How can anyone win the prize?

[Imrational]

I was just curious... how can anyone win the prize?

I mean, isn't it impossible to prove the supernatural? The moment something is evident or measureable it is no longer supernatural... it is natural and therefore not eligible for the prize.

[tkingdoll]

You have misunderstood the challenge. It is not a semantics trick, if someone outlines a protocol which is accepted by the JREF, then successfully completes the preliminary and final test, they will win the million. It has nothing to with the definition of the proposed ability. If, before they win, the ability can be classed as supernatural, then, yes, by proving it is real they will change that definition. But they will still win because that is the nature of the contract they will have entered into with the JREF.

It's not a con, it's a challenge. Prove that you can do what you claim. If you can, you win. No pigeonholes needed. If something is eligible for the prize, it only becomes non-supernatural after you have won, as that is the mechanism by which you have proved it.

[Imrational]

So if I said that I had devices that allowed me to communicate images of my surroundings and/or my thoughts/feelings over vast distances to another person (or group of people) that would be eligible?

[Rasmus]

So if I said that I had devices that allowed me to communicate images of my surroundings and/or my thoughts/feelings over vast distances to another person (or group of people) that would be eligible?

Only if it's something drasticially different from a videocamera and a TV-set. And telephones don't count, either.

Rasmus.

[brodski]

So if I said that I had devices that allowed me to communicate images of my surroundings and/or my thoughts/feelings over vast distances to another person (or group of people) that would be eligible?

only if it would break known scientific "laws", technology is not magic.

[ChristineR]

So if I said that I had devices that allowed me to communicate images of my surroundings and/or my thoughts/feelings over vast distances to another person (or group of people) that would be eligible?

Yes, if you could do this it would be eligible. But what you are describing sounds to subjective to test. Could you do something like this: A tester has a set of colored cards. He chooses one at random. You send an image of the card to the receivers. The receiver writes down the color he sensed.

You could also use symbol cards, or numbers, which would be even better. Colors themselves are subjective, i.e. blue vs. purple.

[Imrational]

only if it would break known scientific "laws", technology is not magic.
Crap, you guys are already onto me. I was thinking cell phones :D

[rjh01]

Some people in this forum actually do have brains that are fully utilized.

[3point14]

only if it would break known scientific "laws", technology is not magic.

How about sufficiently advanced technology?

[MRC_Hans]

Sufficiently advanced technology would probably be eligible. Where would you get it from?

Hans

[brodski]

How about sufficiently advanced technology?
Only if it is a MASSIVE technological leap, doing something that we not only currently think will be "very hard", but doing something we currently believe to be "impossible".The technology would need to be "sufficiently advanced" in a relative since, IE so far beyond what we can easily comprehend within what we know of today, as to appear to be magic.And frankly I think the JREF would be happy to pay $1million to see such a fantastic leap forward in technology.

[El_Spectre]

On many occasions, the "impossible" has proved to be true. Now, 999 times out of 1000, it doesn't happen, but it might.

It's pretty unlikely that "paranormal" powers exist - it would mean that lots of well tested theories are wrong - but they might. So the challenge offers an incentive to anyone who can prove them true.

I have zero doubt that the JREF would pay up if someone could genuinely perform these feats... I'm just not holding my breath :)

[Pinocchio]

The technology would need to be "sufficiently advanced" in a relative since, IE so far beyond what we can easily comprehend within what we know of today, as to appear to be magic.And frankly I think the JREF would be happy to pay $1million to see such a fantastic leap forward in technology.


It is not a semantics trick, if someone outlines a protocol which is accepted by the JREF, then successfully completes the preliminary and final test, they will win the million.

Now I wonder, does JREF actually share these opinions?:D

And I don't know why a supernatural phenomenon should at all ever be classified otherwise. Proving it doesn't make it any less super.:cyclops:

[drkitten]

Now I wonder, does JREF actually share these opinions?

