, with money and resources to excite the spectators.

The prize may well be lost, but only after a battle that is remarkable and memorable.

webfusion

12th January 2006, 05:50 AM

By proving a negative?

geni

12th January 2006, 07:19 AM

By proving a negative?

I can show that the odd of newtonian physics being correct are far smaller than 1/1000000

force_redo

12th January 2006, 07:33 AM

By this I mean that someone can prove that evolution is false, anthropogenic greenhouse warming is false, gravitation is false, etc.

If I understood Einstein correctly gravity is a fictious force. i.e. a three dimensionally bound perception of a mass influenced multi-dimensional system and therefore "false", if that's enough to win your prize ;-)

But seriously: I don't think that would spread the right idea of science. After all suddenly science would appear as a club with fixed rulesets and dogmatists as members who want to be proven wrong. I think every serious scientist should try to prove himself wrong all the time (and sometimes succeeds), hence no prize for that in my book...

FR

sphenisc

12th January 2006, 07:36 AM

If I understood Einstein correctly gravity is a fictious force. i.e. a three dimensionally bound perception of a mass influenced multi-dimensional system and therefore "false", if that's enough to win your prize ;-)

But seriously: I don't think that would spread the right idea of science. After all suddenly science would appear as a club with fixed rulesets and dogmatists as members who want to be proven wrong. I think every serious scientist should try to prove himself wrong all the time (and sometimes succeeds), hence no prize for that in my book...

FR

You'd a Nobel for any of those anyway; less money - more kudos.

force_redo

12th January 2006, 07:59 AM

You'd a Nobel for any of those anyway; less money - more kudos.
Same money and definately more kudos.
(I thought the nobel prize was also around a million $, isn't it?)

FR

sphenisc

12th January 2006, 08:40 AM

Same money and definately more kudos.
(I thought the nobel prize was also around a million $, isn't it?)

FR

Yep, you're right.
------
Each prize constitutes a gold medal, a diploma, and a sum of money. The monetary award is quite large, currently about 10 million Swedish Kronor (slightly more than one million Euros or about 1.3 million US dollars).
-----

Gayle

12th January 2006, 12:17 PM

Given that the "Challenge" (through no fault of the JREF) is stuck in an eternal "Twilight Zone" of never actually getting past first base of trying to just prove that anything remotely paranormal is true...

I was not aware that the purpose of the Challenge was to prove that anything paranormal was true.

I thought the purpose was to provide motivation for practitioners of the paranormal, supernatural and pseudo-scientific to submit their claims to the rigors of the experimental scientific method .... and then to let the scientific chips fall where they may.

If we happen to believe in the Laws of Nature, we're pretty sure where the chips will fall. It won't be in proving the paranormal. Of course, we could be wrong. But ... it's unlikely.

There's nothing to prevent legitimate scientists who are working on the fringes of science from submitting their claims to the Challenge. I believe Randi has encouraged that with things like random number generation being influenced by human thought, or whatever the hell the claim is at Princeton.

Why would anyone think that James Randi's goal in life is to prove the paranormal exists? That's a complete misunderstanding of his life's work.

If I had to state Randi's goal in a nutshell, I'd say that it's science works and it can be exciting and loads of fun.

I'd say the goal of the Challenge is: To apply the experimental scientific method to paranormal, supernatural or pseudo-scientific claims that, by their nature, can be tested.

If I'm wrong, I'm sure many people will be willing to correct me.

If a Challenge applicant does manage to prove a new Law of Nature, I'm sure we'll all be delighted. Of course, their work will have to replicated by many different groups of scientists before the Nobel Committee weighs in. That's how it works.

vIQleS

12th January 2006, 04:21 PM

I was not aware that the purpose of the Challenge was to prove that anything paranormal was true.

I thought the purpose was to provide motivation for practitioners of the paranormal, supernatural and pseudo-scientific to submit their claims to the rigors of the experimental scientific method .... and then to let the scientific chips fall where they may.

...

Why would anyone think that James Randi's goal in life is to prove the paranormal exists? That's a complete misunderstanding of his life's work.

...

I'd say the goal of the Challenge is: To apply the experimental scientific method to paranormal, supernatural or pseudo-scientific claims that, by their nature, can be tested.

If I'm wrong, I'm sure many people will be willing to correct me.

...

