Who judges? [Archive]

ruach1

4th May 2006, 03:56 AM

thatguywhojuggles

4th May 2006, 04:01 AM

As far as I know, the tests are designed so there is no need for a "judge."

Darat

4th May 2006, 04:13 AM

You must have missed the first Rule:

http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html - Emphasis by me:
...snip...

This is the primary and most important of these rules: Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. This is the primary and most important of these rules.

...snip...

And Rule 12:
http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html :
...snip...
EVERY APPLICANT MUST AGREE UPON WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A CONCLUSION THAT, ON THE OCCASION OF THE FORMAL TEST, HE OR SHE DID OR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CLAIMED ABILITY OR POWER. This form must be accompanied by a brief, two-paragraph description of what will constitute the demonstration.
...snip...

brodski

4th May 2006, 04:20 AM

After reading the "Sent in my Application Today" thread, I got to reading the Challenge Rules plus the FAQ's. The rules make it clear that the applicant and the JREF will agree beforehand what will constitute a positive and negative test result.

However, nowhere (nowhere) does it state who judges a positive or negative test result and who makes the final decision concerning failure or success.

The test-givers may say that the applicant (who actually "showed up") achieved a postive test result, but nowhere does it say in the formal rules that Randi can't nullify the result--for whatever reason--be it professional or otherwise.

If there is no rule allowing the test-givers to officially pronounce success or failure, what's the point in applying when the JREF can just nullify the process at will without fear of legal reprisals?
the tests must be conducted in a way which requires no judging, to a protocol agreed by all participants. For instance If I predict that I can predict whether a coin will land heads or tails every time, there is no judging required, records (including I believe video records) will be kept of all the tests, the agreed on protocol will be binding on both the participants and the JREF, a test protocol which requires subjective judgement will not be accepted.

SezMe

4th May 2006, 04:29 AM

After reading the "Sent in my Application Today" thread, I got to reading the Challenge Rules plus the FAQ's. The rules make it clear that the applicant and the JREF will agree beforehand what will constitute a positive and negative test result.
My bolding emphasis. This is the key, ruach1. All test criteria are agreed upon beforehand so that no judgement is necessary after the tests are conducted.

William Smith

4th May 2006, 05:07 AM

...
The test-givers may say that the applicant (who actually "showed up") achieved a postive test result, but nowhere does it say in the formal rules that Randi can't nullify the result--for whatever reason--be it professional or otherwise.

If there is no rule allowing the test-givers to officially pronounce success or failure, what's the point in applying when the JREF can just nullify the process at will without fear of legal reprisals?

Ruach1, if you find the time, check out the threads from applicants Achau Nguyen http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=28936 and Angela Patel http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=34609

The mutually agreed upon test protocols and the tests themselves show excellent examples of how it all takes place.

No judging whatsoever.

Do as you claim. Fail or succeed.

Lamuella

4th May 2006, 07:08 AM

A large part of the negotiations over the test protocol are to reach a situation where a positive or negative result is immediately evident. If you believe you can dowse the location of a certain amount of gold and determine which of ten coffee mugs it is under, then the result is self evident once the coffee mug is lifted. The gold is either there or not. If you believe you can transmit a particular random pattern of playing cards to a receiver in another room, then the result is self evident once the cards received are compared with the cards sent.

this is done precisely so judging doesn't enter into the picture. It can never be said that passing or failing the test came down to someone's decision. The proceedings are almost always taped, so there is an objective record of what happened. This is good for the testee because they can be sure they pass or fail on their evident merits. This is good for JREF because it reduces the avenues for excuse that an unsuccessful applicant might have.

nathan

4th May 2006, 08:29 AM

The test-givers may say that the applicant (who actually "showed up") achieved a postive test result, but nowhere does it say in the formal rules that Randi can't nullify the result--for whatever reason--be it professional or otherwise

You're missing that at the point of taking the preliminary test, the applicant and the JREF have a binding contract between them, specifying exactly how the pass/fail test is to be done. If the applicant sticks to the protocol and passes, and then Randi nullifies the test, the applicant would have standing to sue for breach of contract.

ruach1

4th May 2006, 02:23 PM

You're missing that at the point of taking the preliminary test, the applicant and the JREF have a binding contract between them, specifying exactly how the pass/fail test is to be done. If the applicant sticks to the protocol and passes, and then Randi nullifies the test, the applicant would have standing to sue for breach of contract.
I am not questioning the integrity of the JREF. What is at question is the application rules. There is no stipulation concerning who determines the applicant has achieved the positive or negative result: the skeptic society to which the JREF has farmed out the test or Randi when he gets the videotape. I understand well Darat's points, and I have read the application which is less complex than I expected. But there is no rule stating the following:

The test-givers to whom the JREF has asked to conduct the paranormal test will decide if the agreed upon positive result has or has not been met. JR will have no say concerning test results unless he himself is giving or overseeing the test. This allows the applicant to be sure that JR will not withold the prize due to any personal reasons.

The "contract" allows for a lot of wiggle room on the part of the JREF. It also allows them to nullify anything and anyone they want. Not that they would, but the application rules allow for the JREF to cancel out anything they so desire--even if they have agreed beforehand with the applicant what will and what will not constitute a positive test result. Even if the results favor the applicant, the application doesn't stipulate that Randi can't just throw them out at will. Randi could see the videotape and conclude the test-giver(s) was wrong and that they somehow did not achieve the "necessary scientific observing conditions" he envisioned when he agreed to the protocols. Rule seven disallows for legal action agaisnt the JREF if they feel contract has been broken--which even furthers the JREF's dominant position.

Simply stated, there is no rule that Randi can't pick up his ball and leave the playground leaving everyone else powerless to do anything about it.

Lamuella

4th May 2006, 02:27 PM

you mean apart from the rule that says "JR will have no say concerning test results unless he himself is giving or overseeing the test"?

Hellbound

4th May 2006, 02:31 PM

The "contract" allows for a lot of wiggle room on the part of the JREF. It also allows them to nullify anything and anyone they want. Not that they would, but the application rules allow for the JREF to cancel out anything they so desire--even if they have agreed beforehand with the applicant what will and what will not constitute a positive test result. Even if the results favor the applicant, the application doesn't stipulate that Randi can't just throw them out at will. Rule seven disallows for legal action agaisnt the JREF if they feel contract has been broken--which even furthers the JREF's dominant position.

Um, no, it doesn't. You aren't understanding that rule if you believe it allows breach of contract wihtout recourse.

Also, there is no judging. The testing procedure is defined to give clear cut results (i.e.-if the subject correctly identifies 8 of 10 objects under conditions X Y Z, the test is a success.) There's no judging involved.

Timothy

4th May 2006, 02:50 PM

Simply stated, there is no rule that Randi can't pick up his ball and leave the playground leaving everyone else powerless to do anything about it.
Yes.

You're absolutely right.

There's no legal obligation.

Why should there be?

It's an OFFER to pay $1 million for what should be a simple demonstration.

Why do you have a problem with that?

It's a challenge. It's incentive.

It's not a contract. It's not payment for services rendered. It was never meant to be.

Why do you have a problem with that?

The only enforcement is that of public opinion. If one were to be able to perform an agreed upon protocol and it were to be dismissed, one could publicize it and discredit James Randi and JREF. JREF might pay to retain its reputation, it might not.

Why do you have a problem with that?

Thousands of people think they exhibit paranormal abilities. Applicants are being OFFERED $1 million to perform what would be a simple task if these abilities are real. The Challenge is a tool to show that these abilities don't exist.

Why do you have a problem with that?

Why do you have a problem with that?

Why do you have a problem with that?

- Timothy

Beleth

4th May 2006, 02:51 PM

I am not questioning the integrity of the JREF. What is at question is the application rules. There is no stipulation concerning who determines the applicant has achieved the positive or negative result: the skeptic society to which the JREF has farmed out the test or Randi when he gets the videotape. Maybe a real-life example would help here.

There was a girl in Russia who claimed to be able to see into people's bodies and determine what illnesses they had.

The test they (the JREF and her guardians) came up for her with was this:
Seven people, all with very different illnesses that couldn't be detected from just looking at them, were gathered together. Their illnesses were written on pieces of paper. She was to match up the illness on the paper with the person who had that illness.

Both she (i.e. her guardians) and the test-takers decided that getting 5 or more out of 7 would constitute a success. 4 or less would constitute a failure. This was agreed to before the test.

She got 4 right.

While 4 out of 7 is a pretty impressive hit ratio, it met the previously-agreed-upon failure criterion. She therefore failed the test.

There was no need to determine anything. No judging needed. The success criterion was 5 or more. She did not get 5 or more.

Simply stated, there is no rule that Randi can't pick up his ball and leave the playground leaving everyone else powerless to do anything about it. That simply isn't true. While it's not spelled out in the Challenge rules, it doesn't need to be -- for an accepted Challenge is a legally binding contract, and if the JREF decided to pick up its ball, the applicant would be able to sue the JREF in a court of law and easily win.

ChristineR

4th May 2006, 02:52 PM

Beleth

4th May 2006, 02:54 PM

There's no legal obligation.
It's a challenge. It's incentive.
It's not a contract. It's not payment for services rendered. It was never meant to be. Actually, once the Challenge is accepted and the method and the success criteria are decided on, it is a legally binding contract. Otherwise, ruach would be right; the JREF could just pick up and leave, the Challenge would be a farce, and there would be no reason for anyone to ever apply.

It's not a farce because it ends up legally binding.

ChristineR

4th May 2006, 03:01 PM

Maybe a real-life example would help here.

There was a girl in Russia who claimed to be able to see into people's bodies and determine what illnesses they had.

The test they (the JREF and her guardians) came up for her with was this:
Seven people, all with very different illnesses that couldn't be detected from just looking at them, were gathered together. Their illnesses were written on pieces of paper. She was to match up the illness on the paper with the person who had that illness.

Both she (i.e. her guardians) and the test-takers decided that getting 5 or more out of 7 would constitute a success. 4 or less would constitute a failure. This was agreed to before the test.

She got 4 right.

While 4 out of 7 is a pretty impressive hit ratio, it met the previously-agreed-upon failure criterion. She therefore failed the test.

There was no need to determine anything. No judging needed. The success criterion was 5 or more. She did not get 5 or more.

That simply isn't true. While it's not spelled out in the Challenge rules, it doesn't need to be -- for an accepted Challenge is a legally binding contract, and if the JREF decided to pick up its ball, the applicant would be able to sue the JREF in a court of law and easily win.

That was a CSICOP test, not a JREF test. A JREF test would have been harder. The four she got right were all based on logical guessing. The old, thin man was the heart patient, the woman who walked oddly had the artificial hip, the woman who breathed shallowly was missing part of her lung and the young kid who looked like a healthy college student, was. The ones she missed were the ones that had no obvious external signs.

Beleth

4th May 2006, 03:14 PM

That was a CSICOP test, not a JREF test. A JREF test would have been harder. I stand corrected. Still, it is the kind of judge-less test that the JREF would insist on.

ruach1

4th May 2006, 03:27 PM

Timothy. The Challenge is a tool to show that these abilities don't exist.

Why do you have a problem with that?

Why do you have a problem with that?

Why do you have a problem with that? - Timothy

Aye, here's the rub (a rub at least). The Challenge is that JR will pay 1 mill to anyone who can demonstrate paranormal abilities under satisfactory conditions. But Timothy may just be right. Maybe the Challenge has the above bolded motives--may be not. Unless Huntsman is right about "breach of contract without remorse," without a rule stipulating who has final say on positive or negative test result, the test becomes a farce, and it becomes exactly what Timothy thinks it is: a do not pass Go card that is impossible to bypass because JR has the power to quash any test he chooses.

And even the word farce would be difficult to make stick. Think of all the equivocating that has been done on this Forum. If there was a successful applicant, JR could easily explain it away--if he really wanted to (not saying he would)--and the rest of the skeptics might just back him up.

Oh, and I have no problem here--exept with redundancy maybe...;)

ruach1

4th May 2006, 03:38 PM

That simply isn't true. While it's not spelled out in the Challenge rules, it doesn't need to be -- for an accepted Challenge is a legally binding contract, and if the JREF decided to pick up its ball, the applicant would be able to sue the JREF in a court of law and easily win.
Even in light of rule seven about not being able to sue the JREF? If that is the case, then my lack of legal proceedings has been made known. However, rule seven seems to shut the door on any complaints on the part of applicants and opens the door to allow the JREF to do just about anything.

Santa666

4th May 2006, 03:43 PM

Timothy. - Timothy

Aye, here's the rub (a rub at least). The Challenge is that JR will pay 1 mill to anyone who can demonstrate paranormal abilities under satisfactory conditions. But Timothy may just be right. Maybe the Challenge has the above bolded motives--may be not. Unless Huntsman is right about "breach of contract without remorse," without a rule stipulating who has final say on positive or negative test result, the test becomes a farce, and it becomes exactly what Timothy thinks it is: a do not pass Go card that is impossible to bypass because JR has the power to quash any test he chooses.