Yes, they have officially stated that once they have accepted a protocol, if you fulfil the protocol, then you will win the money. They will not change the rules in mid-challenge.

[tkingdoll]

Yes, they have officially stated that once they have accepted a protocol, if you fulfil the protocol, then you will win the money. They will not change the rules in mid-challenge.

And, more importantly, they can't. If your protocol for the final test (once you've passed the prelim) is accepted (which will be in writing) then it's a legally binding contract, the successful completion of which entitles you to the million. If they simply don't pay, you could sue.

Pinocchio, the JREF aren't trying to stop people winning, they are trying to help them win! So many people are adamant that the paranormal exists, the JREF are simply trying to get conclusive proof. It's not a trick and the million isn't Randi's personal cash that he doesn't want to part with. If no-one wins (and they haven't so far) then no-one else benefits from the money. It doesn't even bring in much interest because it can't be invested in any way that would pose a risk to the funds.

[benji]

And I don't know why a supernatural phenomenon should at all ever be classified otherwise. Proving it doesn't make it any less super.:cyclops:

Yes it does. If someone proves beyond doubt that he or she can actually read someones thoughts, science will be interested in that new phenomenon (that has never appeared before) and research will start until an explanation is found. Even if none is ever found, the phenomenon, once shown to exist beyond doubt, becomes part of "nature" and hence isn't "supernatural" anymore.
After all, there are and have been people with very specific traits that only they or at least only a very small number of other people had/have. Einstein was exceprionally intelligent. Marquis de Sade got to be well known for his exceptional sadism. None of them is considered "supernatural" just because they are (almost) unique in some way. If you actually prove telepatic abilities exist in you, you may be unique (or maybe not), but not supernatural anymore.

[Kimpatsu]

I think part of the problem here is the woo-woo tendency to redefine scientific phenomena as paranormal. For example, there was Donna Khouri, who said that she could douse or read chakras. Kramer replied that first she would need to prove that chakras exist, so how did she intend to do that? Donna immediately fired back that any galvanometer could demonstrate the passage of electricity along the muscles. Kramer's response was that Donna has misunderstood him; he never said that electricity didn't exist; only that the existence of chakras had never been demonstrated. Donna accused Kramer of amphiboly (not in so many words), and stormed off.
This is a common occurrence. To Donna, galvanic response was evidence of the supernatural; Kramer quite reasonably pointed out that this was not so... and she refused to believe him. IOW, she tried to redifine the nature of electricity as paranormal. I, too, have met such redefinitions. For example, in a debate against a fundie once, when the fundie said that "clones were evil", I (sarcastically) congratulated her for insulting every identical clone who'd ever lived. She immediately loooked blank, and demanded to know what I meant. So I explained that monozygotic twins are clones of each other, and she immediately became indignant. To her, the word "clone" does not mean "identical genome"; the word "clone" means "grown in a laboratory a la Dr. Frankenstein". Now, if you are going to redefine your terms thusly, no wonder anything and everything appears paranormal. It is really a testament to your lack of understanding about the world; woo-woos, however, see Randi's refusal to accept galvanic response or cloning as paranormal as an attempt to weasal out of what they see as their deserved $1 million. Hence the "semantics".
Any comments?

[Pinocchio]

And, more importantly, they can't. If your protocol for the final test (once you've passed the prelim) is accepted (which will be in writing) then it's a legally binding contract, the successful completion of which entitles you to the million. If they simply don't pay, you could sue.
Rule #7: When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial or professional loss, or damage of any kind. :o


Yes it does. If someone proves beyond doubt that he or she can actually read someones thoughts, science will be interested in that new phenomenon (that has never appeared before) and research will start until an explanation is found. Even if none is ever found, the phenomenon, once shown to exist beyond doubt, becomes part of "nature" and hence isn't "supernatural" anymore.
So before it is found so scientifically, the phenomenon is not part of nature? Electrons had not been part of nature before they were scientifically discovered? Just checking. :D

[hellaeon]

