How to get people to accept the challenge?

Rasmus · 18th July 2006, 04:49 PM

As of late, I have taken to ask several woos to go and grab Randi's Million if they really believe that what they claim is true. Needless to say, I wasn't successful - and I really was just doing it to get my point across better.

Still, I was wondering what I could do or say to get people to at least look into it. Any ideas?

rustytunes · 18th July 2006, 05:41 PM

I have just convinced a "psychic" into doing the Australian Skeptics challenge. Although it is very early days and nothing has happened yet, but she has accepted. My angle was that she could be the one who sets the benchmark which will allow the "frauds" to be weeded out of the industry. I had to get her to agree that the industry is rife with frauds, and something needs to be done for the benefit of the "genuine" psychics, and their clients.

Rasmus · 18th July 2006, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by rustytunes

I have just convinced a "psychic" into doing the Australian Skeptics challenge. Although it is very early days and nothing has happened yet, but she has accepted. My angle was that she could be the one who sets the benchmark which will allow the "frauds" to be weeded out of the industry. I had to get her to agree that the industry is rife with frauds, and something needs to be done for the benefit of the "genuine" psychics, and their clients.

Nice!

The on-line argument I am engaged in right now (well, I still am, I am not so sure about my counterpart) is about the miraculous mechanisms of homoeopathy, though. I'm afraid they have never heard of "frauds" in that filed. (It's a slim chance at best, anyway - she's just a customer of a bunch of quacks and not a quack herself ...)

Bruno Putzeys · 19th July 2006, 12:33 AM

The closest I came to drawing someone across was with a salesman who saw auras. As usual he said he didn't want to use his gift for personal gain. (Surprising is, knowing the chap, he probably did not copy this line from others so he must've made it up on the spot. Would this rationalisation be hardwired?)

I explained that *not* doing the test would be the most selfish thing he could possibly do. We were visiting his native Rwanda and I pointed out that he would be spending the million on development projects here. Additionally he could once and for all blast those pesky skeptics out of the water and open up a complete new field of science that had hitherto been hidden.

Not sure if he applied yet, tho.

rjh01 · 19th July 2006, 04:58 AM

These people fall under two categories
1. They know it does not work. So no way will they submit to any realistic test. Any excuse not to do the test will do.
2. Deluded people. A test will frighten these people. They cannot critically examine themselves so how can they let others do it? A few may submit.

Kimpatsu · 19th July 2006, 07:48 PM

As I wrote elsewhere in this forum, I try constantly to persuade soi-disant psychics to take the test. Apart from the usual "I don't jump through hoops on your command" (not even for $1 million?) and "I can't use my powers for personal gain" (so give the money to charity), the most common argument against taking the challenge is as follows:
It goes without saying that there is a large pool of genuine psychics in the world, any one of whom could win the money at any time. That no one has done so is proof enough that Randi is cheating. Ergo, why should I waste my time taking a test I know is rigged?
The notion that there is a large pool of genuine psychics who could win the challenge at any time, and amazement that no one has done so, was voiced by Angela Patel, the applicant from last year's failed test in London. In this belief, she is certainly not alone.

Godmode · 20th July 2006, 04:10 AM

I don't know where that "don't use psychic powers for personal gain" idea came from, since psychics always charge for their services, lol. I think it's an idea they themselves fostered to make them look good and honest as a group... same thing with the "He's a good christian" is supposed to mean "He's a good person" and it doesn't imply that at all in reality.

Kimpatsu · 29th July 2006, 07:03 PM

A corrollary to this idea that Randi must be rigging the challenge (see my post above) is that Randi refuses those applicants with paranormal claims most likely to succeed, such as Biblical text interpreters (e.g., Michael Drosnin) and aura readers (e.g., Donna Khouri).
Thus, the reasoning goes something like this:
It goes without saying that there is a large pool of genuine psychics in the world, any one of whom could easily win the $1 million at any time. That no one has ever done so is evidence enough that Randi must be cheating, as he has two levels of cheating: either he denies the application outright (pattern-seekers), or he somehow (by sleight of hand or using "psychic doping") prevents the claimant from succeeding on the day.
Get out of that one without moving your lips...

