I Want Randi's Million

[Cyphermage]

I'd love to get my hands on Randi's million dollar prize.

There's only one problem. I see absolutely no evidence that God, the devil, angels, demons, Heaven, Hell, psychic phenomena, or anything supernatural or paranormal exists. I think it likely that the universe has continued merrily onwards governed only by the Principle of Least Action since it was smaller than a grain of sand, and that everything that is knowable is knowable through science and mathematics.

Thankfully, as Authur C. Clarke has pointed out, sufficiently good technology is indistinguishable from woo.

So if I'm going to get the prize, it will have to be through advanced technology that appears paranormal to the uninitiated, and which defies debunking or explaination by folks like Randi, JREF, and CSICOP.

Fortunately, there are a number of bleeding edge fields which are in their infancy, and which are only now reaching the point where practical engineering in them is teetering on the verge of becoming possible.

Some candidates which leap to mind are nanotech, high frequency gravitational radiation, and quantum computation.

So my question to you is as follows. Think up a demonstration based on advanced technology which could separate Randi from his cash. Imagine doing to Randi what he did to the scientists at Stanford, and after being awarded the prize, steping up to the podium in front of a worldwide television audience, and saying "How did I do that? It's simple. I cheated."

[Tirdun]

Its covered somewhat in http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53213 , Randi has admitted that scientists could get a hold on the prize.

[Ririon]

How far back in time do you have to go before any of our current technology seems indistinguishable from magic to some very smart people with connections at the best science institutions?

A long time. That's roughly how far you have to take a field of research singlehandedly to pull this off. Good luck! :)

[Doubt]

I would settle for getting 20 dollars off of Randi in a bar bet. But I am pretty sure he knows most of those stunts and could probably figure out any new tricks.

Scientists may have a better chance at cheating than most. But I think they would have a bit of trouble with the formal test. After getting past the prelim, other scientists and magicians would most likely be consulted on the protocol for the formal test. That would increase the chance of catching on to a new technology based trick.

[Cyphermage]

I can think of a couple of possible protocols for prize-winning, based on some of the technology I previously mentioned.

Scenario 1: Randi constructs a secret message, and posts it on the Internet encrypted with PGP so everyone can verify it has been committed by a specified date. Psychics then try to discern the contents of the message. Later, Randi posts the key, permitting the public to decrypt the message and see whether the psychics have been successful.

Attack: Use coherent quantum computation to decrypt the message by simultaneously trying all possible keys.

Scenario 2: Randi places a glass of water under one of three overturned metal pails. A psychic is brought into the room, and using mysterious powers, consistantly picks the pail over the glass of water.

Attack: Someone at a distant location is imaging the testing location at sub-millimeter resolution with petahertz frequency gravity waves, and is speaking to the psychic by modulating part of the beam with sound and focusing it to dissipate its energy into the bones inside the psychic's head.

Scenario 3: Randi draws a picture on a sheet of paper and seals it inside an envelope. A psychic is brought in, given a pad and a pen, and draws an uncanny replica of Randi's picture.

Attack: A fly sized nanobot on the wall behind Randi's chair watches him draw the picture, and discloses its contents to the psychic.

I think it's only a matter of time before Randi is conned out of his money, especially considering there are classified technologies which are well-developed but not well-known in academia.

[JollyRoger]

I got one for Randi

Prove that we are not all living in someones dream world and when someone wakes up someone else falls a sleep and picks up where the other left off.

I can't prove it but can he disprove it

[Timothy]

Scientists may have a better chance at cheating than most. But I think they would have a bit of trouble with the formal test. After getting past the prelim, other scientists and magicians would most likely be consulted on the protocol for the formal test. That would increase the chance of catching on to a new technology based trick.

There is, however, some confusion regarding when and to what degree a protocol can be altered or dropped once it's agreed upon for the preliminary.

"No part of the testing procedure may be changed in any way without the agreement of all parties concerned. JR may be present at some preliminary or formal tests, but will not interact with the materials used."

