Sacred Powers not for sale, and how do you test without faith?

[tojohndillonesq]

Speaking for the Woo-woos: Due to the sacred nature of these powers, they are never granted to those who would abuse them for money. Hence, by definition, anyone who applies for the money does not have the powers. By taking this philosophical approach, the woo-woos can continue to "willingly suspend disbelief."

(I lived in Eugene for a couple decades and met more than my share of naturally and chemically created woo-woos.)

Add to this belief the argument that the presence of scepticism prevents results," and your philosophy is difficult (impossible?) to assail. Anyone who fails to see the paranormal is at fault, because their presence prevents the event. Everyone who DOES witness such an event, is, by definition, a "believer."

Logically, this is not so insance. "Thought experiments" are a standard practice in Physics (Shroedinger's Cat for example). Lets try one:

Presume Telekenesis is "real" in the sense that people can move things with their minds.

Assume we are all part of one universal "God mind," so this power is subject to the "thought waves" of everyone who is aware of the activity.

Since sceptics will not accept videotaped evidence (for good and obvious reasons), no sceptic will EVER witness telekenesis!

Does this mean telekenisis does not exist?

We all know of the precedents in Quantum physics that the measurement always impacts the object being measured. Partical/Wave tests on light being a great example. In physics they have been forced to come up with quite elaborate methods of measuring, identifying, or proving the existence of hypothesized events or particles.

Can we all put our minds together and come up with a test protocal that allows for the "fact" that doubters cannot be present, but still provides the evidence we desire? In physics they look for residual or correlary effects.

For example, create a highly sensitive digital scale that is completely enclosable in a lucite box, and is attached to an exceptionally stable floor that will not vibrate for anything short of an earthquake. Make it of plastic so it cannot be influenced by magnets or other known means. With the scale in the sealed box is a recording device (computer) that monitors the scale's readings every millisecond. Take a baseline reading, close the box, have everyone but the testee leave, and the test begins.

This gets close, but leaves the argument that the people who set of the test are aware of the attempt and their disbelief impacts the shared God Mind and prevents success, even though they are not present.

LASTLY... even science refers to the "preponderance of evidence." What if the woo-woos someday outnumber us and we are looked upon as the nut jobs? (Or has that already occured?)

Now I gave myself the willies!

[Jon.]

Speaking for the Woo-woos: Due to the sacred nature of these powers, they are never granted to those who would abuse them for money. Hence, by definition, anyone who applies for the money does not have the powers. By taking this philosophical approach, the woo-woos can continue to "willingly suspend disbelief."

(I lived in Eugene for a couple decades and met more than my share of naturally and chemically created woo-woos.)

Add to this belief the argument that the presence of scepticism prevents results," and your philosophy is difficult (impossible?) to assail. Anyone who fails to see the paranormal is at fault, because their presence prevents the event. Everyone who DOES witness such an event, is, by definition, a "believer."

Logically, this is not so insance.

Except, of course, for the fact that it violates many laws of physics as they are currently understood.

"Thought experiments" are a standard practice in Physics (Shroedinger's Cat for example). Lets try one:

Presume Telekenesis is "real" in the sense that people can move things with their minds.

Assume we are all part of one universal "God mind," so this power is subject to the "thought waves" of everyone who is aware of the activity.

Since sceptics will not accept videotaped evidence (for good and obvious reasons), no sceptic will EVER witness telekenesis!

Does this mean telekenisis does not exist?

In your "thought experiment", no it does not. However, your big assumption ("we are all part of one universal "God mind," so this power is subject to the "thought waves" of everyone who is aware of the activity") is so big as to remove your experiment from the realms of usefulness.

Useful thought experiments proceed on the basis of known laws of physics and attempt to apply those to situations we cannot recreate: the "interior" of a black hole, the earliest moments of the universe, etc.

Your thought experiment is about as useful as assuming that J.K. Rowling's books are founded in reality and that there is a parallel world of wizards living alongside us, who we mere Muggles cannot perceive, and then going on to discuss the political implications of the interaction between the Prime Minister and the Minister for Magic.

We all know of the precedents in Quantum physics that the measurement always impacts the object being measured. Partical/Wave tests on light being a great example. In physics they have been forced to come up with quite elaborate methods of measuring, identifying, or proving the existence of hypothesized events or particles.

Be very very careful with quantum physics! I don't understand it, and I doubt you do either. One thing I do understand, though, is that it deals exclusively with very very small bits of matter, so small that we cannot perceive them unaided. To attempt to apply things like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to the world we can see, hear, smell, touch and taste is to make a very grave error.

Can we all put our minds together and come up with a test protocal that allows for the "fact" that doubters cannot be present, but still provides the evidence we desire? In physics they look for residual or correlary effects.

For example, create a highly sensitive digital scale that is completely enclosable in a lucite box, and is attached to an exceptionally stable floor that will not vibrate for anything short of an earthquake. Make it of plastic so it cannot be influenced by magnets or other known means. With the scale in the sealed box is a recording device (computer) that monitors the scale's readings every millisecond. Take a baseline reading, close the box, have everyone but the testee leave, and the test begins.

Depends on what you're testing, of course, but for certain types of test I don't see why this can't be done.

This gets close, but leaves the argument that the people who set of the test are aware of the attempt and their disbelief impacts the shared God Mind and prevents success, even though they are not present.

In my (admittedly fairly limited) experience, those who claim that the presence of doubters affects their results would in fact be more correct to say that the absence of the credulous has the greater effect.

LASTLY... even science refers to the "preponderance of evidence." What if the woo-woos someday outnumber us and we are looked upon as the nut jobs? (Or has that already occured?)

Now I gave myself the willies!

The number of people who believe in a phenomenon is not evidence of anything more than the number of people who believe in that phenomenon. The world was not flat before Columbus, the sun did not orbit the earth before Copernicus, and evolution will continue to be true, even in Kansas, no matter how much success the IDers might have.

[William Smith]

"God Mind", "faith" & "belief" do not measurably affect the laws of nature.

Even the most "sacred" human being may believe otherwise - if he's falling from a 150 ft. bridge, he'll most likely be pretty dead pretty soon.

No belief or doubt will change that. Badabing badaboom.

[Genesius]

Speaking for the Woo-woos: Due to the sacred nature of these powers, they are never granted to those who would abuse them for money. Hence, by definition, anyone who applies for the money does not have the powers.
How about if your hypothetical person took the test with the expressed intention to donate the full $1 million to charity or the church? Would that constitute abusing their "sacred powers" for money?

Add to this belief the argument that the presence of scepticism prevents results," and your philosophy is difficult (impossible?) to assail. Anyone who fails to see the paranormal is at fault, because their presence prevents the event. Everyone who DOES witness such an event, is, by definition, a "believer."

