Why Randi's money is relatively unimportant

[saizai]

Yes, $1m is quite a bit of cash. There have been questions raised as to whether it exists, but IMO that's somewhat irrelevant.

If one were to succeed in proving something paranormal, then $1M would be a pittance compared to smart use of the fame generated; whether for purely 'holy' purposes (eg charity spree) or more mundane ones (eg book deals). Talk shows worldwide, news, etc etc would be pretty much assured.

So: I think it's somewhat pointless to engage in debate about the $1m prize per se, on either side. JREF in a sense just serves as a notary-magician, to verify that it's done properly and without trickery.

In that way, the prize itself is beside the point; it's only the proving that matters.

[Cyphermage]

Yes, $1m is quite a bit of cash. There have been questions raised as to whether it exists, but IMO that's somewhat irrelevant.

If one were to succeed in proving something paranormal, then $1M would be a pittance compared to smart use of the fame generated; whether for purely 'holy' purposes (eg charity spree) or more mundane ones (eg book deals). Talk shows worldwide, news, etc etc would be pretty much assured.

So: I think it's somewhat pointless to engage in debate about the $1m prize per se, on either side. JREF in a sense just serves as a notary-magician, to verify that it's done properly and without trickery.

In that way, the prize itself is beside the point; it's only the proving that matters.

It is my understanding that most of the $1m is in securities loaned to JREF by people who don't expect to lose them. Doesn't this create a rather high bar before Randi tells these people, "your money is gone," and goes into hiding?

It's not like the JREF has a million of its own money to give away.

While I'm sure everyone in JREF is being aboveboard and honest, I think the funding situation creates a possible subsconscious bias against affirming any paranormal claims, no matter what the evidence.

It would be very exciting if Randi's challenge were supported by a wealthy outside corporation, like the Ansari X Prize was. Perhaps they could give $10 million to the person with the verifiable paranormal claim, and a few million to Randi for JREF for proving to the satisfaction of the scientific community that the claim was genuine. Win/win for everyone.

[roger]

It is my understanding that most of the $1m is in securities loaned to JREF by people who don't expect to lose them. Doesn't this create a rather high bar before Randi tells these people, "your money is gone," and goes into hiding?

It's not like the JREF has a million of its own money to give away.Your understanding is wrong.

JREF has over 1 million dollars in a Gold Sachs account. This money was a gift from an anonymous donor. The money can only be spent for the prize, nothing else, though JREF does partially support itself on the interest.

Randi doesn't have to, and won't be, collecting a single cent from another person if he has to pay off the challenge.


ETA: The challenge money used to be $10,000 from Randi, and the rest from various people who promised to chip in. But that state of affairs ended quite a long time ago.

[Lisa Simpson]

Goldman Sachs, BTW.

[skoob]

It is my understanding that most of the $1m is in securities loaned to JREF by people who don't expect to lose them.Your understanding is wrong.
http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html#3.1

[roger]

saizai, you are pretty much right, if in fact somebody has these powers. We could argue all day about whether or not the JREF million would be worth pursuing in these cases. In the 'for' column, you have 1M for a couple hours of work, plus worldwide fame. In the 'against', depending on the skill, you may be able to find a more lucrative way to use the skill if you keep it hidden.

But, that's not really what the challenge is about. The world is full of people who claim special abilities already. The challenge is just that; a challenge. It a great big "OH YA - PROVE IT". I mean, if dowsers are out there working for $30/hour to find water lines, psychics are charging $60/hr to talk to you on the phone, they are already using their "powers" in the world. To them we say "prove it". Put up or shut up. If you are willing to work for an hour for 50 bucks or 500 bucks, surely you'll work the same amount of time for 1M. And that's really what the challenge is about. Showing that the emperor has no clothes.

Of course it also has the side benefit of being quite the sound bite. Randi is no dummy - this makes great press. JREF is an educational foundation (it's in the name), and something like this helps Randi get the message out.

[saizai]

roger - It's more than a few hours' work, considering the various prep stuff and negotation, but I think by any standard except perhaps Bill Gates it's still a very handsome hourly rate.

And of course it makes for good publicity for JREF; bets always are fun. :-P

As Cyphermage points out though, they do of course have a definite conflict of interest in doing 'fair' tests. No doubt they want to - but skeptics are not immune from making excuses to defend their worldview. Especially since there are very many who take skepticism as a sort of specific description of the world rather than an approach to testing - the difference between atheism (which is irrational *belief* in something unprovable) and agnosticism (which is a lack of belief either way). I've certainly seen "skeptics", here and elsewhere, make quite fallacious arguments to defend their worldview, or to discount something that might attack it.

But in that sense what JREF does is good also: it ensures that the terms are fully agreed ahead of time, so that neither party can make excuses.

[Cyphermage]

JREF has over 1 million dollars in a Gold Sachs account. This money was a gift from an anonymous donor. The money can only be spent for the prize, nothing else, though JREF does partially support itself on the interest.


So JREF has legal ownership of an unencumbered $1 million, from a single anonymous donor, who doesn't care to ever see the money again, the only condition being that it can only be spent on the prize?

That's a much better situation, of course.

I wonder if JREF would attract better applicants if the prize were $10 million.

[Cyphermage]

Your understanding is wrong.
http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html#3.1

I don't believe I've suggested anything that is contradicted by the information at that URL. I believe Randi has possession of the funds. I believe they are in a Goldman Sachs account. I believe were someone able to pass the challenge, Randi would be legally obligated to give them the money.

What I don't see is a statement of where the funds came from, and whether there are any private understandings or caveats between JREF and the donor. What would be the donor's level of displeasure were the money to be awarded? Can a tax-exempt educational foundation legally shield the identity of its donors?

[Lisa Simpson]

What does it matter where the funds came from? They now belong to the JREF.

[roger]

I don't believe I've suggested anything that is contradicted by the information at that URL. I believe Randi has possession of the funds. I believe they are in a Goldman Sachs account. I believe were someone able to pass the challenge, Randi would be legally obligated to give them the money.

What I don't see is a statement of where the funds came from, and whether there are any private understandings or caveats between JREF and the donor. What would be the donor's level of displeasure were the money to be awarded? Can a tax-exempt educational foundation legally shield the identity of its donors?The donation is from an anonymous computer magnate. The money is no longer his. It was a gift. It is JREF's.

[roger]

These threads always go the same way. But what if.... But what if Randi doesn't pay? But what if he angers the donors? But what if the money doesn't exist? But what if Randi changes the rules. But what if....

You can say the same what ifs about any legal contract. That's what the challenge is - a binding legal contract. The repercutions of any shady business on the end of JREF would be huge.

Do you say these "what ifs" when you sign the morgage of your house? But what if the bank doesn't have the money? But what if the president of the bank lies? But what if the president's friends, who invested in the bank, get angry about this house loan?

[Lisa Simpson]

The other posts, about atheism, were moved here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63486).

[roger]

As Cyphermage points out though, they do of course have a definite conflict of interest in doing 'fair' tests. Can you imagine the fame and fortune that would rain down on Randi should he run a successful test? Can you imagine anything better to train the spotlight on JREF and it's mission? Can you imagine how much money would come flowing into the JREF coffers?

Can you imagine the terror that the IRS will rain down on JREF should they cheat? Can you imagine the phalanx of lawyers coming in to take their piece of the pie, should JREF cheat? Can you imagine the bad press, the destruction of the JREF name, and Randi's, should they cheat?

And, do you realize that JREF and/or Randi does not administer the test, but has a neutral third party conduct the test? (this was not always true in the past, Randi did oversee things).

JREF/Randi would be crazy to do anything but by the books.


Yes, of course we can play what if - what if Randi is completely morally corrupt. But he has never shown himself to be so. On the contrary, he has shown himself to be passionately devoted to the truth, and to correcting any mistake he makes.

People come on here to snip at the challenge all the time. That's okay; if something can be improved at no real cost to JREF, why not do so. But no one has suggested reasonable improvements. This is a simple business transaction - do X, I give you Y. Far more complicated business transactions for far greater sums than $1M go on every day with far less hand wringing, and with people with far less of a reputation than Randi, with less to lose as far as publicity goes.

The money exists. If you can do what you claim, it is easy peasy to agree to a protocol, get tested by a third party, and receive the million dollars.

[tkingdoll]

So JREF has legal ownership of an unencumbered $1 million, from a single anonymous donor, who doesn't care to ever see the money again, the only condition being that it can only be spent on the prize?

That's a much better situation, of course.

I wonder if JREF would attract better applicants if the prize were $10 million.

That would be worse. There are already many, many people who don't take the challenge seriously because they don't believe anyone (Randi, the donor, whoever) would seriously part with a million dollars. And that provides them with an excuse for not taking the challenge.

They'd be even less inclined to believe anyone would part with $10 million. It's just too much for the JREF to gamble, in the eyes of those who would be tested.

Increasing the prize might result in an increase in the number of applicants (if only because of the resulting publicity from the larger sum of money), but there's no way of knowing if it would increase the quality. And it would definitely provide more ammunition for those who like to say there's no way anyone would part with that amount of money.

[shelley]

$1 million would seem like a pitance if you really had paranormal abilities. One, because with that type of ability why would money seem so important? Two, people have mentioned the fame, but what about the down side of fame, no privacy, expected to be "on" all the time, people only wanting to know you because of your "ability" or fearing you because of your ability, etc. Three, what about the military, intelligence, terriorist organisations, do you think they would take kindly to someone with the ability to potentially "see and tell" all there secrets? Or worse, subject that person to there warped desires and create war on their fellow man?

The list of reasons for a person that is truly gifted with paranormal ability not to want to take part in any challenges for or against such ability far outway any monetary value they may gain.

That is..... if it really did exist......

We'll have to ask the CIA!!!!!

[roger]

Shelley, except people do apply and take the challenge.

Why do you think that is?

[saizai]

Can you imagine the fame and fortune that would rain down on Randi should he run a successful test? Can you imagine anything better to train the spotlight on JREF and it's mission? Can you imagine how much money would come flowing into the JREF coffers?

Can you imagine the terror that the IRS will rain down on JREF should they cheat? Can you imagine the phalanx of lawyers coming in to take their piece of the pie, should JREF cheat? Can you imagine the bad press, the destruction of the JREF name, and Randi's, should they cheat?

And, do you realize that JREF and/or Randi does not administer the test, but has a neutral third party conduct the test? (this was not always true in the past, Randi did oversee things).

JREF/Randi would be crazy to do anything but by the books.

I am not suggesting that they would intentionally *cheat* or commit misconduct, just that they (like everyone) have psychological reasons (ego defense) to try to discount anything that threatens their worldview. This would happen after the fact of course - just like with dowsers who fail to be convinced by coming up with things they "didn't take into account" during the test and therefore resulted in a false negative, skeptics would do the same and claim a false positive for some reason not thought of beforehand.

But that's what agreed-upon protocols are for.

I'm a bit more doubtful of your first paragraph; given that JREF is a skeptical organization not just in method but implicitly in worldview (i.e. it exists at least in part to teach the mundane-materialist completeness sort of worldview), proving something outside of that would not be beneficial without very savvy PR.

Yes, of course we can play what if - what if Randi is completely morally corrupt. But he has never shown himself to be so. On the contrary, he has shown himself to be passionately devoted to the truth, and to correcting any mistake he makes.

People come on here to snip at the challenge all the time. That's okay; if something can be improved at no real cost to JREF, why not do so. But no one has suggested reasonable improvements. This is a simple business transaction - do X, I give you Y. Far more complicated business transactions for far greater sums than $1M go on every day with far less hand wringing, and with people with far less of a reputation than Randi, with less to lose as far as publicity goes.

The money exists. If you can do what you claim, it is easy peasy to agree to a protocol, get tested by a third party, and receive the million dollars.

Please note that I was specifically saying I don't think it's relevant whether the money exists or doesn't exist, and don't really want to discuss that.

[saizai]

$1 million would seem like a pitance if you really had paranormal abilities. One, because with that type of ability why would money seem so important? Two, people have mentioned the fame, but what about the down side of fame, no privacy, expected to be "on" all the time, people only wanting to know you because of your "ability" or fearing you because of your ability, etc. Three, what about the military, intelligence, terriorist organisations, do you think they would take kindly to someone with the ability to potentially "see and tell" all there secrets? Or worse, subject that person to there warped desires and create war on their fellow man?

The list of reasons for a person that is truly gifted with paranormal ability not to want to take part in any challenges for or against such ability far outway any monetary value they may gain.

Depends on their ability. What if it's to magically make three cotton balls fall out of the sky once per day? ;)


As for the money, one thing occurs to me that might silence some of the criticism: why not set it up as an open trust, held & administered by G-S? Publically stated by G-S (a neutral party) to be worth $1m+; interest but no capital goes to JREF until such time as the prize is won, at which point it is immediately liquidated and transferred to the winner.

I think that would do somewhat better than JREF simply saying "trust us it's there" or "look at our tax records we have the money" or "you could sue us if we don't".

[shelley]

Roger,
That is my point, no truly gifted individual is going to apply.

[roger]

Shelley, I guess it depends on what you mean by "truly gifted". None of us can read minds, but I sincerely believe that many of the applicants truly believe they have the ability that they are applying for. Now, of course they are never able to capitalize on this in real life. You are new here; you might want to read up on Edge, one of our posters here. He applied a few years ago for dowsing gold, and failed miserably, and came up with the usual excuses. He vowed to figure out what went wrong, and reapply. A thread is still ongoing on this. He's out in the "field", dowsing, and mining/panning for gold. He claims to be very successful at his dowsing, yet seems to always be at the edge of poverty. I'd consider him sincere, yet deluded.

But these people still apply. Psychics that truly believe that they have powers rush to "help" the police in missing people cases. Palm readers and tarot reader that truly believe they can do these things populate village fairs. Remote viewers have done research with the Air Force on remote viewing, with the russion military, etc. Certainly there are plenty of scam artists, but people that truly believe they have a power do step up, do expose themselves not only to the public, but to the police and military. It happens all the time.