I think part of the problem here is the woo-woo tendency to redefine scientific phenomena as paranormal. For example, there was Donna Khouri, who said that she could douse or read chakras. Kramer replied that first she would need to prove that chakras exist, so how did she intend to do that? Donna immediately fired back that any galvanometer could demonstrate the passage of electricity along the muscles. Kramer's response was that Donna has misunderstood him; he never said that electricity didn't exist; only that the existence of chakras had never been demonstrated. Donna accused Kramer of amphiboly (not in so many words), and stormed off.
This is a common occurrence. To Donna, galvanic response was evidence of the supernatural; Kramer quite reasonably pointed out that this was not so... and she refused to believe him. IOW, she tried to redifine the nature of electricity as paranormal. I, too, have met such redefinitions. For example, in a debate against a fundie once, when the fundie said that "clones were evil", I (sarcastically) congratulated her for insulting every identical clone who'd ever lived. She immediately loooked blank, and demanded to know what I meant. So I explained that monozygotic twins are clones of each other, and she immediately became indignant. To her, the word "clone" does not mean "identical genome"; the word "clone" means "grown in a laboratory a la Dr. Frankenstein". Now, if you are going to redefine your terms thusly, no wonder anything and everything appears paranormal. It is really a testament to your lack of understanding about the world; woo-woos, however, see Randi's refusal to accept galvanic response or cloning as paranormal as an attempt to weasal out of what they see as their deserved $1 million. Hence the "semantics".
Any comments?

cheers, this is a great comment. Well put and this is what I try to explain to a few people my way. Just because they think its paranormal does not make it so. There is so much science we dont know that exists and is accepted as fact. Try and teach people Occams Razor. Impossible.

[TheChadd]

Rule #7: When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial or professional loss, or damage of any kind.

You don't even need to be a lawyer to work out that doesn't apply to sueing him if he didn't pay up after the contest... this is simply to cover his arse while doing the contest - nothing there would stop anyone from sueing him over a breach of the contract. I knew the american judicial system was a bit of a mess, but surely no barrister could twist the contract that much? I imagine doing so would qualify him for the JREF million dollar prize.

[T'ai Chi]

I mean, isn't it impossible to prove the supernatural? The moment something is evident or measureable it is no longer supernatural... it is natural and therefore not eligible for the prize.

From what I understand the prize would be awarded. Scientifically IMO, it would mean nothing. One could always say the event is natural, or that the observers got tricked, or that one time is not replication, etc. There are always outs.. not outs as far as paying the $ goes, but outs on what the results mean.

[drfrank]

From what I understand the prize would be awarded. Scientifically IMO, it would mean nothing. One could always say the event is natural, or that the observers got tricked, or that one time is not replication, etc. There are always outs.. not outs as far as paying the $ goes, but outs on what the results mean.

Obviously the phenomenon would need to reliably replicated in order to become accepted, but that's the case with any science. Randi actually giving up the cash would be more than enough to inspire scientists to start seriously investigating the phenomenon.

[drkitten]

Rule #7: When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial or professional loss, or damage of any kind.

[tweet] Personal foul -- unsportsmanlike conduct (quote-mining). 15 yards and loss of down.

Did you bother to read the very next sentence of the rules?


However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize.


The Randi Foundation explicitly acknowledges that the negotated protocol is binding regarding the awarding of the prize. Not that they needed to be, since the law is very clear on this point.

I call troll.

[Pinocchio]

Did you bother to read the very next sentence of the rules?
Yeah I did. And it proves nothing. You can sue anyone over anything regardless of what you sign. Damages, injury, you name it. No one can take that right away from you, it's just not likely you're gonna succeed after signing a document relinquishing your right to sue. But if one CAN sue JREF over breach of contract, why don't the JREF folks just say so - DIRECTLY! In what other instances can the applicant sue JREF? They're not too keen on explaining that. You mind helping me out?:o


The Randi Foundation explicitly acknowledges that the negotated protocol is binding regarding the awarding of the prize. Not that they needed to be, since the law is very clear on this point.
I hope you don't live in an illusion. The law is clear on many points, but reality doesn't always reflect that. If you can afford an expensive lawyer... you can even have sex with a 14 year old, tape the whole thing and get away with it.
Just ask R.Kelly. Now go back to your cave.:D

p.s.
Can you imagine the Randi Foundation without its million dollar challenge? Awarding the prize would be quite an earthquake.... It's not something JREF would ever want, I think. They can pretend to be open to it, but deep down, I know James Randi prays that it never happens.