Back when Kramer was handling challenges, this came up with the testing of the silly CD-enhancing chip. Voicing concern about a developing a protocol that would foil intentional fraud and deception, many forum readers were concerned that Kramer take the appropriate care to craft a good protocol -- the reason being that the same protocol would be followed during a formal test, only with a larger number of samples, trials, etc.

I brought this up in http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=36545 and then later Kramer in Post 10 of http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=36588 stated:


All I can add to what has already been offered here is the following:

If Randi gets fooled, the money is awarded regardless, and the JREF One Million Dollar Challenge is terminated.

So, one doesn't need to actually have paranormal powers to win the big bucks.

One simply has to be smarter than James Randi.

I've always thought that this created a bad situation for JREF if they adhere to the idea that the protocol doesn't change -- a conflict between wanting to speedily process a valid application, but avoid falling for a scam in which they didn't have the expertise to recognize a new development in technology.

- Timothy

[Admiral]

These all seem unnecessarily fancy to me. Surely the usual telepathy experiment- where a sender in one room is read a list of words, and a receiver in another room records the list simultaneously- could be cheated with a miniature audio transmitter in each person's ear. Sharper Image might not be at that point yet- after all, the transmitter would have to be small enough and camouflaged enough not to be noticed even by keen observers- but it's certainly not any groundbreaking technology.

Edit- Fixed typo.

[Cyphermage]

In order to avoid scientific attacks on the prize, JREF pretty much has to refuse all challenges based on solving intractable problems.

For instance, if I claim my paranormal power is that I can't be beaten at chess, am I using psychic ability, or am I just 1000 years ahead of everyone else in combinatorial mathematics?

So you pretty much have to not allow any challenges based on games or puzzles, or any based on finding out information protected by cryptography.

Then you just pray that the guy who is moving stuff with his mind isn't friends with a million sub-microscopic nanobots who know how to cooperate to form a buffer field. :)

[NobbyNobbs]

I got one for Randi

Prove that we are not all living in someones dream world and when someone wakes up someone else falls a sleep and picks up where the other left off.

I can't prove it but can he disprove it


As I understand it, this is not valid. Science requires falsifiability. The burden of proof is on the claimant. This goes for any claim in science, not just ones for the challenge.

[drkitten]

I can think of a couple of possible protocols for prize-winning, based on some of the technology I previously mentioned.

Scenario 1: Randi constructs a secret message, and posts it on the Internet encrypted with PGP so everyone can verify it has been committed by a specified date. Psychics then try to discern the contents of the message. Later, Randi posts the key, permitting the public to decrypt the message and see whether the psychics have been successful.

Attack: Use coherent quantum computation to decrypt the message by simultaneously trying all possible keys.

I'm not sure that this would do it.

Specifically, I'm not sure that Randi would accept such a challenge, and I'm pretty sure that before he did, he would involve his own corps of experts in being able to assess the possibility and methods of cheating.

Not to toot my own horn,.... but I have an idea of how far we are from being able to build a quantum computer to break PGP. And if you're going to do it, you're going to need to make at least one really well-funded breakthrough that doesn't appear in the scientific literature. Because I read those journals, and I would warn Randi (if asked) about any cryptographic threats I thought were realistic enough to be taken seriously.

[William Smith]

I got one for Randi

Prove that we are not all living in someones dream world and when someone wakes up someone else falls a sleep and picks up where the other left off.

I can't prove it but can he disprove it

You probably misunderstood the JREF Challenge.

You claim, you prove.

[Cyphermage]

I'm not sure that this would do it.

Not to toot my own horn,.... but I have an idea of how far we are from being able to build a quantum computer to break PGP. And if you're going to do it, you're going to need to make at least one really well-funded breakthrough that doesn't appear in the scientific literature. Because I read those journals, and I would warn Randi (if asked) about any cryptographic threats I thought were realistic enough to be taken seriously.