A nice excuse for the total inability of anyone to demonstrate "sacred powers" under controlled conditions. Of course, you have no proof that the presence of skepticism prevents results. . .

Since sceptics will not accept videotaped evidence (for good and obvious reasons), no sceptic will EVER witness telekenesis!
Untrue. For example, one could set up a properly controlled experiment, set up video surveillance, and then have the skeptics leave the area. Review the tape later to see if the subject cheated or really has powers. Question: how far away do the skeptics have to be before their negative vibes no longer affect performance?

We all know of the precedents in Quantum physics that the measurement always impacts the object being measured. Partical/Wave tests on light being a great example. In physics they have been forced to come up with quite elaborate methods of measuring, identifying, or proving the existence of hypothesized events or particles.
We also know that quantum effects happen on very small scales, and using quantum mechanics to justify large-scale "miraculous" events is a great big honking red flag for the presence of woo.

Can we all put our minds together and come up with a test protocal that allows for the "fact" that doubters cannot be present, but still provides the evidence we desire? In physics they look for residual or correlary effects.

For example, create a highly sensitive digital scale that is completely enclosable in a lucite box, and is attached to an exceptionally stable floor that will not vibrate for anything short of an earthquake. Make it of plastic so it cannot be influenced by magnets or other known means. With the scale in the sealed box is a recording device (computer) that monitors the scale's readings every millisecond. Take a baseline reading, close the box, have everyone but the testee leave, and the test begins.

This gets close, but leaves the argument that the people who set of the test are aware of the attempt and their disbelief impacts the shared God Mind and prevents success, even though they are not present.
Perhaps you should consider the possibility that your "shared God mind" concept is a load of old dingo's kidneys.

Should be possible to double-blind. How about this: one group of researchers set up the experiment you describe, but are not told when/if it will be happening. A second group are told to bring the subject to the proper location and return later to collect the recorded data without being told the nature of the experiment.

LASTLY... even science refers to the "preponderance of evidence." What if the woo-woos someday outnumber us and we are looked upon as the nut jobs? (Or has that already occured?)
If fifty million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.

[eri]

If psychic powers were reality, why would the presence of someone who doubted them change the outcome? That's not the case with ANY other real 'powers' we know about. If I tell my professor that I can do a contour integration but only if he believes I can, he'll just laugh and fail me. As well he should. There is no reason an actual skill should be compremised by someone not believing it. But lots of reasons why people only see what they want to see.

[drkitten]

If psychic powers were reality, why would the presence of someone who doubted them change the outcome? That's not the case with ANY other real 'powers' we know about.

I think you're overstating the case.

For example, "comedy" is definitely real, and probably a multitrillion-dollar business. Lots of people have a very real "power" to make other people laugh.

But it's also highly situation-dependent. That's why heckling is such a problem for novice standup comics; if they let the hecker get control of the situation, they can tell the exact same joke, with the same delivery,and it's simply no longer funny.

We can even confirm this by objective means (volume and duration of audience laughter, for example).

So -- you're the comic, I'm the heckler, and somehow my "doubt" affects your "power" to make other people in the room laugh. Something very similar could happen with telepathy, if your "power" to read minds somehow depends on your ability to put the sender into an appropriate mental state, and I'm somehow, possibly unconsciously (via body language or something) keeping the rest of the audience out of that state.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Speaking for the Woo-woos: Due to the sacred nature of these powers, they are never granted to those who would abuse them for money...

Then, from the get-go, plan on donating the money to charity.

[opqdan]

Sure, if skeptics nullified telepathy, then it couldn't be tested. If my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle.

Sorry, but your assumption seems to be made with the express purpose of proving the point. I forget what that is called, but it might be some sort of circular reasoning.

You also seem to miss the possibility that there are people out there with who might believe telepathy is possible, that would still perform regorous scientific tests to prove so.

[Jekyll]

Add to this belief the argument that the presence of scepticism prevents results," and your philosophy is difficult (impossible?) to assail. Anyone who fails to see the paranormal is at fault, because their presence prevents the event. Everyone who DOES witness such an event, is, by definition, a "believer."

As Randi has said, the ability to detect the presence of 'sceptics' (because they stop the magic from working) is testable and could earn you the million.

[Jon.]

I think you're overstating the case.

For example, "comedy" is definitely real, and probably a multitrillion-dollar business. Lots of people have a very real "power" to make other people laugh.

But it's also highly situation-dependent. That's why heckling is such a problem for novice standup comics; if they let the hecker get control of the situation, they can tell the exact same joke, with the same delivery,and it's simply no longer funny.

We can even confirm this by objective means (volume and duration of audience laughter, for example).

So -- you're the comic, I'm the heckler, and somehow my "doubt" affects your "power" to make other people in the room laugh. Something very similar could happen with telepathy, if your "power" to read minds somehow depends on your ability to put the sender into an appropriate mental state, and I'm somehow, possibly unconsciously (via body language or something) keeping the rest of the audience out of that state.

Except that it is the actions (or, arguably inactions if they're not laughing) rather than the presence of the heckler that causes the problem. The claim here is that it is the presence, regardless of actions, of the skeptic(s) that causes the failure of the psychic powers.

[drkitten]

Except that it is the actions (or, arguably inactions if they're not laughing) rather than the presence of the heckler that causes the problem. The claim here is that it is the presence, regardless of actions, of the skeptic(s) that causes the failure of the psychic powers.

Not really a useful distinction. As you pointed out, many "actions" are arguably inactions, and therefore are mostly a result of someone's mere presence. Returning to the stand-up routine -- if most of the routine is based on slamming cops, [i]and there are cops present in uniform['i], that might kill the mood for everyone as they sit there stone-faced. A white comic may be able to get away with black jokes -- but probably not if there are a significant number of black patrons.

Similarly, if the audience is sufficiently uncomfortable -- it could be something as simple as a broken air-conditioner and a woman wearing enough perfume to put everyone in a bad mood -- they won't laugh. The woman's presence (more accurately, her perfume's presence) is enough to cause the failure.

In the case of psi powers -- assuming they exist at all -- we have no idea what influences people or what kind of "mere presence" might be enough to shut them down. Maybe someone having a radioactive wrist watch will cause enough ionization to prevent transmission/reception. That's a probably-wrong but well-understood physical phenomenon. Maybe skeptics broadcast noise more loudly than non-skeptics broadcast thoughts, so you get the equivalent of radio jamming. We just don't know. That's one reason that Randi always makes a point of running an open test (to make sure there's no unknown vibes) and to get a statement from the applicant that conditions are acceptable. Rather than saying "nothing could cause an effect to interfere," he just asks the person in the best position to know whether there's interference.

[tojohndillonesq]

First, I have to apologize somewhat. I am not a woo, at least in the sense of believing in "psychic powers" or the "universal God mind." (See my other posting on a working definition of Wooism.)