[nathan]

Yeah I did. And it proves nothing.
Then I don't think you know as much about contract law as you purport to.

[Pinocchio]

Then I don't think you know as much about contract law as you purport to.
What do I purport to know? What is there to know? The whole story about contract law. Come on Nathan, you can do it.

[nathan]

What do I purport to know? What is there to know? The whole story about contract law. Come on Nathan, you can do it.
You're arguing that a challenge contract isn't binding. You claim various clauses in that contract will mean nothing. In particular you claim that even if the contract says words to the effect of 'this clause is not a get out of paying up clause', it still is a get out of paying up clause. From that I deduce you purport to know something about contract law, but I claim you are incorrect on that matter.

Are you now claiming not to know anything about contract law?

[drkitten]

But if one CAN sue JREF over breach of contract, why don't the JREF folks just say so - DIRECTLY!

They did.

In what other instances can the applicant sue JREF?

In matters not involving "injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial or professional loss, or damage of any kind," of course.

They're not too keen on explaining that. You mind helping me out?:

Not at all. They don't need to explain everything, since the wording is essentially as clear as crystal. Even the final sentence -- the one you misleadingly edited out -- is unnecessary, since "breach of contract" isn't "injury, accident, or any other damage" or a "financial or professional loss."

[strathmeyer]

In what other instances can the applicant sue JREF?

Exactly. Nobody knows, so they're covering their behinds.

[TheChadd]

But if one CAN sue JREF over breach of contract, why don't the JREF folks just say so - DIRECTLY! In what other instances can the applicant sue JREF? They're not too keen on explaining that. You mind helping me out?

That would be silly, they simply list the limitations otherwise they would need to provide some sort of open-ended definition/list of what types of litigation could be accepted - which would be potentially dangerous for the JREF.

The law is clear on many points, but reality doesn't always reflect that.

The law is not 'clear' on many points - If you take a literal interpretation of the law you can often end up with absurd results.

you can even have sex with a 14 year old, tape the whole thing and get away with it.

Do you actually know the inner workings of this case? Or is it just like a black box? You saw what went in - You saw what came out... you know nothing about the relevant law etc and you merely passed it off as 'another thug getting away with it' ?

Can you imagine the Randi Foundation without its million dollar challenge? Awarding the prize would be quite an earthquake.... It's not something JREF would ever want, I think. They can pretend to be open to it, but deep down, I know James Randi prays that it never happens.

If they are being underhanded people will know about it, no matter what high priced lawyer they get.

What do I purport to know? What is there to know? The whole story about contract law. Come on Nathan, you can do it.

You claim to know something about law, let you in practice have shown the typical signs of someone with very little understanding.

[Admiral]

Excuse me, but this thread is ridiculous. The idea that legal contracts don't have to be followed is ridiculous. The country is based on the very principle- read up on your Marshall.

Also, your comparison to R. Kelly is ridiculous- that was a criminal case while this would be a civil case. The standard of proof required is different- a criminal case requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," while a civil case requires "clear and convincing evidence."

In addition, you say "In what other instances can the applicant sue JREF? They're not too keen on explaining that." Actually, they do list the potential lawsuits that this avoids, right in the rules:

"This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial or professional loss, or damage of any kind."

Imagine a psychic takes the challenge, fails, and then sues JREF while claiming that her failure in the challenge led to a loss of potential costumers- this falls under "financial or professional loss."