I strongly suspect that quantum computing will be eventually be found to be governed by a "no free lunch" principle, namely that the cost of maintaining coherent superposition is always enough to have done the computation the hard way.

Scientists have fallen for such bait before, and have been sadly awakened. The discovery that the non-locality of Bell's paradox does not violate causality is probably the best recent example of this.

[Hellbound]

You know, though, if I did discover some new science unlike anything before [ED-yeah, and if you suddenly grew 100 foot tall with wings!], I'd be looking at this. If I was confident I could get the million, I'd do the test, get the million, immediately donate it back to JREF and describe how I did it.

Great publicity for a new technology. Talk about investors and grant money!

And just to smooth any hard feelings, I'd probably dump a percent of any profits back into JREF too, so we could see a $2,000,000, $5,000,000, or whtever prize :)

[JollyRoger]

As I understand it, this is not valid. Science requires falsifiability. The burden of proof is on the claimant. This goes for any claim in science, not just ones for the challenge.


Please pardon my warped sense of humor

[Yahzi]

Talk about investors and grant money!
Indeed. If a scientist found a discovery of this magnititude, he would be too busy accepting his Nobel and fending off venture capitalists to bother with Randi's pathetic million.

Viagra - arguably as close to magic as you could hope for :D - made $310 million in its first year...

[gnome]

I also half suspect that this is one of the reasons for the preliminary test--for example, What if the applicant passes the preliminary test, but Randi can tell how he did it? I think Randi is within his rights to adjust the protocol to prevent the trick he believes to be responsible. And that's why I think the million is safe--someone may fool him with a trick once that he didn't think could be done... but once he's seen it... what are the chances he can't tell how it was done?

[William Smith]

"Won't Get Fooled Again"

[joller]

I also half suspect that this is one of the reasons for the preliminary test--for example, What if the applicant passes the preliminary test, but Randi can tell how he did it? I think Randi is within his rights to adjust the protocol to prevent the trick he believes to be responsible. And that's why I think the million is safe--someone may fool him with a trick once that he didn't think could be done... but once he's seen it... what are the chances he can't tell how it was done?

I thought the protocol can't change.
Only the odds can.
Even if it is obvious how the person cheated.

[Hellbound]

Indeed. If a scientist found a discovery of this magnititude, he would be too busy accepting his Nobel and fending off venture capitalists to bother with Randi's pathetic million.

Viagra - arguably as close to magic as you could hope for :D - made $310 million in its first year...

Well, yes, but I was applying this to me. I'd have no idea what to do to get my discovery noticed in the science community (and don't know the first thing about writing for a journal). I'd also not have a clue on what to do to get investors. The challenge is there, and would provide an immediate $1,000,000 capital, recognition, and a chance to get a lot of serious scientists involved.

Of course, it's highly unlikely (That's an understantement-Ed.) that I'd ever discover anything, and I figure most discoveries of this nature would occur by people already working in science, who would know what to do besides the challenge :)

[Beady]

I can't prove it but can he disprove it

Argument to ignorance. Invalid. Besides, the subject is open to interpretation and violates the rules.

[Beady]

Even if it is obvious how the person cheated.

Er, if this is known, then there's nothing paranormal about it and the demonstration fails.

[petre]

Er, if this is known, then there's nothing paranormal about it and the demonstration fails.

I suppose it might come down to the exact wording. Without actually supporting my guess with evidence (it's early and I'm tired), things will often be worded something like "using only a stick I will locate the water" or some other such stipulation. Evidence that the applicant used something besides the stick (like a metal detector in his shoe) would then indicate protocol violation and an invalid test.

[gnome]

I suppose it might come down to the exact wording. Without actually supporting my guess with evidence (it's early and I'm tired), things will often be worded something like "using only a stick I will locate the water" or some other such stipulation. Evidence that the applicant used something besides the stick (like a metal detector in his shoe) would then indicate protocol violation and an invalid test.

This scenario makes me curious... Jeff, happen to be listening? (looks around)

Bare bones:

Applicant makes claim of paranormal ability to perform task X with ability Y.