And yet, it appears folks leaped to the conclusion that I actually believe in Telekenesis, which I do not, in the least..

What I am talking about here is the ability to develop a test protocol that is agreeable and convincing to the testee.

If I may remind you, the purpose of this site is not to prove psychic phenomena do not exist. As far as the scientific community is concerned, that job is Done with a capital D. The purpose is to educate those who remain unconvinced. The ONLY way you can do that is on their terms.

Except, of course, for the fact that it violates many laws of physics as they are currently understood.

So this is your assumption: that the laws of physics (as currently understood and agreed by the majority - but not all - of those who actually understand them) are valid.

I also assume this, but I am the devil's advocate here... something I see FAR too little of in this community of like minded folks sharing a communal vent.

In your "thought experiment", no it does not. However, your big assumption ("we are all part of one universal "God mind," so this power is subject to the "thought waves" of everyone who is aware of the activity") is so big as to remove your experiment from the realms of usefulness..

Wow. To paraphrase, I hope correctly: "The assumption is too big to allow usefull discussion." Yet the assumptions surrounding the laws of physics are equally broad. And history tells us that even those laws we do have get rewritten, not within the context of what is known, but by refuting what we once thought we knew (see Thomas S. Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolution," which is, or was, required reading for all BS majors at Harvard/Radcliffe.)

And the "God Mind" IS the assumption of many woo-woos. Or at least the type of assumption they make, if they were able to articulate it, which most can't. To say the assumption is wrong is like them saying you are wrong. "Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't." Empty words.

You have to prove it, and you must do so by their rules, not your own! (Because they don't believe in your rules and will call you a "cheater" as they do to Randi every day.)

Useful thought experiments proceed on the basis of known laws of physics and attempt to apply those to situations we cannot recreate: the "interior" of a black hole, the earliest moments of the universe, etc. ..

Hmmm... I am not sure that is right. I believe that the "majority opinion" in the scientific community is that the laws of physics as we know them completely break down in a gravitational singularity. To quote from Wikipedia:

" ...a singularity is in general a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined, or a point of an exceptional set where it fails to be well-behaved in some particular way."

I think "fails to be well-behaved" means that the laws we use to predict behavior don't work in a singularity; so we conduct thought experiments based on unknown but conjectured laws.

(Qualified physicists please comment!)

Also, you fail to define "useful." I think I could win the debate the my thought experiment has proven useful... if the goal was to provoke discussion and further inquiry, which is the goal of most thought experiments.

Your thought experiment is about as useful as assuming that J.K. Rowling's books are founded in reality and that there is a parallel world of wizards living alongside us, who we mere Muggles cannot perceive, and then going on to discuss the political implications of the interaction between the Prime Minister and the Minister for Magic.

HEY NOW! DON'T BE TALKIN' SMACK ABOUT HARRY POTTER! But seriously, I think if you were asked to defend that analogy before a jury of your peers, you would retract it. (JURY OF PEERS PLEASE SPEAK UP!)

I thought you had something good going until you moved from physics to the impact of interpersonal relationships on political policy. (At least I think that is where you went with it.) I haven't read your other posts, so I don't know if you meant to be funny (it was funny!) or demeaning (one can only demean oneself). Anyow don't give up! I'll bet we can make a useful analogy from Harry Potter to the JREF Million Dollar Challenge and it would not only be highly illuminating, but frickin' hilarious!

Be very very careful with quantum physics! I don't understand it, and I doubt you do either. One thing I do understand, though, is that it deals exclusively with very very small bits of matter, so small that we cannot perceive them unaided. To attempt to apply things like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to the world we can see, hear, smell, touch and taste is to make a very grave error..

I promise not to play with Quantum Physics without adult supervision. :p :p

Seriously, who is talking about the world you can see, hear, smell touch and taste?!!! The example was Telekenesis! The whole point is to design an experiment that will find evidence of things we CANNOT see, hear, touch, smell, taste... of it is there. Just like a High Energy Physicist at a particle accelerator; how the heck can I design an experiment that will convince a bunch of sceptics/peers that I have demonstrated the existence of a partical that lasts less than a millisecond and has previously only been conjectured? How can WE design an experiment that will disprove (MUCH harder) the presence of a force that has been conjectured? One of the classic tests of psychic powers (invented by Robert A. Heinlein) is to see if you can influence a geiger counter.

I concur that no one without a doctorate in Physics is likely to understand the finer points of quantum mechanics, AND I would contend that many of its broad implication are accessible to the educated amatuer. Like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which I'll bet you can explain well enough to get across the most significant points.

Depends on what you're testing, of course, but for certain types of test I don't see why this can't be done.

In my (admittedly fairly limited) experience, those who claim that the presence of doubters affects their results would in fact be more correct to say that the absence of the credulous has the greater effect..

As I mentioned, I've been studiously examining the Applicants Log, and I think you find them on both sides of that line. Some claim to need more believers, other claim "doubters" messed up the results. In fact, if you eliminate one argument you find the Applicants jumping to the other. Of course most babble inarticulately, so you have no idea what they are trying to say.

The number of people who believe in a phenomenon is not evidence of anything more than the number of people who believe in that phenomenon. The world was not flat before Columbus, the sun did not orbit the earth before Copernicus, and evolution will continue to be true, even in Kansas, no matter how much success the IDers might have.

Not sure what that has to do with this discussion. As mentioned way back in the beginning of this letter, we are not talking about "reality" here. We are talking about changing minds through education. The real risk of the woo-woos taking the majority is that opinions like ours will be suppressed, or at least ridiculed, as they were in the past (People who believed in heavier than air flight, people who believed the Earth orbited the Sun, people who believed we descended from Monkeys, etc.) And it still occurs in some countries... Egypt comes to mind.

So proving (or disproving) these phenomena on the basis of what you (I, we) accept as physical law does not signify. If yer gonna convince 'em, ya gotta do it on their terms.

As Randi has said, the ability to detect the presence of 'sceptics' (because they stop the magic from working) is testable and could earn you the million.

I wanted to address this in the same post, because I think it offers possibilities. In math, you prove by induction, deduction, disproving the negative, etc. "Sceptics detection" as a psychic power... I can see double blind possibilities. There is the problem of self-deception, but perhaps that can be statistically eliminated.

"The man who's forced against his will, retains his own opinion still"

"It is mighty hard to change someone's opinion by making fun of him"

Sincere thanks for your response!!! WE CAN DO BETTER!

Scott

[tojohndillonesq]

Not really a useful distinction. As you pointed out, many "actions" are arguably inactions, and therefore are mostly a result of someone's mere presence. Returning to the stand-up routine -- if most of the routine is based on slamming cops, [i]and there are cops present in uniform['i], that might kill the mood for everyone as they sit there stone-faced. A white comic may be able to get away with black jokes -- but probably not if there are a significant number of black patrons.