Kimpatsu · 29th July 2006, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by Godmode

I don't know where that "don't use psychic powers for personal gain" idea came from, since psychics always charge for their services, lol. I think it's an idea they themselves fostered to make them look good and honest as a group... same thing with the "He's a good christian" is supposed to mean "He's a good person" and it doesn't imply that at all in reality.

From what I understand, Sylvia Browne and her ilk claim you're paying for their time; the "gift" comes free.
Which is how prostitutes advertise their services in my local paper...

T'ai Chi · 29th July 2006, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by Rasmus

As of late, I have taken to ask several woos to go and grab Randi's Million if they really believe that what they claim is true. Needless to say, I wasn't successful - and I really was just doing it to get my point across better.

Still, I was wondering what I could do or say to get people to at least look into it. Any ideas?

By "go and grab" you really mean "agree to a challenge, one which the challenge offerer 'always has an out'" ?

RemieV · 29th July 2006, 08:01 PM

I'm not sure if people realize they're actually frauds or not. Sometimes I really doubt it. People become so convinced that they are special somehow that it takes a lot to shake the notion.

As to how to convince someone... I would say a good approach would be to say how sure you are they'll be the ones to win. Add that this will be a smack in the face for the scientific community, and they can use the opportunity to spread their good works. In other words, appeal to their vanity.

Temporal Renegade · 30th July 2006, 05:17 AM

Originally Posted by Kimpatsu

From what I understand, Sylvia Browne and her ilk claim you're paying for their time; the "gift" comes free.
Which is how prostitutes advertise their services in my local paper...

Either way, you're still getting [rule 8]ed....

My favourite, is still the "I don't NEED $1,000,000!" approach; unless you're Donald Trump, I can't think of too many 'regular people' who wouldn't take a million, if they could.

Plus, there's still the prestige of being able to say, "I beat Randi!" at every turn.

Oh, wait, I forgot...the Challenge is rigged! Man, how dare Randi do that! Create a challenge that requires you to have real paranormal skills...

T'ai Chi · 30th July 2006, 07:31 AM

I guess people have the right to go the standard route of science if they choose: Peer review, journals, panels of scientists, that sort of thing, than to be reviewed by a magician and associates, known to be hostile to their claims, in a challenge that 'always has an out', for entertainment.

Donks · 30th July 2006, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

I guess people have the right to go the standard route of science if they choose: Peer review, journals, panels of scientists, that sort of thing, than to be reviewed by a magician and associates, known to be hostile to their claims, in a challenge that 'always has an out', for entertainment.

So, how would this "out" be used? Is having a protocol both parties agree to an "out"? How about having agreed ahead of time what constitutes success? Or perhaps the out is that applicants can't do what they claim?

Beady · 30th July 2006, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by Rasmus

Still, I was wondering what I could do or say to get people to at least look into it. Any ideas?

My own idea, which I mentioned to Jeff a couple of months ago, is to form a small group of both skeptics and believers, for the sole purpose of helping people design protocols for the Challenge, and to assist in the actual testing. A central feature is that those members of the group who participate in a successful challenge will share in the prize.

The idea is that the skeptics and believers will "keep each other honest," and even the skeptics would have a motive to actively assist the applicant/claimant.

T'ai Chi · 30th July 2006, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by Donks

So, how would this "out" be used? Is having a protocol both parties agree to an "out"? How about having agreed ahead of time what constitutes success? Or perhaps the out is that applicants can't do what they claim?

Always have an out seems itself to be an out.

I'll_buy_that · 30th July 2006, 09:05 AM

The, "I can't do it for personal gain" thing comes from the usually challenge of "If your so psychic, then why don't you predict tomorrow's lottery numbers..." it is a convenient out because they know they can't do it.

