Could Scientists grab the million?

[NiallM]

I mean in the sense of scientists at the very leading edge of reason.

Picture this claim:

Einstein: I can bend light. Science tells us that light travels in straight lines, but I can make it bend.

JREF: Fill in the application form and read the FAQ.

Einstein: Done. I can't proide affidavits until the next eclipse when I can demonstrate. Any chance that I can do a full preliminary and test at the same time then? We can have all the witnesses, experts and astronomers that you want.

JREF: OK, then. What we will need in advance is: precise tables showing the results that we obtain when light is straight line, and predicted results as a result of your ability.

Einstein: Done.

Now I know that each claim is different, and will involve tweaking of the protocol. In this case (but hindsight may be wroking here), JREF might ask for observations from eclipses prior to the trial; they may demand that Einstein bend light in another direction; they may ask Einstein not to bend the light as well in order to demonstrate the he is the one bending it, rather than it being perfectly natural.

So my example isn't so good after all. My point is, though, if a scientist comes across a phenomenon that appears to the layman to be inexplicable - and which is inexplicable by current science - could he or she apply for the prize? The fact that they subsequently publish an explanation could always be explained by the fact that after they won the prize they felt driven to find a scientific cause.

Sounds like it could be a handy way to get some research funding if you were in that position.

[JohnF_73]

I don't see why not? I mean, it probably wouldn't be ethical to take it from the JREF. Something so revolutionary would surely get the million from the Nobel Prize as well as do wonders for the scientists reputation. (Increased speaking fees, book deals, etc...)

But ethical concerns aside, I don't see why it couldn't happen.

[Darat]

In principle the JREF and Randi have always answered with a "yes".

(Richard Dawkins brought this very point up at TAM3 and coined the term "perinormal".)

[NiallM]

Thanks for the replies and the clarification.

I agree that it would be less than ethical for a scientist to present an effect if he has an idea of an explanation. It might also undermine their reputation when they proceeded to publication (along with exposing their data and experiments predating the challenge). JREF may have no sanction, but the applicant's reputation would take a dive in academic circles.

[CFLarsen]

In principle the JREF and Randi have always answered with a "yes".

(Richard Dawkins brought this very point up at TAM3 and coined the term "perinormal".)

To which Randi replied that it would be worth a million bucks just to see such a scientific discovery.

That should tell Randi's critics something about what kind of person he is.

[T'ai Chi]

So my example isn't so good after all. My point is, though, if a scientist comes across a phenomenon that appears to the layman to be inexplicable - and which is inexplicable by current science - could he or she apply for the prize? The fact that they subsequently publish an explanation could always be explained by the fact that after they won the prize they felt driven to find a scientific cause.


I think it is possible, but I don't think the JREF is a place where a scientist would first, or at all, think of taking his/her work to be examined. They'd go to scientific collegues and peer reviewed journals.

[CFLarsen]

I think it is possible, but I don't think the JREF is a place where a scientist would first, or at all, think of taking his/her work to be examined. They'd go to scientific collegues and peer reviewed journals.

We have seen this with Gary Schwartz, Robert Jahn, Brenda Dunne, Targ & Puthoff.

They prefer to publish their evidence of paranormal phenomena in such esteemed peer-reviewed scientific publications such as...yes, where do they go to, when they want to have their work examined?

[ChristineR]

Paranormalists bring up "the next great advance is being surpressed because scientists are so pigheaded" thing all the time. If the next great advance is indeed languishing in someone's garage then the JREF prize is the perfect place for it. I kind of doubt it, because so much of what a person can observe in the garage has already been observed already. On the other hand, Ms. Average has new technology available to her all the time.

[Dragon]

To which Randi replied that it would be worth a million bucks just to see such a scientific discovery.

That should tell Randi's critics something about what kind of person he is.I'd love to see this happen! Even better if the scientist involved payed back the million (out of the Nobel Prize that would surely follow) so the the Paranormal Challenge could continue.

[Renee Rynn]

This is an interesting subject but I dont think there has been much deep thought put into it on how exactly an absolute breakthrough in science that brings science, nature and religion into one perpective and understanding will be shown and taught and believed.
Has anyone Einstein included, ever had an easy time to convince the public that they have discovered something new that sounds like fiction but is indeed a real fact.
Take for instance, this information, that colors create all of life and control every emotion, thought and movement that is known to mankind.
And the proof of this can be visually seen on the signs that the hands make when people talk.
Well, now, just think for an instance if you had this knowledge, how do you get people to actually learn to see the signs and see the liquid movements of the body in front of each color? And if the discovery also included the knowledge that certain colors are the cause of every illness and sickness known to mankind how do you get to make people believe you when the very color that causes the illness and desease is idolized by everyone especially the most powerful people on earth? Give it some thought, Give me a clue. I have this knowledge but have pondered on how it can be shown with ease and comfort to James Randi and others in powerful public places.
I have thought about making James Randi the subject of my proof, I have been thinking about it for a while now, the right thing to do. If I am to go to a shrink to make sure that I am sane, then James Randi must go to a shrink of my choosing too to make sure he is sane enough to judge the proof, and if I win the challenge, then James Randi must cover all the costs to the penny that the proof incurred for me.
There are many things in the universe that were considered science fiction and are now in fact science fact that we use every day without any thought on it.
I hope James Randi is on the mend, it would be interesting to talk face to face with him and discuss a subject close to him - the Mayas and other things of course.

Renee

[ChristineR]

Renee, Randi himself is not necessarily involved in the tests. He approves the protocols.

Can you give of more information? The JREF won't do any test that involved making people sick. You mention "the signs and movements of the body in front of each color." Does this mean that if you saw a person looking at a color--and you yourself could not see the color--you could identify the color? Best would be something simple, like a set of red, blue and yellow cards.

[ChristineR]

Or better yet, can you tell what color you are touching when you blindfolded?

[drkitten]

We have seen this with Gary Schwartz, Robert Jahn, Brenda Dunne, Targ & Puthoff.


On the other hand, they're only "scientists" in the same sense that Michael Behe is. They have positions on science faculty, and often degrees in the sciences -- but they don't do science. I'd suggest that the Mythbusters are better scientists in the traditional "generation and dissemination of knowledge" sense.

I am perfectly willing to believe that competent scientists can study the paranormal. I expect that those scientists will come up with negative results when they do, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. That's more or less Randi's position as well.

[Bob Klase]

I have thought about making James Randi the subject of my proof, I have been thinking about it for a while now, the right thing to do. If I am to go to a shrink to make sure that I am sane, then James Randi must go to a shrink of my choosing too to make sure he is sane enough to judge the proof, and if I win the challenge, then James Randi must cover all the costs to the penny that the proof incurred for me.

But the rules for the challange are established. Randi is not involved in the judgeing, and costs involved are not the responsibility of Randi or the JREF. If we get to write our own rules for anything then I'll just submit a challenge witht he rule that proof consists of me saying something is true. I win.

[drkitten]

Has anyone Einstein included, ever had an easy time to convince the public that they have discovered something new that sounds like fiction but is indeed a real fact.


Um, yes, it happens on a fairly regular basis in science. The key aspect, of course, is that the better your evidence, the easier time you have in getting people to accept the discoveries you make.


Take for instance, this information, that colors create all of life and control every emotion, thought and movement that is known to mankind.

That's "information"? It's certainly not information that I'm familiar with. I think I need better evidence.


And the proof of this can be visually seen on the signs that the hands make when people talk.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how this is evidence. If you're suggesting that colours create "all of life," then how do the hand-signs that people make create bacteria.... which have existed since long before people existed, or for that matter, hands existed?

Furthermore, I don't see how your suggested creation could occur. Depending upon your frame of mind, colours are either people's mental qualia, which suggests that they only have existed as long as people have existed -- so how did bacteria come about? -- or else they're just a categorization scheme applied to differentiate various frequency bands in the EM spectrum, which means that they have no causal effect whatsoever --- and therefore how can they create anything?


Well, now, just think for an instance if you had this knowledge, how do you get people to actually learn to see the signs and see the liquid movements of the body in front of each color?

It's not yet "knowledge" to have. It's unsupported and wild speculation.

And if the discovery also included the knowledge that certain colors are the cause of every illness and sickness known to mankind how do you get to make people believe you when the very color that causes the illness and desease is idolized by everyone especially the most powerful people on earth? Give it some thought, Give me a clue.

What kind of evidence can you present?

If you claim, for example, that colours create things.... well, we can easily manipulate colours. Manipulate colours in such a way as to create a plate of sandwiches out of thin air. Now that's evidence!

If you claim, for example, that the wrong colours cause sickness -- well, manipulate colours to be the 'right' colours and cure people. Again, that's evidence.




I have thought about making James Randi the subject of my proof, I have been thinking about it for a while now, the right thing to do. If I am to go to a shrink to make sure that I am sane, then James Randi must go to a shrink of my choosing too to make sure he is sane enough to judge the proof, and if I win the challenge, then James Randi must cover all the costs to the penny that the proof incurred for me.

Doesn't work that way. It's Randi's money, and he gets to make the rules. One of his rules is that you have to be able to demonstrate your phenomenon in a sufficiently clear way that no medical certificate of sanity is necessary to understand it. This means that not only Randi, but everyone on Earth, will be able to understand it and benefit from the knowledge you claim to have. Similarly, the costs of running the challenge are yours, to preserve the capital for the next round of challengers if you fail.

But if you win the challenge, you'll be handed a million dollars and be more or less guaranteed an income for life from the talk-show circuit -- if that doesn't cover your costs, then you're running a rather expensive proof.


There are many things in the universe that were considered science fiction and are now in fact science fact that we use every day without any thought on it.

Absolutely. But they got that way because people were able to produce evidence in their support.

[rwguinn]

I mean in the sense of scientists at the very leading edge of reason.

Picture this claim:

Einstein: I can bend light. Science tells us that light travels in straight lines, but I can make it bend.

JREF: Fill in the application form and read the FAQ.

Einstein: Done. I can't proide affidavits until the next eclipse when I can demonstrate. Any chance that I can do a full preliminary and test at the same time then? We can have all the witnesses, experts and astronomers that you want.

JREF: OK, then. What we will need in advance is: precise tables showing the results that we obtain when light is straight line, and predicted results as a result of your ability.

Einstein: Done.

Now I know that each claim is different, and will involve tweaking of the protocol. In this case (but hindsight may be wroking here), JREF might ask for observations from eclipses prior to the trial; they may demand that Einstein bend light in another direction; they may ask Einstein not to bend the light as well in order to demonstrate the he is the one bending it, rather than it being perfectly natural.

So my example isn't so good after all. My point is, though, if a scientist comes across a phenomenon that appears to the layman to be inexplicable - and which is inexplicable by current science - could he or she apply for the prize? The fact that they subsequently publish an explanation could always be explained by the fact that after they won the prize they felt driven to find a scientific cause.

Sounds like it could be a handy way to get some research funding if you were in that position.
If you can write an equation for it, it is science, and thus, not paranormal by any stretch of the imagination.
The proof is in submitting the equations for review--to insure that somewhere you didn't equate 2=4 or some more subtle error.
So the above scenario would not, in my opinion, qualify for the JREF prize.
Randi may have other ideas on that, and as he is the final determinor of such, I wold bow to his decision....

[drkitten]

If you can write an equation for it, it is science, and thus, not paranormal by any stretch of the imagination.

Um,....no. I can write equations for all kinds of horseflop, and that doesn't make them science. E.g., scientific "proof" of the Christian Trinity. 1+1+1 = 1

Alternatively, I can produce an equation for anti-gravity, simply by assuming that I can find a substance with negative mass. Pure horseflop, despite the equation.

What makes something science is whether or not you can test it to get evidence for it -- and whether the evidence supports it.

Randi's primary claim is that the paranormal simply isn't science. (N.b. Not that it's not science by definition. He's cool with the idea that it might be science. It just isn't.) And he's got a cool million bucks that says you can't test it (and get evidence for it). So far, he's won that bet every time.

