Why Randi's money is relatively unimportant

[nathan]

Dowsing is not a "....Psychic, supernatural, or occult power.....".
You see here we have the nub of the problem with maatorc. Namely he defines things differently to everybody else. AFAICT he even disagrees with defining things as supernatural within the scope of the JREF challenge.

Until maatorc decides to stop being humpty dumpty the discussion is impotent.

[maatorc]

You see here we have the nub of the problem with maatorc. Namely he defines things differently to everybody else. AFAICT he even disagrees with defining things as supernatural within the scope of the JREF challenge.

You are correct.
There is nothing that is supernatural: There is nothing 'super' beyond the 'natural'.
We may not understand how or why certain persons other than ourselves possess talents and capabilities we ourselves do not possess.
But we cannot, on this basis, prove they do not possess these talents or capabilities.
The absence in those of us, who do not realise them, of "...psychic, supernatural, or occult power..." is a manifestation, for want of a better term, of a form of sensory deprivation.
Those talents and capabilities some humans possess are not realised or experienced by all others. We are all perfect as human beings, but certain innate potentialities have not been fully realised or unfolded within us.
It is a conceit to demand that everyone see the 'world' as you see it.

[Mashuna]

You are correct.
There is nothing that is supernatural: There is nothing 'super' beyond the 'natural'.
We may not understand how or why certain persons other than ourselves possess talents and capabilities we ourselves do not possess.
But we cannot, on this basis, prove they do not possess these talents or capabilities.
The absence in those of us, who do not realise them, of "...psychic, supernatural, or occult power..." is a manifestation, for want of a better term, of a form of sensory deprivation.
Those talents and capabilities some humans possess are not realised or experienced by all others. We are all perfect as human beings, but certain innate potentialities have not been fully realised or unfolded within us.
It is a conceit to demand that everyone see the 'world' as you see it.

Phew, good job that this doesn't affect the JREF challenge in any way ;)

[maatorc]

Phew, good job that this doesn't affect the JREF challenge in any way ;)

You are not actually saying anything.

[William Smith]

You are correct.
There is nothing that is supernatural: There is nothing 'super' beyond the 'natural'.
We may not understand how or why certain persons other than ourselves possess talents and capabilities we ourselves do not possess.
But we cannot, on this basis, prove they do not possess these talents or capabilities.
The absence in those of us, who do not realise them, of "...psychic, supernatural, or occult power..." is a manifestation, for want of a better term, of a form of sensory deprivation.
Those talents and capabilities some humans possess are not realised or experienced by all others. We are all perfect as human beings, but certain innate potentialities have not been fully realised or unfolded within us.
It is a conceit to demand that everyone see the 'world' as you see it.

In a very far away ivory tower, I kinda would agree with you, maatorc.

However, most people do live on this planet's surface. With this, they (and JREF) accept a certain degree of uncertainty.
If you look here
http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html#2.2
and deduct further, this level of uncertainty may oppose a rigid scientific principle, but serves as an assistant towards an understanding of those events we yet lack a more exact attribute for.

Plus, the JREF does not claim to be the "global benchmark of scholarship, science, understanding, and knowledge." Your words, post #97.

The JREF simply - and effectively - provides an adversary for people who make claims of a "paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event".

The JREF will accept any dowsing claim, because the JREF defines dowsing as a "paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event".

This may not meet your more rigid standards, maatorc.

[Kimpatsu]

Dowsing is not a "....Psychic, supernatural, or occult power.....".
Fabulous. If dowsing is NOT a psychic or occult power, given that Randi accepts dowsing for the Challenge, I expect a dowser to win the $1 million immediately.
Like all those dowsers who have already won.
Oh, wait... :rolleyes:

[Mashuna]

You are not actually saying anything.

Well, I certainly wasn't very clear, that's true. That's mainly because I can't find where the issue is in your posts. I'll try a bit harder.

From earlier posts of yours that I've read, my understanding of your argument was that, from a rigorous philosophical point of view, the JREF challenge would not provide proof of supernatural ability even if won. I think the majority of people agreed with this statement, but pointed out that this was never the claim made by the challenge.

Your latest post looks to be changing the argument slightly. You now claim that abilities that people have cannot be called supernatural (by definition, if it exists then it is natural). Ok, I agree that things that exist are natural.


We may not understand how or why certain persons other than ourselves possess talents and capabilities we ourselves do not possess.
But we cannot, on this basis, prove they do not possess these talents or capabilities.

