always going to be mundane in the end?

[uneasy]

I hope people don't think I'm out to badmouth the JREF challenge. I find it the most interesting thing about JREF. I just think about different scenarios about it that seem troublesome to me. ...

Say someone did prove "paranormal" abilities. Someone finally passed the JREF preliminary test! I mean they really proved they could do something strange that no one could explain. They passed hands down.

Almost everyone this forum (and many more) would be immediately start examining whatever the feat was. Even if no one could explain it before, after the feat, some clever skeptic is almost sure to figure out the science behind it (assumption here that everything can be explained with a scientific explanation). And here's the kicker. It's a genuine new and valid scientific discovery, so it was genuinely unexplainable by science before it passed the test.

I have a feeling that if anyone ever passed the prelim, whatever they did would soon be proved to be a natural phenomenon. So then I ask, is the challenge ever winnable if someone can find a scientific reason for the feat, even if it's a new and genuinely never been heard of feat? Could it be that the often heard accusation of "raising the bar" is a foregone conclusion?

[MRC_Hans]

In principle, you are right. From a materialistic POV, any demostrated supernatual power is "only" a scientific discovery, and thus invalidates itself. The rules of the JREF take care of this: Once the test protocol has been agreed on (and it is explicitly stated, that the testee needs not explain HOW it is done, only WHAT is done), if the testee fulfils the success criteria stipulated in the protocol, he/she has won the prize, period. That a mundane explanation might be found later is irrelevant.

Of course, as true skeptics, we must also keep in mind that there might be such a thing as paranormal phenomenon. In which case, there is NO mundane explanation.

Hans

[scribble]

Hans already got the answer, but I'll state it even simpler:

By the time the science behind the paranormal is discovered, the prize has already been won.

[69dodge]

uneasy mentioned the preliminary test, specifically.

Certainly, if I were applying for the Challenge, I would insist that, before I took the preliminary test, the details of the real test should already be fully worked out and agreed upon.

I don't know if this is the usual practice or not.

[Brian]

I asked the same question here quite a while ago. I got the same answer.
Just a thought, if someone did do something amazing and passed the test and then it was explained it would be worth the million bucks. Provided, of course, that the explanation wasn't that it was a magic trick that slipped through some how.
Can you imagine having strong evidence that some guy can actually move things with his mind?
What if some freak really is talking to the dead and can prove it? That would sure as hell change my view of, well Everything.
Not that I'm holding my breath.

[Houngan]

There's a big difference between "paranormal" and "not scientifically proven yet."

Most of the claims that fall under "paranormal" are gross claims that everyday experience tells us must be false, i.e.

1. Levitation
2. Large-weight telekinesis
3. Psychic communication
4. Ghosts

If a physics researcher wanted to take the challenge based on some sub-atomic theory, Randi would most likely (and rightly) refuse, simply because it's not something that is definably paranormal, just far enough away from current knowledge to be unproven yet.

This sounds a lot like the excuses that are already made, but the difference is the results. If we were back at the start of last century, and someone predicted the confounding results of the double-slit experiment, I don't think that would fall under the "paranormal" umbrella, but just a scientific theory that was far too complicated to address. Now, bending a spoon is something you can sink your teeth into.

H.

[gnome]

Originally posted by 69dodge
uneasy mentioned the preliminary test, specifically.

Certainly, if I were applying for the Challenge, I would insist that, before I took the preliminary test, the details of the real test should already be fully worked out and agreed upon.

I don't know if this is the usual practice or not.

Actually I see a problem with this. Sometimes even with careful preparation, it is not possible to determine some of the possible ways to cheat or otherwise compromise the controls, until the demonstration has been made. What if they set up a preliminary test, and the person passes it, and at the time Randi notices that the person is able to cheat in a manner unrealized until then. Should he then be contractually bound to alllow the person to cheat on the final test now that he is aware of the flaw in the test?

