It's a Good Challenge but...

[The idea]

1. It has more to do with the demographics of liars than with the supernatural. There is no shortage of people who are ready and willing to try to use fraud to get money.

Why not give people the option of either getting the million dollars for the supernatural or getting even more money for successfully pulling off some more conventional kind of fraud? Anyone who takes the preliminary test for one challenge is disqualified from taking the preliminary test for the other challenge. Many liars will go for the bigger jackpot.

For example, say that you once had a certain US twenty-dollar bill (and don't mention that you still have it locked in a safety deposit box). Specify the serial number and say that anyone who brings in a genuine US twenty-dollar bill with that serial number will win one and a quarter million dollars. Of course, the bill will be thoroughly inspected and analyzed by experts in counterfeiting.

2. If somebody won the million dollars, some skeptics would argue that Randi's organization itself engaged in fraud. The argument would be that Randi created a personality and reputation as part of a long-term strategy to persuade people that supernatural events do occur.

3. If somebody won the million dollars, some skeptics would argue that it is unlikely but still possible for several people to hallucinate the same thing at the same time.

4. If one miracle occurred, that doesn't imply that continued miracles can be expected. Christians do not believe that there is a seafood restaurant in the Middle East that stays in business by multiplying fish the way Jesus is said to have multiplied fish. In other words, a single miracle that won the million dollar challenge would have little practical significance. The winner would get a million dollars, but daily life for the rest of us would continue as before.

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by TheIdea
{snip}For example, say that you once had a certain US twenty-dollar bill (and don't mention that you still have it locked in a safety deposit box). Specify the serial number and say that anyone who brings in a genuine US twenty-dollar bill with that serial number will win one and a quarter million dollars. Of course, the bill will be thoroughly inspected and analyzed by experts in counterfeiting.

OK, I give up. EH?? I don't get what you're on about at all. How does this have anything at all to do with the paranormal? Could you explain your objection a little more clearly?

2. If somebody won the million dollars, some skeptics would argue that Randi's organization itself engaged in fraud. The argument would be that Randi created a personality and reputation as part of a long-term strategy to persuade people that supernatural events do occur.

But to win the challenge, the supernaturalist would have to have demonstrated their power under controlled conditions. They could easily do this again for anyone who doubted the original million-dollar challenge experiment. They would have to repeat it over and over again anyway for the hordes of scientists who would wish to investigate the first paranormal phenomenon to be proven real!

3. If somebody won the million dollars, some skeptics would argue that it is unlikely but still possible for several people to hallucinate the same thing at the same time.

Sure. So you repeat the experiment until the likelihood of hallucination is less than the likelihood of the supernatural.

4. If one miracle occurred, that doesn't imply that continued miracles can be expected. {...snip...} In other words, a single miracle that won the million dollar challenge would have little practical significance. The winner would get a million dollars, but daily life for the rest of us would continue as before.

... except for all the parapsychologists who would be all over the winner, investigating the now-proven phenomenon to find out the implications for our view of the world - such a revolution in science would be unlikely to leave our daily lives untouched for long...

And anything that wins the challenge is by definition repeatable - the applicant has to demonstrate the supernatural at least five times (to their own satisfaction before they apply - open round of the preliminary test - preliminary test - open round of the main test - main test) - and quite possibly more. So this criticism has little substance.

[The idea]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
How does this have anything at all to do with the paranormal?

I have a similar question. What does the following have to do with the paranormal?

Sylvia's Clock - Update
On September 3, 2001, Sylvia Browne agreed on the protocol for a definitive test for the JREF million-dollar challenge, on Larry King Live. This shows the number of days that have passed since her acceptance. It has been 877 days since she first agreed to take the test!

Source:
http://www.randi.org/

the applicant has to demonstrate the supernatural at least five times (to their own satisfaction before they apply - open round of the preliminary test - preliminary test - open round of the main test - main test) - and quite possibly more.


Why would the demonstration have to be repeated more than five times? Suppose the demonstration is repeated exactly five times. Wouldn't that be enough to force a change to the words that appear at http://www.randi.org/research/index.html?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by TheIdea
1. It has more to do with the demographics of liars than with the supernatural. There is no shortage of people who are ready and willing to try to use fraud to get money.

Why not give people the option of either getting the million dollars for the supernatural or getting even more money for successfully pulling off some more conventional kind of fraud? Anyone who takes the preliminary test for one challenge is disqualified from taking the preliminary test for the other challenge. Many liars will go for the bigger jackpot.

For example, say that you once had a certain US twenty-dollar bill (and don't mention that you still have it locked in a safety deposit box). Specify the serial number and say that anyone who brings in a genuine US twenty-dollar bill with that serial number will win one and a quarter million dollars. Of course, the bill will be thoroughly inspected and analyzed by experts in counterfeiting.

...

Excuse me, but for the moment I am only able to address this one point.

IF something like this were done,
THEN JREF would be involved in the counterfiting of US currency which is a felony. Sorry, but I do not think that Randi wants to go to jail nor do I want my donation money being used to fund illegal activities.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Crossbow
IF something like this were done, then JREF would be involved in the counterfeiting of US currency, which is a felony.
Someone at JREF would write down the serial number of a real 20-dollar-bill and put that bill into a safety deposit box. The counterfeiters would be the claimants. JREF would simply be involved in the detection of counterfeit money.

The idea is to refrain from telling people that JREF is still in possession of the bill. Then people might get the impression that the bill is in circulation and some fraud artists might think that they can get away with pretending to have the real bill.