Usually the self deluded individuals will convince themselves that this is true, because everytime they try, it doesn't work. But the crap they tell in others' fortunes is true.

give them the, "Just tell me what the numbers are. I will play the lottery and not give you any of the money...." doesn't work either

Paul2 · 30th July 2006, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

I guess people have the right to go the standard route of science if they choose: Peer review, journals, panels of scientists, that sort of thing, than to be reviewed by a magician and associates, known to be hostile to their claims, in a challenge that 'always has an out', for entertainment.

You're misinterpreting empirical rigor for hostility and an "out," and you're misinterpreting $1,000,000 for entertainment.

nathan · 30th July 2006, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

By "go and grab" you really mean "agree to a challenge, one which the challenge offerer 'always has an out'" ?

Can you provide evidence of this 'out' to which you refer?

T'ai Chi · 30th July 2006, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by Paul2

You're misinterpreting empirical rigor for hostility and an "out," and you're misinterpreting $1,000,000 for entertainment.

The Challenge is entertainment though.

T'ai Chi · 30th July 2006, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by nathan

Can you provide evidence of this 'out' to which you refer?

Use the internet.

CFLarsen · 30th July 2006, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Always have an out seems itself to be an out.

Yes: The "out" is that Randi believes he is right. All people have to do is show that they are right.

Do you think the Challenge is in any way unfair to claimants?

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Use the internet.

Oh, please. Would you accept that kind of snooty response from other people?

nathan · 30th July 2006, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Use the internet.

I *did* use the internet. I communicated with the *you* via the message board that *you* posted your claim to. If you think I should communicate with you via some other internet protocol, please provide details. I'm using the internet right now.

T'ai Chi · 30th July 2006, 03:01 PM

Did you do a search?

nathan · 31st July 2006, 05:20 AM

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Did you do a search?

Yes, I did a highly focussed search by asking *you*, the author of the statement concerning an 'out', what the evidence of this 'out' was. It seems you're unable to provide such evidence.

GzuzKryzt · 31st July 2006, 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by nathan

Yes, I did a highly focussed search by asking *you*, the author of the statement concerning an 'out', what the evidence of this 'out' was. It seems you're unable to provide such evidence.

Nathan, I suppose Mr. Chi participates in this thread because he thrives on friction caused by his actions. By my experience, he pops up in the Challenge Forum when he feels like it and does his Chi-T'hing.
That doesn't disqualify him from contributing productively. It just does not seem to happen very often.

drkitten · 31st July 2006, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

I guess people have the right to go the standard route of science if they choose: Peer review, journals, panels of scientists, that sort of thing,

Of course.

On the other hand, their success in that area is not measurably better than it is in Randi's challenge, and the immediate rewards are substantially less.

CFLarsen · 31st July 2006, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

I guess people have the right to go the standard route of science if they choose: Peer review, journals, panels of scientists, that sort of thing, than to be reviewed by a magician and associates, known to be hostile to their claims, in a challenge that 'always has an out', for entertainment.

Sure they have.

Only, we don't see that, either.

Ririon · 31st July 2006, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

By "go and grab" you really mean "agree to a challenge, one which the challenge offerer 'always has an out'" ?

It should be noted that the last four words here are in single quotes, indicating that they are not T'ai Chi's own words, per se. So if pushed into a corner about this, he actually has an... out...

T'ai Chi · 31st July 2006, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by Ririon

It should be noted that the last four words here are in single quotes, indicating that they are not T'ai Chi's own words, per se. So if pushed into a corner about this, he actually has an... out...

Yup.

T'ai Chi · 31st July 2006, 10:11 AM

"he pops up in the Challenge Forum when he feels like it"

And...? Doesn't everybody do that?