And even the word farce would be difficult to make stick. Think of all the equivocating that has been done on this Forum. If there was a successful applicant, JR could easily explain it away--if he really wanted to (not saying he would)--and the rest of the skeptics might just back him up.

Ruach1,

Are you intentionally ignoring the clear responses to your question. The rules of the Challenge state both the claimant and the JREF must agree before hand EXACTLY what constitutes a success and what constitutes a failure. It additionally states James Randi will not have any input on the outcome once agreed upon. Several people have even copied and pasted the exact wording from the Challenge Rules themselves. What precisely are you looking for besides that very straight-forward wording. No judging, predetermined successes or failures, no interference from JR; I am not sure what more you are asking for.

Santa

Beleth

4th May 2006, 03:43 PM

Think of all the equivocating that has been done on this Forum. The only equivocating I have seen has been done by people who want to squirm out of applying for the Challenge.

If there was a successful applicant, JR could easily explain it away--if he really wanted to (not saying he would)--and the rest of the skeptics might just back him up. At that time, it wouldn't matter if the other skeptics backed him up. It would matter if a jury backed him up. Because that's who would ultimately decide whether there was a breach of contract or not.

Randi has bent over backwards to quash any allegations that the Challenge is a farce. The money is demonstrably there; Randi himself plays no part in the testing (unless asked to by the applicant); the agreement is binding so that an Applicant who actually does what he says he can do has legal recourse... it just goes on and on. But at the same time there are people who are unfamilar with the actual setting up and history of the Challenge, and they keep raising issues that have been dealt with long ago.

NoZed Avenger

4th May 2006, 03:43 PM

ChristineR

4th May 2006, 03:45 PM

If someone passed the test I'm sure most of us would be asking how he managed to cheat--but Randi would owe the guy a million, no ifs ands or buts.

The JREF won't agree to a test that they think someone can pass. If it can be done, it's not paranormal. But the JREF does agree to all sorts of tests that people claim they could pass.

ruach, you may not realize who simple these tests are. A guy claims he can dowse for metal. A little pile of metal (provided by him) is placed under one of ten randomly chosen coffee mugs. The guy can't find his metal. An astrologer draws up charts. The charts are given to the subjects and the subjects pick out their chart. Their picks are random. A telepath reads a word. His friend in another room writes the word down. The words are completely unrelated.

Do you have something in mind when you talk about a test JR would "quash?" I assume you mean a test that someone might actually pass, but that JR, in a moment of greed and hubris, wouldn't accept. So far as I know JR has never rejected a test without good reason.

And if JR did refuse to test somebody there is an easy solution. Demonstrate your power by having yourself tested in any and every venue you find. When JR goes on the radio and calls you a fraud, call him up and propose your test. If he can't give a good reason for rejecting it, so much the better for you--you'll end up with a lot more than a million dollars in the end.

NoZed Avenger

4th May 2006, 03:45 PM

Even in light of rule seven about not being able to sue the JREF?

That isn't what it says.

NoZed Avenger

4th May 2006, 03:47 PM

The JREF won't agree to a test that they think someone can pass.

Slight correction -- no test that they think someone can pass using normal, non-paranormal means.

If the person can actually perform paranormal feats, then that person can easily pass. I know that's what you meant, but any ambiguity will be leapt upon, so it is best to be clear.

ruach1

4th May 2006, 03:47 PM

Since the test results are self-evident, the only possible problem would be if the testers lied. A very simple example might be someone predicting die rolls. Success might be eight of ten rolls. The claiment must clearly indicate 1-6, the die is thrown, everyone looks at it and the die value is written down.

In theory the testers could erase the claiment's guess, or write the wrong die value down. But the claiment would be there, witnesses would be there, and the whole thing is videotaped.
Aye, here's another rub.

Would you put it past anyone to falsify test results if they felt their world would come crashing around them if they didn't? Skeptics, to their merit IMO, are putting up the money and the challenge. Skeptics are also doing the test and giving the results. And we all know how skeptics are always level headed, unemotional, scientific observers who never get personally involved in situations which may seem to challenge the world and how they see it. Right?

Do the rules allow for third party observers like journalists who will report foul play on either side? I don't remember seeing anything in the FAQ.

aggle-rithm

4th May 2006, 03:53 PM

The "contract" allows for a lot of wiggle room on the part of the JREF. It also allows them to nullify anything and anyone they want. Not that they would, but the application rules allow for the JREF to cancel out anything they so desire--even if they have agreed beforehand with the applicant what will and what will not constitute a positive test result. Even if the results favor the applicant, the application doesn't stipulate that Randi can't just throw them out at will. Randi could see the videotape and conclude the test-giver(s) was wrong and that they somehow did not achieve the "necessary scientific observing conditions" he envisioned when he agreed to the protocols. Rule seven disallows for legal action agaisnt the JREF if they feel contract has been broken--which even furthers the JREF's dominant position.

The results don't require interpretation. It's not like it's a Presidential election or anything... ;)

Beleth

4th May 2006, 03:55 PM

Even in light of rule seven about not being able to sue the JREF? You mean the rule that ends with the sentence "However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize"?

If that is the case, then my lack of legal proceedings has been made known. However, rule seven seems to shut the door on any complaints on the part of applicants and opens the door to allow the JREF to do just about anything.Rule Seven says basically "if you are hurt or embarrassed during the execution of the Challenge, you will not sue us." It specifically does not say "if you succeed and we don't pay you, you will not sue us." In fact, it takes great pains to specify that that is not what is meant.

ruach1

4th May 2006, 04:01 PM

Ruach1,

Are you intentionally ignoring the clear responses to your question. The rules of the Challenge state both the claimant and the JREF must agree before hand EXACTLY what constitutes a success and what constitutes a failure. It additionally states James Randi will not have any input on the outcome once agreed upon. Several people have even copied and pasted the exact wording from the Challenge Rules themselves. What precisely are you looking for besides that very straight-forward wording. No judging, predetermined successes or failures, no interference from JR; I am not sure what more you are asking for.

Santa
first bolded: I am not ignoring anyone on this thread.

second bolded: I do not see in the application rules that which you have stated.

I am not trolling or trying to cause trouble. Simply after reading the rules, I came to see that the rules do not state who has the final say on whether the test result is positive or negative.

Remember Yellow Bamboo? Even Randi thought there might be something there. But on further review it was shown the YB group was not demonstrating paranormal powers. From what I saw, Randi and the JREF were right. However, where in the rules does it stipulate who has the final say on the test results--the test-givers or Randi?

This test was not a simple yes or no, did or didn't, found the water in the cup or didn't. There was judging involved, and if it can happen in one case, then it can happen in another.

Beleth

4th May 2006, 04:07 PM

Would you put it past anyone to falsify test results if they felt their world would come crashing around them if they didn't? You are confusing skeptics with cynics. My world would not come crashing around me if someone demonstrated a paranormal ability. Actually, I couldn't wait for that to happen; I'd be the first one at the patent office.

Skeptics, to their merit IMO, are putting up the money and the challenge. Skeptics are also doing the test and giving the results. A person or group of people agreeable by both sides do the test and give the results. It's understandable that the JREF would pick level-headed skeptical people. But the Applicant is charged with selecting test-givers they agree with as well.

Do the rules allow for third party observers like journalists who will report foul play on either side? I don't remember seeing anything in the FAQ. Nope, there is nothing like that in the FAQ. The rules allow for anything that is mutually agreed upon; if that includes journalists, then so be it. IIRC there have been a handful of high-profile cases where journalists have been present.

ruach1

4th May 2006, 04:09 PM

you mean apart from the rule that says "JR will have no say concerning test results unless he himself is giving or overseeing the test"?
Where does it say that in the rules? :confused:

Beleth

4th May 2006, 04:11 PM

Remember Yellow Bamboo? Even Randi thought there might be something there. But on further review it was shown the YB group was not demonstrating paranormal powers. From what I saw, Randi and the JREF were right. However, where in the rules does it stipulate who has the final say on the test results--the test-givers or Randi?

This test was not a simple yes or no, did or didn't, found the water in the cup or didn't. There was judging involved, and if it can happen in one case, then it can happen in another.
Wasn't the YB success criterion "knock a person off their feet without touching them"? How does that require judging?

ruach1

4th May 2006, 04:13 PM

You are confusing skeptics with cynics. My world would not come crashing around me if someone demonstrated a paranormal ability. Actually, I couldn't wait for that to happen; I'd be the first one at the patent office.

A person or group of people agreeable by both sides do the test and give the results. It's understandable that the JREF would pick level-headed skeptical people. But the Applicant is charged with selecting test-givers they agree with as well.

Nope, there is nothing like that in the FAQ. The rules allow for anything that is mutually agreed upon; if that includes journalists, then so be it. IIRC there have been a handful of high-profile cases where journalists have been present.
You mean they're not the same? ;)

Not even cut from the same cloth? ;)

(here we go again... :) )

drfrank

4th May 2006, 04:15 PM

To my knowledge, the Yellow Bamboo were never properly tested by the JREF, so that isn't a valid example. Someone on the forums (iirc) in the area offered to do an informal test on them, and tips were given on how the testing should proceed.

However, most of the suggested protocol was ignored (filming at night, plenty of people running around etc.), and thus the results really weren't meaningful as they left enormous holes open for cheating.

An idealised Yellow Bamboo test would have been quite simple: either you hit them around the head soundly with a staff, or you get thrown back without them touching you.

Oh, for a staff and a member of the Yellow Bamboo :rolleyes:

[edit]Damn my slow typing, such that four additional posts were added before I'd finished mine

Timothy

4th May 2006, 04:39 PM

I don't think that anyone has yet answered the point of rauch1's initial question. The waters got muddied because of the "self-evident" and "judging" semantics. Let's phrase it another way.

"Who has the authority to validate that the results of the test met the agreed upon criteria, and pronounces the test a success or a failure?"

Example: If I claim that I can make a coin land heads up 20 times in a row, who verifies that the side that landed upwards was *in fact* heads and that it happened *in fact* 20 times, and that any other criteria were met? Even in cases where the outcome is "obvious," someone has the authority to pronounce the test valid and either a success or a failure.

One would be tempted to assume it's Mr. Randi, since the Challenge starts out "I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 to any person ..." and unless Mr. Randi has specifically delegated the responsibility to another party, the question is open.

I believe that this level of detail, though, has not been addressed because no one has ever passed the preliminary challenge.

If one is concerned about who does the validation, write it into the protocol.

- Timothy

ChristineR

4th May 2006, 04:53 PM

Aye, here's another rub.

Would you put it past anyone to falsify test results if they felt their world would come crashing around them if they didn't? Skeptics, to their merit IMO, are putting up the money and the challenge. Skeptics are also doing the test and giving the results. And we all know how skeptics are always level headed, unemotional, scientific observers who never get personally involved in situations which may seem to challenge the world and how they see it. Right?

Do the rules allow for third party observers like journalists who will report foul play on either side? I don't remember seeing anything in the FAQ.

I think the presense of outsiders is usually part of the protocol. I'm pretty sure journalists have been at some of these tests. There are practical limits on how many people you can have around, but I don't think the JREF could refuse the right to have someone you trust to give you support.

Santa666

4th May 2006, 05:03 PM

Ruach1,

Perhaps an example would be beneficial. Can you please provide a hypothetical scenario where a clamaint and the JREF both agreed upon what is an success and what is a failure, agreed upon a complete test protocol, and proceeded to the test, then somehow, the result became less than obvious and Randi could pull out of his obligation. Please, any hypothetical example will do.

Also, rule 7, in its entirety, is below.

When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial or professional loss, or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize.

There is a a caveat in the above and I bolded it. This is there because he could be sued for breach of contract if he did not follow through with his end of the bargain.

Please also clarify for me, you state the rules allow JR to "pick up his ball and leave anytime". Where exactly is that listed in the rules? Is this just your POV?

Santa

Beleth

4th May 2006, 05:05 PM

"Who has the authority to validate that the results of the test met the agreed upon criteria, and pronounces the test a success or a failure? Ahhhh. Yes. "Authority" is different than "ability", and I think we all got mired in "ability". Anyone who is a witness to either the test istself or to a recording of it should have the ability to validate the results of the test.

But who has authority to declare that the Challenge has been won would obviously be someone from the JREF, if not Randi himself. And that decision could always be appealed through the legal system.

I suppose that you could say that, ultimately, the Supreme Court of the United States has the authority... but that's not a very useful answer in my opinion.

Plasmadog

4th May 2006, 05:18 PM

As has been pointed out numerous times, an accepted claim is a legally binding contract, in which the criterion for success and failure are specified in terms that are as clear and unambigous as possible. Both parties negotiate and agree on these criterion before signing.
After the test, both parties should be able to agree on the outcome. In case of disagreement between the JREF and the claimant, the courts have the final say. This does not need to be explicitly explained in the rules becasue it is a fundamental principal of contract law.

ruach1

4th May 2006, 06:05 PM

Ahhhh. Yes. "Authority" is different than "ability", and I think we all got mired in "ability". Anyone who is a witness to either the test istself or to a recording of it should have the ability to validate the results of the test.

