A philosophical challenge for the challenge

[Ginarley]

Before I start I want to make it clear I claim no paranormal powers nor any desire to chase after the challenge, nor any desire to see someone win it and/or not win it - this is purely me thinking aloud about something which fascinates me.

I am curious as to the response to demonstrated paranormality from science. Science essentially is built on explaining observed phenomenom. From that perspective if a person was to clearly demonstrate a supposedly paranormal ability, science would leap all over it, and begin the process of dissection, theory and refutation that would eventually settle on a scientific explanation of that phenomenom. It would then be almost by definition not paranormal because science would have explained it and incorporated it into other theories.

I reiterate that this is not about awarding or not awarding the money in the challenge, it is a bigger issue than that - it is about the actual purpose of the challange. This I see as twofold (here I may be wrong so I'm happy to back down on these). The first is to show up fraudsters and build awareness of such people amongst the general public, and the second is to prove that science is effectively got everything covered (ie there isn't a paranormal reality floating around that science doesn't know about). Maybe those purposes are really the same thing.

Anyway considering these, if science does find an explanation after observing real "paranormal" activity then it ceases to be paranormal per se - it joins all other scientific theory as part of what we take as normal. We are then back where we started - claiming that no paranormal abilities exist despite the fact someone won the challenge therefore retaining our moral high ground. Essentially science will abosrb any paranormality.

This problem strikes me as a difficult one to get around (from a philosophical point of view) for the challenge. People are perfectly able to win the challenge without defeating the challenges philosophical standpoint, and it occurs to me this also dilutes the power of the challenge to attract challengers - they can't really win the philosophical debate even if they win the money.

Thanks for reading.

[skoob]

Anyway considering these, if science does find an explanation after observing real "paranormal" activity then it ceases to be paranormal per se - it joins all other scientific theory as part of what we take as normal. We are then back where we started - claiming that no paranormal abilities exist despite the fact someone won the challenge therefore retaining our moral high ground. Essentially science will abosrb any paranormality.Right, if something considered paranormal today is shown to exist, it will no longer be paranormal. Of course, if one paranormal phenomenon turns out to be real, it doesn't necessarily change the plausibility of other paranormal phenomenon. If someone would capture Bigfoot, it wouldn't make telepathy or dowsing more probable. "Paranormal" is just a blanket term for anything that people believe in that can't be explained with science.

As for how this affects the Challenge, I think the thread Could Scientists grab the million? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53213) touches this subject.

[Ginarley]

Right, if something considered paranormal today is shown to exist, it will no longer be paranormal. Of course, if one paranormal phenomenon turns out to be real, it doesn't necessarily change the plausibility of other paranormal phenomenon. If someone would capture Bigfoot, it wouldn't make telepathy or dowsing more probable. "Paranormal" is just a blanket term for anything that people believe in that can't be explained with science.

Good point - and I think this adds to what I was saying. As a particular thing becomes proven (say dowsing) skeptiks will now consider that science and continue to attack psychics unabated. In this sense the skeptics can't really lose from someone winning the challenge, and this is potentially a deterrent to applicants.

As for how this affects the Challenge, I think the thread Could Scientists grab the million? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53213) touches this subject.

Thanks for posting that thread - it was an interesting read. However it is very much focused on awarding/not awarding the prize based on something's paranormality or not. To me it is very clear that this issue of science absorbing paranormal phenomena is totally irrelevant to winning the prize. It is not however irrelevant to the challenge's purpose nor the attractiveness of applying to it which are the questions I offer here.

As an aside I think the challenge is an awesome idea and I have huge respect for Randi for setting it up :)

[roger]

I don't see any problem here. There are some ideas for which there is no available evidence. Yet people proclaim that they are true, that they know it is true, and that they can do it. So, Randi steps up and says "Prove it!"

Pretty simple. It's not science he's doing, or philosophy, it's just a challenge to back up your words with action. Claim you can remote view despite the utter lack of evidence? Prove it! Claim you can see auras? Prove it! Claim you speak to the dead? Prove it!

No philosophy, just a challenge.

[brodski]

Good point - and I think this adds to what I was saying. As a particular thing becomes proven (say dowsing) skeptiks will now consider that science and continue to attack psychics unabated. In this sense the skeptics can't really lose from someone winning the challenge, and this is potentially a deterrent to applicants.

Why is it a deterrent? Are you claiming that, for instance, a successful test of dowsing would demonstrate that homeopathy was effective? A test of dowsing would have nothing whatsoever to say about homeopathy, UFOs or anything but dowsing, who would expect it to? Unless you (or the people who's point you are arguing if you are just playing devils advocate) ague that one experiment can prove or disprove the entire gamut of what is currently considered "paranormal". You say that "the sceptics can never loose", have you also though that this means that the skeptcis can never win? "well ok so that homeopathic remedy isn't eth right one for that patient, but there's still 100's of others, and if that fails well we've always got therapeutic touch, or reki, or nice cup of tea and a chat therapy, etc."

[Leopard Messiah]

Anyway considering these, if science does find an explanation after observing real "paranormal" activity then it ceases to be paranormal per se - it joins all other scientific theory as part of what we take as normal.Actually, that wouldn't be the case. Any activity, like dowsing or telepathy, currently considered paranormal would cease to be labeled that way the instant it was demonstrated to really work. The sticking point isn't that scientists are bothered by being unable to explain a given phenomenon, the problem is that those phenomenon can't actually be shown to be real.

You're hypothesising an attitude that simply doesn't exist among scientists. Science doesn't know everything and scientists don't believe that it does. Afterall, if science were finished, why pay scientists? If any psychic phenomenon were shown to actually exist, most scientists would be thrilled. It would open up a whole new field to study (and add a lot of new grant opportunities.)

As for us sceptics, we know that at least 99% of those who claim paranormal ability are frauds or self-deluded. I suppose you could say that a second goal of the challenge is to provide a mechanism that would allow someone who actually does have paranormal abilities to separate themselves from the chaff. Afterall, given the predominance of frauds, it isn't so much scepticism to expect people to prove their claims; it's common sense.

[Ginarley]

Why is it a deterrent? Are you claiming that, for instance, a successful test of dowsing would demonstrate that homeopathy was effective? A test of dowsing would have nothing whatsoever to say about homeopathy, UFOs or anything but dowsing, who would expect it to? Unless you (or the people who's point you are arguing if you are just playing devils advocate) ague that one experiment can prove or disprove the entire gamut of what is currently considered "paranormal". You say that "the sceptics can never loose", have you also though that this means that the skeptcis can never win? "well ok so that homeopathic remedy isn't eth right one for that patient, but there's still 100's of others, and if that fails well we've always got therapeutic touch, or reki, or nice cup of tea and a chat therapy, etc."

Actually I am suggesting quite the opposite - that a successful test for dowsing would have no impact whatsoever on the rest of the paranormal woos because dowsing would become fact instead of fiction - ie part of "our side" rather than theirs. I am perhaps taking a more black and white view of two sides than really exists although I suspect I'm not too far off.

That point about skeptics not being able to win actually takes this to a whole new level - if you combine my argument with that idea we may be close to understanding why there will never be any resolution or "sanity" in these debates lol.

Not that it really matters for this thread, but so my stance is clear - I don't believe even slightly in psychic abilities, dowsing or anything like that so I am firmly in the skeptics camp with respect to those things. I don't really consider myself a skeptic though - I just interpret the world the way I see it and make my own opinions. I actually really wish psychic powers and telekinesis were real - it'd be amazing to see!