Ladewig · 31st July 2006, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

I guess people have the right to go the standard route of science if they choose: Peer review, journals, panels of scientists, that sort of thing, than to be reviewed by a magician and associates, known to be hostile to their claims, in a challenge that 'always has an out', for entertainment.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Sure they have.

Only, we don't see that, either.

Larsen beat me to it. So, T'ai Chi, where will we find the scientific journals that have published Sylvia Brown's peer-reviewed performances? How about James Van Praag's?

T'ai Chi · 31st July 2006, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by nathan

Yes, I did a highly focussed search by asking *you*, the author of the statement concerning an 'out', what the evidence of this 'out' was. It seems you're unable to provide such evidence.

*Did* *you* *use* *Google*?

drkitten · 31st July 2006, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

*Did* *you* *use* *Google*?

There's no reason for him to needlessly re-invent wheels. If you've got evidence of underhanded or unfair dealings on Randi's part, present it.

I suspect that you have no evidence and are hoping to send your critics on a wild goose chase in search of stuff that you don't yourself have. But of course, it would be easy enough to prove me wrong by just showing your cards.

nathan · 31st July 2006, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

*Did* *you* *use* *Google*?

Ah, you want me to go find your evidence for you.

This search
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...e+Search&meta=
produces 71 hits. Now, I'm going to take a wild guess here, and presume that the very first one is your evidence (given you've just told me to go use google to search for this 'always has an out' evidence).

You are mistaken -- that web page has nothing to do with the JREF challenge. If you have better evidence, please provide it.

Yahzi · 31st July 2006, 10:56 AM

When asked for evidence, your response is...

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Use the internet.

Are you sure you aren't Claus Larsen's sock-puppet?

We're not going to Google for your idiot evidence. If you can't understand the evidence well enough to present it yourself, or don't care enough about it to summarize and provide a link, then the evidence must not be very good. If it can't motivate you to talk about it, it doesn't seem likely it will motivate us.

I think one of the few things that can get you banned on this board is repeatedly claiming the challenge is a fraud without supplying evidence. So please, continue: you won't be missed.

nathan · 31st July 2006, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Yup.

Are you now disagreeing with your original rewording of "go and grab", which I quote in full for you here?

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

By "go and grab" you really mean "agree to a challenge, one which the challenge offerer 'always has an out'" ?

Ririon · 31st July 2006, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Yup.

So, I can only assume that you choose to refer to the common out-of-context quote "I always have an out" by Randi, which is of course completely irrelevant to actually having an out in this context. A regular T'ai Chi-ism if I ever saw one.

GzuzKryzt · 31st July 2006, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

"he pops up in the Challenge Forum when he feels like it"

And...? Doesn't everybody do that?

No.

T'ai Chi · 31st July 2006, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by GzuzKryzt

No.

People don't browse forums when they feel like it?

That's news.

18th July 2006, 04:49 PM	#1
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,138	How to get people to accept the challenge? As of late, I have taken to ask several woos to go and grab Randi's Million if they really believe that what they claim is true. Needless to say, I wasn't successful - and I really was just doing it to get my point across better. Still, I was wondering what I could do or say to get people to at least look into it. Any ideas?
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,138

18th July 2006, 05:52 PM	#3
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,138	Originally Posted by rustytunes I have just convinced a "psychic" into doing the Australian Skeptics challenge. Although it is very early days and nothing has happened yet, but she has accepted. My angle was that she could be the one who sets the benchmark which will allow the "frauds" to be weeded out of the industry. I had to get her to agree that the industry is rife with frauds, and something needs to be done for the benefit of the "genuine" psychics, and their clients. Nice! The on-line argument I am engaged in right now (well, I still am, I am not so sure about my counterpart) is about the miraculous mechanisms of homoeopathy, though. I'm afraid they have never heard of "frauds" in that filed. (It's a slim chance at best, anyway - she's just a customer of a bunch of quacks and not a quack herself ...)
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,138

