# Ask the Randi $1M challenge applicant **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 28, 2006, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-randi-1m-challenge-applicant/378265 "2006-10-28T20:04:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2006, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-randi-1m-challenge-applicant/378265/41 "2006-10-28T22:41:35Z")
[QUOTE=treis] [QUOTE=Peter Morris] A couple problems I see: (1) Water flows in underground rivers is not a scientific theory. It is a statement of fact. [/QUOTE] Not a question. I’m not going to argue. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2006, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-randi-1m-challenge-applicant/378265/42 "2006-10-28T22:44:42Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] [QUOTE=treis] Not a question. I’m not going to argue. [/QUOTE] Bleh fine. Let me rephrase my objections: 1. Water flows in underground rivers is not a scientific theory. It is a statement of fact. Scientific theories attempt to explain a set of facts, they are not simple sets of facts. Since “water flows in underground rivers” is a simple statement of fact, how does it qualify as a scientific theory? (2) Your argument is: Randi thinks A is B. Randi thinks my theory is B. Therefore he thinks my theory is A. In other words, you have shown (assuming your account is accurate) that Randi considers psuedoscience to be junk, and you have also shown that Randi thinks your theory is junk. What you have yet to prove is that Randi believes all junk scientific theories to be paranormal, or that he believes your particular brand of junk science to be paranormal. Do you have any evidence that Randi believes all junk scientific theories to be paranormal, or that he believes your particular “theory” to be paranormal? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2006, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-randi-1m-challenge-applicant/378265/43 "2006-10-28T22:56:47Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] 1)vast - no, that’s Randi’s word not mine. 1. tappable - yes 2. rivers - yes and no. To be exact, the correct term is _channels_. Some channels are rivers, many aren’t. But I contend that some water exists in narrow channels flowing underground. Sink a well into the channel and get hundreds or thousands of gallons per minute. Sink a well either side of the channel, just a few metres away, and you might only get two or three gallons per minute. [/QUOTE] I have read your application more closely now, so thanks for indulging me. In the light of **treis’** post just above, you seem to have committed the logical fallacy of _affirming the consequent_, which is a _non sequiter_. Simply stated, if A then B; B, therefore A. If that is not the case, why not? > [@](#): > > Have done. But perhaps you could wait longer than 18 minutes for an answer before losing your temper. The question seemed perfectly calm to me. What about it suggested a loss of temper? > [@](#): > > Phony scientific theories have always been eligible for the challenge. Example : [James Randi's Swift - June 9, 2006](http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-06/060906just.html#i4) > > The person here is not challenged to show a supernatural power. He is challenged to prove that his bogus theory is true. That is not exactlyn answering my question, is it? My question was in response to your first axiom, which claims that Randi has **defined theories** as being paranormal. Can you provide a direct cite for that, rather than an inference on your part? To re-ask a previous question, if the phony \*theories themselves \*are in fact, by definition, evidence of paranormal, wouldn’t the Challenge have been won already? ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2006, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-randi-1m-challenge-applicant/378265/44 "2006-10-28T23:01:46Z")
[QUOTE=Oakminster] Quick prediction: Randi does not accept your application, you feel outraged and/or vindicated. The world continues to revolve. I know it ain’t a question. [/QUOTE] True, but I’ll answer it anyway. That won’t happen. Randi is well known as a man of honour. I’ve had long discussions with **Priceguy** and others of his ilk, and I’ve become wholly convinced of that. Once Randi has issued a challenge, it’s issued and he won’t back away from it. He’s committed, both morally and legally. The challenge is a legally binding contract from which he can’t run away, even if he wanted to. And he wouldn’t even if he could. After all, if he did so, his reputation would be shot. Nobody would ever be able to take him seriously again. If there were just one example of Randi making a challenge, then backing out then his challenge is rendered pointless. Every time he issues a dare, the person so challenged would just say “why should I bother? Randi challenged Peter Morris then backed out, he’ll just do the same to me” and Randi would have no come back. Of course, it is never going to come to that. Ask **Priceguy,** or possibly **Princhester** who will surely be along soon. They will tell you how honourable Randi is. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2006, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-randi-1m-challenge-applicant/378265/45 "2006-10-28T23:04:39Z")
Umm, Pete? He’s refused applications before. Several times. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2006, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-randi-1m-challenge-applicant/378265/46 "2006-10-28T23:08:25Z")