Imagine they claim they were mentally traumatized by the embarrasment- this falls under "damage of a physical or emotional nature."

They have every right to put that clause there.

One last thing- you say that "...deep down, I know James Randi prays that it never happens." I have a sincere doubt Randi prays for anything- rational thinkers don't have to. More importantly, people who believe that Randi is busy worrying about paying out the prize anytime soon are just one rung above those who think he's stifling the applicants with his psychic powers. Randi created the challenge for a reason- he knows it's the safest money you can find.

[benji]

So before it is found so scientifically, the phenomenon is not part of nature? Electrons had not been part of nature before they were scientifically discovered? Just checking. :D

I guess I should have written "become part of our concept of nature".

A "phenomenon" is an "observable event". So yes, before it (or it's effect) has been observed, it is irrelevant and just that - unknown. Of course electrons had always existed and were part of nature, but before they were discovered, no one knew of them (thats WHY they were discovered, and not known), so they were not part of the scientific concept of nature. Once they were discovered, they were integrated into the concept.

A phenomenon would be considered "supernatural" if it could not be explained by current scientific theories. If such an phenomenon was observed, it would mean that some theories were wrong and they would have to be adjusted. The new theories would be required to be consistent with the new reality. The phenomenon would then immediately cease to be considered "supernatural".

[Tony4245]

A phenomenon would be considered "supernatural" if it could not be explained by current scientific theories. If such an phenomenon was observed, it would mean that some theories were wrong and they would have to be adjusted. The new theories would be required to be consistent with the new reality. The phenomenon would then immediately cease to be considered "supernatural".

I think it was Heinlein who said: "One man's magic is another man's engineering. 'Supernatural' is a null word."

You're welcome.
;)

[gnome]

Yeah I did. And it proves nothing. You can sue anyone over anything regardless of what you sign.

You always have the right to sue... you do not have the right to win. And what you sign becomes very important to winning.

Consider a jury trial. If you were on the jury, would you rule that this clause freed Randi from having to fulfill the entire purpose of the challenge? Can you imagine finding six people at once that do?

[benji]

I think it was Heinlein who said: "One man's magic is another man's engineering. 'Supernatural' is a null word."

You're welcome.
;)

This Hein guy must have supernatural powers, since he knew in andvance what I was going to write in the JREF forum... ;)

[drkitten]

They have every right to put that clause there.


Pinocchio, strathmeyer -- let me turn the question around.

Admiral summed up the situation rather well. What should the JREF do if someone takes on the challenge, fails (as has historically been the case), and then turns around and sues the JREF because they have been professionally embarassed by this failure? This is a legitimate concern, and I certainly hope you would agree that the JREF has the right to protect itself from meritless lawsuits brought on by nothing else than the exposure of the applicant's self-delusion.

So pretend for a moment that you're the JREF, or the JREF's lawyer. How would you phrase the challenge rules to make it clear that the JREF has no intention (nor right) to cheat, while still affirming the right not to be harassed simply for running a fair test that exposes a delusional person, a cheat, or a fraud, for what they are?

What wording would you use?

[strathmeyer]

The idea that legal contracts don't have to be followed is ridiculous. The country is based on the very principle- read up on your Marshall.

Of course it's ridiculous, and though I'm not exactly sure this is the principal <America> is based on, there are certainly contracts that aren't legal.

[Beth]

p.s.
Can you imagine the Randi Foundation without its million dollar challenge? Awarding the prize would be quite an earthquake.... It's not something JREF would ever want, I think. They can pretend to be open to it, but deep down, I know James Randi prays that it never happens.

Well, first of all, I don't think James Randi prays about anything. Second of all, can you imagine the Randi Foundation if they did award the prize? The publicity of establishing such a thing? I think it would be worth more than a million dollars. Finally, I think Randi would be quite delighted to actually be instrumental in establishing such a thing as real (assuming it wasn't a trickster who won).

