I am highly skeptical of any challenge of this nature - “prove this to me and I will give you something valuable” - only on the notion that in general people are pretty happy with their valuable things. The only complaints I have heard about his possible moving the goalposts have been from Peter Morris, though I haven’t agreed with him on any of them yet. OTOH, threads involving him have really been my only experience with such suggestions, so maybe other people with beefs have better arguments.
No, it’s because his supporters can’t shut the fuck up about him.
you show me one, just ONE thread where citing Randi was actually a useful thing to do.
Can you show me that anyone, ever, in the entire time he’s been doing it has had their mind changed by citing Randi’s challenge.
go on, I’ll wait.
Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way. You made the claim that discussions are always effectively brought to an end whenever Randi is cited. The burden is now upon you to support that claim. If you can’t do it, then you’ll need to retract your statement.
Peter Morris is, in regards to James Randi, an unreasonable person.
That said, it depends on the ‘not paranormal’ claims. If I claimed to be able to turn lead into gold via nonparanormal means, and gave them, and Mr. Randi was of the opinion that my explanation was, ah, not founded in science, then I would be eligible.
This is evident in his various discussions about audiophile tomfoolery, like the chip that, when placed on top of a CD player, improved the music. Because of (insert pseudoscientific gibberish here.)
If I claimed the gibberish was science, and he was of the opinion that it was not, I would be able to take the test.
If we were both of the opinion it was science, I would not.
If I was right, and he was wrong, I would be rich. Also, many people might be interested in this new branch of science I have found.
Another example where people claim they operate by scientific means is homeopathy. Mr. Randi believes, in his strange and evidence-based logic, that homeopathy is bullshit, and thus suitable for testing.
Breatharians are not, generally, eligable for testing, as they may harm themselves while trying. In the past, Mr. Randi has found them skipping out for burgers.
Peter’s claims were not paranormal, though. By his own admission.
I’m sure Randi doesn’t believe that anyone will claim his money. But not because his offer is a scam - it’s because he believes that the people making the claims are the scammers. If somebody told me they could hold their breath for an hour and I bet them a thousand dollars that they couldn’t, I’d be confident that my money was safe. But my offer would be real. It’s just that I’m very confident that they’re not going to win.
And this is the way I see Randi’s challenge. He is making a honest offer to pay a million dollars to anyone who beats his challenge. But he’s confident he won’t ever have to pay if off. Not because he’s cheating but because he believes the people who claim they can beat it are wrong.
Mangetout acknowledges this in the very first line of the quote you’re replying to.
however, and this is the important point, James Randi has spent 25 years saying that my claims ARE paranormal, and daring me or anyone to prove them.
I don’t think they are paranormal.
YOU don’t think they are paranormal.
None of his supporters agree with him, as far as I can see.
But he said it’s paranormal, he issued the challenge, and by his rules that makes it a legitimate claim.
Now, please stick to the subject in the OP, and stop changing the subject.
I think that’s true about anyone who makes one of these offers. For example, that guy who offered $50,000 to anyone who could prove that the Holocaust happened. I have no doubt that he honestly believes that the Holocaust is made up and therefore no real proof could exist.
I stand by my claim. Find me a counterexample. Put up or shut up.
Waiting…
Now it’s clear. Your abject failure to understand that the burden of proof is on the claimant not on a skeptic of the claim completely explains your inability to grasp the fundamental nature of the Randi Challenge. I think we’re done here.
You are the one making a claim, QED. You are claiming that there exists some discussions that have been useful after Randi was cited.
It’s up to you to prove it.
Now, perhaps you would stop trying to change the subject, and stick to the points raised in the OP.
I made no such claim, you liar. And even if I did, you made a claim first. Even if I made such a claim, any burden on me to support it does not relieve you of the burden to support yours.
Crosspost…
I have to disagree with you Peter. I have a copy of posts I made on 5/1/2001 and 5/3/2001 where I brought up Randi’s challenge without ill effects. Too bad about that wonky search engine.
More generally, I think Randi’s challenge offers fairly deep insight into the nature of reality. Some have said that the challenge has persuaded nobody: not so. Before I learned of his challenge, I thought that there was a distinct possibility that some form of ESP existed, though it wasn’t probable and its existence was somewhat obscure. For example, I thought that a culturally embedded Indian swami might have powers that were not particularly well understood.
Now, my opinion is that weird beliefs are most probably delusions or misperceptions, occasionally abetted by misdirection.
Let’s look a thread from last month:
Anaamika: I was cold-read by a pyschic - how’d he do it?
[[ Lots of citations and commentary follow. ]]
Aeschines: Defends ESPers by pointing to the Ganzfeld experiments and their skeptics. Ably.
MfM: Mentions Randi prize, noting that the effects must be very small.
Aeschines: “Noooooooooooooo!
Oh, how we’ve “been there, done that” on the SDMB!”
Princhester: “What does this mean?”
MfM: "It means he has to cite the SDMB threads he has in mind. 
"
Aeschines: "Which is greater in number? SDMB threads about the Randi challenge or threads about .9 repeating = 1? "
Princhester: “The conclusion of those threads would seem more relevant than their number.”
And that was all. I didn’t see any thread derailing. Though I did see further discussion of the Ganzfeld results.
So, QED, If I claim that there are no purple cows, it’s up to me to prove it? And if you disagree, then you have no burden of proof to your claim?
Is that what you think?
Straightforward question for you. Just answer yes or no.
Have you ever seen a thread where citing Randi had a positive effect? One where anyone has changed their mind upon hearing about Randi’s test.
Now, as for calling me a liar, you may not have directly said such a thing exists, but you certainly implied it. how about you come right out and say it, if that’s what you believe.
The 2nd claim seems different than the first. Do I detect an ambulant goalpost?
It’s very rare that people publicly state that their minds have been changed within any thread. In my own case, I generally like to reflect upon new information for a few days before adjusting my paradigm. At which point the thread is typically buried.
Again though, I report that my understanding of the world at least was altered by Randi’s test.
I would not disagree with a claim asserting the absence of something so obviously ridiculous. If someone did disagree then, yes, the burden is on you to provide support (note, “support” not “proof”) for the claim.
You’re right. There are certainly people who are making “challenges” but deliberately setting the bar so high or moving the goalpost in order to make false claims of proof for their position. But Randi is not part of this crowd; he has clearly outlined what the rules are and it is possible for somebody to beat his challenge if they have the powers that many people claim to have. The failures lie in the falsehood of the claims not in any falsehood in the challenge.
No, I really doubt that James Randi has spent more then two minutes in the last twenty five years thinking about your existence. The level of your obsession with the man doesn’t indicate that it’s reciprocated.