How to get people to accept the challenge?

[Rasmus]

As of late, I have taken to ask several woos to go and grab Randi's Million if they really believe that what they claim is true. Needless to say, I wasn't successful - and I really was just doing it to get my point across better.

Still, I was wondering what I could do or say to get people to at least look into it. Any ideas?

[rustytunes]

I have just convinced a "psychic" into doing the Australian Skeptics challenge. Although it is very early days and nothing has happened yet, but she has accepted. My angle was that she could be the one who sets the benchmark which will allow the "frauds" to be weeded out of the industry. I had to get her to agree that the industry is rife with frauds, and something needs to be done for the benefit of the "genuine" psychics, and their clients.

[Rasmus]

I have just convinced a "psychic" into doing the Australian Skeptics challenge. Although it is very early days and nothing has happened yet, but she has accepted. My angle was that she could be the one who sets the benchmark which will allow the "frauds" to be weeded out of the industry. I had to get her to agree that the industry is rife with frauds, and something needs to be done for the benefit of the "genuine" psychics, and their clients.

Nice!

The on-line argument I am engaged in right now (well, I still am, I am not so sure about my counterpart) is about the miraculous mechanisms of homoeopathy, though. I'm afraid they have never heard of "frauds" in that filed. (It's a slim chance at best, anyway - she's just a customer of a bunch of quacks and not a quack herself ...)

[Bruno Putzeys]

The closest I came to drawing someone across was with a salesman who saw auras. As usual he said he didn't want to use his gift for personal gain. (Surprising is, knowing the chap, he probably did not copy this line from others so he must've made it up on the spot. Would this rationalisation be hardwired?)

I explained that *not* doing the test would be the most selfish thing he could possibly do. We were visiting his native Rwanda and I pointed out that he would be spending the million on development projects here. Additionally he could once and for all blast those pesky skeptics out of the water and open up a complete new field of science that had hitherto been hidden.

Not sure if he applied yet, tho.

[rjh01]

These people fall under two categories
1. They know it does not work. So no way will they submit to any realistic test. Any excuse not to do the test will do.
2. Deluded people. A test will frighten these people. They cannot critically examine themselves so how can they let others do it? A few may submit.

[Kimpatsu]

As I wrote elsewhere in this forum, I try constantly to persuade soi-disant psychics to take the test. Apart from the usual "I don't jump through hoops on your command" (not even for $1 million?) and "I can't use my powers for personal gain" (so give the money to charity), the most common argument against taking the challenge is as follows:
It goes without saying that there is a large pool of genuine psychics in the world, any one of whom could win the money at any time. That no one has done so is proof enough that Randi is cheating. Ergo, why should I waste my time taking a test I know is rigged?
The notion that there is a large pool of genuine psychics who could win the challenge at any time, and amazement that no one has done so, was voiced by Angela Patel, the applicant from last year's failed test in London. In this belief, she is certainly not alone.

[Godmode]

I don't know where that "don't use psychic powers for personal gain" idea came from, since psychics always charge for their services, lol. I think it's an idea they themselves fostered to make them look good and honest as a group... same thing with the "He's a good christian" is supposed to mean "He's a good person" and it doesn't imply that at all in reality.

[Kimpatsu]

A corrollary to this idea that Randi must be rigging the challenge (see my post above) is that Randi refuses those applicants with paranormal claims most likely to succeed, such as Biblical text interpreters (e.g., Michael Drosnin) and aura readers (e.g., Donna Khouri).
Thus, the reasoning goes something like this:
It goes without saying that there is a large pool of genuine psychics in the world, any one of whom could easily win the $1 million at any time. That no one has ever done so is evidence enough that Randi must be cheating, as he has two levels of cheating: either he denies the application outright (pattern-seekers), or he somehow (by sleight of hand or using "psychic doping") prevents the claimant from succeeding on the day.
Get out of that one without moving your lips...

[Kimpatsu]

I don't know where that "don't use psychic powers for personal gain" idea came from, since psychics always charge for their services, lol. I think it's an idea they themselves fostered to make them look good and honest as a group... same thing with the "He's a good christian" is supposed to mean "He's a good person" and it doesn't imply that at all in reality.
From what I understand, Sylvia Browne and her ilk claim you're paying for their time; the "gift" comes free.
Which is how prostitutes advertise their services in my local paper...

[T'ai Chi]

As of late, I have taken to ask several woos to go and grab Randi's Million if they really believe that what they claim is true. Needless to say, I wasn't successful - and I really was just doing it to get my point across better.

Still, I was wondering what I could do or say to get people to at least look into it. Any ideas?

By "go and grab" you really mean "agree to a challenge, one which the challenge offerer 'always has an out'" ?

[RemieV]

I'm not sure if people realize they're actually frauds or not. Sometimes I really doubt it. People become so convinced that they are special somehow that it takes a lot to shake the notion.

As to how to convince someone... I would say a good approach would be to say how sure you are they'll be the ones to win. Add that this will be a smack in the face for the scientific community, and they can use the opportunity to spread their good works. In other words, appeal to their vanity.

[Temporal Renegade]

From what I understand, Sylvia Browne and her ilk claim you're paying for their time; the "gift" comes free.
Which is how prostitutes advertise their services in my local paper...

Either way, you're still getting [rule 8]ed....

My favourite, is still the "I don't NEED $1,000,000!" approach; unless you're Donald Trump, I can't think of too many 'regular people' who wouldn't take a million, if they could.

Plus, there's still the prestige of being able to say, "I beat Randi!" at every turn.

Oh, wait, I forgot...the Challenge is rigged! Man, how dare Randi do that! Create a challenge that requires you to have real paranormal skills...

[T'ai Chi]

I guess people have the right to go the standard route of science if they choose: Peer review, journals, panels of scientists, that sort of thing, than to be reviewed by a magician and associates, known to be hostile to their claims, in a challenge that 'always has an out', for entertainment.

[Donks]

I guess people have the right to go the standard route of science if they choose: Peer review, journals, panels of scientists, that sort of thing, than to be reviewed by a magician and associates, known to be hostile to their claims, in a challenge that 'always has an out', for entertainment.
So, how would this "out" be used? Is having a protocol both parties agree to an "out"? How about having agreed ahead of time what constitutes success? Or perhaps the out is that applicants can't do what they claim?

[Beady]

Still, I was wondering what I could do or say to get people to at least look into it. Any ideas?

My own idea, which I mentioned to Jeff a couple of months ago, is to form a small group of both skeptics and believers, for the sole purpose of helping people design protocols for the Challenge, and to assist in the actual testing. A central feature is that those members of the group who participate in a successful challenge will share in the prize.

The idea is that the skeptics and believers will "keep each other honest," and even the skeptics would have a motive to actively assist the applicant/claimant.

[T'ai Chi]

So, how would this "out" be used? Is having a protocol both parties agree to an "out"? How about having agreed ahead of time what constitutes success? Or perhaps the out is that applicants can't do what they claim?

Always have an out seems itself to be an out.

