Randi, I hope somebody wins your freakin' million!

[shemp]

And you were lousy on that episode of Happy Days too!

[no one in particular]

Shouldn’t this be in the “Flame War” forum? It looks like a direct attack from one forum member to another forum member, so it should be moved.

Here, I’ll help: Shemp, you are a freakin’ moron. Oh, and your advice blows too.

[shemp]

Move? Thanks, I'll move my bowels, open wide pal.

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by shemp
...open wide pal. More bad advice!

[Scarude]

I'm with Shemp. I hope someone takes Randi down a peg or two and takes his precious million from him. I am quite skeptical that winning the prize is what Randi has in mind for anyone.

I know from personal experience that Randi sets people up for failure by arbitrarily raising the results bar. I have also found him to be belittling and bearrating and somewhat hostile.

We also know know that he will resort to interference if someone gets too close to passing the preliminary. It would seem that Mr. Randi's primary function in life is to protect the interest and dividend income from the foundations million. Why aren't these monies added to the million to "sweeten the pot"?

What will happen when someone eventually passes the preliminary test? Will he then arbitrarily increase the test result requirements to set up more failure? As far as I'm concerned, the "formal" test should have the same protocol as with the prelimary test to prove that the ability is reproducible. What will Randi do?

I may be too skeptical but I don't see the million being won with Randi in control.:mad:

[ShowMe]

Originally posted by Scarude
What will happen when someone eventually passes the preliminary test? Will he then arbitrarily increase the test result requirements to set up more failure? As far as I'm concerned, the "formal" test should have the same protocol as with the prelimary test to prove that the ability is reproducible. What will Randi do?

I may be too skeptical but I don't see the million being won with Randi in control.:mad:


Randi has nothing to do with most of the preliminary experiments. Too many, too varied & too widely scattered across the globe.

All anyone has to do is perform what they say they can do. No ups, no extras, nobar raising; if you say you can see while blindfolded, then show that you can see while blindfolded. If you can dowse for water, then dowse.

And yet not one...single....applicant has EVER gotten passed the prelims. Even the ones where Randi wasn't involved.

I would love to see someone win the JREF million dollar prize as well. It would be a groundswell moment in human history if paranormal powers could be proven to exist & I would be tickled to death to be living in that time period.

But nobody has done it yet. Nobody has even come close. And it's not because of "the Power of Randi"; it's because of The Lack of Applicant Power".

[Dogwood]

Originally posted by Scarude


We also know know that he will resort to interference if someone gets too close to passing the preliminary.

How exactly do we know that again?

[AlienX]

I think the reason that nobody has won the 1 million is because they are all frauds.

If someone does win then i would guess they have simply found a way to cheat the system - will be interesting working out how they have done it though ;-)

At the end of the day we have many people being conned out of many millions of dollars every year by these charlitans who are unable to pass the fair tests imposed. Some may feel they are tight controls but if it was your money on the line then i'm pretty sure you would make sure (well to the best of your ability) that you were not being conned.

At the end of the day the test is being taken by proffesional con artists.. yet even they can't find a way to cheat yet ;-). A "real" player would be able to pass under any conditions.

For me the old well we can't prove it but you can't disprove it routine is wearing very thin. Show us the goods or stfu.

Maybe i'm cynical but after years and years of this rubbish were in the same position. If your "special power" isn't reliable or vague then what use is it anyway?

AX

You have "special powers"... well prove it! at least Mr Randi has put his money where his mouth is. I would have a bit more respect if people taking the test also had to stump up a million - if they fail then Mr Randi can donate the money to some worthy charity.

[Brown]

Originally posted by ShowMe
I would love to see someone win the JREF million dollar prize as well. It would be a groundswell moment in human history if paranormal powers could be proven to exist & I would be tickled to death to be living in that time period.I agree with this. I would like to see someone win, but win fairly.