In terms of this issue I am really just exploring the idea rather than saying "here is a problem - I am right" - I think the concept is interesting though :)

[Ginarley]

Actually, that wouldn't be the case. Any activity, like dowsing or telepathy, currently considered paranormal would cease to be labeled that way the instant it was demonstrated to really work. The sticking point isn't that scientists are bothered by being unable to explain a given phenomenon, the problem is that those phenomenon can't actually be shown to be real.

You are probably right on the semantics of the timing although i suspect explanation and occurance would not be far separated. I suspect scientific explanation is often not correct early in the piece but generally starts to appear rather quickly upon the discovery of a new thing and gets refined over time. The end result is the same though. My point was that the minute something is demonstrated, science starts to absorb it by explaining it - and of course an important element of trying to explain something is accepting it exists in the first place.


You're hypothesising an attitude that simply doesn't exist among scientists. Science doesn't know everything and scientists don't believe that it does. Afterall, if science were finished, why pay scientists? If any psychic phenomenon were shown to actually exist, most scientists would be thrilled. It would open up a whole new field to study (and add a lot of new grant opportunities.)

You are of course compeltely right although I say that with tongue in cheek since our points of view don't differ at all :) I wasn't intending to imply we had the right explanation, just an explanation of some sort. I suspect science has some kind of explanation for every phenomenon we have ever observed - that doesn't mean they are all right by any means.


As for us sceptics, we know that at least 99% of those who claim paranormal ability are frauds or self-deluded. I suppose you could say that a second goal of the challenge is to provide a mechanism that would allow someone who actually does have paranormal abilities to separate themselves from the chaff. Afterall, given the predominance of frauds, it isn't so much scepticism to expect people to prove their claims; it's common sense.

That is a very good point - I wonder if the issue of getting absorbed into scientific analysis is daunting or off putting to someone who might have genuine abilities? You know the second someone demonstrates psychic abilities for example they will be subjected to no end of tests in the interest of science - being exposed is perhaps a real deterrent. One could imagine a genuinely psychic person deliberately cold reading from time to time to stay hidden - it is not such a far fetched idea actually?

[Ginarley]

I don't see any problem here. There are some ideas for which there is no available evidence. Yet people proclaim that they are true, that they know it is true, and that they can do it. So, Randi steps up and says "Prove it!"

Pretty simple. It's not science he's doing, or philosophy, it's just a challenge to back up your words with action. Claim you can remote view despite the utter lack of evidence? Prove it! Claim you can see auras? Prove it! Claim you speak to the dead? Prove it!

No philosophy, just a challenge.

The challenge itself is straightforward and easy to understand - I have no problems with the internal mechanisms of the challenge whatsoever. There are however philosophical implications of the challenge that go well beyond arguing over $1million though, and that is what I am discussing in this thread.

[Jimbo07]

The Challenge and science are two different things. The connection is based loosely on the question, "Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?" However, it is seldom phrased that way in scientific circles, the techniques for presentation of evidence are different, etc.

Science measures the measurable.

I can imagine woos are not attracted to this. If there's a chance that their favourite theory is not measurable, they're going to say, "Science doesn't know everything." This reflects a lack of clarity about scientific approaches at best, and gross wishful thinking at worst.

I had this debate with my dad the other night:

He: Science doesn't know everything.
Me: No it doesn't.
He: How do you find something in science?
Me: With a test.
He: What if you test for A, but get B?
Me: Then B is more likely than A... given repeated tests, peer review of the test procedure, lack of support in theory...
He: But that doesn't mean A doesn't exist.
Me: Of course not, you're just more confident in B than A.
He: What if they devise a better test for A in the future and find A?
Me: Then A.
He: Aha! So scientists can be wrong now!
Me: A scientist can be very wrong, science[i], however, is self-correcting
He: That's not the public perception

...

etc.

Scientists could very well be wrong about telekinesis. Should someone ever show it to be true, it will be studied scientifically. That is, if it can be measured, it will be measured. However, most are no longer willing to spend precious resources on it... and why should they? Why, when resources are tight, should funds be spent researching [I]old claims that have not been well demonstrated, and in fact practitioners have repeatedly been shown to be frauds or delusional?

That's why Randi isn't using that $1 mil as scientific grants. It is the money out there for someone to show that any of this works as they claim!

[Thomas]

Why is it a deterrent? Are you claiming that, for instance, a successful test of dowsing would demonstrate that homeopathy was effective? A test of dowsing would have nothing whatsoever to say about homeopathy, UFOs or anything but dowsing, who would expect it to? Unless you (or the people who's point you are arguing if you are just playing devils advocate) ague that one experiment can prove or disprove the entire gamut of what is currently considered "paranormal". You say that "the sceptics can never loose", have you also though that this means that the skeptcis can never win? "well ok so that homeopathic remedy isn't eth right one for that patient, but there's still 100's of others, and if that fails well we've always got therapeutic touch, or reki, or nice cup of tea and a chat therapy, etc."
I agree, but I could also imagine what would happen if something as groundbreaking as life-after-death was discovered and fully justified. The various woo crowds (from Hare Krishna to ghost hunters) would go nuts throwing rocks at skeptics who have advocated the opposite and had a few laughs at them.
I think the effect of a paranormal claim proven to be true, will depend largely on what claim that is - i.e. how many scientific outcast areas it touches.

Roger,

Perhaps Randi isn't a scientist, but for typical or absurd claims he will demand three affidavits from the challenge applicant and prefer them from people more or less educated in the scientific methods. Hereafter the JREF use a worldwide network of skeptics to test the applicants locally, who also use scientific methods - like chance-calculations and double-blind testing - for the preliminary test. Randi's force is spotting trickery and putting his money where his mouth is, but he still advocate status quo science and the scientific methods, like I guess most skeptics do.


Edit: Cleaned up some grammar.

[roger]

Thomas, if my post implied otherwise, it was unintented on my part.

[Thomas]

Thomas, if my post implied otherwise, it was unintented on my part.
Weeell, it was just because you said: "It's not science he's [Randi] doing". That caught my eye.. on the wrong foot! Because I consider his results so far quite scientific, as they are based on typical scientific methods.

It looks like we agree, anyway.

[Leopard Messiah]

My point was that the minute something is demonstrated, science starts to absorb it by explaining it - and of course an important element of trying to explain something is accepting it exists in the first place.It might seem like simply a semantic distinction, but it really isn't. Science doesn't absorb things by explaining them. Things like telepathy and telekinises will be considered scientific fact iff they can be reliably demonstrated to exist. Obviously being able to explain a phenomenon aids enormously in proving it exists, but it isn't the key to the process.

I suspect science has some kind of explanation for every phenomenon we have ever observed - that doesn't mean they are all right by any means.Science doesn't have a generally accepted explantion for something as simple as how glue works. (This week's Straight Dope Staff Report) One of the things that separates science from woo is that when a scientist runs into a brick wall trying to explain something he can't just invent an explanation; he actually has to admit he doesn't know. It's the woos who focus on conclusions and explanations; science focuses on evidence and testing.

I realise I'm probably dragging this off-topic from where you wanted to go, but it really is an important point. Explaining paranormal abilities is far beyond the scope of the JREF. But, it really isn't science's first concern either.