[The idea]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
But to win the challenge, the supernaturalist would have to have demonstrated their power under controlled conditions. They could easily do this again for anyone who doubted the original million-dollar challenge experiment.
Suppose someone claims to make it possible for you to hear the voices of some dead people. That is not the same as claiming to be able to directly cause you to hear weird noises. In the first case, the idea is that you are hearing actual dead people and maybe those dead people are not going to continue to cooperate indefinitely. I don't really like this example, but I can't think of a better one right now.

The idea is that the "supernaturalist" might successfully request assistance from some supernatural being or agency. However, the assistance might be provided for just a limited time.

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by TheIdea

...
The idea is that the "supernaturalist" might successfully request assistance from some supernatural being or agency. However, the assistance might be provided for just a limited time.

Right. Spooks 'R Us is only billable by the hour.

[The idea]

Originally posted by alfaniner
Right. Spooks 'R Us is only billable by the hour.
That's the idea. :D

Here's another way to look at it. Suppose someone claims to be able to mix, by hand, two particular substances that don't normally mix. For example, suppose someone claims to be able to mix ordinary corn oil and water by hand and have them stay mixed.

JREF is not demanding that someone change the laws of physics in such a way that, from now on, corn oil and water will always mix and stay mixed. So if we imagine that someone can mix ordinary corn oil and water and cause them to stay mixed, then we would expect the strange event to occur only at some particular times in some particular places.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by TheIdea

Someone at JREF would write down the serial number of a real 20-dollar-bill and put that bill into a safety deposit box. The counterfeiters would be the claimants. JREF would simply be involved in the detection of counterfeit money.

The idea is to refrain from telling people that JREF is still in possession of the bill. Then people might get the impression that the bill is in circulation and some fraud artists might think that they can get away with pretending to have the real bill.

So then JREF would be encouraging an illegal activity which is still a felony which means jail time.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Crossbow
So then JREF would be encouraging an illegal activity which is still a felony which means jail time.
They would be doing less to encourage it than an ordinary business. An ordinary business provides goods and/or services in exchange for money, but an ordinary business doesn't check the money as carefully as the JREF would check that one 20-dollar-bill.

If people think that they can control the shape of clouds, then why wouldn't they think that they can control the flow of currency and cause a bill with a particular serial number to land up in their hands?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by TheIdea

They would be doing less to encourage it than an ordinary business. An ordinary business provides goods and/or services in exchange for money, but an ordinary business doesn't check the money as carefully as the JREF would check that one 20-dollar-bill.

If people think that they can control the shape of clouds, then why wouldn't they think that they can control the flow of currency and cause a bill with a particular serial number to land up in their hands?

Yes, but when someone buys, or steals, something that costs $20 then it is worth approximately $20.

In this case, people would be trying to get $1.25 million for $20, therefore I expect that the District Attorney would think of the situation as one where JREF was encouraging people to make counterfit money.

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by TheIdea

I have a similar question. What does the following have to do with the paranormal?

Sylvia's Clock - Update {snip}

Sylvia Browne is a "medium" who agrees to take the Challenge when on public television and then squirms away as soon as the cameras are off her. Pointing out her dishonesty and bad faith in this matter has everything to do with the paranormal, since people who are unaware of her behaviour towards the JREF lack in important datum when deciding whether she's actually speaking to the dead or not.

Why would the demonstration have to be repeated more than five times? Suppose the demonstration is repeated exactly five times. Wouldn't that be enough to force a change to the words that appear at http://www.randi.org/research/index.html?

Again, I say "eh?" What words are you talking about? What change? I've re-read the page but I still don't see what you're getting at.

The phenomenon would have to occur at least five times, for the reasons I have given. Depending on the ability claimed, it might very well be more (since a large number of tests are necessary to rule out the effects of chance).

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by TheIdea

Someone at JREF would write down the serial number of a real 20-dollar-bill and put that bill into a safety deposit box. The counterfeiters would be the claimants. JREF would simply be involved in the detection of counterfeit money.

Even if there weren't legal issues (which there are), I fail to see how exposing forgers has an educational purpose and this IS an "educational" foundation. We know forgers exist. No one is attempting to prove they don't. But we don't know that mediums and dowsers are for real, and lots of people claim they are. So it is very educational to demonstrate to the world that said claims don't stack up.

Frankly I don't see why you think this has anything to do with the stated aims of the JREF at all.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Crossbow
In this case, people would be trying to get $1.25 million for $20, therefore I expect that the District Attorney would think of the situation as one where JREF was encouraging people to make counterfeit money.
Are lotteries encouraging people to make counterfeit winning tickets? What does the District Attorney think?

[Beleth]

Why not give people the option of either getting the million dollars for the supernatural or getting even more money for successfully pulling off some more conventional kind of fraud? Because fraud is ultimately not what the JREF is about. It's about the truth regarding the paranormal.

The Challenge isn't saying "Prove you can fool us any way you can", it's saying "Prove that what you are saying about the paranormal is true". Asking people the commit fraud via non-paranormal means is beyond the scope of the Challenge.

I have a similar question. What does the following have to do with the paranormal?

Sylvia's Clock UpdateI was going to respond to this but I see that The Mad Linguist has already said everything I was going to say.

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by TheIdea
The idea is that the "supernaturalist" might successfully request assistance from some supernatural being or agency. However, the assistance might be provided for just a limited time.