If these folks can really do what they claim they can do, then the challenge should pose no problem. Instead, all they do is b**** and moan, about how unfair the whole thing is, and how it's rigged.

Well, in a sense, the challenge is rigged. It's rigged to make trickery less viable. It's rigged to rule out self-delusion. It's rigged to make a win by blind chance very unlikely.

If paranormal power is nothing more than trickery, self-delusion and blind luck (or a combination thereof), then it's quite possible that nobody will ever win the challenge.

But the claimaints always insist that their powers are authentic, and that the powers can be demonstrated under controlled conditions. So far, however, not one of them has been able to follow through, and some are not even willing to try.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by AlienX
I think the reason that nobody has won the 1 million is because they are all frauds.

Depends on how you define "frauds", but I don't think so. Some of these people actually believe they have super powers. A lot of the dowsers, for instance.

So I think there is a division between those who actually believe in their powers, and those who are willfully deceiving others, i.e. frauds.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Scarude

I may be too skeptical but
I doubt that.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
So I think there is a division between those who actually believe in their powers, and those who are willfully deceiving others, i.e. frauds. So is there a term for people who actually believe in their powers? All I can think of is "self-deluded" but it'd be nice to have a less derogatory term.

"Fraud" is appropriately derogatory for the willful deceivers, though.

[patnray]

Some people make claims that cannot be refuted. I recall a case where a woman claimed to be able to diagnose medical conditions by passing her hands over people (or some such technique). If she stated a person had a liver disease and a team of doctors, after thorough testing, stated the person did not have liver disease, she would simply say it can't be detected yet. If that person died 20 years later and an autopsy showed no trace of liver disease, she would state that it was there and if the person had lived long enough it would have become detectable. She believes she is never wrong, and no amount of objective evidence will disuade her opinion.

Randi's protocol requires that claimants help define the conditions of the test and agree, beforehand, that they will be able to perform under the restraints imposed. And they must agree what results will be considered a success and what results will be considered a failure. If they can't agree on objective criteria for failure, then they can't be tested.

Randi is very clever, and his protocol prevents people from claiming, after the fact, that something in the protocol or environment interefered with their performance. He gives them every chance to succeed, short of cheating, and their failures are from lack of the claimed ability, not the test protocol...

[walthrup48]

Originally posted by Beleth
So is there a term for people who actually believe in their powers? All I can think of is "self-deluded" but it'd be nice to have a less derogatory term.


Self-deceived?

[GroundStrength]

I have to agree with patnray.

There was a person who claimed to posess the power of Lin Kong Jing "Empty Force"; the ability to move people from a distance. Randi offered insight on designing the test and everyone agreed that it was fair and a good test of the ability. Even the claimant agreed.

The test was conducted and the person failed miserably.

Why did he fail? Trickery on the part of the test creators adnd Randi? No. He simply could not demostrate the ability that he claimed to have.

[walthrup48]

Originally posted by Scarude I'm with Shemp. I hope someone takes Randi down a peg or two and takes his precious million from him. I am quite skeptical that winning the prize is what Randi has in mind for anyone.

I know from personal experience that Randi sets people up for failure by arbitrarily raising the results bar.
Really? Will you recount your experiences here so we can read what happened? Perhaps Mr Randi will reply to give us his views on the matter.

I have also found him to be belittling and bearrating and somewhat hostile.
As do many other people who read his commentaries, no doubt.

We also know know that he will resort to interference if someone gets too close to passing the preliminary.
We do? Can you remind us how we've arrived at that conclusion?

Correspondent:I'm uneasy with the "shifting goal posts" claim psychics make about the challenge.

Randi:The claim is quite untrue. Ask them for ONE example of where this has been done. They can't provide it, because it never happened. The rules change only if the conditions change, and then only with the approval of all concerned. It's the psychics who move the goalposts around, not I. "
Source: http://www.randi.org/jr/06-22-01.html


It would seem that Mr. Randi's primary function in life is to protect the interest and dividend income from the foundations million.
It is? You're implying that Randi won't award the monies because its earnings are the life blood of the JREF. How sure are you of that?