[QUOTE=treis] [QUOTE=Peter Morris] Bleh fine. Let me rephrase my objections: 1. Water flows in underground rivers is not a scientific theory. It is a statement of fact. Scientific theories attempt to explain a set of facts, they are not simple sets of facts. Since “water flows in underground rivers” is a simple statement of fact, how does it qualify as a scientific theory? [/QUOTE] That’s just a word game. Perhaps “theory” is the wrong word. I’m not going to argue. Insert the word of your choice. This challenge here starts with the scientific [theory/ statement of fact] that magnetism changes the taste of wine. [James Randi's Swift - June 9, 2006](http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-06/060906just.html#i4) Randi does not believe that [theory/ statement of fact] and demands they prove it. My claim is a similar [theory/ statement of fact] that Randi does not believe, and has challenged me to prove. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2006, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-randi-1m-challenge-applicant/378265/47 "2006-10-28T23:23:28Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] [QUOTE=treis] That’s just a word game. Perhaps “theory” is the wrong word. I’m not going to argue. Insert the word of your choice. This challenge here starts with the scientific [theory/ statement of fact] that magnetism changes the taste of wine. [James Randi's Swift - June 9, 2006](http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-06/060906just.html#i4) Randi does not believe that [theory/ statement of fact] and demands they prove it. My claim is a similar [theory/ statement of fact] that Randi does not believe, and has challenged me to prove. [/QUOTE] No, there is a big difference between a fact and a theory. The relevant definitions of the two words are: > [@](#): > > Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. > [@](#): > > Fact: Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed If you agree with these definitions, can you please show how the statement “Underground rivers exist” meets the requirements of a theory, if not, can you provide your definitions? ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2006, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-randi-1m-challenge-applicant/378265/48 "2006-10-28T23:24:09Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] Simply stated, if A then B; B, therefore A. If that is not the case, why not? [/quote] wrong way round. Actually: If A then B. A, therefore B. or : If bogus science then paranormal. Bogus science (according to Randi) Therefore paranormal. > [@](#): > > That is not exactlyn answering my question, is it? My question was in response to your first axiom, which claims that Randi has **defined theories** as being paranormal. Can you provide a direct cite for that, rather than an inference on your part? To re-ask a previous question, if the phony \*theories themselves \*are in fact, by definition, evidence of paranormal, wouldn’t the Challenge have been won already? Let me answer that question with a question. read the challenge issued by Randi to the makers of the wine magnets. [James Randi's Swift - June 9, 2006](http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-06/060906just.html#i4) Now, just suppose the following happened: 1. Some wine buff took the challenge issued by Randi. 2. He said at the start “It’s not paranormal, it’s ordinary science that Randi doesn’t understand” 3. Qualified scientists agreed with that statement. 4. He proceeded to demonstrate that magnets DO change the taste of wine. 5. At the end he said “toldya, and I never said it was paranormal” Now, in the event of such a thing happening, would that guy be entitled to claim the prize? Even though he hasn’t done anything paranormal? Really, please do answer that question. Because my claim is exactly the same as that. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2006, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-randi-1m-challenge-applicant/378265/49 "2006-10-28T23:29:04Z")
[QUOTE=treis] [QUOTE=Peter Morris] If you agree with these definitions, can you please show how the statement “Underground rivers exist” meets the requirements of a theory, if not, can you provide your definitions? [/QUOTE] No, if you don’t agree that my claim is a bogus scientific theory, I’m perfectly happy to call it a bogus scientific statement of fact. It makes no difference. It’s just a label. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2006, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-randi-1m-challenge-applicant/378265/50 "2006-10-28T23:33:26Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] or : If bogus science then paranormal. [/QUOTE] The facts you provided don’t support that conclusion. You have shown that Randi thinks that pseudoscience is paranormal, but you have not shown that Randi considers all junk science to be pseudoscience or paranormal. Can you show where Randi has said that he considers all bogus science to be paranormal or pseudoscience? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2006, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-randi-1m-challenge-applicant/378265/51 "2006-10-28T23:37:48Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] [QUOTE=treis] No, if you don’t agree that my claim is a bogus scientific theory, I’m perfectly happy to call it a bogus scientific statement of fact. It makes no difference. It’s just a label. [/QUOTE] Good, so you have a statement of fact. Can you now show how the following is a statement of fact, and not a theory: > [@](#): > > The longer the chain is and the older the wine is. Our product is just a magnetizer. When a conductive fluid (in this case wine) passes through a magnetic field, an electrical charge is created. Our device is having a di-pole where the fluid will be cut through the magnetic field 90 degree with respect to the line of field. Once it is cut through the field, an ionization is induced on the molecules, hence each group of phenol will lose a hydrogen and have a (minus) charge. This effect will course [sic] the ionized groups of molecules to form a virtual chain which will be physically similar to the aged wine. I am specifically asking about phrases such as “Our device… [induces] an ionization on the molecules”. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2006, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-randi-1m-challenge-applicant/378265/52 "2006-10-28T23:38:24Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] [QUOTE=treis] That’s just a word game. Perhaps “theory” is the wrong word. I’m not going to argue. Insert the word of your choice. [/QUOTE] Bunkum? > [@](#): > > This challenge here starts with the scientific [theory/ statement of fact] that magnetism changes the taste of wine. [James Randi's Swift - June 9, 2006](http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-06/060906just.html#i4) > Randi does not believe that [theory/ statement of fact] and demands they prove it. > > My claim is a similar [theory/ statement of fact] that Randi does not believe, and has challenged me to prove. Well. If _theories_ are interchangeable with _statements of fact_, I’d say you are in like Flynn. **Priceguy** , you state that you have a history with **PM**. Can it be that he believes that Randi has directly challenged him, and that that constitutes acceptance of The Challenge? And that therefore, if his Challenge application is denied, Randi is therefore dishonest? Is acceptance of The Challenge solely the province of Randi? [QUOTE=Peter Morris] wrong way round. Actually: If A then B. A, therefore B. or : If bogus science then paranormal. Bogus science (according to Randi) Therefore paranormal. [/QUOTE] Fair enough I suppose. Now let’s concentrate on axiom 1, where you state that the he says that **theory itself is paranormal.** With absolutely no anger in my heart, I must stress that I have queried you on this numerous times, and you have failed to respond. Not that the _claims suggested by the theory_ are paranormal, but _the theory itself_. Can you show where he states that a **theory** is paranormal, rather than stating that a theory **describes** or **perdicts** the paranormal. Surely you want to revise that part of your axiom, no? > [@](#): > > Now, in the event of such a thing happening, would that guy be entitled to claim the prize? Even though he hasn’t done anything paranormal? > > Really, please do answer that question. Because my claim is exactly the same as that. I will post what I have so far, do as you requested, and get back to you. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2006, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-randi-1m-challenge-applicant/378265/53 "2006-10-28T23:38:44Z")
[QUOTE=treis] Can you show where Randi has said that he considers all bogus science to be paranormal or pseudoscience? [/QUOTE] I don’t need to. He has specifically issued a challenge to prove my claims. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2006, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-randi-1m-challenge-applicant/378265/54 "2006-10-28T23:40:38Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] I don’t need to. He has specifically issued a challenge to prove my claims. [/QUOTE] Can you show me in the following challenge rules where you believe that the challenge has been specifically extended to you?: > [@Challenge Rules](#): > > THE TWELVE OFFICIAL RULES GOVERNING THE JREF CHALLENGE: > > I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions. Such demonstration must take place under these rules and limitations. > > 1. This is the primary and most important of these rules: Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. NOTE: Prior to preliminary testing, an applicant may be required to provide three notarized affidavits from persons who have witnessed the claimed paranormal phenomenon. These witnesses must be educated working professionals such as doctors, nurses, therapists, researchers, psychologists, lawyers, educators etc. This last requirement may be either waived or required at the sole discretion of the JREF. This is the primary and most important of these rules. > 2. Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts of previous events are not accepted or considered. We consult competent statisticians when an evaluation of the results, or experiment design, is required. We have no interest in theories or explanations of how the claimed powers might work; if you provide us with such material, it will be ignored and discarded. > 3. Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.) gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by the JREF. > 4. No part of the testing procedure may be changed in any way without the agreement of all parties concerned. JR may be present at some preliminary or formal tests, but will not interact with the materials used. > 5. In all cases, applicant will be required to perform the preliminary test either before an appointed representative, if distance and time dictate that need, or in a location where a member of the JREF staff can attend. This preliminary test is to determine if the applicant is likely to perform as promised during a formal test. To date, no applicant has passed the preliminary test, and this has eliminated the need for formal testing in those cases. There is no limit on the number of times an applicant may re-apply, but re-application can take place only after 12 months have elapsed since the preliminary test. > 6. All of the applicant’s expenses such as transportation, accommodation, materials, assistants, and/or all other costs for any persons or procedures incurred in pursuit of the reward, are the sole responsibility of the applicant. Neither the JREF nor JR will bear any of the costs. > 7. When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial or professional loss, or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize. > 8. At the formal test, in advance, an independent person will be placed in charge of a personal check from James Randi for US$10,000. In the event that the claimant is successful under the agreed terms and conditions, that check shall be immediately surrendered to the claimant, and within ten days the James Randi Educational Foundation will pay to the claimant the remainder of the reward, for a total of US$1,000,000. One million dollars in negotiable bonds is held by an investment firm in New York, in the “James Randi Educational Foundation Prize Account” as surety for the prize funds. Validation of this account and its current status may be obtained by contacting the Foundation by telephone, fax, or e-mail. > 9. Copies of this form are available free of charge to any person who sends the required SSAE, marked on the outside, “Challenge Application,” requesting