Yes, I will agree that this is theoretically possible. But practically, I doubt that many people would put themselves forward for the million dollars unless they were pretty certain in their own mind (however incorrectly) that they could repeat their feats on demand, knowing that the challenge requires multiple demonstrations.

I agree that it's even theoretically possible for the scenario you propose to occur - that the spirits / other beings might perform to order whenever the applicant calls, but stop doing so directly after the Challenge has been passed. However, it's very, very, very unlikely. Since it's not happened yet and would require a set of circumstances bizarre even by the standards of challenge applicants for it to come to pass, I don't think it's worth worrying about.

Of course, the issue you raise would work well for the applicant as a post hoc rationalisation for failure at the challenge - "the spirits weren't with me that day!"

[The idea]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
[...] I fail to see how exposing forgers has an educational purpose [...]

The purpose is not to expose forgers.

Suppose I own one good book about probability theory and each of two friends wants the book now. Who should get to borrow it first? It is not a book for beginners and both of them claim to have the prerequisite knowledge. I offer each of them a choice: you can borrow the book or you can have a lottery ticket. The friend who prefers the lottery ticket probably doesn't have the prerequisite knowledge.

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
We know forgers exist. No one is attempting to prove they don't.
We know that forgers exist. So we know that there are people who will lie and cheat for money. What, if anything, prevents liars and cheaters from claiming to have the capacity to communicate with the dead, etc.? Is there an iron law of dishonesty that says that your name at birth had to be Bugsby or Clyde if you want to be a forger? If your name at birth wasn't Bugsby or Clyde, then does that guarantee that you wouldn't lie?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by TheIdea

Are lotteries encouraging people to make counterfeit winning tickets? What does the District Attorney think?

The forging of lottery tickets is illegal and people have been prosecuted for it.

Also, there is a chance that when one buys a lottery ticket, that they will actually win the prize with a valid ticket. As opposed to your plan where is no chance at all of anyone winning the prize.

[The idea]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
I agree that it's even theoretically possible for the scenario you propose to occur - that the spirits / other beings might perform to order whenever the applicant calls, but stop doing so directly after the Challenge has been passed. However, it's very, very, very unlikely.

Exactly how unlikely is that and why does it matter?

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
Of course, the issue you raise would work well for the applicant as a post hoc rationalisation for failure at the challenge - "the spirits weren't with me that day!"

Perhaps the reason such a "post hoc rationalisation" would be funny is that it goes into detail about something that is not understood. If the applicant simply said, "Something uncanny was happening before, but it has stopped" then would there be anything to laugh at?

[The idea]

Originally posted by Crossbow
[...] there is a chance that when one buys a lottery ticket, that they will actually win the prize with a valid ticket. As opposed to your plan where is no chance at all of anyone winning the prize.
It depends on what you mean by a "chance". If you assume that it is impossible to use mental powers to cause a 20-dollar-bill to pass through the walls of a safety deposit box, then you assume that various paranormal events cannot occur. Aren't you begging the question?

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by TheIdea
Suppose I own one good book about probability theory and each of two friends wants the book now. Who should get to borrow it first? It is not a book for beginners and both of them claim to have the prerequisite knowledge. I offer each of them a choice: you can borrow the book or you can have a lottery ticket. The friend who prefers the lottery ticket probably doesn't have the prerequisite knowledge.

This does not explain why you think the JREF ought to be chasing forgers or even non-paranormal conpersons in general.

What, if anything, prevents liars and cheaters from claiming to have the capacity to communicate with the dead, etc.?

Absolutely nothing. Thus the paranormal challenge. This still doesn't explain your position, or refute my criticisms.

Is there an iron law of dishonesty that says that your name at birth had to be Bugsby or Clyde if you want to be a forger? If your name at birth wasn't Bugsby or Clyde, then does that guarantee that you wouldn't lie? [/B]

Eh??? What has that to do with anything?

For the third time, you have confused me. I fail to see how any of this refutes anything that I said.

You propose a course of action which, apart from being criminal, appears to me to have nothing to do with the educational puposes of the foundation. I ask you again why you think the foundation ought to engage in such an activity.

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by TheIdea

Exactly how unlikely is that and why does it matter?

So very unlikely I'd run out of space for all the zeroes after the decimal point! ;)

In all seriousness, unlikely enough that it's not a possibility worth worrying about in practice. There are lots of things that are theoretically possible, but not worth worrying about. (and that, incidentially, is why its unlikeliness matters - so that we can decide that it's not worth worrying about).


Perhaps the reason such a "post hoc rationalisation" would be funny is that it goes into detail about something that is not understood. If the applicant simply said, "Something uncanny was happening before, but it has stopped" then would there be anything to laugh at?

No, nothing to laugh at, but no reason to accept that anything uncanny was going on before, either.

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by TheIdea

It depends on what you mean by a "chance". If you assume that it is impossible to use mental powers to cause a 20-dollar-bill to pass through the walls of a safety deposit box, then you assume that various paranormal events cannot occur. Aren't you begging the question?

Ah right. I think I am beginning to understand what you are getting at (although I really think you could have put it better to start with).

You are suggesting that the JREF set up a test of the paranormal power to extract the given $20 from their strongbox, because this would have the advantage that any fraud who tried to pass the test without actually having powers would be liable for charges of forgery.