Why aren't these monies added to the million to "sweeten the pot"?
Why should they be?

What will happen when someone eventually passes the preliminary test?

Answer - they'll take the formal tests, which
would be essentially the same [as the preliminaries] except that the security would be more stringent, since one million dollars would then be involved. Also, slightly higher performance levels would be required.
Source: http://www.randi.org/jr/08-31-01.html

Will he then arbitrarily increase the test result requirements to set up more failure?
More failure? If the claimant is to begin the formal test, the preliminaries would have been completed successfully. No failure there, then. Do you mean that Randi would introduce procedures that would increase the chance of failure? The procedures are more stringent, as explained above. Are you suggesting that Randi will hijack the tests in order to skew the tests so that the claimant fails completely? If so, I direct your attention to the first quote above.

As far as I'm concerned, the "formal" test should have the same protocol as with the prelimary test to prove that the ability is reproducible.

If the claimant can do what they claim to do under the conditions they claim they can do it, the preliminaries should provide no obstacle. They are, after all, conducted
with much less stringent conditions and much more attainable percentages of success[than the formal tests]
Source: http://www.randi.org/jr/07-30-2000.html

What will Randi do?
In response to this post? Nothing, I'll wager.

I may be too skeptical but I don't see the million being won with Randi in control.
You may be skeptical in that you doubt, but nothing more.

Edited to add: With Randi in control of what?

[AlienX]

Fraud is fraud irrispective of what the participent believes.

What if i believe i have a painting by a master only to sell it on and find its a fake. It's still fraud if i knew about it or not.

Simple plain fact is they are all frauds or delusional frauds.

This money has been up for grabs for ages and still nothing!
which kind of suggests that it's all garbage to begin with.

If i thought i had these special powers i would certainly want them verified.

If an accountant gives bad advice and found to be neglegent then
you have some recourse - why is it different with these lowlifes?

They say the world is progressing, yes we are but sometimes history
tackled certain problems better, JE et al would have been burned at the
stake a few hundred years ago - maybe we should give them
a little bit more credit than we do ;-)

AX

[arcticpenguin]

The question was about the usage of the word fraud, not whether fraud should be treated differently from self-delusion.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary


Main Entry: fraud
Pronunciation: 'frod
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English fraude, from Middle French, from Latin fraud-, fraus
Date: 14th century
1 a : DECEIT, TRICKERY; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : TRICK
2 a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : IMPOSTOR; also : one who defrauds : CHEAT b : one that is not what it seems or is represented to be
synonym see DECEPTION, IMPOSTURE


My reading is that someone who actually believes their own BS is not a fraud.

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

My reading is that someone who actually believes their own BS is not a fraud.
I agree with the penguin.

The law, I believe, draws such a distinction. If I intentionally sell you a comic book that I claim is a mint 1st printing Action # 1, but which I printed up myself last week, I can be charged with a crime. But if I sell you in good faith what I sincerely believe to be a mint 1st edition copy, but which turns out to be a fake, I am not guilty of a crime. You would almost certainly be entitled to your money back, but not to put me in jail.

The law works that way because, to most people, that seems like a sensible distinction.

Similarly, there is a distinction between lying and being mistaken. People often say things which are incorrect, but not all of these are examples of lying. To call every incorrect statement a lie blurs a sensible and useful distinction.

It would be useful to have a non-pejorative label for people who make claims of the paranormal, in the sincere but mistaken belief these claims are true. But I can't think of any either. ("Self-deceived" sounds as pejorative to me as "self-deluded".)

[AlienX]

To me they are all frauds by simply refusing to prove their abilities.
In your example with the comic book - if you were offered as test
which would show if the comic book was a fake yet you refused to
do so then sold it on after this then it's fraud in my book.
As clearly in refusing to have the book tested you either know or
suspect it's possible it's a fraud. Even if you were 100% convinced it was genuine
then surely there would be no harm in testing it now would there?