[Ginarley]

It might seem like simply a semantic distinction, but it really isn't. Science doesn't absorb things by explaining them. Things like telepathy and telekinises will be considered scientific fact iff they can be reliably demonstrated to exist. Obviously being able to explain a phenomenon aids enormously in proving it exists, but it isn't the key to the process.

Science doesn't have a generally accepted explantion for something as simple as how glue works. (This week's Straight Dope Staff Report) One of the things that separates science from woo is that when a scientist runs into a brick wall trying to explain something he can't just invent an explanation; he actually has to admit he doesn't know. It's the woos who focus on conclusions and explanations; science focuses on evidence and testing.

I realise I'm probably dragging this off-topic from where you wanted to go, but it really is an important point. Explaining paranormal abilities is far beyond the scope of the JREF. But, it really isn't science's first concern either.

I'm not sure the points you make have a great bearing on my original ideas but they are interesting nonetheless so I'll carry on the discussion :)

I tend to think of science as a quest for explanation of observed things via theories (possible explanations) and evidence - the two working for and against each other to build greater understanding of what we see around us. Accepting something exists is in a way the first piece of evidence. I am convinced there are no observed phenomena in the real world that science has not tried to explain (even if they have failed) which is why the distinction to me is not very important.

I do accept however that in the interests of absolute clarity, replacing explanation with confirmation of existence is probably ideal. However it is the explanatory process rather than the acceptance process that dismisses fake paranormal activity and the issue of explaining demonstrated paranormal activity is one of interest so I'll stick with it ;)

[Darat]

As admin

If you want to discuss science, philosophy, the philosophy of science or the science of philosophy please take your discussion to the appropriate section of the forum. This section is for discussing issues directly related to the Million Dollar Challenge.

[Thomas]

As admin

If you want to discuss science, philosophy, the philosophy of science or the science of philosophy please take your discussion to the appropriate section of the forum. This section is for discussing issues directly related to the Million Dollar Challenge.
Ok guys, you heard the man, no more discussions related to falsification criterias, experiment controls, covariation of events, prediction accuracy etc. etc. In fact, no more discussions in here related to the validity of the challenge at all!





Alright, I know that's.. most likely.. not what you meant Darat, but.. I.. could.. not.. resist... :boxedin:

[William Smith]

...
Anyway considering these, if science does find an explanation after observing real "paranormal" activity then it ceases to be paranormal per se - it joins all other scientific theory as part of what we take as normal. We are then back where we started - claiming that no paranormal abilities exist despite the fact someone won the challenge therefore retaining our moral high ground. Essentially science will abosrb any paranormality.

This problem strikes me as a difficult one to get around (from a philosophical point of view) for the challenge. People are perfectly able to win the challenge without defeating the challenges philosophical standpoint, and it occurs to me this also dilutes the power of the challenge to attract challengers - they can't really win the philosophical debate even if they win the money.

Thanks for reading.

One successful dowsing claim will mean just that: One successful dowsing claim. A Challenge Winner will of course have to do two - one each in the Prelim and Final Test.

The next steps will most likely try to again replicate the results, add criteria, vary targets, the whole shebangabang.

Ginarley, I do not see the "philosophical standpoint" of the Challenge:
Do what you claim to be able to do.

As Chandler Bing would say: "Could this BE any simpler?"

[Ginarley]

The point of this thread is (was?) not to discuss whether people can win the challenge (which I agree IS simple), but to discuss the implications of winning the challenge, how this may be a deterrent to applying for the challenge, and how one of the purposes of the challenge may in fact not be accomplished even if someone does win.

[William Smith]

The point of this thread is (was?) not to discuss whether people can win the challenge (which I agree IS simple), but to discuss the implications of winning the challenge, how this may be a deterrent to applying for the challenge, and how one of the purposes of the challenge may in fact not be accomplished even if someone does win.

Which "one of the purposes of the challenge may in fact not be accomplished even if someone does win"?

[Pup]

Gotta go with GzuzKryt here. I think it may be a straw man to say that the challenger can't win the philosophical debate. What is "their side" of the debate? I don't think most challengers would be going into the debate saying, "all paranormal things are real but unprovable, and if you prove any of them exist, I'll be heartbroken."

On the contrary, I think they're going in saying, "Dowsing is real, I can really find gold, let me prove it. See, the wires pointed down there, and I had no way of knowing which cup the gold was under. Am I right or what?"

Or, "I can talk to dead people. Let me tell you all about your great grandmother. Who else would know that? You don't doubt any more, huh?"

And so forth. The fact that afterward, people will want to study it scientifically and soon come to accept it as a natural phenomenon won't be considered a "loss," because most people doing these things already consider them natural phenomena--real things that actually do exist in the world, rather than tricks of the mind or figments of the imagination.

There are already paranormal investigators who "study" ghosts with cameras and various instruments, or psychic viewers who want their "skills" to be used by police departments alongside DNA testing, fiber analysis and so forth, or dowsers who want to be employed by well drillers and mining companies finding water or minerals.

In general, those who are anti-skeptics are happy to see ghost hunters and psychics and dowsers being employed, because it fits with their worldview that those paranormal things exist. They just skip the step where the paranormal skill needs proven first, and jump right to the step where the paranormal skill can be applied.

If they'd win the challenge to prove the skill, it might seem redundant to them, but it wouldn't be a moral loss. The problem is, they're afraid they might not be able to win, which would topple the house of cards they've already built on believing the skill is real.

[robinson]

Anyway considering these, if science does find an explanation after observing real "paranormal" activity then it ceases to be paranormal per se - it joins all other scientific theory as part of what we take as normal. We are then back where we started - claiming that no paranormal abilities exist despite the fact someone won the challenge therefore retaining our moral high ground. Essentially science will abosrb any paranormality.

This problem strikes me as a difficult one to get around (from a philosophical point of view) for the challenge. People are perfectly able to win the challenge without defeating the challenges philosophical standpoint, and it occurs to me this also dilutes the power of the challenge to attract challengers - they can't really win the philosophical debate even if they win the money.


Damn. I had the same thought years ago when I heard about the challenge. And in fact, was reading some commentary on the Web this last week that speaks to these issues.

Some positive, some negative. Before I read the entrie thread here, I wanted to spew out my thoughts on the MDC, because I would bet money somebody else already said it, but I don't want to know they said it yet.

In a philosophical way, it is way cooler if different minds come up with the same thoughts. IMNSHO of course. And because up at the top of the page it is asking me if I have any thoughts, right now. No really, it is like freaky man, I was just thinking about the MDC and THERE IT IS! The computer asking me about it.

Woooooooooooooo

So here are two thoughts which jump in, and like I said, I'm sure they have come up before.

1: If somebody really has powers, why would they need the money? Or want any publicity? They could make money like crazy, real easy, and they wouldn't want anyone to know about it.

2: If somebody demonstrates a new ability, and it is validated by a Pro like Randi, and rewarded with money, then it is going to found by science to be real, not make-believe, and it is no longer mysterious/paranormal/psychic/whatever. Like the Idiot-Savant that can do math in the head, or something like that. (yeah I know, Idiot-Savant is not the correct term, but I forget what it is called now).

Now if both those thoughts are already here, and discussed, and accepted or something, and you already read them or talked them to death, then they seem dull, or boring, or tiresome, (Oh geez, here we go again, didn't we already hash this out last year?)

And I'm sure they are just like that. Because it seems to me those are thoughts that just come up when an intelligent person thinks about it.