In any case, I'll happily stipulate that if somebody had profound powers that they could manifest in the real world in a lucrative way they may very well forgo the JREF challenge. But, given the evidence, I suggest you have the burden of proof in claiming no one with real power would apply.

But, the challenge is not about proving whether the paranormal exists, or rooting it out (dangling 1M to entice the wary). It's really more of a "put up or shut up" thing - for the people who are already claiming they have a power.

[shelley]

Yes I am new to this site.

Yes, I know all these people that run off in their beliefs, and probably cause more harm and false hope then good.

But again it goes to my point, why would someone that truly has some type of kinetic energy want to be tarred with that brush? Surely, it would be far more serious to them then that.

I am not saying it exists, but people thought the world was flat once too.

And, if it does exist, it may not be the hocus pocus that is popularly believed and propogandalised. And with the "bells and whistles" of $1 million challenge will it ever be any other way?

[Gr8wight]

Yawn, yawn, yawn. This conversation crops up at least once every couple of months.

Maybe the money doesn't exist. What if he refuses to pay. Yada, yada, yada.

The bottom line is this. All these points are moot until a person actually demonstrates, under controlled observing conditions, a paranormal ability. To date that has never happened, either under the auspices of the JREF challenge, or anywhere else.

Maybe the money doesn't exist.
Maybe Randi would refuse to pay.
Maybe invisble pink unicorns will invade the moon and kick out all the blue fairies.

It doesn't matter, because no one has ever, ever successfully demonstrated anything that could test the situation. Every paranormal claim that has ever been made, in the history of the world, continues to this day to be unconfirmed.

I have to go to bed now. Play nice, children.

[William Smith]

So JREF has legal ownership of an unencumbered $1 million, from a single anonymous donor, who doesn't care to ever see the money again, the only condition being that it can only be spent on the prize?

That's a much better situation, of course.

I wonder if JREF would attract better applicants if the prize were $10 million.

Please define "better" in this particular context, Cyphermage.

By your logic, wouldn't a $10 million prize increase the "possible subsconscious bias against affirming any paranormal claims, no matter what the evidence" tenfold?

[William Smith]

Yes, $1m is quite a bit of cash. There have been questions raised as to whether it exists, but IMO that's somewhat irrelevant.

If one were to succeed in proving something paranormal, then $1M would be a pittance compared to smart use of the fame generated; whether for purely 'holy' purposes (eg charity spree) or more mundane ones (eg book deals). Talk shows worldwide, news, etc etc would be pretty much assured.

So: I think it's somewhat pointless to engage in debate about the $1m prize per se, on either side. JREF in a sense just serves as a notary-magician, to verify that it's done properly and without trickery.

In that way, the prize itself is beside the point; it's only the proving that matters.

Saizai, it makes me smile brightly http://www.9-n.de/disney/Disneylandfolder-Pages/Image8.html when I realize
1. You first ponder an application for the JREF Prize with your prayer study
2. Encounter thorough criticism of the study's design
3. Diss the Prize and JREF.

Your education helps you avoiding the more obvious pitfalls of any player hater. :D You also do not go all up in our grill. However, you obviously have some beef with JREF. Better recognize.

[Cyphermage]

Can you imagine the fame and fortune that would rain down on Randi should he run a successful test? Can you imagine anything better to train the spotlight on JREF and it's mission? Can you imagine how much money would come flowing into the JREF coffers?

Yes, I can just imagine Randi saying, "I finally have proof that the paranormal exists. Now I can die a happy man and go to Heaven to spend eternity with Jesus!"

[Cyphermage]

Please define "better" in this particular context, Cyphermage.

By your logic, wouldn't a $10 million prize increase the "possible subsconscious bias against affirming any paranormal claims, no matter what the evidence" tenfold?

Well, if it's JREF's entire endowment, and they are running the organization off the interest, it might.

I can see the telethon now. "Donate generously. We just gave all our money to Sylvia Browne."

Har.

[William Smith]

Yes, I can just imagine Randi saying, "I finally have proof that the paranormal exists. Now I can die a happy man and go to Heaven to spend eternity with Jesus!"

Don't mix medications, Cyphermage. :D

[William Smith]

Well, if it's JREF's entire endowment, and they are running the organization off the interest, it might.

I can see the telethon now. "Donate generously. We just gave all our money to Sylvia Browne."

Har.

This relates to my inquiry how? Please don't mix medications, Cyphermage. :D

[Cyphermage]

This relates to my inquiry how? Please don't mix medications, Cyphermage. :D

You inquired if there was a scenario in which a larger prize might increase the tendency for bias. I gave you one, albeit tongue in cheek.

[Darat]

Roger,
That is my point, no truly gifted individual is going to apply.

People who state that they make money from dowsing apply, people who state that they can detect something different in a homeopathic remedy to non-homeopathic water apply, people who claim that placing a piece of plastic & a few electronic components on top of a CD player make CDs sound better apply. People in the past who have claimed they can exist without eating apply, people who claim they can detect auras apply, people who can "see" through a blindfold apply and so on.

[Darat]

Well, if it's JREF's entire endowment, and they are running the organization off the interest, it might.

...snip...

It isn't and they don't. Just go and look up their filings - they are all on line.

http://tfcny.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/esearch.php

Type in "james randi"

[shelley]

Converstation died down people!!! The best part of being in the free world is being able to express an opinion for or against and not being blown up for it.

Let us all remember September 11, and let us all remember no matter what we are for or disagree with, we still have that right to state our opinon.

And I know I am a dark cloud, but if we didnt have free speech we would not have the internet, or have the LUXURY to disagree or AGREE!!

Got wiped off th air!!!

I was going to say, may we all remember those souls that went to work that day, and they got wiped off the air more permanently then me!!!!

May you rest in peace, Osama, NOT, NOT NOT NOT......


gOD

[T'ai Chi]

It is relatively unimportant for science, because people with such claims have the right to, and should go through, the standard channels of scientific review, and should in now way feel obligated to take part in review by an organized skeptics club, with many people that are hostile towards such claims.

[Gr8wight]

It is relatively unimportant for science, because people with such claims have the right to, and should go through, the standard channels of scientific review, and should in now way feel obligated to take part in review by an organized skeptics club, with many people that are hostile towards such claims.

You are right, Justin. These people should all be pursuing comprehensive scientific testing of their claims. Yet they are not. Why do you suppose that is?

[T'ai Chi]

You'd have to ask them for their reasons.

[CFLarsen]

That would be worse. There are already many, many people who don't take the challenge seriously because they don't believe anyone (Randi, the donor, whoever) would seriously part with a million dollars. And that provides them with an excuse for not taking the challenge.

They'd be even less inclined to believe anyone would part with $10 million. It's just too much for the JREF to gamble, in the eyes of those who would be tested.

Increasing the prize might result in an increase in the number of applicants (if only because of the resulting publicity from the larger sum of money), but there's no way of knowing if it would increase the quality. And it would definitely provide more ammunition for those who like to say there's no way anyone would part with that amount of money.

It isn't a question of them not believing that JREF would ever give up the money. It's a question of them, after having been told why JREF cannot possibly refuse to pay if the test has been passed, still claiming that JREF won't pay.

The million dollars is a litmus test to separate the self-deluded from the crooks. Those who do believe in their own abilites apply for the challenge - and fail. Those who damn well know they can't do what they claim, stay well away from the challenge. And bitch about how unfair it is, blah blah blah... (http://www.skepticreport.com/tools/topjref.htm)

You'd have to ask them for their reasons.

Come, now.

If you can speculate on their reasons why they would rather do science, you can speculate on their reasons not to.

[roger]

Converstation died down people!!! The best part of being in the free world is being able to express an opinion for or against and not being blown up for it.Of course you are free to express your ideas.

But if your ideas seem to not jibe with reality, expect to be called on it.

It's not an attempt to put you down, it's an attempt to find truth.

[roger]

Yes, I can just imagine Randi saying, "I finally have proof that the paranormal exists. Now I can die a happy man and go to Heaven to spend eternity with Jesus!"Sarcasm ignored.

What kind of lecture fees do you think Randi could get from a successful result?
Could Randi author a best selling book based on a successful result?
Could Randi get lucrative television appearances based on a successful result?

JREF would florish.

[T'ai Chi]

What kind of lecture fees do you think Randi could get from a successful result?


What do you think?


Could Randi author a best selling book based on a successful result?


What do you think?


Could Randi get lucrative television appearances based on a successful result?


What do you think?

[CFLarsen]

What do you think?



What do you think?



What do you think?

What do you think?

[William Smith]

...
Please note that I was specifically saying I don't think it's relevant whether the money exists or doesn't exist, and don't really want to discuss that.

Of course, because if you would not want to discuss "that" it would seem somewhat futile to bring "that" up via starting a whole frickin' thread. :rolleyes:

Get the monkey off your back, saizai.

[roger]

What do you think?



What do you think?



What do you think?Obviously, I think it would be a tremendous boon for JREF. I said that already up higher in the thread.


What do you think?

[T'ai Chi]

Possibly.

[CFLarsen]

Possibly.

What could prevent it?

[saizai]

Saizai, it makes me smile brightly http://www.9-n.de/disney/Disneylandfolder-Pages/Image8.html when I realize
1. You first ponder an application for the JREF Prize with your prayer study
2. Encounter thorough criticism of the study's design
3. Diss the Prize and JREF.

Your education helps you avoiding the more obvious pitfalls of any player hater. :D You also do not go all up in our grill. However, you obviously have some beef with JREF. Better recognize.

You're mistaken about the causality.

I've defended the design of my study seperately and I don't care to discuss it here. I did not "diss the Prize and JREF" here; please quote where I have done so. I simply said that the question of whether or not Randi has the money is unimportant - I didn't raise it.

Best not be steppin' when yo' logic ain't much a weapon, foo. ;)

[The Atheist]

Yes, $1m is quite a bit of cash. There have been questions raised as to whether it exists, but IMO that's somewhat irrelevant.

If one were to succeed in proving something paranormal, then $1M would be a pittance compared to smart use of the fame generated; whether for purely 'holy' purposes (eg charity spree) or more mundane ones (eg book deals). Talk shows worldwide, news, etc etc would be pretty much assured.

So: I think it's somewhat pointless to engage in debate about the $1m prize per se, on either side. JREF in a sense just serves as a notary-magician, to verify that it's done properly and without trickery.

In that way, the prize itself is beside the point; it's only the proving that matters.

I think the mistake you're making is that someone with a "genuine" paranormal ability would just have to start showing their skill and everyone would believe them. If that were the case, why do psychics, tarot readers, church leaders and astrologers still rake around for a dollar in the collection plate or a $3.99 phone call? There are so many people around who claim to have paranormal abilities that to separate oneself from the chaff and charlatans, a "genuine" paranormal-ability holder would need to gain the recognition of the scientific community and JREF is one way of getting it. The fact that you can earn $1M (or 2 if you're smart and don't mind Kiwi $) simply by displaying those abilities is a fairly useful adjunct to help your credibility, too - you could hire a marketing assistant or two!

Acceptance, fame, fortune - immortality even, insofar as human history goes - all available by beating the Challenge. There are NO reasons anyone who actually believes in their "powers" wouldn't have a go. Any other answer is just sour grapes.

[maatorc]

......
If one were to succeed in proving something paranormal, then $1M would be a pittance compared to smart use of the fame generated;......
In that way, the prize itself is beside the point; it's only the proving that matters.

saizai -
This is the common claim made about 'proving something paranormal', but it is only made by those who claim it is impossible. There exist levels of acceptance and rejection for the 'paranormal' in every society in all sectors of those societies. To humanity at large the so-called 'paranormal' is no big deal, and even where claims for it are accepted there is no world-wide fame or glamour attached to it. If the JREF $1m challenge is ever met, the net overall result will likely be a global yawn.
maatorc.

[Gr8wight]

You'd have to ask them for their reasons.

No, I'm not thinking that I do.

[Gr8wight]

What do you think?

Justin thinks he's clever.

[T'ai Chi]

"Gr8wight",

If you are interested in what a group of people things, you'd have to ask them.

That is why I regularly communicate with pseudoskeptics.

[CFLarsen]

Justin thinks he's clever.

Well, apart from the rather obvious...

[William Smith]

Glad to see you're back, maatorc.


...
If the JREF $1m challenge is ever met, the net overall result will likely be a global yawn.
maatorc.

We just might have to wait for a successful applicant to see if you're right on this one. :)

[William Smith]

Saizai, it makes me smile brightly http://www.9-n.de/disney/Disneylandfolder-Pages/Image8.html when I realize
1. You first ponder an application for the JREF Prize with your prayer study
2. Encounter thorough criticism of the study's design
3. Diss the Prize and JREF.

Your education helps you avoiding the more obvious pitfalls of any player hater. :D You also do not go all up in our grill. However, you obviously have some beef with JREF. Better recognize.

You're mistaken about the causality.

I've defended the design of my study seperately and I don't care to discuss it here. I did not "diss the Prize and JREF" here; please quote where I have done so. I simply said that the question of whether or not Randi has the money is unimportant - I didn't raise it.

Best not be steppin' when yo' logic ain't much a weapon, foo. ;)

First, let's quickly agree to sidestep wiggerism from now on. (I intended to give my post a Jon Stewart-like vibe - mmmh, that's good vibration, mmmh, oooh.)

Saizai, why did you start this particular thread using the OP you did?

[The Atheist]

To humanity at large the so-called 'paranormal' is no big deal, and even where claims for it are accepted there is no world-wide fame or glamour attached to it. If the JREF $1m challenge is ever met, the net overall result will likely be a global yawn.
maatorc.I suggest that the reason it's no big deal for billions of people is because most people take it with a pinch of salt. Even those few who manage to fool a few of the people some of the time - you old enough to remeber Uri Geller? - manage to make a huge name and fortune for themselves. What do you think would happen if a respected academic institution and a large band of supporters - us - stand up and say, "No, this guy/ette's the real deal! Scientists, throw every known fact away and start again"?