it, or it can be downloaded from the Internet, at [JREF - Home](http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html) > 10. This offer is made by James Randi through the JREF, on the behalf of no other person, agency or organization. Although others may become involved in the examination of claims and may add their reward money to the total in certain circumstances, James Randi (via the JREF) will carry out the implementation and management of the challenge. JREF will not entertain any demand that the prize money be deposited in escrow, displayed in cash, or otherwise produced in advance of the test being performed. JREF will not cater to such vanities. > 11. This offer is open to any and all persons, in any part of the world, regardless of gender, race, educational background, etc., and will continue in effect until the prize is awarded. Upon the death of James Randi, the administration of the prize will pass into other hands, and it is intended that it continue in force. > 12. EVERY APPLICANT MUST AGREE UPON WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A CONCLUSION THAT, ON THE OCCASION OF THE FORMAL TEST, HE OR SHE DID OR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CLAIMED ABILITY OR POWER. This form must be accompanied by a brief, two-paragraph description of what will constitute the demonstration. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2006, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-randi-1m-challenge-applicant/378265/55 "2006-10-28T23:40:46Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] Now, just suppose the following happened: 1. Some wine buff took the challenge issued by Randi. 2. He said at the start “It’s not paranormal, it’s ordinary science that Randi doesn’t understand” 3. Qualified scientists agreed with that statement. 4. He proceeded to demonstrate that magnets DO change the taste of wine. 5. At the end he said “toldya, and I never said it was paranormal” Now, in the event of such a thing happening, would that guy be entitled to claim the prize? Even though he hasn’t done anything paranormal? Really, please do answer that question. Because my claim is exactly the same as that. [/QUOTE] As I understand it, such a person would not be entitled to the prize. I’m making this guess based on a case from 1980, in which Arthur Lintgen could identify recordings through “[vinyl vision](http://skepdic.com/vinylvision.html)”. This wasn’t the million dollar challenge, though, so I can’t say for sure the same thing applies. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2006, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-randi-1m-challenge-applicant/378265/56 "2006-10-28T23:42:48Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] **Priceguy** , you state that you have a history with **PM**. Can it be that he believes that Randi has directly challenged him, and that that constitutes acceptance of The Challenge? [/QUOTE] I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking. Are you asking whether I believe **Peter Morris** to be truly honest-to-God delusional? I don’t think that’s an appropriate question to answer in MPSIMS. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2006, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-randi-1m-challenge-applicant/378265/57 "2006-10-28T23:43:57Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] Can you show where he states that a **theory** is paranormal, rather than stating that a theory [/QUOTE] This is not a serious question about my claim. It’s only a silly word game that I have played long enough. I’m here to answer questions, not argue. Asked and answered. Ask again, it will be ignored. ---
**Author:** ![brianjedi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3be4f8/32.png) [@brianjedi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianjedi)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2006, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-randi-1m-challenge-applicant/378265/58 "2006-10-28T23:51:32Z")
Here’s a question for you: what the hell have you been smoking, and where can I get some? ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2006, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-randi-1m-challenge-applicant/378265/59 "2006-10-28T23:52:27Z")
[QUOTE=treis] Can you show me in the following challenge rules where you believe that the challenge has been specifically extended to you?: [/QUOTE] Please stop misquoting me. I never claimed that he had challenged ME specifically. I’m saying that he challenges the specific claims I’m making. His challenge applies to ANYONE making those claims. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2006, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-randi-1m-challenge-applicant/378265/60 "2006-10-28T23:54:50Z")
[QUOTE=Priceguy] I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking. Are you asking whether I believe **Peter Morris** to be truly honest-to-God delusional? I don’t think that’s an appropriate question to answer in MPSIMS. [/QUOTE] No, not at all. Poorly phrased. In your experience, has he stated that Randi has issued a direct challenge to him? [QUOTE=Peter Morris] This is not a serious question about my claim. It’s only a silly word game that I have played long enough. I’m here to answer questions, not argue. Asked and answered. Ask again, it will be ignored. [/QUOTE] I shan’t ask it again, then. I will state that it has indeed been asked, but never answered, and offer as proof this statement of yours, with my emphasis – “axiom 1) “pseudoscience” ie phony scientific **theories** ARE paranormal by Randi’s definition.” As you have not chosen to amend said statement, I assume you stand by it. Further, if you can assert that difference between “theory” and “fact” is simply a “word game” or a “label,” I submit that your lexicon is insufficient to rigorous scientific inquisition. Still working on your previous request. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-randi-1m-challenge-applicant/378265.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-randi-1m-challenge-applicant/378265.md?page=4)