What will happen instead is that a new test condition will be proposed and negotiated over, not to "Raise the bar" but to eliminate the discovered weakness of the test. And if the person needs a flawed test in order to succeed, I would say that tells you somethig about how genuine they are... so they should be willing to agree to a correction. They would have their own input of course and the test would not go forward until the correction satisfied both JREF and the claimant.

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by uneasy
I have a feeling that if anyone ever passed the prelim, whatever they did would soon be proved to be a natural phenomenon. So then I ask, is the challenge ever winnable if someone can find a scientific reason for the feat, even if it's a new and genuinely never been heard of feat? Could it be that the often heard accusation of "raising the bar" is a foregone conclusion?

The simple answer is that, in making the challenge, the participants and the JREF agree to negotiate exactly what will constitute a positive result--in advance. There is no "raising the bar".

Many applicants have sought a lowering of the bar after the fact, or have rationalized their failure at length--even going so far as to claim that Randi himself has supernatural powers and uses them to suppress those of others.

The specifics of the contractual agreement depend on the specifics of the claim.

Paranormal claims so far have ALL fallen into two categories: delusion and fraud. Not a single one has involved heretofore-unknown science. The challenge is not constructed to prevent the use of heretofore-unknown science--it rather deals with the specific claims of the claimants.

[SpectorDetector]

There's a big difference between "paranormal" and "not scientifically proven yet."


Paranormal : : not scientifically explainable


????????????????????? :confused:

Whats the difference? Im lost

Paranormal is unexplained.

If its unexplained how can science, which is proven through theory and hypothesis be applied unless the phenomen in question can be created in a controled environment?

This is what makes the Million Dollar Challenge impossible. That money is safe and always will be because if someone does indeed prove , through science life after death, they will be flooded in grant money and the million offered by Randi will be pocket change. :wink8:

[gnome]

Originally posted by SpectorDetector
Paranormal : : not scientifically explainable


????????????????????? :confused:

Whats the difference? Im lost

Paranormal is unexplained.

If its unexplained how can science, which is proven through theory and hypothesis be applied unless the phenomen in question can be created in a controled environment?

The difference is in the tense of the word... unexplained does not equal unexplainable. Unless you want to argue that thunderstorms were paranormal before they were explained by science.

(I'm sure they were CONSIDERED to be supernatural but... you know what I'm saying)

This is what makes the Million Dollar Challenge impossible. That money is safe and always will be because if someone does indeed prove , through science life after death, they will be flooded in grant money and the million offered by Randi will be pocket change. :wink8:

Well personally I think earning the million would be a great launching point. Instantly, all the capital needed to exploit the new discovery.

[uneasy]

Originally posted by DrMatt


I have a feeling that if anyone ever passed the prelim, whatever they did would soon be proved to be a natural phenomenon. So then I ask, is the challenge ever winnable if someone can find a scientific reason for the feat, even if it's a new and genuinely never been heard of feat? Could it be that the often heard accusation of "raising the bar" is a foregone conclusion?

The simple answer is that, in making the challenge, the participants and the JREF agree to negotiate exactly what will constitute a positive result--in advance. There is no "raising the bar".

Many applicants have sought a lowering of the bar after the fact, or have rationalized their failure at length--even going so far as to claim that Randi himself has supernatural powers and uses them to suppress those of others.

The specifics of the contractual agreement depend on the specifics of the claim.

Paranormal claims so far have ALL fallen into two categories: delusion and fraud. Not a single one has involved heretofore-unknown science. The challenge is not constructed to prevent the use of heretofore-unknown science--it rather deals with the specific claims of the claimants. [/B]

My "raising the bar" comment was probably too inflammatory.

Fraud and delusion are not part of the scenario I gave which is: It's genuine paranormal (i.e. passes the prelim), but then becomes scientifically explained before the final test.

From what I see, the final challenge test rules are generally left until after the prelim test is passed. Sure, no one has passed the prelim (will do it? :)), but in the case I describe, I doubt JREF will just let them go ahead with the same (or similar) test as as the prelim. And cries of raising the bar will go up.