I tell you, that person would be on the lead TV news in every country in the world. I think you are enormously under-estimating the result of a successful challenge. It would challenge every belief of most members of this forum for a start, and judging by the comments some here are capable of making, I suspect that opinions of posters on the forums are often respected elsewhere as well.

The cro-magnon in me would love to see a successful challenge, the sapiens knows there won't be.

[William Smith]

I mostly agree with your post, The Atheist.

However, one major reason the Challenge "is not a big deal" for people: They simply never heard of it. Because they have no internet access. A majority of earthlings does not even have a private phone. Or clean running water in their domiciles.

Did not want to bring the mood down. Challenges, people, challenges.

[CFLarsen]

"Gr8wight",

If you are interested in what a group of people things, you'd have to ask them.

That is why I regularly communicate with pseudoskeptics.

But when people ask you what you think, you evade, usually after a snooty, condescending remark.

[Gr8wight]

"Gr8wight",

If you are interested in what a group of people things, you'd have to ask them.

That is why I regularly communicate with pseudoskeptics.

In this case, actions, or lack thereof, speak louder than words.

[Kimpatsu]

Can you imagine the fame and fortune that would rain down on Randi should he run a successful test? Can you imagine anything better to train the spotlight on JREF and it's mission?
Can you imagine using the apostrophe correctly? Or would that be paranormal?

[Gr8wight]

Can you imagine using the apostrophe correctly? Or would that be paranormal?

Can you imagine what might happen if we could actually keep a thread on topic?

[Kimpatsu]

Can you imagine what might happen if we could actually keep a thread on topic?
Use punctuation correctly and I won't need to point it out...

[Gr8wight]

Use punctuation correctly and I won't need to point it out...

The question is why you feel such an over riding urge to point it out. Aside from the fact that it's a clear ad hominen attack, why do you feel so strongly that you should be the one to correct the apostrophically challenged?

[saizai]

First, let's quickly agree to sidestep wiggerism from now on. (I intended to give my post a Jon Stewart-like vibe - mmmh, that's good vibration, mmmh, oooh.)

*laugh* Okay, okay. No more rappin' repartée. :)

Saizai, why did you start this particular thread using the OP you did?

Because it was something I thought of that could be used as an alternate response to the "what if randi doesn't pay / have the money / etc" shtick. Basically: who cares if so? $1m would be easily recouped in that event, so I think it's pointless to argue a "yes there is / no there isn't". Also why I think a open trust would be a better idea than just JREF's word / tax data on it.

I basically agree with The Atheist's post above (except the part about outside people caring about forum posters' opinions - hubris much?). Even if the general public doesn't know about it at this point, they may have vaguely heard about it, and like zie says - it's enough to pretty much ensure worldwide coverage with a very strong connotation of "This is Proven Science (tm)!". You can't buy that kind of advertising. :p

[CriticalThanking]

You're mistaken about the causality.

I've defended the design of my study seperately and I don't care to discuss it here. I did not "diss the Prize and JREF" here; please quote where I have done so. I simply said that the question of whether or not Randi has the money is unimportant - I didn't raise it.

Best not be steppin' when yo' logic ain't much a weapon, foo. ;)
Saizai, I suggest curtains on your glass house. IMHO, your OP has the feel of "poisoning the well." Your statement about whether or not the money exists raises a question in the reader's mind even though 1) you go on to say it is not important and 2) the question has been repeatedly answered with proof that it does exist. It erroneously and unfairly raises questions that (even you deem) are not relevant about Randi, the JREF, and the Challenge. Such questions about honesty and integrity are a "diss."

I see little difference between the logical formulation of your OP and something like "Even though it has never been conclusively shown that T'ai Chi and Claus are lovers, and I don't want to discuss that here, I think their childish sniping is pointless, counterproductive, and reflects badly on them both. :rolleyes:

[saizai]

CT - Your analogy is flawed because it contains a circular argument (or at least, a falsely denied axiom) whereas my OP does not.

Merely saying that the prize money is unimportant does not imply anything one way or the other about whether it exists. And it's not an argument that has been listed in the usual refutations that *do* discuss that, so I see that as an oversight.

[robinson]

Has somebody already posted this link?

http://www.alternativescience.com/james-randi.htm

I'm detecting something here ... using my special powers of observation ..

[The Atheist]

I basically agree with The Atheist's post above (except the part about outside people caring about forum posters' opinions - hubris much?).

I certainly wasn't including myself in the list of people whose opinions are respected, but I do know of people who post here whose opinions are respected outside of the forum.

This also goes to address GzuzKryzt's post as well. Sure the JREF challenge would raise few ripples as it isn't widely known, but there are people in academia and science who would sit up and notice very quickly if things changed and the challenge was completed. In my case, I am a frequent contributor to NZ's largest newspaper, and while my views aren't necessarily respected, they are certainly widely read. I get letters from people ranging from politicians to beneficiaries, so people do indeed read it and I would be trumpeting a successful challenge as loudy as I could - as stated, it would force me to re-evaluate all the beliefs I have.

[Gr8wight]

Has somebody already posted this link?

http://www.alternativescience.com/james-randi.htm

At least once a month.

[robinson]

HA!

I thought so. I never saw it posted here, but this thread reminded me of that page.

[CriticalThanking]

Your OP, bolding mine.
Yes, $1m is quite a bit of cash. There have been questions raised as to whether it exists, but IMO that's somewhat irrelevant.


CT - Your analogy is flawed because it contains a circular argument (or at least, a falsely denied axiom) whereas my OP does not.

Merely saying that the prize money is unimportant does not imply anything one way or the other about whether it exists. And it's not an argument that has been listed in the usual refutations that *do* discuss that, so I see that as an oversight.
It is the bolded part that is a "diss," falsely raising doubts about Randi, JREF, and/or the Challenge and potentially coloring the discussion. I am not a logician. Please help educate me as to why this is not "poisoning the well."

Thanks,

CT

[The Atheist]

Has somebody already posted this link?

http://www.alternativescience.com/james-randi.htm

Yes indeed! I think the article should be used to expose Randi for what he really is - the destroyer of the Earth.

If he, the uneducated bum that he is, hadn't single-handedly stopped those thirty PhD scientists from registering their cold fusion process we would have no oil worries, no greenhouse gases and hardly any pollution. There'd be no need for wars or famine as everyone would be living a comfortable life and watching MTV.

Nobody else has had the guts to stand up and say it, but I will put my head on the chopping block in this field of "oow"* you've created here: James Randi, you are solely responsible for denying the world cold fusion. If you were a believer in some higher purpose, I could accept your treason, but as I now have proof that you were in the pay of the oil lobby all along, using your influential, conspiratorial, manipulative and magical skills to stop an invention which would have seen the inventors of it not standing alongside Einstein, Russell, Darwin, Curie, et al, but many steps above them.



* You name the believers' words "woo", I'm referring to your baloney as "oow", so instead of the the "woooo" sound, we now have a sharp "Ow!" sound, to illustrate the pain of "sk/ceptics" as they realise their shattered dreams.

[saizai]

CT - Simple. I am *referring* to something, and offering an alternate response. If anything, it's and argument that would be used by the JREF side, not the detractors'. So don't accuse me of 'dissing' JREF.

Robinson: FWIW I have no connection to, and in fact disagree with, that article.

[maatorc]

(1) I suggest that the reason it's no big deal for billions of people is because most people take it with a pinch of salt.
(2)Even those few who manage to fool a few of the people some of the time - you old enough to remeber Uri Geller? - manage to make a huge name and fortune for themselves.
(3)What do you think would happen if a respected academic institution and a large band of supporters - us - stand up and say, "No, this guy/ette's the real deal!
(4)Scientists, throw every known fact away and start again"?
(5)I tell you, that person would be on the lead TV news in every country in the world. I think you are enormously under-estimating the result of a successful challenge. It would challenge every belief of most members of this forum for a start, and judging by the comments some here are capable of making, I suspect that opinions of posters on the forums are often respected elsewhere as well........

The Atheist -
My numbers for reference.
(1) The evidence is rather to the contrary. There is widespread acceptance ranging from religious, cultural, or superstitious, and equally widespread rejection ranging from false science, ignorance, and tunnel vision.
(2) Yes, some few, who are deemed to fool some people some of the time, make a lot of money. But this is not restricted to the so-called 'paranormal'. The whole world of human endeavour at every level in every sphere is characterised by deceit and misinformation.
(3) It will probably fall like a lead balloon. The business of pro and con "respected academic institutions' is a question of where one is coming from.
(4) Not a chance. The scientific world is riddled with believers and doubters. Most great human advances in every sphere come alike from religionists, atheists, mystics, and cultists of every description. Science, as it is understood today, will not decide the so-called 'paranormal' question because it lacks the means to do so.
(5) There will indeed be the standard 15 minutes of fame if a genuine claimant comes forward. But this will not happen because such a person is not a performing clown for the indulgence of the JREF: This person's agenda immeasurably transcends the well meaning but trivial nature of the challenge.
I know this to be true because I know such a person.
maatorc.

[JimTheBrit]

To humanity at large the so-called 'paranormal' is no big deal, and even where claims for it are accepted there is no world-wide fame or glamour attached to it. If the JREF $1m challenge is ever met, the net overall result will likely be a global yawn.
maatorc.
I totally agree. Just look at the case of Uri Geller who disappeared without trace in the 70s. Oh wait, no, that's the guy who did achieve world-wide fame and riches with a few pseudo-paranormal performances and an active avoidance of the JREF award. He's still around, you know. That's 15 minutes of fame + 20 years.

There will indeed be the standard 15 minutes of fame if a genuine claimant comes forward. But this will not happen because such a person is not a performing clown for the indulgence of the JREF: This person's agenda immeasurably transcends the well meaning but trivial nature of the challenge.
And lo! Did the curmudgeonly skeptics and the scientists with their peer review and replication demands throw up their arms and cry, "Sod the testing! This guy's so virtuous and wholesome, let's just accept his claims."

I know this to be true because I know such a person.
So do I, mate. And so does my neighbour's dog.

[maatorc]

I totally agree. Just look at the case of Uri Geller who disappeared without trace in the 70s. Oh wait, no, that's the guy who did achieve world-wide fame and riches with a few pseudo-paranormal performances and an active avoidance of the JREF award. He's still around, you know. That's 15 minutes of fame + 20 years.
And lo! Did the curmudgeonly skeptics and the scientists with their peer review and replication demands throw up their arms and cry, "Sod the testing! This guy's so virtuous and wholesome, let's just accept his claims."
So do I, mate. And so does my neighbour's dog.


Apart from trying to be noticed by obnoxious shouting, you're not actually saying anything.

[JimTheBrit]

Apart from trying to be noticed by obnoxious shouting, you're not actually saying anything.

Hehe. Busted. Such is the nature of my posting at 4am in the morning.

On point 5:

"But this will not happen because such a person is not a performing clown for the indulgence of the JREF: This person's agenda immeasurably transcends the well meaning but trivial nature of the challenge."

Please enlighten us as to why you deem yourself so able to speak on behalf of speculative genuine claimants. Is it due to this person you know? Surely you don't expect us to take your word that they have the abilities needed to relieve the JREF of its award (whether they choose to or not) purely on trust? More details, please.

Edited for clarification.

[The Atheist]

I know this to be true because I know such a person.
Mate, I'm putting myself up for the Challenge after that! I just KNEW that was coming.....

[maatorc]

Mate, I'm putting myself up for the Challenge after that! I just KNEW that was coming.....
I do not quite know what you mean.

[maatorc]

......
On point 5:
(1) "But this will not happen because such a person is not a performing clown for the indulgence of the JREF: This person's agenda immeasurably transcends the well meaning but trivial nature of the challenge."
(2) Please enlighten us as to why you deem yourself so able to speak on behalf of speculative genuine claimants.
(3) Is it due to this person you know?
(4) Surely you don't expect us to take your word that they have the abilities needed to relieve the JREF of its award (whether they choose to or not) purely on trust? More details, please.
Edited for clarification.

(1) This refers to any genuine claimant.
(2) It does not imply any right to speak on their behalf. It refers to what their agenda might be.
(3) In this case, I know definitely what this person's agenda happens to be.
(4) You are correct: Neither I nor any such person has any interest in convincing anyone.
maatorc.

[The Atheist]

I do not quite know what you mean.
I mean that it's such a surprise that you know someone who isn't game to take the challenge because the rules make it too hard.

[saizai]

maatorc - You're saying you know something about what the agenda (might? would?) be of a successful applicant.

Would you mind elaborating on this? What would it be? How do you know?

[maatorc]

I mean that it's such a surprise that you know someone who isn't game to take the challenge because the rules make it too hard.

That is merely an erroneous interpretive presumption.
The person in question has no interest in the challenge, or what the JREF or anyone else thinks about what can or cannot be demonstrated.
maatorc.

[The Atheist]

The person in question has no interest in the challenge, or what the JREF or anyone else thinks about what can or cannot be demonstrated.
No, funny how the genuine never do....

[maatorc]

maatorc -
(1) You're saying you know something about what the agenda (might? would?) be of a successful applicant.

(2) Would you mind elaborating on this? What would it be? How do you know?

(1) Not quite: What I am saying is that I know what the agenda might be of the type of person who actually possesses the capabilities presumed by the JREF to be necessary to demonstrate what the JREF calls 'paranormal' ability. Such an agenda will not include any kind of public performance to impress or indulge others.

(2) I know what their agenda might be from having met a few and seeing the work they actually do.

maatorc.

[JimTheBrit]

This person's agenda immeasurably transcends the well meaning but trivial nature of the challenge.
I know this to be true because I know such a person.

The person in question has no interest in the challenge, or what the JREF or anyone else thinks about what can or cannot be demonstrated.
Oh to ride such a high horse as he.

What's this particular challenge dodge called then, anyone? An argument from virtuousness?*

*Edit: or Appeal to Virtuousness?