But who has authority to declare that the Challenge has been won would obviously be someone from the JREF, if not Randi himself. And that decision could always be appealed through the legal system.

I suppose that you could say that, ultimately, the Supreme Court of the United States has the authority... but that's not a very useful answer in my opinion.
Yes. That's it. Now you see "where I'm coming from." The authority to say who passed and who didn't is not stated in the application. That's that wiggle-room I was talking about. Basically, the JREF can do just about whatever they want, and other than spending mucho denero on lawyers and legal fees on a case that certainly has no precedent, there is precious little applicants can do if they feel they have passed the test and have been denied "passed test status" by an authority that holds applicants in very low esteem.

Plasmadog, any objections to the above logic? You seem to maintain a good legal mind.

Santa666

4th May 2006, 06:14 PM

Paul2

4th May 2006, 06:15 PM

Santa666

4th May 2006, 06:26 PM

I think that ruach1's point is that the Challenge rules don't state who *operationally* decides whether the Challenge was successful or not. That is, someone, somewhere, presumably at JREF, has to tell someone "Cut that check." or "Don't cut that check." I think ruach1's minimum position is: "Who is that? We don't know."

It's not a question of what is sufficient evidence, it's an operational question.

Please correct me if I am wrong. But is this not the same thing as asking "who decides to cut me my check," when you win the lottery. Who cares. Really, up until the point that your check (or prize) is not issued, and very likely, after that, this information is irrelavent. The lottery, in similar fashion to the Challenge, seeks to verify you won through legit means and not fraud and then they pay you. Nowhere in the lottery rules does it state who EXACTLY says you won and here is your money. Much like the Challenge, the lottery does not require judging, you either win, or lose, based upon predetermined criteria. If you win, you are paid, if you lose, too bad, try again.

Santa

Plasmadog

4th May 2006, 06:30 PM

I think that it would only be an issue if the success criteria were not defined as clearly as the JREF strives to always do, therefore creating ambiguities that could be exploited by either party. But it is in the interests of both parties to ensure that this is not the case before signing.

If it ever were to come down to a legal battle, I don't think the claimant would have all that much trouble. There may be little case law covering the testing of paranormal abilities, but that's not really relevant. There is a vast volume covering breach of contract, which is all it would come down to. Also, in a case where there is 1 million dollars up for grabs, finding a lawyer willing to work on a no-win, no-fee basis should not prove difficult. In fact, the JREF may even be at a disadvantage in that situation, since they don't really stand to gain anything by winning the case, so they'd presumably be relying on insurance to cover the legal costs.

Dunstan

4th May 2006, 06:40 PM

Yes. That's it. Now you see "where I'm coming from." The authority to say who passed and who didn't is not stated in the application. That's that wiggle-room I was talking about. Basically, the JREF can do just about whatever they want, and other than spending mucho denero on lawyers and legal fees on a case that certainly has no precedent, there is precious little applicants can do if they feel they have passed the test and have been denied "passed test status" by an authority that holds applicants in very low esteem.

As has been stated repeatedly in this thread, this is why the test is designed and agreed upon to have an objective definition of success that is not dependent on interpretation or subjective judgment.

To say that the JREF can do whatever it wants, and all the applicant can do is resort to the legal system, is an empty argument. That's what contract law is for. What's your alternative? Appoint Person X as the sole judge of whether the test has been passed? Ok. Then, what's to stop the JREF from refusing the pay the money anyway? What's the applicant's recourse? It's -- gasp -- the legal system.

The only alternative I can think of is that the money be turned over to Person X, who then gives it to the applicant or the JREF depending on the outcome. But how the hell do you agree on Person X? Anyone who the JREF would be willing to trust with sole control of the $1M is not likely to be anyone an applicant would trust.

And again, the point of the test is to have something that can be determined objectively.

By the way, if an applicant is really concerned about the prospect of having to incur attorney's fees to recover the prize, I suspect the JREF would be willing to include a provision in the contract that allows the prevailing party in any lawsuit to recover its fees and costs.

Paul2

4th May 2006, 06:45 PM

Please correct me if I am wrong. But is this not the same thing as asking "who decides to cut me my check," when you win the lottery. Santa
Is what not the same thing as asking "who decides to cut me my check," when you win the lottery?
Who cares.
rauch1 does. Maybe his concern has no practical ramfications. So be it. But let's be clear on what he's asking (rauch1, if I'm misinterpreting you, please correct me).

Nowhere in the lottery rules does it state who EXACTLY says you won and here is your money.
I don't have specific knowledge, but I bet it does. Wouldn't the state have to define exactly who say "cut this check" or "don't cut the check.? In truth, someone *has* to be in charge of that. Someone *has* to make that decision, on easy or difficult evidence. Otherwise, how could the system work?

Much like the Challenge, the lottery does not require judging, you either win, or lose, based upon predetermined criteria. If you win, you are paid, if you lose, too bad, try again.
This statement ignores the distinction between the operational decision (who says to cut the check) and the substantive issues of the Challenge (were the requirements of the protocol met?). Anyone can decide whether the applicant was successful (a good protocol should make that the case), but there is probably only one person who says "cut the check." Who is that?

Paul2

4th May 2006, 06:49 PM

Beleth

4th May 2006, 07:07 PM

Santa666

4th May 2006, 07:08 PM

Actually, here's the crucial issue: no matter how clearly the protocol is designed to make obvious the question of whether the applicant has passed the Challenge successfully or not, someone must still make that decision. Someone must still interpret the results, no matter how clear or muddled, in order to cut the check or not. Who is that person? Maybe this has no substantive import. So what? Humor me (I'm as skeptical as anyone on this board, go check my past posts). Or is that question somehow off-limits?

Ok, so let's play along here. Since no one here is an employee of the JREF, we will not actually have a direct answer, but I will try. Once again, I must ask; Who cares? Why does it matter? Let's go back to my lottery example. Most states have lottery commission in place which establish lottery rules and payment protocols. Ultimately, outside of the courts, the commission would be the final authority. Ok, now that you know who has the final authority, what do you do with it? How does this information assist you? If a claimant can demonstrate, in accordance with the legally binding contract with the JREF, a success, they win the million dollars. Whether the person who decides the check is to cut is JR or some person we have never heard of is meaningless. If, however, you really need to know, this forum is not likely to produce an answer unless JR himself responds.

Santa

ruach1

4th May 2006, 07:31 PM

I think that ruach1's point is that the Challenge rules don't state who *operationally* decides whether the Challenge was successful or not. That is, someone, somewhere, presumably at JREF, has to tell someone "Cut that check." or "Don't cut that check." I think ruach1's minimum position is: "Who is that? We don't know."

It's not a question of what is sufficient evidence, it's an operational question.
Give this man (?) a cigar. He hit the bull's eye. However its not just an operational question; it also seems to be a legal one as this thread has given birth to an equally inquisitive and potentially tiresome thread titled "Rule 7."

I can't really give Satan (I mean Santa) his hypothetical, as I don't have the time right now, but I don't think a hypothetical is necessarily needed. The other thread posters have an excellent handle on the situation--especially plasmadog and Paul2.

Paul2

4th May 2006, 07:41 PM

Give this man(?) Last time I checked! Which, coincidentally, was just this afternoon. (huh?)

He hit the bull's eye.
Don't applaud, just throw money.

However its not just an operational question; it also seems to be a legal one as this thread has given birth to an equally inquisitive and potentially tiresome thread titled "Rule 7."

I hereby decline to get into the legal issue. All I was trying to do was to elucidate the issue, which I guess I've done brilliantly. I have been a conflict resolution mediator, a major skill for which is the ability to re-phrase and re-state another's ideas, no matter if they are similar or different than one's own. You're welcome.

ruach1

4th May 2006, 07:42 PM

Ruach1, if you find the time, check out the threads from applicants Achau Nguyen http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=28936 and Angela Patel http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=34609

The mutually agreed upon test protocols and the tests themselves show excellent examples of how it all takes place.

No judging whatsoever.

Do as you claim. Fail or succeed.
After re-reading Ngyen's and Patel's correspondence, it seems it was the test-givers in conjunction with the test-taker who decided that said tests were positive or negative--in these cases negative. However, if there were to be a question as if the test were positive or negative, then the rules don't say as to who would settle the dispute.

Do as you claim. Fail or succeed. Resistance is futile.

(couldn't help it Gzuzkryst :vulcan:)

Paul2

4th May 2006, 07:43 PM

Ok, so let's play along here. Since no one here is an employee of the JREF, we will not actually have a direct answer, but I will try. Once again, I must ask; Who cares? Why does it matter? Since you were good enough to play along, so will I. It very well may not matter at all. I'm not going to argue that it does matter, I merely wanted to be clear that there was an operational issue, distinct from a substantive one. They were getting confused, so I wanted to clarify.

Santa666

4th May 2006, 07:51 PM

After re-reading Ngyen's and Patel's correspondence, it seems it was the test-givers in conjunction with the test-taker who decided that said tests were positive or negative--in these cases negative. However, if there were to be a question as if the test were positive or negative, then the rules don't say as to who would settle the dispute.

Do as you claim. Fail or succeed. Resistance is futile.

(couldn't help it Gzuzkryst :vulcan:)

I know you said you did not have time nor did you think it was necessary and perhaps it is not, but this is why I asked for an example; you have once again asked, if there was a question, who decides. Many people have stated no such questions should arise given the protocol negotiations and agreement. Can you provide an example (hypothetical or not) where the success is agreed upon, the failure is agreed upon, the protocols are agreed upon and established, yet the outcome is in dispute. I really am not trying to argumentative.

Ok, maybe a little. I do not have a lot to do this time of year.

Santa

NoZed Avenger

4th May 2006, 08:40 PM

The only alternative I can think of is that the money be turned over to Person X, who then gives it to the applicant or the JREF depending on the outcome.

That has effectively been done.. The money is in the hands of Goldman-Sachs with an arrangement to pay to a successful challenger. JREF only has absolute access to the interest.

Darat

5th May 2006, 02:40 AM

Who is that person?
Who makes the final decision to "cut the check" (actually it's "hand over the negotiable bonds", but that's beside the point)?

As long as Randi is of sound mind, I can't imagine that it would be anyone but him.

I don't have evidence to back that up, but it's almost a given.
You could ask at challenge@randi.org, but I would be extremely surprised if they gave a different answer.

It is definitely Randi (and of course you have the evidence because once again it's already in the wording of the challenge itself :) ):

http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html Emphasis by me

...snip...

This offer is administered by the JREF, and no one may negotiate or make any changes, except as set forth in writing by James Randi (JR). All correspondence must be written, and will be answered, in English only.

...snip...

I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions. Such demonstration must take place under these rules and limitations.

It is very clear that the contract is between Randi and the applicant - this is still very much Randi's challenge - albeit administrated by the JREF.

ChristineR

5th May 2006, 07:26 AM

If someone won the challenge in the sense that he clearly met the conditions of his contract and Randi said "don't give him the money" then that person could sue. As he would have the videotapes and witnesses to support his claim, he would win. The extent to which the lawsuits would be limited is discussed on the other thread. Those key phrases about not affecting the distribution of the million and to the extent allowed by law would protect the claiment from from Randi's caprice. Even if Randi figured out how the claiment cheated and could show it Randi would still own the million.

ruach1

5th May 2006, 08:20 AM

petre

5th May 2006, 09:05 AM

When you order lunch at a restaurant, who ultimately decides if you get it?

The answer is, all of the people involved. The person taking your order (and money) could decide not to actually submit the order to the cook. The cook could decide to ignore the order, and not make your food. The server could decide to eat your lunch for himself/herself instead of giving it to you.

Therefore, every person along the line is the "final authority" in a way.

Similarly, it is possible the test observer could claim all of your guesses were incorrect, even though the video evidence clearly indicates which ones you got right. If not, JREF/Randi may claim the test did not conform to the established protocol, again even though the video evidence clearly contradicts this. Finally, maybe Goldman-Sachs will simply decide to keep the money for themselves, despite your meeting the appropriate conditions for them to release it to you.

This doesn't mean that it's futile to take the challenge (nor has anyone in this thread made that claim explicitly, I'm just making a point), any more than it is futile to order lunch. You could always take your claim further down the line (show your receipt to the cook, and maybe you can just ignore the order-taker's dishonesty entirely) or ultimately, you take them to court.

I suppose if the term "final" applies to the end of the line, the answer would then appear to be that Goldman-Sachs is the "final authority", since they've actually got the money. I suspect the conditions under which they would give the money to a challenger are:

1. JREF declares a challenger to have won
2. A court rules a challenger is owed the money

That's just my guess though. If someone wanted to know for sure, perhaps they could call Goldman-Sachs and ask if those are indeed the conditions under which they would give the money. I'm not experienced with contacting companies that I'm not a client of, but perhaps a place to start would be their media contacts:

http://www.gs.com/our_firm/media_center/articles/media_center_919660.html

ChristineR

5th May 2006, 10:05 AM

Own or Owe.