Well no, we can't prove that they don't possess these talents. But we can ask that they demonstrate them. Hence, a challenge.

I don't understand the following line of argument though,

The absence in those of us, who do not realise them, of "...psychic, supernatural, or occult power..." is a manifestation, for want of a better term, of a form of sensory deprivation.
Those talents and capabilities some humans possess are not realised or experienced by all others.

As I say, I may be misunderstanding you here. To me, this looks like you're arguing that because we can't prove the lack of an ability then it must exist - at least amongst some people. I know it's said that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but this is the first time I've seen an absence of evidence is evidence argument.

[Mr. Scott]

Dowsing is not a "....Psychic, supernatural, or occult power.....".

Dowsing is a "psychic, supernatural, or occult power." It is "psychic" because the stick (or whatever you name it) is assumed to read the dowser's mind, and it is "supernatural" because it's presumed functioning violates natural scientific laws.

Please answer these questions:

1) Why has every attempt to demonstrate dowsing for the Million Dollar Challenge failed?

2) Have you watched the video of Randi testing dowsers? Here's the link (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7461912885649996034&q=james+randi&hl=en) again in case you haven't.

3) What's wrong with the JREF's methods in that test of dowsing?

[Bob Klase]

Dowsing is not a "....Psychic, supernatural, or occult power.....".

Some people will hold a wire or twig over water and it will twitch.

More accurately, some people will hold a wire or twig and sometimes it will twitch. Sometimes when it twitches it's over water. Sometimes when it doesn't twitch it's over water. There is no credible evidence that there's any correlation between the twitching and the water when the person holding the wire or twig doesn't know where the water is.

[maatorc]

Dowsing is a "psychic, supernatural, or occult power." It is "psychic" because the stick (or whatever you name it) is assumed to read the dowser's mind, and it is "supernatural" because it's presumed functioning violates natural scientific laws.
Please answer these questions:
1) Why has every attempt to demonstrate dowsing for the Million Dollar Challenge failed?
2) Have you watched the video of Randi testing dowsers? Here's the link (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7461912885649996034&q=james+randi&hl=en) again in case you haven't.
3) What's wrong with the JREF's methods in that test of dowsing?

Dowsing is 'sometime' thing for dowsers.
Like financial advisers they have good and bad days.
It is not a 'power'. It is a response between water, the device, and the person.
Under controlled conditions for the purpose of testing, the dowser will often not be relaxed, and you can expect a high failure rate, maybe a total failure rate.
If it actually functions any presumptions about violating supposed scientific laws are irrelevent: In due time an 'acceptable' scientific explanation may be found, but meanwhilre, if it functions, then it functions.
Incidentally, if anyone were to be accepted by the JREF challenge, so widespread is the historical anecdotal evidence and use of dowsing, you can count on it: To the world at large, and germane to the OP, it will be a non-event.

[maatorc]

In a very far away ivory tower, I kinda would agree with you, maatorc.

Having come this far to some common ground of agenda and context, you may find the book Comte De Gabalis by Abbe De Villars, recognised in certain circles as the most authoritative text on the myth outside the inner school, of more than passing interest. I also accept that you may not.

See in particular -
Page xiv, last paragraph, and page 6 on pretended death, as to who the real author may be.
Page 12, particularly the last sentence, and
Page 297, the definition, particularly the first sentence, and
If interested, a most careful scrutiny of the 'Commentaries'.

As they say in the classics: May the force be with you!!!!!!!!

[Mr. Scott]

Dowsing is 'sometime' thing for dowsers.

The ones in the video of Randi testing them claim it's an 80% or better thing.

Like financial advisers they have good and bad days.

Many financial advisers, too, advertize their successes and conceal their failures.

It is not a 'power'. It is a response between water, the device, and the person.

Semantics again?

Under controlled conditions for the purpose of testing, the dowser will often not be relaxed, and you can expect a high failure rate, maybe a total failure rate.

The dowsers in the video seemed relaxed, none of them warned the testers that they may not perform if not relaxed, and none used that as an excuse when they failed.

In due time an 'acceptable' scientific explanation may be found, but meanwhilre, if it functions, then it functions.

It doesn't function. There is right now an acceptable scientific explanation why dowsing is delusional and completely ineffective. There's a lot of water underground, and choosing a site at random is just as likely to yield water as a dowser's delusional methods, whether the dowser had been relaxed or not.