Well, yes, but it won't wash. The JREF doesn't say what the applicants powers are; the applicants themselves say that, and the test is designed based on their claim. There would be no point whatever in issuing such a standardised test (whether fakable by forgery or not), because paranormalists could just say, "Well, my powers don't let me do that, they let me do XXX instead!" and the Challenge would lose its power as an embarrassment to them. This is why Randi's tests are tailored to the claims made by the applicant, so that all that is being tested is the power that they have claimed.

(p.s. if I am incorrect in my guess of what you are proposing, please explain what exactly you are suggesting, and why).

[The idea]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
You propose a course of action which, apart from being criminal [...]

A course of action is not classified as criminal based on your personal opinion.

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
I ask you again why you think the foundation ought to engage in such an activity.

The intention is put forward an option that will tempt fraud artists and dispose of their claims.

Suppose that, 200 or 300 years ago, a foundation was established to demonstrate that rocks never fall from the sky. If a lot of money had been offered for rocks from the sky, then wouldn't some people come forward with false claims? Maybe analysis of some of the rocks will prove that those particular rocks did not fall from the sky. That would prove that some people want money and are willing to lie. How would that demonstrate that rocks never fall from the sky?

Here's a more important question: although some fraud artists might want people to believe that their particular rocks fell from the sky, what is the long-run effect of their false claims? If you know that there are people who falsely claim to have rocks that fell from the sky, then is it safe to conclude that rocks never actually fall from the sky?

[The idea]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist

Again, I say "eh?" What words are you talking about? What change? I've re-read the page but I still don't see what you're getting at.

The words are: "To date, no one has ever passed the preliminary tests."

It also says, "In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. "

If somebody passed the preliminary test, then it would be dishonest to say that nobody had passed it. If somebody passed both the preliminary test and the formal test, then why would anyone need to demonstrate supernatural events an unlimited number of times?

[The idea]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
I think I am beginning to understand what you are getting at (although I really think you could have put it better to start with).

I'm confident that everything I wrote could have been put better. If I had to persuade myself that I had written something of really high quality, then I would probably never have the nerve to hit the "Submit Reply" button.

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by TheIdea

A course of action is not classified as criminal based on your personal opinion.

I'm sorry, I should have made it clear that I was accepting Crossbow's opinion on this matter, as his case appears well-argued. As I am not an American, I know next to nothing about the US legal system and so couldn't offer my "personal" opinion anyway.


The intention is put forward an option that will tempt fraud artists and dispose of their claims.

And again, you've lost me. How does this in anyway fit with the aims of the JREF? Randi tests claims of the paranormal. I have already explained why your supposed trap for fraud artists does not fit with this.

{snip} How would that demonstrate that rocks never fall from the sky?

It wouldn't. But it would demonstrate that none of the rocks thus far claimed to fall from the sky have actually fallen from the sky, and thus we have no evidence for the notion that rocks fall from the sky and are justified in holding that they do not.

{snip} If you know that there are people who falsely claim to have rocks that fell from the sky, then is it safe to conclude that rocks never actually fall from the sky?

Not if there are only a number of sky-rock-fakers alongside genuine sky-rocks. But if no claimed sky-rock is exposed to and withstands scrutiny, then we are justified in concluding that rocks do not fall from the sky (with the proviso that we will modify this conclusion if and when real evidence for sky-rocks is presented).

While I can see the parallelism between your hypothetical sky-rock-buster foundation and Randi's efforts, I can't see how either is parallel to your suggestion about the $20. so I ask again: why do you suggest that the JREF does this? What on earth has it to do with the stated aims of the JREF?

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by TheIdea

If somebody passed the preliminary test, then it would be dishonest to say that nobody had passed it. If somebody passed both the preliminary test and the formal test, then why would anyone need to demonstrate supernatural events an unlimited number of times?

Ah right, I see what you're getting at. It's a bit of a non-point though. If anyone ever does pass the preliminary test, then of course the words will be changed, since they are simply a bald statement of fact. I'm pretty sure that will never happen, but I'm willing to be proven wrong...

Why demonstrate supernatural events again after passing Randi's formal test and getting the million? Um, I don't know. Fame, fortune, and the chance to influence the course of history? If the paranormal were proven to exist, the implications for humankind would be earthshattering. Really, if someone wins the million then all bets are off for all our futures.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by TheIdea
Here's a more important question: although some fraud artists might want people to believe that their particular rocks fell from the sky, what is the long-run effect of their false claims? If you know that there are people who falsely claim to have rocks that fell from the sky, then is it safe to conclude that rocks never actually fall from the sky? If every single claim of rocks falling from the sky turned out to be false, then it is certainly safer to conclude that rocks never actually fall from the sky than it is to conclude that rocks actually do fall from the sky.

It only takes one true claim to dismiss an infinity of false claims.

[The idea]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
This does not explain why you think the JREF ought to be chasing forgers or even non-paranormal conpersons in general.

Chasing and attracting are two different things.

Suppose I rarely go into my backyard because I know there are many mosquitoes there. My neighbor claims to have seen Monarch butterflies in my yard. I would like to see the butterflies. So I install a device to attract and kill mosquitoes. Now I can spend a pleasant Sunday afternoon in my yard waiting for a Monarch butterfly.

[The Mad Linguist]

All right then:

This does not explain why you think the JREF ought to be attracting and subsequently exposing forgers or even non-paranormal conpersons in general.

[The idea]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
If the paranormal were proven to exist, the implications for humankind would be earthshattering. Really, if someone wins the million then all bets are off for all our futures.
There would probably be hysteria and/or riots by excited people. That would be unpleasant, but why would it be earthshattering?