One little litter, and the hole thing falls apart.

Thanks for the clarity Darat. :th:
:eusa_doh:

I can't type.

Beleth

5th May 2006, 12:44 PM

When you order lunch at a restaurant, who ultimately decides if you get it?
That's what we were talking about when we were discussing the difference between "ability" and "authority". Sure, the cook and the waiter have the ability to prevent you from getting your lunch, but they do not have the authority. If they decided that they weren't going to let you have your lunch, they would be subject to disciplinary action.

drkitten

5th May 2006, 01:02 PM

That's what we were talking about when we were discussing the difference between "ability" and "authority". Sure, the cook and the waiter have the ability to prevent you from getting your lunch, but they do not have the authority. If they decided that they weren't going to let you have your lunch, they would be subject to disciplinary action.

But in that sense, typically no one at the restaurant has the authority to deny me a meal, once I've paid. I've established a contract with them, and they have to complete it. If they don't, the courts will step in and do evil things to them.

That's more-or-less the situation w.r.t. Randi and his millions. The challenge application and agreed-upon protocol are a contract that specifies that if I do certain things, Randi/the JREF/etc. will do other things. Failure to give me the million after I've passed the test is no more legitimate than failure to give me a meal that I've paid for.

Hauteden

6th May 2006, 05:30 AM

I believe Rule 8 provides the answer for which you were looking.

8. At the formal test, in advance, an independent person will be placed in charge of a personal check from James Randi for US$10,000. In the event that the claimant is successful under the agreed terms and conditions, that check shall be immediately surrendered to the claimant, and within ten days the James Randi Educational Foundation will pay to the claimant the remainder of the reward, for a total of US$1,000,000. ...

If the agreed upon terms were met the $10,000 check would be handed over immediately by the "independent person." Then in 10 days or less the remainder of the reward would be handed over. So if the test is successful the money must be paid.

I know you asked about who judges a successful test. Rule 12, which Darat quoted before states:

12. EVERY APPLICANT MUST AGREE UPON WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A CONCLUSION THAT, ON THE OCCASION OF THE FORMAL TEST, HE OR SHE DID OR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CLAIMED ABILITY OR POWER. This form must be accompanied by a brief, two-paragraph description of what will constitute the demonstration.

(Emphasis JREF's)

Which to me means the Applicant and JREF must come up with a protocol that clearly defines positive and negative prior to the Formal Test. Therefore judging is not required by anyone, the results are self-evident. In a way you could say that the protocal determines the outcome.

In short JREF and the Applicant play a role in the dispensing of the cash.

Hauteden

<Edited to fix a tyop>

TjW

6th May 2006, 10:11 AM

Once there is a valid contract in place, even J. Randi does not have the authority to deny the million to a successful applicant. The contract wording is the authority.

William Smith

15th May 2006, 09:33 AM

ruach1

15th May 2006, 02:21 PM

Ruach1, have you found a response to Santa666's inquiry yet:

"Can you provide an example (hypothetical or not) where the success is agreed upon, the failure is agreed upon, the protocols are agreed upon and established, yet the outcome is in dispute?"

If not, don't reply at all. ;)
Gzuzkryzt, can you tell me why cats are so popular as avatars now? I really liked your optical illusion avatar better though I am something of a cat person myself (only one though...).

I heard someone say that they've heard of a challenge like this before, and the challenge/prize provider responded to a test once with something to the effect of: "Well I'm not convinced; you lose." And there really was nothing the test taker could do about it.

And as I read through the thread again (thanks for reminding me about Satan's question), I am still not convinced this couldn't happen. For example, Randi could overview the video of a successful applicant in a double-blind test and say: "Well you (the test givers) obviously didn't see how this person is cheating by doing ______ like I've seen other magicians do before. Its my test. I overule you, and say the test taker was cheating. End of story."

But what if the test taker wasn't cheating? Or knowingly cheating? What are the checks against this happening? Other than a possible lawsuit, I don't see any check against Randi doing something like the above--if he were so inclined-- and I am not saying he is. :re:

Is that what you were looking for?
:bigcat

petre

15th May 2006, 02:37 PM

Gzuzkryzt, can you tell me why cats are so popular as avatars now? I really liked your optical illusion avatar better though I am something of a cat person myself (only one though...).

I heard someone say that they've heard of a challenge like this before, and the challenge/prize provider responded to a test once with something to the effect of: "Well I'm not convinced; you lose." And there really was nothing the test taker could do about it.

And as I read through the thread again (thanks for reminding me about Satan's question), I am still not convinced this couldn't happen. For example, Randi could overview the video of a successful applicant in a double-blind test and say: "Well you (the test givers) obviously didn't see how this person is cheating by doing ______ like I've seen other magicians do before. Its my test. I overule you, and say the test taker was cheating. End of story."

But what if the test taker wasn't cheating? Or knowingly cheating? What are the checks against this happening? Other than a possible lawsuit, I don't see any check against Randi doing something like the above--if he were so inclined-- and I am not saying he is. :re:

Is that what you were looking for?
:bigcat

Interesting. Have you asked GS yet what they would do in such a case?

Lamuella

15th May 2006, 02:44 PM

Santa666

15th May 2006, 02:56 PM

there is a very clear check against Randi doing something like this:

Legal action.

If there was a tape of someone doing something entirely paranormal under test conditions, a tape moreover that both sides agreed was the genuine article, and Randi was refusing to pay out or let that person advance from preliminary testing, he would be sued for breach of contract.

Furthermore, the entire point of an agreed upon test protocol is to ensure that the possibility of cheating is removed. If Randi knew there was a way to cheat, why would he ever let the protocols stand?

This answer is precisely why I asked for an example, which I have still not been given. Randi will ony agree to a protocol wherein there lies no room to cheat. He has also stated (through Kramer), should someone still cheat and pass the final test, they will win the million. That means, if you are good enough to fool Randi, and bypass the protocols without being caught, you still win. So, once again, can you answer my question about providing an example. Thanks.

Santa

ruach1

15th May 2006, 04:06 PM

Interesting. Have you asked GS yet what they would do in such a case?
Who or what is "GS"?

petre

15th May 2006, 04:12 PM

Who or what is "GS"?

Goldman Sachs, the ones that hold the prize money as negotiable bonds.

NoZed Avenger

15th May 2006, 04:23 PM

I heard someone say that they've heard of a challenge like this before, and the challenge/prize provider responded to a test once with something to the effect of: "Well I'm not convinced; you lose." And there really was nothing the test taker could do about it.

So you heard someone talk about something they heard about regarding a different challenge that sounds similar?

I call intentional troll, as opposed to the other choice.

William Smith

15th May 2006, 04:40 PM

Gzuzkryzt, can you tell me why cats are so popular as avatars now? I really liked your optical illusion avatar better though I am something of a cat person myself (only one though...).

Please try to quote my nickname correctly.
And, no, I can't tell you "why cats are so popular as avatars now". I frankly do not even care. My current avatar also serves as an optical illusion. ("(...) You can use your your illusion/ let it take you where it may/ we live and learn and then sometimes/ it's best to walk away. (..)" W. Axl Rose.)

I heard someone say that they've heard of a challenge like this before, and the challenge/prize provider responded to a test once with something to the effect of: "Well I'm not convinced; you lose." And there really was nothing the test taker could do about it.

"Evidence, please." (CFLarsen.)

And as I read through the thread again (thanks for reminding me about Satan's question), I am still not convinced this couldn't happen. For example, Randi could overview the video of a successful applicant in a double-blind test and say: "Well you (the test givers) obviously didn't see how this person is cheating by doing ______ like I've seen other magicians do before. Its my test. I overule you, and say the test taker was cheating. End of story."

Speculative, at best.
We have yet to see a successfully performed Preliminary Test, let alone see a Final/Formal Test at all.

But what if the test taker wasn't cheating? Or knowingly cheating? What are the checks against this happening? Other than a possible lawsuit, I don't see any check against Randi doing something like the above--if he were so inclined-- and I am not saying he is. :re:

Is that what you were looking for?
:bigcat

Again: Speculative, at best.

I "was looking" for a specific example given by you, ruach1, of a test protocol, where "(hypothetical or not) the success is agreed upon, the failure is agreed upon, the protocols are agreed upon and established, yet the outcome is in dispute?"

Can you deliver that?

Santa666

15th May 2006, 06:04 PM

Please try to quote my nickname correctly.
And, no, I can't tell you "why cats are so popular as avatars now". I frankly do not even care. My current avatar also serves as an optical illusion. ("(...) You can use your your illusion/ let it take you where it may/ we live and learn and then sometimes/ it's best to walk away. (..)" W. Axl Rose.)

"Evidence, please." (CFLarsen.)

Speculative, at best.
We have yet to see a successfully performed Preliminary Test, let alone see a Final/Formal Test at all.

Again: Speculative, at best.

I "was looking" for a specific example given by you, ruach1, of a test protocol, where "(hypothetical or not) the success is agreed upon, the failure is agreed upon, the protocols are agreed upon and established, yet the outcome is in dispute?"

Can you deliver that?

My guess. He will not provide such an example. The Challenge is so designed to prevent such an occurance. But, I shall wait for the next response, which likely, will not answer the question.

Santa

William Smith

15th May 2006, 06:08 PM

ruach1

15th May 2006, 06:40 PM

My guess. He will not provide such an example. The Challenge is so designed to prevent such an occurance. But, I shall wait for the next response, which likely, will not answer the question.

Santa
This is not true. The Challenge is designed as best as can be, but there is no rule saying Randi can't decide on his own if a test is or isn't passed apart from the conclusions of the test givers.

This was the logic behind the original post, and it has yet to be answered definitively--by anyone.

The hypothetical situation I gave? The only answer to that is "Randi will only agree to a protocol wherein there lies no room to cheat." Can you verify this with evidence? No you can't. And I wouldn't expect it from you either. Asking for things you know someone can't give is indication of a weak and lazy mind.

Santa666

15th May 2006, 06:48 PM

This is not true. The Challenge is designed as best as can be, but there is no rule saying Randi can't decide on his own if a test is or isn't passed apart from the conclusions of the test givers.

This was the logic behind the original post, and it has yet to be answered definitively--by anyone.

The hypothetical situation I gave? The only answer to that is "Randi will only agree to a protocol wherein there lies no room to cheat." Can you verify this with evidence? No you can't. And I wouldn't expect it from you either. Asking for things you know someone can't give is indication of a lazy mind.

I really do not understand the problem here. So many people have quote, posted, and bolded the actual Challenge rules for you. The claimant must state what EXACTLY constitutes a success, what EXACTLY constitues a failure, and then both the claimant and the JREF must agree on a satisfactory protocol for testing. Why, oh why, would the JREF require such criterion unless it was in place to prevent cheating?

I have bolded your statement above.

Once again, per your statement. PLEASE PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE, HYPOTHETICAL OR OTHERWISE, WHERE A SUCCESS IS DEFINED, A FAILURE IS DEFINED, AND THE PROTOCOLS ARE AGREED UPON AND ESTABLISHED, YET THE OUTCOME IS IN DISPUTE IN SUCH A WAY AS YOU HAVE DESCRIBED.

Thank you,

Santa

ruach1

15th May 2006, 06:49 PM

(hypothetical or not) the success is agreed upon, the failure is agreed upon, the protocols are agreed upon and established, yet the outcome is in dispute?[/I]"

Can you deliver that?
The example, hypothetical or not is not the issue. The issue is: who judges? Can Randi judge a test to be negative when the test givers conclude it to be positive?

I have already given an example of this. Santa666 says Randi won't allow a test protocol where there is room to cheat. Then he says if someone does cheat then they win. Do you see the contradictory nature in this statement? Do you now see there are holes in the Challenge rules?

ruach1

15th May 2006, 06:54 PM

I really do not understand the problem here.[/B]

Thank you,

Santa
That is obvious. See post #78

Santa666

15th May 2006, 06:57 PM

The example, hypothetical or not is not the issue. The issue is: who judges? Can Randi judge a test to be negative when the test givers conclude it to be positive?

This is just silly, Randi COULD just say the claimant never even showed up. He COULD just say "April Fool's". He COULD pull out a semi automatic weapon and kill everyone involved. What recourse do you have against him in any of these scenarios. The same ones or similar that you have if he does what you suggest. Unless of course, you can provide an example as I have asked for repeatedly.

I have already given an example of this. Santa666 says Randi won't allow a test protocol where there is room to cheat. Then he says if someone does cheat then they win. Do you see the contradictory nature in this statement? Do you now see there are holes in the Challenge rules?

Perhaps I should have worded my statement better. I am sure Randi would only agree to protocols wherein cheating could not occur. James Randi, and those in the employ of the JREF, are human, and given the unlikely probability cheating could happen, if it did and was not discovered, then the claimant wins anyway. There, is that better?

