Split from: What standards can one expect as an applicant?

[maatorc]

Split from: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=79966
You know what standards you can expect if you are an applicant? That if you have a paranormal ability that you can show to others, you'll receive a million dollars.
It need not be a paranormal ability, merely a demonstration of something the JREF MDC and the claimant agree to describe as paranormal.

There is no known scientific proof of any claimed power or event actually being paranormal or supernatural.

Actually, 'paranormal', like 'supernatural' is a non-sequitor and a contradiction in terms: It is impossible for any power or event in nature to be beyond the normal or natural.

The truth of this question lies where skepticism appears not to have looked or is frightened to even acknowledge.

Human perception, while generally similar is not identical. Mr. Randi presumes that because he cannot experience what he calls paranormal, and can show most claims for it are false, that it cannot exist.

The truth that skepticism dare not mention is that perception is relatively sensorily unfolded or relatively sensorily deprived.

If an individual cannot sense what another senses that does not prove that what the more unfolded senses of the other person realise are non-existent, but merely that the sensory perception of the person who does not realise it is relatively deprived and under-developed.

Human perception is generally similar but not identical; the same and different.

[Czarcasm]

So if you do something us unenlightened folk usually call "paranormal", and only you can see it, it's because our senses aren't "unfolded"? If you leave your unfolded senses out for too long, how do you prevent them from becoming distorted(or, as the more enlightened folk like to say-"wrinkled")? Can you see things as they really are if "creases" develop, or do you do some sort of mental exercises that work as a "fabric softener"?

[maatorc]

1... So if you do something.....
2... us unenlightened folk usually call "paranormal",...
3... and only you can see it,...
4... it's because our senses aren't "unfolded"? ...
5... If you leave your unfolded senses out for too long, how do you prevent them from becoming distorted(or, as the more enlightened folk like to say-"wrinkled")? Can you see things as they really are if "creases" develop, or do you do some sort of mental exercises that work as a "fabric softener"?
1... The usual skeptical paranoia: The comment is general and is not about me and you.
2... If you believe you are unenlightened it is something you have to deal with.
3... Who said that?
4... In the broadest context, yes.
5... It all depends on the lense.

[buzz lightyear]

It need not be a paranormal ability, merely a demonstration of something the JREF MDC and the claimant agree to describe as paranormal.

There is no known scientific proof of any claimed power or event actually being paranormal or supernatural.

Actually, 'paranormal', like 'supernatural' is a non-sequitor and a contradiction in terms: It is impossible for any power or event in nature to be beyond the normal or natural.

The truth of this question lies where skepticism appears not to have looked or is frightened to even acknowledge.

Human perception, while generally similar is not identical. Mr. Randi presumes that because he cannot experience what he calls paranormal, and can show most claims for it are false, that it cannot exist.

The truth that skepticism dare not mention is that perception is relatively sensorily unfolded or relatively sensorily deprived.

If an individual cannot sense what another senses that does not prove that what the more unfolded senses of the other person realise are non-existent, but merely that the sensory perception of the person who does not realise it is relatively deprived and under-developed.

Human perception is generally similar but not identical; the same and different.

The idea of differing perception is an interesting point, maatorc.

It is even more interesting when you notice that in the "challenge" rules a clause prohibits use of what is termed "drugs".

As the "spirit" world, or "parranormal" is the realm of the shaman or "witch" and their abilities are derived partly from the use of ethnogens to alter their perception , it is inconsistant for an organisation supposibly investigating this world to reject their use.

This is assuming that they are actually interested in exploration, or
merely pandering to the ego of a fading illusionist.

[maatorc]

The idea of differing perception is an interesting point, maatorc.It is even more interesting when you notice that in the "challenge" rules a clause prohibits use of what is termed "drugs".As the "spirit" world, or "parranormal" is the realm of the shaman or "witch" and their abilities are derived partly from the use of ethnogens to alter their perception , it is inconsistant for an organisation supposibly investigating this world to reject their use.This is assuming that they are actually interested in exploration, or merely pandering to the ego of a fading illusionist.
As I know many 'skeptics' are in fact very open-minded, despite the screaming minority, they may find the following books of great interest:
1. The Cosmic Serpent, by Jeremy Narby, and
2. Strange Fruit, by Clark Heinrich.