[I'll_buy_that]

The, "I can't do it for personal gain" thing comes from the usually challenge of "If your so psychic, then why don't you predict tomorrow's lottery numbers..." it is a convenient out because they know they can't do it.

Usually the self deluded individuals will convince themselves that this is true, because everytime they try, it doesn't work. But the crap they tell in others' fortunes is true.

give them the, "Just tell me what the numbers are. I will play the lottery and not give you any of the money...." doesn't work either :)

[Paul2]

I guess people have the right to go the standard route of science if they choose: Peer review, journals, panels of scientists, that sort of thing, than to be reviewed by a magician and associates, known to be hostile to their claims, in a challenge that 'always has an out', for entertainment.You're misinterpreting empirical rigor for hostility and an "out," and you're misinterpreting $1,000,000 for entertainment.

[nathan]

By "go and grab" you really mean "agree to a challenge, one which the challenge offerer 'always has an out'" ?
Can you provide evidence of this 'out' to which you refer?

[T'ai Chi]

You're misinterpreting empirical rigor for hostility and an "out," and you're misinterpreting $1,000,000 for entertainment.

The Challenge is entertainment though.

[T'ai Chi]

Can you provide evidence of this 'out' to which you refer?

Use the internet.

[CFLarsen]

Always have an out seems itself to be an out.

Yes: The "out" is that Randi believes he is right. All people have to do is show that they are right.

Do you think the Challenge is in any way unfair to claimants?

Use the internet.

Oh, please. Would you accept that kind of snooty response from other people?

[nathan]

Use the internet.
I *did* use the internet. I communicated with the *you* via the message board that *you* posted your claim to. If you think I should communicate with you via some other internet protocol, please provide details. I'm using the internet right now.

[T'ai Chi]

Did you do a search?

[nathan]

Did you do a search?
Yes, I did a highly focussed search by asking *you*, the author of the statement concerning an 'out', what the evidence of this 'out' was. It seems you're unable to provide such evidence.

[William Smith]

Yes, I did a highly focussed search by asking *you*, the author of the statement concerning an 'out', what the evidence of this 'out' was. It seems you're unable to provide such evidence.

Nathan, I suppose Mr. Chi participates in this thread because he thrives on friction caused by his actions. By my experience, he pops up in the Challenge Forum when he feels like it and does his Chi-T'hing.
That doesn't disqualify him from contributing productively. It just does not seem to happen very often.

[drkitten]

I guess people have the right to go the standard route of science if they choose: Peer review, journals, panels of scientists, that sort of thing,

Of course.

On the other hand, their success in that area is not measurably better than it is in Randi's challenge, and the immediate rewards are substantially less.

[CFLarsen]

I guess people have the right to go the standard route of science if they choose: Peer review, journals, panels of scientists, that sort of thing, than to be reviewed by a magician and associates, known to be hostile to their claims, in a challenge that 'always has an out', for entertainment.

Sure they have.

Only, we don't see that, either.

[Ririon]

By "go and grab" you really mean "agree to a challenge, one which the challenge offerer 'always has an out'" ?
It should be noted that the last four words here are in single quotes, indicating that they are not T'ai Chi's own words, per se. So if pushed into a corner about this, he actually has an... out... :rolleyes:

[T'ai Chi]

It should be noted that the last four words here are in single quotes, indicating that they are not T'ai Chi's own words, per se. So if pushed into a corner about this, he actually has an... out... :rolleyes:

Yup.

[T'ai Chi]

"he pops up in the Challenge Forum when he feels like it"

And...? Doesn't everybody do that?

[Ladewig]

I guess people have the right to go the standard route of science if they choose: Peer review, journals, panels of scientists, that sort of thing, than to be reviewed by a magician and associates, known to be hostile to their claims, in a challenge that 'always has an out', for entertainment.

Sure they have.

Only, we don't see that, either.


Larsen beat me to it. So, T'ai Chi, where will we find the scientific journals that have published Sylvia Brown's peer-reviewed performances? How about James Van Praag's?

[T'ai Chi]

Yes, I did a highly focussed search by asking *you*, the author of the statement concerning an 'out', what the evidence of this 'out' was. It seems you're unable to provide such evidence.

*Did* *you* *use* *Google*?

[drkitten]

*Did* *you* *use* *Google*?

There's no reason for him to needlessly re-invent wheels. If you've got evidence of underhanded or unfair dealings on Randi's part, present it.

I suspect that you have no evidence and are hoping to send your critics on a wild goose chase in search of stuff that you don't yourself have. But of course, it would be easy enough to prove me wrong by just showing your cards.

[nathan]

*Did* *you* *use* *Google*?
Ah, you want me to go find your evidence for you.

This search
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22always+has+an+out%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
produces 71 hits. Now, I'm going to take a wild guess here, and presume that the very first one is your evidence (given you've just told me to go use google to search for this 'always has an out' evidence).

You are mistaken -- that web page has nothing to do with the JREF challenge. If you have better evidence, please provide it.

[Yahzi]

When asked for evidence, your response is...

Use the internet.

Are you sure you aren't Claus Larsen's sock-puppet?

We're not going to Google for your idiot evidence. If you can't understand the evidence well enough to present it yourself, or don't care enough about it to summarize and provide a link, then the evidence must not be very good. If it can't motivate you to talk about it, it doesn't seem likely it will motivate us.

I think one of the few things that can get you banned on this board is repeatedly claiming the challenge is a fraud without supplying evidence. So please, continue: you won't be missed.

[nathan]

Yup.
Are you now disagreeing with your original rewording of "go and grab", which I quote in full for you here?
By "go and grab" you really mean "agree to a challenge, one which the challenge offerer 'always has an out'" ?

[Ririon]

Yup.
So, I can only assume that you choose to refer to the common out-of-context quote "I always have an out" by Randi, which is of course completely irrelevant to actually having an out in this context. A regular T'ai Chi-ism if I ever saw one.

[William Smith]

"he pops up in the Challenge Forum when he feels like it"

And...? Doesn't everybody do that?

No.

[T'ai Chi]

No.

People don't browse forums when they feel like it?

That's news.

[T'ai Chi]

So, I can only assume that you choose to refer to the common out-of-context quote "I always have an out" by Randi, which is of course completely irrelevant to actually having an out in this context. A regular T'ai Chi-ism if I ever saw one.

Your opinion that it is out of context is irrelevant.

Since the quote refers to the challenge it is obviously relelvant in a forum titled 'Million Dollar Challenge'.

[thaiboxerken]

If one-million dollars doesn't motivate them to it, there isn't any motivating them to do it.

[T'ai Chi]

Are you now disagreeing with your original rewording of "go and grab", which I quote in full for you here?

Why do you believe that is necessary to ask such a silly question?

[T'ai Chi]

Ah, you want me to go find your evidence for you.


I want you to find evidence for you.

[thaiboxerken]

Basically, Tai Chi is talking out of his arse.. again.

[T'ai Chi]

Apparently. ;)

[Ririon]

Your opinion that it is out of context is irrelevant.