Santa

William Smith

15th May 2006, 07:01 PM

This is not true. The Challenge is designed as best as can be, but there is no rule saying Randi can't decide on his own if a test is or isn't passed apart from the conclusions of the test givers.
...

Ruach1, you may spin it how you see fit.

However: The JREF Challenge does not involve Mr. Randi "deciding if a test is or isn't passed" upon his own or somebody else's "conclusions".

The decision rests upon the pre-negotiated Challenge Protocol.

Almost like a lottery ticket.
No judging involved.
No decisions necessary.
You either do not win or you do win. Badabing-badabum. (Hey, if you apply properly, you can make Mr. Randi "an offer he can't refuse.")

ruach1

15th May 2006, 07:05 PM

This is just silly, Randi COULD just say the claimant never even showed up. He COULD just say "April Fool's". He COULD pull out a semi automatic weapon and kill everyone involved. What recourse do you have against him in any of these scenarios. The same ones or similar that you have if he does what you suggest. Unless of course, you can provide an example as I have asked for repeatedly.
'snip'
Santa

Ok. I scanned the Challenge Applications. Take Bich Ba Do for example (hypothetical). Say he did his thing on someone, and he passes the test--according to the test-givers at PHACT. What is stopping Randi from saying, "Well I know for a fact there is no such thing as qigong, therefore, he fails the test" thereby overuling the test-givers conclusions of a passed test? There is no rule in the Challenge rules to say Randi can't overule the test-givers if he so chooses. Now do you see the point?

I'm not saying Randi would do such a thing. I am saying there is no stipulation in the Challenge Rules addressing this point.

William Smith

15th May 2006, 07:09 PM

...
The issue is: who judges?

For what everybody can see so far: Nobody judges.

Can Randi judge a test to be negative when the test givers conclude it to be positive?
...

For what everybody can see so far: No.

At least if wants to keep his credibility and integrity, which I feel quite sure he will like to.

ruach1

15th May 2006, 07:10 PM

Ruach1, you may spin it how you see fit.

However: The JREF Challenge does not involve Mr. Randi "deciding if a test is or isn't passed" upon his own or somebody else's "conclusions".

The decision rests upon the pre-negotiated Challenge Protocol.

Almost like a lottery ticket.
No judging involved.
No decisions necessary.
You either do not win or you do win. Badabing-badabum. (Hey, if you apply properly, you can make Mr. Randi "an offer he can't refuse.")
GzuzKryzt (did I get it right this time?), I am not spinning anything for any purpose. I actually did hear a situation from someone about a test giver who wouldn't pay up, and I, being a Forum member, looked in the Challenge Rules and didn't necessarily see a stipulation guaranteeing this couldn't happen--not that Randi would.

And no I am not trolling (just learned what that meant). This is a good topic for discussion. IMO

Santa666

15th May 2006, 07:12 PM

Ok. I scanned the Challenge Applications. Take Bich Ba Do for example (hypothetical). Say he did his thing on someone, and he passes the test--according to the test-givers at PHACT. What is stopping Randi from saying, "Well I know for a fact there is no such thing as qigong, therefore, he fails the test" and overuling the test-givers conclusions of a passed test? There is no rule in the Challenge rules to say Randi can't overule the test-givers if he so chooses. Now do you see the point?

I'm not saying Randi would do such a thing. I am saying there is no stipulation in the Challenge Rules addressing this point.

And if there was such a rule and he denied payment anyway? Then what? What is your point? Who cares if such a rules exists? Contractual law states if the conditions of the contract are met, the contract must be fulfilled. If Randi does not fulfill his portion of the contract, there are legals methods of redress. Like I said, Randi could also state the person never even showed up, there is no rules stating he cannot do that. There is no rule stating Randi cannot state the whole thing is just a joke. The Challenge is a legally binding contract. If the claimant upholds his end of the bargain, so will Randi. If he does not, well, the law can intervene. I simply do not understand what your point is? What sort of stipulation would satisfy you?

Santa

ruach1

15th May 2006, 07:12 PM

For what everybody can see so far: Nobody judges.

For what everybody can see so far: No.

At least if wants to keep his credibility and integrity, which I feel quite sure he will like to.
I agree wholeheartedly. :)

But those rules... There's nothing in there that says "who has the final say."

ruach1

15th May 2006, 07:14 PM

And if there was such a rule and he denied payment anyway? Then what? What is your point? Who cares if such a rules exists? Contractual law states if the conditions of the contract are met, the contract must be fulfilled. If Randi does not fulfill his portion of the contract, there are legals methods of redress. Like I said, Randi could also state the person never even showed up, there is no rules stating he cannot do that. There is no rule stating Randi cannot state the whole thing is just a joke. The Challenge is a legally binding contract. If the claimant upholds his end of the bargain, so will Randi. If he does not, well, the law can intervene. I simply do not understand what your point is? What sort of stipulation would satisfy you?

Santa
My satisfaction is irrelevant. I just saw a hole. Thought it might be worth talking about... 87 posts later, I think I was right. :)

William Smith

15th May 2006, 07:18 PM

Santa666

15th May 2006, 07:23 PM

My satisfaction is irrelevant. I just saw a hole. Thought it might be worth talking about... 87 posts later, I think I was right. :)

Right about what? I am confused, you asked a question, and received many answers. Then you ask, "what if Randi refuses to pay, the rules dont say anything about him simply not paying the money?" The rules do not have to say that, it is implied by the fact that both parties signed a legally binding contract. It is against the law for Randi not to pay. Much like when you enter a store, they likely do not have signs posted stating you are not supposed to shoplift. Why not? Because its against the law. Or, if you go to a restaurant for dinner, and you pay with a credit card, then they refuse to return it to you. I am willing to bet the restaurant does not have any rules stating it MUST return your card to you, yet, unbelievably, they do. I wonder why that is. Perhaps because there are laws governing these types of things. The same things applies to James Randi and the JREF. The outcome of the Challenge will be clear, all aspects of the protocol are designed to ensure that, however, if Randi chooses not to pay, then the law must step in to enforce the contract. There is all is, in a nutshell.

Santa

William Smith

15th May 2006, 07:25 PM

...
I actually did hear a situation from someone about a test giver who wouldn't pay up,
...

Please get more specific; or, as Mr. Larsen would say: "Evidence, please."

William Smith

15th May 2006, 07:28 PM

...
Much like when you enter a store, they likely do not have signs posted stating you are not supposed to shoplift. Why not? Because its against the law. Or, if you go to a restaurant for dinner, and you pay with a credit card, then they refuse to return it to you. I am willing to bet the restaurant does not have any rules stating it MUST return your card to you, yet, unbelievably, they do. I wonder why that is.
...
Santa

Because "they" could simply take your credit card and max it out on crack and hookers.

Santa666

15th May 2006, 07:30 PM

Because "they" could simply take your credit card and max it out on crack and hookers.

Well, then, I would definitely need to see a RULE from the restaurant stating they will not be stealing my credit card for cocaine and hookers, or I shall be quite leery of them. :D

Santa

William Smith

15th May 2006, 07:35 PM

Well, then, I would definitely need to see a RULE from the restaurant stating they will not be stealing my credit card for cocaine and hookers, or I shall be quite leery of them. :D

Santa

I started imagining the signs saying this...then the pictograms...and then I fell of my chair laughing.

Santa666

15th May 2006, 07:44 PM

I started imagining the signs saying this...then the pictograms...and then I fell of my chair laughing.

Attention Patrons:
For your convenience, we here at Joe's Pizza, would like to take this opportunity to assure each and every one of you that your credit card information is safe with us. We guarantee you that no one at this establishment will use your credit card information to purchase cocaine or hookers. Please see the below signage for the reading impaired. Thank you for your time.

Joe

Rasmus

15th May 2006, 07:49 PM

Much like when you enter a store, they likely do not have signs posted stating you are not supposed to shoplift.

I hate to burst your bubble, but signs like that are very common here in Germany. While we do have laws against shoplifting, many stores display extra warning signs, in which they announce a processing fee for every caugh thief.

These signs often carry an additional moral message, about how stealing would make goods more expensive - I never understood why the thief would care, really ....

[/ramble]

Rasmus.

William Smith

15th May 2006, 07:52 PM

Attention Patrons:
For your convenience, we here at Joe's Pizza, would like to take this opportunity to assure each and every one of you that your credit card information is safe with us. We guarantee you that no one at this establishment will use your credit card information to purchase cocaine or hookers. Please see the below signage for the reading impaired. Thank you for your time.

Joe

Dear Santa666,

if you will provide a pictogram of said sign I will be a nice boy for a whole year. Like Stewie Griffin. Also, I will wet my frickin' pants.

Thank you.

GzuzKryzt

ruach1

15th May 2006, 08:00 PM

I do see your point, ruach1.

I also do see no reason why Mr. Randi would "overule" [sic!] "the test-givers if he so chooses".

Are there some things worth dying for? If so, are there some things worth lying for?

The Challenge serves multiple purposes.
--It serves as something of a dam holding back some of the claims of psychics, woos, charlatans and others from a receiving public.
--It serves as "the hammer of the skeptics" bashing paranormal claims.
--It serves as a plank helping to hold up the worldviews of many skeptics.
--It serves as a signpost showing the world that claims should be tested by science.
--It also serves as a flag waving to the world that the paranormal is not real and you should not give money to it, let it shape your reality, or "bet your life" on it.

In my opinion, the Challenge serves these purposes well and probably others about which I have not thought. Therefore, shouldn't this world-serving Challenge deserve the best rules possible?

William Smith

15th May 2006, 08:00 PM

I hate to burst your bubble, but signs like that are very common here in Germany. While we do have laws against shoplifting, many stores display extra warning signs, in which they announce a processing fee for every caugh thief.

These signs often carry an additional moral message, about how stealing would make goods more expensive - I never understood why the thief would care, really ....

[/ramble]

Rasmus.

Quite right Rasmus, I never understood why the thief would care, either. Perhaps the signs were directed at the shop's personnel, because the dark figure of crimes by employees is said to be around 18%. So the VAT could get renamed as ETAT (Employee Theft Added Tax).

I also have seen less signs this year. Perhaps it wuz just a fad.

William Smith

15th May 2006, 08:03 PM

William Smith

15th May 2006, 08:07 PM

Especially to eliminate "judging".

Santa666

15th May 2006, 08:11 PM

Are there some things worth dying for? If so, are there some things worth lying for?

The Challenge serves multiple purposes.
--It serves as something of a dam holding back some of the claims of psychics, woos, charlatans and others from a receiving public.
--It serves as "the hammer of the skeptics" bashing paranormal claims.
--It serves as a plank helping to hold up the worldviews of many skeptics.
--It serves as a signpost showing the world that claims should be tested by science.
--It also serves as a flag waving to the world that the paranormal is not real and you should not give money to it, let it shape your reality, or "bet your life" on it.

In my opinion, the Challenge serves these purposes well and probably others about which I have not thought. Therefore, shouldn't this world-serving Challenge deserve the best rules possible?

So, exactly how many laws and statutes should the Challenge rules cover? Should it just include contractual law? Perhaps laws against murder and rape should be included as well? Embezzlement clause? Sure, throw it in. Stipulations against being beaten with a crowbar by Randi, well, we cannot be sure Randi won't do that, since the rules do not state he can't. What would you like the rules to say to clear up any confusion. Please do not forget to include all other laws which are not implicit in the rules.

Santa

TjW

15th May 2006, 10:03 PM

And what if Randi gives the million, but curses the applicant and his family unto the fortieth generation?
Perhaps more frightening, under those circumstances Uri Geller is likely to extend his psychic powers on the winner's behalf. And we've all seen what has happened to the sports teams he's "helped".

Darat

16th May 2006, 01:52 AM

I agree wholeheartedly. :)

But those rules... There's nothing in there that says "who has the final say."

If either party of a contract believe that there has been a breach of the contract they can take the matter before a court, so in the case of the Challenge the person who has the final say is a judge of the USA judiciary system.

Thing

16th May 2006, 02:22 AM

Ruach1,

Are you proposing an extra challenge rule? If so would you care to suggest how it might be worded?

TheBoyPaj

16th May 2006, 02:27 AM

if you will provide a pictogram of said sign I will be a nice boy for a whole year. Like Stewie Griffin. Also, I will wet my frickin' pants.

Well, evidently it would look like this:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/131244698ca7d0986.jpg

And the weird thing is, I didn't even have to make that. Just googled for it.

William Smith

16th May 2006, 05:46 AM

Well, evidently it would look like this:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/131244698ca7d0986.jpg

And the weird thing is, I didn't even have to make that. Just googled for it.

:eye-poppi :eye-poppi :eye-poppi

"Blast! Dam' You All!

Lois, change me. You can start by wiping down my button. Circular motion only."

petre

16th May 2006, 09:07 AM

Are there some things worth dying for? If so, are there some things worth lying for?

The Challenge serves multiple purposes.
--It serves as something of a dam holding back some of the claims of psychics, woos, charlatans and others from a receiving public.
--It serves as "the hammer of the skeptics" bashing paranormal claims.
--It serves as a plank helping to hold up the worldviews of many skeptics.
--It serves as a signpost showing the world that claims should be tested by science.
--It also serves as a flag waving to the world that the paranormal is not real and you should not give money to it, let it shape your reality, or "bet your life" on it.