Similarly, if the audience is sufficiently uncomfortable -- it could be something as simple as a broken air-conditioner and a woman wearing enough perfume to put everyone in a bad mood -- they won't laugh. The woman's presence (more accurately, her perfume's presence) is enough to cause the failure.

In the case of psi powers -- assuming they exist at all -- we have no idea what influences people or what kind of "mere presence" might be enough to shut them down. Maybe someone having a radioactive wrist watch will cause enough ionization to prevent transmission/reception. That's a probably-wrong but well-understood physical phenomenon. Maybe skeptics broadcast noise more loudly than non-skeptics broadcast thoughts, so you get the equivalent of radio jamming. We just don't know. That's one reason that Randi always makes a point of running an open test (to make sure there's no unknown vibes) and to get a statement from the applicant that conditions are acceptable. Rather than saying "nothing could cause an effect to interfere," he just asks the person in the best position to know whether there's interference.

EGGSACKLY! The test has to suit the "laws of woo" to satisfy the woos, and the laws of physics to satisfy us. It HAS to do both or it is a null. Telling the woos the laws are stupid is an act of wooism. It fails to deal with issues that MIGHT be relevant... as unlikely as we may think that is.

Thanks Doc!

[William Smith]

Tojohndillonesq, what exact "power" or "ability" would you like to see a test protocol developed?

It also may help the discussion - and avoid empty words - if you only speak for yourself and not an assumed "woo-woo" persona.

[Jon.]

What I am talking about here is the ability to develop a test protocol that is agreeable and convincing to the testee.

In the first place, I'm not sure that the testee needs to be convinced, unless you're just talking about avoiding disputes. That, of course, is handled by having clear protocols, where the results are "black and white".

In the second place, probably the most effective method of this is the one the JREF generally uses: the unblinded powers test before the challenge. In other words, the dowser (for instance) tests his dowsing powers and ability to sense the test substance where he can see the substance and (most importantly) right before, and under the same conditions as, the blinded challenge test. He then proclaims that his powers are operational, there are no sunspots, EM radiation, or skeptics interfering, and he is able to take the challenge test. If the presence of skeptics interferes with the powers, he should be able to sense that interference before he even takes the test!

If I may remind you, the purpose of this site is not to prove psychic phenomena do not exist. As far as the scientific community is concerned, that job is Done with a capital D. The purpose is to educate those who remain unconvinced. The ONLY way you can do that is on their terms.

Except that "their terms" all too often include assumptions that are not proven or not provable, like the "universal God mind".

So this is your assumption: that the laws of physics (as currently understood and agreed by the majority - but not all - of those who actually understand them) are valid.

And until there is real evidence to the contrary, I am entitled to continue to operate on that assumption.

I also assume this, but I am the devil's advocate here... something I see FAR too little of in this community of like minded folks sharing a communal vent.

Criticism accepted. However, remember that playing the devil's advocate requires you to answer the hard questions as well, not just pose them.;)



Wow. To paraphrase, I hope correctly: "The assumption is too big to allow usefull discussion." Yet the assumptions surrounding the laws of physics are equally broad. And history tells us that even those laws we do have get rewritten, not within the context of what is known, but by refuting what we once thought we knew (see Thomas S. Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolution," which is, or was, required reading for all BS majors at Harvard/Radcliffe.)

Yes, the assumption is too big. As another poster has pointed out, you are essentially assuming that which you set out to prove. However, I think the JREF Challenge is capable of operating even with that kind of assumption. Two possible ways of doing so ("skeptic detection" and pre-test power checks) have already been discussed in this thread. Are you trying to reinvent the wheel?

And the "God Mind" IS the assumption of many woo-woos. Or at least the type of assumption they make, if they were able to articulate it, which most can't. To say the assumption is wrong is like them saying you are wrong. "Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't." Empty words.

No, we don't say they're wrong. We ask them to provide evidence. They don't, as a rule. They tend to say things like "if you don't believe in it, you'll never see it," which is where things get off the rails.

You have to prove it, and you must do so by their rules, not your own! (Because they don't believe in your rules and will call you a "cheater" as they do to Randi every day.)

We don't have to prove anything. They are making the claims. They have to prove their claims. If they don't want to, they don't have to, but they shouldn't expect any rational person to believe in something without evidence (or some other valid argument, like credo consolans).

Hmmm... I am not sure that is right. I believe that the "majority opinion" in the scientific community is that the laws of physics as we know them completely break down in a gravitational singularity. To quote from Wikipedia:

" ...a singularity is in general a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined, or a point of an exceptional set where it fails to be well-behaved in some particular way."

I think "fails to be well-behaved" means that the laws we use to predict behavior don't work in a singularity; so we conduct thought experiments based on unknown but conjectured laws.

Which is why I said "the earliest moments of the universe" rather than "the beginning of the universe."

(Qualified physicists please comment!)

Indeed.

HEY NOW! DON'T BE TALKIN' SMACK ABOUT HARRY POTTER! But seriously, I think if you were asked to defend that analogy before a jury of your peers, you would retract it. (JURY OF PEERS PLEASE SPEAK UP!)

I thought you had something good going until you moved from physics to the impact of interpersonal relationships on political policy. (At least I think that is where you went with it.) I haven't read your other posts, so I don't know if you meant to be funny (it was funny!) or demeaning (one can only demean oneself). Anyow don't give up! I'll bet we can make a useful analogy from Harry Potter to the JREF Million Dollar Challenge and it would not only be highly illuminating, but frickin' hilarious!

All I was saying was that the assumption was so big as to make the rest of the thought experiment useless. That's all. Perhaps I could have come up with a better analogy, but it was towards the end of a long day of work.

I promise not to play with Quantum Physics without adult supervision. :p :p

Seriously, who is talking about the world you can see, hear, smell touch and taste?!!! The example was Telekenesis! The whole point is to design an experiment that will find evidence of things we CANNOT see, hear, touch, smell, taste... of it is there. Just like a High Energy Physicist at a particle accelerator; how the heck can I design an experiment that will convince a bunch of sceptics/peers that I have demonstrated the existence of a partical that lasts less than a millisecond and has previously only been conjectured? How can WE design an experiment that will disprove (MUCH harder) the presence of a force that has been conjectured? One of the classic tests of psychic powers (invented by Robert A. Heinlein) is to see if you can influence a geiger counter.

You cannot prove that there is no teapot orbiting Pluto. You cannot prove that there is no six-legged elephant in South America. The onus is on those making a claim to prove their claim, not on skeptics to pre-emptively disprove it.

I concur that no one without a doctorate in Physics is likely to understand the finer points of quantum mechanics, AND I would contend that many of its broad implication are accessible to the educated amatuer. Like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which I'll bet you can explain well enough to get across the most significant points.

I'll bet I can, too. Still doesn't allow for the HUP to operate at anything above the subatomic level.