19th July 2006, 07:48 PM	#6
Kimpatsu Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Tokyo Posts: 3,145	As I wrote elsewhere in this forum, I try constantly to persuade soi-disant psychics to take the test. Apart from the usual "I don't jump through hoops on your command" (not even for $1 million?) and "I can't use my powers for personal gain" (so give the money to charity), the most common argument against taking the challenge is as follows: It goes without saying that there is a large pool of genuine psychics in the world, any one of whom could win the money at any time. That no one has done so is proof enough that Randi is cheating. Ergo, why should I waste my time taking a test I know is rigged? The notion that there is a large pool of genuine psychics who could win the challenge at any time, and amazement that no one has done so, was voiced by Angela Patel, the applicant from last year's failed test in London. In this belief, she is certainly not alone.
	__________________ Tony Kehoe "Most people, I believe, think that you need a God to explain the existence of the world, and especially the existence of life. They are wrong, but our education system is such that many people don't know it. "--Richard Dawkins

29th July 2006, 07:03 PM	#8
Kimpatsu Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Tokyo Posts: 3,145	A corrollary to this idea that Randi must be rigging the challenge (see my post above) is that Randi refuses those applicants with paranormal claims most likely to succeed, such as Biblical text interpreters (e.g., Michael Drosnin) and aura readers (e.g., Donna Khouri). Thus, the reasoning goes something like this: It goes without saying that there is a large pool of genuine psychics in the world, any one of whom could easily win the $1 million at any time. That no one has ever done so is evidence enough that Randi must be cheating, as he has two levels of cheating: either he denies the application outright (pattern-seekers), or he somehow (by sleight of hand or using "psychic doping") prevents the claimant from succeeding on the day. Get out of that one without moving your lips...
	__________________ Tony Kehoe "Most people, I believe, think that you need a God to explain the existence of the world, and especially the existence of life. They are wrong, but our education system is such that many people don't know it. "--Richard Dawkins

29th July 2006, 07:04 PM	#9
Kimpatsu Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Tokyo Posts: 3,145	Originally Posted by Godmode I don't know where that "don't use psychic powers for personal gain" idea came from, since psychics always charge for their services, lol. I think it's an idea they themselves fostered to make them look good and honest as a group... same thing with the "He's a good christian" is supposed to mean "He's a good person" and it doesn't imply that at all in reality. From what I understand, Sylvia Browne and her ilk claim you're paying for their time; the "gift" comes free. Which is how prostitutes advertise their services in my local paper...
	__________________ Tony Kehoe "Most people, I believe, think that you need a God to explain the existence of the world, and especially the existence of life. They are wrong, but our education system is such that many people don't know it. "--Richard Dawkins

18th July 2006, 05:41 PM	#2
rustytunes Thinker Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 236	I have just convinced a "psychic" into doing the Australian Skeptics challenge. Although it is very early days and nothing has happened yet, but she has accepted. My angle was that she could be the one who sets the benchmark which will allow the "frauds" to be weeded out of the industry. I had to get her to agree that the industry is rife with frauds, and something needs to be done for the benefit of the "genuine" psychics, and their clients.

19th July 2006, 12:33 AM	#4
Bruno Putzeys Thinker Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Belgium Posts: 157	The closest I came to drawing someone across was with a salesman who saw auras. As usual he said he didn't want to use his gift for personal gain. (Surprising is, knowing the chap, he probably did not copy this line from others so he must've made it up on the spot. Would this rationalisation be hardwired?) I explained that not doing the test would be the most selfish thing he could possibly do. We were visiting his native Rwanda and I pointed out that he would be spending the million on development projects here. Additionally he could once and for all blast those pesky skeptics out of the water and open up a complete new field of science that had hitherto been hidden. Not sure if he applied yet, tho.

19th July 2006, 04:58 AM	#5
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 17,166	These people fall under two categories 1. They know it does not work. So no way will they submit to any realistic test. Any excuse not to do the test will do. 2. Deluded people. A test will frighten these people. They cannot critically examine themselves so how can they let others do it? A few may submit.