I know, I know, I'm just thinking out loud here. Getting my feet wet. And can somebody point me to a thread where newblood can ask stupid questions? Or read a FAQ page. Because I can't find either one of them. :confused:

Thanks in advance.

[William Smith]

...
I know, I know, I'm just thinking out loud here. Getting my feet wet. And can somebody point me to a thread where newblood can ask stupid questions? Or read a FAQ page. Because I can't find either one of them. :confused:

Thanks in advance.

Getting your feet wet because the thin ice you walk on is melting from the heat of critical thinking? ;)

The only FAQ on this domain seems to be the one related to the Challenge. Not really what you were looking for, right?

You may sort the threads in this subforum by posts or views. Gives you an idea - if you will endure the hard work of browsing a couple of pages - about what has come up so far. You will discover some topics come up again after a while, etc.

As in any forum where you enter as a rookie: Take your time. Know what you want, search, read, learn. Patience helps.

I strongly suggest to read as many of the Challenge Applications as possible - you may understand what the bread and butter of the Challenge Facilitator (currently Mr. Jeff Wagg) actually is.

Of course, no one can and will keep you from asking stoopid questions. ;)

You may have to brace for stoopid answers. :D
Generally, the regulars around here try not to behave stoopidly.
If you long for stoopidity galore - mosey over to the Religion or Politics Forum. Zing!

[William Smith]

The point of this thread is (was?) not to discuss whether people can win the challenge (which I agree IS simple), but to discuss the implications of winning the challenge, how this may be a deterrent to applying for the challenge, and how one of the purposes of the challenge may in fact not be accomplished even if someone does win.

Which "one of the purposes of the challenge may in fact not be accomplished even if someone does win"?

Well? :rolleyes:

[drkitten]

So here are two thoughts which jump in, and like I said, I'm sure they have come up before.

1: If somebody really has powers, why would they need the money? Or want any publicity? They could make money like crazy, real easy, and they wouldn't want anyone to know about it.

That's quite an assumption, and a mostly untenable one.

First of all, if you actually READ the applicants' claims, many of them are not the sort of things that anyone could "make money like crazy" from. One person claimed to be able to make UFOs appear upon command; another person claimed to be able to make it snow on a given date with six months' notice; a third claimed to be able to telekinetically move a candle flame from side to side. I haven't noticed any glut of want-ads lately demanding UFO summoners....

Beyond that, most of the ways that psychics seem to be able to make money is by demonstrating their skill (e.g. Sylvia). The publicity I would get from beating Randi's challenge, and being able to demonstrate myself as "the medium whom Randi couldn't debunk!" would be invaluable above and beyond the prize money.

Basically -- I don't buy it.


2: If somebody demonstrates a new ability, and it is validated by a Pro like Randi, and rewarded with money, then it is going to found by science to be real, not make-believe, and it is no longer mysterious/paranormal/psychic/whatever.

So what? That doesn't make it less valuable. People don't pay dowsers because it's mysterious and paranormal; they pay dowsers because they want to find water. People don't pay psychic healers because of the "psychic," but because of the "healer" bit..

There are certainly a few abilities that would be more profitable for being secreted away; the ability to know what card was coming up next in a blackjack deck (and only in a blackjack deck), for example. But those abilities are relatively few and far between.

[robinson]

Hello drkitten

I didn't make any assumptions. I just stated some thoughts. There is a difference. Really, there is. ;)

I try to stay clear of assumptions and BS. But stating a thought is a regular human activity, and they are just thoughts put on paper, nothing more. I don't imagine my thoughts are real, but sometimes they might describe reality.

heh

I have read the claims, at it seems like only whackjobs ever bother to apply for the challenge. I was thinking that IF someone had real abilities, the last place they would look for money would be the MDC.


I didn't say anything about the people who tried and failed, or never did step one of the MDC, (get a health checkup, talk to your Doctor).

I don't know how anyone with a power would make money. It seems only the fakes are trying to make money off of "abilities" or whatever. My point was that IF somebody was extra-human they would have little trouble prospering. People with just regular skills do pretty well. Even a hint of paranormal abilities could be an advantage.

I didn't ask you to buy anything.

I don't really know what people pay dowsers or psychic healers for, since I don't visit any of them.

I don't know if there are secret abilities, like prediciting the future, nor do I know how often they would appear. I try to stick to facts that can be verified, and not just make up stuff.

And in that atmosphere, certainly many things considered fantasy or fiction, have turned out to be real.

[robinson]

I thought there might be a FAQ on what is acceptable, and what is not. That sort of thing. Finding out the hard way sucks.

Thanks for the tips.

I have read about everything I can find on the MDC, on multiple websites.

Stoopid questions was regarding the system/forum stuff. Nothing can save me from stoopid when it comes to just not knowing S.

(edit) - nevermind the stoopid question. I found the rules here --> ../showthread.php?t=25744

:o

But I long for intelligence, not the mundane. Pointers?

heh :D

[William Smith]

...
But I long for intelligence, not the mundane. Pointers?

heh :D

Please describe more precisely.

[robinson]

I mean pointer in the sense of a link to a thread here with intelligent people writing. Not pointers on how to be intelligent.

[William Smith]

I mean pointer in the sense of a link to a thread here with intelligent people writing. Not pointers on how to be intelligent.

Try this one http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53291

Fire up the coffee pot first. And call in sick for work tomorrow.

[robinson]

*Yawn*

Is that it? Is that as good as it gets here?

:idea:

Someone needs to stir the pot, rather than smoke it.

:idea:

From another thread, this is why i only pop in occassionally- there are almost never any new insights. just retreading the same old crap.


Now that is going to suck. Maybe I should discuss adventures in Wooland or something. Biggest obstacle I see, is WHERE itf does one do this here?
:idea:

[William Smith]

*Yawn*

Is that it? Is that as good as it gets here?

:idea:

Someone needs to stir the pot, rather than smoke it.

:idea:

From another thread,

Now that is going to suck. Maybe I should discuss adventures in Wooland or something. Biggest obstacle I see, is WHERE itf does one do this here?
:idea:


Patience, lad.



For enhanced potstir-ish-ness, try another subforum. http://forums.randi.org/forumindex.php

You want inane drivel, irrelevant arguments, self-combusting logic, bickering and outright nuttery? The Religion http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4 and Politics http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=6 is the thing for you. :D

[robinson]

ISYN, I want to talk about a lifetime of debunking crap, but not have to come back to find a bunch of nonsense and banter, or worse, veiled flamers bored to death cause they have too much time to spend pouncing on each and every new idea that winds up on the screen.

I mean to say, I have found it more rewarding to actually investigate crap than to dismiss it out of hand. Do some testing, some research, apply the old scientific mind to a problem, rather than scream, YOU ARE AN IDIOT! everytime somebody says they can do something unusual or mystical.

heh -- :D

There must be one thread here like that. Where skeptic meets scepdick, without a bunch of fallicies rearing up, like a bad metaphor coming down from an acid trip.

[robinson]

Damn, you slipped in. And this system has no slippage warning.

Well, I've read and read and lurked and thought about adding a comment here and there, but it seems like a huge waste of time. A closed minded skeptic is worse that a close minded woo. At least woo is interesting, on many levels.

Being convinced beyond all doubt that one knows everything, is really F,ing boring to be around.

[robinson]

Well, before I get zapped for off topic or waste of timing, I will add that I enjoyed the " Could Scientists grab the million?" topic, and some of the funny stuff.