[JimTheBrit]

(1) Not quite: What I am saying is that I know what the agenda might be of the type of person who actually possesses the capabilities presumed by the JREF to be necessary to demonstrate what the JREF calls 'paranormal' ability. Such an agenda will not include any kind of public performance to impress or indulge others.
I'll have to call you on that one. You stated with certainty that you know their agenda, as though you were an authority.

(2) I know what their agenda might be from having met a few and seeing the work they actually do.

maatorc.

I'll take a guess. Remote viewers (recalled to work with the Government in a post-9/11 era, apparently). Am I close?

[DevilsAdvocate]

Yes, $1m is quite a bit of cash. There have been questions raised as to whether it exists, but IMO that's somewhat irrelevant.

If one were to succeed in proving something paranormal, then $1M would be a pittance compared to smart use of the fame generated; whether for purely 'holy' purposes (eg charity spree) or more mundane ones (eg book deals). Talk shows worldwide, news, etc etc would be pretty much assured.

So: I think it's somewhat pointless to engage in debate about the $1m prize per se, on either side. JREF in a sense just serves as a notary-magician, to verify that it's done properly and without trickery.

In that way, the prize itself is beside the point; it's only the proving that matters.Of course, you are correct. The only important thing is the challenge. And not just the JREF Challenge, but the greater challenge that demands proper proof of questionable claims and beliefs--whether they be someone else’s or your own. The reward of any such challenge is the discovery of the truth.

If everyone with a paranormal claim or belief were simply to properly test and prove their claim or belief, there would be no need to address questions whether the one million dollars exists. There would be no need for the one million dollar prize money to exist at all. There would be no need for the JREF Challenge. Quite probably, there would not even be a need for the JREF. This is the very nature of skepticism.

Unfortunately, people choose to make all kinds of crazy unproven claims and have all kinds of bizarre unproven beliefs. The JREF was established to help set people on the right track. Unfortunately, not everyone got on the skeptic train. So JREF demanded proper proof of paranormal claims. Unfortunately, many of the people making these claims did not submit to proper testing but instead offered excuses.

One excuse for not being tested is that there is nothing in it for them. As you pointed out, there are reasons to prove a paranormal claim, the best of which is to find the truth. Unfortunately, that isn’t good enough for some people. So JREF offered the one million dollar prize.

Of course, as you said, the one million dollars is essentially unimportant to JREF because the only thing really important is the discovery of the truth. The one million dollars doesn’t matter to JREF. If people making paranormal claims would simply properly prove their claims rather than shouting them about and only offering up excuses to not be tested, then the one million dollars would also not matter to anyone making a paranormal claim. Unfortunately, excuse after excuse keeps rolling in.

The only important function that the one million dollar prize serves is to eliminate one excuse for not having a paranormal claim properly tested. :)

[maatorc]

(1) I'll have to call you on that one. You stated with certainty that you know their agenda, as though you were an authority.
(2) I'll take a guess. Remote viewers (recalled to work with the Government in a post-9/11 era, apparently). Am I close?

(1) A bit of a quibble, but let it be: ".... the agenda of .... this type of person .... who actually possesses the capabilities .... immeasurably transcends .... ",
if you like.
(2) Remote viewing, astral travel, bi-location, psychic projection, or whatever you want to call it, may well be a function of the capabilities of such a person.
maatorc.

[The Atheist]

Remote viewing, astral travel, bi-location, psychic projection, or whatever you want to call it, may well be a function of the capabilities of such a person.
And you don't think any of these would be Earth-shattering if they were proven?

I can certainly understand the reluctance to participate in the challenge, I get exactly the same answer from Kiwi "psychics" who decline the challenge as being beneath their dignity - they KNOW their powers exist, why should they attempt some "challenge" to prove what they already know. Plus, the million is no incentive when it comes to keeping virtue intact.

Funny how they all still charge $3.99 per minute.

[maatorc]

(1) And you don't think any of these would be Earth-shattering if they were proven?
(2) I can certainly understand the reluctance to participate in the challenge, I get exactly the same answer from Kiwi "psychics" who decline the challenge as being beneath their dignity ....
(3) Funny how they all still charge $3.99 per minute.

(1) Not really: Anecdotal personal evidence is already global.
(2) Publicly self-proclaimed 'psychics' are not the people I am referring to.
(3) Those I am referring to would not ever think about charging anyone for anything associated with their capabilities.
maatorc.

[saizai]

maatorc - You still didn't answer my question: what would their agenda be?

Let's leave aside for the moment who you think they would be or how you know, since it seems you want to be cryptic about that.

[maatorc]

Oh to ride such a high horse as he.
What's this particular challenge dodge called then, anyone? An argument from virtuousness?*
*Edit: or Appeal to Virtuousness?

The presumption here is that the JREF is the global benchmark of scholarship, science, understanding, and knowledge.
This is a colossal conceit.
maatorc.

[The Atheist]

The presumption here is that the JREF is the global benchmark of scholarship, science, understanding, and knowledge.
Nobody's even come close to suggesting that - you are getting more and more ridiculous as your arguments fall to pieces in front of you.

Time to put up or shut up, I think.

[Lothian]

Yes I am new to this site.

Yes, I know all these people that run off in their beliefs, and probably cause more harm and false hope then good.

But again it goes to my point, why would someone that truly has some type of kinetic energy want to be tarred with that brush? Surely, it would be far more serious to them then that.

I am not saying it exists, but people thought the world was flat once too.
Shelley,

It does exist. I can truly produce kinetic energy throughout my body. I do take this ability very seriously and would not want to be tarred with any brush as a result.

I won’t be going for the prize as I don’t want to make money out of my gift. I would rather just enjoy it and share it while it last as I know it won’t go on for ever.

[William Smith]

...
(5) There will indeed be the standard 15 minutes of fame if a genuine claimant comes forward. But this will not happen because such a person is not a performing clown for the indulgence of the JREF: This person's agenda immeasurably transcends the well meaning but trivial nature of the challenge.
I know this to be true because I know such a person.
maatorc.

Maatorc, what does this person do? Have you witnessed it? What agenda does this person have?

[The Atheist]

Shelley,

It does exist. I can truly produce kinetic energy throughout my body. I do take this ability very seriously and would not want to be tarred with any brush as a result.

I won’t be going for the prize as I don’t want to make money out of my gift. I would rather just enjoy it and share it while it last as I know it won’t go on for ever.

That's a gem!

[William Smith]

The presumption here is that the JREF is the global benchmark of scholarship, science, understanding, and knowledge.
This is a colossal conceit.
maatorc.

This seems to be your colossal conceit, maatorc. (Man, you seem hu-mon-gous-ly pissed at JREF.)

[Lothian]

That's a gem!A rare failure of the Pseudo-scientific adjective generator.

[Kimpatsu]

The question is why you feel such an over riding urge to point it out. Aside from the fact that it's a clear ad hominen attack, why do you feel so strongly that you should be the one to correct the apostrophically challenged?
No, it's not ad hom., because it's the man's misuse of punctuation, not the man himself, that's the issue. And to answer your second question, apostrophe misuse is the single biggest bugbear in bad English today. Always keep in mind that "Dis baby a boy", says witch doctor takes on a whole different meaning if you place an apostrophe between the second and third letters of the sentence.

[Kimpatsu]

Shelley,

It does exist. I can truly produce kinetic energy throughout my body.
Heck, I can transfer kinetic energy throughout my body. I do it all the time.

[CFLarsen]

The presumption here is that the JREF is the global benchmark of scholarship, science, understanding, and knowledge.
This is a colossal conceit.

Who presumes this?

Evidence, please.

[roger]

Can you imagine using the apostrophe correctly? Or would that be paranormal?
Bite me.

[Mr. Scott]

Science, as it is understood today, will not decide the so-called 'paranormal' question because it lacks the means to do so.

Exactly what is it that science is lacking that renders it unable to investigate, prove, or disprove the paranormal?

Science has given us the Internet, space travel, medicine, criminal investigation, and a million other real accomplishments. The paranormal has given us no computer technology, no communication, no transportation, no medical cures, no solved crimes, and as far as I can tell no accomplishments except the tricking of the gullible into paying for worthless services like astrology, faith healing, palm reading, homeopathy, dowsing, and a million other frauds.

Now, explain exactly what it is about science that renders it unable to investigate the paranormal.

[The Atheist]

Now, explain exactly what it is about science that renders it unable to investigate the paranormal.
Well, DUH!

Science is based on facts, 67583ology clearly isn't. Would you entrust a psychic to do an evaluation of science? How then, can science evaluate paranormality? Bleedin' obvious innit?

[T'ai Chi]

Science has given us the Internet, space travel, medicine, criminal investigation, and a million other real accomplishments.


One could argue that non-science things have given us the motivation to even make those things possible to begin with.

[Ririon]

One could argue that non-science things have given us the motivation to even make those things possible to begin with.
One could argue everything imaginable.

[William Smith]

One could argue that non-science things have given us the motivation to even make those things possible to begin with.

Do you argue that way, Mr. Chi?

[The Atheist]

One could argue everything imaginable.

I have a daughter who will argue that black is white if her mother says it's black. Lots of people are like that and several of them live in here.

[William Smith]

...
Because it was something I thought of that could be used as an alternate response to the "what if randi doesn't pay / have the money / etc" shtick. Basically: who cares if so? $1m would be easily recouped in that event, so I think it's pointless to argue a "yes there is / no there isn't". Also why I think a open trust would be a better idea than just JREF's word / tax data on it.

I basically agree with The Atheist's post above (except the part about outside people caring about forum posters' opinions - hubris much?). Even if the general public doesn't know about it at this point, they may have vaguely heard about it, and like zie says - it's enough to pretty much ensure worldwide coverage with a very strong connotation of "This is Proven Science (tm)!". You can't buy that kind of advertising. :p

Yes, $1m is quite a bit of cash. There have been questions raised as to whether it exists, but IMO that's somewhat irrelevant.

If one were to succeed in proving something paranormal, then $1M would be a pittance compared to smart use of the fame generated; whether for purely 'holy' purposes (eg charity spree) or more mundane ones (eg book deals). Talk shows worldwide, news, etc etc would be pretty much assured.

So: I think it's somewhat pointless to engage in debate about the $1m prize per se, on either side. JREF in a sense just serves as a notary-magician, to verify that it's done properly and without trickery.

In that way, the prize itself is beside the point; it's only the proving that matters.

I'm with CriticalThanking on this one: Your inspiration might have been productive, your wording - and hence the OP itself - came across as destructive (to a JREF audience, you did have that in mind while posting, right, saizai?).

To be as open as possible: Saizai, you seriously give me troubles. While you undoubtedly have the grits of a clear-thinking mind, your gravy tastes like yukety-yuk-yuk.



The [Expletive Deleted] money is there. (Tha muthafukin' munne iz their.) http://www.skepticreport.com/images/investmentaccount.gif

I pretty much guess you knew that before submitting your OP? So: What the hell? Irrelevant? You really contend this is not dissing?

To be very simple, once more: If I see you standing before me (I assume you have a Y-chromosome) saizai, on your home turf, and I say: It no matter if you have no cock.

You would not consider that "schtraight up frontin'"? Being all up in ya grill? Playa hatin' de luxe?



You're again correct if you state, like the Puckster: The proof is in the pudding.
Again, you're seriously troublin' moi. Of course, that's why I like your posts. I like a challenge and I like to broaden my horizons.

[William Smith]

(Whispering) Guys, I watches too muchs Chappelle's Shows latelys. Cuts me somes lacks. Skeet. Skeet. Skeet. Skeet.

[maatorc]

Nobody's even come close to suggesting that - you are getting more and more ridiculous as your arguments fall to pieces in front of you.
Time to put up or shut up, I think.

What argument are you talking about?
Put up about what?
I think you are loosing the plot.

[maatorc]

maatorc - You still didn't answer my question: what would their agenda be?
Let's leave aside for the moment who you think they would be or how you know, since it seems you want to be cryptic about that.

Yes, I am not entering into personalities, so will remain cryptic.
In their view, their talents are a measure of out of the ordinary unfoldment of human potentiality which imposes a duty to assist others, who are interested, to develop those same talents.

[maatorc]

This seems to be your colossal conceit, maatorc. (Man, you seem hu-mon-gous-ly pissed at JREF.)

No, it is that the JREF is so pissed off at everyone else who does not share its tunnel vision view of the world.

[maatorc]

Maatorc, what does this person do? Have you witnessed it? What agenda does this person have?

Your (5) quote refers to the type of such a person.
The particular person I know is entitled to his privacy.

[William Smith]

No, it is that the JREF is so pissed off at everyone else who does not share its tunnel vision view of the world.



Maatorc, you're the Bill O'Reilly to my Jon Stewart.



If you find the time, please show the Forum where "the JREF is so pissed off at everyone else who does not share its tunnel vision view of the world".

[Kimpatsu]

Bite me.
Fangs for that.

[William Smith]

Your (5) quote refers to the type of such a person.
The particular person I know is entitled to his privacy.

Hey, you discovered your semantics again. :D Of course, "the particular person" is entitled to his privacy. No serious poster on this Forum would want to violate or disrespect that.

However: Maatorc, what does this person do? Have you witnessed it? What agenda does this person have?

You may very well find a suitable (that is: non-dodging, meaningful) response to this inquiry without violating the privacy of said "person".

[William Smith]

Fangs for that.

Off to AAH with both o' you.

I order you to ingest at least 1/5 lb. of chocolate before posting again. :)

[The Atheist]

What argument are you talking about?
This one:
The presumption here is that the JREF is the global benchmark of scholarship, science, understanding, and knowledge.
This is a colossal conceit.
maatorc.
Nobody, at any stage has suggested that JREF is a benchmark of any kind. I said it was respected and it is. It is certainly not the benchmark. So far, all the conceit seems to be from the one who "knows" about a "person with paranormal abilities", yet we have no evidence AT ALL from you so far. Rhetoric, BS and pettifogging is all you have offered.
Put up about what?
see above
[QUOTE=maatorc;1913961]I think you are loosing the plot.
No, the plot is pretty loose anyway, mainly thanks to you, as above, and as posted since:
Yes, I am not entering into personalities, so will remain cryptic.
In their view, their talents are a measure of out of the ordinary unfoldment of human potentiality which imposes a duty to assist others, who are interested, to develop those same talents.
Utter BS. I say again, put up or shut up - you're as bad as a fundamental christian whose answer to everything is, "because god makes it so". A cop out for charlatans everywhere. YOU believe, great, we don't. Instead of coming out with the same tired crap, give us ONE detail which might help us believe it too.