Protocol is negotiated, preliminary test is performed successfully.

Randi suspects that applicant used trick Z instead of ability Y.

Under what circumstances can the formal test be adjusted or denied, to correct for trick Z? Does it matter if Randi's suspicion can be proven by examining the tapes of the preliminary?

[Beady]

Randi suspects that applicant used trick Z instead of ability Y.

If task X can be duplicated without ability Y, then does Y really exist? Or, more exactly, if ability Y can be duplicated by other means, does it exist?

IOW, to quote National Geographic, if a natural explanation will suffice, why resort to a supernatural explanation?

[Santa666]

Since no one has mentioned it yet, isn't most of this speculation much like paying 100,000,000 to win 10,000,000? Why put large quantities of money, which would very likely exceed one million dollars, into the research and development of a device or devices to win a Challenge that won't even reimburse you for the intial cost? This type of technology would net one much more profit backed by a large corporation willing to invest. Just the two cents of an old man.

Santa

[rjh01]

Can anyone give me a case where someone tried to win by cheating? How they were caught?

[gnome]

Can anyone give me a case where someone tried to win by cheating? How they were caught?

In "Flim Flam" I remember a case of a family's "Haunted Table" that it was discovered they were moving with their palms. He required them to place their palms in a spot with poor leverage, and the effect disappeared.

[gnome]

If task X can be duplicated without ability Y, then does Y really exist? Or, more exactly, if ability Y can be duplicated by other means, does it exist?

IOW, to quote National Geographic, if a natural explanation will suffice, why resort to a supernatural explanation?

Because a supernatural power is redundant, doesn't mean it's nonexistent.

[Beady]

Because a supernatural power is redundant, doesn't mean it's nonexistent.

It seems like it *should* be, from an evolutionary standpoint, because it would offer no advantage. I really doubt that Natural Selection has a category labelled Parlor Tricks.

[TheBoyPaj]

I can get from London to Glasgow by aeroplane. That doesn't nullify the existence of the bicycle.

Many challenges are just intended to show that an effect exists. It doesn't matter if that effect is valuable.

[William Smith]

It seems like it *should* be, from an evolutionary standpoint, because it would offer no advantage. I really doubt that Natural Selection has a category labelled Parlor Tricks.

"God doesn't do parlor tricks." (Uncle Al) Does she? ;)

[Admiral]

It seems like it *should* be, from an evolutionary standpoint, because it would offer no advantage. I really doubt that Natural Selection has a category labelled Parlor Tricks.

I have a friend who can make his eyes vibrate in a really disturbing way. I have another who is double-jointed and can do all sorts of funny things with his elbows. I sincerely doubt either of these abilities provide an evolutionary advantage.

Nature contains plenty of parlor tricks. Remember that evolution affects an entire species, but not every individual within that species gets the same effect. All effects are little accidents of nature- if they provide an advantage, then over time they become more common (and that's only if it's genetic.)

[Bindamel]

Can anyone give me a case where someone tried to win by cheating? How they were caught?

Natalia, the Russian girl who tried to read through the blindfold:

http://www.randi.org/jr/022202.html

You can go back one more week to the beginning, but the cheating part is in that commentary.

[drkitten]

It seems like it *should* be, from an evolutionary standpoint, because it would offer no advantage.

Evolution includes lots of things that appear to offer no advantage. Look up "spandrel" sometime.

As a simple series of examples -- there is to the best of my knowledge no evolutionary advantage associated with most of the traits studied in high-school genetics. Blue eyes vs brown eyes? Hand clasping with left thumb on top vs. right thumb on top? Arm folding with left/right arm on top? Ear lobe present or absent? Ability or inability to roll the tongue? Dimples or no dimples? Hair whorl clockwise or anticlockwise?

All of these traits are known to be genetic; none are known to offer any advantages.

[Cyphermage]

Isn't that kind of mean? Taking some kid you know is doing a nose peek, and making a big formal demonstration out of it that you know is going to publicly embarrass and humiliate her?