Incidentally, if anyone were to be accepted by the JREF challenge, so widespread is the historical anecdotal evidence and use of dowsing, you can count on it: To the world at large, and germane to the OP, it will be a non-event.

Incorrect. Proof of dowsing's effectiveness and a scientific explanation for how it functions would show a great deal of scientific knowledge accumulated over the centuries to be wrong.

So, which do you think is more likely: A) That dowsers and their victims are deluded; or B) That centuries of the accumulated knowledge of science, that has given us so many successes like medicine, space travel, and the Internet, is wrong?

[saizai]

Incorrect. Proof of dowsing's effectiveness and a scientific explanation for how it functions would show a great deal of scientific knowledge accumulated over the centuries to be wrong.

So, which do you think is more likely: A) That dowsers and their victims are deluded; or B) That centuries of the accumulated knowledge of science, that has given us so many successes like medicine, space travel, and the Internet, is wrong?

It would show that science to be incomplete, not wrong. That's always the case; science only describes what we have managed to observe to date, and regularly needs to be extended to better fit the entirety of circumstances when we see new and unusual ones. That doesn't invalidate the previous knowledge, just says that there are areas it doesn't fully describe.

[Darat]

Dowsing is 'sometime' thing for dowsers.
Like financial advisers they have good and bad days.
It is not a 'power'. It is a response between water, the device, and the person.
Under controlled conditions for the purpose of testing, the dowser will often not be relaxed, and you can expect a high failure rate, maybe a total failure rate.
If it actually functions any presumptions about violating supposed scientific laws are irrelevent: In due time an 'acceptable' scientific explanation may be found, but meanwhilre, if it functions, then it functions.
Incidentally, if anyone were to be accepted by the JREF challenge, so widespread is the historical anecdotal evidence and use of dowsing, you can count on it: To the world at large, and germane to the OP, it will be a non-event.

This is standard excuse for failing the Challenge. If you go and check out some of the actual dowsing tests Randi and the JREF (and others have run) you will see that your objections have long been considered and taken into account.

[maatorc]

(1) Well, ...... That's mainly because I can't find where the issue is in your posts.

(2) .......my understanding of your argument was that, from a rigorous philosophical point of view, the JREF challenge would not provide proof of supernatural ability even if won...........

(3) Your latest post looks to be changing the argument slightly. You now claim that abilities that people have cannot be called supernatural (by definition, if it exists then it is natural). Ok, I agree that things that exist are natural.

(4) Well no, we can't prove that they don't possess these talents. But we can ask that they demonstrate them. Hence, a challenge.

(5) I don't understand the following line of argument though,......
As I say, I may be misunderstanding you here. To me, this looks like you're arguing that because we can't prove the lack of an ability then it must exist - at least amongst some people. I know it's said that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but this is the first time I've seen an absence of evidence is evidence argument.

(1) Try posts 178, 194, & 261 to pick up on context. Happy to further discuss.

(2) and (3) Yes, at best a successful challenge can but infer the existence of a "...psychic, supernatural, or occult power..." because it has no material means of actually measuring such a presumed power. My ultimate point about this is that ALL human beings are potentially capable of manifesting what the JREF chooses to refer to as "...psychic, supernatural, or occult power...", which are natural functions of the whole and complete human sensory mechanisms of consciousness, and which are for the present actively denied to exist by some of us who have not yet activated these functions, to the extreme extent of characterising those who do not share their viewpoint as unbalanced and ignorant.

(4) I have already made the point that those who can, won't. They are not performing clowns.

(5) What I am saying is that the JREF cannot prove either the lack or the possession of such an ability because it lacks the means to do so. Material observation of a performance or demonstration of something deemed to be "...psychic, supernatural, or occult..." does not actually prove or disprove it is so.
It is accepted that the challenge distinguishes between what actually is and what it chooses to see as "...psychic, supernatural, or occult power...", and that a demonstration is the point of the challenge as distinct from whether or not it is or is not actually "...psychic, supernatural, or occult power...".

Again, to try to keep the discussion in line with the OP, I do not see anyone succeeding with the challenge, and, in the wholly unlikely event of a demonstration being accepted by Mr Randi, it will not be any kind of world-wide wonder as this whole business is old-hat to most people.