20th July 2006, 04:10 AM	#7
Godmode Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: UK Posts: 495	I don't know where that "don't use psychic powers for personal gain" idea came from, since psychics always charge for their services, lol. I think it's an idea they themselves fostered to make them look good and honest as a group... same thing with the "He's a good christian" is supposed to mean "He's a good person" and it doesn't imply that at all in reality.

29th July 2006, 07:19 PM	#10
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,235	Originally Posted by Rasmus As of late, I have taken to ask several woos to go and grab Randi's Million if they really believe that what they claim is true. Needless to say, I wasn't successful - and I really was just doing it to get my point across better. Still, I was wondering what I could do or say to get people to at least look into it. Any ideas? By "go and grab" you really mean "agree to a challenge, one which the challenge offerer 'always has an out'" ?
	__________________ http://www.statisticool.com

29th July 2006, 08:01 PM	#11
RemieV Lostie, Pirate, Snape Lover Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,217	I'm not sure if people realize they're actually frauds or not. Sometimes I really doubt it. People become so convinced that they are special somehow that it takes a lot to shake the notion. As to how to convince someone... I would say a good approach would be to say how sure you are they'll be the ones to win. Add that this will be a smack in the face for the scientific community, and they can use the opportunity to spread their good works. In other words, appeal to their vanity.

30th July 2006, 05:17 AM	#12
Temporal Renegade Last of the Time Lords Join Date: May 2003 Location: University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople Posts: 1,893	Originally Posted by Kimpatsu From what I understand, Sylvia Browne and her ilk claim you're paying for their time; the "gift" comes free. Which is how prostitutes advertise their services in my local paper... Either way, you're still getting [rule 8]ed.... My favourite, is still the "I don't NEED $1,000,000!" approach; unless you're Donald Trump, I can't think of too many 'regular people' who wouldn't take a million, if they could. Plus, there's still the prestige of being able to say, "I beat Randi!" at every turn. Oh, wait, I forgot...the Challenge is rigged! Man, how dare Randi do that! Create a challenge that requires you to have real paranormal skills...
	__________________ "Attention please..... a child has been lost in the Tunnel of Goats......" .......FATHER TED

30th July 2006, 07:31 AM	#13
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,235	I guess people have the right to go the standard route of science if they choose: Peer review, journals, panels of scientists, that sort of thing, than to be reviewed by a magician and associates, known to be hostile to their claims, in a challenge that 'always has an out', for entertainment.
	__________________ http://www.statisticool.com

30th July 2006, 08:45 AM	#14
Donks vBulletin God Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 3,321	Originally Posted by T'ai Chi I guess people have the right to go the standard route of science if they choose: Peer review, journals, panels of scientists, that sort of thing, than to be reviewed by a magician and associates, known to be hostile to their claims, in a challenge that 'always has an out', for entertainment. So, how would this "out" be used? Is having a protocol both parties agree to an "out"? How about having agreed ahead of time what constitutes success? Or perhaps the out is that applicants can't do what they claim?
Donks vBulletin God Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 3,321

30th July 2006, 08:54 AM	#15
Beady Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: 44:57:19N, 73:16:18W Posts: 5,490	Originally Posted by Rasmus Still, I was wondering what I could do or say to get people to at least look into it. Any ideas? My own idea, which I mentioned to Jeff a couple of months ago, is to form a small group of both skeptics and believers, for the sole purpose of helping people design protocols for the Challenge, and to assist in the actual testing. A central feature is that those members of the group who participate in a successful challenge will share in the prize. The idea is that the skeptics and believers will "keep each other honest," and even the skeptics would have a motive to actively assist the applicant/claimant.
	__________________ I tolerate with utmost latitude the right of others to differ with me in opinion without imputing to them criminality. I know too well all the weaknesses and uncertainty of human reason to wonder at its different results. -- Thomas Jefferson