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Of course, as true skeptics, we must also keep in mind that there might be such a thing as paranormal phenomenon. In which case, there is NO mundane explanation.

What would that mean? A phenomenon that admits of no mundane explanation? Do you mean a naturalistic explanation?

Will there be some phenomenon that causes us to abandon the scientific method?

Pray tell, which aspect of science might you suggest? The continual reorganization of integration and assimilation? The stress laid upon concilient and empirical grounding? Parsimony?

The POINT of Randi's challenge though is a bit more commonsense. It is the clear demonstration that current scientific methodology can in fact put many claims of the paranormal to the test and can currently expose them for the fantasy they are.

Frankly, most of the garbage that floats around was debunked hundreds of years ago. The psychology behind it cunningly exposed.

For instance, LL MacKay's 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds' dates back 150 years, yet it's epistemological insights are far ahead of the thousands of paranormal-enthusiasts, professional and amature who constantly contend that science will be soon, SOON be overthrown by the revelations of their mystical system.

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by uneasy

From what I see, the final challenge test rules are generally left until after the prelim test is passed. Sure, no one has passed the prelim (will do it? :)), but in the case I describe, I doubt JREF will just let them go ahead with the same (or similar) test as as the prelim. And cries of raising the bar will go up.

The bar must go as high as it needs to go to make sure that simply explicable phenomenon don't interfere. If you claim to be able to predict at 52% accuracy over an adequate sample of trials, James Randi would be unfairly raising the bar to demand 60% accuracy.

He would not however be raising the bar to ensure that the most stringent possible anti-cheating methods are in place. (Remember the tape over the eyes. The laywer said something like "Well of course she'll fail if you totally cover her eyes up."

Randi, straightforward as always responded that showing her failure when he totally covered her eyes was exactly his intention.

[T'ai Chi]

Most of the claims that fall under "paranormal" are gross claims that everyday experience tells us must be false, i.e.

3. Psychic communication
4. Ghosts


Why does everyday experience tell us these must be false?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Why does everyday experience tell us these must be false? [/B]

A most profound question worthy of consideration. Everyday experience would seem to tell us that there is a great deal of evidence for ghosts and angels, for they are part of the mundane reality of human experience.

But scientific exploration could prove some profound understanding of the phenomena. If say John Edwards was to say to someone.
JE: "I see a young man he is about 35 years old, he has multiple piercing in both of his ears, he is wearing Megadeath T-shirt, and he wants to know why you locked him in the closet when he was four afetr you ran over the cat?"

Participant:"Ohmygod , why the helm would you want to know that Ronald, don't you love your mommy>"

JE:" The young man is giving an obcene gesture and says he forgives you but he doubts that you will ever see him again. He is off to haunt rock and roll bands."

That would be what an ordinary ghost encounter would be like. There should be trivial facts of life that the ghosts coul give if they really were the spirits of the dead.

There is so much useful information the the spirits of the dead could give to the rest of us mortals.

So the things called ghosts could be something other than the spirits of the dead.

But even though I have had friends who arer dead, and they haunt my dreams, that is not proof of anything beyond my human experience.

[ceptimus]

Dowsing is a good example of a paranormal claim that 'might' have a scientific explanation, were it to actually be a real phenomenon.

Most of us here, myself included, think that dowsing is bunk. But just suppose a real-life dowser came along and passed Randi's preliminary test - say he could find pieces of gold hidden under upturned clay pots.

Now we would all be saying, "Hey! I could do that with a metal detector. This dowser guy must have some sort of natural metal detector in his body."

Now we split into two groups. There are those who believe that in the above scenario, Randi would claim that this was a new scientific discovery and refuse to pay the dowser. I happen to be in the other group, who think that Randi would pay the guy his $1 million.

I don't suppose Randi answers these sort of hypothetical questions (it might be a slippery slope if he did). So we will probably never know, unless and until such an unlikely event happens.

So this will almost certainly remain a matter of trust and blind faith.