[aggle-rithm]

This is an interesting subject but I dont think there has been much deep thought put into it on how exactly an absolute breakthrough in science that brings science, nature and religion into one perpective and understanding will be shown and taught and believed.
Has anyone Einstein included, ever had an easy time to convince the public that they have discovered something new that sounds like fiction but is indeed a real fact.
Take for instance, this information, that colors create all of life and control every emotion, thought and movement that is known to mankind.
And the proof of this can be visually seen on the signs that the hands make when people talk.
Well, now, just think for an instance if you had this knowledge, how do you get people to actually learn to see the signs and see the liquid movements of the body in front of each color? And if the discovery also included the knowledge that certain colors are the cause of every illness and sickness known to mankind how do you get to make people believe you when the very color that causes the illness and desease is idolized by everyone especially the most powerful people on earth? Give it some thought, Give me a clue. I have this knowledge but have pondered on how it can be shown with ease and comfort to James Randi and others in powerful public places.
I have thought about making James Randi the subject of my proof, I have been thinking about it for a while now, the right thing to do. If I am to go to a shrink to make sure that I am sane, then James Randi must go to a shrink of my choosing too to make sure he is sane enough to judge the proof, and if I win the challenge, then James Randi must cover all the costs to the penny that the proof incurred for me.
There are many things in the universe that were considered science fiction and are now in fact science fact that we use every day without any thought on it.
I hope James Randi is on the mend, it would be interesting to talk face to face with him and discuss a subject close to him - the Mayas and other things of course.

Renee

The claim that you can see secret messages in the hand movements of others is troubling. Either you have a vivid imagination, or you are showing the classic signs of schizophrenia.

Have you heard of the woman who was stalking David Letterman, after thinking that he was making sexual advances to her by means of secret hand signals on national television? Clearly, she had serious problems, and her symptoms sound very similar to yours. I do think you should see a psychiatrist (a medical doctor, not a therapist), but not for anything having to do with the million dollar challenge.

[Pup]

I'm wondering if the scientific advance would be easier to use to "cheat" in the challenge, than for it to be the winning process itself. It's hard to think of anything so revolutionary that it would be unknown to other scientists and that its honest explanation would sound wooish enough to be considered paranormal, given the current state of knowledge at the time of its discovery.

"I can build something that transmits sounds through the air and this is how it's going to work" would be accepted as an amazing advance at the dawn of radio experimentation, but probably not as paranormal. "With my mindreading powers, I can tell you what someone is saying 10 miles away, and you can check for wires and any secret signal devices all you want" might pass as paranormal, if no one else had built a radio and transmitter yet and therefore the testers didn't realize that voices could be transmitted into sealed rooms through the air.

[NiallM]

If you can write an equation for it, it is science, and thus, not paranormal by any stretch of the imagination.
The proof is in submitting the equations for review--to insure that somewhere you didn't equate 2=4 or some more subtle error.
So the above scenario would not, in my opinion, qualify for the JREF prize.
Randi may have other ideas on that, and as he is the final determinor of such, I wold bow to his decision....
I beg to disagree.If every textbook in the world says that we should see a star in position x, and if I predict that at a certain date and yime it will not be in position x, but in position y - a position which I will predict accurately, then I have a claim. If science has no way to explain why it is not where it should be then I have demonstrated a paranormal feat. Forget about bending light. Let's propose that I claimed to be able to move a star. A big claim, and one that would have defied rational explanation outsife of Einstein's understanding of the effect that gravity has on light. There is no requirement in the challenge that means I must provide equations; I can merely point out that a wealth of astronomy (go on, Randi, pick your favourite astronomers) will predict exactly where a specific star will be on a specific nioght, and I will confound them by making it appear elsewhere. As an encore, I can predict where without revealing my equations!.

In teh absence of an explanation (which is what we have now), that claim is inexplicable to the point of eing paranormal. It contradicts science (as in, science as it was then), and it is predictable. Of course I can't do it ll the time, and of course I need an eclispse (I only have this power when the house of Jupiter is rising in the maw of Uranus etc etc), and I can't do it for random stars, but, hey, the ability to move an entire star is pretty impressive in itself, I reckon.

[rwguinn]

Um,....no. I can write equations for all kinds of horseflop, and that doesn't make them science. E.g., scientific "proof" of the Christian Trinity. 1+1+1 = 1

Alternatively, I can produce an equation for anti-gravity, simply by assuming that I can find a substance with negative mass. Pure horseflop, despite the equation.

What makes something science is whether or not you can test it to get evidence for it -- and whether the evidence supports it.

Randi's primary claim is that the paranormal simply isn't science. (N.b. Not that it's not science by definition. He's cool with the idea that it might be science. It just isn't.) And he's got a cool million bucks that says you can't test it (and get evidence for it). So far, he's won that bet every time.

Sorry-I used the real definition for equation: something that is true...
"EQUATE" To make equal. 1+1+1 does not equal to 1. therefore 1+1+1=1 is not an equation.
That is why I added the bit about proof--and making sure that you didn't equate 2 to 4--or in your case 3 to 1.
You are being a lottle stupid -- on purpose--about this, are you not.
If you could mathematically prove 11+1=3, then you would be eligible for the $1,000,000.

[Art Vandelay]

What is the difference between "real" paranormal phenomenon, and phenomenon that only "appears" to be paranormal? If mainstream science has no explanation for something, then it's paranormal. I don't see how there can be any other meaningful definition. Whether a particular person thinks they have an explanation, or an explanation will later be discovered, is irrelevant. After all, most proponents of the paranormal have "theories" about how their powers work. And anything which is capable of winning the JREF prize must be subject to scientific inquiry, due to the conditions of the prize. An "explanation" is simply an attempt to satisfy humans' sense of "logic". Whether something has been "explained" is a completely subjective matter.

The label "paranormal" has no real meaning. What the challenge comes down to is that JREF is looking for new phenomenon. If you have a new phenomenon that is sufficiently divorced from what science has heretofore known, then you get a million dollars. There is nothing unethical about applying for the money if you think that the phenomenon is compatible with current science; after all many homeopaths think that homeopathy is compatible with current science. What matter is whether JREF thinks it is compatible with current science. If JREF says it should qualify, but you don't think you should, then what's unethical about letting JREF decide what to with its own money? Of course, this all assumes that you allow JREF to make an informed decision. In the Einstein scenario, claiming that you can bend light is dishonest, and an attempt to collect the prize based on that claim would be unethical. But there's nothing unethical about saying that something bends light.

[drkitten]

Sorry-I used the real definition for equation: something that is true...
"EQUATE" To make equal. 1+1+1 does not equal to 1. therefore 1+1+1=1 is not an equation.


I'm sorry, but the "real" definition of "equation" is an expression that includes an equals sign.

And as it happens, 1+1+1 does equal 1 -- I'm simply using algebraic logic (in which the symbol '+' is interpreted as a logical OR) instead of arithmetic. Or alternatively, I could be using standard arithmetic, but doing in a prime field of order 2 (Z/2Z) instead of in the field of reals. I might be using standard cryptographic notation where the '+' is actually an XOR operation over binary quantities. For that matter, I could even be using algebraic logic in a prime field of order 2 as part of a cryptographic primitive.

"Science" is not and has never been defined via equations. Much of science has no equations associated with it, such as Dalton's atomic theory or the periodic table of elements. Similarly, the ability to generate spurious equations is a common aspect of pseudoscience -- I'll leave the proof to your favorite search engine. Science is about testing, evidence, and inference. Mathematics is a handy tool for formalizing certain sorts of inference -- but not much more. Don't fetishize it.

I again submit 1+1+1 = 1 as a pseudoscientific proof of the trinintarian nature of God.

As it happens, that equation is true, in the proper context. The problem isn't with the equation. The problem is that the equation makes no sense in the context of a proof of God.

This isn't just my ramblings, either. The man generally credited with inventing binary numbers (Leibniz) was himself a theologican of some repute. Among his other writings, he pointed out that the fact that any number (presumably natural number; his terminology was not precise) could be written using only the digits 0 and 1. If we allow the number 0 to represent "nothing" and 1 to represent God, then this is a "proof" that God created the universe out of nothing, and implicitly of God's existence, et cetera. Obviously, the proof is pseudoscientific gibberish -- and similarly to Newton, history has been kinder to Leibniz' mathematical writings than to his theological ones for approximately this reason. But what makes his proof "not science" isn't the presence or absence of equations. It's the misapplication of genuince scientific concepts to areas to which they are completely unsuited.

[rwguinn]

I'm sorry, but the "real" definition of "equation" is an expression that includes an equals sign.

And as it happens, 1+1+1 does equal 1 -- I'm simply using algebraic logic (in which the symbol '+' is interpreted as a logical OR) instead of arithmetic. Or alternatively, I could be using standard arithmetic, but doing in a prime field of order 2 (Z/2Z) instead of in the field of reals. I might be using standard cryptographic notation where the '+' is actually an XOR operation over binary quantities. For that matter, I could even be using algebraic logic in a prime field of order 2 as part of a cryptographic primitive.

"Science" is not and has never been defined via equations. Much of science has no equations associated with it, such as Dalton's atomic theory or the periodic table of elements. Similarly, the ability to generate spurious equations is a common aspect of pseudoscience -- I'll leave the proof to your favorite search engine. Science is about testing, evidence, and inference. Mathematics is a handy tool for formalizing certain sorts of inference -- but not much more. Don't fetishize it.

I again submit 1+1+1 = 1 as a pseudoscientific proof of the trinintarian nature of God.

As it happens, that equation is true, in the proper context. The problem isn't with the equation. The problem is that the equation makes no sense in the context of a proof of God.

This isn't just my ramblings, either. The man generally credited with inventing binary numbers (Leibniz) was himself a theologican of some repute. Among his other writings, he pointed out that the fact that any number (presumably natural number; his terminology was not precise) could be written using only the digits 0 and 1. If we allow the number 0 to represent "nothing" and 1 to represent God, then this is a "proof" that God created the universe out of nothing, and implicitly of God's existence, et cetera. Obviously, the proof is pseudoscientific gibberish -- and similarly to Newton, history has been kinder to Leibniz' mathematical writings than to his theological ones for approximately this reason. But what makes his proof "not science" isn't the presence or absence of equations. It's the misapplication of genuince scientific concepts to areas to which they are completely unsuited.
I surrender to the woo-ism.
Obviously, training as an engineer, and more passed math credits than an actual math major has to take has not prepared me to deal with those who twist logic, or redefine terms withoug giving reference to the actual system of methodology they want to be used.
An equation is true, or not. When I speak of an equation, I refer to "True". If you want to use boolean algebra, that is fine--but inserting it into a math where 1+1+1=3 is a ridiculous and false argument.
I give up.

[T'ai Chi]

An equation is true, or not.


I guess it could be unknown whether it is true or false too?

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Renee:

Sounds to me like you have a Million Dollar Challenge claim! You should submit it.

Note: The posters in this forum (myself included) do not represent the JREF; but we'd be happy to give you advice with the application process or suggest a test protocol. You could start a thread in the challenge section of the forum if you need help.

LLH

[epepke]

So my example isn't so good after all.

No; it isn't. Newton predicted that light would bend, too, but he was off by a factor of two.

[rjh01]

I always thought 1 + 1 = 3. All you need to do is have 1.4 + 1.4 = 2.8 and then round to the whole numbers. Works wonders in a spreadsheet. Can fool most people.

[Carn]

Scientists could grab the million.
Old post from Kramer(http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=27666):

"Any verifiable evidence of visitations from outer space would qualify for the JREF Challenge and the million bucks."


If astronomers would identify a spaceship in our solar system heading for earth, they could apply and predict, when it will reach earth, at least that will help them with the prelimenary.
And it wouldn't have to paranormal, a ten thousand year old voyager equivalent probe could be enough as well, although it's not beyond our science to send one to a nearby star(hitting a planet would be the big problem).

Carn

[chillzero]

Well, now, just think for an instance if you had this knowledge, how do you get people to actually learn to see the signs and see the liquid movements of the body in front of each color? And if the discovery also included the knowledge that certain colors are the cause of every illness and sickness known to mankind how do you get to make people believe you when the very color that causes the illness and desease is idolized by everyone especially the most powerful people on earth? Give it some thought, Give me a clue. I have this knowledge but have pondered on how it can be shown with ease and comfort to James Randi and others in powerful public places.