[buzz lightyear]

Also, if they have an inquisitive mind, they could also brouse through ; Plants of the Gods , by Albert Hofman and Richard Shultes.

[Czarcasm]

1... The usual skeptical paranoia: The comment is general and is not about me and you.
2... If you believe you are unenlightened it is something you have to deal with.
3... Who said that?
4... In the broadest context, yes.
5... It all depends on the lense.

I've gotta go-this is too easy.

[William Smith]

1... The usual skeptical paranoia: The comment is general and is not about me and you.
2... If you believe you are unenlightened it is something you have to deal with.
3... Who said that?
4... In the broadest context, yes.
5... It all depends on the lense.

The idea of differing perception is an interesting point, maatorc.

It is even more interesting when you notice that in the "challenge" rules a clause prohibits use of what is termed "drugs".

As the "spirit" world, or "parranormal" is the realm of the shaman or "witch" and their abilities are derived partly from the use of ethnogens to alter their perception , it is inconsistant for an organisation supposibly investigating this world to reject their use.

This is assuming that they are actually interested in exploration, or
merely pandering to the ego of a fading illusionist.

As I know many 'skeptics' are in fact very open-minded, despite the screaming minority, they may find the following books of great interest:
1. The Cosmic Serpent, by Jeremy Narby, and
2. Strange Fruit, by Clark Heinrich.

Also, if they have an inquisitive mind, they could also brouse through ; Plants of the Gods , by Albert Hofman and Richard Shultes.

Too...many...jokes...error...error...smmmblmblwjss jj

[maatorc]

Too...many...jokes...error...error...smmmblmblwjss jj

Your comment is incomprehensible.
You are not saying anything.

[maatorc]

I've gotta go-this is too easy.
Neither I, nor you, know what you are talking about.

[Czarcasm]

Neither I, nor you, know what you are talking about.

That's o.k., it'll all come out in the wash.
Pardon my dry humor.

[Darat]

Neither I, nor you, know what you are talking about.

Such a mind reading ability would be a paranormal claim under the Challenge's definition - try and get some media attention for your power and you can apply for the Million Dollar Challenge.

[buzz lightyear]

Such a mind reading ability would be a paranormal claim under the Challenge's definition - try and get some media attention for your power and you can apply for the Million Dollar Challenge.

Opps, sorry guys , for a moment I forgot I was here in the Randi funny farm and thought that I was back in the real world.

How silly of me . Thanks Darat for reminding me how to behave in here, after all we must keep to an acceptable level of st...dity.

[MRC_Hans]

It need not be a paranormal ability, merely a demonstration of something the JREF MDC and the claimant agree to describe as paranormal.

Or to be precise, it needs not be a parnormal ability of the claimant. In fact, the rules use the term "paranormal event". However, obviously, to be testable, such an event must in some way be under the control by the claimant, if only in the sense that the claimant can arrange for it to happen at a predicable time and place.


There is no known scientific proof of any claimed power or event actually being paranormal or supernatural.


This is correct, because such a proof would essentially have to prove a negative. However, that is of no consequence to the JREF challenge; it is clearly specified that the event must be deemed paranormal at the time of testing. Whether it might later be shown to have a natural cause is immaterial.


Actually, 'paranormal', like 'supernatural' is a non-sequitor and a contradiction in terms: It is impossible for any power or event in nature to be beyond the normal or natural.


Which makes the term logical and appropriate: Since the event cannot be natural, it must be supernatural.

The truth of this question lies where skepticism appears not to have looked or is frightened to even acknowledge.

This is blatant nonsense, and a refuge some believers always seem to use. Science, and hence skepticism, always seeks to uncover the unknown. You have to get to grips with the fact that we don't accept the supernatural, not because it frightens us, but because we see no reason to think it exists.