In my opinion, the Challenge serves these purposes well and probably others about which I have not thought. Therefore, shouldn't this world-serving Challenge deserve the best rules possible?

Perhaps he would like to see some additional rules:

13. If the observers declare the challenger has won the challenge, but Randi doesn't want them to get the $1 million, Randi still has to let them win the money since the previous rules say that's what should happen.
14. If Randi decides he doesn't like rule #13, he still has to follow it anyway.
15. If Randi decides he doesn't like rule #14, he still has to follow it anyway.
16. If Randi decides he doesn't like rule #15, he still has to follow it anyway.
17. If Randi decides he doesn't like rule #16, he still has to follow it anyway.
18. If Randi decides he doesn't like rule #17, he still has to follow it anyway.
19. If Randi decides he doesn't like rule #18, he still has to follow it anyway.
20. If Randi decides he doesn't like rule #19, he still has to follow it anyway.
.
.
.
Just how many of these would be sufficient to cover your concern?

juryjone

16th May 2006, 10:53 AM

Well, evidently it would look like this:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/131244698ca7d0986.jpg

And the weird thing is, I didn't even have to make that. Just googled for it.

About once a day I find a post on this forum that makes me d*** happy to be here.

This one made my week.

Lamuella

16th May 2006, 03:58 PM

Ok. I scanned the Challenge Applications. Take Bich Ba Do for example (hypothetical). Say he did his thing on someone, and he passes the test--according to the test-givers at PHACT. What is stopping Randi from saying, "Well I know for a fact there is no such thing as qigong, therefore, he fails the test" thereby overuling the test-givers conclusions of a passed test?

As people have said: because if he clearly and deliberately overrules those who administered the test, he is IN BREACH OF CONTRACT.

If I sell a short story to a magazine, there's nothing to stop them from not paying me, changing the author's name, and printing it anyway. Nothing except that they would be in breach of contract and I would sue them.

You have to understand that the challenge document, once signed, is a legally binding document, an agreement entered into by both parties. If the other party thinks they have been wronged, they have the opportunity to seek restitution.

Can you imagine a bigger defeat for the skeptical community than if James Randi was sued by a psychic and lost? With that in mind, there is a huge amount to stop him from breaking the contract he makes with the challenge applicants.

What will stop him from just saying "it's nonsense, you lost" to a successful applicant? The thought of the huge lawsuit against him. The thought of his reputation, and by extension the reputation of skeptics worldwide, being dragged through the dirt. The thought of every single snake-oil salesman on planet Earth saying "See? He IS a quack! That's why the challenge ruled against my magic homeopathic magnetic quantum underpants!" and selling them to a public who now distrust skepticism and by extension science.

Lamuella

16th May 2006, 04:03 PM

Because "they" could simply take your credit card and max it out on crack and hookers.

not that I have extensive - or any - experience in this area, but I didn't think there were many hookers and crack dealers who took credit cards

TheBoyPaj

16th May 2006, 04:16 PM

Of course there are. Do I have to show you the sign again?

Lamuella

16th May 2006, 04:32 PM

if a hooker took a credit card, where in the world would she swipe it?

Please don't answer that question.

William Smith

16th May 2006, 04:50 PM

if a hooker took a credit card, where in the world would she swipe it?

Please don't answer that question.

In the crack?

William Smith

16th May 2006, 04:53 PM

Does this thread, at this point, serve the JREF mission? :confused:

William Smith

16th May 2006, 05:00 PM

(Rushing back to the topic.)

Ok, ruach1, please submit an addition or clarification - worded accordingly in a sentence or paragraph - to any "holes" you see fit.
Or clarify an already existing rule to eliminate "judging" test results, as discussed in this thread after being brought up by you. Please remember to apply common sense.

Lamuella

16th May 2006, 05:17 PM

In the crack?

That was terrible. Awful. Absolutely reprehensible.

I salute you.

William Smith

16th May 2006, 05:27 PM

That was terrible. Awful. Absolutely reprehensible.

I salute you.

In basketball, you would get the credit for the assist to this alley-oop.

ruach1

16th May 2006, 07:17 PM

Ruach1,

Are you proposing an extra challenge rule? If so would you care to suggest how it might be worded?
Would it really matter if I were?

I guess there could be a stipulation stating that the test-givers who conclude a test was passed by a claimant cannot be overruled by Randi. This would negate some of the claims of self-interest that have been waged against Randi and the JREF concerning the Mill Challenge-- such as these: http://www.alternativescience.com/james-randi.html

ruach1

16th May 2006, 07:27 PM

As people have said: because if he clearly and deliberately overrules those who administered the test, he is IN BREACH OF CONTRACT.

If I sell a short story to a magazine, there's nothing to stop them from not paying me, changing the author's name, and printing it anyway. Nothing except that they would be in breach of contract and I would sue them.

You have to understand that the challenge document, once signed, is a legally binding document, an agreement entered into by both parties. If the other party thinks they have been wronged, they have the opportunity to seek restitution.

Can you imagine a bigger defeat for the skeptical community than if James Randi was sued by a psychic and lost? With that in mind, there is a huge amount to stop him from breaking the contract he makes with the challenge applicants.

What will stop him from just saying "it's nonsense, you lost" to a successful applicant? The thought of the huge lawsuit against him. The thought of his reputation, and by extension the reputation of skeptics worldwide, being dragged through the dirt. The thought of every single snake-oil salesman on planet Earth saying "See? He IS a quack! That's why the challenge ruled against my magic homeopathic magnetic quantum underpants!" and selling them to a public who now distrust skepticism and by extension science.
Lamuella,

I thank you for your level-headed responses to this thread. The legal matters have been addressed quite well; once again thank you for your responses. However, you are a couple steps ahead of me. My question is not if one can sue for breach of contract. My question is: who judges? Do the test-givers have the final say if a claimant passed a test? Or can Randi overrule them if he so chooses?

Darat says its Randi's Challenge, so its Randi's Challenge--he gets to decide. Yet if he has the final say, then he is open to criticism like the ones in the link in my previous post: as professional or lacking thereof as it may be.

There is no rule stipulating who has the final say.

I'm sorry if this has caused a little (sic) :bwall

There's too much of this already in the world, IMO.

William Smith

16th May 2006, 07:40 PM

Would it really matter if I were?
...

Most likely: Yes.

Why?

Because you started the thread saying, among other things:
"(...) However, nowhere (nowhere) does it state who judges a positive or negative test result and who makes the final decision concerning failure or success.
(...)
If there is no rule allowing the test-givers to officially pronounce success or failure, what's the point in applying when the JREF can just nullify the process at will without fear of legal reprisals?"

We asked you to come up with a specific amelioration to the points you brought up.
And I ask again, ruach1: Can you deliver?
How should the Challenge Rules sound to stifle your doubts about "judging" test results?

William Smith

16th May 2006, 08:03 PM

...
Darat says its Randi's Challenge, so its Randi's Challenge--he gets to decide. Yet if he has the final say, then he is open to criticism like the ones in the link in my previous post: as professional or lacking thereof as it may be.
...

It most likely is Mr. Randi's Challenge.

But what do you mean by "he gets to decide"?

feldesq

16th May 2006, 08:21 PM

This entire thread misses the point. Just about anyone who could actually win the Challenge would have no reason to do so. If someone actually possessed supernatural powers (e.g., could read minds, communicate with the dead, move matter merely by their own will, locate precious metals using dowsing, diagnoze illness just by looking at someone's photo, etc.), why would they want to get involved with the JREF Challenge? They could become the richest person on Earth quite quickly. And think of all the real good they could do for all mankind! In many cases - such as most involving ESP, they could become the most powerful human being on Earth quite quickly. For that matter, they could take complete control of all mankind in short order! So why would they want to waste time trying to win the $1 million? The purpose of the Challenge is educational. It is aimed at demonstrating that most (probably all) of these flim flammers are just that, and thereby educate and instruct the masses; it calls attention to the more meaningful and direct good work of the JREF - aimed at teaching us all about the value of critical thinking, skepticism and science. It is not a public relations ploy or trick - just a valuable and dramatic tool in the arsenal of the enlightened against the dark side. You may be sure that Randi has no fear that the $1 million is in any danger of being "won." The same kind of evasion and flim flammery (like that of Sylvia Browne) is an all too common response to the Challenge. Those of you who attended TAM3 may recall Dawkins's discussion of the "paranormal'" versus the "perinormal." It is the perinormal which could actually win the challenge. This is one reason the Challenge needs to be modified. The paranormal would not even need to get involved with the Challenge for the reasons stated above.

William Smith

16th May 2006, 08:31 PM

...
It is the perinormal which could actually win the challenge. This is one reason the Challenge needs to be modified.
...

We listen to your specific propositions, feldesq. Perhaps in another thread?

This thread deals with the topic: "Who judges?" a test result.

Rasmus

16th May 2006, 09:10 PM

Darat says its Randi's Challenge, so its Randi's Challenge--he gets to decide. Yet if he has the final say, then he is open to criticism like the ones in the link in my previous post: as professional or lacking thereof as it may be.

There is no rule stipulating who has the final say.

For the umpteenth time: There doesn't have to be any such rule.

First of all, the rules of the challenge are only part of the entire contract. There is a protocol for every test agreed to by all parties involved. If any applicant feels the need to have written down who does the judging: Make it part of the protocol:

§172.b
After each round, the JREF observer specifired in § 15.c will announce if the attempt has been a hit or miss according to §§ 118 - 129. Mr Randi and the JREF agree to pay out the total prize sum of $ 1,000,000.00 if the test concludes with 8 or more hits.

There, happy?

You say Randi should be open to criticism? I agree. It would bve nice if you could do some criticising instead of your continud whining.

Nobody judges the test, and nobody decided - just as nobody judges and decides that I get to watch the movie after paying for the ticket.

Rasmus.

feldesq

16th May 2006, 09:10 PM

The thread itself has drawn my complaint.

feldesq

16th May 2006, 09:12 PM

We listen to your specific propositions, feldesq. Perhaps in another thread?

This thread deals with the topic: "Who judges?" a test result.

Yes, you're right. My complaint is with the thread itself.

TheBoyPaj

17th May 2006, 12:16 AM

I apologise for any part I played in this thread not serving Mr Feldesq's complaining needs.

Darat

17th May 2006, 01:28 AM

...snip..

Darat says its Randi's Challenge, so its Randi's Challenge--he gets to decide. Yet if he has the final say, then he is open to criticism like the ones in the link in my previous post: as professional or lacking thereof as it may be.

There is no rule stipulating who has the final say.

I'm sorry if this has caused a little (sic) :bwall

There's too much of this already in the world, IMO.

You are misrepresenting what I have posted in this thread.

To summarise:

1) There is a rule that before the test is carried out both sides to the challenge have to agree on what will be a success or not:

12. EVERY APPLICANT MUST AGREE UPON WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A CONCLUSION THAT, ON THE OCCASION OF THE FORMAL TEST, HE OR SHE DID OR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CLAIMED ABILITY OR POWER. This form must be accompanied by a brief, two-paragraph description of what will constitute the demonstration.

2) The Challenge is a legally binding contract between the Randi and the applicant.

3) If either side believes there has been a breach (and in this instance you are asking specifically what happens if Randi decides to breach rule 12) then the contract can be enforced by the judgment of the court that would have jurisdiction (which I presume would be a court of the State of Florida in the case of the Challenge).

All your objection boils down to is "What happens if Randi doesn't keep to his side of the agreement?", and as many, many people have explained to you what happens then is that the other party to the contract takes Randi to court for breach of contract and a judge will then decide if the terms of the Challenge have been met by the applicant and if so would then presumably order the money to be paid over as well as presumably costs against Randi.

The protection the applicant has from Randi breaching the contract is the justice system of Florida (and ultimately the USA), Randi however does not have any such protection against a claimant cheating since the "how" is not part of the Challenge that is why Randi is on record many times as saying (to paraphrase) "If they win by cheating they still win a million dollars".

petre

17th May 2006, 07:20 AM

Perhaps ruach1 would prefer the following rule:

Rule 12.C.green: If the applicant clearly failed the test, despite breaking several stipulated conditions of this contract, but the observer (whose family was kidnapped by the applicant for leverage) still reports that the applicant has succeeded, Randi cannot declare the test invalid and must pay the money anyway.

Would that work for you? If not, perhaps you could suggest an alternate wording?

drkitten

17th May 2006, 07:52 AM

This entire thread misses the point. Just about anyone who could actually win the Challenge would have no reason to do so. I

That's odd --- I can think of a million reasons to do so.

If someone actually possessed supernatural powers (e.g., could read minds, communicate with the dead, move matter merely by their own will, locate precious metals using dowsing, diagnoze illness just by looking at someone's photo, etc.), why would they want to get involved with the JREF Challenge?