30th July 2006, 08:59 AM	#16
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,235	Originally Posted by Donks So, how would this "out" be used? Is having a protocol both parties agree to an "out"? How about having agreed ahead of time what constitutes success? Or perhaps the out is that applicants can't do what they claim? Always have an out seems itself to be an out.
	__________________ http://www.statisticool.com

30th July 2006, 09:05 AM	#17
I'll_buy_that Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 384	The, "I can't do it for personal gain" thing comes from the usually challenge of "If your so psychic, then why don't you predict tomorrow's lottery numbers..." it is a convenient out because they know they can't do it. Usually the self deluded individuals will convince themselves that this is true, because everytime they try, it doesn't work. But the crap they tell in others' fortunes is true. give them the, "Just tell me what the numbers are. I will play the lottery and not give you any of the money...." doesn't work either
	__________________ "Religion has convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll to to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you! ...he loves you and he needs money! He's all powerful, all knowing, and all capable but he just can't handle money!" -George Carlin

30th July 2006, 10:27 AM	#18
Paul2 Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1,486	Originally Posted by T'ai Chi I guess people have the right to go the standard route of science if they choose: Peer review, journals, panels of scientists, that sort of thing, than to be reviewed by a magician and associates, known to be hostile to their claims, in a challenge that 'always has an out', for entertainment. You're misinterpreting empirical rigor for hostility and an "out," and you're misinterpreting $1,000,000 for entertainment.
Paul2 Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1,486

30th July 2006, 10:31 AM	#19
nathan Zygoticly Phased Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Arkham City Posts: 3,148	Originally Posted by T'ai Chi By "go and grab" you really mean "agree to a challenge, one which the challenge offerer 'always has an out'" ? Can you provide evidence of this 'out' to which you refer?

30th July 2006, 01:56 PM	#20
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,235	Originally Posted by Paul2 You're misinterpreting empirical rigor for hostility and an "out," and you're misinterpreting $1,000,000 for entertainment. The Challenge is entertainment though.
	__________________ http://www.statisticool.com

30th July 2006, 01:57 PM	#21
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,235	Originally Posted by nathan Can you provide evidence of this 'out' to which you refer? Use the internet.
	__________________ http://www.statisticool.com

30th July 2006, 02:04 PM	#22
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Originally Posted by T'ai Chi Always have an out seems itself to be an out. Yes: The "out" is that Randi believes he is right. All people have to do is show that they are right. Do you think the Challenge is in any way unfair to claimants? Originally Posted by T'ai Chi Use the internet. Oh, please. Would you accept that kind of snooty response from other people?
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

30th July 2006, 02:48 PM	#23
nathan Zygoticly Phased Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Arkham City Posts: 3,148	Originally Posted by T'ai Chi Use the internet. I did use the internet. I communicated with the you via the message board that you posted your claim to. If you think I should communicate with you via some other internet protocol, please provide details. I'm using the internet right now.

30th July 2006, 03:01 PM	#24
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,235	Did you do a search?
	__________________ http://www.statisticool.com

31st July 2006, 05:20 AM	#25
nathan Zygoticly Phased Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Arkham City Posts: 3,148	Originally Posted by T'ai Chi Did you do a search? Yes, I did a highly focussed search by asking you, the author of the statement concerning an 'out', what the evidence of this 'out' was. It seems you're unable to provide such evidence.

31st July 2006, 07:00 AM	#26
GzuzKryzt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 6,367	Originally Posted by nathan Yes, I did a highly focussed search by asking you, the author of the statement concerning an 'out', what the evidence of this 'out' was. It seems you're unable to provide such evidence. Nathan, I suppose Mr. Chi participates in this thread because he thrives on friction caused by his actions. By my experience, he pops up in the Challenge Forum when he feels like it and does his Chi-T'hing. That doesn't disqualify him from contributing productively. It just does not seem to happen very often.
GzuzKryzt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 6,367

31st July 2006, 07:31 AM	#27
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by T'ai Chi I guess people have the right to go the standard route of science if they choose: Peer review, journals, panels of scientists, that sort of thing, Of course. On the other hand, their success in that area is not measurably better than it is in Randi's challenge, and the immediate rewards are substantially less.