Since the quote refers to the challenge it is obviously relelvant in a forum titled 'Million Dollar Challenge'.
Ohhh... ZING! :rolleyes: That comeback is so rock solid that i could only beat it by making fun of your spelling mistake... I know people like you IRL. You are not that special, you know. That is why I am not going into the short and simple reason why it is out of context before you make an actual non-trivial statement. You hardly ever make one. At least I have not seen you make one since April 1. :p

Edited for my own spelling mistakes...

[William Smith]

People don't browse forums when they feel like it?

That's news.

You learned something. Bravo.

[T'ai Chi]

You learned something. Bravo.

I learned that your claim made no sense to anyone.

[T'ai Chi]

Ohhh... ZING! :rolleyes: That comeback is so rock solid that i could only beat it by making fun of your spelling mistake... I know people like you IRL. You are not that special, you know. That is why I am not going into the short and simple reason why it is out of context before you make an actual non-trivial statement. You hardly ever make one. At least I have not seen you make one since April 1. :p


Must have really hit home..

[Ririon]

Must have really hit home..
:rolleyes: <sigh>

[T'ai Chi]

Someone doesn't fully understand what the "always" in "always have an out" means.

[thaiboxerken]

I like how Tai Chi likes to speak for everyone, especially when many of us disagree with him.

[T'ai Chi]

If you believe so, it might become so one day.

[thaiboxerken]

I learned that your claim made no sense to anyone.


Right here, T'ai Chi, you are trying to speak for everyone.

[steenkh]

I think one of the few things that can get you banned on this board is repeatedly claiming the challenge is a fraud without supplying evidence.
Can you actually present evidence for this rule?

I certainly do not hope that people can be banned (as opposed to ridiculed) for not presenting evidence!

[steenkh]

Since the quote refers to the challenge it is obviously relelvant in a forum titled 'Million Dollar Challenge'.
The legal system would help any claimant with real abilities to get hold of the JREF million if Ranid tried tried to implement an "out". Countless lawyers would do anything get, say, 100.000$, and actually there are enough money in the JREF so that they could secure the million for the claimant and get their own million if the JREF tried to cheat. And if Randi tried to use an out after somebody had demonstrated a paranormal ability, the public relationship disaster would wreck the JREF in any case!

And yet, nobody steps forward to do this, except people who fail to demonstrate what they agreed that they could do. Any explanations?

[William Smith]

I learned that your claim made no sense to anyone.

Well, it seems like you did not learn that much because you can only speak for yourself.



I apologize to you, Rasmus, for my part in the derailing of this thread. I almost got sucked in Mr. Chi's e-vortex.

[rats]

I mentioned the challenge to a Vortex Healer (http://www.vortexhealing.com/). The Healer initially agreed the Challenge would be useful for:

himself, as he’d be able to set up his own practice in financial comfort,
the Vortex Healing group, with the extra advertising winning implies,
the scientific community, the ‘Vortex effect’ being a previously unknown force, and
humanity, by increasing the number of people ‘helped’ by Vortex Healing.

However after some discussion about test protocols, the Healer suddenly decided there was no way he could win the $million, because Vortex healing uses ‘intelligent’ energy that would only allow itself to be used for the good of mankind!

After further questioning, I came to realise this Healer was so entrenched in his delusions there was no way he was going to let anything challenge his protection from reality, which I find quite depressing.

Good luck Rasmus. I hope you're more successful than I was.

[nathan]

I want you to find evidence for you.
Your actions contradict this. If you wanted me to find some evidence you would have pointed me directly at it, instead you ask me to search the entire internet for it.

[nathan]

Why do you believe that is necessary to ask such a silly question?
Because, going on your previous posting history, and your attempts here to avoid actually backing up your claim, I thought it wise to check whether you'd changed your mind.

As you're not answering the question, I conclude you don't know your own mind.

[T'ai Chi]

As you're not answering the question, I conclude you don't know your own mind.

That made no sense.

I think your question is not worth answering, so I choose not to give it my time and attention.

[T'ai Chi]

, instead you ask me to search the entire internet for it.

If that is too much to ask, that is your issue, not mine.

[T'ai Chi]

Well, it seems like you did not learn that much because you can only speak for yourself.


People post in forums because they decide to.

That is a fact that applies to anyone, and forever will, regardless of if I can only speak for myself as you opine. Logic 101.

[T'ai Chi]

The legal system would help any claimant with real abilities to get hold of the JREF million if Ranid tried tried to implement an "out". Countless lawyers would do anything get, say, 100.000$, and actually there are enough money in the JREF so that they could secure the million for the claimant and get their own million if the JREF tried to cheat. And if Randi tried to use an out after somebody had demonstrated a paranormal ability, the public relationship disaster would wreck the JREF in any case!

And yet, nobody steps forward to do this, except people who fail to demonstrate what they agreed that they could do. Any explanations?

I'm not sure I agree with what you wrote, so why would I need to explain anything?

All I know is that "always" in "always have an out" means "always", regardless of why there is always an out.

[William Smith]

People post in forums because they decide to.

That is a fact that applies to anyone, and forever will, regardless of if I can only speak for myself as you opine. Logic 101.

Twisting reality, spinning, warping: T'ai Chi 101.

[nathan]

That made no sense.

I think your question is not worth answering, so I choose not to give it my time and attention.
You certainly seem to spend a lot of time not answering it.

[nathan]

By "go and grab" you really mean "agree to a challenge, one which the challenge offerer 'always has an out'" ?
This is untrue.

[zooloo]

T'ai Chi, Randi's "out" is that he is right and the others are fools or knaves.

How do you intend to dispute this "out" - that the claiments cannot do as they claim - as being somehow unfair.

It would be most interesting.

zoo

[Ladewig]

I mentioned the challenge to a Vortex Healer (http://www.vortexhealing.com/). The Healer initially agreed the Challenge would be useful for:

himself, as he’d be able to set up his own practice in financial comfort,
the Vortex Healing group, with the extra advertising winning implies,
the scientific community, the ‘Vortex effect’ being a previously unknown force, and
humanity, by increasing the number of people ‘helped’ by Vortex Healing.

However after some discussion about test protocols, the Healer suddenly decided there was no way he could win the $million, because Vortex healing uses ‘intelligent’ energy that would only allow itself to be used for the good of mankind!

After further questioning, I came to realise this Healer was so entrenched in his delusions there was no way he was going to let anything challenge his protection from reality, which I find quite depressing.

Good luck Rasmus. I hope you're more successful than I was.

Too bad, because designing a challenge for these folks would be amazingly simple: their website claims that "The power of VortexHealing is easily demonstrated by treating a musical instrument with VortexHealing for just one minute: the sound of the instrument changes remarkably, so it is much richer, more harmonious and full of heart."

As for their specific argument, it seems to me that it boils down to "winning the prize would help mankind, but we can't apply because the power can be used only to help mankind."