If people could use willpower to change the speed of light or the mass of all sodium atoms, then the results would be earthshattering. It would also be earthshattering if people could shatter the Earth's crust by singing "Happy Birthday."

I couldn't find any shrug Smilies.

[The idea]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
This does not explain why you think the JREF ought to be attracting and subsequently exposing forgers or even non-paranormal conpersons in general.
The JREF is already attracting garden variety fraud artists who pretend to have paranormal abilities. That's my point.

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by TheIdea

There would probably be hysteria and/or riots by excited people. That would be unpleasant, but why would it be earthshattering?


This comment betrays a lack of imagination.

If telepathy exists, what are the implications for society? For the sanctity of our thoughts, our secrecy, the potential for whihc underlies the structure of our society? For the very concepts of "honesty" and "lies"?

If a perpetual motion "free energy" machine exists, what are the implications for our economies, which are based on scarcity of resources? How will society change when all the enrgy we could ever want are free?

If faith healing works, what will happen to the medical profession? To our hospitals, our cancer research?

If remote viewing is posible, how will that not change the way we live? See how vast a change the information revolution is working on our world - how much more violent would be the changes effected by a form of information transfer that draws the whole world even more closely together?

If life after death is proven to exist, how will that change our lives? How would the way we live alter once we truly know that death is not the end?

If homeopathy and "water memory" are proven, what unexplored vistas of chemistry and physics will open up? How could our society not be fundamentally changed by the discoveries and inventions which would proceed from these explorations?

If people can live on air and sunlight alone, what limits are there to how we might change our lifestyles?

I plead guilty to slight hyperbole - there probably wouldn't be actual earthquakes - but "earthshattering" struck me as the best way of conveying that the impact that a proven, established paranormal phenomenon would have on our society and how we live.

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by TheIdea

The JREF is already attracting garden variety fraud artists who pretend to have paranormal abilities. That's my point.

I don't see how it logically follows from this that they should attempt to attract garden variety fraud artists who don't pretend to have paranormal abilities, or encourage those who currently make no such pretence to begin one.

Edited to add: Looking back up the thread, I see that your plan does not involve (as I had supposed it did) asking people to demonstrate the paranormal ability to get a $20 out of a locked vault, since you suggest that the information that the JREF has the $20 should be kept secret. I therefore withdraw the second part of the above comment, and amend it to simply read:

I don't see how it logically follows from this that they should attempt to attract garden variety fraud artists who don't pretend to have paranormal abilities.

[The idea]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
Edited to add: Looking back up the thread, I see that your plan does not involve (as I had supposed it did) asking people to demonstrate the paranormal ability to get a $20 out of a locked vault, since you suggest that the information that the JREF has the $20 should be kept secret.
Well, wouldn't it be a demonstration of paranormal ability for one to use remote viewing to determine the location of the $20 bill and then telepathically open the vault and float the bill through the air to one's home?

Now who lacks imagination? :wink: :p :wink:

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by TheIdea

Well, wouldn't it be a demonstration of paranormal ability for one to use remote viewing to determine the location of the $20 bill and then telepathically open the vault and float the bill through the air to one's home?

Now who lacks imagination? :wink: :p :wink:

Yes, that would be a demonstration of the paranormal. But the challenge exists to get paranormalists to demonstrate the claims they make - not to give them the opportunity to demonstrate some other, randomly selected ability.

But in any case, that's not why you suggested the exercise. You suggested it as a good way to attract forgers/fraudsters with a view to exposing them. JREF is an educational foundation, not a forger-trapping foundation. So my question stands:

Why should the JREF attempt to attract garden variety fraud artists who don't pretend to have paranormal abilities?

[The idea]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
Why should the JREF attempt to attract garden variety fraud artists who don't pretend to have paranormal abilities?
That depends on the fraud artists. How specialized are they? Perhaps someone can think of a form of fraud that seems easier than forgery and that seems easier than paranormal fraud. Then maybe there will be some movement from paranormal fraud to an alternative.

Remember the old federal program that used to retrain corporate fraud artists so that they could become auto mechanics? They shut down that program and, as a result, we got Enron.

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by TheIdea

That depends on the fraud artists. How specialized are they? Perhaps someone can think of a form of fraud that seems easier than forgery and that seems easier than paranormal fraud. Then maybe there will be some movement from paranormal fraud to an alternative.

Remember the old federal program that used to retrain corporate fraud artists so that they could become auto mechanics? They shut down that program and, as a result, we got Enron.

This doesn't answer my question. I'll repeat it with emphasis added to the appropriate point so you know what I'm getting at.

Why should the JREF attempt to attract garden variety fraud artists who don't pretend to have paranormal abilities?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by TheIdea

It depends on what you mean by a "chance". If you assume that it is impossible to use mental powers to cause a 20-dollar-bill to pass through the walls of a safety deposit box, then you assume that various paranormal events cannot occur. Aren't you begging the question?

I agree with the sentiment that was said so well by 'The Mad Linguist' for your test would involve JREF in the defining of a paranormal power so those who believe in such things will be able to say things like "Well, I could have done it if the box was aligned with the North Pole. Or, I could have done it if I saw the actual bill first. Or, I could have done it if there was on of my power crystals in the box. Or, ... (well, you get the idea).