And, on a philosophical note, it would be surprising if nobody brought up the language barrier in the MDC. It seems logical to me, that if you define the challenge by words that mean, by definition, false or fiction, then it is like telling somebody you will pay them a million bucks if they can show you something that doesn't exist.

Now if the challenge was to show me something nobody has ever proved exist, then I could win the money in a heartbeat. But it wouldn't be a power or special ability, it would just be something nobody has proved or documented yet.

(remember, this is philosophical musing, not statements of fact)

For example, anything that can be observed and repeated, becomes a scientific "event", rather than a special mystical event.

So if you can prove it, and repeat it, it isn't paranormal, it is normal.
















Damn, this thinking stuff is hard.;)

On that tack, if I was to come up with something that could be demonstrated, by anyone, just the act of explaining what it is, would allow you or Randi, or anyone with a brain, to duplicate the research, meaning there would be no need for any testing, or any prize money being awarded.


heh

No really. Please point out any logic errors here.

[drkitten]

And, on a philosophical note, it would be surprising if nobody brought up the language barrier in the MDC. It seems logical to me, that if you define the challenge by words that mean, by definition, false or fiction, then it is like telling somebody you will pay them a million bucks if they can show you something that doesn't exist.

Now if the challenge was to show me something nobody has ever proved exist, then I could win the money in a heartbeat. But it wouldn't be a power or special ability, it would just be something nobody has proved or documented yet.

You're trying to set up a false dilemma here. There's a large middle ground between things that don't exist and things that no one has proved or documented. And the Randi challenge is interested specifically in objects that occupy that middle ground.

As a simple example, the ability to move objects by thought alone (TK) is generally considered not to exist, but some people claim not only that it exists (in the abstract), but that they can demonstrate it. Randi claims that they're wrong -- and is willing to put up a million bucks to justify his end of the bet.

So in order to win the bet, you first have to find something that Randi will agree beforehand does not and cannot exist, and then prove him wrong (by demonstrating that it does).

[Gr8wight]

ISYN, I want to talk about a lifetime of debunking crap, but not have to come back to find a bunch of nonsense and banter, or worse, veiled flamers bored to death cause they have too much time to spend pouncing on each and every new idea that winds up on the screen.

I mean to say, I have found it more rewarding to actually investigate crap than to dismiss it out of hand. Do some testing, some research, apply the old scientific mind to a problem, rather than scream, YOU ARE AN IDIOT! everytime somebody says they can do something unusual or mystical.

heh -- :D

There must be one thread here like that. Where skeptic meets scepdick, without a bunch of fallicies rearing up, like a bad metaphor coming down from an acid trip.

robinson,

What you are missing is the fact that a great number of the regular posters here have heard the same claims of paranormal abilities, and arguments supporting them over and over again. New "woos" appear almost every day thinking that they are going to wow us with their arguments. However, though the posters are new, their arguments rarely are. If regular members sometimes seem dismissive of a new member claiming to have some ability, it is because we have heard that person's argument before, numerous times, from numerous previous posters. If someone does show up with vaguely lucid claims and seems to be able to think clearly about what is necessary to test them, you will find an engaging thread...for a while. Eventually, all woos discover one of two things:

1) We will not be fooled by their tricks.

or

2) The powers they genuinely believe they have mysteriously disappear when they attempt a test that contains valid controls.

You see, it's not that we are not interested in testing their claims. It's that we already have. We are always hopeful that one day someone will astound us. We're just not going to hold our breath. We're skeptical, after all.

[robinson]

Hello drkitten

You're trying to set up a false dilemma here. There's a large middle ground between things that don't exist and things that no one has proved or documented. And the Randi challenge is interested specifically in objects that occupy that middle ground

That is like the third time somebody has tried to tell me what I am doing. You can read what I said. There is no dilemma. This is philosophical musing, working out the thoughts, looking at the semantics of the MDC. I don't know about any middle ground. I know that by definition, the wording of the MDC assures that what is to be proved is considered nonsense, fiction, or fakery.


As a simple example, the ability to move objects by thought alone (TK) is generally considered not to exist, but some people claim not only that it exists (in the abstract), but that they can demonstrate it. Randi claims that they're wrong -- and is willing to put up a million bucks to justify his end of the bet.


Well, I don't think it is a bet, more of a challenge. A bet has a winner and a loser. If somebody wins the challenge, both parties win. Randi, (and everybody else I would hope), get to exprience something new, and somebody is not only wealthy, but famous perhaps. ( a dubious benefit)

So in order to win the bet, you first have to find something that Randi will agree beforehand does not and cannot exist, and then prove him wrong (by demonstrating that it does).

Ignoring the term bet, this brings us back to the original thought. If it doesn't exist, it can't be proved. If it can be proved, observed, repeated, it is not anything special.

Sure, the first time it is special, but after the demonstration, it is just another thing. And if anyone can be trained to do it, it is mundane.

If the MDC is to see something never before documented or proved, then somebody will win it. If it is limited to a list of "events" that nobody has ever been able to demonstrate, or repeat, then nobody can win.

This speaks to the wording of the MDC itself. The MDC is not offered for a new and unobserved human ability, it is worded to appeal to crackpots and fakes. If it were about something new and mind blowing, that is what it would say.

Right? Moving objects with your "mind" is a ridiculous statement. Because nobody has ever observed a mind, photographed one, touched one, or in any way proved a mind exist. So the definition of a power uses a term that in and of itself, can not pass the challenge.

Of course most agree there is mind, or minds, something more than chemicals and eletricity in the head, but it can't be proved or observed.

[robinson]

Hello Gr8wight!

robinson,

What you are missing is the fact that a great number of the regular posters here have heard the same claims of paranormal abilities, and arguments supporting them over and over again. ....

...You see, it's not that we are not interested in testing their claims. It's that we already have. We are always hopeful that one day someone will astound us. We're just not going to hold our breath. We're skeptical, after all.

Thanks for that. I understand skeptical. And I can relate to the short temper one gains from endless repeating of crap, the sameness of the deluded, and the feeling that maybe there isn't anything out there that is really something else.

[gnome]

And yet, each time a proper claim is submitted, and a protocol agreed on, I think most of us follow the proceedings closely--even if it's been done dozens of times before. I love it when things get tested, I love it when a claimant is specific enough about what they can do to establish a test. It's exciting even if I think I know the outcome.

[Gr8wight]

Hello drkitten



That is like the third time somebody has tried to tell me what I am doing. You can read what I said. There is no dilemma. This is philosophical musing, working out the thoughts, looking at the semantics of the MDC. I don't know about any middle ground. I know that by definition, the wording of the MDC assures that what is to be proved is considered nonsense, fiction, or fakery.



Well, I don't think it is a bet, more of a challenge. A bet has a winner and a loser. If somebody wins the challenge, both parties win. Randi, (and everybody else I would hope), get to exprience something new, and somebody is not only wealthy, but famous perhaps. ( a dubious benefit)

So

Ignoring the term bet, this brings us back to the original thought. If it doesn't exist, it can't be proved. If it can be proved, observed, repeated, it is not anything special.

Sure, the first time it is special, but after the demonstration, it is just another thing. And if anyone can be trained to do it, it is mundane.

If the MDC is to see something never before documented or proved, then somebody will win it. If it is limited to a list of "events" that nobody has ever been able to demonstrate, or repeat, then nobody can win.