Renee,
You could try what I tried when I first arrived at this forum, intending to claim the million for my psychic abilities, displayed through either healing, diagnosing, or tarot.

I asked myself the same questions you did above, and decided to lay out the information. I started with documenting how I came about knowing what I did - from the first idea, through what added to back up the theories, and then to the areas of proof, that proved to me what was in question. If I could document it and prove it to myself again in that manner - then why would any other reasonable person not also see what I could?

As it happened in my case I learnt more about myself, and about cold reading methodology than about my 'ability' - all with help from this forum. Perhaps you will come to similar conclusions, or perhaps you will be able to document a whole new theory of reality that no one has yet deciphered. Either way, getting your thoughts and ideas down in a logical, readable format is an excellent starting point.

Also, should you proceed to a claim, then you already have a basic chunk of information ready to help you put the claim in the correct format.

[Renee Rynn]

Thank you for all your replies to my post. They are all interesting to me to see your reactions and good advice.
To explain a bit about myself, from a very young child, I was always fascintated with the way people talked with their hands, me included. I was also curious about auras in a practical way and would watch the shadows on the top of a vehicle of what I at first thought was steam coming off my hand in the heat of the day. Everyone seemed to me to talk with their hands and as I got older, I realized that there are only a certain amount of positions of the hand that are used when people talk. I can only describe it as a revelation when I reached my mid years that there is a correlation between colors that are worn or near a person and the position of the hands and upon further studying people, I realized that the hands perpetually make the sign of the color that is influencing the body at any given moment.
I always have been practical and scientific in curiosity. It did not take me long to discover that each color that is in the Natural growth of earth, has a direct meaning to the growth and movement of the element that its aura touches. If you can see the color, then of course, its aura has reached you, common science. I sent my information to several people and then it became knowledge that Nasa was studying colors of space and their relation to space. For instance, the red and blue shift in space.
I had discovered on my own that those two colors of blue and red contain the most magnetic elements that is known of blue positive and red negative.
These two colors vie for your attention all the time.
When blue colors are worn, the body will acknowledge the positive magnetic elements on it by making the sign of the blue sky that arcs around the earth. You can view it on your own hand or anyone else. The hand will have all the fingers and thumb together and cup itself to form the blue arc of the sky.
The blue sky surrounds the earth compleatly and its blue aura permeats into everything that can see it. Even when you are in a building and the blue sky can be seen, the Positive Positive blue electromagnetic elements are on the body doing their job to the molecules and cells of the body.
When any red color has influence to the body, the body will automatically splay all the fingers and thumb from the hand and you can see this easily on everyone too. The body gets hot, sweats, starts to itch and the tongue will come out of the mouth and lick the lips. Red colors on earth come from the red blood coming out of the body or red lava from inside of the earth and dries up the things that its color and aura touches. The body does not know that the red colors are only play things that humans put in front of themselves, it thinks that all that red comes from inside the body and it reacts to red colors by showing a red face, pimples, put red blemishes on itself etc. all the time looking for the hole that the red is pouring out of. Remember human beings have mutated the red plants and trees and food and drinks into their society and if man was taken off the earth, all those red things would revert back to the little white flowers and green trees again.
Talking about green, if you think a tree is dead and scratch its bark and see green, by the color alone, you will know that the tree is still alive. So it is not difficult to understand that everything on earth that is green colored is alive and growing. The hand makes a green sign by the sign of blue but with the thumb open from the arc hand to look like it is a vine growing around a tree. I need to see if there is a place that I can put a picture of the signs that the hands make so that you can learn for yourselves what to look for.
I do not do cards or fancy parlor game things like that, I do not make people sick, they do that nicely to themselves without any of my help. I just want to teach you to move forward in life and live a long healthy life in peace without all the friction that everyone seems to be having. Pink elephants and orange tigers are not natural. When people play with colors that are not natural, then unnatural things happen to their body and illness becomes a fact. Nature and Science and also Religion walk hand in hand, the Key to them all are colors. To learn the hand signs is only the start, there is much much more. To walk into the understanding of it all will bring about chaos to a degree but it is better to know than not to know.
See how many of you can see the three hand signs that I have just explained to you. When I can get the time, I will see if I can put the signs of the hands here and teach you to see them on every picture you have, every person you see and on yourself and even the people on tv. You will learn to recognize the signs and the colors and what your body tells you from the colors that are on you as to what is happening to your body at any given moment. It is so interesting to me anyway, and I hope you folks are sufficiently enterested in the challenge of leaning something great.
Renee

[NiallM]

Renee,

You have entirely derailed this thread.

You would have been better to open a separate thread for your ramblings.

Check out the title of the thread for a hint about what it was intended to refer to.

[solas]

I believe so.

[Renee Rynn]

Ah, so you only want parlour games to play with, and any REAL Science Challenge is beyond your comprehension unless the media has voiced it to you. It is YOU that do the rambling, even though I try to bring myself to talk the talk in as simple a language that you can see in your minds eye. You asked me to tell you and I did so. You are not interested because you are not challenged to learn. Isnt that what the Challenge is all about? Learning the Truth?
Like little children you are and it is a fact that the trained mind can only see what everyone else can see especially if the media has pushed the sails of the new invisible made visible discovery.
A Blind person can easily know what color they touch. Actually your hands ONLY make the color signs, they do not make any other sign EVER.
I will think about another thread.
Renee

[TheBoyPaj]

A new thread would be ideal. You will find many people who are more than willing to discuss your suggestion, but not in the wrong place. That's not evasion, it's just forum etiquette. I would suggest you drop your hostility, too.

[Pup]

A Blind person can easily know what color they touch. Actually your hands ONLY make the color signs, they do not make any other sign EVER.

I think if you start a new thread, you'll find more than enough people willing to discuss your topic.

You might expound on that last paragraph quoted above, if you're interested in applying for the challenge. If a color were placed in front of a blind person, and you could see the blind person's hands but not the color, could you identify what the color was by the motion of the person's hands? If so, that would win the million easily enough.

I'd highly encourage you to start your own thread.

[drkitten]

When blue colors are worn, the body will acknowledge the positive magnetic elements on it by making the sign of the blue sky that arcs around the earth. You can view it on your own hand or anyone else. The hand will have all the fingers and thumb together and cup itself to form the blue arc of the sky.

This claim alone would probably qualify for Randi's million. Unfortunately, it's observationally incorrect.

[Renee Rynn]

Yes, yes yes. I can tell what color a blind person is touching just by the sign of their hands. I can tell any persons color that they touch just by the shape that their hands make. Even black and white pictures tell all through the signs that the hands and body make.
Renee

[Ririon]

Please discuss Renee Rynn in the Renee Rynn thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1491328#post1491328

And continue discussing scientists grabbing the million in this thread.

(Crossing fingers: Will this work?)

[DrMatt]

Randi has weighed in on this one himself and the answer was yes. Not with the scenario outlined in the original post, but with a demonstration of a new utterly baffling scientific principle (rather than a "new" way of deceiving others or one's self, which is unlikely to prove inpenetrable to a lifelong professional deception artist).

[gnome]

I like the idea that he'd pay a million to observe something perfectly natural that seems impossible to him.

[maatorc]

I am perfectly willing to believe that competent scientists can study the paranormal. I expect that those scientists will come up with negative results when they do, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. That's more or less Randi's position as well.

drKitten -
There is no way phenomenological science can study the paranormal.
So-called 'paranormal phenomena' are in fact not 'phenomena' atall, but are by definition noumena, i.e., exclusively mental events and reality, which, also by definition, are incommensurable with phenomena.
Orthodox, material, phenomenalogical science lacks the means of measuring noumenal reality and events.
This is the fatal flaw of the million dollar challenge.
maatorc.

[Darat]

drKitten -
There is no way phenomenological science can study the paranormal.
So-called 'paranormal phenomena' are in fact not 'phenomena' atall, but are by definition noumena, i.e., exclusively mental events and reality, which, also by definition, are incommensurable with phenomena.
Orthodox, material, phenomenalogical science lacks the means of measuring noumenal reality and events.
This is the fatal flaw of the million dollar challenge.
maatorc.

OK so can I take it that you would agree that people can't make objects levitate, can't transmit messages via telepathy, can't locate water by dowsing and so on?

These are the type of things the challenge deals with - it doesn't deal with things that aren't detectable.

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
This is the fatal flaw of the million dollar challenge.
maatorc.Fatal flaw? How is this a flaw at all? The challenge is for demonstrating a paranormal event. Obviously, purely mental events may not be demonstratable, but then, are they paranormal at all?

The purpose of the challenge is to challenge those that claim a paranormal effect on the observable reality.

Hans

[gnome]

drKitten -
There is no way phenomenological science can study the paranormal.
So-called 'paranormal phenomena' are in fact not 'phenomena' atall, but are by definition noumena, i.e., exclusively mental events and reality, which, also by definition, are incommensurable with phenomena.
Orthodox, material, phenomenalogical science lacks the means of measuring noumenal reality and events.
This is the fatal flaw of the million dollar challenge.
maatorc.

Ok... so the only things that are paranormal have no effect on reality. That may be your definition, but more than that happens to qualify for the challenge. Those interested in the million need not use so narrow a definition.

[drkitten]

drKitten -
There is no way phenomenological science can study the paranormal.
So-called 'paranormal phenomena' are in fact not 'phenomena' atall, but are by definition noumena, i.e., exclusively mental events and reality, which, also by definition, are incommensurable with phenomena.

Wrapping garbage in ten-dollar words doesn't help. This statement is simply wrong (and cunningly designed to be sufficiently intimidating that no one will call you on it). Unfortunately, I'm too arrogant to be easily intimidated.

Science studies "exclusively mental events" on a routine basis. How do you think that pain-killers are evaluated for efficacy? Similarly, we've got a well-established routine for testing things like consciousness, blindsight, even dreams. (How do you think we learned about the significance of REM sleep?)

You're also ignoring a huge body of claims that are and have been made about the paranormal. Most of them do have orthodox material implications that can be easily tested.

We've seen such a claim on this very thread : "When blue colors are worn, ... The hand will have all the fingers and thumb together and cup itself to form the blue arc of the sky." If this is true, it will show up on a video camera. I can easily "prove" telepathy by simply transmitting information to a wiling recipient (or receiving it from a willing transmitter). I can easily "prove" precognition by demonstrating foreknowledge of an event. I can easily "prove" clairvoyance by describing the contents of a sealed box.

Or rather, I can't -- not because "so-called 'paranormal phenomena' are in fact not 'phenomena' atall, but are by definition noumena," but because we've run the tests, and to the best of our ability at all, so-called 'paranormal phenomena' are merely nonexistent.

[maatorc]

drKitten wrote:
Wrapping garbage in ten-dollar words doesn't help. This statement is simply wrong (and cunningly designed to be sufficiently intimidating that no one will call you on it). Unfortunately, I'm too arrogant to be easily intimidated.

drKitten -
Thanks for replying.
Your points are taken.
I will leave it at that.
maatorc.

[bjb]

After reading some of Randi's commentaries on audiophiles, I believe I could pass some A/B/X tests that would appear paranormal in nature. I can hear the difference between certain types of audio cables and I can also tell what kind of 9V battery (alkaline or carbon-zinc) is being used in certain guitar audio circuits. It is even possible to tell if a guitar amplifier speaker has its polarity flipped or not, but I haven't trained myself to listen for the difference.

At this point in time, relatively few guitar players know that these differences exist so the rest are extremely skeptical. It is easy to find a well-respected expert guitarist who would claim these things are not possible. But all of these differences can be measured using the right kind electronic test equipment so they are very much based in science. However, I think the average skeptic would fall for my tricks, especially the speaker phase test. Speaker phase is something that's been around forever in the hi-fi world but there are no tests that show conclusively that it makes an audible difference. But with electric guitars, it does make a difference because the phase changes how the guitar reacts to the sound coming out of the amp. There is an acoustic feedback loop between the guitar and amp and the speaker phasing is an important part of this relationship. This relationship does not exist in the hi-fi audio so in that case, passing an A/B/X test would be truly paranormal. It does matter to electric guitars, though, but very few know about this so it might be possible to fool James Randi.