Look at your own rhetoric here! "...a duty to assist others..." If someone actually felt like that, they would be pretty damned keen on publicising the fact and therefore would be determined to complete the challenge to prove that what they said was what they meant.

You are expecting us to take your word that your "friend" has a paranormal ability. How about you take mine that I will pay you back two million dollars if you credit me with a million dollars today. You're not being cryptic, just a strawman/troll. No substance, just like your claim.
No, it is that the JREF is so pissed off at everyone else who does not share its tunnel vision view of the world.
Great point! I suggest you write to JREF today, pointing this out and recommending that they sue the million to educate the world about your "paranormalist friend" instead.

[maatorc]

............
(1) Science has given us the Internet, space travel, medicine, criminal investigation, and a million other real accomplishments. The paranormal has given us no computer technology, no communication, no transportation, no medical cures, no solved crimes, and as far as I can tell no accomplishments except the tricking of the gullible into paying for worthless services like astrology, faith healing, palm reading, homeopathy, dowsing, and a million other frauds.
(2) Now, explain exactly what it is about science that renders it unable to investigate the paranormal.

(1) You are right about what science has done. You may be right about what the paranormal has not done. It is true there is deceit and fraud by certain unscrupulous people claiming paranormal ability. But this is not what I am saying vis-a-vis what science can or cannot, or is able or unable, to do.

(2) What it is, exactly, about science that renders it unable to investigate the paranormal is the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena.

maatorc.

[maatorc]

This one:
Nobody, at any stage has suggested that JREF is a benchmark of any kind. I said it was respected and it is. It is certainly not the benchmark. So far, all the conceit seems to be from the one who "knows" about a "person with paranormal abilities", yet we have no evidence AT ALL from you so far. Rhetoric, BS and pettifogging is all you have offered.
[QUOTE=maatorc;1913961]Put up about what?ee above
No, the plot is pretty loose anyway, mainly thanks to you, as above, and as posted since:
Utter BS. I say again, put up or shut up - you're as bad as a fundamental christian whose answer to everything is, "because god makes it so". A cop out for charlatans everywhere. YOU believe, great, we don't. Instead of coming out with the same tired crap, give us ONE detail which might help us believe it too.
Look at your own rhetoric here! "...a duty to assist others..." If someone actually felt like that, they would be pretty damned keen on publicising the fact and therefore would be determined to complete the challenge to prove that what they said was what they meant.
You are expecting us to take your word that your "friend" has a paranormal ability. How about you take mine that I will pay you back two million dollars if you credit me with a million dollars today. You're not being cryptic, just a strawman/troll. No substance, just like your claim.
Great point! I suggest you write to JREF today, pointing this out and recommending that they sue the million to educate the world about your "paranormalist friend" instead.

Great stuff: Exactly why these threads collapse into meaningless drivel.

[William Smith]

...
(2) What it is, exactly, about science that renders it unable to investigate the paranormal is the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena.

maatorc.

Maatorc, please do not confuse the "JREF One Million Dollar Challenge" with "Science".

Please.

Archimedes, Copernicus, Newton, Curie, Bohr/Bohm/Bell. Fo' shizzle.

Ms. Curie misdisincommensurabilitated the a$$ out of that bitchin' pitchblende, don't cha think?

[William Smith]

[QUOTE=The Atheist;1914072]This one:
Nobody, at any stage has suggested that JREF is a benchmark of any kind. I said it was respected and it is. It is certainly not the benchmark. So far, all the conceit seems to be from the one who "knows" about a "person with paranormal abilities", yet we have no evidence AT ALL from you so far. Rhetoric, BS and pettifogging is all you have offered.


Great stuff: Exactly why these threads collapse into meaningless drivel.

I do not understand this post. If you find the time, maatorc, please enlighten me.

[maatorc]

[QUOTE=maatorc;1914106]
I do not understand this post. If you find the time, maatorc, please enlighten me.

He is not talking about ideas, he is talking about me.

[William Smith]

[QUOTE=GzuzKryzt;1914127]

He is not talking about ideas, he is talking about me.

So far, so good. And?

[Bob Klase]

Now, explain exactly what it is about science that renders it unable to investigate the paranormal.

That would be the total lack of evidence that there's anything worth investigating.

[Bob Klase]

(2) What it is, exactly, about science that renders it unable to investigate the paranormal is the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena.

And you claim that science has no way to measure or investigate "an occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses." Or are you unaware that's a meaning of the word "phenomena"?

Or do you just like using big words without actually knowing what they mean?

[Mr. Scott]

That would be the total lack of evidence that there's anything worth investigating.

Well yes, that's my conclusion, but every time I ask the believers of the paranormal this question, all I hear is crickets chirping. Fortunately mattorc has said at least something in response, but did not actually answer the question:

What it is, exactly, about science that renders it unable to investigate the paranormal is the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena.

Instead of saying what it is about science, maatorc says something about the paranormal.

Science is closely related to the JREF challenge, since the goal of both is to measure an effect to find out if it is real or not.

My working hypothesis is that everything real is measurable. I'd like to give maatorc his best shot -- what is the most real paranormal ability he or she believes in, and I'll explain exactly how science (and by extension the JREF challenge) can measure it if it is indeed real.

The ball's in your court, maatorc.

Speaking of which, you missed my last shot by not saying what it is about science that renders it unable to investigate the paranormal.

[Gr8wight]

No, it's not ad hom., because it's the man's misuse of punctuation, not the man himself, that's the issue. And to answer your second question, apostrophe misuse is the single biggest bugbear in bad English today. Always keep in mind that "Dis baby a boy", says witch doctor takes on a whole different meaning if you place an apostrophe between the second and third letters of the sentence.

Of course it's an ad hominem. By correcting the grammer, and nothing else, your message is, "you are not intelligent enough for me to address your argument."

[maatorc]

(1) And you claim that science has no way to measure or investigate "an occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses." Or are you unaware that's a meaning of the word "phenomena"?

(2) Or do you just like using big words without actually knowing what they mean?

(1) That is not what I am saying. Please take a closer look at my comment.

(2) Such as the words you have used to erroneously claim I am saying something that I am not saying?

[maatorc]

..............
Instead of saying what it is about science, maatorc says something about the paranormal.

What is it that I said about the 'paranormal'?

[maatorc]

[QUOTE=maatorc;1914143]......... And?

That is exactly what turns these threads into mindless drivel.

[Cuddles]

My cat's breath smells of cat food.

[William Smith]

My cat's breath smells of cat food.

"Smelly cat, smelly cat. What are they feeding you?"

[William Smith]

That is exactly what turns these threads into mindless drivel.

I do not understand what you mean. If you find the time, please clarify.

[Mr. Scott]

What is it that I said about the 'paranormal'?



(2) What it is, exactly, about science that renders it unable to investigate the paranormal is the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena.

maatorc.

Read your own sentence carefully, maatorc, where you describe a feature of the paranormal and say nothing at all about science. It doesn't answer my question, which I repeat --

What is it, specifically, about science that renders it unable to investigate the paranormal? Can you give me an example of a paranormal phenomenon which you believe in and Randi would find qualifies for the million dollar challenge that science is unable to validly investigate?

[drkitten]

Great stuff: Exactly why these threads collapse into meaningless drivel.


If you want to complain about meaningless drivel on the thread, look in a mirror. I can't think of any other description of "the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena."

There are at least three words in there that you evidently don't understand.

[saizai]

Moderators: Could one of you please split off all the stuff about maatorc etc into a separate thread? It's waaaay off the original topic at this point.

[maatorc]

If you want to complain about meaningless drivel on the thread, look in a mirror. I can't think of any other description of "the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena."
There are at least three words in there that you evidently don't understand.

Incommensurable = No common means or standard of measure.
Phenomena = Materiality: That perceived or evidenced only by the senses.
Noumena = That apprehended by the mind, and incapable of apprehension by the same method as those things of the phenomenal world are apprehended.

There, that wasn't too hard for you , was it! All you had to do was ask.

I know, from previous comments, that you have a problem with what you call 'big' or '$10' words, but you cannot blame others for that.

[maatorc]

Read your own sentence carefully, maatorc, where you describe a feature of the paranormal and say nothing at all about science. It doesn't answer my question, which I repeat --
What is it, specifically, about science that renders it unable to investigate the paranormal? Can you give me an example of a paranormal phenomenon which you believe in and Randi would find qualifies for the million dollar challenge that science is unable to validly investigate?

To repeat: See post 139.

[maatorc]

Moderators: Could one of you please split off all the stuff about maatorc etc into a separate thread? It's waaaay off the original topic at this point.

It was not my original intention, as you can see from the initial posts. It tends to happen in these threads.

[maatorc]

(1)....... maatorc says something about the paranormal.
(2) Science is closely related to the JREF challenge, since the goal of both is to measure an effect to find out if it is real or not.
(3) My working hypothesis is that everything real is measurable. I'd like to give maatorc his best shot -- what is the most real paranormal ability he or she believes in, and I'll explain exactly how science (and by extension the JREF challenge) can measure it if it is indeed real.
(4) The ball's in your court, maatorc.
(5) Speaking of which, you missed my last shot by not saying what it is about science that renders it unable to investigate the paranormal.

(1) What did I say about the paranormal?
(2) Are you sure about this?
(3) Are you sure about this?
(4) What makes you think you are an acceptable authority in the matters you refer to?
(5) See post 139.

[Mr. Scott]

To repeat: See post 139.

What it is, exactly, about science that renders it unable to investigate the paranormal is the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena

To repeat: There is nothing about science in that post. You don't discuss it's methods or properties, you don't discuss its weaknesses or strengths. You merely mention properties of the paranormal (e.g. its incommensurability). I'm done being a nice guy to an evasive person unable to focus on a question. You are yet another example of why believers in the paranormal seldom get to the testing stage. You can't even focus your mind enough to coherently state your claim. In other words, you've got nothing.

[maatorc]

(1) To repeat: There is nothing about science in that post. You don't discuss it's methods or properties, you don't discuss its weaknesses or strengths, you merely mention a property of the paranormal.
(2) I'm done being a nice guy to an evasive person unable to focus on a question.
(3) You are yet another example of why believers in the paranormal seldom get to the testing stage.
(4) You can't even focus your mind enough to coherently state your claim.
(5) In other words, you've got nothing.

(1) It is all very simple: The explanations in post 139 are not about science or what it does or does not do.
(2) You are getting flustered about nothing. I could not care less whether or not you are a nice guy.
(3) Who said anything about believing in the paranormal? What test are you talking about?
(4) What claim?
(5) You're sledging again: Naughty-naughty.

[Mr. Scott]

maatorc: What did I say about the paranormal?
Mr. Scott: Its incommensurability. What did you say about science?

Mr. Scott: Science is closely related to the JREF challenge, since the goal of both is to measure an effect to find out if it is real or not.
maatorc: Are you sure about this?
Mr. Scott: Yes.

Mr. Scott: My working hypothesis is that everything real is measurable. I'd like to give maatorc his best shot -- what is the most real paranormal ability he or she believes in, and I'll explain exactly how science (and by extension the JREF challenge) can measure it if it is indeed real.
maatorc: Are you sure about this?
Mr. Scott: Yes.

Mr. Scott: The ball's in your court, maatorc.
maatorc: What makes you think you are an acceptable authority in the matters you refer to?
Mr. Scott: Try and focus now. Yes, I'm an authority on the fact that I hit the ball and that it is in your court, but it looks like you are changing the subject from the JREF test to Mr. Scott and on top of that, resorting to the fallacy of argument by authority. Can you focus on what I say instead of who I am?

maatorc: See post 139.
Mr. Scott: I've read it 20 times and it says nothing about science.

This is Mikey, another of my ex-mother-in-law's cats, defying science by being incommensurable. No million dollars for him!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/6736450766cd1ac5e.jpg

[Mr. Scott]

(1) It is all very simple: The explanations in post 139 are not about science or what it does or does not do.

That was another very clumsy, transparent evasion. You can have the last word.

[Bob Klase]

Such as the words you have used to erroneously claim I am saying something that I am not saying?

Feel free to point out exactly what word(s) I used erroneously.

Or you can just point to a previous post where you fail to answer a question.

[saizai]

*cough* Boys, please take the bickering with maatorc to a different thread.

Kthxbye.

[maatorc]

*cough* Boys, please take the bickering with maatorc to a different thread.Kthxbye.

saizai -
You are right. Your thread has been diverted.
I will take my posts back to the original comment.
I will not respond to any diversionary posts.

< You said: "If one were to succeed in proving something paranormal, then $1m would be a pittance compared to smart use of the fame generated;.....In that way, the prize itself is beside the point; it's only the proving that matters." >

< I said: "This is the common claim made about 'proving something paranormal' but it is only made by those who claim it is impossible. There exist levels of acceptance and rejection for the 'paranormal' in every society in all sectors of those societies. To humanity at large the so-called 'paranormal' is no big deal, and even where claims for it are accepted there is no world-wide fame or glamour attached to it. If the JREF $1m challenge is ever met, the net overall result will likely be a global yawn.">

maatorc.

[William Smith]

Interesting move, maatorc.


...
If the JREF $1m challenge is ever met, the net overall result will likely be a global yawn.">

maatorc.

We just might have to wait for a successful applicant to see if you're right on this one. :)

Properly promoted, a successfully completed Challenge will most likely receive worldwide recognition - exponentially more than JREF already gets today.

[Darat]

....snip..