This speaks to the wording of the MDC itself. The MDC is not offered for a new and unobserved human ability, it is worded to appeal to crackpots and fakes. If it were about something new and mind blowing, that is what it would say.

Right? Moving objects with your "mind" is a ridiculous statement. Because nobody has ever observed a mind, photographed one, touched one, or in any way proved a mind exist. So the definition of a power uses a term that in and of itself, can not pass the challenge.

Of course most agree there is mind, or minds, something more than chemicals and eletricity in the head, but it can't be proved or observed.

robinson,

It is possible that you misunderstand the purpose of the challenge. The JREF one million dollar challenge is aimed squarely at those who claim to have "paranormal" abilities that are generally considered to be non-existant. The JREF is not a scientific organisation looking for something truly "new." They are an educational foundation whose mandate is to promote critical thinking about those things that people are commonly fooled about. The patently false and undemonstrable claims of people like psychics, dowsers, and purveyors of religious, audiophile, wine aging, and other relics are exactly who the challenge is aimed at.

The philosophical debate about whether something "paranormal" that has been demonstrated to be real is or is not any longer paranormal has no bearing on the challenge itself.

[drkitten]

I have read the claims, at it seems like only whackjobs ever bother to apply for the challenge. I was thinking that IF someone had real abilities, the last place they would look for money would be the MDC.

Why? It's a hell of a lot of money for, frankly, not much work.

They've tightened up the rules slightly in the past year or so, mainly with the three affidavits rule. But it still amounts to getting a million dollars for what amounts to two afternoons' work plus a bit of paperwork -- and for many of the target audience of the challenge, it's two afternoons of what they do for a living on a regular basis.

For myself, I teach at a university. I can't imagine anyone being silly enough to offer me large sums of money to "prove" that I can, in fact, grade papers and drink coffee.... but I also can't imagine my being silly enough to turn it down. That works out to, what, $500,000 a cup?

I have some friends in computer programming. Again, if you offered them $1,000,000 to prove that they can write computer programs, they'd be all over that.

If you have abilities, it's a lot of money for not much work at all. And, frankly, I could use the money right now -- we had some pipes break earlier this month, and I need a few floor in a few rooms. I could buy some nice flooring for a million bucks -- and I'm sure I'm not the only person on this forum who needs to do some home repairs. Or pay some medical bills. Or whose car is going thunk-thunk-thunk in an inconvenient way.

I simply can't imagine going home and telling my partner "Well, honey, I think I've figured it out. We're just not going to be able to get a new floor, because it will cost too much money and I can't figure out any way to get it except by writing James Randi and doing my job in front of him."

[robinson]

Hey there gnome!

I know what you mean. I wish MORE people would be tested. It is very entertaining. A final comment on the language and spirit of the MDC, and I got to go do real stuff. (but yeah, this is fun)

Firewalking.

Once it was considered woo. Or just made up. Or something mystical. But it was none of those. Anyone can do it. I've done it. Randi can do it. It is now "scientific", because scientist have done it.

I could even post a video on youTube of my drunken self doing it, over and over. Walking barefoot on really hot coals, (because it is not fire walking, but hot coal walking)

Without getting burned.

Win the money? No way. If that was still considered paranormal it would win the money, but it is not.

Just an example of how the MDC is after something that is not considered real, rather than something new and undocumented.

Now until I actually read how walking on hot coals is possible, without getting burned, I wouldn't do it. But after a scientist explained it was possible, I did it without a thought.

My drunken buddies thought I was insane of course, and I did some woo crap beforehand just to mess with them, but it isn't anything paranormal at all.

Fun still, but not supernatural.

[drkitten]

Hello drkitten



That is like the third time somebody has tried to tell me what I am doing.

Yes, because you clearly don't understand it yourself.

I don't know about any middle ground.

Obviously. But ignorance on your part is hardly something the rest of the forum should respect.

I know that by definition, the wording of the MDC assures that what is to be proved is considered nonsense, fiction, or fakery.

"Assures"? I'm not sure I follow you there. But it certainly assumes that, on the basis of long experience and hard evidence, that it is.

Of course, assumptions can be disproved. And you get a cool million if you can.

But the Randi Foundation doesn't think that you can.




Ignoring the term bet, this brings us back to the original thought. If it doesn't exist, it can't be proved. If it can be proved, observed, repeated, it is not anything special.

Sure, the first time it is special, but after the demonstration, it is just another thing. And if anyone can be trained to do it, it is mundane.

If the MDC is to see something never before documented or proved, then somebody will win it. If it is limited to a list of "events" that nobody has ever been able to demonstrate, or repeat, then nobody can win.

This is simply wrong, as a glance at athletic history would indicate.

Prior to 1954, nobody had ever been able to demonstrate (let alone repeat) the athletic feat of running a mile in less than four minutes. Roger Bannister did that for the first time on May 6, 1954. It's since been done repeatedly, but it had to be done for a first time if it is to be done at all.

Pick your own favorite sports record if you don't like that example. Prior to 1968, no one had ever longjumped 28 feet. Also prior to 1968, no one had run 100m in less than 10.0 seconds. Then someone did it the first time. We're still waiting (as far as I know) for the first 100m Javelin throw.

The Randi challenge is for someone to do for the first time something that Randi believes will never be done.




Moving objects with your "mind" is a ridiculous statement. Because nobody has ever observed a mind, photographed one, touched one, or in any way proved a mind exist. So the definition of a power uses a term that in and of itself, can not pass the challenge.

This is, not to put too fine a point on it, bullsh*t.

Randi has accepted challenge applications that claim this very ability -- see Beth Clarkson's application for an example. If she had been able to do what she had claimed, she would have passed.

[robinson]

Damn, sucked into yet one more reply.

robinson,

It is possible that you misunderstand the purpose of the challenge. .....
The philosophical debate about whether something "paranormal" that has been demonstrated to be real is or is not any longer paranormal has no bearing on the challenge itself.

Well, this topic is all about the issue of the challenge, is it not? I mean, if you can't be a sceptic about a sceptic, what can you say?


I don't know stuff I don't know. And while some may have beat this horse long after it expired, the FNGs are still going to do it anyway.

The way I read it, it says, "psychic, supernatural or paranorma" and "or occult power or event. "

Bt definition (who's definition?), all those words mean stuff that is considered bogus, false, superstition or just idiocy.

As I see it. So it really is about just proving idiocy is idiocy. Educating the stoopid. It isn't really about finding something unseen, something mystical, beyond our present knowledge.

Again, just thoughts on the challenge itself. Were just talking here. As it has been said, you can't change the challenge, but it might change you.

[drkitten]

The way I read it, it says, "psychic, supernatural or paranorma" and "or occult power or event. "

Bt definition (who's definition?), all those words mean stuff that is considered bogus, false, superstition or just idiocy.

Key words in the definition above (not a bad one, although there are better ones) -- is considered.

Specifically, to be eligible for the JREF Challenge, the challenger must offer something that the JREF (meaning: Randi) considers to be bogus, false, superstition, and/or idiocy.

The JREF considering something to be false does not mean that it is false. The JREF is not known to be infallible; the JREF does not consider itself to be infallible, nor would any dispassionate observer.

You win the money if you can show that the JREF's opinion is wrong.

[robinson]

Randi has accepted challenge applications that claim this very ability -- see Beth Clarkson's application for an example. If she had been able to do what she had claimed, she would have passed.