Anyway, something like this has already been done for JREF has locked up several items into a sealed box and people are encouraged to use whatever paranormal powers they may have to determine what is in the said box. So far no one has been able to do so.

http://www.randi.org/jr/060603.html

[The idea]

Originally posted by Crossbow
[...] your test would involve JREF in the defining of a paranormal power so those who believe in such things will be able to say things like "Well, I could have done it if the box was aligned with the North Pole. Or, I could have done it if I saw the actual bill first. Or, I could have done it if there was on of my power crystals in the box. Or, ... (well, you get the idea).

Anyway, something like this has already been done for JREF has locked up several items into a sealed box and people are encouraged to use whatever paranormal powers they may have to determine what is in the said box. So far no one has been able to do so.

In other words, my idea was very foolish and JREF was foolish enough to use a similar idea?

Returning to an earlier comment,
Originally posted by Crossbow
The forging of lottery tickets is illegal and people have been prosecuted for it.

The question is: doesn't the sale of lottery tickets encourage the illegal activity of forging lottery tickets? Earlier you argued that offering $1.25 million in exchange for a particular 20-dollar-bill goes beyond some boundary and encourages illegal activities and that such an offer should itself be illegal.

That was your argument, wasn't it? You excused businesses that fail to spot a counterfeit $20 bill on the grounds that the businesses only give out $20 worth of goods for the counterfeit money. Thus, it would seem that your argument was that $1.25 million was just too much money to give in exchange for a single bill. What is the difference between the numbers on a winning lottery ticket and the serial number on a "winning" 20-dollar-bill? Aren't people going to make efforts to authenticate any piece of paper in proportion to the alleged value of the piece of paper?

[The idea]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
I agree that it's even theoretically possible for the scenario you propose to occur - that the spirits / other beings might perform to order whenever the applicant calls, but stop doing so directly after the Challenge has been passed. However, it's very, very, very unlikely. Since it's not happened yet and would require a set of circumstances bizarre even by the standards of challenge applicants for it to come to pass, I don't think it's worth worrying about.

[...]

[It is] unlikely enough that it's not a possibility worth worrying about in practice. There are lots of things that are theoretically possible, but not worth worrying about. (and that, incidentially, is why its unlikeliness matters - so that we can decide that it's not worth worrying about).

Can you give some reasoning that justifies your claim that is it "very, very, very unlikely"? I understand your conclusion: you don't want to think about the possibility. However, how do you arrive at the conclusion that it is "very, very, very unlikely"?

Suppose I claim to have a paranormal ability. Given an opaque container with an opaque lid screwed on and ten ordinary pennies inside, I can shake up the container in a special way and turn the container upside-down. Then, if you unscrew the lid and let the pennies fall out (without shaking the container), I assert that at least nine of the pennies will land as heads (as opposed to tails).

According to the ordinary rules of probability, isn't it more likely that I will give five consecutive, successful demonstrations than it is that I will give twenty consecutive, successful demonstrations?

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by TheIdea

Can you give some reasoning that justifies your claim that is it "very, very, very unlikely"? I understand your conclusion: you don't want to think about the possibility. However, how do you arrive at the conclusion that it is "very, very, very unlikely"?

To recap: you propose a scenario where a paranormal demonstration which passes the Challenge is dependent on the cooperation of supernatural beings who withdraw that cooperation as soon as the Challenge is passed, and suggest that the possibility of such a scenario is problematic for the Challenge.

However, for such a scenario to come about, the following things would have to occur:

1) the supernatural beings would have to exist
2) they would have to be willing to put their powers at the disposal of the applicant
3) they would have to have some motive to demonstrate, by passing the Challenge, that they exist
4) they would also have to have a motive to demonstrate, by subsequently withdrawing their aid, that they don't exist.

In short, for your scenario to occur, there would have to exist a supernatural being or beings who desire to demonstrate both their existence and their non-existence. This is pretty contradictory. I'm sure some explanation could be dreamed up for such bizarre behaviour on their part but every extra postulate needed to make the situation coherent makes it that much less likely to occur. (i.e. whatever the chances are of ANY supernatural beings existing may be, the chances of the beings described above existing are much, much less).

That's why I suggest that your scenario, although theoretically possible, is not worth losing sleep over.

Suppose I claim to have a paranormal ability. {snip} I assert that at least nine of the pennies will land as heads (as opposed to tails).

According to the ordinary rules of probability, isn't it more likely that I will give five consecutive, successful demonstrations than it is that I will give twenty consecutive, successful demonstrations?

Not being a mathematician, I cannot say for certain. But it would seem intuitively that yes, for a given unlikely event to occur in each of five trials is less unlikely than that event occurring in twenty trials.

But what has that got to do with anything? Once again, you have lost me; I simply cannot see the relevance of this example.

Now I have answered your questions, how about you answer mine?

Re: your $20-bill fraud-catcher scheme:

Why should the JREF attempt to attract garden variety fraud artists who don't pretend to have paranormal abilities?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by TheIdea

In other words, my idea was very foolish and JREF was foolish enough to use a similar idea?

Returning to an earlier comment,

The question is: doesn't the sale of lottery tickets encourage the illegal activity of forging lottery tickets? Earlier you argued that offering $1.25 million in exchange for a particular 20-dollar-bill goes beyond some boundary and encourages illegal activities and that such an offer should itself be illegal.