[illuminatedwax]

I mentioned the challenge to a Vortex Healer (http://www.vortexhealing.com/). The Healer initially agreed the Challenge would be useful for:

himself, as he’d be able to set up his own practice in financial comfort,
the Vortex Healing group, with the extra advertising winning implies,
the scientific community, the ‘Vortex effect’ being a previously unknown force, and
humanity, by increasing the number of people ‘helped’ by Vortex Healing.

However after some discussion about test protocols, the Healer suddenly decided there was no way he could win the $million, because Vortex healing uses ‘intelligent’ energy that would only allow itself to be used for the good of mankind!

After further questioning, I came to realise this Healer was so entrenched in his delusions there was no way he was going to let anything challenge his protection from reality, which I find quite depressing.

Good luck Rasmus. I hope you're more successful than I was.
You're not going to get anyone to accept the challenge whose reputation would be soiled by simply participating because they are frauds.

I'm sure it's been discussed before, but I wonder if it would behoove the JREF to set up the Zero-Dollar Challenge: instead of a million dollars, Mr. Randi's would simply proclaim that he has demonstrated someone displaying psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions. Has Mr. Randi already refused such a contest? You could have a separate application and everything. The only thing that would change would be the parts about money - everything else stays the same.

[Paul2]

I'm sure it's been discussed before, but I wonder if it would behoove the JREF to set up the Zero-Dollar Challenge: instead of a million dollars, Mr. Randi's would simply proclaim that he has demonstrated someone displaying psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions. Has Mr. Randi already refused such a contest? You could have a separate application and everything. The only thing that would change would be the parts about money - everything else stays the same.Brilliant, then the *applicant* would have the choice of getting $1,000,000 or $0 for their challenge test. No outs possible on the basis of filthy lucre.

[William Smith]

You're not going to get anyone to accept the challenge whose reputation would be soiled by simply participating because they are frauds.

I'm sure it's been discussed before, but I wonder if it would behoove the JREF to set up the Zero-Dollar Challenge: instead of a million dollars, Mr. Randi's would simply proclaim that he has demonstrated someone displaying psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions. Has Mr. Randi already refused such a contest? You could have a separate application and everything. The only thing that would change would be the parts about money - everything else stays the same.

You know, that does sound intriguing. It would certainly produce a new breed of alibis, subterfuges and excuses.

Also, the name has beaucoup pizazz: Zero-Dollar Challenge.



Rasmus, since I desperately want to contribute something helpful to this thread: I suggest you draw the wanna-be-psychic's attention to the fact that Mr. Randi would violate existing US law by not paying up a successful applicant.
One successful lawsuit later, the claimant gets his money, the lawyer can finally afford the good coke and the JREF has self-destructed for good.

Possibly helpful link: http://www.skepticreport.com/tools/topjref.htm

[rats]

Too bad, because designing a challenge for these folks would be amazingly simple: their website claims that "The power of VortexHealing is easily demonstrated by treating a musical instrument with VortexHealing for just one minute: the sound of the instrument changes remarkably, so it is much richer, more harmonious and full of heart."

As for their specific argument, it seems to me that it boils down to "winning the prize would help mankind, but we can't apply because the power can be used only to help mankind."
Precisely! :rolleyes:

I’m not sure a “Zero Dollar Challenge” would garner sufficient interest in today’s pop culture. Besides, I still can’t understand why the option of winning $million for your charity of choice is so terrible!

[T'ai Chi]

Twisting reality, spinning, warping: T'ai Chi 101.

Not at all. You simply haven't refuted anything I've said.

[T'ai Chi]

You certainly seem to spend a lot of time not answering it.

I agree. I am spending time telling you I think your original question is not worth answering.

Where are you getting lost?

[T'ai Chi]

This is untrue.

Your belief is mistaken.

We know the challenge always has an out because Randi is right.

[illuminatedwax]

Precisely! :rolleyes:

I’m not sure a “Zero Dollar Challenge” would garner sufficient interest in today’s pop culture. Besides, I still can’t understand why the option of winning $million for your charity of choice is so terrible!
We wouldn't change the Million-Dollar Challenge, it would just be a sort of 'backup.' The only problem is that it adds complexity that Mr. Randi has to deal with. That and complexity adds to confusion, and people might be confused enough as it is without adding more.

Also, you've seen movies where absolute money corrupts absolutely - once that million dollars gets out, don't you see the horrible amounts of strife it will cause??? People will be doing horrible things just to get the cash donated to THEIR charity!

[Silly Green Monkey]

By 'out' do you mean the challenger can fail?

[vIQleS]

So, how would this "out" be used? Is having a protocol both parties agree to an "out"?

Actually, it is - or it could be. In fact everytime i see an applicant or testee mention that rule i'm surprised they don't make more of it.

IF Randi came across an applicant that he thought could pass the test with flying colors and IF he wanted to keep the money, he could simply refuse every protocol that came back from the applicant, in fact he'd be doing exactly what most appliacnts do to avoid the test - constantly changing the terms of the protocol and refusing to come to an agreement.

IF.

[steenkh]

I'm not sure I agree with what you wrote, so why would I need to explain anything?
Because your position does not make sense.

All I know is that "always" in "always have an out" means "always", regardless of why there is always an out.
So, if mr. Randi says that he always has an out, then that means that the legal system has to conform? And the media will not print anything about the issue, because that would deprive him of his "out"?

[steenkh]

IF Randi came across an applicant that he thought could pass the test with flying colors and IF he wanted to keep the money, he could simply refuse every protocol that came back from the applicant, in fact he'd be doing exactly what most appliacnts do to avoid the test - constantly changing the terms of the protocol and refusing to come to an agreement.

Quite true. But that would only be possible if he knows in advance that the applicant would pass the test. How should he get this knowledge? By accepting that some acts that break the laws of physics are possible?

[nathan]

Your belief is mistaken.

We know the challenge always has an out because Randi is right.

Now, once again you change your mind and take your own quote out of context. Why is it that it takes you so many posts to decide that this is what you originally meant?

[nathan]

I agree. I am spending time telling you I think your original question is not worth answering.

Where are you getting lost?

What is so hard about saying either 'no, I've not changed my mind', or 'yes, I have changed my mind'?

The trouble with your use of words is that you retroactively change what you mean. Therefore I have to ask whether you're doing this again.

[CFLarsen]

Your belief is mistaken.

We know the challenge always has an out because Randi is right.

No, you are demonstrably wrong, T'ai. You are, once again, up to your old tricks of misrepresenting what skeptics say. It seems almost pathological.

Not because Randi is right, but because he says he knows he is right. And he is putting not just one million dollars behind it, but also science.

[Rasmus]

Actually, it is - or it could be. In fact everytime i see an applicant or testee mention that rule i'm surprised they don't make more of it.

IF Randi came across an applicant that he thought could pass the test with flying colors and IF he wanted to keep the money, he could simply refuse every protocol that came back from the applicant, in fact he'd be doing exactly what most appliacnts do to avoid the test - constantly changing the terms of the protocol and refusing to come to an agreement.