[Mashuna]

Thanks for the answer, I've got a better idea of your viewpoint now. I don't really agree with much of what you've written, but I do appreciate you spelling it out for me :)

(1)
My ultimate point about this is that ALL human beings are potentially capable of manifesting what the JREF chooses to refer to as "...psychic, supernatural, or occult power...", which are natural functions of the whole and complete human sensory mechanisms of consciousness, and which are for the present actively denied to exist by some of us who have not yet activated these functions, to the extreme extent of characterising those who do not share their viewpoint as unbalanced and ignorant.



So, to check my own understanding, your view is that we could all be capable of things which are currently (as they pertain to the JREF challenge) classed as paranormal. So things such as dowsing, telepathy, mediumship etc?

Well, from a personal level, I haven't seen any examples of paranormal abilities (I'll keep calling them paranormal for convenience although I know you don't see them that way). Your view seems to be that these things are almost mundane, and that in the wholly unlikely event of a demonstration being accepted by Mr Randi, it will not be any kind of world-wide wonder as this whole business is old-hat to most people.

What I don't see is how to reconcile the view that these paranormal abilities are commonplace or old-hat and also essentially untestable. Or is your position not that these abilities are untestable, but that they are untestable by the JREF challenge (due to some undetermined aspect of its nature) but testable in some other way?

My view would be in line with most of the other posters (from what I've read), in that if an ability has a measurable effect then it can (in principle) be tested for. The classification of whether this is paranormal / supernatural / occult or untapped potential need not arise.

[saizai]

(2) and (3) Yes, at best a successful challenge can but infer the existence of a "...psychic, supernatural, or occult power..." because it has no material means of actually measuring such a presumed power. My ultimate point about this is that ALL human beings are potentially capable of manifesting what the JREF chooses to refer to as "...psychic, supernatural, or occult power...", which are natural functions of the whole and complete human sensory mechanisms of consciousness, and which are for the present actively denied to exist by some of us who have not yet activated these functions, to the extreme extent of characterising those who do not share their viewpoint as unbalanced and ignorant.

Fallacy of definition. You claim that JREF can't prove anything, but JREF is the one that gets to define the terms used in its challenge, not you. Thus it gets to define "supernatural". You can claim that its definition is inaccurate (as you have above), but that does not pertain to its provability and thus is moot.

It is not material to JREF's claim of provability that it is unable to prove that the thing so proven is in fact paranormal; the definition is axiomatic for the scope of the proof.

[saizai]

Here's a suggestion for getting back on topic:

Assume someone wins. (Yeah yeah, I know it's hard for you to do.) Bob has demonstrated X, and X is agreed to be supernatural / occult / paranormal by current standards.

What should they then do?
How can they make the big $$$$ that make the $1m relatively unimportant?
Should they donate the $1m? Would this be a savvy maneuver in their nonaltruistic longterm best interest?
How can they best manage PR?
How can they defend their (now proven) claim against the ensuing vicious attacks by the embattled worldwide skeptics?


Be specific! Let's use this as a thread to point people to who say "well it's not worth going after 'cause I won't get paid anyway" and say "au contraire! Look what you could do afterwards..."

Feel free to give different answers for different subcategories of X (eg weaponizable-X, scalable-X, teachable-X, etc)...

[Cuddles]

Fallacy of definition. You claim that JREF can't prove anything, but JREF is the one that gets to define the terms used in its challenge, not you. Thus it gets to define "supernatural". You can claim that its definition is inaccurate (as you have above), but that does not pertain to its provability and thus is moot.

It is not material to JREF's claim of provability that it is unable to prove that the thing so proven is in fact paranormal; the definition is axiomatic for the scope of the proof.

Very good point. It is completely irrelevant whether something is paranormal or not. All that mattes is that JREF says it is something that will be tested. If the JREF says they will test something and the claimant says they can do something that can be tested, then it is possible to test if they are correct or not.

I feel the generally accepted definition of "paranormal", in skeptical circles at least, is bascially "something that has not been shown to exist". I doubt anyone here will argue that something that has been proven to exist would be paranormal, even if it was previously considered as such, the problem is that none of the things JREF tests have a single scrap of evidence to suggest they do. I also think it is very telling that believers (with the apparent exception of maatorc) also use the word "paranormal" to describe what they do, even though they believe it all to be entirely normal.

[tsig]

The Forum is fine: Just sometimes somewhat up-tight about it's and other's viewpoints.