< I said: "This is the common claim made about 'proving something paranormal' but it is only made by those who claim it is impossible. There exist levels of acceptance and rejection for the 'paranormal' in every society in all sectors of those societies. To humanity at large the so-called 'paranormal' is no big deal, and even where claims for it are accepted there is no world-wide fame or glamour attached to it. If the JREF $1m challenge is ever met, the net overall result will likely be a global yawn.">

maatorc.


Demonstrably untrue - an example known to most people is Uri Geller. He achieved worldwide fame in the 70s by being able to produce (on demand and to TV schedules) feats that he claimed were paranormal in nature.

Other more recent examples are paranormalists like Sylvia Browne who regularly achieves huge audiences on shows such as "Montel" (over 70 appearances to date) and other high profile shows such as "Larry King".

All of which shows that the world today already bestows "glamour" and "fame" on people with unproven but claimed paranormal abilities.

[saizai]

I wonder what the response would be to someone who demonstrated something paranormal within the scope of the MDC, but not as some personal ability of their own (but rather something more general)?

I suspect it would have much less 'sex appeal' for talk shows and the like, but it probably all depends on the PR. :-P

[T'ai Chi]

All of which shows that the world today already bestows "glamour" and "fame" on people with unproven but claimed paranormal abilities.

People making such claims being popular wasn't the issue. IMO.

The issue was if a challenge offered by the skeptical movement was won, would there be such interest.

[robinson]

I can imagine the response from the "alternative" side of humanity, upon hearing someone won the MDC.

"Well of COURSE they did."

[maatorc]

People making such claims being popular wasn't the issue. IMO.
The issue was if a challenge offered by the skeptical movement was won, would there be such interest.

You have correctly picked up on my points.

[maatorc]

..........
Properly promoted, a successfully completed Challenge will most likely receive worldwide recognition - exponentially more than JREF already gets today.

I see the real problem as being that the claimants will all be persons without actual 'paranormal' ability, who will of course fail the challenge.
As to those, let us say hypothetically, actually possessing 'paranormal' ability, they will never apply.
If the above is true, the challenge is fated to never attaining any finality.

[William Smith]

I see the real problem as being that the claimants will all be persons without actual 'paranormal' ability, who will of course fail the challenge.
As to those, let us say hypothetically, actually possessing 'paranormal' ability, they will never apply.
If the above is true, the challenge is fated to never attaining any finality.

Wasn't "the real problem" the "global yawn"? Or the "incommensurability of phenomena and noumena"?

Maatorc, what's your real beef with the JREF Challenge?

[saizai]

GK - Please keep ad hominems, or inquiries into maatorc's motivations, to some other thread. Thanks.

[William Smith]

GK - Please keep ad hominems, or inquiries into maatorc's motivations, to some other thread. Thanks.

Saizai, please rise to the status of a mod or admin first before you post like you did. Thanks.



Of course, you may enlighten me as a fellow poster to the ad hominem in said post of mine. Thanks again.

[William Smith]

Saizai, please rise to the status of a mod or admin first before you post like you did. Thanks.
...

Saizai, you may of course post what you see fit. I will take the liberty of disregarding such posts like the one in question until you are named mod or admin.

[maatorc]

(1) Wasn't "the real problem" the "global yawn"?

(2) Or the "incommensurability of phenomena and noumena"?

(3) Maatorc, what's your real beef with the JREF Challenge?

(1) No, the global yawn is merely a likely reaction to any claimed success.

(2) To answer this here will, again, divert this thread.

(3)
A. The challenge will never determine the truth or falsity of the reality of "psychic, supernatural, or occult ability".
B. The rabid intolerance towards those who do not accept it's line.

[William Smith]

...
(3)
A. The challenge will never determine the truth or falsity of the reality of "psychic, supernatural, or occult ability".
B. The rabid intolerance towards those who do not accept it's line.


(3)A. Maatorc, you have repeatedly been told in this forum by a number of posters that your assessment does not coincide with what the JREF Challenge actually does.

(3)B. How can the Challenge itself have "rabid intolerance towards those who do not accept it's line"?

[maatorc]

(1) Maatorc, you have repeatedly been told in this forum by a number of posters that your assessment does not coincide with what the JREF Challenge actually does.

(2) How can the Challenge itself have "rabid intolerance towards those who do not accept it's line"?

(1) I know, but I do not agree. But this, too, is best left alone here.

(2) A semantic point is conceded: I mean the JREF site as a whole.

[Kimpatsu]

Off to AAH with both o' you.
Serious question: what's AAH?
Silly question: Is it anywhere near Sheffield?
I order you to ingest at least 1/5 lb. of chocolate before posting again. :)
I'm not so fond of chocolate; may I consume a gallon of beer instead?

[Kimpatsu]

rabid intolerance towards those who do not accept it's line[/I]"?
And what does "rabid intolerance towards... it is line" mean, anyway...?

[maatorc]

And what does "rabid intolerance towards... it is line" mean, anyway...?

Just casually check the site threads for:
1. Gratuitous sarcasm signalling a presumption of intellectual superiority.
2. Endless personal sledging.
3. Characterizing other's ideas they do not happen to agree with as b***s***.
4. The constant use of such as 'woo' and 'troll' as a substitute for civil dialogue.
5. Telling others their ideas are coming out of their a***.
And endless other examples.
This is a type of endemic verbal virus, signalling a serious inner-wooism-trollism on the site, which causes much anxiety to those so afflicted, giving rise to otherwise inexplicable manifestations of - well, you know what I mean.

The site is riddled with it.

[Darat]

Just casually check the site threads for:
1. Gratuitous sarcasm signalling a presumption of intellectual superiority.
2. Endless personal sledging.
3. Characterizing other's ideas they do not happen to agree with as b***s***.
4. The constant use of such as 'woo' and 'troll' as a substitute for civil dialogue.
5. Telling others their ideas are coming out of their a***.
And endless other examples.
This is a type of endemic verbal virus, signalling a serious inner-wooism-trollism on the site, which causes much anxiety to those so afflicted, giving rise to otherwise inexplicable manifestations of - well, you know what I mean.

The site is riddled with it.

I would say you do describe the behaviour of Members such as yourself accuratly however just because you act in this "rabid" manner I do not think your description accuratly describes the forum itself.

[Kimpatsu]

Of course it's an ad hominem. By correcting the grammer, and nothing else, your message is, "you are not intelligent enough for me to address your argument."
Wrong! I'm suggesting you're clever enough to know the correct use of the apostrophe.
Of course, if you're admitting that you don't...

[Kimpatsu]

Just casually check the site threads for:
1. Gratuitous sarcasm signalling a presumption of intellectual superiority.
2. Endless personal sledging.
3. Characterizing other's ideas they do not happen to agree with as b***s***.
4. The constant use of such as 'woo' and 'troll' as a substitute for civil dialogue.
5. Telling others their ideas are coming out of their a***.
And endless other examples.
This is a type of endemic verbal virus, signalling a serious inner-wooism-trollism on the site, which causes much anxiety to those so afflicted, giving rise to otherwise inexplicable manifestations of - well, you know what I mean.

The site is riddled with it.
:rolleyes:
I'll ask again: what does "...it is line" mean? (As opposed to "its line", which is possessive; no apostrophe, you see...)

[Powa]

It seems that someone has an apostrophe fetish. :D

[Gr8wight]

Wrong! I'm suggesting you're clever enough to know the correct use of the apostrophe.
Of course, if you're admitting that you don't...

Well, the post you corrected was not one of mine, so this comment is irrelevant.

Also, in my previous post, I misspelled the word "grammar." Sue me.

[Kimpatsu]

Well, the post you corrected was not one of mine, so this comment is irrelevant.
The point, however, is not, Daniel. (A greater stickler than I...
Also, in my previous post, I misspelled the word "grammar." Sue me.
No, you mistyped the word "grammar". Such errors are perfectly acceptable (even I--god forbid!--make them occasionally!) because they do not display an ignorance of the language, only temporary lack of coordination at the keyboard. Apostrophe errors, however, are indicative of ignorance, because even a 5YO knows the difference between "its" and "it's".
---
BTW, are you rich? Would it be worth the effort suing you? Could I win your firstborn...?

[Kimpatsu]

It seems that someone has an apostrophe fetish. :D
No, I have a stockings fetish.
(I hate it when my girlfriend won't let me wear them...)
I have an obsession with grammar.

[Powa]

Oh, OK. Its cool.











:D

[petre]

There appears to be a belief among some that an intelligent, rational person actually possessing supernatural powers would never apply for the challenge. I will agree to this point in principal if we also accept that some or all of these hypothetical persons with supernatural powers may not be intelligent or rational, and could end up applying for the challenge anyway.

Additionally, I also feel such a view can be summed up as, "those who truely possess supernatural powers would never claim such (or otherwise make their abilities known)", which therefore implies that all persons that do claim supernatural powers (or otherwise display them publicly) are frauds. I'd say that's very consistent with the purpose of the JREF in general.

[William Smith]

Serious question: what's AAH?
Silly question: Is it anywhere near Sheffield?


I bet this is some kind of british humour, wasted upon my roman lowbrowishness. Abandon All Hope.


I'm not so fond of chocolate; may I consume a gallon of beer instead?

There's the britwit again. :) Shall we meet in Phil's Pub? Is that thing still open?

[William Smith]

Just casually check the site threads for:
1. Gratuitous sarcasm signalling a presumption of intellectual superiority.
2. Endless personal sledging.
3. Characterizing other's ideas they do not happen to agree with as b***s***.
4. The constant use of such as 'woo' and 'troll' as a substitute for civil dialogue.
5. Telling others their ideas are coming out of their a***.
And endless other examples.
This is a type of endemic verbal virus, signalling a serious inner-wooism-trollism on the site, which causes much anxiety to those so afflicted, giving rise to otherwise inexplicable manifestations of - well, you know what I mean.

The site is riddled with it.

Maatorc, I agree with you: Not all forum posters behave as model homo sapiens sapiens all the time. It seems to come with the territory.

However, you seem to overly focus on the destructive behaviour. I, too, sometimes can't stand the bitching. I get up and go for a bike ride instead. Things look different when I come back.



I mean this in a friendly way: Maatorc, you seem thoroughly miffed at the JREF Forum. No one forces you to come here, right? It seems obvious you do find some kind of pleasure here, right?

[maatorc]

I mean this in a friendly way: Maatorc, you seem thoroughly miffed at the JREF Forum. No one forces you to come here, right? It seems obvious you do find some kind of pleasure here, right?

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.

[William Smith]

...
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.
...


Please be more specific: What exact knowledge, in what circles?

This thread will most likely carry the load of this inquiry.

[The Atheist]

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.
This is the real conspiracy: how any education system - assuming you've been through one - can turn out minds filled with this Nietzsche-ian bollocks is beyond me.

It is, however, beautifully put, I'll give you a B+.

Apostrophe crime notwithstanding. (Alas, even our mighty education system doesn't automatically fail papers riddled with childish grammatical errors.)

[maatorc]

This is the real conspiracy: how any education system - assuming you've been through one - can turn out minds filled with this Nietzsche-ian bollocks is beyond me.It is, however, beautifully put, I'll give you a B+.Apostrophe crime notwithstanding. (Alas, even our mighty education system doesn't automatically fail papers riddled with childish grammatical errors.)

I accept you do not comprehend the essentially extremely simple ideas put forward.

[Mr. Scott]

If one were to succeed in proving something paranormal, then $1M would be a pittance compared to smart use of the fame generated; whether for purely 'holy' purposes (eg charity spree) or more mundane ones (eg book deals). Talk shows worldwide, news, etc etc would be pretty much assured.

That is purely speculative and hypothetical. Are you suggesting that there is some person out there using psychic powers to get rich and no one knows about it? Do you have any evidence that such a person exists?

No one has made enough money from psychic powers to make $1M look like a "pittance," have they? Admittedly though, much money has been made faking paranormal powers. What does that tell us?

So: I think it's somewhat pointless to engage in debate about the $1m prize per se, on either side. JREF in a sense just serves as a notary-magician, to verify that it's done properly and without trickery

In that way, the prize itself is beside the point; it's only the proving that matters.

In a sense you are right. If the prize was a billion dollars it wouldn't make any difference, because 1) Hardly anyone has a gut sense of how much money a million or a billion is, and 2) No one has any paranormal powers, so even a trillion dollars would never be awarded.

Many claimants of paranormal powers seem to be poor enough to be strongly motivated to try and win only $1000. I wonder, why haven't they used their power to get rich without applying to the JREF?

Even if paranormal powers exist, they are probably just too "incommensurabile" (believer's word) to make money with. Indeed they are too incommensurabile to have any use at all. To me that makes them indistinguishable from powers that just don't exist.

The real problem with the million dollar challenge is that believers in the paranormal use the following line of reasoning:

1) Assume paranormal powers are real.
2) The million dollar bribe has failed to validate their assumption.
3) The JREF Challenge must not be valid.

Funny how believers in the paranormal seem not to spend a millisecond entertaining the possibility that assumption #1 is where the problem is.

[maatorc]

There appears to be a belief among some that an intelligent, rational person actually possessing supernatural powers would never apply for the challenge. I will agree to this point in principal if we also accept that some or all of these hypothetical persons with supernatural powers may not be intelligent or rational, and could end up applying for the challenge anyway.

Additionally, I also feel such a view can be summed up as, "those who truely possess supernatural powers would never claim such (or otherwise make their abilities known)", which therefore implies that all persons that do claim supernatural powers (or otherwise display them publicly) are frauds. I'd say that's very consistent with the purpose of the JREF in general.

It seems you may be referring to something I said.
I do not see any real or claimed human capabilities or powers as being 'supernatural'. If one actually possesses what is called 'paranormal' ability, it must be a 'natural' ability otherwise it could not exist in nature.
There cannot be anything super beyond the natural.
This is not a comment on the content of your post.