As I mentioned, I've been studiously examining the Applicants Log, and I think you find them on both sides of that line. Some claim to need more believers, other claim "doubters" messed up the results. In fact, if you eliminate one argument you find the Applicants jumping to the other. Of course most babble inarticulately, so you have no idea what they are trying to say.

As a rule, trying to convince the applicants, or even their most fervent supporters, is a task of Herculean proportions. The best we can hope is to convince some of the bystanders, some of the people who wander by to see what the Million Dollar Challenge is all about, that the applicants have been given a fair test and that they were unable to do what they claim to be able to do.

Not sure what that has to do with this discussion. As mentioned way back in the beginning of this letter, we are not talking about "reality" here. We are talking about changing minds through education. The real risk of the woo-woos taking the majority is that opinions like ours will be suppressed, or at least ridiculed, as they were in the past (People who believed in heavier than air flight, people who believed the Earth orbited the Sun, people who believed we descended from Monkeys, etc.) And it still occurs in some countries... Egypt comes to mind.

So proving (or disproving) these phenomena on the basis of what you (I, we) accept as physical law does not signify. If yer gonna convince 'em, ya gotta do it on their terms.

You prefaced your remark by saying that science refers to the "preponderance of evidence". I simply pointed out that opinions are not evidence. I agree that it is unfortunate that anti-scientific thought seems to be in the ascendancy right now.

Sincere thanks for your response!!! WE CAN DO BETTER!

If by "we can do better" you mean "we can engage woos on their own terms", I think that the Challenge already does that. Applicants have a say in setting the protocol, an opportunity to test their powers before the real challenge, and clear results. What more can we do?

[Jon.]

EGGSACKLY! The test has to suit the "laws of woo" to satisfy the woos, and the laws of physics to satisfy us. It HAS to do both or it is a null. Telling the woos the laws are stupid is an act of wooism. It fails to deal with issues that MIGHT be relevant... as unlikely as we may think that is.

Thanks Doc!

Randi has said something along the lines of "I won't ask a violin player to prove his ability by playing piano." The Challenge isolates a clear, provable claim, and tests it. Applicants are not asked about the "laws" of whatever they are proving and do not have to justify them. They are, however, entitled to take them into account in their attempts if they think that will help.

[kalen]

If the problem is having skeptics around spoiling the phenomenom with their bad vibrations (or whatever the problem seems to be), then get some woos to run the test. However, I'm sure a properly designed double blind test run by woos will still return a null result.

[Roboramma]

From what I'm reading the point of the OP seems to be this:
If we're going to try to test someone's supernatural abilities, we can't assume they follow the natural laws that we know about. That they don't is basically what it means for them to be supernatural.

So the best thing to do is ask them what laws they do follow. If they say, "well, my telekinetic power works through the universal god-mind", then you can ask them what the implications of that are when you're designing a test.

For the purpose of designing a test to see if their powers are real, we have to look at the implications of their powers being real, no matter how outlandish that may seem. Even if that means that there is a universal-god mind, or whatever.

I think Randi actually manages to do this quite well, by asking the applicant to say what he/she can or can't do, in what circumstances, and testing them in those circumstances.

As to the question of whether or not the act of doubting the person's ability limits their use of that ability, it should be addressed. But clearly it has limits - the fact that I doubt their ability now isn't stopping them from using it, wherever they are. Finding out what those limits are (or asking them, anyway), is an important step in designing a protocol that works for both parties, I guess.

[William Smith]

...
So the best thing to do is ask them what laws they do follow. If they say, "well, my telekinetic power works through the universal god-mind", then you can ask them what the implications of that are when you're designing a test.
...


If that in fact is your point, tojohndillonesq, I propose you immediately sign up for an unpaid internship at the JREF, exclusively reading and transcribing every incoming Challenge Application. And those from way back.

You will have mucho chances to learn about the "laws of the woos" and to find out what "their terms" means in real life.

[Pup]

That's one reason that Randi always makes a point of running an open test (to make sure there's no unknown vibes) and to get a statement from the applicant that conditions are acceptable.

Agreed. To go back to the comedy analogy, a stand-up comic can probably give some basic parameters for assembling a "good audience," but he or she will know after telling the first couple of jokes if this really is one.

[drkitten]

So the best thing to do is ask them what laws they do follow. If they say, "well, my telekinetic power works through the universal god-mind", then you can ask them what the implications of that are when you're designing a test.

Great steaming piles of onions, no!

First, the Randi Foundation has enough problems keeping the applicants focused on what they can do and preventing them from writing Unabomber-style manifestos about the "laws of woo."

Second, there's no reason to believe that any particular claimant actually has a handle on the correct laws of woo. (Remember phlogiston?)

The JREF has the right idea. Don't bother with the theory. Just design the d--n test. If the claimant says that he needs to have a Nirvana CD playing in the background in order to read minds, then bring a Nirvana CD. If he can really read minds, I will happily undertake the job afterwards of researching exactly what it is about Cobain's badly-written lyrics that instill telepathic powers instead of the desire to stuff rocks in one's ears.

[drkitten]

Agreed. To go back to the comedy analogy, a stand-up comic can probably give some basic parameters for assembling a "good audience," but he or she will know after telling the first couple of jokes if this really is one.


... and it's unreasonble to expect a comic to tell you in advance precisely what will and will not be a good audience.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Add to this belief the argument that the presence of scepticism prevents results," and your philosophy is difficult (impossible?) to assail. Anyone who fails to see the paranormal is at fault, because their presence prevents the event. Everyone who DOES witness such an event, is, by definition, a "believer."

Ah, "Blame the Victim"(TM) it's not just for breakfast anymore!

LLH

[Jackalgirl]

From what I'm reading the point of the OP seems to be this:
If we're going to try to test someone's supernatural abilities, we can't assume they follow the natural laws that we know about. That they don't is basically what it means for them to be supernatural.

and (if that is indeed an adequate "read" of the OP)

The test has to suit the "laws of woo" to satisfy the woos, and the laws of physics to satisfy us. It HAS to do both or it is a null.

We don't have to know the natural laws that a claimant's ability follows. If the claimant's ability does follow natural laws, then this will be perfectly evident by using a proper blinded test, which is one of the tools of science to determine natural laws. The test doesn't have to satisfy anyone BUT the people handing over the check, and THEIR requirement is that it be something that allows someone to demonstrate an ability in an environment that controls for trickery or non-paranormal causes. That's all.

I agree entirely the Quantum Physics here is a red herring. Yes, quantum physicists have to come up with all kinds of clever ways to make predictions and measurements around Mr. Heisenberg. However, your typical claimant is not claiming powers that operate on the quantum scale. Every single claim I have ever seen claims an actual effect on the functional world: "I can heal", "I can move things with my mind", "I can read thoughts". Never has someone said, "I can change top quarks into strange ones using my qi".