To put it so you might understand, moving something with your mind is a nonsense phrase, in scientific terms.

Because the term "mind" itself can not be proved. Sure, in the Wikiality of our social order most of us accept the term, but it is not scientific. Science goes by observable events, measurable reality, things that can not be measured, observed, or examined do not exist to science. I know that sounds harsh, but that is science.

OK that is a bold statement I know. But if you are going to use a term like "mind", the burden of proof is on you, not me. Prove "mind" exist, and you can get a Nobel prize or something.

Now if you said, "Move something without using your body, your breath, or any device or other person", that would be mind boggling.


























heh

[William Smith]

...
The way I read it, it says, "psychic, supernatural or paranorma" and "or occult power or event. "

Bt definition (who's definition?), all those words mean stuff that is considered bogus, false, superstition or just idiocy.

As I see it.
...


As you see it.

I simply say: "We do not have evidence. Given what we know so far about reality, 'psychic, supernatural or paranormal' actions seem possible only in the realms of imagination."

I will gladly endure getting proven differently today.

[robinson]

Specifically, to be eligible for the JREF Challenge, the challenger must offer something that the JREF (meaning: Randi) considers to be bogus, false, superstition, and/or idiocy.

The JREF considering something to be false does not mean that it is false. The JREF is not known to be infallible; the JREF does not consider itself to be infallible, nor would any dispassionate observer.

You win the money if you can show that the JREF's opinion is wrong.

If that statement is true, (and I doubt it is), then JREF could publish an exact list of "things, powers and/or events" that it considers to be false, or at least unproved. No weaseling around. I can't think of anything more subject to change that what is considered "paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event."

[robinson]

As you see it.

I simply say: "We do not have evidence. Given what we know so far about reality, 'psychic, supernatural or paranormal' actions seem possible only in the realms of imagination."

I will gladly endure getting proven differently today.

Well, I'm not shy about my opinion. Is there an official list somewhere that states what is considered to be "psychic, supernatural or paranormal", for the purpose of the MDC?

I can't find it.

[William Smith]

Well, I'm not shy about my opinion. Is there an official list somewhere that states what is considered to be "psychic, supernatural or paranormal", for the purpose of the MDC?

I can't find it.

Try this http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html

And this, scroll to the bottom http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html

[robinson]

Thanks Gzuz, (btw, I love that user name)

Ahhh! The list!!

"Dowsing. ESP. Precognition. Remote Viewing. Communicating with the Dead and/or "Channeling". Violations of Newton's Laws of Motion (Perpetual Motion Devices). Homeopathy. Chiropractic Healing (beyond back/joint problems). Faith Healing. Psychic Surgery. Astrology. Therapeutic Touch (aka "TT"). Qi Gong. Psychokinesis (aka "PK"). The Existence of Ghosts. Precognition & Prophecy. Levitation. Physiognomy. Psychometry. Pyramid Power. Reflexology. Applied Kinesiology (aka "AK"). Clairvoyance. The Existence of Auras. Graphology. Numerology. Palmistry. Phrenology."

[robinson]

WTF? These are not on the list?

Does that mean they are for real? :D

UFOs. "Bigfoot" & "Yeti" (or other legendary creatures). Anything that is likely to cause injury. "Cloud-busting". Claims of a Religious or Spiritual nature. Exorcism and/or Demonic Possession. The Existence of Chakras. The Existence of God[s]. Reincarnation. The Existence of the Soul or "Astral Bodies".

[drkitten]

To put it so you might understand, moving something with your mind is a nonsense phrase, in scientific terms.

No, it isn't. Read the Clarkson application.


Because the term "mind" itself can not be proved.

It need not be. Randi is willing to stipulate the meaning of the term.


OK that is a bold statement I know. But if you are going to use a term like "mind", the burden of proof is on you, not me.

No, the burden of proof is applied jointly and resolved via stipulation.

[drkitten]

UFOs. "Bigfoot" & "Yeti" (or other legendary creatures). Anything that is likely to cause injury. "Cloud-busting". Claims of a Religious or Spiritual nature. Exorcism and/or Demonic Possession. The Existence of Chakras. The Existence of God[s]. Reincarnation. The Existence of the Soul or "Astral Bodies".

It means that the evidence for their non-existence (as obtained by testing) is not as clear and uncontrovertible as it is for the items on the other list (such as phrenology and psychokinesis).

Consider Bigfoot. It's not unreasonable -- although it's highly unlikely -- that there is a large as-yet-undiscovered primate wandering the woods of the Northwestern United States. It certainly violates no known law or theory of biology.

Similarly, there is little evidence for the inefficacy of exorcism, precisely because no one has come up with a meaningful definition of the "soul" or "demons" that permits testing. As the FAQ notes, "The JREF is unaware of a manner in which it might be proven that demons exist (or god, or angels or "elementals", for that matter), while remaining open to any suggestions that might change their opinion in this regard. So, if someone can suggest a test protocol that would conclusively verify such things, the JREF would be willing to hear about it." As long as it remains an untestable claim, it is therefore outside the scope of JREF testing.

[William Smith]

Thanks Gzuz, (btw, I love that user name)

Ahhh! The list!!

"Dowsing. ESP. Precognition. Remote Viewing. Communicating with the Dead and/or "Channeling". Violations of Newton's Laws of Motion (Perpetual Motion Devices). Homeopathy. Chiropractic Healing (beyond back/joint problems). Faith Healing. Psychic Surgery. Astrology. Therapeutic Touch (aka "TT"). Qi Gong. Psychokinesis (aka "PK"). The Existence of Ghosts. Precognition & Prophecy. Levitation. Physiognomy. Psychometry. Pyramid Power. Reflexology. Applied Kinesiology (aka "AK"). Clairvoyance. The Existence of Auras. Graphology. Numerology. Palmistry. Phrenology."

For your reading pleasure, robinson, as well as for helpful information about the bread and butter of the Challenge Facilitator, check out the Challenge Applications. http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43

You will see what floats the JREF's boat paranormalwise.

[drkitten]

If that statement is true, (and I doubt it is), then JREF could publish an exact list of "things, powers and/or events" that it considers to be false, or at least unproved.

You've already been pointed to a list. Of course, it's not an "exact" list, because both science and woo-woo practices evolve. If someone could demonstrate ESP in a well-controlled scientific setting, he would be likely to take ESP off the list, just as "transmutation of elements" or "violation of the law of conservation of mass" would have been in JREF-style list from the 1800s, but not today.

Similarly, if I came up with a new line of sewage -- find your true love by matching your heights, or something like that -- he would probably accept that even though it's not on the list.

[gnome]

To put it so you might understand, moving something with your mind is a nonsense phrase, in scientific terms.

Because the term "mind" itself can not be proved. Sure, in the Wikiality of our social order most of us accept the term, but it is not scientific. Science goes by observable events, measurable reality, things that can not be measured, observed, or examined do not exist to science. I know that sounds harsh, but that is science.

OK that is a bold statement I know. But if you are going to use a term like "mind", the burden of proof is on you, not me. Prove "mind" exist, and you can get a Nobel prize or something.