IF.

The following lawsuit would be a lot more complicated than if Randi just refused to pay out, I suppose.

Of course, an applicant can easily prevent this from happening: They just have to ensure that they appear like the average self-deluded fraud when entering the challenge. :D They need to look just difficult enough that most people won't even think they understood the terms of the protocol that they entered into...

[drkitten]

IF Randi came across an applicant that he thought could pass the test with flying colors and IF he wanted to keep the money, he could simply refuse every protocol that came back from the applicant, in fact he'd be doing exactly what most appliacnts do to avoid the test - constantly changing the terms of the protocol and refusing to come to an agreement.


The resulting lawsuit alleging bad faith on Randi's part would be interesting, to say the least....

[T'ai Chi]

Always means always.

[Rasmus]

Always means always.

And cream pie means cream pie. Now what?

[ObscureReferenceMan]

OK. I may be fairly dense, but I don't know what Tai Chi is talking about when he says "always has an out". Tai Chi - could you please tell me what you mean? Thanks.

[Kimpatsu]

OK. I may be fairly dense, but I don't know what Tai Chi is talking about when he says "always has an out". Tai Chi - could you please tell me what you mean? Thanks.
I thin khe means that Randi will always find some way to deny payment in the challenge, no matter how compelling the evidence.

[thaiboxerken]

Tai Chi is simply deluded and thinks that Randi and the JREF is all about suppressing the "evidence" that the paranormal exists.

[Ririon]

I thin khe means that Randi will always find some way to deny payment in the challenge, no matter how compelling the evidence.
Nobody will ever know what T'ai Chi MEANS about anything. This is certainly what he IMPLIES, but he can always weasel his way out of his vague statements. This time, probably by referring to the out-of-context Randi quote "I always have an out (...)". I say "probably" because he will not confirm or deny anything without a big gun pointed at his head.

This quote enables T'ai Chi to imply that the challenge has an "out" which of course means something completely different in this context.

For those who are not familiar with his posting history, this kind of semi-trolling make up a large portion of his posts. He seems to enjoy the bickering about details and definitions that ensue. Feel free to indulge if you want to, just don't expect to get anywhere with anything very soon. :)

[Kimpatsu]

Tai Chi is simply deluded and thinks that Randi and the JREF is all about suppressing the "evidence" that the paranormal exists.
Mosey on over to the John Lennon thread and join i nthe fun there, with a loon who keeps arguing that both Xianity and atheism are equally faith positions.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=60713

[William Smith]

Nobody will ever know what T'ai Chi MEANS about anything. This is certainly what he IMPLIES, but he can always weasel his way out of his vague statements. This time, probably by referring to the out-of-context Randi quote "I always have an out (...)". I say "probably" because he will not confirm or deny anything without a big gun pointed at his head.

This quote enables T'ai Chi to imply that the challenge has an "out" which of course means something completely different in this context.

For those who are not familiar with his posting history, this kind of semi-trolling make up a large portion of his posts. He seems to enjoy the bickering about details and definitions that ensue. Feel free to indulge if you want to, just don't expect to get anywhere with anything very soon. :)

:D

[ObscureReferenceMan]

Actually, I just found the answer, on (of all places) Wikipedia. I was there looking at the pitch drop experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_drop_experiment) and eventually came across the James Randi page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi). In it, they mention his quote, "I always have an out. I'm right!" Sorry.

[Kimpatsu]

Actually, I just found the answer, on (of all places) Wikipedia. I was there looking at the pitch drop experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_drop_experiment) and eventually came across the James Randi page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi). In it, they mention his quote, "I always have an out. I'm right!" Sorry.
I don't understand your problem. Randi has never denied saying that, in the same way he's never denied callinging himself a liar, cheat, and fraud. He's just being tongue-in-cheek.
Context is everything.

[ObscureReferenceMan]

Kimpatsu - I had never heard this quote attributed to Randi. So when I saw it mentioned on this thread, I had to ask. But Tai Chi got all snippy. Live and learn, though...

[UndercoverElephant]

As of late, I have taken to ask several woos to go and grab Randi's Million if they really believe that what they claim is true. Needless to say, I wasn't successful - and I really was just doing it to get my point across better.

Still, I was wondering what I could do or say to get people to at least look into it. Any ideas?

There is nothing you can say. Only levelling the playing field would attract serious takers. ;)

As it stands, only a stupid person would accept the challenge. Anyone with any genuine knowledge of paranormalism/parapsychology would give it a very wide berth.

[deliberately provocative post cos I'm bored....]

[CFLarsen]

There is nothing you can say. Only levelling the playing field would attract serious takers. ;)

As it stands, only a stupid person would accept the challenge. Anyone with any genuine knowledge of paranormalism/parapsychology would give it a very wide berth.

[deliberately provocative post cos I'm bored....]
I'll try to get you interested again.

How would you test for a paranormal phenomenon? E.g., Sylvia Browne, talking to dead people?

[UndercoverElephant]

I'll try to get you interested again.

How would you test for a paranormal phenomenon? E.g., Sylvia Browne, talking to dead people?

You cannot test for this. It's a priori impossible under a framework of materialistic science (and most other frameworks as well). I can think of no conceivable test she could pass. It is impossible to talk to dead people. Dead people do not have brains and people without brains cannot talk. Period.

[CFLarsen]

You cannot test for this. It's a priori impossible under a framework of materialistic science (and most other frameworks as well). I can think of no conceivable test she could pass. It is impossible to talk to dead people. Dead people do not have brains and people without brains cannot talk. Period.

OK, then: Can you think of any paranormal phenomenon that we can test?

[T'ai Chi]

OK. I may be fairly dense, but I don't know what Tai Chi is talking about when he says "always has an out". Tai Chi - could you please tell me what you mean? Thanks.

How can you try to convince others to accept a challenge if the challenge creator said there is "always" an out? It doesn't seem to be offered in good faith if that is the case.

[UndercoverElephant]

OK, then: Can you think of any paranormal phenomenon that we can test?

Not under the JREF's current rules, no. There would have to be negotiations about changing the system of testing to account for the unique nature of paranormal phenomena. They do not follow the same rules as non-paranormal phenomena.

[Soapy Sam]

So, can you specify a test of any paranormal phenomenon , by it's own rules, that might be acceptable to materialists?

[CFLarsen]

How can you try to convince others to accept a challenge if the challenge creator said there is "always" an out? It doesn't seem to be offered in good faith if that is the case.

Why not?

You need to explain this, T'ai.

Not under the JREF's current rules, no. There would have to be negotiations about changing the system of testing to account for the unique nature of paranormal phenomena. They do not follow the same rules as non-paranormal phenomena.

Why not?

[UndercoverElephant]

So, can you specify a test of any paranormal phenomenon , by it's own rules, that might be acceptable to materialists?

I suspect the devil will be in the details. Any such test would inevitably depend on statistical results on a study of large numbers of people.