[Pinocchio]

Not at all. They don't need to explain everything, since the wording is essentially as clear as crystal. Even the final sentence -- the one you misleadingly edited out -- is unnecessary, since "breach of contract" isn't "injury, accident, or any other damage" or a "financial or professional loss."
It wasn't my intention to mislead. I wanted to copy/paste the two sentences with the words ANY AND ALL, but I guess I made a mistake by adding: "RULE #7." That implies what follows is rule #7 in its entirety, which was not the case.
Now tell me, since the last sentence is, according to you, unnecessary, why single it out, as you did - in bold - in one of your previous posts??:o


Are you now claiming not to know anything about contract law?
I don't know too much, but I do know that whoever has a better lawy... liar usually wins.:D


Do you actually know the inner workings of this case? Or is it just like a black box? You saw what went in - You saw what came out... you know nothing about the relevant law etc and you merely passed it off as 'another thug getting away with it' ?
No I don't know the inner workings, do you? But I can spot R.Kelly when I see him. And I think I know what the age of consent in Florida is. What else needs to be known? Errr...my last reply to Nathan maybe?:p


Also, your comparison to R. Kelly is ridiculous- that was a criminal case while this would be a civil case. The standard of proof required is different- a criminal case requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," while a civil case requires "clear and convincing evidence."
I'm not comparing anything. I mentioned that case to illustrate that ultimately it doesn't necessarily matter if one is guilty or not. Civil or criminal case. Innocent people sometimes go to prison, and guilty mofos get away with stuff - that's a fact of life. And yeah I think R.Kelly was definitely guilty. He even married Aaliyah when she was only 15 <- that marriage was later annulled.
I again agree with my last reply to Nathan.:o

By the way are you sure the R.Kelly case was a civil case? Maybe it started as a civil case, but I think there was a criminal investigation also...


Imagine they claim they were mentally traumatized by the embarrasment- this falls under "damage of a physical or emotional nature."

They have every right to put that clause there.
Yeah they do. I'm not saying they don't for this particular 'damage'.


Admiral summed up the situation rather well. What should the JREF do if someone takes on the challenge, fails (as has historically been the case), and then turns around and sues the JREF because they have been professionally embarassed by this failure?
Trying to blame the consequences of one's failures on someone else? No I don't have a problem with a clause against losers of that kind.


What wording would you use?
Well, how about explicitly stating that this is a legally binding contract? That would be a good start. And if rule-7 deals exclusively with damages and other stupidities, as some of you claim, how about a clear sentence saying just that? What if the results of a preliminary test are inconclusive? The claimant wants to repeat the test. JREF says no. Can he sue? What if a natural disaster takes place during the test, and affects its outcome? The JREF representative is in a bad mood and reports a negative result. JREF then accepts the rep's verdict. Claimant gets mad. Can he sue?

If the answer is no, I think there should be an appeal process of some sort.


More importantly, people who believe that Randi is busy worrying about paying out the prize anytime soon are just one rung above those who think he's stifling the applicants with his psychic powers.
Maybe he's so sure no one will ever win, he's not even worried about it. But if someone wins - and I think eventually it will happen - it's gonna be a perinormal [don't look at me, thank Richard Dawkins for this word :D ] phenomenon. Now, does he think those don't exist either? It would be arrogant to think that they don't.


Second of all, can you imagine the Randi Foundation if they did award the prize? The publicity of establishing such a thing? I think it would be worth more than a million dollars. Finally, I think Randi would be quite delighted to actually be instrumental in establishing such a thing as real (assuming it wasn't a trickster who won).
Only if it's a totally new phenomenon with great potential. I sincerely doubt that JREF is looking for something of that nature, though. I do read the 'commentaries', you know.:D

[petre]

Just want to tackle the question of an appeal process quickly. In any of the situations you outlined, the applicant would be permitted to apply again after 1 year. That's not just an appeal, that's the opportunity to try every year if you want to. I'm kind of surprised JREF doesn't have such an applicant actually.