That was your argument, wasn't it? You excused businesses that fail to spot a counterfeit $20 bill on the grounds that the businesses only give out $20 worth of goods for the counterfeit money. Thus, it would seem that your argument was that $1.25 million was just too much money to give in exchange for a single bill. What is the difference between the numbers on a winning lottery ticket and the serial number on a "winning" 20-dollar-bill? Aren't people going to make efforts to authenticate any piece of paper in proportion to the alleged value of the piece of paper?

Wow! I really am having trouble in getting my point made, so I will try again.

In the experiment you outline, the participants are given false information. In the experiment JREF is currently doing, the participants are given factual information. These two ideas are not that similar.

In the case of a lottery, one is buying a chance to win a large sum of money derived through random selection where one can readily calculate the actual odds of winning, that has operating rules that are enforced by the state, and one does not need paranormal powers to win. Whereas in the experiment you outline, one cannot calculate the odds of winning, the rules do not provide complete information, and the only way to win is to make use of a paranormal power(s).

In short, the contest is illegal if one deliberately publishes inaccurate rules (as your experiment would entail).

I hope this helps!

[The idea]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
4) they would also have to have a motive to demonstrate, by subsequently withdrawing their aid, that they don't exist.

How would withdrawing their aid demonstrate that they don't exist?

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
But what has that got to do with anything? Once again, you have lost me; I simply cannot see the relevance of this example.

For at least some kinds of paranormal abilities, the event in which the ability is demonstrated exactly five times has a higher probability than the event in which it is demonstrated a very large number of times. Thus, a scenario in which a paranormal ability continues to be demonstrated after the challenge is passed can be a scenario that is less likely than the scenario in which the paranormal ability is demonstrated exactly five times.

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
Why should the JREF attempt to attract garden variety fraud artists who don't pretend to have paranormal abilities?

The JREF should try to construct a test of paranormal abilities that will not attract fraud artists. One approach is to offer a more attractive alternative.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Crossbow
In the experiment you outline, the participants are given false information.
What information are they given that is false?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by TheIdea

What information are they given that is false?

Er, the part where you say that a specific $ 20 bill is in circulation but actually you have it under lock and key.

Originally posted by TheIdea

1. It has more to do with the demographics of liars than with the supernatural. There is no shortage of people who are ready and willing to try to use fraud to get money.

Why not give people the option of either getting the million dollars for the supernatural or getting even more money for successfully pulling off some more conventional kind of fraud? Anyone who takes the preliminary test for one challenge is disqualified from taking the preliminary test for the other challenge. Many liars will go for the bigger jackpot.

For example, say that you once had a certain US twenty-dollar bill (and don't mention that you still have it locked in a safety deposit box). Specify the serial number and say that anyone who brings in a genuine US twenty-dollar bill with that serial number will win one and a quarter million dollars. Of course, the bill will be thoroughly inspected and analyzed by experts in counterfeiting.

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by TheIdea

How would withdrawing their aid demonstrate that they don't exist?

It wouldn't, of course. I was merely speculating as to what might be the motivation (from their point of view) for the bizarre behaviour on the part of the spirits that your scenario postulates.

For at least some kinds of paranormal abilities, the event in which the ability is demonstrated exactly five times has a higher probability than the event in which it is demonstrated a very large number of times. Thus, a scenario in which a paranormal ability continues to be demonstrated after the challenge is passed can be a scenario that is less likely than the scenario in which the paranormal ability is demonstrated exactly five times.

I understand what you're saying. I just don't see what point you are trying to make with it. Yes, a run of good luck could get someone through the challenge without paranormal abilities, although it's deeply unlikely. And yes, for that run of luck to continue afterwards would be even more unlikely. But if it's a genuine paranormal phenomenon, then it should remain repeatable (thought experiments involving petulant supernatural helpers aside).

I'm sorry, but I just don't see what you're getting at with this new example.

What are you arguing? What point am I supposed to defend or concede, as the case may be?

(An aside: On the subject of the "five times", please note that I gave this as an absolute minimum number of demonstrations, based on the structure of the Challenge. In practice most of the tests I've read of in Randi's commentaries involve many more demonstrations than that, exactly in order to make it deeply unlikely that a person with no powers could luck their way through it.)

The JREF should try to construct a test of paranormal abilities that will not attract fraud artists. One approach is to offer a more attractive alternative.

So let me get this straight... you think that the JREF ought to set up a trap especially for forgers and fraud artists, to distract them from applying for the paranormal challenge?

That seems a bit of a strange way to go about picking out the con-artists. Much simpler just to let them apply for the Paranormal Challenge and fail.

Or have I misunderstood your argument again?

[The idea]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
Yes, a run of good luck could get someone through the challenge without paranormal abilities, although it's deeply unlikely. And yes, for that run of luck to continue afterwards would be even more unlikely. But if it's a genuine paranormal phenomenon, then it should remain repeatable (thought experiments involving petulant supernatural helpers aside).

I'm sorry, but I just don't see what you're getting at with this new example.

What are you arguing? What point am I supposed to defend or concede, as the case may be?

You just summarized everything quite well. If you want to defend something, you can defend your use of the term "petulant" to describe hypothetical supernatural helpers who refuse to make a habit of interfering, on demand, with the ordinary laws of nature.

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
So let me get this straight... you think that the JREF ought to set up a trap especially for forgers and fraud artists, to distract them from applying for the paranormal challenge?

Essentially yes, but I wouldn't use the word "distract". I would say to encourage them--given that they can't choose both--to not choose the paranormal challenge.