[maatorc]

That is purely speculative and hypothetical. Are you suggesting that there is some person out there using psychic powers to get rich and no one knows about it? Do you have any evidence that such a person exists?
No one has made enough money from psychic powers to make $1M look like a "pittance," have they? Admittedly though, much money has been made faking paranormal powers. What does that tell us?
In a sense you are right. If the prize was a billion dollars it wouldn't make any difference, because 1) Hardly anyone has a gut sense of how much money a million or a billion is, and 2) No one has any paranormal powers, so even a trillion dollars would never be awarded.
Many claimants of paranormal powers seem to be poor enough to be strongly motivated to try and win only $1000. I wonder, why haven't they used their power to get rich without applying to the JREF?
Even if paranormal powers exist, they are probably just too "incommensurabile" (believer's word) to make money with. Indeed they are too incommensurabile to have any use at all. To me that makes them indistinguishable from powers that just don't exist.
The real problem with the million dollar challenge is that believers in the paranormal use the following line of reasoning:
1) Assume paranormal powers are real.
2) The million dollar bribe has failed to validate their assumption.
3) The JREF Challenge must not be valid.
Funny how believers in the paranormal seem not to spend a millisecond entertaining the possibility that assumption #1 is where the problem is.

I do not believe in the 'paranormal'.
'Paranormal' is a misnomer: There is nothing 'para' beyond the normal.
All capabilities any person happens to possess, of whatever kind, must by definition be 'normal'.

[saizai]

That is purely speculative and hypothetical.

Of course, as with any discussion of what may happen in the event of a win.

Are you suggesting that there is some person out there using psychic powers to get rich and no one knows about it? Do you have any evidence that such a person exists?

How does this relate to my statement, which you quoted? You seem to have drastically misread it.

[maatorc]

Please be more specific: What exact knowledge, in what circles?
This thread will most likely carry the load of this inquiry.

The material on this subject is vast. I need a little time. Will get back to you.

[Gr8wight]

The point, however, is not, Daniel. (A greater stickler than I...

Who's Daniel?

No, you mistyped the word "grammar". Such errors are perfectly acceptable (even I--god forbid!--make them occasionally!) because they do not display an ignorance of the language, only temporary lack of coordination at the keyboard.

I wish I could allow myself to take your easy way out. If I had typed "grammsr" or "grammwr" I could pawn it off as a typo. The 'e' and the 'a' are too far apart for it to have been anything other than a misspelling.

Apostrophe errors, however, are indicative of ignorance, because even a 5YO knows the difference between "its" and "it's".

Ignorance of proper grammar, perhaps. Not indicative of ignorance of the subject being discussed. That may have been be present, but you made no attempt to show evidence to that effect. By correcting the poster's grammar, and not addressing his argument, the ad hominem attack was implicit.

---
BTW, are you rich? Would it be worth the effort suing you? Could I win your firstborn...?

Hell, I'll give him to you. Twelve going on twenty-one and full of attitude.

[CFLarsen]

Who's Daniel?

"Daniel is travelling tonight on a plane...."

[saizai]

Twelve going on twenty-one

*laugh*

[Mr. Scott]

How does this relate to my statement, which you quoted? You seem to have drastically misread it.

OK, your assertion seemed so strange to me that it didn't quite find a home in my brain. Now I understand. The million dollars is not important because, once one wins it, they will make much more. Have I got it right? OK, I'll buy that.

[Mr. Scott]

I do not believe in the 'paranormal'.
'Paranormal' is a misnomer: There is nothing 'para' beyond the normal.
All capabilities any person happens to possess, of whatever kind, must by definition be 'normal'.

Huh? Arguing semantics now? What a pitiful evasion! I feel sorry for you.:(

[saizai]

OK, your assertion seemed so strange to me that it didn't quite find a home in my brain. Now I understand. The million dollars is not important because, once one wins it, they will make much more. Have I got it right? OK, I'll buy that.

Yes, exactly.

[maatorc]

Huh? Arguing semantics now? What a pitiful evasion! I feel sorry for you.:(

Sledging driven by ignorance.

[maatorc]

Please be more specific: What exact knowledge, in what circles?

Without exception, all sacred-spiritual-mystery legends transmit a myth of human occult anatomy.
The one and only object and subject of all these legends, and the one only myth they transmit, is human perfectibility.

The principal legends are:
Osiris,
Orpheus,
Jesus,
Grail,
Kabala,
Alchemy, and
Yoga.

A legend is a device to transmit a myth. A legend typically is in the form of factual-fictional historical events. An example is Homer's Illiad discussed in Homer's Secret Illiad as transmitting Greek astronomical knowledge of the the precession.

A myth is a knowledge system transmitted by a legend.

Personalities and events in the mystery legends are personifications of the functions and characteristics of the occultly understood human anatomical myth.

In relation to the notion of human perfectibility, occult human anatomy is the one and only myth transmitted by all sacred-spiritual-mystery legends.

The knowledge of the means to human perfectibility lies in the content of the one myth. This one myth is common to all the sacred-spiritual-mystery legends: It is global.

Many organizations constitute the global occult network which preserves and transmits the one myth.

In recent centuries, and in the modern era, a vast and multifaceted operation called Rosicrucianism is an example of one organization, among many, who are seen as representing a deeply hidden inner school consisting of those individuals who best represent the operation of the myth.

maatorc.

[Kimpatsu]

The global nature of the myth of human perfectability is based solely in the universal human desire to live forever in the peak of physical perfection. All the global nature speaks to is the universality of common human desire, which transcends cultures.

[calebprime]

This is the real conspiracy: how any education system - assuming you've been through one - can turn out minds filled with this Nietzsche-ian bollocks is beyond me.

It is, however, beautifully put, I'll give you a B+.

Apostrophe crime notwithstanding. (Alas, even our mighty education system doesn't automatically fail papers riddled with childish grammatical errors.)

Quibble: Fred N. wrote a LOT of beautifully put bollocks, but nothing like what maatorc is saying. He also had a lot of very penetrating insights into all kinds of things. Just skip Zarathustra, IMHO his worst effort.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to Kimpatsu's obsession. The apostrophe is much abused. It's wrong to misuse its power.:D

[nathan]

Can this discussion be moved from the challenge forum? I've no desire to watch maatorc's philosophical masturbation.

[ruach1]

$1 million would seem like a pitance if you really had paranormal abilities. One, because with that type of ability why would money seem so important? Two, people have mentioned the fame, but what about the down side of fame, no privacy, expected to be "on" all the time, people only wanting to know you because of your "ability" or fearing you because of your ability, etc. Three, what about the military, intelligence, terriorist organisations, do you think they would take kindly to someone with the ability to potentially "see and tell" all there secrets? Or worse, subject that person to there warped desires and create war on their fellow man?

The list of reasons for a person that is truly gifted with paranormal ability not to want to take part in any challenges for or against such ability far outway any monetary value they may gain.

That is..... if it really did exist......

We'll have to ask the CIA!!!!!
If there is a "bona fide" psychic act that passes an uncheatable scientific test (of which Randi approves :)), then that person will be scrutinized at all levels. He/she will probably be approached by the Pentagon to see if the ability can be "weaponized" for the security of Democracy. He/she will probabaly be asked to sponsor products in various countries--if this person's scrutinized past holds up to product endorsement. And, of course, there will be "fringe individuals" who may/will probably think something along the lines of, "Million dollar psychic, eh? Well let's see if you can 'psychic your way' out of this bullet shot through this rifle." :boxedin:

[saizai]

Can this discussion be moved from the challenge forum? I've no desire to watch maatorc's philosophical masturbation.

Like I asked.

Please split the thread though; the OP and related replies are still on topic.

[saizai]

If there is a "bona fide" psychic act that passes an uncheatable scientific test (of which Randi approves :)), then that person will be scrutinized at all levels. He/she will probably be approached by the Pentagon to see if the ability can be "weaponized" for the security of Democracy. He/she will probabaly be asked to sponsor products in various countries--if this person's scrutinized past holds up to product endorsement. And, of course, there will be "fringe individuals" who may/will probably think something along the lines of, "Million dollar psychic, eh? Well let's see if you can 'psychic your way' out of this bullet shot through this rifle." :boxedin:

:duck: :)

But don't forget - it's not just about psychics. How does one militarize, say, dowsing for water? Or accurate astrology readings?

[The Atheist]

Quibble: Fred N. wrote a LOT of beautifully put bollocks, but nothing like what maatorc is saying. He also had a lot of very penetrating insights into all kinds of things. Just skip Zarathustra, IMHO his worst effort.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to Kimpatsu's obsession. The apostrophe is much abused. It's wrong to misuse its power.:D
I just want to get my hands on the guy whoever first decided to advertise VIDEO'S. It's all his fault!

[maatorc]

The global nature of the myth of human perfectability is based solely in the universal human desire to live forever in the peak of physical perfection. All the global nature speaks to is the universality of common human desire, which transcends cultures.

While good health is helpful, it is definitely not the purpose or objective of the myth.

[maatorc]

Can this discussion be moved from the challenge forum? I've no desire to watch maatorc's philosophical masturbation.

Do you feel relieved?

There is nothing 'philosophical' in the post. It is purely descriptive by way of answering a direct question by KzuzKryzT in post 179.

My comments are an observation, not a belief system. I am saying this is how it works, not that it is true or false. You are free to decide that yourself.

They concern only the existence of legends and myth as such.

[Kimpatsu]

I just want to get my hands on the guy whoever first decided to advertise VIDEO'S. It's all his fault!
That's a greengrocer's apostrophe. Enjoy these:
http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/examples.htm
---
Perhaps the mods would like to split this apostrophe discussion into a new thread?

[William Smith]

Can this discussion be moved from the challenge forum? I've no desire to watch maatorc's philosophical masturbation.

Did you ask a mod?

My next post will - shudder - try to relate maatorc's last post to the thread theme.

[William Smith]

Without exception, all sacred-spiritual-mystery legends transmit a myth of human occult anatomy.
The one and only object and subject of all these legends, and the one only myth they transmit, is human perfectibility.

The principal legends are:
Osiris,
Orpheus,
Jesus,
Grail,
Kabala,
Alchemy, and
Yoga.

A legend is a device to transmit a myth. A legend typically is in the form of factual-fictional historical events. An example is Homer's Illiad discussed in Homer's Secret Illiad as transmitting Greek astronomical knowledge of the the precession.

A myth is a knowledge system transmitted by a legend.

Personalities and events in the mystery legends are personifications of the functions and characteristics of the occultly understood human anatomical myth.

In relation to the notion of human perfectibility, occult human anatomy is the one and only myth transmitted by all sacred-spiritual-mystery legends.

The knowledge of the means to human perfectibility lies in the content of the one myth. This one myth is common to all the sacred-spiritual-mystery legends: It is global.

Many organizations constitute the global occult network which preserves and transmits the one myth.

In recent centuries, and in the modern era, a vast and multifaceted operation called Rosicrucianism is an example of one organization, among many, who are seen as representing a deeply hidden inner school consisting of those individuals who best represent the operation of the myth.

maatorc.

I wish I'd dropped some names earlier (well, my ego does wish that), since your post moved pretty much in the same direction.

From what I've learned while studiying will (Thelema), genetics (DNA and its causality) and myths (Greek, Egyptian and Asian - Alchemy, Magick and Oracles) I dare to say that they pretty much point - more or less - in the same direction. Please grant me this simplification.

Especially one enlightened heroinaddicted permanentlygamesplayinghumanoid did put it quite clearly in his biography:

"Every man and every woman is a star." With all deriving causality. Subject to time. Subject to space.




Until we discover something...else (Which means omnipotence and/or immortality to me - since I still mostly perceive in those dimensions). If you got it - show me. I'm all mind.




Please ensure to have some evidence - and I do not mean: powerful LSDor other drugs - I spent enough time with hippies, punk rockers, alchemists, spiritualists and other well meaning but uneducated easily foiled bio-entities who did nothing but talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and not think beyond the next step.

Why Randi's money is relatively unimportant, saizai? I have not one plausible clue. (That wuz a choke.)

[maatorc]

(1) I wish I'd dropped some names earlier (well, my ego does wish that), since your post moved pretty much in the same direction.

(2) From what I've learned while studiying will (Thelema), genetics (DNA and its causality) and myths (Greek, Egyptian and Asian - Alchemy, Magick and Oracles) I dare to say that they pretty much point - more or less - in the same direction. Please grant me this simplification.

(3) Especially one enlightened heroinaddicted permanentlygamesplayinghumanoid did put it quite clearly in his biography:
"Every man and every woman is a star." With all deriving causality. Subject to time. Subject to space.
Until we discover something...else (Which means omnipotence and/or immortality to me - since I still mostly perceive in those dimensions). If you got it - show me. I'm all mind.

(4) Please ensure to have some evidence - and I do not mean: powerful LSDor other drugs - I spent enough time with hippies, punk rockers, alchemists, spiritualists and other well meaning but uneducated easily foiled bio-entities who did nothing but talk and talk.............. and not think beyond the next step.

(1) Nothing to do with name-dropping in the commonly understood sense. It is fairly easily available information pointing in the direction of what you asked.

(2) Agreed.

(3) I am not quite picking up on your idea here.

(4) Yes, it is true that students of the Great Work can be a Great Pain as they make a Great Effort to attain the Great Art and uncover the Great Secret!

[Kimpatsu]

"Every man and every woman is a star."
Not quite; we are all made of star stuff, though.

[saizai]

GK - OTO eh? Y'know, that's got tons of great MDC-qualifying stuff...

[Kimpatsu]

GK - OTO eh? Y'know, that's got tons of great MDC-qualifying stuff...
WTF does that sentence mean in English?!

[saizai]

WTF does that sentence mean in English?!

Do you know how to use Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordo_Templi_Orientis) (or Google (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+oto))? I was refering to GK's reference to his experience with Thelema.

[Kimpatsu]

Do you know how to use Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordo_Templi_Orientis) (or Google (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+oto))? I was refering to GK's reference to his experience with Thelema.
OTOH, WTF do you know about GK (Chesterton, I presume)? AFAIK, It's a CLOOB, because YATS OOYA and WACOT...
:rolleyes:

[saizai]

Kimpatsu - Funny, Google doesn't know the definitions for the last four acronyms you used, whereas it does know the definitions of mine.