-- Kat

[fuelair]

We all know of the precedents in Quantum physics that the measurement always impacts the object being measured. Partical/Wave tests on light being a great example. In physics they have been forced to come up with quite elaborate methods of measuring, identifying, or proving the existence of hypothesized events or particles.

Now I gave myself the willies!

I suspect you mean assumptions or beliefs rather than precedents in line one. If I am wrong there, please explain. Thanks.

Are you talking about accelerators in ref. to particles? They are technically elaborate, but the basis of their function is not and the methods of identification are pretty simple. The existence of many hypothesized events is largely difficult to prove because these events are (thankfully) not occuring near Earth (nice big Black - or White - Hole per ex).

[tojohndillonesq]

Well Doc, I give up. 90% of the folks on this site don't even know what the Challenge is for.

The scientific community already knows that supernatural events don't occur. The point is to stop frauds (and their cousins, the naive believers) from continuing to perpetrate their deceptions on others or themselves. This is the JREF, emphasis on Education. Randi wants to teach folks, including an astonishingly large number or college educated folks, to the realization that they have been taken in.

I read the entire correspondance for perhaps 50 of the applicants. Once in a while you find the honest soul who realizes, through the course of his challenge, that he (or in one very notable case, she) is delusional and that his friends are aware of this. The emperor suddenly realizes he has no clothes, and it is mortifying. This is what the JREF is all about.

One last thing before I go; science is not a set of "facts." It is a method of demonstrating and arguing those facts. Conversely, woo is not a belief, it is a way of defending that belief. Anyone who calls someone else stupid is using a "woo" tactic. Anyone who uses any form of hostility, sarcasm, insults, character attacks, etc. to "win" an argument is being "woo." Anyone who claims their beliefs are indiputable and need no proof is radically woo. If you write the correct answer on a Physics test but don't show how you reached your conclusion (or do show a method that is wrong), you get the question wrong.

It is almost impossible to change someone mind by making fun of them.

[The Don]

Well Doc, I give up. 90% of the folks on this site don't even know what the Challenge is for.
Really ? Or are 90% just not in tune with your particular perspective
The scientific community already knows that supernatural events don't occur.
I hope that any member of the Scientific Community worth his/her salt would be entirely open-minded about supernatural events. I would hope that their opinion is that there is insufficient evidence to support the premise that supernatural events exist.
The point is to stop frauds (and their cousins, the naive believers) from continuing to perpetrate their deceptions on others or themselves. This is the JREF, emphasis on Education. Randi wants to teach folks, including an astonishingly large number or college educated folks, to the realization that they have been taken in.
Randi has always stated that he would be delighted to find genuine supernatural powers it's just that they seem somewhat elusive
I read the entire correspondance for perhaps 50 of the applicants. Once in a while you find the honest soul who realizes, through the course of his challenge, that he (or in one very notable case, she) is delusional and that his friends are aware of this. The emperor suddenly realizes he has no clothes, and it is mortifying. This is what the JREF is all about.
You make it sound that ridicule is the purpose of the JREF. I don't think this is the case. The applicants are repeatedly asked to carry out their own tests prior to making a claim so that they are spared ridicule.
One last thing before I go; science is not a set of "facts." It is a method of demonstrating and arguing those facts. Conversely, woo is not a belief, it is a way of defending that belief. Anyone who calls someone else stupid is using a "woo" tactic. Anyone who uses any form of hostility, sarcasm, insults, character attacks, etc. to "win" an argument is being "woo." Anyone who claims their beliefs are indiputable and need no proof is radically woo. If you write the correct answer on a Physics test but don't show how you reached your conclusion (or do show a method that is wrong), you get the question wrong.

It is almost impossible to change someone mind by making fun of them.

[JollyRoger]

As Randi has said, the ability to detect the presence of 'sceptics' (because they stop the magic from working) is testable and could earn you the million.


If all of this paranormal nonsense was/is real I seriously doubt that a few septics would prevent it from happening thats just a cop-out. If its real then thats it. If you can't measure it maybe science has not evolved enough to understand the reason why. Just cuz science has not found a way to measurer it does that mean its not real, or does it just mean it has not been recognized scientifically.

I look out on the land and it looks flat because I can't see beyond the horizon, so I tell everyone the world is flat and they believe me because they don't have evidence to the contrary. Some one sez "no its round" and I say wrong its flat just ask anyone...........
at one time it was thought (by science) that their is no way for life to exist at the bottom of the ocean.
If its real then science will eventually recognize it as real if its not .......... oh well its a nice dream

[Mongrel]

If you can't measure it maybe science has not evolved enough to understand the reason why. Just cuz science has not found a way to measurer it does that mean its not real, or does it just mean it has not been recognized scientifically.


But the first step is to show, under true scientific conditions, that a phenomenon exists and can be replicated. Once the scientists get it in the lab they can start on the hypotheses and tests so they can then move foward and measure\explain it.

[Ali]

What's all this hocus-pocus garbage about Woo-woos?
God's power is for real, and if He gives you power you'll be able to demonstrate no matter what.

[Kopji]

What's all this hocus-pocus garbage about Woo-woos?
God's power is for real, and if He gives you power you'll be able to demonstrate no matter what.

Amen to that.
Florida could use some mountains too. Man that's one flat boring place. Imagine how ridiculous we will all look when the faithful move a mountain to Fort Lauderdale.

[William Smith]

What's all this hocus-pocus garbage about Woo-woos?
God's power is for real, and if He gives you power you'll be able to demonstrate no matter what.

Great, Ali. Now: Please prove what you have repeatedly claimed here http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=30480 or here http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=30405

Please. For real. No matter what.

[Ali]

Great, Ali. Now: Please prove what you have repeatedly claimed here http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=30480 or here http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=30405

Please. For real. No matter what.
God's power is for real, and if He gives you power you'll be able to demonstrate no matter what.
I already know my supernatural powers:
you name it, and provide the settings in my town, and I'll demonstrate my supernatural power.
It'll be a walk in the park!!
Hahahahahahahaha.....

[steenkh]

God's power is for real, and if He gives you power you'll be able to demonstrate no matter what.
Many claim so, but apparently this god does not actually hand out power to anybody, and this makes the claim a bit difficult to confirm.

In fact, even the god's own powers can be disputed: there has not been any demonstration of the god's powers in the time science has been known to man. Possibly, the god exists, and has the powers, but might have gone to sleep.

[steenkh]

I already know my supernatural powers:
you name it, and provide the settings in my town, and I'll demonstrate my supernatural power.
It'll be a walk in the park!!
You already had your chance of recognition, but you chose to weasel out and ended up disqualifying yourself from the JREF challenge. Like most people here, I thyink this is what you would always do if reality catches up with you, and that you do this because you, too, has serious doubts about your powers!