Of course, it would be very unethical of me to do so, but it would let musicians know that these small factors do affect the sound of their guitars. Besides, any musician attending the test would soon realize they were also able to pass the same A/B/X tests that I could, so I would get busted by the time the tests were over. The publicity would be worth it to me, but I would feel awful for depriving James Randi of his million, kind of the opposite of how the psychics claim to feel about the prize.

[gnome]

After reading some of Randi's commentaries on audiophiles, I believe I could pass some A/B/X tests that would appear paranormal in nature. I can hear the difference between certain types of audio cables and I can also tell what kind of 9V battery (alkaline or carbon-zinc) is being used in certain guitar audio circuits. It is even possible to tell if a guitar amplifier speaker has its polarity flipped or not, but I haven't trained myself to listen for the difference.

At this point in time, relatively few guitar players know that these differences exist so the rest are extremely skeptical. It is easy to find a well-respected expert guitarist who would claim these things are not possible. But all of these differences can be measured using the right kind electronic test equipment so they are very much based in science. However, I think the average skeptic would fall for my tricks, especially the speaker phase test. Speaker phase is something that's been around forever in the hi-fi world but there are no tests that show conclusively that it makes an audible difference. But with electric guitars, it does make a difference because the phase changes how the guitar reacts to the sound coming out of the amp. There is an acoustic feedback loop between the guitar and amp and the speaker phasing is an important part of this relationship. This relationship does not exist in the hi-fi audio so in that case, passing an A/B/X test would be truly paranormal. It does matter to electric guitars, though, but very few know about this so it might be possible to fool James Randi.

Of course, it would be very unethical of me to do so, but it would let musicians know that these small factors do affect the sound of their guitars. Besides, any musician attending the test would soon realize they were also able to pass the same A/B/X tests that I could, so I would get busted by the time the tests were over. The publicity would be worth it to me, but I would feel awful for depriving James Randi of his million, kind of the opposite of how the psychics claim to feel about the prize.

Being willing to take a proper A/B/X test puts you way above most applicants. I'd say go for it... if he doesn't believe you and you prove him wrong, you deserve the million.

[Thing]

Of course, it would be very unethical of me to do so, but it would let musicians know that these small factors do affect the sound of their guitars. Besides, any musician attending the test would soon realize they were also able to pass the same A/B/X tests that I could, so I would get busted by the time the tests were over. The publicity would be worth it to me, but I would feel awful for depriving James Randi of his million, kind of the opposite of how the psychics claim to feel about the prize.
Leaving aside, for a moment, whether these effects are detectable or not, if you believe they are what's to stop you taking the test, winning the million and donating it back to JREF? Keep it for a week and buy some new batteries with the interest if you like. It would do the JREF a favour; All the barnpots who hide behind claims that the challenge is a sham would have nowhere left to run.

[maatorc]

Darat wrote: "OK .... people can't make objects levitate....
....These are the type of things the challenge deals with - ...."
MRC Hans wrote: "....The purpose of the challenge is to challenge those that claim a paranormal effect...."

The honourable skeptical tradition of doubt and question is not the issue here.
The modern skeptical movement has inadvertantly deviated from this tradition into demonizing what it cannot know. The public stage and psychological replication by illusion of putative psychical events is not a demonstration that psychical events cannot occur. Fraud and deception occur in every sphere, and such replication demonstrates only that fraud and deception can occur with claimed demonstrations of psychical effects.

As the likely most extreme form of a claimed psychical event, levitation is perfectly suited to demonstrate the flaw in the million dollar challenge.

Let it be given that:
(1) An "applicant" becomes an accepted "claimant" to be a "participant" to demonstrate "levitation" under the challenge Rules.
(2) The JREF and the applicant agree on what will constitute a "conclusion" to the test, and
(3) On the occasion of the Formal Test the JREF concludes that the applicant-participant did actually demonstrate the claimed power of levitation.

Based on the conclusion that levitation was actually successfully demonstrated, the flaw in the million dollar challenge is:
(1) It cannot be phenomenalogically demonstrated that the observed levitation constitutes a psychical event or noumenal reality.
(2) It cannot be phenomenalogically demonstrated that the applicant-participant actually causes what is observed to happen and agreed by all tests to actually happen.
(3) It is phenomenalogically impossible at the actual time and place of the test to simultaneously experientially confirm the alleged psychical mechanism understood or accepted to be the cause of the effect observed and described as levitation.
(4) A cause-effect connection between the applicant-participant and the observed levitation can only be inferred, not actually demonstrated, from the test.
(5) The challenge cannot be met because the test cannot phenomenalogically provide any means of demonstrating that an actually true or false psychical event is or is not an actually true or false psychical event: Phenomena and noumena are essentially incommensurable.
(6) The flaw lies in the phenomenalogical setting and context of the Rules and Formal Test: The underlying procedural presumptions invalidate the challenge.
(7) It is therefore impossible for the challenge to prove or disprove the truth or falsity of any true or false psychical event or reality which it accepts as, or judges to be, a true or false psychical event or reality.

maatorc.

[Ririon]

Blah.
maatorc.
Nice words... A guy levitates in mid-air. He gets a million dollars. You still whine about phenomenalogically inferred incommensurable BS? Be my guest. :p

[maatorc]

Ririon wrote: "Nice words... A guy levitates in mid-air. He gets a million dollars. You still whine about phenomenalogically inferred incommensurable BS?


Ririon -
Yes, the formal test cannot work. The challenge has the potential to eventually discredit the modern skeptical movement. I have written it the way I have only to pre-empt the otherwise endless semantic rhetoric.
maatorc.

[Ririon]

Ririon -
Yes, the formal test cannot work. The challenge has the potential to eventually discredit the modern skeptical movement. I have written it the way I have only to pre-empt the otherwise endless semantic rhetoric.
maatorc.
Using big words and convoluted language to avoid a semantic derail... :rolleyes: Novel approach, I'll give you that.

[gnome]

Let it be given that:
(1) An "applicant" becomes an accepted "claimant" to be a "participant" to demonstrate "levitation" under the challenge Rules.
(2) The JREF and the applicant agree on what will constitute a "conclusion" to the test, and
(3) On the occasion of the Formal Test the JREF concludes that the applicant-participant did actually demonstrate the claimed power of levitation.

Based on the conclusion that levitation was actually successfully demonstrated, the flaw in the million dollar challenge is:
(1) It cannot be phenomenalogically demonstrated that the observed levitation constitutes a psychical event or noumenal reality.

If it's a "reality" enough to demonstrate levitation in front of witnesses and camera, then whether it is "phsychical" or "noumenal" makes no difference to the awarding of the price.

(2) It cannot be phenomenalogically demonstrated that the applicant-participant actually causes what is observed to happen and agreed by all tests to actually happen.

This is settled by the design of the test. If the test is properly designed, successful performance will be obvious to all. I challenge you to provide an example, that we cannot redesign into a better test.

(3) It is phenomenalogically impossible at the actual time and place of the test to simultaneously experientially confirm the alleged psychical mechanism understood or accepted to be the cause of the effect observed and described as levitation.

The alleged psychical mechanism has no bearing on the challenge. Only whether the applicant performs according to the agreed-upon terms.

(4) A cause-effect connection between the applicant-participant and the observed levitation can only be inferred, not actually demonstrated, from the test.

Again, it does not matter. With a properly designed test, this will not be under dispute--or more to the point, if someone disputes it just to be stubborn, they will quickly find themselves on the losing end in a courtroom.

(5) The challenge cannot be met because the test cannot phenomenalogically provide any means of demonstrating that an actually true or false psychical event is or is not an actually true or false psychical event: Phenomena and noumena are essentially incommensurable.

Rubbish. Did people see it, was it recorded on camera? Can any trickery be shown? That's all that matters.

(6) The flaw lies in the phenomenalogical setting and context of the Rules and Formal Test: The underlying procedural presumptions invalidate the challenge.

Please, explain how.

(7) It is therefore impossible for the challenge to prove or disprove the truth or falsity of any true or false psychical event or reality which it accepts as, or judges to be, a true or false psychical event or reality.

Ultimate truth is up to philosophers. In reality, something observed by several witnesses under controlled conditions, and recorded on camera, is more than sufficient to make an inference.

[maatorc]

If it's a "reality" enough to demonstrate levitation in front of witnesses and camera, then whether it is "phsychical" or "noumenal" makes no difference to the awarding of the price.... Did people see it, was it recorded on camera? Can any trickery be shown? That's all that matters.... In reality, something observed by several witnesses under controlled conditions, and recorded on camera, is more than sufficient to make an inference.

gnome -
Your comments are fine. It comes with the territory.

You are missing the essential point: In the JREF challenge: "At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show , under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event."

What I am saying is that even should a formal test result in a conclusion that a 'paranormal', 'supernatural', or 'occult' event actually occurred, and to use your example, was "...observed by several witnesses under controlled conditions, and recorded on camera...", there is no way to demonstrate or prove, not infer, whether or not such an event is actually paranormal, supernatural, or occult.

maatorc.

[TjW]

gnome -
Your comments are fine. It comes with the territory.

You are missing the essential point: In the JREF challenge: "At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show , under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event."

What I am saying is that even should a formal test result in a conclusion that a 'paranormal', 'supernatural', or 'occult' event actually occurred, and to use your example, was "...observed by several witnesses under controlled conditions, and recorded on camera...", there is no way to demonstrate or prove, not infer, whether or not such an event is actually paranormal, supernatural, or occult.

maatorc.

You may or may not have noticed that "prove to maatorc's satisfaction or definition" appears nowhere in the rules.
A claim is made. A protocol is negotiated. The signed protocol serves as a contract. If the claimant fulfils the terms of the contract, he or she is entitled to the million. Whether the demonstration was "proof" or not can certainly be debated. But to what purpose?

[rjh01]

But to what purpose?
How is that relevant?

[Flange Desire]

The honourable skeptical tradition of doubt and question is not the issue here.
The modern skeptical movement has inadvertantly deviated from this tradition into demonizing what it cannot know. The public stage and psychological replication by illusion of putative psychical events is not a demonstration that psychical events cannot occur. Fraud and deception occur in every sphere, and such replication demonstrates only that fraud and deception can occur with claimed demonstrations of psychical effects.

As the likely most extreme form of a claimed psychical event, levitation is perfectly suited to demonstrate the flaw in the million dollar challenge.

Let it be given that:
(1) An "applicant" becomes an accepted "claimant" to be a "participant" to demonstrate "levitation" under the challenge Rules.
(2) The JREF and the applicant agree on what will constitute a "conclusion" to the test, and
(3) On the occasion of the Formal Test the JREF concludes that the applicant-participant did actually demonstrate the claimed power of levitation.

Based on the conclusion that levitation was actually successfully demonstrated, the flaw in the million dollar challenge is:
(1) It cannot be phenomenalogically demonstrated that the observed levitation constitutes a psychical event or noumenal reality.
(2) It cannot be phenomenalogically demonstrated that the applicant-participant actually causes what is observed to happen and agreed by all tests to actually happen.
(3) It is phenomenalogically impossible at the actual time and place of the test to simultaneously experientially confirm the alleged psychical mechanism understood or accepted to be the cause of the effect observed and described as levitation.
(4) A cause-effect connection between the applicant-participant and the observed levitation can only be inferred, not actually demonstrated, from the test.
(5) The challenge cannot be met because the test cannot phenomenalogically provide any means of demonstrating that an actually true or false psychical event is or is not an actually true or false psychical event: Phenomena and noumena are essentially incommensurable.
(6) The flaw lies in the phenomenalogical setting and context of the Rules and Formal Test: The underlying procedural presumptions invalidate the challenge.
(7) It is therefore impossible for the challenge to prove or disprove the truth or falsity of any true or false psychical event or reality which it accepts as, or judges to be, a true or false psychical event or reality.

maatorc.
A lot of gas here, which seems to be irrelevant to collecting $US 1 million.
Perhaps I have missed your point ...
In your view it is impossible for the challenge to prove or disprove something.
Does this matter in any way to the (successful or unsuccessful) claimant?
Or perhaps this is yet another excuse for not applying for the prize?