The first requirement would be an agreement beforehand on the level of statistical result that would be accepted as a passed test. This statistical level would have to be determined by a study of, say, statistical positives which were sufficient to alllow a drug to go forward into licensed usage. We would need to determine the lower end of the range - i.e. the minimum level of positive result where 50% of drugs getting that result are approved. This would give us a marker for the minimum level at which non-controversial results are accepted as significant. As things stand, the materialists tend to keep raising the bar on the grounds that "extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof." In other words they apply a double standard, and reject paranormal results which would have been accepted if they were drug tests, on the grounds they need something spectacular to believe something so unbelievable (for them).

The second requirement would be that it is accepted that there is a possibility that the belief system of the people involved in the test could potentially influence the result, and that this itself would be one of the things being looked-out for, rather than being eliminated at the start as against the scientific method in principle.

There may be more. Usually the above two requirements would cause enough arguments to make sure the test never happened.

[Soapy Sam]

How about we all put a sign on top of the wardrobe . Anyone doing astral projection has to say what's on the sign.

Remote viewers (remember them)- What are the five books at the lefthand end of the bottom shelf in my spare room? (3 correct will be a pass).

Or when someone says he can talk to ghosts, we blindfold the medium and hold up a big sign for the ghost to read, then ask the medium what it says?

I can think of plenty ways to test paranormal claims which require nothing beyond simple common sense . If the claimants cannot, I don't see how it's the sceptics to blame.

[CFLarsen]

Remote viewers (remember them)- What are the five books at the lefthand end of the bottom shelf in my spare room? (3 correct will be a pass).

That's easy.

"101 ways to masturbate".

"Dorks for Dummies".

"Zits Removal Guide".

"Fanny Hill".

The 2006 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition.

...what did I win? :D

[Soapy Sam]

The Mrs. Joyful prize for raffia work.


Anyway, it's the 1996 edition. The one with Kathy Ireland.

[CFLarsen]

The Mrs. Joyful prize for raffia work.


Anyway, it's the 1996 edition. The one with Kathy Ireland.
Ah, memories...

[illuminatedwax]

Mosey on over to the John Lennon thread and join i nthe fun there, with a loon who keeps arguing that both Xianity and atheism are equally faith positions.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=60713

Damn, I must have really pushed your buttons!

[William Smith]

Damn, I must have really pushed your buttons!

Perhaps you did.

But you also got your lunch handed to you several times - and probably will again. You are the Shawn Bradley of the John Lennon thread. I mean that in the nicest way possible, really.

[illuminatedwax]

Perhaps you did.

But you also got your lunch handed to you several times - and probably will again. You are the Shawn Bradley of the John Lennon thread. I mean that in the nicest way possible, really.
I don't think that typing "QED" several times or quoting people from TAM or regurgitating classic atheist arguments is "handing my lunch" to me. Please feel free to hop on over there and demonstrate where exactly I was handed said lunch.

[Kimpatsu]

I'll try to get you interested again.

How would you test for a paranormal phenomenon? E.g., Sylvia Browne, talking to dead people?
Have her do five readings for the five surviving wives of five deceased husbands (wives to stipulate they are all true believers in spiritualism), and then with all direct refrerences to their husbands removed (e.g., names, DOB, etc.), they must all correctly pick which of the five readings pertains to them. (The reason all five have to do this is because 3/5 is too low, and could be chance, and 4/5 is not possible. Alternatively, 10 out of 12 will do.)

[illuminatedwax]

I can think of plenty ways to test paranormal claims which require nothing beyond simple common sense . If the claimants cannot, I don't see how it's the sceptics to blame.
I think a good thing to point out in getting someone to accept the challenge is that they shouldn't think of it like Randi is making up the rules - they should think of it as letting the contestants set up their own rules, but at least in a fair way so that a fraud couldn't claim the money. The way to approach these things is from the claimant's side (as opposed to battling against them).

[69dodge]

I suspect the devil will be in the details. Any such test would inevitably depend on statistical results on a study of large numbers of people.No doubt the devil will be in the details.

I'm not sure why statistics or large numbers of people are inevitable. But if it happens to be the sort of paranormal phenomenon which involves those, then that's ok too.

The first requirement would be an agreement beforehand on the level of statistical result that would be accepted as a passed test. This statistical level would have to be determined by a study of, say, statistical positives which were sufficient to alllow a drug to go forward into licensed usage. We would need to determine the lower end of the range - i.e. the minimum level of positive result where 50% of drugs getting that result are approved. This would give us a marker for the minimum level at which non-controversial results are accepted as significant. As things stand, the materialists tend to keep raising the bar on the grounds that "extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof." In other words they apply a double standard, and reject paranormal results which would have been accepted if they were drug tests, on the grounds they need something spectacular to believe something so unbelievable (for them).I don't see what drugs have do with anything.

Basically, you are insisting on a test with the following property: If the paranormal phenomenon in question does not exist, the probability is fairly high that the test result will be positive anyway.

Why is this a reasonable requirement?

The second requirement would be that it is accepted that there is a possibility that the belief system of the people involved in the test could potentially influence the result, and that this itself would be one of the things being looked-out for, rather than being eliminated at the start as against the scientific method in principle.I'm not sure what you mean by "looked-out for" or "being eliminated at the start".

There's no reason in principle why the belief system of the people involved couldn't influence the result. (For sufficiently liberal principles, anyway... :D) But there's a practical problem: Skeptics will likely be suspicious of the results of any experiment in which they were not involved enough to verify for themselves that no cheating occurred. Do you see any way to get around this problem?

[steenkh]

How can you try to convince others to accept a challenge if the challenge creator said there is "always" an out? It doesn't seem to be offered in good faith if that is the case.
As you have been told, your quote is taken out of context, and it has been shortened. Randi really said that he always had an out, and he added: "I'm right!" So this qoute only shows Randi's supreme confidence that because he is right, he knows that there will always be an "out". And that is what you would expect from somebody who stakes a million dollar that he is right!

So will you now admit that the challenge is offered in good faith?

[UndercoverElephant]

No doubt the devil will be in the details.

I'm not sure why statistics or large numbers of people are inevitable. But if it happens to be the sort of paranormal phenomenon which involves those, then that's ok too.


I think that this is the only sort of phenomenon that would get picked up by experiment at all. The more extreme sorts are less common and directed at specific people at specific times. They are not replicable.


I don't see what drugs have do with anything.

Basically, you are insisting on a test with the following property: If the paranormal phenomenon in question does not exist, the probability is fairly high that the test result will be positive anyway.

Why is this a reasonable requirement?


To prevent skeptics invoking double standards in order to reject statistical results they do not like. If a stastical result is marginal, but significant enough to license a drug, then the same statistical result, though only marginal, should also be considered significant in this case.


I'm not sure what you mean by "looked-out for" or "being eliminated at the start".

There's no reason in principle why the belief system of the people involved couldn't influence the result. (For sufficiently liberal principles, anyway... :D) But there's a practical problem: Skeptics will likely be suspicious of the results of any experiment in which they were not involved enough to verify for themselves that no cheating occurred. Do you see any way to get around this problem?