I think you're both right - JR has stated on numerous occasions - "If you can do it - prove it". So from that point of view the point is to try and find someone who can 'prove' a paranormal ability. Or to put it another way, the point is to subject paranormal claims to scientific testing methods, the sort you use to prove theories. (As I understand it you would never set up a test to disprove something)

However as far as the real purpose of the test goes, (and guessing the mindset of it's creator) I think it would be fair to assume that the real purpose of the money is as an incentive to 'trick' people into having their claims debunked (through the afoementioned testing).

mbuehner

13th January 2006, 03:35 PM

Most science as we teach and think about it is based on metaphor. Every physics class in the world has a model of a nucleus with little electrons whirling around it (uncoincidentally like the solar system), and even the more accurate versions of shells and electron clouds are still just approximations that make sense to us. It works as a tool and lets us move on, just as Newtonian physics worked for years. Mathmatics is the only 'pure' science because it doesnt concern itself with physical models that are bound to be inaccurate. Creationists point to these so called flaws as a weakness. In fact they are a strength, proof that the human mind can produce useful results via approximation and imagination that hopefully sheds a bit more truth on the analogies and advances science as a whole. The problem with religion is that although once it may have served a similar purpose- perhaps convincing early humans not to panic at the onset of winter because summer would return someday when the sun god awoke from his slumber- it has long ago ceased to advance our understanding of the natural world and instead inhibits that growth. Willfully.

Bob Klase

13th January 2006, 06:57 PM

By moving the goal post slightly, the challenge becomes remotely interesting. Science up against those who pretend to unseat science, with money and resources to excite the spectators.

That's not moving the goal post- it's moving to a new city, building a whole new stadium and writing a new rule book.

Ducky

13th January 2006, 07:29 PM

xenxabar

13th January 2006, 09:25 PM

I'd say the goal of the Challenge is: To apply the experimental scientific method to paranormal, supernatural or pseudo-scientific claims that, by their nature, can be tested.

If I'm wrong, I'm sure many people will be willing to correct me. Here's the mission statement on the back of a membership card:
A non-profit corporation under US statute 501(c)3, dedicated to providing information on paranormal, supernatural, occult and pseudo-scientific claims, awarding prizes to deserving students who develop projects and essays based upon these claims and both funding and conducting original experiments to examine these claims in a scientific manner.
Although the challenge isn't explictly stated, methinks the nature of the challenge is addressed in it.

a_unique_person

14th January 2006, 05:57 AM

AUP:

Why would we resort to the same tactics as the psychics by shifting the goalposts?

The purpose of the challenge is not to prove anything right, it is to provide a forum for applicants to prove what they claim. Big difference.

Now, shall we discuss global warming, or are you going to head back to the politics section now?

Just that it gets boring seeing week after week the usual cast of nutcases wasting every ones time, (including their own). Just about the only people who ever ask to take the test are those who are so self deluded that they actually believe they have paranormal powers. 99.9% of charlatans are smart enough to know they should avoid the test like the plague. It would be great to see Sylvia or Uri take the test one day, but you know they never will.

Since the science aspect is a part of the test, (that is, using science to test anti-science), I just thought it would be interesting to show up woo-woo thinking that is more common and that people are prepared to stand up publicly and speak out on. Hence, get some people to say that evolution or greenhouse warming is not scientifically valid. Look at all the interest the ID trial generated. It was for more useful, IMHO, in debunking anti-science, than the challenge has managed to be. Not because the challenge is not a good idea to try out, but because all the people it targets run the other way as fast as they can.

rjh01

14th January 2006, 01:47 PM

There will be no more preliminary tests. Kramer has made it difficult for 'those who are so self deluded that they actually believe they have paranormal powers' to actually take the test,

webfusion

14th January 2006, 02:23 PM

"Just that it gets boring seeing week after week the usual cast of nutcases wasting every ones time, (including their own)."

Boring for you, perhaps, not boring for thousands of other JREF forum members.

C'mon, a_u_p, look at the threads here. Some of the most popular ones are following the most incredibly woo-woo cases! Just one, started by 'thelight' telekenisis (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=47295), has over 6000 views. How can you define that as "boring"?

I think this is all highly entertaining, personally, and KRAMER deserves his own TV show. But, noooooo, it's the woos who get "Psychic Detectives" and "Pet Detectives" and "Montel Willams" and "John Edwards" -- all huge ratings successes.