Human perception, while generally similar is not identical. Mr. Randi presumes that because he cannot experience what he calls paranormal, and can show most claims for it are false, that it cannot exist.


Quite correct: Since no objective observations support the supernatural, the working assumption is that they don't exist. Like it or not, that is how science works. However, then true science will try to explore further, and Mr. Randi's way of doing this is via the challenge.

We must not forget, though, that an important purpose of the challenge is to disclose fraud: It is a challenge for those who claim supernatural powers to prove their claims.


The truth that skepticism dare not mention is that perception is relatively sensorily unfolded or relatively sensorily deprived.


The human senses are indeed limited. Fortunately, we are not restricted to them when observing the world around us.


If an individual cannot sense what another senses that does not prove that what the more unfolded senses of the other person realise are non-existent, but merely that the sensory perception of the person who does not realise it is relatively deprived and under-developed.


Actually, it proves neither. If you perceive something and I don't, then, pending independent verification of either, all it proves is that our perceptions differ.

Human perception is generally similar but not identical; the same and different.

And? You seem to keep missing another true characteristic of human perception: It is error prone.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

It is even more interesting when you notice that in the "challenge" rules a clause prohibits use of what is termed "drugs".

As the "spirit" world, or "parranormal" is the realm of the shaman or "witch" and their abilities are derived partly from the use of ethnogens to alter their perception , it is inconsistant for an organisation supposibly investigating this world to reject their use.

This is assuming that they are actually interested in exploration, or
merely pandering to the ego of a fading illusionist.The restriction against drugs does indeed preclude certain types of claims from the challenge. Just like the restriction against actions that are potentially harmful to the applicant or others. Yet, if you really try, I'm sure you are able to understand why such restrictions must exist.

Hans

[buzz lightyear]

The restriction against drugs does indeed preclude certain types of claims from the challenge. Just like the restriction against actions that are potentially harmful to the applicant or others. Yet, if you really try, I'm sure you are able to understand why such restrictions must exist.

Hans

Perhaps you should enlighten me as to why these restrictions apply MRC-hans.
If injury is the issue, you would do well to remember the countless souls that have perished exploring the outer limits of our physical world.
And rule 8 of the "challenge" application absolves JREF of liability should any such misfortune arise.

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
It need not be a paranormal ability, merely a demonstration of something the JREF MDC and the claimant agree to describe as paranormal.
1... [QUOTE]Or to be precise, it needs not be a parnormal ability of the claimant. In fact, the rules use the term "paranormal event". However, obviously, to be testable, such an event must in some way be under the control by the claimant, if only in the sense that the claimant can arrange for it to happen at a predicable time and place.
Quote:
There is no known scientific proof of any claimed power or event actually being paranormal or supernatural.
2...This is correct, because such a proof would essentially have to prove a negative. However, that is of no consequence to the JREF challenge; it is clearly specified that the event must be deemed paranormal at the time of testing. Whether it might later be shown to have a natural cause is immaterial.
Quote:
Actually, 'paranormal', like 'supernatural' is a non-sequitor and a contradiction in terms: It is impossible for any power or event in nature to be beyond the normal or natural.
3...Which makes the term logical and appropriate: Since the event cannot be natural, it must be supernatural.
Quote:
The truth of this question lies where skepticism appears not to have looked or is frightened to even acknowledge.
4...This is blatant nonsense, and a refuge some believers always seem to use. Science, and hence skepticism, always seeks to uncover the unknown. You have to get to grips with the fact that we don't accept the supernatural, not because it frightens us, but because we see no reason to think it exists.
Quote:
Human perception, while generally similar is not identical. Mr. Randi presumes that because he cannot experience what he calls paranormal, and can show most claims for it are false, that it cannot exist.
5...Quite correct: Since no objective observations support the supernatural, the working assumption is that they don't exist. Like it or not, that is how science works. However, then true science will try to explore further, and Mr. Randi's way of doing this is via the challenge.We must not forget, though, that an important purpose of the challenge is to disclose fraud: It is a challenge for those who claim supernatural powers to prove their claims.
Quote:
The truth that skepticism dare not mention is that perception is relatively sensorily unfolded or relatively sensorily deprived.
6...The human senses are indeed limited. Fortunately, we are not restricted to them when observing the world around us.