Are you certain you're using standard English? That is the lingua franca of this forum, y'know.

GK, BTW, is an obvious reference to GzuzKryzt, just above me...

[Kimpatsu]

Are you certain you're using standard English? That is the lingua franca of this forum, y'know.
If English is the lingua frqanca of the forum, why don't you write it?
And the other acronyms aren't muine, BTW, they're neologisms coined by Tony Youens, a good friend of Randi and a better man than either of us.
Now, back to the point in hand: have you seen a doctor yet about your continuing belief that there might just be faeries at the bottom of the garden...?

[T'ai Chi]

..a better man than either of us.


Whatever belief system and gurus work for you, by all means, stick with it.

[nathan]

There is nothing 'philosophical'
Oh really? You bandy about words like 'nuomena', implicitly redefine 'paranormal' and then claim it's not philosophical. Get real.

[Gr8wight]

Oh really? You bandy about words like 'nuomena', implicitly redefine 'paranormal' and then claim it's not philosophical. Get real.

Quite. "Nuomena" is a term that was invented by a philosopher.

[Kimpatsu]

Whatever belief system and gurus work for you, by all means, stick with it.
Randi, Shermer, Sagan, Dawkins, Dennett...
I think you should rephrase as "lack of gurus and zero belief system..."

[saizai]

Now, back to the point in hand: have you seen a doctor yet about your continuing belief that there might just be faeries at the bottom of the garden...?

Wrong thread buddy.

P.S. Fallacy: ad hominem, argument from incredulity. Again.

[Kimpatsu]

Wrong thread buddy.

P.S. Fallacy: ad hominem, argument from incredulity. Again.
I'll ask again: why do you seriously beleive that there just might be faeries at the bottom of the garden? Or have you now changed your mind?

[saizai]

Kimpatsu - I responded to you in the atheism thread. You are attacking me (fallaciously) on a completely unrelated thread (this one) even though I warned you not to; therefore, I have reported your post to the moderators.

Kthxbye.

[Kimpatsu]

Kimpatsu - I responded to you in the atheism thread. You are attacking me (fallaciously) on a completely unrelated thread (this one) even though I warned you not to; therefore, I have reported your post to the moderators.

Kthxbye.
Look at the little crybaby running to mummy because his errors of reasoning have been exposed. :rolleyes:

[shelley]

Dear.... Dear Roger,

It is 8 days since I left this site because of your one eyed bigotry and stand over tactics, I am pleased to see that you waited up till 2.28am to continue to discredit any opinion I may have had on anything.....

I consider myself called.... and please do not cyber threaten me again!!!!

[Kimpatsu]

Dear.... Dear Roger,

It is 8 days since I left this site because of your one eyed bigotry and stand over tactics, I am pleased to see that you waited up till 2.28am to continue to discredit any opinion I may have had on anything.....

I consider myself called.... and please do not cyber threaten me again!!!!
Exactly. Saizai is merely attempting to coerce me into silence. Censorship at its worst. The moderators are way too smart for that, and will see right through his transparent ploy.

[Mr. Scott]

Sledging driven by ignorance.

Your evasive tactics and intellectual dishonesty give you a high degree of sledgability, maatorc. If calling you what you are is sledging, then so be it. You threw your head at my sledge hammer.

I'll ask again, rephrasing to circumvent your latest evasion:

What is it about science, and by extension the million dollar challenge, that makes it unable to validly investigate the human abilities, such as telepathy, that qualify for the challenge?

On-topic post is next.

[Mr. Scott]

I did not "diss the Prize and JREF" here; please quote where I have done so. I simply said that the question of whether or not Randi has the money is unimportant - I didn't raise it.

saizai, the trouble with your original post is it sounds like a criticism of the JREF challenge ("Randi's money is relatively unimportant" and "$1M would be a pittance") but then it isn't quite ("JREF in a sense just serves as a notary-magician, to verify that it's done properly and without trickery.")

Here's what misses the point about the OP: These human powers, whatever we want to call them (supernatural, paranormal, prayer-based, god-derived, violating current laws of science)? Randi knows they don't exist. The million dollars is put up as a dare to demonstrate those powers. The money is safe because these powers do not exist. Hypothetical statements about the huge rewards of winning the challenge from the subsequent fame, which would dwarf the million, are as much fantasies as the expected rewards of proving the existence of unicorns, Santa, or the tooth fairy.

You'd be famous if you interviewed Santa? Yes, but so what? Sigh...:rolleyes: That's as unlikey to happen as someone getting famous after winning the challenge, and for the same reason.

[saizai]

Mr. Scott -

1. Randi claims (when being his resolutely rational role) not to KNOW either way, just not to have seen any EVIDENCE to prove they exist. ;)

2. Hypothetical statements about the win are relevant because, as stated earlier, they certainly do come up. E.g., there is the frequent defense about whether the money exists or not, whether it'd be paid or not, etc etc. The OP is offered as an alternate response to this argument, to make the "yes it exists, trust us" response moot.

[Mr. Scott]

Mr. Scott -

1. Randi claims (when being his resolutely rational role) not to KNOW either way, just not to have seen any EVIDENCE to prove they exist. ;)


;)

[maatorc]

What is it about science, and by extension the million dollar challenge, that makes it unable to validly investigate the human abilities, such as telepathy, that qualify for the challenge?

It has no material means by which it can determine the truth or falsity of any demonstration claimed to be or appearing to be a "...psychic, supernatural. or occult power..."

[saizai]

It has no material means by which it can determine the truth or falsity of any demonstration claimed to be or appearing to be a "...psychic, supernatural. or occult power..."

Depends on the power. If the power changes or detects anything in the outside world, including other people, it is provable.

[maatorc]

Depends on the power. If the power changes or detects anything in the outside world, including other people, it is provable.

What do you mean by the 'power'?
Does what you call a 'power change' detection prove or infer an event?
If a power change infers an event, that is not proof.
If you say a power change proves an event, how does it prove it?

[saizai]

Who said anything about a "power change" detection? Reread what I wrote.

[maatorc]

Depends on the power. If the power changes or detects anything in the outside world, including other people, it is provable.

You are right.
I misread post 230.
The actual connection between an alleged power and any external change or detection can only be materially inferred: Proof can only lie exclusively in actually experiencing or personally realising the claimed 'power', and, as such, cannot be materially proven or disproven.

[saizai]

maatorc - Depends on how you define the power.

You can certainly demonstrably prove that you are able to do X.

You cannot easily prove how you are able to do X, but you can provide greater or lesser support for various theories.

Given that JREF and science in general are only at present concerned with the former wrt paranormal phenomena, this is not a big problem.

[maatorc]

........You can certainly demonstrably prove that you are able to do X.
You cannot easily prove how you are able to do X, but you can provide greater or lesser support for various theories.

Rhetorically, not argumentatively, how can one demonstrably prove an ability to do - say any - 'X' that is a "...psychic, supernatural, or occult power..."?

[saizai]

"Rhetorically, not argumentatively" - huh?

Dowse (douse?) for water with 100% accuracy. Will prove that you are doing it, and it is (by present definition) supernatural. Will not prove how you are doing it (the fork could be a distraction - maybe you're just psychic or something ;)).

[maatorc]

(1) "Rhetorically, not argumentatively" - huh?

(2) Dowse (douse?) for water with 100% accuracy. Will prove that you are doing it, and it is (by present definition) supernatural. Will not prove how you are doing it (the fork could be a distraction - maybe you're just psychic or something ;)).

(1) Do not be so precious: It merely meant I accept people can have differing opinions.

(2) Dowsing is not a 'power'. It is a reaction to the water flow by whatever the dowser is holding in the hands.
The dowser is not 'causing' anything to happen.
When I was a youngster I saw dowsing every week for several years in an extended agricultural area where the rainfall was only 11 inches a year and the area was dotted with hundreds of large windmills to supply cattle and sheep.
I often spoke to the water-finders, who never made any claims about having any unusual ability. To them it was simply something they did for a living that happened to 'work' for them.

[saizai]

(2) Dowsing is not a 'power'. It is a reaction to the water flow by whatever the dowser is holding in the hands.
The dowser is not 'causing' anything to happen.

I disagree. The stick doesn't do anything by itself without a dowser holding it, ergo the dowser must be involved. That is called a 'power'.

You can claim that this 'power' is universal to all humans; that's fine. But don't claim it's not a (provable, yet unproven) power.

[William Smith]

Mr. Scott -

1. Randi claims (when being his resolutely rational role) not to KNOW either way, just not to have seen any EVIDENCE to prove they exist. ;)

2. (...)The OP is offered as an alternate response to this argument, to make the "yes it exists, trust us" response moot.

I agree with #1.

I also agree more with #2 than I did before. I still can't quite get over the choice of your words - with your educational background providing you with the tools of semantics posing the hurdle here - but I can get on board with your conclusion: "It's only the proving that matters."

However (sidenote: Whenever I say "however", my fellow forum members shall imagine Lt. Tuvok's flow), one would not have to trust just any skeptic's argumentation that the money is there - heck, not even Mr. Randi's - one would just have to look here http://tfcny.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/esearch.php (type: randi) or here http://www.skepticreport.com/images/investmentaccount.gif and realize that if one doubts the existence of the JREF Prize, one doubts the integrity of the US bond system.

[William Smith]

...
(3) I am not quite picking up on your idea here.
...


I meant Aleister Crowley, Frater Perdurabo, The Great Beast. I can't really say I understand his oeuvre fully, but he was the most fun read I ever had. Really.

(To anyone interested in a brief summary of Mr. Crowley's crowleyness, I recommend the paragraph "Ipsissimus" in the biography by John Symonds. It's quite short and unlike the most part of his work, quite clear.)

[maatorc]

I meant Aleister Crowley, Frater Perdurabo, The Great Beast. I can't really say I understand his oeuvre fully, but he was the most fun read I ever had. Really......

Thanks. In the context of my remarks about modern movements and an inner school, many movements like Crowley's claimed such a connection but it is highly unlikely they actually were so connected.

[maatorc]

I disagree. The stick doesn't do anything by itself without a dowser holding it, ergo the dowser must be involved. That is called a 'power'.

Take the case of one who has some success with dowsing: When dowsing, such a person could not stop the reaction, that is, could not stop the hand-held object from moving in the event of a connection that would usually result in the hand-held object moving.
The dowser is certainly 'involved', but is not controlling the reaction.

[saizai]

Take the case of one who has some success with dowsing: When dowsing, such a person could not stop the reaction, that is, could not stop the hand-held object from moving in the event of a connection that would usually result in the hand-held object moving.
The dowser is certainly 'involved', but is not controlling the reaction.

So they have an uncontrollable power. Your point?

[William Smith]

Thanks. In the context of my remarks about modern movements and an inner school, many movements like Crowley's claimed such a connection but it is highly unlikely they actually were so connected.

From personal experience I can say those I encountered were almost all on illegal chemical stimuli.

Those who did not take drugs were high on alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, legal prescription drugs and of course the master drug: "Belief".

[William Smith]

Take the case of one who has some success with dowsing: When dowsing, such a person could not stop the reaction, that is, could not stop the hand-held object from moving in the event of a connection that would usually result in the hand-held object moving.
The dowser is certainly 'involved', but is not controlling the reaction.

Ideomotor effect?



I do not know of a documented case of "one who has some success with dowsing". Define "some", please. I do, however, know lots of people who claim success with dowsing - even in my own gene pool.

[maatorc]

So they have an uncontrollable power. Your point?
If it is something one cannot control, it is not a power, but is more in the nature of a response to what one is receptive to.

[maatorc]

(1) Ideomotor effect?

(2) I do not know of a documented case of "one who has some success with dowsing". Define "some", please. I do, however, know lots of people who claim success with dowsing - even in my own gene pool.

(1) Maybe.

(2) Yes, it is largely anecdotal, like my own observations of dowsing when a youngster.
'Some' means instances of apparent success when water is found where the dowser says it should be: Quite a common experience in rural areas.

[maatorc]

From personal experience I can say those I encountered were almost all on illegal chemical stimuli. Those who did not take drugs were high on alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, legal prescription drugs and of course the master drug: "Belief".

Very true.
What I am suggesting, however, is that this does not necessarily apply to all groups or individuals in the legends-myth connection.

[Mr. Scott]

It has no material means by which it can determine the truth or falsity of any demonstration claimed to be or appearing to be a "...psychic, supernatural. or occult power..."

This is completely false. Science has the material means by which it can determine the truth or falsity of, for example, dowsing (which I see you believe in) and has shown every claim so examined to be false.

If you are so sure you know a dowser who can really find water with that method, tell him or her a million dollars awaits a successful demonstration for the JREF. If you don't think dowsing can be demonstrated scientifically, then please explain exactly what's wrong with science or the JREF challenge that makes it unable to demonstrate the truth or falsity of a dowsing claim.

Perhaps it would help if you watched a Video of Randi Testing Dowsers (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7461912885649996034&q=james+randi&hl=en) and explain to me what Randi and his group did wrong that caused him to fail to confirm that any of the dowsers had any of their claimed abilities.

[maatorc]

This is completely false. Science has the material means by which it can determine the truth or falsity of, for example, dowsing (which I see you believe in) and has shown every claim so examined to be false.
If you are so sure you know a dowser who can really find water with that method, tell him or her a million dollars awaits a successful demonstration for the JREF. If you don't think dowsing can be demonstrated scientifically, then please explain exactly what's wrong with science or the JREF challenge that makes it unable to demonstrate the truth or falsity of a dowsing claim.
Perhaps it would help if you watched a Video of Randi Testing Dowsers (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7461912885649996034&q=james+randi&hl=en) and explain to me what Randi and his group did wrong that caused him to fail to confirm that any of the dowsers had any of their claimed abilities.

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

Some people will hold a wire or twig over water and it will twitch.
Some people will hold a wire or twig over water and it will not twitch.