I guarantee a weekly show with KRAMER as host, would be anything but boring!

xenxabar

14th January 2006, 05:27 PM

I think this is all highly entertaining, personally, and KRAMER deserves his own TV show. But, noooooo, it's the woos who get "Psychic Detectives" and "Pet Detectives" and "Montel Willams" and "John Edwards" -- all huge ratings successes.

I guarantee a weekly show with KRAMER as host, would be anything but boring! Don't forget about Myth Busters and the six time Emmy nominated, Penn & Teller: Bulls...!. Both shows have been around since 2003.

A weekly show with KRAMER would be fantastic, even if it was just the reading of that week's challenge correspondences. The Comedy Central show, Crank Yankers, comes to mind for some odd reason.

timokay

14th January 2006, 05:45 PM

a_unique_person

14th January 2006, 11:28 PM

a_unique_person

14th January 2006, 11:31 PM

"Just that it gets boring seeing week after week the usual cast of nutcases wasting every ones time, (including their own)."

Boring for you, perhaps, not boring for thousands of other JREF forum members.

C'mon, a_u_p, look at the threads here. Some of the most popular ones are following the most incredibly woo-woo cases! Just one, started by 'thelight' telekenisis (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=47295), has over 6000 views. How can you define that as "boring"?

Shooting fish in a barrel.

I think this is all highly entertaining, personally, and KRAMER deserves his own TV show. But, noooooo, it's the woos who get "Psychic Detectives" and "Pet Detectives" and "Montel Willams" and "John Edwards" -- all huge ratings successes.

I guarantee a weekly show with KRAMER as host, would be anything but boring!

Something along the lines of Mythbusters could work, and if it grabbed kids attention, great. However, legal aspects could be a problem.

timokay

15th January 2006, 10:40 PM

I would like to form "The Bunko Squad", which, in concert with local authorities, would perform sting operations against psychics, televangelists, hucksters....basically anyone who makes claims, charges fees and willingly commits fraud.
That I would watch.

If the mountain will not come to Mohammad? Unfortunately, litigation seems to be the defense that is used, and it works.

There are plenty of "Invesitigative Reports" type shows, that bust criminals on television. If done well, it would be a great show, and hopefully raise awareness that these vultures prey on the weak, old and addle minded. With cooperation from authorities, it should be protected from litigation.

petre

16th January 2006, 07:35 AM

timokay

16th January 2006, 04:56 PM

The difficulty in starting a show about the challenge is this: The E in JREF stands for Education, not Entertainment ;) Invariably in television, producers will push something for its entertainment value, and ultimately I think that would not be in the best interest of the challenge.

Entertainment and Education are not exclusive. Mythbusters is a great example of this, as well as my High School Physics teacher.

Producers care about money, and that may effect whether or not to go after the Brownes, Edwards and Poppos's, but it damn well better be entertaining or it will not last as a show.

Gayle

17th January 2006, 11:17 AM

I understand the enthusiasm for a Challenge TV show, but the thing is, no TV show is going to make it with the public unless the prize is actually awarded. Think about it!

Turns out, we're not the only ones who have throught about it. Kramer gave me permission to post this response from him:

We have had many meetings and discussions with producers and network executives over the years regarding a TV show based upon the Million Dollar Challenge, and each meeting is cut short soon after we are asked the following question:

"How often do you propose to award the million dollar prize?"

It's really that simple. A show that offers a million dollar prize but never actually awards it to anyone will never fly.

~KRAMER~

Well, darn it!

gnome

17th January 2006, 12:44 PM

There will be no more preliminary tests. Kramer has made it difficult for 'those who are so self deluded that they actually believe they have paranormal powers' to actually take the test,

How is it that it is too difficult?

petre

17th January 2006, 02:40 PM

How is it that it is too difficult?

If the affidavit requirement is performed unilaterally, then every applicant must submit them stating the witness actually saw something unexplainable. Since it is rare that an applicant can actually demonstrate their ability, most are now cut off at this step.

gnome

17th January 2006, 03:52 PM

If the affidavit requirement is performed unilaterally, then every applicant must submit them stating the witness actually saw something unexplainable. Since it is rare that an applicant can actually demonstrate their ability, most are now cut off at this step.

I don't think it's so rare that an applicant can demonstrate their ability without controls on it. Let me rephrase that--I don't think it's rare that an applicant capable of agreeing on a protocol can demonstrate it without controls. The rest are just a waste of JREF's time anyway, aren't they?

petre

17th January 2006, 04:24 PM

I don't think it's so rare that an applicant can demonstrate their ability without controls on it. Let me rephrase that--I don't think it's rare that an applicant capable of agreeing on a protocol can demonstrate it without controls. The rest are just a waste of JREF's time anyway, aren't they?