Not easily. The greater the involvement of the skeptics, the less likely are the phenomena to manifest. The less their involvement, the more likely they are to make accusations of cheating in the event of a stastical positive. I do not know whether this is an insurmountable problem or not. It may be.

[petre]

As you have been told, your quote is taken out of context, and it has been shortened. Randi really said that he always had an out, and he added: "I'm right!" So this qoute only shows Randi's supreme confidence that because he is right, he knows that there will always be an "out". And that is what you would expect from somebody who stakes a million dollar that he is right!

So will you now admit that the challenge is offered in good faith?

Or perhaps T'ai would like to state that it is his interpretation of Randi's statement is an admission that Randi intends to lie, cheat, and do anything possible to avoid ever allowing someone to succeed in the challenge.

[jdodd]

Or perhaps T'ai would like to state that it is his interpretation of Randi's statement is an admission that Randi intends to lie, cheat, and do anything possible to avoid ever allowing someone to succeed in the challenge.
Or perhaps T'ai is stating that, regardless of Randi's intention, potential applicants could see his (Randi's) statement as an admission that he intends to lie, cheat, and do anything possible to avoid ever allowing someone to succeed in the challenge.

Either way, T'ai could certainly be clearer in his language.

[gruk]

Have her do five readings for the five surviving wives of five deceased husbands (wives to stipulate they are all true believers in spiritualism), and then with all direct refrerences to their husbands removed (e.g., names, DOB, etc.), they must all correctly pick which of the five readings pertains to them. (The reason all five have to do this is because 3/5 is too low, and could be chance, and 4/5 is not possible. Alternatively, 10 out of 12 will do.)

That depends on your protocol for assigning readinsg to wifes. The "obvious" way of doing it is to have five readings at hand and let each wife picking one from the pile, this means you can have 0, 1, 2, 3, 5 right ones. However, if you print 5 of each, each wife can throw the four incorrect away and it's a completely independent selection (this, I believe, also makes the math slightly easier, since you have 1/5 for each event, 5 events, ending up with 1/25 for having 5 rights).

[T'ai Chi]

To offer a challenge, then say that you always have an out because you are right (that is, you are right in saying people cannot do what they claim and what you are challenging them on), doesn't seem to be offering the challenge in good faith.

Somewhat mean-spirited and point scoring mentality, rather than inquiry or science. But very entertaining I must say.

[William Smith]

To offer a challenge, then say that you always have an out because you are right (that is, you are right in saying people cannot do what they claim and what you are challenging them on), doesn't seem to be offering the challenge in good faith.


Cocky, flamboyant, arrogant: Possibly.

Self-confident, brawny, decided: Very likely.

Not in good faith: Very unlikely. One Million reasons say so.


Somewhat mean-spirited and point scoring mentality, rather than inquiry or science. But very entertaining I must say.

Talkin' 'bout yaself, aren'tcha? :)

[CFLarsen]

To offer a challenge, then say that you always have an out because you are right (that is, you are right in saying people cannot do what they claim and what you are challenging them on), doesn't seem to be offering the challenge in good faith.

JREF is going with the scientific world view. If that is not "good faith", perhaps you can suggest a better solution?

Somewhat mean-spirited and point scoring mentality, rather than inquiry or science. But very entertaining I must say.

Very dishonest of you. You know damn well that none of these people are able to pass a scientific test.

[nathan]

in good faith.
You? Complaining about someone's 'good faith'? The words 'pot' 'kettle' and 'black' come to mind.

[Kimpatsu]

That depends on your protocol for assigning readinsg to wifes. The "obvious" way of doing it is to have five readings at hand and let each wife picking one from the pile, this means you can have 0, 1, 2, 3, 5 right ones. However, if you print 5 of each, each wife can throw the four incorrect away and it's a completely independent selection (this, I believe, also makes the math slightly easier, since you have 1/5 for each event, 5 events, ending up with 1/25 for having 5 rights).
Yes, that's what I'm saying; give copies of all five readings to all five wivesa, and have them identify which reading is their husband's from the five. This was the protocol I suggested, and which Randi approved, for William Perron, the "computer astrologer", but Perron refused to accept the protocol. He wanted to do a reading for one man, and then give the wife the reasing and have her subjectively assess its accuracy. So, no $1 million for him, then.

[rjh01]

That depends on your protocol for assigning readings to wifes. The "obvious" way of doing it is to have five readings at hand and let each wife picking one from the pile, this means you can have 0, 1, 2, 3, 5 right ones. However, if you print 5 of each, each wife can throw the four incorrect away and it's a completely independent selection (this, I believe, also makes the math slightly easier, since you have 1/5 for each event, 5 events, ending up with 1/25 for having 5 rights).

I think there is a maths error here. The probability to get five right answers is 1 / (5 * 5 * 5 * 5 * 5) = 1 / 3125 = 0.00032.

This will be good enough for a preliminary test.

[zooloo]

To offer a challenge, then say that you always have an out because you are right (that is, you are right in saying people cannot do what they claim and what you are challenging them on), doesn't seem to be offering the challenge in good faith.

Somewhat mean-spirited and point scoring mentality, rather than inquiry or science. But very entertaining I must say.

Not at all because Randi is "...willing to be proved wrong"

Skeptics here could tell you what would prove them wrong.

If you support any paranormal claim, what would prove you wrong?

Paranormal claims are not science anyway, at best they are entertainment but all too often they are exploiting the vulnerable for personal gain.

[T'ai Chi]

Very entertaining.

[CFLarsen]

Very evasive.

[gruk]

I think there is a maths error here. The probability to get five right answers is 1 / (5 * 5 * 5 * 5 * 5) = 1 / 3125 = 0.00032.

This will be good enough for a preliminary test.

Er... Yes. You are entirely correct. I was ignoring three wives.

[CFLarsen]

I was ignoring three wives.

Famous last words. ;)

[chillzero]

To prevent skeptics invoking double standards in order to reject statistical results they do not like. If a stastical result is marginal, but significant enough to license a drug, then the same statistical result, though only marginal, should also be considered significant in this case.

From what I've seen, the margin is agreed by both sides - the claimant is required to approve it. Additionally, from what I've seen, the margin is widened from what the claimant's initially claim. i.e. the claimant says "I can always do this - I'm right every time", and the protocol is set up to measure them doing it not 100% of the time (as they claim), but maybe 70% (or something slightly higher than chance). This should weigh in the favour of the claimant, really, but still becomes a bone of contention after the failure - e.g. Natasha the x-ray girl.

Not easily. The greater the involvement of the skeptics, the less likely are the phenomena to manifest. The less their involvement, the more likely they are to make accusations of cheating in the event of a stastical positive. I do not know whether this is an insurmountable problem or not. It may be.

How about involvement of skeptics just to the point of rigging up rooms with video surveillance that covers everything and cannot be tampered with? Then they retire to a safe distance, and the test can be handled by believers, who would surely be as anxious as the claimant to prove Mr Randi wrong, sticking to a rigorously agreed protocol.