[Pinocchio]

Just want to tackle the question of an appeal process quickly. In any of the situations you outlined, the applicant would be permitted to apply again after 1 year. That's not just an appeal, that's the opportunity to try every year if you want to. I'm kind of surprised JREF doesn't have such an applicant actually.
You can reapply with an identical claim? I thought you could reapply only if you had a new claim. Old claims don't sit well with Kramer.:o

[petre]

You can reapply with an identical claim? I thought you could reapply only if you had a new claim. Old claims don't sit well with Kramer.:o

I don't speak for them, but from my understanding a failed claim does not preclude an applicant from trying again. The only restriction upon them is the 1 year delay between applications. Of course, it seems so far those rational enough to get through the protocol definition and an actual preliminary test...discover that perhaps their demonstration technique needs tuning before another test, and do not return.

KRAMER might now require that the applicant provide 3 new affidavits for each application, which would reduce the chances of an annual testing event. This is fast becomming a tool applied to every applicant as a means to determine whether further examination is worth the time and effort.

[TheChadd]

The claimant wants to repeat the test. JREF says no. Can he sue? What if a natural disaster takes place during the test, and affects its outcome? The JREF representative is in a bad mood and reports a negative result. JREF then accepts the rep's verdict. Claimant gets mad. Can he sue?

I believe the applicants are usually asked if they are fine with the test conditions before they go off and do it.

No I don't know the inner workings, do you? But I can spot R.Kelly when I see him. And I think I know what the age of consent in Florida is. What else needs to be known? Errr...my last reply to Nathan maybe?

No I don't. But I have a pretty good idea of how at least my own legal system works, and one of the problems there are for the public is that they only see what goes in and what comes out ... you don't hear about the relevant legislation... you don't hear about how evidence was used...

I'm not saying there aren't many botched trials, just that if you don't know much about the case it's best not to comment...

Well, how about explicitly stating that this is a legally binding contract? That would be a good start. And if rule-7 deals exclusively with damages and other stupidities, as some of you claim, how about a clear sentence saying just that?

You don't understand how contracts are written.

[drkitten]

Well, how about explicitly stating that this is a legally binding contract? That would be a good start.

Not necessary. Any agreement is a binding contract. If the people haven't agreed on the content, such a statement is legally unenforceable -- if they've agreed, then it's silly.


And if rule-7 deals exclusively with damages and other stupidities, as some of you claim, how about a clear sentence saying just that?

There is one. It's called "rule 7." "This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial or professional loss, or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize."


What if the results of a preliminary test are inconclusive?

Not going to happen, by the test design. From rule 1: "Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result." From the application form : "All tests must be designed in such a way that the results are self-evident, and no judging process is required. "

What if a natural disaster takes place during the test, and affects its outcome?

In this case, if the JREF refused to reschedule the test, the claimant could indeed sue. In practice, again, it's not going to happen. The JREF makes a point of making sure that the claimant is absolutely comfortable with the environment before and during the test, and if the claimant has a single objection, the JREF will immediately offer to reschedule the test.

The JREF representative is in a bad mood and reports a negative result.

Again, not going to happen. "No judging is required," remember? The results of the test are "self-evident" and caught on videotape.

[drkitten]

I don't speak for them, but from my understanding a failed claim does not preclude an applicant from trying again. The only restriction upon them is the 1 year delay between applications.

Let them speak for themselves, then.


There is no limit on the number of times an applicant may re-apply, but re-application can take place only after 12 months have elapsed since the preliminary test.

[petre]

Let them speak for themselves, then.

If you want an answer from them, you have to ask them. If you post on the message boards, you'll get answers from us :)

[Pastor Bentonit]

Most applicants might want to try for a double-blind test of their complete inability to READ AND UNDERSTAND THE RULES. ;)

[T'ai Chi]

Obviously the phenomenon would need to reliably replicated in order to become accepted, but that's the case with any science. Randi actually giving up the cash would be more than enough to inspire scientists to start seriously investigating the phenomenon.