Quote:
If an individual cannot sense what another senses that does not prove that what the more unfolded senses of the other person realise are non-existent, but merely that the sensory perception of the person who does not realise it is relatively deprived and under-developed.
7...Actually, it proves neither. If you perceive something and I don't, then, pending independent verification of either, all it proves is that our perceptions differ.
Quote:
Human perception is generally similar but not identical; the same and different.
8...And? You seem to keep missing another true characteristic of human perception: It is error prone.Hans

1...OK.
2...OK
3...There is nothing beyond the natural. There is nothing supernatural.
4...This is blatant nonsense. Modern skepticism is not science: It rests on the anti-psychic presumption that illusion (Randi) and cold-reading (Shermer) explains the world. It is correct that the supernatural does not exist, not because skeptics deny it but because there is nothing super beyond the natural: Whatever exists, with or without skeptical permission, is necessarily natural whether you know about or accept it or not.
5...Since there is nothing supernatural, this is a superfluous observation.
6...I take that you are saying, as do Randi and Shermer, that as it is your personal experience that your senses are limited that it necessarily follows the senses of all humans are identically so limited. It does not follow.
7...The point is that independent-third party verification of personal perceptions are impossible.

[Gulliver]

As a terminal cancer patient faced with constant attempts to steal my remaining funds and dignity, I take strong exception to your statement:I indeed do not fall under the recent revision of the challenge, as I have nothing to do with fleecing the public or attempting any kind of fraud... and indeed would rather not be particularly famous as a result of this, as it is a very minor aspect of what I do and am interested in, and I would not like to be pigeonholed as 'the prayer guy'.

Please reference http://www.prayermatch.org/main/donate.
------------------------------
Donations
This site is entirely supported by donations.

If you feel that it has been useful to you and would like to contribute to the costs of running and maintaining it, please consider donating some amount.

Any donations left over after the completion of research and paying for those costs will be donated to Médecins Sans Frontiers (Doctors Without Borders), to contribute to their tireless work for the health of those who need aid.
------------------------------

You, sir, are asking for money from seriously ill people. You, sir, have made no public accounting of your income and expenditures on the website. You, sir, have not referenced a registered charity on the website. You, sir, have proposed a study that will, in my opinion, never, ever take place.

You, sir, not only qualify under the public fraud category, but I'd suggest to Jeff that you be listed as an example.

With passion,
Gulliver

[catbasket]

Mr. Randi presumes that because he cannot experience what he calls paranormal, and can show most claims for it are false, that it cannot exist.
I see your "most" and raise you an "everything so far".
... the same and different.
Yeah, "equal but different ... it's obvious" [The Au Pairs] /sarcasm

[saizai]

Correct, and I did not intend to imply otherwise. One might, in fact, succinctly state the relevant criterion thusly: "A paranormal claim is whatever the hell JREF says it is, since it's their challenge and their money."

Enh, partially. With linguist hat on I would say that 'paranormal' is not really a classically defined category (though it purports to be), but rather something that changes over the years and is defined based on societal expectations of what 'normal' is.

As members of the society it references, though, we should all know what would or wouldn't count as 'paranormal', more or less. Since the challenge doesn't require a proof that it *is* paranormal, merely agreement between the applicant and JREF that it is (as an axiom), this shouldn't really be an issue.

I was simply surprised that JREF had accepted a claim the testing of which shall, I suspect, prove impracticable.

*shrug* We'll see.

I am also dubious, Sai, that an individual of your obvious rhetorical alacrity would have misunderstood my meaning. Surely you are well cognizant that to feign misapprehension in order to obfuscate the debate over the testability of your claim would carry the bouquet of sophistry, if not its stench. I therefore apologize in advance for any perceived didacticism on my part.