[Darat]

gnome -
Your comments are fine. It comes with the territory.

You are missing the essential point: In the JREF challenge: "At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show , under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event."

What I am saying is that even should a formal test result in a conclusion that a 'paranormal', 'supernatural', or 'occult' event actually occurred, and to use your example, was "...observed by several witnesses under controlled conditions, and recorded on camera...", there is no way to demonstrate or prove, not infer, whether or not such an event is actually paranormal, supernatural, or occult.

maatorc.

The challenge is not about the "how" it is about being able to do what you say you can do.

For most people an event like levitating by means of "mind force" is what they would call a "paranormal event". Your point, although you have said it isn't, is nothing more then a semantic argument since whether such an event is in fact some undiscovered ability of humans, some new force of the universe etc. makes no difference in terms of the challenge.

Many people have expressed concerns that the challenge could be won by some application of a yet to be discovered "natural" force, and Randi's response to that has been (to paraphrase) "That would still have won the challenge and it would be great to be involved in opening up some new areas of human knowledge".

[gnome]

gnome -
Your comments are fine. It comes with the territory.

You are missing the essential point: In the JREF challenge: "At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show , under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event."

What I am saying is that even should a formal test result in a conclusion that a 'paranormal', 'supernatural', or 'occult' event actually occurred, and to use your example, was "...observed by several witnesses under controlled conditions, and recorded on camera...", there is no way to demonstrate or prove, not infer, whether or not such an event is actually paranormal, supernatural, or occult.

maatorc.

Echoing statements above... in the context of the challenge, "evidence" constitutes successful completion of the test. READ THE RULES. To claim otherwise is dissembling.

[Ririon]

Ririon -
Yes, the formal test cannot work. The challenge has the potential to eventually discredit the modern skeptical movement. I have written it the way I have only to pre-empt the otherwise endless semantic rhetoric.
maatorc.
I put it to you that this post is 100 % wrong.

-The formal test can work.
-The challenge can not discredit the modern skeptical movement.
-You wrote it this way specifically to start "endless semantic rhetoric."

So, how did that work out for you? Quite well, actually... :boggled:

[petre]

gnome -
Your comments are fine. It comes with the territory.

You are missing the essential point: In the JREF challenge: "At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show , under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event."

What I am saying is that even should a formal test result in a conclusion that a 'paranormal', 'supernatural', or 'occult' event actually occurred, and to use your example, was "...observed by several witnesses under controlled conditions, and recorded on camera...", there is no way to demonstrate or prove, not infer, whether or not such an event is actually paranormal, supernatural, or occult.

maatorc.

It seems maatoric has (as noted) chosen a different standard of evidence than would seem to appear in negotiated protocols. Allow me to then suggest that the challenge could indeed be won, and yet not meet maatoric's definition of evidence. Therefore, to maatoric, the challenge will then not have met its stated goal, but still will have given someone $1 million.

Anything there you see fit to disagree with maatoric? If not, feel free to continue your unrelated philosophical discussion with anyone that may find interest.

[Euromutt]

Let it be given that:
(1) An "applicant" becomes an accepted "claimant" to be a "participant" to demonstrate "levitation" under the challenge Rules.
(2) The JREF and the applicant agree on what will constitute a "conclusion" to the test, and
(3) On the occasion of the Formal Test the JREF concludes that the applicant-participant did actually demonstrate the claimed power of levitation.

Based on the conclusion that levitation was actually successfully demonstrated, the flaw in the million dollar challenge is:
(1) It cannot be phenomenalogically demonstrated that the observed levitation constitutes a psychical event or noumenal reality.Let me see if I understand this correctly...
Are you asserting that the test would be invalid because the possibility could not be eliminated that an act of physical levitation did not, in fact, occur because it could not be ruled out that the whole thing took place in the observers' minds? If so, there are a couple of rejoinders.
First, as has been alluded to, the test will involve the use of recording devices, such as video cameras. Since video cameras and the like do not have minds, what they record cannot merely be "noumenal reality." Thus, there is no reason to presuppose that anyone subsequently viewing the recording of the test will undergo the same delusion as the observers on the spot. It could of course be argued that anyone watching the video at a later time and seeing the exact same thing as the original observers is merely undergoing the same hallucination, but at this point we're into the needlessly speculative (like most philosophy). As far as the scientific method is concerned, if multiple people consistently perceive the same phenomenon, that phenomenon is, for all practical purposes, real.
(2) It cannot be phenomenalogically demonstrated that the applicant-participant actually causes what is observed to happen and agreed by all tests to actually happen.
(3) It is phenomenalogically impossible at the actual time and place of the test to simultaneously experientially confirm the alleged psychical mechanism understood or accepted to be the cause of the effect observed and described as levitation.
(4) A cause-effect connection between the applicant-participant and the observed levitation can only be inferred, not actually demonstrated, from the test.Items (2) and (3) are not separate points; they are simply variations on item (4), namely that the test is (supposedly) incapable of determining a causal relationship between the applicant/claimant's actions and the perceived effect. This would be a reasonable objection if the test for the Million Dollar Challenge, or any other experiment, were performed only once, which is why the scientific principle of replicability is resorted to. If youd bothered to read the Challenge rules (http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html), you might have noticed that the applicant is required to perform his feat at least twice--once in a preliminary test and once in a formal test--and in practice, either of those two tests will likely require the applicant/claimant to perform the claimed feat more than once. Replication is the tool the scientific method uses to weed out flukes.
(5) The challenge cannot be met because the test cannot phenomenalogically provide any means of demonstrating that an actually true or false psychical event is or is not an actually true or false psychical event: Phenomena and noumena are essentially incommensurable.That's the same objection as item (1).
(6) The flaw lies in the phenomenalogical setting and context of the Rules and Formal Test: The underlying procedural presumptions invalidate the challenge.
(7) It is therefore impossible for the challenge to prove or disprove the truth or falsity of any true or false psychical event or reality which it accepts as, or judges to be, a true or false psychical event or reality.And the last two items are, once again, rehashings of the two objections already made. Item (7) in particular goes to show, once again, that a valid syllogism based on flawed premises will yield a conclusion which is logically valid, but not actually true.

Additionally, if you're going to use "ten-dollar words" (to borrow drkitten's phrase), make sure you have the spelling right: it's "phenomenological."

[maatorc]

Euromutt wrote "
Additionally, if you're going to use "ten-dollar words" (to borrow drkitten's phrase), make sure you have the spelling right: it's "phenomenological."


Euromutt -
Quite right. Picked up on it yesterday. Cannot edit quoted posts.
maatorc.

[maatorc]

Ririon wrote: "I put it to you that this post is 100 % wrong.

Ririon - Thanks for replying.

Ririon wrote: "-The formal test can work."
It cannot work.
It is a verbal trap.
There is nothing 'para' beyond the 'normal': any event is 'normal'.
There is nothing 'super' beyond the 'natural': any event is 'natural'.
There is nothing 'extra' beyond the 'sensory': no sense means no perception.
These terms are contradictions and misnomers.
The presumption that phenomena is all that is and universally identical for all is pseudoscience.

Ririon wrote: "-The challenge can not discredit the modern skeptical movement."
I would be pleased if this were true.
The challenge is predicated upon and driven by the principle that, because fraud, deceit, illusion, and delusion have been shown to underly claimed psychical events or realities, there are no psychical events or realities: This, too, is pseudoscience.

Ririon wrote: "-You wrote it this way specifically to start "endless semantic rhetoric.""
I do not have to. Witness the mindless personality based diatribe masquerading as discussion in this and related sites.

Ririon wrote: "So, how did that work out for you? Quite well, actually... :boggled:"
Not really: The modern skeptical movement is doing itself a huge disservice through the challenge; it is a non-event. Already, comments such as 'crank', 'crackpot' and 'pseudoscience' are appearing in reference to the JREF and the movement.
It is clear no-one will pass the two tests because the protocols cannot determine what is or what is not psychical, and in any case the movement has already decided psychical reality cannot exist: It is circularly self-referencing.
The modern skeptical movement should move on. It deserves better than this self-destructing anti-psychical obsession.
To be clear about what I say: I am no less skeptical about, and dismissive of so-called psychical claims than any skeptic. It is just that I see the challenge as an unwitting aberration of the traditional skeptical ideal. Denial, denunciation, and demonization are not the same as doubt, question and examine.

maatorc.

[SirPhilip]

The modern skeptical movement should move on. It deserves better than this self-destructing anti-psychical obsession.
To be clear about what I say: I am no less skeptical about, and dismissive of so-called psychical claims than any skeptic. It is just that I see the challenge as an unwitting aberration of the traditional skeptical ideal. Denial, denunciation, and demonization are not the same as doubt, question and examine.Quite irrelevant. Everything that falls under the definition of falsehood does so because the laws of nature in this universe prevent it. If someone for example, tested successfully the ability transmit accurate information without any conventional tricks over a distance - in other words, there was a real unknown, natural process involved, the million would be awarded. The same goes with remote viewing, dowsing, etc. Prove a particular claim has practical effiacy, and demonstrate it is not something else causing that effect. If I claim I can read people's thoughts, but what I'm really doing is intuiting what they are thinking by looking at them, I am still reading their thoughts, just with a commonly understandable cause, and not in the way I am claiming. In addition, if someone bends a spoon with their hands, they've actually bent it using their mind: it controls their hands. But bending it with your brain alone makes about as much sense as trying to cure sexual dysfunction by mowing the lawn.

[Aepervius]

Not really: The modern skeptical movement is doing itself a huge disservice through the challenge; it is a non-event. Already, comments such as 'crank', 'crackpot' and 'pseudoscience' are appearing in reference to the JREF and the movement.

Really ? Could you please citate either paper, web site, blogs, well known opinion, painting the skeptic movement as "crackpot" or "pseudoscience" (this one is funny since scepticism is not a science but a phlosophical or logical basis) ? I think you will quickly find out only woo and pseudo psychic have such a "word" for sceptic. I guess you also have such a word in your mind too (ha ! a real noumena phenomenon !!).

You are going in circle, basing your argumentation in a flawed notion that psychic phenomenon are only "in the mind" (how would that make it different than a psychotic attack or an hallucination is beyond me), and even when you stand corrected you still use the same argument to deny the challenge any basis. You are going nowhere. At least my cat is funny when he chase his own tail.



It is clear no-one will pass the two tests because the protocols cannot determine what is or what is not psychical, and in any case the movement has already decided psychical reality cannot exist: It is circularly self-referencing.
Pure self-referencing bunk. As shown above recording instrument measure at the same time. If you imply those instrument can be fooled and reproduce the illusion then you are going into philosophy, happiness box, and other pure non sense. On the contrary the only things the challegence can demonstrate is physical reality, the only one sceptic is recognizing the existence. Your noumeal stuff only exists in your mind (:)), and you decidely chase your own tail.


The modern skeptical movement should move on. It deserves better than this self-destructing anti-psychical obsession.

Well he seems thriving, for something on the verge of self destruction. Gathering more and more people.


To be clear about what I say: I am no less skeptical about, and dismissive of so-called psychical claims than any skeptic. It is just that I see the challenge as an unwitting aberration of the traditional skeptical ideal. Denial, denunciation, and demonization are not the same as doubt, question and examine.

maatorc.

To be clear and honest , I will do an ad-hominem attack :
You are the type of guy full of it which use a lot of "big words", conscienciously or not, but in the very end your point of view has no logical fundation and reference itself in a circular basis.

Unwitting aberation of the sceptical ideal. Ha ha !

[maatorc]

Aepervius wrote: "Really ......etc........
Unwitting aberation of the sceptical ideal. Ha ha !


Hi Aepervius -
As is said to Ririon: "...Witness the mindless personality based diatribe masquerading as discussion..."
maatorc.