Some rather enjoyed the prospect of people testing for something they are unable to demonstrate. The rest of us agree the new status quo saves time :)

rjh01

17th January 2006, 11:30 PM

I understand the enthusiasm for a Challenge TV show, but the thing is, no TV show is going to make it with the public unless the prize is actually awarded. Think about it!

Turns out, we're not the only ones who have thought about it. Kramer gave me permission to post this response from him:

Well, darn it!
I do not see this as a major blocker. Anyone watched 'Who wants to be a millionaire?' They went for years and only recently gave out a $1m (This is in Australia) . Several people got 0.5 million. Lots of people got smaller prizes. No reason why JREF cannot duplicate that. The money will come from sponsors and the TV networks themselves. JREFs money can stay safe.

KnotKnitWit

18th January 2006, 02:29 PM

I do not see this as a major blocker. Anyone watched 'Who wants to be a millionaire?' They went for years and only recently gave out a $1m (This is in Australia) . Several people got 0.5 million. Lots of people got smaller prizes. No reason why JREF cannot duplicate that. The money will come from sponsors and the TV networks themselves. JREFs money can stay safe.
Oh, I love that idea! You are totally brilliant! It would greatly widen the JREF's name recognition. If the crazier of the applicants weren't screened out, it would be the funniest show on television. I might even turn on my set again.

Of course, there'd have to be some sort of prize that is awarded, basically, for just appearing. Perhaps a 'panel' of applicants who are allowed to make their claims with any sort of casual demonstration that they like. (Sort of like the current JREF 'trial run'.) Allot 8 minutes to each of the 4, to allow for commercials, and then the audience (studio or at-home-through-computer) gets to pick one each week to carry over. That one gets a small, but considerable, amount of prize money...say $5,000? Once 4 or 5 are chosen, there could be a '2-hour special' where they demonstrate their claims under standard JREF protocol. Then, to keep the audience hooked, the winner gets the million (yeah....right :rolleyes: ) and the voted-for 'audience favorite' could win another $5,000. (Anyone who withdrew before the 'real' demonstration would have to give a taped exit interview in order to claim the original $5,000.)

Audience participation, ala 'American Idol', would keep it suspenseful, it would be hysterically funny and it woud give JREF the opportunity to keep hammering away at the failures. (It would also give another chance to challenge Sylvia. After all, if she can do her thing on TV for Montel, she surely can do it on TV for Randi...right? Maybe with a large ticking clock...?)

I can see JR wheeling the securities through eerie, green, slo-mo fog out of a perfectly gigantic bank safe now...

Solitaire

18th January 2006, 05:03 PM

I would like to posit a new facet to the challenge.

It is that a someone can actually prove that an accepted theory of science is false. By this I mean that someone can prove that evolution is false, anthropogenic greenhouse warming is false, gravitation is false, etc.

"String Theory", which is, as I understand it, a theory which is very much a work in progress, would not be a part of the challenge, for example.

Hey!
Why not make it even more interesting and start your own foundation?
Then we could go there and see who's trying to win your money.
;)

rjh01

19th January 2006, 01:06 AM

[quote=KnotKnitWit;1389233]Oh, I love that idea! You are totally brilliant! It would greatly widen the JREF's name recognition. If the crazier of the applicants weren't screened out, it would be the funniest show on television. I might even turn on my set again.
quote]

It is not me that is brilliant! It is you! You have developed the idea into something that could well work. Give them all interviews at the start to say what they can do and what they have done and then get them to demonstrate it. Only broadcast the good bits of the interviews.

The show could travel around the USA.

moopet

19th January 2006, 02:55 AM

Of course, there'd have to be some sort of prize that is awarded, basically, for just appearing.

Like a Blankety-Blank Chequebook and Pen?

KnotKnitWit

19th January 2006, 08:34 AM

<snip> Give them all interviews at the start to say what they can do and what they have done and then get them to demonstrate it. Only broadcast the good bits of the interviews.

The show could travel around the USA.

Isn't there some sort of show that travels around where people can bring things for evaluation to see if they're junk or antiques? My mother watches that one. That's another great idea.

I'm not much on television but this would be a really funny show.