Ever heard of a bloke named Grice? ;) (Nice vocabulary, though. :))

What you quoted was responding to the idea that I should only challenge with something of the, dare I say, 'mundane' sort of paranormal claim. ;) I'm sorry you misunderstood my intent.

As a terminal cancer patient faced with constant attempts to steal my remaining funds and dignity, I take strong exception to your statement:

Actually, I wasn't thinking that cancer patients would be interested in donating, just the praying participants.

But that page should've been down by now, since I'd decided against it a few months ago for something approximating the reasons you describe. And geh, it still had a paypal button rather than just the direct one for the webhost? Feh, looks like I let the production version get too out of date. Ahwell... *puttys into server* fixed.

With passion,

And how.

Again, clearly you (dramatically) misunderstood my intent. *shrug*

[Gulliver]

Actually, I wasn't thinking that cancer patients would be interested in donating, just the praying participants.

...

But that page should've been down by now, since I'd decided against it a few months ago for something approximating the reasons you describe. And geh, it still had a paypal button rather than just the direct one for the webhost? Feh, looks like I let the production version get too out of date. Ahwell... *puttys into server* fixed.

...

And how.

Again, clearly you (dramatically) misunderstood my intent. *shrug*

Sir,

May I please relate to you my understanding of social norms? My mother taught me that when I make a mistake, especially one that causes understandable confusion about my intent, I must offer a humble apology. She would never allow me to *shrug* off an error as you have done here.

I am glad to see that you've corrected your error with the website. I thank you for the quick action.

However, I can conclude only that you are no longer obviously seeking funds under fraudulent pretenses. I must maintain my conclusion that you have in the past solicited funds under inappropriate conditions.

Skeptically grateful,
Gulliver

[athon]

Perhaps you should enlighten me as to why these restrictions apply MRC-hans.
If injury is the issue, you would do well to remember the countless souls that have perished exploring the outer limits of our physical world.
And rule 8 of the "challenge" application absolves JREF of liability should any such misfortune arise.

I can't for a moment really think you cannot see why such restrictions exist. But, given that perhaps you (and others reading this) could perhaps have such a limited field of vision on the topic, I'll put you on the right path.

Do you feel that it is possible that somebody who is mentally unwell could believe that they are empowered with some ability when they are indeed not?

Do you believe that it is morally acceptable to encourage such a person to demonstrate this ability if it leads to self harm?

Remember that the challenge exists as a means for individuals to demonstrate actual phenomena, and not as a means for people to harm themselves as a result of their delusions. There could well be a crossover, where the risk of potential harm is required to demonstrate such a paranormal event. If so, the challenge is not open to them. Cest la vie.

For one, I think it says a lot about the JREF that they are not out to harm or make fools of applicants, and are more concerned with the health of the claimant than about the chellenge.

Athon

[The Atheist]

As a terminal cancer patient faced with constant attempts to steal my remaining funds and dignity, I take strong exception to your statement:

Please reference http://www.prayermatch.org/main/donate.
------------------------------
Donations
This site is entirely supported by donations.

If you feel that it has been useful to you and would like to contribute to the costs of running and maintaining it, please consider donating some amount.

Any donations left over after the completion of research and paying for those costs will be donated to Médecins Sans Frontiers (Doctors Without Borders), to contribute to their tireless work for the health of those who need aid.
------------------------------

You, sir, are asking for money from seriously ill people. You, sir, have made no public accounting of your income and expenditures on the website. You, sir, have not referenced a registered charity on the website. You, sir, have proposed a study that will, in my opinion, never, ever take place.

You, sir, not only qualify under the public fraud category, but I'd suggest to Jeff that you be listed as an example.

With passion,
Gulliver

:bigclap :bigclap :bigclap

Nominated!

[buzz lightyear]

I can't for a moment really think you cannot see why such restrictions exist. But, given that perhaps you (and others reading this) could perhaps have such a limited field of vision on the topic, I'll put you on the right path.



I would guess by your limited field of vision athon, that you have no experience with ethnogens.
And probably no understanding of their use in sharmanic practices,
and little or no understanding of what is roughly termed "the occult".