[gnome]

Hi Aepervius -
As is said to Ririon: "...Witness the mindless personality based diatribe masquerading as discussion..."
maatorc.

Funny you should say that, considering you responded to none of the substantive posts responding to your concerns--and merely posted a rephrasing of those same concerns. That lacks intellectual honesty, and frankly I don't see a reason anyone should be persuaded by you, as a result.

[maatorc]

Funny you should say that, considering you responded to none of the substantive posts responding to your concerns--and merely posted a rephrasing of those same concerns. That lacks intellectual honesty, and frankly I don't see a reason anyone should be persuaded by you, as a result.

gnome -
In summary, and in clear simple English, my position remains:
(1) The formal test can only infer, not actually demonstrate, a cause-effect connection between the applicant-participant and the observed event, whether phenomenal or noumenal.
(2) The formal test lacks the means to measurably prove an actually true or false psychical event is or is not an actually true or false psychical event.
(3) The formal test cannot prove or disprove the truth or falsity of any psychical event.
I do not see any $10 words here, so this should not be too hard to follow.
What is all this big-word nonsense all about other than a substitute for civil discourse?
maatorc.

[Darat]

gnome -
In summary, and in clear simple English, my position remains:
(1) The formal test can only infer, not actually demonstrate, a cause-effect connection between the applicant-participant and the observed event, whether phenomenal or noumenal.
(2) The formal test lacks the means to measurably prove an actually true or false psychical event is or is not an actually true or false psychical event.
(3) The formal test cannot prove or disprove the truth or falsity of any psychical event.
I do not see any $10 words here, so this should not be too hard to follow.
What is all this big-word nonsense all about other than a substitute for civil discourse?
maatorc.

Your objections are not objections to the actual challenge.

A challenge is of the format:

Challenger X: I can find metal by dowsing.

Challenger X proposed test: I can find 8 out of 10 samples of metal hidden in overturned cups.

Results: Challenger X found 4 samples out of 10 samples of metal hidden in overturned cups.

Conclusion: Challenger X failed to do what he/she said they could.


Please explain why the conclusion is not valid.

[Ririon]

Ririon - Thanks for replying.

You're welcome.

It cannot work.
It is a verbal trap.
There is nothing 'para' beyond the 'normal': any event is 'normal'.
There is nothing 'super' beyond the 'natural': any event is 'natural'.
There is nothing 'extra' beyond the 'sensory': no sense means no perception.
These terms are contradictions and misnomers.
The presumption that phenomena is all that is and universally identical for all is pseudoscience.

It is not a verbal trap. An applicant does not even have to claim something is paranormal to enter. If you make any claim that the JREF would see as paranormal, you are eligable. These claims exist and are plentiful. Many of them are easy to test.

I would be pleased if this were true.
The challenge is predicated upon and driven by the principle that, because fraud, deceit, illusion, and delusion have been shown to underly claimed psychical events or realities, there are no psychical events or realities: This, too, is pseudoscience.

No, it is not. It is based upon "if it is the real deal: Show us. Give us a small demonstration. We'll even throw in $1M for your troubles."

I do not have to. Witness the mindless personality based diatribe masquerading as discussion in this and related sites.

You certainly don't have to around here, but you sure made an excellent effort to start a semantics derail. You could have stated your point in a few clear sentences with no $10 words, but you chose differently. Claiming that this was to avoid semantics just makes you look foolish.

Not really: The modern skeptical movement is doing itself a huge disservice through the challenge; it is a non-event. Already, comments such as 'crank', 'crackpot' and 'pseudoscience' are appearing in reference to the JREF and the movement.

Already? Hasn't it always been like that? It's called namecalling and is usually used by people with few other arguments.

It is clear no-one will pass the two tests because the protocols cannot determine what is or what is not psychical, and in any case the movement has already decided psychical reality cannot exist: It is circularly self-referencing.

You are the one caring about what is "physical". Not the JREF, not necessarily any applicant. You seem to be referencing... Yourself?

The modern skeptical movement should move on. It deserves better than this self-destructing anti-psychical obsession.
To be clear about what I say: I am no less skeptical about, and dismissive of so-called psychical claims than any skeptic. It is just that I see the challenge as an unwitting aberration of the traditional skeptical ideal. Denial, denunciation, and demonization are not the same as doubt, question and examine.

maatorc.
Well, go and fight "denial, denunciation, and demonization", then. Unless you are against "doubt, question and examine" which are at the very heart of the challenge. I don't know what you've read or heard, but you've got this all upside-down for some reason.

Ririon

[maatorc]

Darat wrote:"Your objections are not objections to the actual challenge.
A challenge is of the format:
Challenger X: I can find metal by dowsing.
Challenger X proposed test: I can find 8 out of 10 samples of metal hidden in overturned cups.
Results: Challenger X found 4 samples out of 10 samples of metal hidden in overturned cups.
Conclusion: Challenger X failed to do what he/she said they could.
Please explain why the conclusion is not valid.


Darat -

The conclusion is invalid because there is no measurable proof of a connection between the challenger's 'dowsing' actions and the individual and collective results of the test. Observing and recording the results is not proof of a connection of the results with what the dowser does. This would also apply in the case of ten positive or ten negative results.

maatorc..

[steenkh]

The conclusion is invalid because there is no measurable proof of a connection between the challenger's 'dowsing' actions and the individual and collective results of the test. Observing and recording the results is not proof of a connection of the results with what the dowser does. This would also apply in the case of ten positive or ten negative results.
You must be living on another planet ...

If a dowser claims he can locate 8 hidden objects, and he does just that, then for most of us, that would mean that he had done what he claimed to do.

One wonders what kind of proof you would demand, and what other aspects of life you apply this kind of rigor to.

[NiallM]

gnome -
In summary, and in clear simple English, my position remains:
(1) The formal test can only infer, not actually demonstrate, a cause-effect connection between the applicant-participant and the observed event, whether phenomenal or noumenal.
(2) The formal test lacks the means to measurably prove an actually true or false psychical event is or is not an actually true or false psychical event.
(3) The formal test cannot prove or disprove the truth or falsity of any psychical event.
I do not see any $10 words here, so this should not be too hard to follow.
What is all this big-word nonsense all about other than a substitute for civil discourse?
maatorc.
No cause-effect connection need be demonstrated, as has been pointed out to you.

You persist in delving into metaphysics in your attempt to decry the test.

In doing so, you entirely ignore the spirit of the Challenge as expressed repeatedly by Randi and as evidenced by the protocols that have been drawn up to date.

It really is as simple as observing a claim in test conditions. There's no semantic sleight of hand at work here.

[nathan]

One wonders what kind of proof you would demand, and what other aspects of life you apply this kind of rigor to.
Yes, quite. I've been wondering this too. AFAICT ALL of maatorc's arguments apply to every single interaction with reality.

I'm pondering if the Zen monk answer to 'what is that bamboo pole you carry around for?' would be accepted :)

[Ririon]

Darat -

The conclusion is invalid because there is no measurable proof of a connection between the challenger's 'dowsing' actions and the individual and collective results of the test. Observing and recording the results is not proof of a connection of the results with what the dowser does. This would also apply in the case of ten positive or ten negative results.

maatorc..
Just to clarify: Could you mention one example where there is "measurable proof of connection" between things?

[Darat]

Darat -

The conclusion is invalid because there is no measurable proof of a connection between the challenger's 'dowsing' actions and the individual and collective results of the test. Observing and recording the results is not proof of a connection of the results with what the dowser does. This would also apply in the case of ten positive or ten negative results.

maatorc..

Who said anything about proof of a connection?

All I stated was that the dowser did not do what they said they would do, whether there is causation or not is irrelevant to that logical conclusion.

[gnome]

Darat -

The conclusion is invalid because there is no measurable proof of a connection between the challenger's 'dowsing' actions and the individual and collective results of the test. Observing and recording the results is not proof of a connection of the results with what the dowser does. This would also apply in the case of ten positive or ten negative results.

maatorc..

Again you continue to ignore the stated rules and argue your own interpretation, to discredit it. Please look up the definition of a straw man argument.

I think this discussion has reached the troll level. You are not interested in understanding... only in repeatedly arguing for a point and ignoring the responses to that point.

[timokay]

Again you continue to ignore the stated rules and argue your own interpretation, to discredit it. Please look up the definition of a straw man argument.

I think this discussion has reached the troll level. You are not interested in understanding... only in repeatedly arguing for a point and ignoring the responses to that point.


I was just about to chime in and say exactly the above, and to add a recipe, but now I only chiming in to say I was gonna chime in.

No recipe for YOU!

[maatorc]

Darat wrote: "Who said anything about proof of a connection?
All I stated was that the dowser did not do what they said they would do, whether there is causation or not is irrelevant to that logical conclusion."

Darat -

I mention proof of connection because the challenge specifies "...evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power..." which necessarily cannot be provided by any material measuring system such as statistics, photography, or physical protocols.

If a participant actually did what they said they could do under the protocols does this mean that the $1m would be paid as "evidence of any paranormal, supernatural or occult power" despite the modern skeptical position that "..the paranormal cannot exist..." ?

This is my actual dilemma about the challenge: it seems to contain a contradiction in terms which guarantees it can never be met because it will simultaneously confirm that there is "...evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power..." and that "...the paranormal cannot exist..."

maatorc.

[gnome]

Darat -

I mention proof of connection because the challenge specifies "...evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power..." which necessarily cannot be provided by any material measuring system such as statistics, photography, or physical protocols.

If a participant actually did what they said they could do under the protocols does this mean that the $1m would be paid as "evidence of any paranormal, supernatural or occult power" despite the modern skeptical position that "..the paranormal cannot exist..." ?

This is my actual dilemma about the challenge: it seems to contain a contradiction in terms which guarantees it can never be met because it will simultaneously confirm that there is "...evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power..." and that "...the paranormal cannot exist..."

maatorc.]

The "modern skeptical position" has no authority to resolve the challenge. Only the conditions of the test and the end result... Darat I think will back this up.

[Flange Desire]

Maatorc:
You think that the modern skeptical position is that "..the paranormal cannot exist..."

Whereas I think that the modern skeptical position is that "my position on the existance of the paranormal may change when evidence for it is shown".

But I suspect each person has their own 'favorite' position.

[maatorc]

Maatorc:
You think that the modern skeptical position is that "..the paranormal cannot exist..."
Whereas I think that the modern skeptical position is that "my position on the existance of the paranormal may change when evidence for it is shown".
But I suspect each person has their own 'favorite' position.


Flange Desire -

I do not have a favourite position. My observation rests on what appears to be the positions of James Randi and Michael Shermer.

Mr Randi in "Flim Flam" page 3, and later comments clearly sees so-called psychic performances as trickery, and any other explanation as preposterous, based on his professional stage ability to expose fraud and trickery.

Dr Shermer in "Science Friction" states "...all forms of psi power..." have no basis in fact; and "...There is, in fact, no such thing as the supernatural or the paranormal..."

I have presumed the views of these two gentlemen represent the actual position of the modern skeptics movement on paranormal, supernatural, and the occult, and have stated my position on the challenge with the further presumption this is also known and understood by this forum.

Have I been wrong in this?

maatorc.

[TheBoyPaj]

I have presumed the views of these two gentlemen represent the actual position of the modern skeptics movement on paranormal, supernatural, and the occult, and have stated my position on the challenge with the further presumption this is also known and understood by this forum.

Even if that was Randi's view, that does not affect the awarding of the challenge. Randi is free to think whatever he wishes. It is up to you to provide a demonstration that makes him (and all of us) sit up and take notice.

If you can demonstrate something that Randi currently categorises as paranormal, you win the million. It's that simple.

Now, are you going to continue to pretend that the challenge is something it isn't?

[Darat]

Darat -

I mention proof of connection because the challenge specifies "...evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power..." which necessarily cannot be provided by any material measuring system such as statistics, photography, or physical protocols.

If a participant actually did what they said they could do under the protocols does this mean that the $1m would be paid as "evidence of any paranormal, supernatural or occult power" despite the modern skeptical position that "..the paranormal cannot exist..." ?