I would suspect that most of these people who genuinely think they
have special powers are afraid to find out the truth because it
will then mean they are no longer a "special" person but just like
everyone else.
That and of course the financial implications.

These people are plan and simple scum, they prey on people genuinely
going through difficult times.
Even if they think they are helping and have the best intentions they
can often do more harm than good without any recourse.
It's easy to say well it's the persons fault for being taken in by them but
to be fair they are still victims.

I think we are all too leanient with these people and give them too much respect
in an effort of being open minded.
Personally i'm tired of this constant crap - show us the money
(insted of taking it from your poor victims) and prove it by passing the test.

Personally anyone who charges money for these "services" should be forced
to take a similar test, fail and if they continue to practice then clearly
you are being fraudulant and should be charged with it.


AX

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by AlienX

To me they are all frauds by simply refusing to prove their abilities.
Then I think you define fraud far too liberally.

The problem is, that weakens a powerful word, and makes it less effective when applied to the people who do deserve the label -- the people who knowingly pretend to have psychic abilities in order to cheat others out of money and other valuable.

A similar thing has happened with various political groups, such as civil rights activists and feminists, regarding the words racist and sexist (and rape, as well).

In the 1950s there were enough out-spoken overt racists that the word was easy to apply. As many key battles were won, however, the overt bigotry became less common. Subtler problems, often involving unconscious bias, became more important.

Some activists liked to use the word racist broadly -- much as you would like to use the word fraud -- to apply not only to the self-avowed racists but to people whose actions had racist effects, even if the people were not consciously choosing to be racist. For example, people who consistently opposed programs designed to fight racism's effects (such as affirmative action programs) were labeled racists.

A similar thing happened with feminists. Only a few decades ago, there were many outspoken sexists who believed women were clearly inferior to men intellectually and emotionally. Many of the things feminists were ridiculed for in the late '60s and early '70s are now widely accepted as correct. (Even Jerry Falwell uses Ms on mailing labels, a term he and many other then-sexists once railed against.) As barriers fell and the world changed, some feminists began applying the word sexist more and more generally.

A third example is the word rape, which some anti-rape activists have tried to broaden from the fairly clear example (a person forcibly having sex with an unwilling person) to much less clear-cut cases, such date-rape cases where the person initiating sex may genuinely not have realized the sex was not consensual.

Many of the people who use the terms racist and sexist and rape this way are, I believe, as sincere in their use of these terms as you are in your use of the term fraud. They are outraged by the particular social injustices that concern them (just as you are outraged by the particular injustice that concerns you), and thought that using the strongest possible language against those whose actions disturbed them was justified and a good idea.

These examples illustrate to me that it is not a good idea. In all these cases, the over-broad use of these terms lost rather than gained support. The people who were labelled as racists or sexists, but who sincerely did not believe they were such, were inclined to disagree even more with people who could call them that. It served, not as a wake-up call to change their beliefs, but as clear personal evidence that the people using such language were mistaken.

Likewise, when you call people who sincerely believe they are able to dowse frauds, the main effect is to make them (and people who know them, and know they are sincere in their belief) less likely to agree with you than more. On the one thing they can be sure about without any testing -- their own honest belief -- you've just shown yourself to be confidently mistaken. The more confidently you call them frauds, the more you are demonstrating to them your unreliability.

Here is a testable claim I am making: when people who sincerely believe something are called frauds, they become less receptive to talking and to modifying their beliefs than when they are listened to politely and respected as basically honest people. I don't know of any formal testing that has been done, but I and others have tested it informally and found it to be true. I would welcome seeing this formally tested. (Alas, it's not paranormal, so no million dollars if I'm right.)
In your example with the comic book - if you were offered a test which would show if the comic book was a fake yet you refused to do so then sold it on after this then it's fraud in my book.
There is a company, CGC, which does third-party grading of comics, so that both the seller and buyer can be reasonably confident that a book sold as a mint unrestored # 1 first printing is a mint # 1 unrestored first printing. It has been operating for several years now, and many comics dealers do, indeed, submit their comics to CGC before selling. CGC comics in high grade often to go for dramatically more than comics that have not been submitted to CGC.