If you did you would understand they are all linked by the common thread of altered perception.
You would also know that ethnogens have been used by humans for thousands of years in their quest for understanding.

[colin]

Are some of you saying what goes on in one’s head may be a real, natural event, but the rest of us can’t perceive it because our “perception is relatively sensorily unfolded or relatively sensorily deprived.”?

I can’t wait to tell my brother in-law. He says that god and the devil fight in his head, and he gets very angry when the rest of us tell him we can’t hear the voices. The poor guy. All those involuntary commitments and the drugs with the nasty side effects he’s endured his whole adult isn’t because he’s severely schizophrenic; It’s just that the rest of us need to “unfold” our “relatively sensorily deprived perceptions”.
I’m so embarrassed. All these years I thought he was just mentally ill. Any recommendations to help me get with the real world? Peyote? LSD? Maybe a few whacks with a baseball bat to the forehead?

[maatorc]

1... Are some of you saying what goes on in one’s head may be a real, natural event, but the rest of us can’t perceive it because our “perception is relatively sensorily unfolded or relatively sensorily deprived.”?
2... I can’t wait to tell my brother in-law. He says that god and the devil fight in his head, and he gets very angry when the rest of us tell him we can’t hear the voices. The poor guy. All those involuntary commitments and the drugs with the nasty side effects he’s endured his whole adult isn’t because he’s severely schizophrenic; It’s just that the rest of us need to “unfold” our “relatively sensorily deprived perceptions”. I’m so embarrassed. All these years I thought he was just mentally ill. Any recommendations to help me get with the real world? Peyote? LSD? Maybe a few whacks with a baseball bat to the forehead?

1... If someone senses something you do not sense it does not necessarily mean they are unwell, unbalanced, or schizophrenic.

Not everything is explained by an anti-psychical obsession with illusion and cold reading.

2... If your brother-in-law is unwell, then he is unwell.

There are very many perfectly healthy, normal, successful, balanced persons in the world who will not see, realize, or experience it exactly as you do. This is of course a great blessing for all of us: Spare us a world of physical-psychological-emotional-mental clones!

The concept of unfoldment is speaking to the attainment of the innate potential of every human being.

[Czarcasm]

The concept of unfoldment is speaking to the attainment of the innate potential of every human being.

The concept of "unfoldment" is an excuse used when no one experiences what you are experiencing. It used to be called "hallucinating", "imagining" and "dreaming", and people who actually used it as any sort of evidence were given the proper "medication" and/or sent to the "hospital" for "treatment" of their "delusions".

[maatorc]

1... The concept of "unfoldment" is an excuse used when no one experiences what you are experiencing.
2... It used to be called "hallucinating", "imagining" and "dreaming", and people who actually used it as any sort of evidence were given the proper "medication" and/or sent to the "hospital" for "treatment" of their "delusions".

1... You are pretending to know something about a subject you probably never heard of before I raised it in this thread -RIGHT?

You clearly have not in any way caught on to the concept.

2... It has no connection whatever with what you are suggesting, so do not pretend to explain it away with the your pseudo-medical clap-trap.

[Czarcasm]

I know pseudo-scientific claptrap when I see it, and I did do some research on the subject before I posted. The trouble is no two definitions are the same, and all the definitions look like somebody filled in a Metaphysics Mad Lib.

[autumn1971]

Yeah, I did a bunch of LSD also. During the trip (actually, only two or three LSD experiences resulted in what one would term a "trip", usually, I simply became slightly nauseated and less interesting to those around me) I was sure that I was privy to the Total Knowledge of the human condition. Upon waking the next day, however, I was,every time, a little more aware of the beauty around me, but a little more convinced that I didn't need to trip to figure that out.
Guess I'm smarter than the Shamans.

[maatorc]

1... I know pseudo-scientific claptrap when I see it, and I did do some research on the subject before I posted.
2... The trouble is no two definitions are the same, and all the definitions look like somebody filled in a Metaphysics Mad Lib.
1... I know it is a mandatory response of some skeptics to describe what they do not accept or understand as "...pseudo-scientific...".