31st July 2006, 07:36 AM	#28
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Originally Posted by T'ai Chi I guess people have the right to go the standard route of science if they choose: Peer review, journals, panels of scientists, that sort of thing, than to be reviewed by a magician and associates, known to be hostile to their claims, in a challenge that 'always has an out', for entertainment. Sure they have. Only, we don't see that, either.
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

31st July 2006, 09:52 AM	#29
Ririon Cool cat Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Trondheim, Norway Posts: 2,063	Originally Posted by T'ai Chi By "go and grab" you really mean "agree to a challenge, one which the challenge offerer 'always has an out'" ? It should be noted that the last four words here are in single quotes, indicating that they are not T'ai Chi's own words, per se. So if pushed into a corner about this, he actually has an... out...
	__________________ Engineer by day, scientist by night.

31st July 2006, 10:10 AM	#30
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,235	Originally Posted by Ririon It should be noted that the last four words here are in single quotes, indicating that they are not T'ai Chi's own words, per se. So if pushed into a corner about this, he actually has an... out... Yup.
	__________________ http://www.statisticool.com

31st July 2006, 10:11 AM	#31
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,235	"he pops up in the Challenge Forum when he feels like it" And...? Doesn't everybody do that?
	__________________ http://www.statisticool.com

31st July 2006, 10:12 AM	#32
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,786	Originally Posted by T'ai Chi I guess people have the right to go the standard route of science if they choose: Peer review, journals, panels of scientists, that sort of thing, than to be reviewed by a magician and associates, known to be hostile to their claims, in a challenge that 'always has an out', for entertainment. Originally Posted by CFLarsen Sure they have. Only, we don't see that, either. Larsen beat me to it. So, T'ai Chi, where will we find the scientific journals that have published Sylvia Brown's peer-reviewed performances? How about James Van Praag's?

31st July 2006, 10:37 AM	#34
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by T'ai Chi Did you use Google? There's no reason for him to needlessly re-invent wheels. If you've got evidence of underhanded or unfair dealings on Randi's part, present it. I suspect that you have no evidence and are hoping to send your critics on a wild goose chase in search of stuff that you don't yourself have. But of course, it would be easy enough to prove me wrong by just showing your cards.

31st July 2006, 10:54 AM	#35
nathan Zygoticly Phased Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Arkham City Posts: 3,148	Originally Posted by T'ai Chi Did you use Google? Ah, you want me to go find your evidence for you. This search http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...e+Search&meta= produces 71 hits. Now, I'm going to take a wild guess here, and presume that the very first one is your evidence (given you've just told me to go use google to search for this 'always has an out' evidence). You are mistaken -- that web page has nothing to do with the JREF challenge. If you have better evidence, please provide it.

31st July 2006, 10:56 AM	#36
Yahzi Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: AZ Posts: 2,672	When asked for evidence, your response is... Originally Posted by T'ai Chi Use the internet. Are you sure you aren't Claus Larsen's sock-puppet? We're not going to Google for your idiot evidence. If you can't understand the evidence well enough to present it yourself, or don't care enough about it to summarize and provide a link, then the evidence must not be very good. If it can't motivate you to talk about it, it doesn't seem likely it will motivate us. I think one of the few things that can get you banned on this board is repeatedly claiming the challenge is a fraud without supplying evidence. So please, continue: you won't be missed.
	__________________ ID lives in a cardboard refrigerator box and throws rocks through the windows of evolution's unfinished mansion. ---Beleth Buy my book! www.WorldOfPrime.com