Because a million dollars would be good startup capital, and the attendant publicity for beating the Randi challenge would help establish their credentials.

ruach1

17th May 2006, 09:32 AM

It is definitely Randi (and of course you have the evidence because once again it's already in the wording of the challenge itself :) ):

It is very clear that the contract is between Randi and the applicant - this is still very much Randi's challenge - albeit administrated by the JREF.
Regrets if I misrepresented you, Darat. But I interpreted this as you saying it was Randi's challenge and that he has the final say on who passed or didn't.
----------
Look. I am not anti-Randi. Far from it. I think his work is exactly what the whole world needs in fighting and dispelling woo, fraud, unscientific quackery and all the pain and disillusionment associated with these things. Additionally, concerning the Challenge, I think Randi would like to see someone legitimately pass a test. Randi seemed excited in September '02' when Yellow Bamboo seemed to pass their test, and (I think) Mercutio has stated that Randi has stated that science and humanity might benefit with a new field of scientific inquiry a successful applicant may open up.
----------
Secondly, I have heard the legal arguments here. I understand well that if an applicant who (hypothetically speaking) was declared successful by the test-givers but overuled by Randi can sue for breach of contract. I understand this, and thank those for taking the time to write them out.
----------
My point (and I will write this for the final time because this bloody heap of ooze that used to be a horse is now starting to fester) is that paranormalists of a higher profile nature may not be applying because they think that Randi holds all the trump cards.

One reason why is because there is no stipulation on who has the final say of success if an applicant has passed a test: the (supposedly) impartial test-givers or Randi. High profile paranormalists who have been in the business for a while may see this in the rules and conclude that Randi can successfully manufacture very good sounding rationale (when can't he?) to show how an applicant failed a test though the test-givers, who haven't been in the business as long as Randi, showed that test-taker to have passed. To them, it may seem as if Randi (someone who is admittedly hostile to paranormalists)has too much leverage in the test, and therefore, do not apply for higher (benefit to humanity) or lower (selfishness and greed) purposes.

Yes, I understand that people responding to this thread have said that if Randi overules the test-givers, then this would be breach of contract. However, there is no rule saying WHO JUDGES final success or failure and that Randi can't overule the test-givers. Thus there there would be no breach of contract and no evidentiary grounds for litigation for the unlikely successful applicant--if it were the highly unlikely case that Randi were to overule the test-givers.

So, if you will, step out of JREF mode for an instant. If you're a higher profile psychic, why get into a challenge:

When you think the other side holds all the cards?
When you think you probably won't or can't win?
When you will probably lose your reputation as a psychic and thus lose your income?

I just believe that if there were a rule saying that the test-givers decide if a claimant passed, then there might possibly be more higher profile psychics getting in touch with Randi for the benefit of whomever. And even if a claimant passed and Randi wasn't too certain of the test, Randi could always attend the formal test, n'est pas?

drkitten

17th May 2006, 10:51 AM

Yes, I understand that people responding to this thread have said that if Randi overules the test-givers, then this would be breach of contract. However, there is no rule saying WHO JUDGES final success or failure and that Randi can't overule the test-givers.

That's wrong. There is a rule stating that final success or failure will be "self-evident," and there are therefore no judges to make the call.

Thus there there would be no breach of contract and no evidentiary grounds for litigation for the unlikely successful applicant.

As has been pointed out multiple times in this very thread, this is simply wrong.

So, if you will, step out of JREF mode for an instant. If you're a higher profile psychic, why get into a challenge:

Because there are a million bucks in it if you do, plus all the free publicity your little heart could desire.

When you think the other side holds all the cards?

If you think that, you're misinformed.

When you think you probably won't or can't win?

Well, that's the real rub, isn't it? You can't or won't win, not because the test is rigged, but because you're a fraud and you know it.

Rasmus

17th May 2006, 10:55 AM

My point (and I will write this for the final time because this bloody heap of ooze that used to be a horse is now starting to fester) is that paranormalists of a higher profile nature may not be applying because they think that Randi holds all the trump cards.

************.

These high-profile-paranormalists are, in a word, liars. They can't do squat and they know it. That is the reason why they will not have their alleged abilities tested under scientific conditions.

One reason why is because there is no stipulation on who has the final say of success if an applicant has passed a test: the (supposedly) impartial test-givers or Randi.

************.

Nobody get's a "final say" because the rules clearly state that the results have to be self-evident.

High profile paranormalists who have been in the business for a while may see this in the rules and conclude that Randi can successfully manufacture very good sounding rationale (when can't he?) to show how an applicant failed a test though the test-givers, who haven't been in the business as long as Randi, showed that test-taker to have passed.

************ again, but fele free to finally provide an example where this might be the case.

To them, it may seem as if Randi (someone who is admittedly hostile to paranormalists)has too much leverage in the test, and therefore, do not apply for higher (benefit to humanity) or lower (selfishness and greed) purposes.

To them it will only seem as if they don't stand a friggin snowball's chance in hell to cheat like they always do.

Yes, I understand that people responding to this thread have said that if Randi overules the test-givers, then this would be breach of contract. However, there is no rule saying WHO JUDGES final success or failure and that Randi can't overule the test-givers.

Nobody judges final success. that has been explained to you severa ltimes now.

Thus there there would be no breach of contract and no evidentiary grounds for litigation for the unlikely successful applicant--if it were the highly unlikely case that Randi were to overule the test-givers.

************.

The rules and protocpols I have seen so fart have bee nvery clear on what did and did not constitute success. And unless they explicfitely state that Randi or anyone else gets a final say regardless of the actiual test results then - guess what - nobody does get a final say.

So, if you will, step out of JREF mode for an instant. If you're a higher profile psychic, why get into a challenge:

They will not get into the challenge because they are frauds and liars, and because they know it. They know that their techniques are cheap and will not withstand even the smallest levels of scrutiny.

When you think the other side holds all the cards?
When you think you probably won't or can't win?
When you will probably lose your reputation as a psychic and thus lose your income?

Two out of three ain't all that bad, eh?

I just believe that if there were a rule saying that the test-givers decide if a claimant passed, then there might possibly be more higher profile psychics getting in touch with Randi for the benefit of whomever.

************.

Why would a fraud and liar set out to be shown as a fraud and liar?

And even if a claimant passed and Randi wasn't too certain of the test, Randi could always attend the formal test, n'est pas?

Why should anyone under the sun be "not too certain" of a test that produces self-evident results?

Rasmus.

steenkh

17th May 2006, 02:41 PM

paranormalists of a higher profile nature may not be applying because they think that Randi holds all the trump cards.

Randi does hold all the trump cards: there can be no cheating, and the paranormalists of a higher profile will stay away exactly for that reason.

William Smith

17th May 2006, 05:31 PM

...
I just believe that if there were a rule saying that the test-givers decide if a claimant passed, then there might possibly be more higher profile psychics getting in touch with Randi for the benefit of whomever.
...

How should that rule sound, ruach1?

Santa666

17th May 2006, 08:06 PM

Secondly, I have heard the legal arguments here. I understand well that if an applicant who (hypothetically speaking) was declared successful by the test-givers but overuled by Randi can sue for breach of contract. I understand this, and thank those for taking the time to write them out.
----------
My point (and I will write this for the final time because this bloody heap of ooze that used to be a horse is now starting to fester) is that paranormalists of a higher profile nature may not be applying because they think that Randi holds all the trump cards.

One reason why is because there is no stipulation on who has the final say of success if an applicant has passed a test: the (supposedly) impartial test-givers or Randi. High profile paranormalists who have been in the business for a while may see this in the rules and conclude that Randi can successfully manufacture very good sounding rationale (when can't he?) to show how an applicant failed a test though the test-givers, who haven't been in the business as long as Randi, showed that test-taker to have passed. To them, it may seem as if Randi (someone who is admittedly hostile to paranormalists)has too much leverage in the test, and therefore, do not apply for higher (benefit to humanity) or lower (selfishness and greed) purposes.

Yes, I understand that people responding to this thread have said that if Randi overules the test-givers, then this would be breach of contract. However, there is no rule saying WHO JUDGES final success or failure and that Randi can't overule the test-givers. Thus there there would be no breach of contract and no evidentiary grounds for litigation for the unlikely successful applicant--if it were the highly unlikely case that Randi were to overule the test-givers.

So, if you will, step out of JREF mode for an instant. If you're a higher profile psychic, why get into a challenge:

When you think the other side holds all the cards?
When you think you probably won't or can't win?
When you will probably lose your reputation as a psychic and thus lose your income?

I just believe that if there were a rule saying that the test-givers decide if a claimant passed, then there might possibly be more higher profile psychics getting in touch with Randi for the benefit of whomever. And even if a claimant passed and Randi wasn't too certain of the test, Randi could always attend the formal test, n'est pas?

Speaking of beating that dead horse, but once again, I will ask the same question I have posed all along. This time I will make it nice and big and bold.

Please provide an example (hypothetical or otherwise) where a SUCCESS is clearly defined, a FAILURE is clearly defined, the PROTOCOLS are mutually AGREED upon, yet the outcome is still in doubt.

You continue to mention a situation that, by the nature of the Challenge and its rules, cannot happen. The recourse of the claimant should Randi not uphold his end of the bargain has been repeatedly shown, but you continue to ask a question that has been answered. The outcome of the test will be self-evident. Randi will not agree to a protocol where the results are not self-evident. If you can think of such a situation, please answer the once again repeated question above.

I await you dodging of my question.

Santa

William Smith

17th May 2006, 08:13 PM

Hey Santa666, what do you think of TheBoyPaj's sign?

Santa666

17th May 2006, 09:09 PM

Hey Santa666, what do you think of TheBoyPaj's sign?

I shall recommend it for all local establishments. I cannot believe all you can find with just a simple google search.

Santa

P.S. Do you think Rauch1 is actually going to answer my question.

William Smith

17th May 2006, 09:15 PM

...
P.S. Do you think Rauch1 is actually going to answer my question.

Does dodging count as answering? No?

Darat

18th May 2006, 01:07 AM

...snip...
----------
Secondly, I have heard the legal arguments here. I understand well that if an applicant who (hypothetically speaking) was declared successful by the test-givers but overuled by Randi can sue for breach of contract. I understand this, and thank those for taking the time to write them out.
----------

...snip...

Why then do you keep suggesting then somehow the final judgment is up to Randi? That is simply not the case. As people have explained one the rules show this isn't the case and secondly if Randi tried to back out of the Challenge contract it would be a breach of contract so the matter becomes a legal matter decided by the courts.

...snip...

My point (and I will write this for the final time because this bloody heap of ooze that used to be a horse is now starting to fester) is that paranormalists of a higher profile nature may not be applying because they think that Randi holds all the trump cards.

...snip...

Research the Sylvia Brown incidence and you will find the evidence that contradicts this.

Randi on TV and the commentaries showed how he would not be responsible for the judging of any challenge she actually agreed to undertake. Indeed he even waived the preliminary test, even agreed to allow the money to be placed in escrow with Larry King, yet still she hasn't taken the challenge.

The reason the high profile ones tend not to take the challenge (even when they have said they would) is that they know they can't win it and they know that even in their world that could effect their livelihood (saying that Popoff comes to mind :( ).

TheBoyPaj

18th May 2006, 05:19 AM

Personally, I'm never entering the lottery because there's nothing on the playslip which states that they cannot change the numbers after they have been drawn.

LongFuzzy

18th May 2006, 12:19 PM

The reason the high profile ones tend not to take the challenge (even when they have said they would) is that they know they can't win it and they know that even in their world that could effect their livelihood (saying that Popoff comes to mind :( ).

Maybe, but doesn't Popoff still make millions off his 'ministries'?
I'd suspect a minor setback for the 'Pros', but they would still have
their faithfull followers.

-LF

ImOne

21st May 2006, 04:43 AM

I wonder WHO would declare a winner.

Mojo

21st May 2006, 05:10 AM

One reason why is because there is no stipulation on who has the final say of success if an applicant has passed a test: the (supposedly) impartial test-givers or Randi. Neither Randi nor the "(supposedly) impartial test-givers" have a final say. The test protocol will be agreed in advance so that success or failure is self evident. Either the results themselves say that the applicant have passed, according to the agreed conditions, or they don't.

For example, if we're talking about a dowser, it might be agreed in advance, as part of the protocol, that if the dowser correctly identifies which of five sealed cups contains water in eight out of ten attempts, they have passed. If the dowser only finds the cup with the water seven or fewer times in their ten attempts, they have failed; if they find it eight or more times they have passed. There is no judging; nobody gets a "say". Either the applicant has passed or they haven't, according to a protocol that has been agreed in advance.

The suggestion that judging is involved is merely a strawman constructed by people (and their supporters) who need an excuse for not taking a test which, if their claims were genuine, they would easily be able to pass.

So, if you will, step out of JREF mode for an instant. If you're a higher profile psychic, why get into a challenge:

When you think the other side holds all the cards?
When you think you probably won't or can't win?
When you will probably lose your reputation as a psychic and thus lose your income? Exactly: why get into a test in which you're not allowed to cheat when you're a fraud and you know it.