Some people need to be kinder gentler skeptics.

[rjh01]

Thanks for those two cases where cheating was involved. Looks like in both cases it was all amateur stuff. Not much time or effort had gone into how to fake it.

[Beady]

Not much time or effort had gone into how to fake it.

Yet, look at how many were fooled.

[Cyphermage]

Yet, look at how many were fooled.

People have a psychological need to believe in woo. Some have even hypothesized that we may have a "God Gene", due to collective memes offering a survival advantage and natural selection doing the filtering, so that we are now somewhat hardwired to fabricate community held religious or supernatural nonsense.

[SirPhilip]

People have a psychological need to believe in woo. Some have even hypothesized that we may have a "God Gene", due to collective memes offering a survival advantage and natural selection doing the filtering, so that we are now somewhat hardwired to fabricate community held religious or supernatural nonsense.It's important to seperate "woo" from what is an expression of the human spirit. Wanting to transcend one's natural limitations and not be in conflict with nature is what makes us human. Without it, life would be onerous and meaningless. The desire for happiness and certainty is also universal - there is no "God" part of the brain that can be isloated without first encroaching on what makes us human in the first place. The drive of Newton was half a religious drive. The scientist and seeker are on the same path, one just craves objective certainty and the other, subjective. The more intelligent people become, the more they will want to overcome their limitations. These days, the perverted antics of those playing on this human need for material gain is widespread, mainly because people aren't ready to be altruistic for the sake of it. The need for certainty, permanence, and happiness will exist for as long as the laws of nature in this universe don't accomodate an ever expanding collective human ego. Star Wars, Harry Potter, drugs, or scientific advacements, won't ever be enough.

[kbm99]

I would settle for getting 20 dollars off of Randi in a bar bet.

I'd probably be content to lose 20 dollars in a bar bet, if it involved 20 dollars worth of cocktails at an actual bar.

[gnome]

Isn't that kind of mean? Taking some kid you know is doing a nose peek, and making a big formal demonstration out of it that you know is going to publicly embarrass and humiliate her?

Some people need to be kinder gentler skeptics.

How would you have handled it, under the circumstances?

[Cyphermage]

How would you have handled it, under the circumstances?

Quietly, and without fanfare. I think it's enough to debunk thick-skinned adults who claim to have powers. Kids doing little tricks should be left alone. Fantasy and imagination are part of the natural state of childhood, and kids should not be held to the same standards of objective reality as older folks, or be stomped on when they pretend to be able to do something special.

Next you'll be telling them there's no Santa, God, or Easter Bunny.

[gnome]

Quietly, and without fanfare. I think it's enough to debunk thick-skinned adults who claim to have powers. Kids doing little tricks should be left alone. Fantasy and imagination are part of the natural state of childhood, and kids should not be held to the same standards of objective reality as older folks, or be stomped on when they pretend to be able to do something special.

Next you'll be telling them there's no Santa, God, or Easter Bunny.

I'm not sure what counts as "fanfare" here... personally I think the case is a critical example of how people a) fool themselves and b) support people who are fooling themselves, when they know better. It's important that this story be known.

[Cyphermage]

I'm not sure what counts as "fanfare" here... personally I think the case is a critical example of how people a) fool themselves and b) support people who are fooling themselves, when they know better. It's important that this story be known.

One debunked and publicly humiliated Uri Geller is worth a hundred little girls peeking past their blindfolds. One does not use a sledgehammer to crush ants.

[TheBoyPaj]

Is Natalia still claiming this ability? If so, any "fanfare" is deserved. It will have no effect on her income, but her failure must be highlighted.

[Indolent Wretch]

These all seem unnecessarily fancy to me. Surely the usual telepathy experiment- where a sender in one room is read a list of words, and a receiver in another room records the list simultaneously- could be cheated with a miniature audio transmitter in each person's ear. Sharper Image might not be at that point yet- after all, the transmitter would have to be small enough and camouflaged enough not to be noticed even by keen observers- but it's certainly not any groundbreaking technology.