:id:

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by ceptimus
Now we split into two groups. There are those who believe that in the above scenario, Randi would claim that this was a new scientific discovery and refuse to pay the dowser. I happen to be in the other group, who think that Randi would pay the guy his $1 million.

I don't suppose Randi answers these sort of hypothetical questions (it might be a slippery slope if he did). So we will probably never know, unless and until such an unlikely event happens.

So this will almost certainly remain a matter of trust and blind faith.




Nope. Randi has already dealt with this at least once or twice:

It doesn't matter what the explanation is or if later science proves that the talent or ability or phenomenon is not really "paranormal" any more.

Randi and the claimant agree on what "success" will be -- in the case of a dowser, for instance, the dowser will correctly locate x items in y trials. If the dowser meets the test conditions agreed to before the event, then he wins the $1 million. that is what the challenge terms say, and it is enforcable as a contract.

The explanation for the phenomenon ir irrelevant at that point, because the payment is made if the agreed conditions for success are met (i.e., x number of items found). The terms of the challenge make this point pretty clearly -- the claimant would get the money, period.

NA

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by uneasy


From what I see, the final challenge test rules are generally left until after the prelim test is passed. Sure, no one has passed the prelim (will do it? :)), but in the case I describe, I doubt JREF will just let them go ahead with the same (or similar) test as as the prelim. And cries of raising the bar will go up.


I do not think this is correct. I may be mistaken, but my impression was that the terms of both the prelim and the final test are worked out before hand -- the claimant knows going into the prelim that he or she must pass the initial test with a smaller number of trials than the final test. the exact number of trials may not be expressed, but it is generally referenced as a number (shown by statistics) sufficient to show an effect with a specific confidence level. while this number isn't expressly stated, it should be clear to any statistician and could be generated as an objective number at any time.

NA

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Dancing David

A most profound question worthy of consideration. Everyday experience would seem to tell us that there is a great deal of evidence for ghosts and angels, for they are part of the mundane reality of human experience.


That's great, but you said "must be false".

I think that "must be" is your belief, your understanding of the evidence or lack of evidence.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


That's great, but you said "must be false".

I think that "must be" is your belief, your understanding of the evidence or lack of evidence.

Dai Chi,

What, huh?

I said must be false?

I said that the things usualy called ghosts aren't the spirits of the dead from what I can tell, what are you trying to communicate , I am confused by your reply.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Of course, as true skeptics, we must also keep in mind that there might be such a thing as paranormal phenomenon.
Hans

I fundamentally disagree with this statement. There is no more reason to believe there might be such a thing as the paranormal than the is to believe absolutely anything. For example, if I were to say that I can fly by flapping my arms really, really hard, would you say that MIGHT be possible? Of course not. It is likewise for any claim of paranormal ability. There is nothing to recommend any purported particular paranormal ability (are there could be an infinite number of them) over any other. I disagree that it is being "open minded" or skeptical to be open to the possibility of the paranormal. They are all equivalent and you could sit there and invent an endless list of possible paranormal abilities or phenomena.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by billydkid

I fundamentally disagree with this statement. There is no more reason to believe there might be such a thing as the paranormal than the is to believe absolutely anything.


What about quantum mechanics? Doesn't QM make a lot of "impossible" things possible.. ?

[billydkid]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


What about quantum mechanics? Doesn't QM make a lot of "impossible" things possible.. ? [/B]

What about quantum mechanics? Quantum mechanics is part of our natural universe. Quantum mechanics doesn't allow impossible things to happen. It allows possible ones to happen.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by scribble
Hans already got the answer, but I'll state it even simpler:

By the time the science behind the paranormal is discovered, the prize has already been won.

There are different degrees to this though.

For example, if it could be shown reliably and repeatably that someone can talk to the dead and get answers, I would have to change my entire philosophy, even if it can be explained scientifically.

On the other hand were it not for Randi's work, I would have thought that there might be something to dowsing. If it turns out that there are real dowsers after all, I will again change my opinion of dowsing but not my way of dealing with the world in general.