I just believe that if there were a rule saying that the test-givers decide if a claimant passed, then there might possibly be more higher profile psychics getting in touch with Randi for the benefit of whomever. And even if a claimant passed and Randi wasn't too certain of the test, Randi could always attend the formal test, n'est pas?You're suggesting that introducing subjective judgment of some sort would make the procedure fairer?

Hawk one

21st May 2006, 05:31 AM

I wonder WHO would declare a winner.

If you had read this thread properly, the answer will be "The results will declare a winner."

ImOne

21st May 2006, 06:05 AM

If you had read this thread properly, the answer will be "The results will declare a winner."
That's impossible. If a claimant succeeds someone has to compile/look at the results and make a statement.

rjh01

21st May 2006, 06:32 AM

Everyone involved in the test can look at the results and know if the test was a success or not. End of story.

If success meant 7 or more but the result was 6 then it was a failure. What is the problem? The results will be on film so it cannot be reasonably disputed.

William Smith

21st May 2006, 06:37 AM

That's impossible. If a claimant succeeds someone has to compile/look at the results and make a statement.

From a semantic superfreak's point of view: Granted.

Though you might also say that "someone" in this case only has to act as a mediator to announce what became evident through the "results".

Ririon

21st May 2006, 06:52 AM

That's impossible. If a claimant succeeds someone has to compile/look at the results and make a statement.
So you want to know how the (hypothetical) press conference will be organized? Is that it? :confused:

Kimpatsu

21st May 2006, 07:26 AM

It strikes me that the problem here is the underlying assumption that Randi is not interested in honest inquiry, but is a closed-minded bigot who's decided in advance that the prize is unwinnable. I.e., even if a genuine telekinetic clearly demonstrated an awesome power (say, levitating a car with the power of his mind), Randi would simply say, "Well, I don't know how he did it, but as psychic powers do not exist, the levitation was definitely performed by trickery, so I refuse to pay up."
This underlying assumption is that Randi will always find a loophole to avoid payment, even when faced with a genuine psychic. It's like the British stage magician and conjuror Paul Daniels. In his television shows, Daniels has a section called the "Bunko Booth". He dresses like a carnival shyster from the early 20th century, and invites members of the audience on stage, to whom he teaches a simple magic trick. If they can then reproduce the trick exactly as he taught them, Daniels offers to pay them a chunk of money, and will normally wave a thick wad of real banknotes around at this point for dramatic effect (he is, after all, an entertainer). As you may guess, however, no one has ever won Daniels's challenge, because he then tricks them into making a mistake with the magic he has just taught. For example, you probably all know the trick whereby you line up three tumblers, and place the two at either end face-up, and the third in the middle face-down. Then, with three deft moves turning over two glasses each at a time, you end with all three glasses right-side up. Well, Daniels taught this trick to a member of the audience, and then invited the man to replicate the trick to win the money. However, as I noticed immediately, Daniels then reset the table with the two glasses on either end face-down, and the one in the middle face-up, so by replicating the hand moves, the man ended with all three glasses face-down instead of right-side up, and so Daniels then gleefully declared that the man had failed, and kept the money. Now, this is TV light entertainment and doesn't cause the participants any real heartburn, as they are there to be tricked and baffled in the name of entertainment. The claim I see being made here, however, is that Randi would pull a similar stunt in order to cheat the claimant out of the $1 million. IOW, Randi will never play fair. An example might be that our car-levitating psychic declares in advance that he performs his psychic feats by making a magic gesture with his right hand. When he comes to be tested for the challenge, however, he uses his left hand to make the gesture, and although the car clearly rises 10 feet above the ground, Randi then declares that the claimant failed, not because the car failed to fly (it clearly did), but because he used the wrong hand. IOW, Randi will find a petty excuse to deny payment of the $1 million even in the face of evidence that everyone else would consider perverse not to accept.
Personally, I think this says more about the mindset of the apologists for woo than it does about Randi being ethically challenged, but I leave it to the rest of you on this board to make up your own minds.

Mojo

21st May 2006, 07:43 AM

It strikes me that the problem here is the underlying assumption that Randi is not interested in honest inquiry...Perhaps there's a certain amount of projection involved.

William Smith

21st May 2006, 07:47 AM

It strikes me that the problem here is the underlying assumption that Randi is not interested in honest inquiry, but is a closed-minded bigot who's decided in advance that the prize is unwinnable.
...
Personally, I think this says more about the mindset of the apologists for woo than it does about Randi being ethically challenged, but I leave it to the rest of you on this board to make up your own minds.

Kimpatsu, could please specify to which poster(s) you refer to? Thanks.

Kimpatsu

21st May 2006, 07:47 AM

Perhaps there's a certain amount of projection involved.
Possibly, with some apologists for woo. Others (not normally claimants, but those who honestly believe that psychic powers exist, and who see themselves as defenders of honest inquiry) are utterly convinced that Randi is determined to ignore the large pool of genuine psychics in the world for his own perverse egotistical ends. Consequently, when people fail preliminary tests, they leap to the conclusion that it was because Randi or the testers cheated, not because the claimant lacks the powers they say they have.

Mojo

21st May 2006, 07:56 AM

Possibly, with some apologists for woo. Others (not normally claimants, but those who honestly believe that psychic powers exist, and who see themselves as defenders of honest inquiry) are utterly convinced that Randi is determined to ignore the large pool of genuine psychics in the world for his own perverse egotistical ends. Consequently, when people fail preliminary tests, they leap to the conclusion that it was because Randi or the testers cheated, not because the claimant lacks the powers they say they have.The problem seems more that this large pool of allegedly genuine psychics seems to be determined to ignore the challenge.

Kimpatsu

21st May 2006, 08:00 AM

The problem seems more that this large pool of allegedly genuine psychics seems to be determined to ignore the challenge.
I've spoken to more than a few apologists for these "genuine psychics", all of whom claim their heroes avoid the challege because they know it is rigged by Randi to ensure their failure.
But maybe we're projecting again...

Kimpatsu

21st May 2006, 08:02 AM

Kimpatsu, could please specify to which poster(s) you refer to? Thanks.
Doesn't the person who started this thread fall into that category? He seems to be nitpicking in order to find the likely excuses Randi will use when a genuine psychic inevitably wins the challenge.
Additionally, not all the people of whom I'm thinking post here (we're mostly evil doubters and skeptics, after all). For example, on one martial arts-related noticeboard I used to frequent, the administrator is utterly convinced that there are great Chinese kung fu masters who can project their chi energy to knock you over remotely from distances of up to 20 feet. When I suggested these people should immediately apply for the $1 million, and having dealt with the (almost inevitable) refusal that "these are spiritual men, and performing for base profit is against the rules", he then resorted to "The challenge is a farce, because Randi will cheat anyway."
I spoke to a self-proclaimed psychic healer here in Tokyo. She claims to have healed people of cancer using just essential oils and her psychic gift. When I suggested the $1 million, she replied that her power will fail her if she's made to "jump through hoops", and she then added "Randi would just cheat, anyway".
What to do?

William Smith

21st May 2006, 08:24 AM

Doesn't the person who started this thread fall into that category? He seems to be nitpicking in order to find the likely excuses Randi will use when a genuine psychic inevitably wins the challenge.
Additionally, not all the people of whom I'm thinking post here (we're mostly evil doubters and skeptics, after all). For example, on one martial arts-related noticeboard I used to frequent, the administrator is utterly convinced that there are great Chinese kung fu masters who can project their chi energy to knock you over remotely from distances of up to 20 feet. When I suggested these people should immediately apply for the $1 million, and having dealt with the (almost inevitable) refusal that "these are spiritual men, and performing for base profit is against the rules", he then resorted to "The challenge is a farce, because Randi will cheat anyway."
I spoke to a self-proclaimed psychic healer here in Tokyo. She claims to have healed people of cancer using just essential oils and her psychic gift. When I suggested the $1 million, she replied that her power will fail her if she's made to "jump through hoops", and she then added "Randi would just cheat, anyway".
What to do?

Good question. Convincing "believers" with facts contradicting their belief seems very difficult.

It's been said before: These "believers" have invested a great part of their lives into their belief system. The longer done, the more invested. Reaffirmed, time and time again.

We can offer a fact-based discussion. It's up to them to become part of it.

Kimpatsu

21st May 2006, 08:32 AM

Good question. Convincing "believers" with facts contradicting their belief seems very difficult.

It's been said before: These "believers" have invested a great part of their lives into their belief system. The longer done, the more invested. Reaffirmed, time and time again.

We can offer a fact-based discussion. It's up to them to become part of it.
Absolutely! As Mojo pointed out, there's a great deal of projection involved here. Because the believers are emotionally so close to their position that they can't afford to lose their faith as their ego would go with it (as the famous saying goes), they assume that skepticism is an equally faith-based position, and that die-hard skeptics like Randi will always feel emotionally driven to defend their corner, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Having said that, I do find that the believers set the bar too low when pursuing inquiries of this nature. Like Targ and Puthoff, they are determined to change the protocols to favour and flatter the ("psychic") testee. In "The Truth About Uri Geller", Randi likens this to the rats designing the maze. As any fule no, however, psychic powers simply MUST exist, because otherwise men of god like Benny Hinn and Peter Popoff, not to mention Uri Geller, John of God, and Sylvia Browne, must be lying... and that couldn't possibly be true!... could it...?

EHocking

24th May 2006, 03:05 PM

One reason why is because there is no stipulation on who has the final say of success if an applicant has passed a test: the (supposedly) impartial test-givers or Randi. High profile paranormalists who have been in the business for a while may see this in the rules and conclude that Randi can successfully manufacture very good sounding rationale (when can't he?) to show how an applicant failed a test though the test-givers, who haven't been in the business as long as Randi, showed that test-taker to have passed. To them, it may seem as if Randi (someone who is admittedly hostile to paranormalists)has too much leverage in the test, and therefore, do not apply for higher (benefit to humanity) or lower (selfishness and greed) purposes.
Yes, I understand that people responding to this thread have said that if Randi overules the test-givers, then this would be breach of contract. However, there is no rule saying WHO JUDGES final success or failure and that Randi can't overule the test-givers. Thus there there would be no breach of contract and no evidentiary grounds for litigation for the unlikely successful applicant--if it were the highly unlikely case that Randi were to overule the test-givers....I'll try not to reiterate what has already gone before, but I will have to in order to clarify some of the points you raise.
1. there is no stipulation on who has the final say of success if an applicant has passed a test: the (supposedly) impartial test-givers or Randi. As has been pointed out - the Challenge protocols are negotiated so that the results, and therefore success or failure of the trial, are self-evident. (see 2nd para of The Challenge Application (http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html)).

2. [potential applicants may]conclude that Randi can successfully manufacture very good sounding rationale (when can't he?) to show how an applicant failed a test though the test-givers, who haven't been in the business as long as Randi, showed that test-taker to have passed.Not so.
The Challenge Agreement is between the applicant and James Randi (represented by JREF) - last sentence of the 3rd para "This offer is administered by the JREF, and no one may negotiate or make any changes, except as set forth in writing by James Randi (JR). "

James Randi signs the Agreement and authorises the protocols for the trials.

If the preliminary trial is not performed by JREF, JREF may find or assign a 3rd party to conduct the trial on it's behalf. Such an assignation is done in writing and in doing states that the 3rd party is conducting on the authority of JREF and for all intents and purposes (legally) represents JREF.

James Randi signs the Agreement, the protocols for the trials and the assignation of authority of the 3rd party.

JREF or James Randi cannot overrule the results, since the 3rd party IS (contractually) JREF.

3. Thus there there would be no breach of contract and no evidentiary grounds for litigation for the unlikely successful applicant--if it were the highly unlikely case that Randi were to overule the test-givers....James Randi signs the Agreement, the protocols for the trials and the assignation of authority of the 3rd party.

TheBoyPaj

24th May 2006, 03:33 PM

It's like the British stage magician and conjuror Paul Daniels. In his television shows...

In other obscure-UK-TV-references-guaranteed-to-confuse-Americans, Derek Nimmo was not a real vicar. Which is, you know, a bit like people who pretend to be mediums.

And Wilf Lunn's inventions didn't work.

William Smith

2nd June 2006, 10:07 PM

After reading the "Sent in my Application Today" thread, I got to reading the Challenge Rules plus the FAQ's. The rules make it clear that the applicant and the JREF will agree beforehand what will constitute a positive and negative test result.

However, nowhere (nowhere) does it state who judges a positive or negative test result and who makes the final decision concerning failure or success.

The test-givers may say that the applicant (who actually "showed up") achieved a postive test result, but nowhere does it say in the formal rules that Randi can't nullify the result--for whatever reason--be it professional or otherwise.

If there is no rule allowing the test-givers to officially pronounce success or failure, what's the point in applying when the JREF can just nullify the process at will without fear of legal reprisals?

Ruach1, has this thread clarified anything for you? Please let us know your point of view.