To be honest, I do have a different position vis-a-vis the JREF challenge: Namely, that the total extent of human consciousness exceeds the limitations of our material senses based on the cerebro-spinal system. This extended, or psychical, awareness is based entirely on the perfectly normal and natural functioning of another sensory system possessed by and consciously or unconsciously utilised by every human being; which knowledge has been known and understood by certain circles for many centuries.

The principal reason there does not exist any common measure or standard (commensurability) between the two levels of awareness appears to rest on the fact that the cerebro-spinal material awareness particularises perceptions in space and time, whereas the other system generalises perceptions and completely ignores space and time.

But this of course is another subject outside the terms of this thread.

maatorc.

What a cheap shot and a run!

I wonder what levels of cerebro-spinal material awareness you were operating at when you posted this.

[tsig]

You are correct.
There is nothing that is supernatural: There is nothing 'super' beyond the 'natural'.
We may not understand how or why certain persons other than ourselves possess talents and capabilities we ourselves do not possess.
But we cannot, on this basis, prove they do not possess these talents or capabilities.
The absence in those of us, who do not realise them, of "...psychic, supernatural, or occult power..." is a manifestation, for want of a better term, of a form of sensory deprivation.
Those talents and capabilities some humans possess are not realised or experienced by all others. We are all perfect as human beings, but certain innate potentialities have not been fully realised or unfolded within us.
It is a conceit to demand that everyone see the 'world' as you see it.

And you have that conceit in Spades

[maatorc]

What a cheap shot and a run!

I wonder what levels of cerebro-spinal material awareness you were operating at when you posted this.

If you do not have the foggiest clue what is being said, attack the writer.
Normal JREF mode! Nothing new.

[maatorc]

And you have that conceit in Spades

And you have the said deprivation in shovel fulls.

[saizai]

Would y'all -again - mind splitting off the "what can JREF prove or not prove, and assorted philosophizing on the nature of supernaturality" to another thread please?

I suggest using my prompt above to get back to the original topic...

[William Smith]

Would y'all -again - mind splitting off the "what can JREF prove or not prove, and assorted philosophizing on the nature of supernaturality" to another thread please?

I suggest using my prompt above to get back to the original topic...

Been there, done that - coughmaatorccough.



I guess self-proclaimed psychics around the world gnash and grind their teeth silently and daily at the JREF Prize because there was someone who did dare to draw a line.
And along this line, in his lectures, in his books, in his SWIFT journals; in conversations, proposals, negotiations, arguments, debates around this beautiful ignorance-ridden-but-blessed-with-the-ability-of-development planet, the Million does freakin' matter, biatchez.

[Expletive Deleted] yeah!

[maatorc]

I guess self-proclaimed psychics...

I have not, do not, and will not make any such claim: Are you surprised?

[William Smith]

I have not, do not, and will not make any such claim: Are you surprised?

Not really.

Although I feel quite amused since I did not at all think about you when I wrote this post. I did think about the thousands of wanna-bes, the covens of "witches", the cults of believers and those many many lonely humanoids who would do anything to get recognized. Even make up most crapulicious crapola - and post it on this forum.

Off topic. Burn me for it, saizai.

[maatorc]

Even make up most crapulicious crapola - and post it on this forum.

Some who are 'challenged' feel the need to issue a 'challenge'.

[maatorc]

Even make up most crapulicious crapola - and post it on this forum.

Allowing for the 'challenged' cults, covens and lonely's, there are also those other 'challenged' who must issue a 'challenge'.
This is a two-way street as the truth lies in neither 'challenged' position, giving rise to circularly self-referencing crapulent crappy crap.

[Mr. Scott]

maatoc, you haven't answered my questions #2 and #3:


2) Have you watched the video of Randi testing dowsers? Here's the link (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7461912885649996034&q=james+randi&hl=en) again in case you haven't.

3) What's wrong with the JREF's methods in that test of dowsing?

I await your response.

[Mr. Scott]

On topic remark: If Geller and Browne can make millions faking paranormal powers, just think what someone could make demonstrating actual bona-fide paranormal powers. Yes, Randi's million would look like a pittance compared to the fame and fortune, but that's just like imagining what might result if monkeys flew out of my rear. Not gonna happen.

[saizai]

Off topic. Burn me for it, saizai.

:flamed::D

P.S. Careful of those glass houses, O Thelemite. And take the discussion of dowsing to some other thread - there're plenty already.

[William Smith]

:flamed::D

P.S. Careful of those glass houses, O Thelemite. And take the discussion of dowsing to some other thread - there're plenty already.