However, the existence of skeptics never really bothers these people in the real world as they go about their tasks, and also: how many psychics like to publicise the amount of customers they have who came to them as skeptics, and left as converted believers? It didn't bother them much at that point, did it?

[drkitten]

To prevent skeptics invoking double standards in order to reject statistical results they do not like. If a stastical result is marginal, but significant enough to license a drug, then the same statistical result, though only marginal, should also be considered significant in this case.



I submit that you have no idea what the statistical results "significant enough to license a drug" are. The process required by (for example) the US FDA to licence a drug is typically a multiyear process involving three separate phases of experiments -- and Phase 3 clinical trials typically need to involve several thousand participants, specifically to make sure that the "efficacy" is in fact, real.

Drugs for which a statistical result is only marginal do not get licensed. Randi's challenge is actually much, MUCH more relaxed than a typical drug licensing process.

[Cuddles]

I think that this is the only sort of phenomenon that would get picked up by experiment at all. The more extreme sorts are less common and directed at specific people at specific times. They are not replicable.

Why do you think this? The only claims I have seen are either from people saying no paranormal phenomena exist and people saying their ability always works and gives significant results. In the absence of any claims that there are low-level phenomena detectable only by large studies I see no reason to test for this.

[calebprime]

Can you actually present evidence for this rule?

I certainly do not hope that people can be banned (as opposed to ridiculed) for not presenting evidence!

I agree: If someone is consistently tiresome, best just to learn to ignore them. As I become more competent with this forum, I hope to learn some tools for doing this.


Too bad, because designing a challenge for these folks would be amazingly simple: their website claims that "The power of VortexHealing is easily demonstrated by treating a musical instrument with VortexHealing for just one minute: the sound of the instrument changes remarkably, so it is much richer, more harmonious and full of heart."

As a musician who is vain about his trained and accurate ears, I particularly loved this: the sound is "more harmonious and full of heart." Audiophiles in general indulge in a lot of woo, but this is an even sillier claim than, say Monster cables or something....

[QUOTE=drkitten;1829136]I submit that you have no idea what the statistical results "significant enough to license a drug" are. The process required by (for example) the US FDA to licence a drug is typically a multiyear process involving three separate phases of experiments -- and Phase 3 clinical trials typically need to involve several thousand participants, specifically to make sure that the "efficacy" is in fact, real.

Drugs for which a statistical result is only marginal do not get licensed. Randi's challenge is actually much, MUCH more relaxed than a typical drug licensing process.

Ok, now we get serious for a minute, even though this is sort of off-topic.
I take your larger point--that there is at least a rigorous framework for drug-testing and a lengthy process.

But in fact, drug companies do cook their data--by among other things, throwing out unfavorable tests and retaining favorable ones. And, over and over, we read how an antidepressant like Paxil or Zoloft performs only slightly better than placebo and slightly worse than regular exercise.

Not to mention that what constitutes "improvement" in depression is open to debate. Not to mention, in the case of SSRI's: side-effects and unknown long-term effects and down-regulation of serotonin receptors, and habituation, and on and on. I mean, there's a general question of what constitutes "efficacy". Some will say: not killing yourself.

Plus we read (from fairly reliable sources) that there is pressure put on people who write or edit for the medical journals--there are cases where they have been fired for saying unkind things about their sponsers--the drug companies.

I'm not trying to sound like some radical here, only saying that the drug-approval process isn't white as snow. Hope I'm not opening a can of worms.

Randi's challenge may be shorter and sweeter than the drug-approval process, but because of the huge amounts of money commanded by the drug-companies, and because of a weakened FDA, I don't have much faith in the drug-approval process. I have more faith in Randi.

maybe faith is the wrong word here.
:)

[drkitten]

I take your larger point--that there is at least a rigorous framework for drug-testing and a lengthy process.

But in fact, drug companies do cook their data--by among other things, throwing out unfavorable tests and retaining favorable ones. And, over and over, we read how an antidepressant like Paxil or Zoloft performs only slightly better than placebo and slightly worse than regular exercise.

But that's actually support for my point. The reasons that drug companies cook their data is because, simply put, "marginal" results will not get the drugs approved.

UE argued that skeptics are applying too high a standard -- essentially, a double-standard -- to keep out paranormal results when results with the same level of statistical support would justify complete confidence applied to a "normal" result. His actually phrasing was : "If a stastical result is marginal, but significant enough to license a drug, then the same statistical result, though only marginal, should also be considered significant in this case."

This unfortunately hinges on a serious misconception -- the idea that "marginal" results are enough to license a drug. They aren't -- and because they aren't, drug companies have an incentive to tart up -- to lie, basically -- the statistical results in order to make them.

The fact remains -- there is no credible evidence for any form of paranormal phenomena (with the possible exception of a few specific forms of alternative medicine); the evidence that people like Undercover Elephant and T'ai Chi like to present would not be enough to justify applying "normal" science in any rigorous way, either. The sort of stuff presented wouldn't get drugs licenced, it wouldn't be accepted as court testimony, et cetera.

[calebprime]

But that's actually support for my point. The reasons that drug companies cook their data is because, simply put, "marginal" results will not get the drugs approved.

UE argued that skeptics are applying too high a standard -- essentially, a double-standard -- to keep out paranormal results when results with the same level of statistical support would justify complete confidence applied to a "normal" result. His actually phrasing was : "If a stastical result is marginal, but significant enough to license a drug, then the same statistical result, though only marginal, should also be considered significant in this case."

This unfortunately hinges on a serious misconception -- the idea that "marginal" results are enough to license a drug. They aren't -- and because they aren't, drug companies have an incentive to tart up -- to lie, basically -- the statistical results in order to make them.

The fact remains -- there is no credible evidence for any form of paranormal phenomena (with the possible exception of a few specific forms of alternative medicine); the evidence that people like Undercover Elephant and T'ai Chi like to present would not be enough to justify applying "normal" science in any rigorous way, either. The sort of stuff presented wouldn't get drugs licenced, it wouldn't be accepted as court testimony, et cetera.


Ah. I get it now. I missed your point because I have trouble taking the "philosophical" challenges to the challenge seriously. Too commensensical, I'm afraid. To my naive mind, nothing could be more clearcut than the challenge. So I unfortunately tried to change the subject to an issue closer to my heart.

Can anyone direct me to a thread or discussion where someone debunks supposed CIA success at remote viewing? (you know, Suspect Zero stuff)(not sure where to post this question...) Also, how to italicize titles...:confused:

[William Smith]

...
Can anyone direct me to a thread or discussion where someone debunks supposed CIA success at remote viewing? (you know, Suspect Zero stuff)(not sure where to post this question...) Also, how to italicize titles...:confused:

Have you tried one of the other subforums here? Try "General Skepticism". http://forums.randi.org/forumindex.php
This subforum deals with Million Dollar Challenge related topics.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to italicize titles. You can do without, perhaps? If not, here's your fix: http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=16