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
That seems a bit of a strange way to go about picking out the con-artists. Much simpler just to let them apply for the Paranormal Challenge and fail.

Now that is a good point.

However, maybe my suggestion has value as a thought experiment. Imagine that the tempting alternative exists and that it involves no claim to paranormal powers. If the alternative could be made sufficiently tempting, then there would be no opportunity to gloat about fake paranormalists who offer to take the paranormal test because they wouldn't offer to take that particular test.

Someone's fraudulent claim to have paranormal abilities is not essentially different from any other kind of fraudulent claim. A well-organized encyclopaedia would classify fraudulent claims to have paranormal powers under some such topic as "the psychology of dishonesty", or "fraud and misrepresentation." Of course, one could look up "paranormal powers" in the index and go directly to the article or articles. The assertion that there are fraud artists only has educational value if one has no conception of how commonplace dishonesty is.

[no one in particular]

This is quite a strange thread and I have had trouble following it. For that reason I, unfortunately, have nothing important to add. However, this one thing is bugging the living crap out of me:

TheIdea, is the “l” in your name an uppercase “i" or a lowercase “L”? I do not know if your username is intended to be “THELDEA” or “the idea” and it is freaking me out! I believe that it is supposed to be "the idea" but I can not be sure.

Sorry, now, back to this confusing thread.

[The idea]

Originally posted by no one in particular
TheIdea, is the “l” in your name an uppercase “i" or a lowercase “L”? I do not know if your username is intended to be “THELDEA” or “the idea” and it is freaking me out! I believe that it is supposed to be "the idea" but I cannot be sure.

You are right. It is an uppercase "i". I wasn't aware of font issues when I chose the name. I hope it hasn't been any worse than the old oh versus zero issue.

[Denise]

Originally posted by TheIdea

You are right. It is an uppercase "i". I wasn't aware of font issues when I chose the name. I hope it hasn't been any worse than the old oh versus zero issue.

I thought it was theldea with a lower case L. Maybe you should pm Hal and have him put a space in to make it more clear?

[arcticpenguin]

You folks could always cut and paste the name into a word processor window and run it through a case conversion.

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by TheIdea

You just summarized everything quite well. If you want to defend something, you can defend your use of the term "petulant" to describe hypothetical supernatural helpers who refuse to make a habit of interfering, on demand, with the ordinary laws of nature.

I see no reason to defend my injection of a little levity into a deeply confusing discussion. And anyway, I was using the term "petulant" to describe hypothetical helpers who DO interfere, on demand, with the ordinary laws of nature, but then stop doing so, without explanation, as soon as the recipient of their aid has passed the JREF challenge.

What are we arguing about here? I have lost track, I must confess.

However, maybe my suggestion has value as a thought experiment. Imagine that the tempting alternative exists and that it involves no claim to paranormal powers. If the alternative could be made sufficiently tempting, then there would be no opportunity to gloat about fake paranormalists who offer to take the paranormal test because they wouldn't offer to take that particular test.... {snip} ... Someone's fraudulent claim to have paranormal abilities is not essentially different from any other kind of fraudulent claim.

This misses the point that most fakes who know they are fakes don't take the challenge (because they know they'd fail). Sylvia Browne, for example, doesn't take it. She could easily win it if she had the powers she claims to. Most people who actually take the challenge genuinely believe in their powers (self-delusion), as far as I can gather from Randi' writings. Dowsers would be a good example of this.

The assertion that there are fraud artists only has educational value if one has no conception of how commonplace dishonesty is.

I agree with you that the assertion that there are fraud artists is a commonplace. But that's not the assertion that the JREF is making. Indeed, they do not make any claim, as regards the million dollar challenge. The million dollar challenge is there to provide paranormalists with the opportunity and motive to back up their claims. The refusal of many to do so, and the failure of those who make the attempt, is educational in that it may be taken as indicative of the absence of evidence for the paranormal.

I feel the need for a recap at this point:

You offered four points of criticism of the Million Dollar Challenge.

Your first suggestion was 1) that there should be some mechanism for encouraging fraud artists not to apply for the Challenge. You suggested a non-paranormal "challenge" with a bigger reward.

Crossbow has argued that your proposed non-paranomral challenge would be illegal. I have argued that it would be unnecessary, since a) fraud artists tend not to apply for the Challenge anyway, and b) even if they did they'd lose (although another thread in this forum is currently discussing whether it might be possible for someone to trick their way through the million dollar challenge - but that's a a separate issue).

Your other three criticisms were that: 2) a Challenge winner might not be accepted by the world at large because sceptics could argue that Randi faked it; 3) sceptics would argue that mass hallucination was a better explanation for the Challenge being won than the existence of the paranormal; 4) a one-off miracle that won the Challenge would have no practical impact on our lives.

I argued that all three of these criticisms are not problems for the Challenge because any phenomenon that wins the Challenge would have to be repeatable under controlled conditions (by definition - you can't win the Challenge by doing something once). The winning phenomemon would thus be observable to all.

You suggested that a winning phenomenon might not be available to observation by all, if it was due to the aid of supernatural helpers which was withdrawn after the challenge was won. I argued that this scenario was sufficiently far-fetched to make it unlikely enough to not be a practical concern.

That (with the exception of several detours) is, I believe, a reasonable summary of the thread to date. Of course, you must feel free to add anything important that you feel I've missed.

So, TheIdea, what exactly are we debating now?

[TheBoyPaj]

Beats me. I gave up about 12 posts ago.