I dig edge already. :D

Ich bin nicht ein Thelemite, o Freund. I simply tried their way, it did not work for me.

Mr. Randi's money's important, relatively. Put up or shut up. [Chandler Bing, once more:] Could this be any simpler?

[Dunstan]

Here's a suggestion for getting back on topic:

Assume someone wins. (Yeah yeah, I know it's hard for you to do.) Bob has demonstrated X, and X is agreed to be supernatural / occult / paranormal by current standards.

What should they then do?

That would depend on what his or her goals are. I'll answer the rest of the questions on the assumption that it is "make as much money as possible."

How can they make the big $$$$ that make the $1m relatively unimportant?

Note, by the way, that it is you who have claimed that the $1m would be "relatively unimportant." For any reasonably useful Challenge-eligible ability, I expect a successful applicant could make multiple millions, but I suppose there are abilities that might not prove very exploitable.

Should they donate the $1m? Would this be a savvy maneuver in their nonaltruistic longterm best interest?

I doubt it, but I'm no PR expert.

How can they best manage PR?

See above, but my guess is, depending on the nature of the ability:

1) use the ability to help people while making money. For example, a "talk to the dead" claimant could talk to murder victims to help solve crimes; a dowser could help Third World villages find drinking wells. Sell the TV rights to these "charitable" exploits.

2) write a book, explaining how you learned of your abilities, overcame the doubts and criticisms of those horrible mean skeptics, and triumphed in the end -- "and you can, too!" TV show, movie, computer game, etc. soon follows.

How can they defend their (now proven) claim against the ensuing vicious attacks by the embattled worldwide skeptics?

I disagree with the premise. I'll grant that at least some people will dispute the results of the test, but whether those people would be skeptics or a significant number of people is another issue.

But anyway, in response to any critics, the successful applicant could:

1) Offer to re-take the test, or to take another suitable test. This could be conditioned on the naysayers putting up another million, or on getting some television network to put up the cash in exchange for the broadcast rights. In fact, this might be one of the easiest ways to cash in on the ability.

2) Ignore them. Sylvia Browne, John Edward, et al have made scads of money and gotten television contracts, etc. while refusing to be tested even once, so a successful JREF applicant should have no problem brushing off critics by saying "I've got nothing left to prove."

[Macoy]

From saizai:
"How can they defend their (now proven) claim against the ensuing vicious attacks by the embattled worldwide skeptics?"

Any honest sceptic would accept the "(now proven)" claim, and cease to be sceptical. Your argument would seem to be with someone else.

[William Smith]

Bumpity bump.

[robinson]

Stop that.

[T'ai Chi]

Not gonna happen.

So if you know it is not gonna happen, isn't it a little dishonest to offer money for something you know is not gonna happen?

[CFLarsen]

So if you know it is not gonna happen, isn't it a little dishonest to offer money for something you know is not gonna happen?

Why would that be dishonest on JREF's account?

[robinson]

Thank you.

[Guthrie Prentice]

in relation to the 1M, I applied for the challenge last night, and asked that should I win, that randi keep the 1M and not tell anyone I won. If ESP exists, the public cannot be trusted with the knowledge.They would go irrational and believe in superstition because most of them are too stupid not to, hence why big business tries to denounce global warming and John Q. Public still drives so much; because they are too stupid to understand even the simplest science behind it.

[ImaginalDisc]

in relation to the 1M, I applied for the challenge last night, and asked that should I win, that randi keep the 1M and not tell anyone I won. If ESP exists, the public cannot be trusted with the knowledge.They would go irrational and believe in superstition because most of them are too stupid not to, hence why big business tries to denounce global warming and John Q. Public still drives so much; because they are too stupid to understand even the simplest science behind it.

Oh, the Secrets Man Was Not Meant to Know ploy. How cliche.

[robinson]

Worth an entire topic.

[William Smith]

in relation to the 1M, I applied for the challenge last night, and asked that should I win, that randi keep the 1M and not tell anyone I won. If ESP exists, the public cannot be trusted with the knowledge.They would go irrational and believe in superstition because most of them are too stupid not to, hence why big business tries to denounce global warming and John Q. Public still drives so much; because they are too stupid to understand even the simplest science behind it.

Welcome to the Forum, Guthrie Prentice.

May I suggest you open a new thread if you wish to discuss your claim and application? It'd keep things more transparent.

You seem to have something to say.