Oh, but you see, Randi and/or the observers just got tricked. They'll pay, but the phenomenon isn't genuine, they just got tricked.

[jj]

Oh, but you see, Randi and/or the observers just got tricked. They'll pay, but the phenomenon isn't genuine, they just got tricked.

Please show your evidence to support this assetion, as well as your statistics and data that support your evidence.

[T'ai Chi]

I'm not sure why one needs to believe that the opinion of the testers being tricked being more likely than a supernatural thing being true needs to be supported with evidence, statistics, and data.

[rjh01]

So far, no-one has come close to winning the prize. Now that the procedure has changed I doubt that any one will get close. After all the testers would know what to expect and would have worked out all the tricks before hand, with help from us people.

[Admiral]

I'm not sure why one needs to believe that the opinion of the testers being tricked being more likely than a supernatural thing being true needs to be supported with evidence, statistics, and data.

This is an example of the same close-minded thinking that woos accuse skeptics of. The protocol was mutually agreed upon, and there was a fair demonstration. If you then reply, "There had to be someone cheating just because paranormal abilities are impossible," you're no better than a woo that says "I know my powers exist, so any tests that show otherwise are flawed."

It's true, however, that science holds itself to a higher standard and will require extensive testing and peer review before it accepts something. In other words, winning the JREF million wouldn't qualify someone for the next Nobel Prize.

[rjh01]

But it would make certain people do some study on the subject and one of them could win the Nobel Prize.

But I think it very unlikely that anyone will ever win the prize by almost any means.

How to win the prize
1. Get Kramer on side
2. Find some observers to observe the testing. These people are on your side. However to all outside observers they are neutral.
3. Pretend to do the preliminary test. The observers say you have supernatural powers.
4. You are now in uncharted waters.


edited for spelling.

[T'ai Chi]

The protocol was mutually agreed upon, and there was a fair demonstration.


Sure, that was never in dispute by me.

But it would still be more probable that someone was fooled than a supernatural thing occured, IMO.

[TheChadd]

3. Pretend to do the preliminary test. The observers say you have supernatural powers.

The observers don't need to say anything.

But it would still be more probable that someone was fooled than a supernatural thing occured, IMO.

I agree. It's much more likely that someone has managed to do something dodgy than that something supernatural has occured - but still, i think even doing something dodgy under good conditions is impossible.

[stupidquestion]

Some thoughts:

There is no way to craft an airtight contract that will prevent any party from being sued, especially you can sue for just about anything (suing successfully is a different matter) and slavery is outlawed. For that matter, as my law student friend likes to phrase it, a contract ultimately means only what a court says it means--if it comes to a lawsuit. Law is an interplay between proscription and interpretation. You can't write anything legally unassailable. I see no improvements needed to Randi's current language. It's all very clear.

On "natural" vs. "supernatural," it seems to me that it is not a positive result that would "switch" an event from supernatural to natural. It would be testing it in the first place, because a scientific test presumes the operation of the normal laws of nature (to speak loosely). It's the claimants themselves who are proposing the phenomenon is "natural," in those terms.

But more important is that "natural" and "supernatural" are common words, not scientific terms. Science is concerned with what is demonstrably true, or appears so through sustained testing of theory; that can be abstractly described as "natural," but that's not how science talks or what it tests. The challenge is simply concerned with whether a claim is demonstrable, not its philosophical or semantic status.

[a_unique_person]

On many occasions, the "impossible" has proved to be true. Now, 999 times out of 1000, it doesn't happen, but it might.

It's pretty unlikely that "paranormal" powers exist - it would mean that lots of well tested theories are wrong - but they might. So the challenge offers an incentive to anyone who can prove them true.

I have zero doubt that the JREF would pay up if someone could genuinely perform these feats... I'm just not holding my breath :)

The only problem is that those who actually believe they have those powers are too crazy to even know how to follow a simple process to apply for the prize, those who claim to have the powers but know they don't would never apply for the prize, unless they don't mind being exposed as frauds.