Now if you said, "Move something without using your body, your breath, or any device or other person", that would be mind boggling.

heh

That is precisely how it might be worded when negotiating the actual protocol. It is not necessary to agree on the definition of "mind" to agree on a test and the test restrictions. Most people that decide to delve into semantics aren't interested in establishing a fair test--which is better done by negotiation than by waving dictionaries :)

The challenger says: I can do this, under these circumstances!
JREF says: Could you still do it if, x, y, and z?
Challenger: Sure, except for Z. That screws up the vibes.
JREF says: How about W instead of Z? From your description that shouldn't cause a problem.
Challenger: Ok, I can perform under conditions X, Y, and W.

voila. A protocol has been arranged. No need to agree on the semantics of the power. Just the test restrictions and criteria for success.

[Almo]

*Yawn*

Is that it? Is that as good as it gets here?

:idea:

Someone needs to stir the pot, rather than smoke it.


I find that this is one of the best places to get in a discussion about politics, religion, philosophy and math. I've seen many thoughts that were new to me, and new ways of looking at issues. It's just that the topic of "what's the point of the challenge" has been done already, and so solidly, that there's not a lot of point in rehashing it AGAIN. Part of that is because the Challenge really is quite simple.

[Gr8wight]

Damn, sucked into yet one more reply.



Well, this topic is all about the issue of the challenge, is it not? I mean, if you can't be a sceptic about a sceptic, what can you say?


I don't know stuff I don't know. And while some may have beat this horse long after it expired, the FNGs are still going to do it anyway.

The way I read it, it says, "psychic, supernatural or paranorma" and "or occult power or event. "

Bt definition (who's definition?), all those words mean stuff that is considered bogus, false, superstition or just idiocy.

As I see it. So it really is about just proving idiocy is idiocy. Educating the stoopid. It isn't really about finding something unseen, something mystical, beyond our present knowledge.

Again, just thoughts on the challenge itself. Were just talking here. As it has been said, you can't change the challenge, but it might change you.

Isn't that what I just said?

[SirPhilip]

This problem strikes me as a difficult one to get around (from a philosophical point of view) for the challenge. People are perfectly able to win the challenge without defeating the challenges philosophical standpoint, and it occurs to me this also dilutes the power of the challenge to attract challengers - they can't really win the philosophical debate even if they win the money. I don't see where philsophical issues crop up at all. Magicians are well aware what real magic would constitute. In this sense, the challenge is not scientific in nature. It exist because so many claim to regularly perform actual magic - actual magic as defined, commonly, as effect producing a cause, to defraud others using misdirection and trickery. In other words, they annul the laws of physics and harness nature in ways that make no reasonable sense, which is perfectly fine, except no reasonable results accompany them either. Science really doesn't even enter into the picture, because the challenge simply exists to verify something is not trickery or misdirection.

[Ginarley]

Hey guys, sorry for the delay in replying in this thread :) Interesting discussion going on, thanks Robinson!

Going back to GzuzKryzt's question about which purpose of the challenge will not be met if someone wins:

IMO the main purpose of the challenge are to expose fraudsters - at least I'm almost certain that is why it was started. I think several other beneficial purposes exist such as supporting conventional science or perhaps exposing REAL paranormal behaviour since who wouldn't want to see that? But the guts of it is the "put up or shut up" idea.

I've been thinking about this a lot, and have approached it from a different angle. There are four possible outcomes of a test:

1) The applicant is fraudulent and the result negative. This is what has happened to date and it is achieving the purpose well.

2) The applicant is fraudulent and the result positive. This would be a disaster for the challenge since it would serve to actively encourage fraudsters - if you can beat JR, you can beat anyone! It would also badly discredit the scientific process used by JREF.

3) The applicant is genuine and the result negative. There are two possible outcomes - on one hand if it was later proved to be genuine then this would be a disaster for the challenge since it would destroy any credibility it has, and essentially "prove" the "the money isn't real" people right. On the other hand if it is never publically shown to be genuine then it may help expose fraudsters similar to (1) although not in the intended way.

4) The applicant is genuine and the result positive. There are a couple of likely outcomes of this. Firstly fraudulent people would point to the result as justification of what they do (if they can be paranormal then I can be too!). Secondly as science is likely to be able to explain what went on as part of conventional science then the challenge has achieved nothing towards exposing fraudsters at all - it will have had a significant benefit to science obviously but achieved little towards its main purpose.

I may have wandered slightly from my original post but that is what thinking aloud is all about! People that stick to one exact viewpoint religiously are exactly that - stuck!

[William Smith]

Hey guys, sorry for the delay in replying in this thread :) Interesting discussion going on, thanks Robinson!

Going back to GzuzKryzt's question about which purpose of the challenge will not be met if someone wins:

IMO the main purpose of the challenge are to expose fraudsters - at least I'm almost certain that is why it was started. I think several other beneficial purposes exist such as supporting conventional science or perhaps exposing REAL paranormal behaviour since who wouldn't want to see that? But the guts of it is the "put up or shut up" idea.

I've been thinking about this a lot, and have approached it from a different angle. There are four possible outcomes of a test:

1) The applicant is fraudulent and the result negative. This is what has happened to date and it is achieving the purpose well.

2) The applicant is fraudulent and the result positive. This would be a disaster for the challenge since it would serve to actively encourage fraudsters - if you can beat JR, you can beat anyone! It would also badly discredit the scientific process used by JREF.

3) The applicant is genuine and the result negative. There are two possible outcomes - on one hand if it was later proved to be genuine then this would be a disaster for the challenge since it would destroy any credibility it has, and essentially "prove" the "the money isn't real" people right. On the other hand if it is never publically shown to be genuine then it may help expose fraudsters similar to (1) although not in the intended way.

4) The applicant is genuine and the result positive. There are a couple of likely outcomes of this. Firstly fraudulent people would point to the result as justification of what they do (if they can be paranormal then I can be too!). Secondly as science is likely to be able to explain what went on as part of conventional science then the challenge has achieved nothing towards exposing fraudsters at all - it will have had a significant benefit to science obviously but achieved little towards its main purpose.

I may have wandered slightly from my original post but that is what thinking aloud is all about! People that stick to one exact viewpoint religiously are exactly that - stuck!

Or perhaps those people know what they talk about and have made up their minds before opening their noiseholes/sitting down at a keyboard. Sticking a no-no-adjective to a certain viewpoint exposes yours, not the one of the people you criticize. :rolleyes:

Your point "which purpose of the challenge will not be met if someone wins" is just like any other speculation about the outcome of a successful Challenge:
A humongous "if". This seems to float your boat, I'd rather work on some actual Challenge Protocols.

"IMO the main purpose of the challenge are [sic] to expose fraudsters - at least I'm almost certain that is why it was started." and "But the guts of it is the "put up or shut up" idea."
Your words, Ginarley. And, um, your point?!?

Perhaps I spend too little time farting in my chair and too much time actually doing something to understand your level of thinking, e.g. "conventional science". How would you define "unconventional science", Ginarley?

[robinson]

Perhaps I spend too little time farting in my chair and too much time actually doing something to understand your level of thinking, e.g. "conventional science". How would you define "unconventional science", Ginarley?

Ahh, how quiet. Indeed. Indeed. Put up or shut up old chap, and yet such silence as will come with the shutting up, leads nowhere.

[robinson]

...IMO the main purpose of the challenge are to expose fraudsters - at least I'm almost certain that is why it was started. I think several other beneficial purposes exist such as supporting conventional science or perhaps exposing REAL paranormal behaviour since who wouldn't want to see that? But the guts of it is the "put up or shut up" idea.


Yes, and I want to thank Randi and the JREF for the entire concept. And those people who helped put up the million dollars. It does make for such interesting copy.