This is my actual dilemma about the challenge: it seems to contain a contradiction in terms which guarantees it can never be met because it will simultaneously confirm that there is "...evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power..." and that "...the paranormal cannot exist..."

maatorc.

That is nothing more then a semantic argument or at best a metaphysical argument.

The challenge is quite simply a contract between the JREF and the applicant. I would suggest you try and understand it in terms of that rather then via metaphysics.

Put in the simplest possible form it is a contract that says:

"You do X, we pay you one million dollars."

There is nothing more to it then that, which is easily proved by reading the Challenge log and the tests that have actually been carried out.

[steenkh]

(snip) the modern skeptical position that "..the paranormal cannot exist..." ?

That is a strange interpretation of "the modern skeptical position". At this board the position is clearly "the paranormal does not exist". I have yet to see a skeptic who would not be willing to change his/her mind when there has been presented evidence for something paranormal.

Please show where people have expressed your version of the "modern skeptical position".

[GzuzKryzt]

Maatorc, up to this day, we have yet to observe satisfactory proof for a "paranormal" or "supernatural" event. Hence, the rightful claim: It does not exist.

As soon as anyone proves a "paranormal" or "supernatural" event - repeatedly, under proper conditions, removing the slightest doubt about cheating - no one in his right mind will deny it. Not even a skepticissimus. ;)
(The JREF Challenge serves as one of the possible gateways to said proof, if you will.)

Until this day, let's work under the assumption it does not exist, shall we?

[maatorc]

That is a strange interpretation of "the modern skeptical position". At this board the position is clearly "the paranormal does not exist". I have yet to see a skeptic who would not be willing to change his/her mind when there has been presented evidence for something paranormal.
Please show where people have expressed your version of the "modern skeptical position".

steenkh -
If you want to use does not instead of or as an alternative to cannot it is OK with me. Read Michael Shermer's "Science Friction".
This level of nit-picking is not where I am coming from.
maatorc.

[steenkh]

steenkh -
If you want to use does not instead of or as an alternative to cannot it is OK with me. Read Michael Shermer's "Science Friction".
This level of nit-picking is not where I am coming from.
maatorc.
You use the expression "cannot exist" to imply that "modern" skeptics will not accept evidence to the contrary. I pointed to the fact that that your expression leads to a wrong conclusion. That is hardly nit-picking.

It is clear that if anything paranormal should happen to exist, a major revision of the laws of physics would have to be done. I do not have Shermer's book, so I must believe you when you say that Shermer claims that the paranormal cannot exist. I can only assume that he says because paranormal phenomena break the laws of physics. This is a conclusion that I am sure that most woos would also subscribe to, but they do not hold much of the laws of physics anyway.

Noone in their right mind could assert that the laws of physics will never need a revision, after all, they have already been revised many times. I very much doubt that Shermer's "cannot exist" also means that he will refute evidence that says otherwise.

[Jekyll]

steenkh -
If you want to use does not instead of or as an alternative to cannot it is OK with me. Read Michael Shermer's "Science Friction".
This level of nit-picking is not where I am coming from.
maatorc.
Can we use: "The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that everyone who has claimed to be psychic is either a fraud or self deluded. The Jref is sufficiently sure of this, that it is prepared to bet a million dollars that no one is psychic." ?

Yes, according to James Randi and presumably Michael Shermer psychic powers do not exist. The whole point of the challenge is that it is an open invitation to prove them wrong.

There is nothing 'para' beyond the 'normal': any event is 'normal'.
There is nothing 'super' beyond the 'natural': any event is 'natural'.
There is nothing 'extra' beyond the 'sensory': no sense means no perception.
These terms are contradictions and misnomers.
If it helps you understand what they're saying more try reading "Phenomena which we're fairly sure don't exist" instead of paranormal, supernatural or ESP. They are common words with commonly understood meanings, which don't really reflect the meanings of the root words.

[NiallM]

Darat -

I mention proof of connection because the challenge specifies "...evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power..." which necessarily cannot be provided by any material measuring system such as statistics, photography, or physical protocols.

If a participant actually did what they said they could do under the protocols does this mean that the $1m would be paid as "evidence of any paranormal, supernatural or occult power" despite the modern skeptical position that "..the paranormal cannot exist..." ?

This is my actual dilemma about the challenge: it seems to contain a contradiction in terms which guarantees it can never be met because it will simultaneously confirm that there is "...evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power..." and that "...the paranormal cannot exist..."

maatorc.
The opposite is true.

The only way to win the challenge is to demonstrate an ability which cannot be explained by any current known science.

If anything, this flatly contradicts your position.

Again, I would recommend to you that you examine the record of previous tests. You will see that they focus on establishing cause and effect, but never the mechanism.

It is adequate for the purposes of the test to merely demonstrate the claimed effect.

I must ask whether you read about previous test and protocol negotiations. These would show how the challenge operates in practice and shows you to be in error.

[gnome]

steenkh -
If you want to use does not instead of or as an alternative to cannot it is OK with me. Read Michael Shermer's "Science Friction".
This level of nit-picking is not where I am coming from.
maatorc.

Darat replied to you, too, and you directly addressed Darat--what are your thoughts on his reply?

[Pup]

I mention proof of connection because the challenge specifies "...evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power..." which necessarily cannot be provided by any material measuring system such as statistics, photography, or physical protocols.

If a participant actually did what they said they could do under the protocols does this mean that the $1m would be paid as "evidence of any paranormal, supernatural or occult power" despite the modern skeptical position that "..the paranormal cannot exist..." ?

Yes. What constitutes sufficient "evidence" to award the prize for any particular test, is defined by the agreement between JREF and the challenger.

[maatorc]

"You do X, we pay you one million dollars."

Darat -

Yes, provided it IS paranormal, supernatural or occult power, or a yet to be discovered material scientific advance.
The test protocols cannot determine or establish that any particular demonstration IS 'p-s-o' merely by mutual agreement between JREF and a claimant on what constitutes a conclusion.
Material science cannot physically measure whatever it is that IS a 'p-s-o'.
All the terminology is about observations and effects but not the actual nature of the thing in itself, which anyway is presumed not to exist or not to be able to exist.
I have looked at the challenge logs and quite understandably they are all suitably confusing to both parties. If, hypothetically, it eventually transpires that a test is passed and the demonstration is accepted as 'p-s-o', this still will not prove it is 'p-s-o'.

If you find this exasperating, a modern tale might help:
There exists a certain very large and somewhat influential institution. Periodically some of the followers request it to posthumously bestow great honours on another follower considered to have exhibited outstanding qualities vis-a-vis the institutions world-view. To handle this the institution appoints two persons to examine the claim for this recognition: one looks for reasons why the honour should be bestowed; the other, a doubter, looks for reasons why it should not be bestowed.

maatorc.

[maatorc]

TheBoyPaj wrote: If you can demonstrate something that Randi currently categorises as paranormal, you win the million. It's that simple....Now, are you going to continue to pretend that the challenge is something it isn't?

TheBoyPaj -

How can James Randi know if any event is a demonstration of the paranormal? Mr. Randi categorizing an event as paranormal does not make it so.

Unless it can be shown in advance that the demonstration is of an event that IS in itself an actual paranormal event the test is meaningless.

maatorc.

[maatorc]

Yes. What constitutes sufficient "evidence" to award the prize for any particular test, is defined by the agreement between JREF and the challenger.

Pup -

Does this mean that the agreement has determined what paranormal, supernatural or occult power actually IS in itself in order to determine what constitutes sufficient evidence that a test actually demonstrates a 'p-s-o' event?
If yes, how was this done, or how can it be done?

maatorc.

[TheBoyPaj]

TheBoyPaj -
How can James Randi know if any event is a demonstration of the paranormal? Mr. Randi categorizing an event as paranormal does not make it so.

I never said it did. You'll never get everyone to agree on what is or is not paranormal. Dowsers think what they claim to do is perfectly normal. Psychics think they are tapping unknown natural forces. But for the purposes of the James Randi Educational Foundation million dollar challenge, James Randi decides what is and is not eligible. I'm not talking about scientific proof. I'm talking about a very specific thing: a challenge which, so far, no one has ever come close to passing.

Unless it can be shown in advance that the demonstration is of an event that IS in itself an actual paranormal event the test is meaningless.

That is your opinion. It is not shared by all.

What IS meaningless is your continued feigned misunderstanding of what the challenge is about.

[GzuzKryzt]

Pup -

Does this mean that the agreement has determined what paranormal, supernatural or occult power actually IS in itself in order to determine what constitutes sufficient evidence that a test actually demonstrates a 'p-s-o' event?
If yes, how was this done, or how can it be done?

maatorc.

Maatorc, it seems to me like you are caught in semantic quicksand. You're not the first and you won't be the last. Happened to me, too.

The JREF Challenge and Mr. Randi himself most likely do not command to stick an eternally valid label to a 'p-s-o' performance.
A successfully executed JREF Challenge only means: The Claimant has lived up to his Claim. He has proved "under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event." - as described by the JREF.

Very likely, a Challenge Winner would receive invitations from scientists on the entire planet who would like to further examine the demonstrated "power" or "ability" or "phenomenon". Levitation & telekinesis come to mind.
After the most rigorous testing imaginable, which will probably take a huge amount of effort and time, we may attach a label or a name to said 'p-s-o' event.

How we describe a 'p-s-o' event depends on our perception of reality.

[Darat]

Darat -

Yes, provided it IS paranormal, supernatural or occult power, or a yet to be discovered material scientific advance.


No you are again misunderstanding Challenge and what the contract means.

The applicant and the JREF both agree what "X" is beforehand and that becomes part of the contract, let me recast it using an example I have used before and one that there are documented preliminary tests for - dowsing:

The challenge ends up being a contract of the following form:

"Find 8 out 10 samples of metals under overturned cups and we will pay you one million dollars."

That is it - there is no debate to be entered into regarding whether such an achievement is paranormal/supernormal/mystical/psi or not, that is not part of the contract.


The test protocols cannot determine or establish that any particular demonstration IS 'p-s-o' merely by mutual agreement between JREF and a claimant on what constitutes a conclusion.


Which is what the challenge is about, someone says to the JREF "I can do X", the JREF says "OK do X and we will pay you a million dollars".


Material science cannot physically measure whatever it is that IS a 'p-s-o'.
All the terminology is about observations and effects but not the actual nature of the thing in itself, which anyway is presumed not to exist or not to be able to exist.


Whether this is true or not has nothing to do with what the challenge is or what the challenge claims to be.


I have looked at the challenge logs and quite understandably they are all suitably confusing to both parties. If, hypothetically, it eventually transpires that a test is passed and the demonstration is accepted as 'p-s-o', this still will not prove it is 'p-s-o'.


And who has ever claimed that it will mean anything more then "Applicant Y did X"? It would appear you are attacking a straw-man you have constructed.


If you find this exasperating, a modern tale might help:
There exists a certain very large and somewhat influential institution. Periodically some of the followers request it to posthumously bestow great honours on another follower considered to have exhibited outstanding qualities vis-a-vis the institutions world-view. To handle this the institution appoints two persons to examine the claim for this recognition: one looks for reasons why the honour should be bestowed; the other, a doubter, looks for reasons why it should not be bestowed.

maatorc.


Why should I "find this exasperating"? All it is is someone (you) who has misunderstood what the challenge is and how it is actually carried out. Hopefully you will now realise that your criticism of the challenge have been based on your misunderstanding of what the challenge is.

[maatorc]

No you are again misunderstanding Challenge and what the contract means.... no debate to be entered into regarding whether such an achievement is paranormal/supernormal/mystical/psi or not, that is not part of the contract.... someone says to the JREF "I can do X", the JREF says "OK do X and we will pay you a million dollars"....whether this is true or not has nothing to do with what the challenge is or what the challenge claims to be....It would appear you are attacking a straw-man you have constructed....All it is is someone (you) who has misunderstood what the challenge is and how it is actually carried out. Hopefully you will now realise that your criticism of the challenge have been based on your misunderstanding of what the challenge is.

