Not as far as I remember, no.
Fine, please show me in those rules where he extends a specific challenge to prove your specific claims.
Emphasis mine.
Well, that’s a pretty big flaw in the concept of the challenge then, isn’t it? Nice little scam Randi has going there, if you’re right. Randi says “I don’t believe your product works, prove it” If they accept, and prove their product works, randi says “turns out I’m wrong, but it’s not paranormal” and refuses to pay up. Is that what you think? Do you wonder if this has in fact happened a few times?
What would be the point of anyone accepting his challenge then?
He doesn’t and I never said he did. Please stop misquoting me.
The many challenges he issued were in his articles, lectures and books going back 25 years and not in the rules.
Partial list on my website.
Before you make a fool of yourself in a public forum, Galileo never said that. I think it was attributed to him by Voltaire. (I seem to recall that a misreading of Voltaire is what put the words “Let them eat cake.” into the mouth of Marie Antoinette.)
In a larger sense, some real kooks have claimed a special kinship with Galileo: People who honestly need medical help, as opposed to people who merely hold odd ideas. This is something to keep in mind if you want to go public with this in a real way.
Even if it is as you say, all the applicant would have to do is claim that it is. Lintgen said himself that his ability was not paranormal.
And, again, the case is from a time before the million dollar challenge. I don’t know how this would work today.
No, since no-one has so far passed preliminary testing.
Answered several times. You don’t like the answer. That’s not the same thing.
As I understand the process, the scenario above would NOT happen. At the preliminary stages of the challenge, there would be an agreement about what specific events or actions would be demonstrated. If they are, the prize is won; if not, it isn’t. There’s no attempt AT THE DEMONSTRATION to distinguish between paranormal and not paranormal.
Now, whether the challenge would actually reach that stage is a different story.
Hint: no.
Excuse me. Since we were in the midst of discussing whether or not your claim applied to the formal challenge I believed that your claim of a specific challenge related to that. Now that I realize that it doesn’t relate at all to the million dollar challenge we can drop it.
Back to the beginning of this line, we go:
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?
This time can you please limit your response to those that would qualify for the million dollar challenge.
Actually, the phrase has been found inscribed on a portrait of Galileo that was painted during his lifetime.
Peter, OK, here goes.
The link you provided is a long one. I am going to assume that the salient portions are here.
And here.
If the above is incorrect, please enlighten me.
You said –
I honestly do not know whether that guy would be entitled to such a prize. It would hang, I suppose, on whether Randi has the authority to substantially alter the conditions of the Challege. His statement is clearly not a "repeat [of] the long standing challenge of the [JREF]. Said challenge has been cited at least once in this thread.
If Randi is authorized on a case by case basis to substantially alter the wording of the challenge (the original says nothing about wine, for example, or how it tastes) then yes, that fellow would win the prize. I fail to see how that extrapolates to your claim. I rather suspect that Randi is a bit loose with his rhetoric at times. In any event, all he was doing was suggesting a test protocol that would be acceptable to the JREF. Anyone who does such would be doomed to failure, I suspect, no matter what the claim. One strength of the challenge, in my opinion, is that the claimant gets to say what and how things will happen.
In all honesty, I fail to see how this applies to your claim, unless your are saying that
A) Randi’s statement is an actual amendment to the challenge.
B) Said amendment includes and encompasses all similar claims to the prize.
Since it now appears that you are responding to statements, I will trouble you for one example where you have responded to me with an answer.
Asked and answered. Several times. You don’t agree with the answer. That’s your right. I’m not going to argue.
Asked and answered.
Peter, what will you do with the million should you agree to a challenge with Randi and win it?
Where?
What would it hurt to point out just one example? Have you been hounded beyond forebearance on this point alone? Surely you expected a bit of a rough go with your OP. Is this brick the last in the hod?
You will need sterner stuff to win the prize, IMHO.
You need to read the rules again. It doesn’t work the way you think it does. You and Randi have to agree on terms and conditions of the test. I’m saying that ain’t gonna happen.
Ah, a real question. That’s more like it.
first thing - pay off my mortgage. Then I’ll travel round the World, there’s a hundred places I want to visit before I die.
After that, go back home and work for a living. A million would solve a lot of problems, but I couldn’t live on it forever.
No, but I’ve had experience discussing with Randi supporters before. Especially Princhester who will be along in a while, no doubt. It gets tied up in tedious and pointless discussions about whether “water flows underground” is a theory or a statement and I’ve decided to cut the crap in this thread. I’ll answer your questions - once only, and that’s it. If you don’t like the answer, I won’t waste time trying to convince you.