Edit- Fixed typo.

In the UK, if you got away with this and then admitted that's how you achieved it wouldn't you be liable to a charge of 'obtaining money by deception?' or something similar?

[gnome]

One debunked and publicly humiliated Uri Geller is worth a hundred little girls peeking past their blindfolds. One does not use a sledgehammer to crush ants.

Uri Geller represents one facet of hoax psychics--the arrogant attention whore.

The cute/sweet/kindly relative that we not only humor, but promote to others as psychic, to avoid hurting anyone's feelings... probably accounts for at least as much woo in this world. It shouldn't be ignored... that said... if Natalya was mistreated in any way except for the fact that she was there in the first place, I'm interested in suggestions for improvement.

[rjh01]

First. Never admit that you cheat. Just keep quiet.
Second. Make sure that you never give any clue on HOW you do it. Be honest on what you claim. Do not claim to have any super-natural powers. This is within the rules.

[nathan]

In the UK, if you got away with this and then admitted that's how you achieved it wouldn't you be liable to a charge of 'obtaining money by deception?' or something similar?It depends on what the contract says. My understanding is that the contract would say 'Do X' not 'Do X via paranormal means', precisely so it does not have to define 'paranormal'. As the contract doesn't specify how X is to be achieved, the applicant cannot (legally) be being deceptive if the applicant does X by (for example) sleight of hand.

[gnome]

It depends on what the contract says. My understanding is that the contract would say 'Do X' not 'Do X via paranormal means', precisely so it does not have to define 'paranormal'. As the contract doesn't specify how X is to be achieved, the applicant cannot (legally) be being deceptive if the applicant does X by (for example) sleight of hand.

Not quite...the contract says "Do X using your power"... if it can be shown that the effect was achieved via a method other than the claimed ability, the prize would be invalid. But, there would probably have to be proof--if the test is designed well, it should barely be possible at all.

Let's say someone said they can move thimbles telekinetically. When it came time to demonstrate they point off somewhere and say "What the hell's that?" and when everyone looks, they flick the thimble into its designated bucket with their finger.

The challenge has succeeded: The thimble is in the bucket. But a review of the tape shows they didn't do it using their power. I don't think they could claim the reward under those circumstances.

[nathan]

Not quite...the contract says "Do X using your power"... Show me the contract. Show me that 'your power' could not be interpretted to mean 'your finger flicking power' :) Again, my understanding is the contract says words to the effect of 'Perform according to the protocol in Annex A. If you perform at least as well as specified therein, you win 1M$'

The challenge has succeeded: The thimble is in the bucket. But a review of the tape shows they didn't do it using their power. I don't think they could claim the reward under those circumstances.
A review of the tape would show that they did not stick to the protocol, and therefore voided the contract. The JREF is not intending to agree to a protocol where cheating would be possible. If the JREF slip up, then they still award the $1M (as Randi has said).

[drkitten]

Let's say someone said they can move thimbles telekinetically. When it came time to demonstrate they point off somewhere and say "What the hell's that?" and when everyone looks, they flick the thimble into its designated bucket with their finger.

My understanding of the way the JREF (meaning: Randi) operates is that this would literally not be possible. Randi would not permit you to be within arm's reach of the thimble, or would handcuff your hands behind your back (using real handcuffs, not the special conjurer's kind), or something similar.

[Flange Desire]

Quietly, and without fanfare. I think it's enough to debunk thick-skinned adults who claim to have powers. Kids doing little tricks should be left alone.

In this particular case, the kiddy (and mother) were being fraudulent.
They were claiming superpowers for monetary gain.
This was not a kiddy trick, it was plain old cheat and fraud.

Kids can still enjoy fantasy, whilst you are teaching them valuable skills in critical thinking. But this is not relevent to the case here.
This was just a plain old garden variety bog standard fraud.