Explain in what manner this connects with "unfoldment".

2... What definitions are you talking about?

Just as many definitions put by skeptics look like someone filled in a Skeptics Mad (Lib-whatever that is)!

[athon]

I would guess by your limited field of vision athon, that you have no experience with ethnogens.
And probably no understanding of their use in sharmanic practices,
and little or no understanding of what is roughly termed "the occult".

If you did you would understand they are all linked by the common thread of altered perception.
You would also know that ethnogens have been used by humans for thousands of years in their quest for understanding.

Well done, sunshine. You totally avoided everything I said and proceded to just produce a load of irrelevant bollocks. Ethnogens or not, the taking of any sort of substance which could alter a person's biochemistry offers risks. The JREF is not out to place anybody's health at risk before the challenge.

But thanks for evading that point and demonstrating that you really aren't sure what's going on here.

Athon

[MRC_Hans]

Perhaps you should enlighten me as to why these restrictions apply MRC-hans.
If injury is the issue, you would do well to remember the countless souls that have perished exploring the outer limits of our physical world.
And rule 8 of the "challenge" application absolves JREF of liability should any such misfortune arise.That is very naive. If the JREF makes an agreement (and that is how the challenge works) that the challenger shall do something dangerous to win the prize, and the challenger comes to grief, then legal action can be taken against the JREF. They may or may not win such a case, but I find it quite sensible that they choose to exclude the possibility.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

3...There is nothing beyond the natural. There is nothing supernatural.

I quite agree. The term "supernatural" describes something that probably does not exist. Just as "God" describes something that probably does not exist. That does not make the terms useless or superfluous, however. Since some people believe they exist, we need terms to describe such beliefs.


4...This is blatant nonsense. Modern skepticism is not science: It rests on the anti-psychic presumption that illusion (Randi) and cold-reading (Shermer) explains the world.


Exactly what qualifies you to define "modern skepticism"? I can assure you that my skepticism exists entirely independently of thos gentlemen.

It is correct that the supernatural does not exist, not because skeptics deny it but because there is nothing super beyond the natural: Whatever exists, with or without skeptical permission, is necessarily natural whether you know about or accept it or not.

Quite apart from your weaving a jab at skeptics into it, you are basically right. Should something "supernatural" be found to exist, we will need to incorporate it into our image of reality, essentially redefining it to "natural". However, the definition of "supernatural" as something that defies the laws of physics still holds.


5...Since there is nothing supernatural, this is a superfluous observation.


Already covered.


6...I take that you are saying, as do Randi and Shermer, that as it is your personal experience that your senses are limited that it necessarily follows the senses of all humans are identically so limited. It does not follow.


Then you are not reading what I say (write). I say: The fact that you perceive something that I don't is not, in itself, a proof that what you perceive is true and my senses are limited.


7...The point is that independent-third party verification of personal perceptions are impossible.

That is both true and false. Ceartainly, your personal perceptions are entirely your own, but their connection with, and relevance for, reality can quite often be verified.

Hans

[buzz lightyear]

That is very naive. If the JREF makes an agreement (and that is how the challenge works) that the challenger shall do something dangerous to win the prize, and the challenger comes to grief, then legal action can be taken against the JREF. They may or may not win such a case, but I find it quite sensible that they choose to exclude the possibility.

Hans

Yes MRC Hans, it is probably quite sensible, but not on the least what you would call "scientific".

If you run around the country preaching that something doesn't exist and your only proof of this, is the fact no one has suceeded in your "challenge", you should have exhausted ALL possibilities before you open your mouth.
Or at least permit them to be exhausted.

But if you used the disclaimer " purely for entertainment" I don't think this fact would then be an issue.

[MRC_Hans]

Yes MRC Hans, it is probably quite sensible, but not on the least what you would call "scientific".

Of course it is scientific. Don't you think scientists have ethics? To be sure, people have been risking their lives for discovery. Note the word "their". It is not good tone among today's scientists to risk other people's lives, if it can be avoided.