[Ali]

In fact, even the god's own powers can be disputed: there has not been any demonstration of the god's powers in the time science has been known to man. Possibly, the god exists, and has the powers, but might have gone to sleep.
I'm not fooled by people claiming they don't know God, and it doesn't really cut ice with me.
I quote as I did some time last:
even though they knew God they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, instead their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
I wonder where you fit in!
Hahahahahahahahahaha........

[Ririon]

I'm not fooled by people claiming they don't know God, and it doesn't really cut ice with me.
I quote as I did some time last:
even though they knew God they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, instead their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
I wonder where you fit in!
Hahahahahahahahahaha........
Is that supposed to be funny, or are you just trying to appear like you are completely and utterly mad? The correct spelling for the evil laugh is contested, but I believe it is more like this:
MouhoohohohahahahahaHAHAHAHAAAAAH!!

[William Smith]

I already know my supernatural powers:
you name it, and provide the settings in my town, and I'll demonstrate my supernatural power.
It'll be a walk in the park!!
Hahahahahahahaha.....

You still obviously misunderstand the nature of the JREF Challenge, Ali.

You name it (This means a clear-worded claim, which you still have not provided since you continue to describe the effect and not your "ability" itself.)
You (provide a) propose (of) a setting.
You describe what means success or failure.
You negotiate the proposed protocol.

And, of course, you apply first.

Your demeanor, your continued rambling while dodging well-meaning and serious inquiries concerning your claim has damaged your credibility for good.

We know you know your alleged "supernatural power". However, you did not yet provide any sensible proof that it exists outside of your imagination.

I do not feel convinced you have a "supernatural power". I feel very convinced that you fool us - and yourself.

[William Smith]

I'm not fooled by people claiming they don't know God, and it doesn't really cut ice with me.
I quote as I did some time last:
even though they knew God they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, instead their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
I wonder where you fit in!
Hahahahahahahahahaha........

Irrelevant to your claim, Ali.

[Mojo]

I already know my supernatural powers:
you name it, and provide the settings in my town, and I'll demonstrate my supernatural power. What you need to do is to clearly define what your supernatural power is, and describe a test by which you intend to demonstrate that this power is real. It needs to be a test with an easily assessed result so that simple criteria for success or failure can be defined, and (obviously) the the test must be designed so that there is no possible explanation of a successful result other than via the use of a supernatural power.

As far as location and resources are concerned, there's no point in worrying about that until a test has been designed.

[Ali]

You name it (This means a clear-worded claim, which you still have not provided since you continue to describe the effect and not your "ability" itself.)
You (provide a) propose (of) a setting.
You describe what means success or failure.
You negotiate the proposed protocol.
GzuzKryzt, I'm not here to teach you basic mathematics and elementary logic.
This is not a school, where you could be spoon fed.
I'm sure there are good libraries where you live.

[Mojo]

GzuzKryzt, I'm not here to teach you basic mathematics and elementary logic.
This is not a school, where you could be spoon fed.
I'm sure there are good libraries where you live.Are these libraries likely to have a description of the power you claim to have and your proposals for a test of this power?

[Ali]

Are these libraries likely to have a description of the power you claim to have and your proposals for a test of this power?
The libraries should contain, I quote once more: basic mathematics and elementary logic.
You must have the ability to walk before you can run!!

[William Smith]

GzuzKryzt, I'm not here to teach you basic mathematics and elementary logic.

I did not ask you to teach me anything.

I did ask you simple questions regarding your claim, as well as I did point you to the necessities of a proof to your claim.

You continue to ignore questions; you dodge, evade, waste words.


This is not a school, where you could be spoon fed.
I'm sure there are good libraries where you live.

Irrelevant to the proof of your claim, Ali. Again. Your credibility is overdrawn.

[William Smith]

The libraries should contain, I quote once more: basic mathematics and elementary logic.
You must have the ability to walk before you can run!!

Irrelevant to the proof of your claim, Ali. Completely irrelevant.

[William Smith]

The libraries should contain, I quote once more: basic mathematics and elementary logic.
You must have the ability to walk before you can run!!

Of course I want the $1m prize, otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time.
However I don't think the prize is for real, so I'm not taking it seriously any more.

Voilà: Logique á la Ali. Bon appetit.

[Mojo]

The libraries should contain, I quote once more: basic mathematics and elementary logic.
You must have the ability to walk before you can run!!The questions you have been asked are not about basic mathematics or elementary logic. They are requests for information.

For some reason you appear to be unable or unwilling to provide information about the powers you claim to possess.

[drkitten]

The libraries should contain, I quote once more: basic mathematics and elementary logic.

So your claim is that "basic mathematics and elementary logic" is a paranormal power? If so, I think some of the students in my ten o'clock might agree -- but Randi probably will not.

On the other hand, if that's not what your claim is, then it's very unlikely that any library will contain specific information about what your specific claimed paranormal power is. Even if it did, we're unlikely to be able to find it quickly, given the numer of other specific claimed paranormal powers that are also documented in any large-sized research library.

The challenge rules are quite clear -- to be eligible for the challenge, you need to provide a clear statement of exactly what you plan to accomplish, with both success and failure criteria. The reason that they do so should be quite obvious to a logician of your accomplishments; precisely because there are so many paranormal claims out there, differing both in gross and in detail, Randi needs to know exactly what you're proposing in order to evaluate it and to understand your proposed testing procedure.

[nathan]

I already know my supernatural powers:
you name it, and provide the settings in my town, and I'll demonstrate my supernatural power.

Please make Earth's moon rotate at a rate significantly faster or slower than it currently rotates.

[drkitten]

Please make Earth's moon rotate at a rate significantly faster or slower than it currently rotates.

Heck, I'd be happy if he were (to claim to be) able to divine the identity of a playing card placed in a sealed envelope.

[Ali]

One possible test:

With me in open space (e.g. in a park), about 7meters from dog and its owner.
Order the dog to run and bite (preferably a police dog, so we know it will bite).

Test negative: dog succeeds to bite (in which case I'll withdraw my claim).
Test positive: dog fails to bite on numerous occasions. Move onto second stage: 2, then 3 then 4 dogs ordered to attack.

Please let me know if I've left anything unexplained.

[drkitten]

Please let me know if I've left anything unexplained.

How do you plan to prevent the dogs from biting you? If this is simply going to be a demonstration of your Mad Kung Fu Skillz, then there's nothing paranormal about it. If it's going to be a demonstration of your ability to wear a three-meter plexiglass hamster ball, again, there's nothing paranormal about it. If you're just going to stand there thinking about carrots, then there's a legitimate paranormal claim.....

[Ali]

Surely if the dogs can't bite, it can only mean I possess supernatural powers!!

[Geek Goddess]

One possible test:

With me in open space (e.g. in a park), about 7meters from dog and its owner.
Order the dog to run and bite (preferably a police dog, so we know it will bite).