Darat -
I have all along understood exactly what the challenge is. I may be wrong in seeing it as flawed. I agree this conversation can achieve nothing. Thanks to you and others for replying to me.
maatorc.

[gnome]

Darat -
I have all along understood exactly what the challenge is. I may be wrong in seeing it as flawed. I agree this conversation can achieve nothing. Thanks to you and others for replying to me.
maatorc.

:jaw-dropp

Mark the calendar!

Well maatorc... I withdraw anything I said about you being a troll...

[Ririon]

:jaw-dropp

:jaw-dropp indeed.

[T'ai Chi]

, someone says to the JREF "I can do X", the JREF says "OK do X and we will pay you a million dollars".


Ideally, sure. Although, Randi declied the breathatarian(sp) from participating.

[Darat]

Ideally, sure. Although, Randi declied the breathatarian(sp) from participating.

And your point is?

[T'ai Chi]

And your point is?

Think.

You may figure it out.

[GzuzKryzt]

Ideally, sure. Although, Randi declied the breathatarian(sp) from participating.

What did the "breathatarian(sp)" claim that Mr. Randi "declied" [sic]?

[Lamuella]

Think.

You may figure it out.

*thinking*

I got it! Randi is somehow a bad man for not wanting to be partially responsible for a lunatic starving himself to death!

[TheBoyPaj]

Ideally, sure. Although, Randi declied the breathatarian(sp) from participating.

Yes. In an ideal world, applicants wouldn't make claims which are:

a) completely natural and understood or
b) incomprehensible or
c) potentially deadly, resulting in the JREF becoming legally liable.

But it's not an ideal world, so people still submit illegitimate applications and the dishonest still try to win points by bringing them up.

[Darat]

Think.

You may figure it out.

I did and I couldn't so please explain yourself.

[T'ai Chi]

I did and I couldn't so please explain yourself.

No.

Now what?

[Lamuella]

No.

Now what?

now we ignore your contribution because you were unable to elaborate on it.

[TheBoyPaj]

Most people, when they decide to participate in an internet discussion forum, would like potential readers to understand that which they are trying to express. But some people seem to delight in being unclear, and don't care if they are understood.

I find the latter to be very odd.

[T'ai Chi]

now we ignore your contribution because you were unable to elaborate on it.

You're doing a great job at it.

[GzuzKryzt]

Classic T'ai Chi. ;)

[T'ai Chi]

Yup.

[gnome]

T'ai Chi...

What is your actual opinion on the breathanarian thing? Do you feel that JREF avoided the challenge because the guy might win?

[T'ai Chi]

"Ideally, sure. Although, Randi declied the breathatarian(sp) from participating."

is pretty clear.

[Elind]

My point is, though, if a scientist comes across a phenomenon that appears to the layman to be inexplicable - and which is inexplicable by current science - could he or she apply for the prize? The fact that they subsequently publish an explanation could always be explained by the fact that after they won the prize they felt driven to find a scientific cause.

An interesting supposition, but it seems to me that the prize is intended for those who discover or demonstrate something that is not just new, within the known laws of physics; but something that in effect demonstrates either a violation of those laws, or adds a new law to them.

This is not a prize for the best illusion.

[CFLarsen]

"Ideally, sure. Although, Randi declied the breathatarian(sp) from participating."

is pretty clear.

So, you think it is OK for JREF to engage in life-threatening tests?

[TheChadd]

The contract with a breatharian would basically be "You don't eat for X days, we give you 1 Million Dollars $US"... It's like telling someone "Jump off that bridge and we will give you 1 Million Dollars $US".

Nice work Tai Chi.

[gnome]

"Ideally, sure. Although, Randi declied the breathatarian(sp) from participating."

is pretty clear.

It makes it clear that Randi declined to accept a claim. It does not make it clear what your opinion of it is, or the basis of your opinion.

Or do you think that merely bringing up topics of controversy serves as discussion?

[gnome]

An interesting supposition, but it seems to me that the prize is intended for those who discover or demonstrate something that is not just new, within the known laws of physics; but something that in effect demonstrates either a violation of those laws, or adds a new law to them.

This is not a prize for the best illusion.

The point is... they're so certain that they'd be able to detect any illusion that they're willing to risk being fooled, and plan on sticking to their agreement even if they are.

[T'ai Chi]

The contract with a breatharian would basically be "You don't eat for X days, we give you 1 Million Dollars $US"... It's like telling someone "Jump off that bridge and we will give you 1 Million Dollars $US".


Who knows what it would be since pre-judging tossed him out before the no-judging-involved test began.

[TheChadd]

Can you come up with a test that would not seriously endanger the well-being of the breatharian?

[nathan]

Who knows what it would be since pre-judging tossed him out before the no-judging-involved test began.
Are you saying that the body of evidence that people do in fact require food to survive is less strong than the evidence that jumping off tall structures without safety devices is detrimental to ones health?

Are you aware that an applicant cannot indemnify the JREF against the criminal legal implications of inciting someone to self harm?

[Elind]

The point is... they're so certain that they'd be able to detect any illusion that they're willing to risk being fooled, and plan on sticking to their agreement even if they are.

I take the point, but the "illusion" has to be described in advance and repeatable. We are not talking of quantum mechanical experiments, or the initial discovery that the Voyager spacecraft appear to be accellerating apparently contrary to the laws of gravity, for example. In addition it is my understanding that the "powers" in question are also to be controllable by mind or body, not a black box.

Seems like a pretty good bet to me.

[rjh01]

Can you come up with a test that would not seriously endanger the well-being of the brethren?

If they claim they do not need to consume food or water put them in a locked room for 48 hours. If they urinate or defecate or lose weight then they fail. They will also be required to do a certain amount of physical activity during this time. They will also not be allowed any visitors. They can also be weighted after 24 hours. If they have lost weight then they lose.

Also before they do this test they need to provide proof that they are not mentally sick.

People who do require water should not be allowed to be tested as it is too easy to cheat.

[GzuzKryzt]

If they claim they do not need to consume food or water put them in a locked room for 48 hours. If they urinate or defecate or lose weight then they fail. They will also be required to do a certain amount of physical activity during this time. They will also not be allowed any visitors. They can also be weighted after 24 hours. If they have lost weight then they lose.

Also before they do this test they need to provide proof that they are not mentally sick.

People who do require water should not be allowed to be tested as it is too easy to cheat.

Would you, rjh01, take full responsibility for the consequences of your proposed protocol?

[Elind]

I think this is silly stuff. Certainly one should not willingly enter into a test with a probably insane person, in a manner that appears likely to endanger the health or life of that person; and what's more I think the Jref is smart enough to recognize that.

On the other hand if a group of doctors in a hospital are dumb enough to agree to monitor the death wish of a psycho, and allow the Jref to be informed of the progress........

Let's get real here. This is supposed to be a forum of smart people.

[rjh01]

I doubt if a same person would ever agree to be the subject of my proposed protocol. If they did they would either try to cheat or fail. An insane person must not be allowed to be tested.

I wonder how much weight a person will lose without food or water in 24 hours? Come to think of it how much weight does a person lose overnight? Anybody what to test that out?

[GzuzKryzt]

I doubt if a same person would ever agree to be the subject of my proposed protocol. If they did they would either try to cheat or fail. An insane person must not be allowed to be tested.

I wonder how much weight a person will lose without food or water in 24 hours? Come to think of it how much weight does a person lose overnight? Anybody what to test that out?

Nice dodging. Or not.

Would you, rjh01, take full responsibility for the consequences of your proposed protocol if a sane person agreed to be the "subject"?

[rjh01]

Short answer. No.

Long answer. I only propose the protocol. It is up to the sane person to take responsibility for accepting it.

I do not see how my protocol would be dangerous. If they have lost weight at any stage then they lose. End of story. So I doubt that anyone would last 24 hours. Unless of course they have what it takes to claim the $1m.

[steenkh]

Are you saying that the body of evidence that people do in fact require food to survive is less strong than the evidence that jumping off tall structures without safety devices is detrimental to ones health?
Haven't you noticed how the natural breatharians thrive in hunger-stricken areas?

Neither have I.

[NiallM]

There are more issues than simply the health of the applicant.

But to start with a breatharian applicant. What happens to JREF if the applicant decided to practice in advance of a test by starving himself for days on end? What happens if he dies at this stage - even before a medically-supervised test? I can see teh headlines "Man starves to death after challenge by James Randi". What about his physical state when he takes the test? WHat if his preparation has weakened him to the point where the test actually kills him? Randi won't escape disgrace by flourishing a waiver in front of the cameras.

But the other issue must also be considered. What if someone has managed to find a way to cheat a test of this type? Maybe implants of some sort? So Randi snarls and growls as the applicant walks away with the million. Tough on him. Think, then, of the thousands of people who will be duped into Breatharianism because it has been "demonstrated by JREF". Think of the many people who would foolishly buy into it and starve themselves to death. Do you think the JREF would wish to allow any risk that it become a factor in such an event?

There may be some comeback against someone who manages to cheat the JREF of the million if they were subsequently exposed. There would also be one in teh event of a breatharianist being caught at a later stage. However, there would be no recovering the prestige of the JREF, nor any chance of recovering the lives of anyone who had decided to try it out for themselves.

Randi is right about this one on so many many counts.

[NiallM]

Short answer. No.

Long answer. I only propose the protocol. It is up to the sane person to take responsibility for accepting it.

I do not see how my protocol would be dangerous. If they have lost weight at any stage then they lose. End of story. So I doubt that anyone would last 24 hours. Unless of course they have what it takes to claim the $1m.
It is dangerous if they've either been binge-eating, or starving in advance as preparation.

Starving oneself can cause heart damage which could manifest itself under stress or duress.

It's simply not possible to derive a safe protocol for this.

[NiallM]

Oh, and 24 hours would prove nothing at all. I do it regularly. I don't weigh myself, but body weight is a very crude measure of the body's processes. In some cases, the body will start processing its own reserves, creating energy without weight loss. A properly designed regime could easily ensure that a person survives 24 hours without any significant weight loss at all.

[porch]

What if the applicant isn't using relatively unheard of scientific advancements to win, but relatively unheard of trickery/illusionism? It seems unlikely it would slip by, but could someone entertain my hypothetical?

I was just reading the (would link if I could) "A Lucid Proposal..." thread. I think ChristineR has the puzzle solved, but let's say noone did pick up on it and the prize was won. If, after the million was handed out, Randi slapped his forehead with a "Dagnabbit!" and figured out the trick, what would come of it? Or, for that matter, the winner explained himself how it was done after getting the cash?

Also, let's subtract that the applicant is claiming ESP, and pretend he just said he could tell what symbol his wife was looking at from a room away.

[rjh01]

I think you would need to get someone who has performed many times under extreme stress to be the applicant. That takes several years of practise. Then you cannot be sure that the trick will not be detected. The applicant would have to invent a completely new trick.

[Ririon]

What if the applicant isn't using relatively unheard of scientific advancements to win, but relatively unheard of trickery/illusionism? It seems unlikely it would slip by, but could someone entertain my hypothetical?
...
Welcome. Well, this is how you fool scientists. And this is precisely the reason why the JREF needs at least one experienced illusionist (Randi) when negotiating the protocols. If you have followed things here for a few months, you will have noted that the challenge application process halted temporarily when mr. Randi had his health problems.

[TheBoyPaj]

"Scientists" get fooled all the time. Just ask anywoo who believes in the Scole Experiment and they'll tell you about all the scientists who witnessed and could not explain the phenomena.

Scientists are just people. They are susceptible to the same illusions and trickery that we all are.

[DrMatt]

Fatal flaw? How is this a flaw at all? The challenge is for demonstrating a paranormal event. Obviously, purely mental events may not be demonstratable, but then, are they paranormal at all?

Or to put it more bluntly: What's paranormal about You're Crazy?

[maatorc]

Or to put it more bluntly: What's paranormal about You're Crazy?

DrMatt -
I have not, and quite clearly you have not, the slightest idea what you are pretending to wax wise about with gratuitous insult.
I do not deal with pretentions like your's.
I reply only as a JREF Forum courtesy as I have moved on from this thread.
maatorc.