[Mongrel]

In this particular case, the kiddy (and mother) were being fraudulent.
They were claiming superpowers for monetary gain.
This was not a kiddy trick, it was plain old cheat and fraud.


And when they get debunked they're quite happy to play the "But she's only a child!, Those mean old Sceptics" card. I read the articles as putting the blame squarely on the adults around her, exploiting an easily busted parlour trick.

[Ladewig]

Quietly, and without fanfare. I think it's enough to debunk thick-skinned adults who claim to have powers. Kids doing little tricks should be left alone.

I do not understand what you mean by "Kids doing little tricks should be left alone." She came to the JREF, the JREF did not seek her out and force her into a specific protocol.


Fantasy and imagination are part of the natural state of childhood, and kids should not be held to the same standards of objective reality as older folks, or be stomped on when they pretend to be able to do something special.

Next you'll be telling them there's no Santa, God, or Easter Bunny.

And what if she had fooled Randi with her trick. Does anyone here believe that there would have been even the tiniest chance that she would then stand up and say, "It was all a trick. I cannot accept the $1,000,000 because it was all make-believe"?

[drkitten]

I do not understand what you mean by "Kids doing little tricks should be left alone." She came to the JREF, the JREF did not seek her out and force her into a specific protocol.

I doubt this.

My understanding is that her parents/handlers are the ones who brought her to the JREF, not that she came to the JREF of her own volition.

[gnome]

I doubt this.

My understanding is that her parents/handlers are the ones who brought her to the JREF, not that she came to the JREF of her own volition.

Then it was her parents that did her wrong, not JREF...

[Almo]

Attack: Use coherent quantum computation to decrypt the message by simultaneously trying all possible keys.

Attack: Someone at a distant location is imaging the testing location at sub-millimeter resolution with petahertz frequency gravity waves, and is speaking to the psychic by modulating part of the beam with sound and focusing it to dissipate its energy into the bones inside the psychic's head.

Attack: A fly sized nanobot on the wall behind Randi's chair watches him draw the picture, and discloses its contents to the psychic.

I suspect that 1 million is chump change for these sorts of demonstrations.

[Cyphermage]

Then it was her parents that did her wrong, not JREF...

I think the JREF should put a lower age limit on the person whose psychic ability is being alleged. As it stands now, greedy parents could drag some unhappy 6-year-old through Hell to try and get their hands on Randi's money.

We don't allow web sites to collect information on pre-teens. The world of debunking is not going to suffer if pre-teens are excluded from this kind of trial by fire.

I have no objection if a 15 year old who knows what he is getting into, wants to try for the million, but when parents show up with their darling 10 year old in tow, who they've trained to perform some trick, they should be turned away at the door.

[steenkh]

My understanding is that her parents/handlers are the ones who brought her to the JREF, not that she came to the JREF of her own volition.
So, how should the JREF avoid paying the prize money without exposing the fraud? How could they expose the fraud without humiliating the girl and her parents. How could the humiliation be exclusively directed at the parents?

[drkitten]

So, how should the JREF avoid paying the prize money without exposing the fraud?

I don't believe it can or should.

My point is that talking about "how could you embarrass the poor little child in this way" is silly and inappropriate; the parents were using the child as a stalking horse in an attempt to defraud. I believe it's a standard "gypsy" trick to teach small children to steal valuable items from a store, on the assumption that the storekeeper would be more lenient with a six-year old than with an adult caught stealing the same watch.

[steenkh]

I actually favor the scenario where the six-year old has made an innocent trick and the parents, lured by the smell of money, have eagerly supported her claim, and effectively closed their eyes or mind to the likely cheating that the child is doing. the child is now caught in her trickery because she cannot own up to her parents what she has been doing, and she has to go on performing the trick.

In this case both parents and child have something on their conscience, but the child being a child removes responsibility from her shoulders.

Adults can very easily fall for trickery by children because for some reason it is assumed that children do not lie! See the British scientists who were fooled by cutlery-bending youngsters some years ago!