Test negative: dog succeeds to bite (in which case I'll withdraw my claim).
Test positive: dog fails to bite on numerous occasions. Move onto second stage: 2, then 3 then 4 dogs ordered to attack.

Please let me know if I've left anything unexplained.

This is the most idiotic thing I've heard. Well, actually, NOT, but it's in the top 100. This guy might merely have a body odor repellant to animals (like fleas avoiding horses). I waded through all this, and no matter what additional questions you ask of Ali (like will it work for a pack of hungry lions, if he's sprayed with fresh blood), he will either not answer, answer a different question, et al.

Personally, I see a guy sitting somewhere in front of a computer, rubbing his hands and cackling in glee, that he's getting so much attention.

[drkitten]

Surely if the dogs can't bite, it can only mean I possess supernatural powers!!

Er, no. I can easily have someone fabricate me a two-and-a-half meter plexiglas "hamster ball," from the confines of which I can easily watch a dog try to bite me and fail. Alternatively, if I simply shoot every dog involved at the start of the test -- well, dead dogs are notoriously poor at biting.

And neither the ability to wear a hamster ball nor the ability to shoot accurately are paranormal.

[alfaniner]

The challenge will not accept any applications where the test might result in harm.

[William Smith]

One possible test:

With me in open space (e.g. in a park), about 7meters from dog and its owner.
Order the dog to run and bite (preferably a police dog, so we know it will bite).

Test negative: dog succeeds to bite (in which case I'll withdraw my claim).
Test positive: dog fails to bite on numerous occasions. Move onto second stage: 2, then 3 then 4 dogs ordered to attack.

Please let me know if I've left anything unexplained.

Ali, what will you do after the dog is ordered "to run and bite"? Will you wear a body odor repellant? Will you try to engage the dog? Will you wear a hamster ball? Or will you stand perfectly still and not execute any defensive action?

Would it count as a negative if the (small) dog bit your pant leg (and thus not hurt you significantly)?

For the sake of keeping track and transparence, I suggest we all mosey over to the thread dedicated to Ali and continue the discussion there.

[nathan]

Heck, I'd be happy if he were (to claim to be) able to divine the identity of a playing card placed in a sealed envelope.

I was just picking something that would be easily observable, regardless of where his home town was.

As he's declining to do this, after requesting someone suggest a paranormal feat for him to perform, I guess he has no paranormal powers :)

[William Smith]

...
For the sake of keeping track and transparence, I suggest we all mosey over to the thread dedicated to Ali and continue the discussion there.

Right here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=30480

[tojohndillonesq]

and (if that is indeed an adequate "read" of the OP)

I agree entirely the Quantum Physics here is a red herring. Yes, quantum physicists have to come up with all kinds of clever ways to make predictions and measurements around Mr. Heisenberg. However, your typical claimant is not claiming powers that operate on the quantum scale. Every single claim I have ever seen claims an actual effect on the functional world: "I can heal", "I can move things with my mind", "I can read thoughts". Never has someone said, "I can change top quarks into strange ones using my qi".

-- Kat

How big is a thought? Does it exist in space? Has one ever been measured? I am serious. I can't claim to be up on the latest in this field. Has anyone heard of any work in this area? Precisely locating the position and size of a thought in the brain? (I know we can lose memory when brain tissue is damaged or removed, but that is not the same as an active thought.) I would also like to know if thoughts are even "real" in the scientific sense. If they cannot be measured or detected in any way...?

[saizai]

tjd: current understanding is that a 'thought' is equivalent to a particular pattern of neural firings in the brain; it is an activity rather than a thing, thus speaking of its "size" or "position" is highly misleading at best.

Those firings can be measured; it's just that we can't measure 'em with enough resolution - or have enough data processing - to decode it into "what are you thinking", just "what brain regions are you using more to think with". Current resolution abilities are on the order of cubic centimeters. (With 100 billion massively interconnected neurons, you may understand that the amount of computing required to decode this is enormous.)

<-- majored in this actually :-)

[tojohndillonesq]

I suspect you mean assumptions or beliefs rather than precedents in line one. If I am wrong there, please explain. Thanks.

Are you talking about accelerators in ref. to particles? They are technically elaborate, but the basis of their function is not and the methods of identification are pretty simple. The existence of many hypothesized events is largely difficult to prove because these events are (thankfully) not occuring near Earth (nice big Black - or White - Hole per ex).

I meant all three of those things, though in the devils advocate position I would not have dared to state the two you added: "assumptions or beliefs." Thank you for bringing them into the light of day.

Physicist - and virtually all scientists - operate on precendent, assumption, and belief. They pursue evidence, and are willing to exchange their assumptions with enough proof, but even "enough proof" is a function of politics and sociology as it is facts. Just look at the theory of dark matter. Remarkably similar to woo-woo. It rests on precedent, assumption, and belief: the precedent of prior experiment, the assumption that the experiments were conducted properly, and the belief that the experimenter was more competent that the (always present) minority of scientists who disagree.

The defense that "hypothesized events are difficult to prove because they are not occuring near Earth" is also very close to a woo statement. This forum demands, rightfully, that the burden of proof lie on the claimaint. Typically, claimants disappear with the parting shot "someday you will see I am right." Isn't this what physicist do with theories that have been under examination for decades? "I can't prove it yet, but someday I will?"

Point NOT being that scientists are wrong. (The Hostiles on this site take umbrage whenever that is implied.) My point is back to where I started; that scientists share a process based on a set of beliefs, not on a set of "facts." Woos also share a set of beliefs. And like scientists, if you can communicate with them on their terms, they too can have their minds changed.

The real "red herring" here is the Million Dollars. It is strictly there to entice the woos out of hiding. By exposing themselves to testing, they lose credibility with themselves and their marks.

And no, the point is not riducule; watching someone with mental illness realize the depth of his problems is truly tragic. But still kinder and more respectful than leaving him in his delusional state.

Randi may want to see someone win with a genuine 24 carat "miracle" (who doesn't?!!!). But his real point is right in the title: The Jame Randi EDUCATION Foundation. He is the real deal; a guy who sees the damage created by superstitious beliefs, and who knows that he can make a difference by helping move society past it.

[tojohndillonesq]

The challenge will not accept any applications where the test might result in harm.

well JEEEZ! How is that any fun?

[William Smith]

well JEEEZ! How is that any fun?

You may of course set up the "Tojohndillonesq X Dollar Challenge" where you may get rid of any ethical boundaries.

Hey, you may even test Breatharians; Rico Kolodzey et al. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasmuheen http://www.alternativescience.com/randi-retreats.htm

Tell us how that went.

[nathan]

well JEEEZ! How is that any fun?
More fun than the legal (criminal & civil) and ethical difficulties of the alternative.