And yet, many comics are sold that have not been submitted to such independent testing.

Are all the dealers who do not submit their comics to CGC frauds? If your logic leads you to believe so, then there is a flaw somewhere in your logic.

Ah. But perhaps it would only be fraud if the comic were of a different grade than it is sold as? This does happen -- a buyer will receive a comic the seller has graded as Very Fine, and thinks it is only a Fine -- and generally this has nothing to do with fraud, simply a sincere difference of opinion on grading standards.

Moving away from comics, look at the many other examples in the world around you. People who are not counterfeiters often pass on counterfeit money that they have received and spent without testing. Why didn't they test it? Does their failure to test it prove they are trying to bilk the merchants where they were trying to spend the money? In the reality I live in, that is very often not the case.

The fact is that very often people are mistaken. They can be mistaken about the authenticity of a painting, the value of jewelry, even about their ability to get meaningful readings from a dowsing rod or tarot cards.

There are people who do deceive others, deliberately, with intent to defraud. I agree we need to speak out strongly and effectively against such people and their actions. There are also people who are sincerely mistaken in their paranormal beliefs. We need to speak out strongly and effectively against their mistakes, not against them as people.

[AlienX]

That makes sense but on the whole it does allow people to hide behind the belief smoke screen.

Although i do not agree that we should be lenient because they "believe" in their powers.
Fair enough if they do not chanrge money for their service then thats fine (sometimes)
but many do charge and that's the point when i consider it "fraudulent".

Ignorance of the law is no excuse so to speak.

Were way too soft with these people if there was legislation which meant they
could be sued etc then it would certainly reduce genuine frauds as currently
they know they are safe with the "belief" line. The rest would then be a little bit
more careful with their claims - or at least not charge money until they
had been externally verified.

Not regulated + No Physical Product + No Responsibility + No Quality Measurements = Easy Money.

When you throw in an upset or vunerable person then you can times the right hand side
by a factor proportional to how upset/vunerable they are.

Yeah i agree that Fraud may be too strong a word, but if Fraud = Murder then then we should
have an equivalent to 2nd Degree Murder ;-)

AX

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by AlienX

Although i do not agree that we should be lenient because they "believe" in their powers. Fair enough if they do not charge money for their service then thats fine (sometimes) but many do charge and that's the point when i consider it "fraudulent".
I think we're in substantial agreement.

When people charge money for a good or service they provide, there should be consumer protection to make sure consumers are actually getting what they paid for. That should include people who claim to be able to tell fortunes, contact the dead, etc.

I strongly agree with you that, in that case, the lack of intent to defraud is not an excuse. If your product doesn't work, you should not claim it does.

I think there should be different treatment, and different penalties, for people who deliberately set out to deceive and people who simply aren't aware how bad their product is. But both types need to be called to account for what they do.
...If there was legislation which meant they could be sued etc then it would certainly reduce genuine frauds as currently they know they are safe with the "belief" line. The rest would then be a little bit more careful with their claims - or at least not charge money until they had been externally verified.

Not regulated + No Physical Product + No Responsibility + No Quality Measurements = Easy Money.
I think you've hit it exactly with this.

Just as doctors, lawyers, airplane pilots, and many other professionals must take examinations and be licensed before being allowed to sell their services, I would like to see various "psychics" required to get licenses. Which would mean they would need to demonstrate up front they are able to perform what they claim to be able to do, and could be sued if they failed to live up to this once they set up shop.

I do not see the current administration being willing to pass laws or regulations that would do this, nor do I think any politician is likely to run on such a platform in the foreseeable future. But it is something people running for office could and should be pressed on.