If you run around the country preaching that something doesn't exist and your only proof of this, is the fact no one has suceeded in your "challenge", you should have exhausted ALL possibilities before you open your mouth.


So I can't say that invisible unicorns don't exist before I have explored every nook of the planet for them?

Tell me, if you want to find something, uhh, let's say a three-headed chicken, what will you do:

1) Seek out every farm on the planet, pop in and ask them "hey, have you got a three-headed chicken?"

2) Set up a prize for a three-headed chicken and advertize it.

Or at least permit them to be exhausted.

Uhhh, how does the JREF not permit them (the possibilities for discovering something paranormal) to be exhausted? Nobody (or at least not the JREF) keeps you from exploring paranormal phenomenon that will endanger you. You can do this to your heart's desire. You just can't enter it as a JREF challenge, but since most believers I have met declare that they have absolutely no interest in Randi's million and that it doesn't exist anyway, that shouldn't hold anybody back.

Hans

[T'ai Chi]

It need not be a paranormal ability, merely a demonstration of something the JREF MDC and the claimant agree to describe as paranormal.


Then it is not a paranormal challenge but a 'something the JREF MDC and the claimant agree to describe as paranormal- challenge' ? So then there is judging involved because they have to agree to judge it as paranormal?


There is no known scientific proof of any claimed power or event actually being paranormal or supernatural.


There is no known scientific proof of many things that are supposedly scientific, normal, and natural. For examples, extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI), string theory, multiverses, etc. It says little about their possible validity though.

[richardm]

Then it is not a paranormal challenge but a 'something the JREF MDC and the claimant agree to describe as paranormal- challenge' ? So then there is judging involved because they have to agree to judge it as paranormal?

They agree beforehand what the paranormal claim is. They agree what would demonstrate the ability. They agree what would constitute a successful demonstration. Then they either succeed in their demonstration or they do not. There is no judging required.

There is no known scientific proof of many things that are supposedly scientific, normal, and natural. For examples, extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI), string theory, multiverses, etc. It says little about their possible validity though.

I think - and I'm prepared to be corrected - that there is a difference. We have a good deal of collected evidence about the way the universe and the things in it work. None of the things you have listed above contradict anything that we already know. They add to, or refine, information that we've already collected. If someone does come up with something that is wacky - like string theory, perhaps - then they are expected to show their reasoning using the same framework that describes the rest of our scientific knowledge.

Paranormal stuff, though, does not do that. Many of the effects are entirely contradictory to what we observe to be the normal case. If it is a notional effect - an idea about heaven - we can have no mathematics to show consistency with everything else we know. If it is a mental effect - remote viewing - nobody can demonstrate how the brain might be able to do this. If it is a physical effect - bending spoons - nobody can demonstrate a mechanism by which this might happen.

And crucially - if anyone properly tries to examine the phenomenon in question, the effect generally cannot even be found. Assuming that the claimants can be persuaded to do a demonstration in the first place...

[T'ai Chi]

They agree beforehand what the paranormal claim is. They agree what would demonstrate the ability. They agree what would constitute a successful demonstration. Then they either succeed in their demonstration or they do not. There is no judging required.


What you describe is judging.


I think - and I'm prepared to be corrected - that there is a difference. We have a good deal of collected evidence about the way the universe and the things in it work. None of the things you have listed above contradict anything that we already know.


There is no 'collected evidence' on extraterrestrial life existing, so many dimensions and universes, strings, etc. IF consistent math theory impresses you, then you'd be glad to know an n-dimensional hypercube with a length of 1 inch can hold the Empire State building along its diagonal, given a large enough n. Consistent, but wacky as anything else.

[Darat]

...snip...
There is no 'collected evidence' on extraterrestrial life existing,

...snip...

However there is evidence that "life" can and does exist in the universe.

[T'ai Chi]

Not to mention that brilliant Drake's Equation that can "predict" anywhere from 0 to trillions given peoples' prior beliefs. ;)

[Darat]

Why do you consider "Drake's Equation" to be "brilliant"?