Ask the Randi $1M challenge applicant

[Peter_Morris]

@Oakminster

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.

That’s not a question.

[treis]

What are you hoping to get out of this thread?

[Peter_Morris]

@treis

What are you hoping to get out of this thread?

publicity. I want as many people as possible to know that Randi has issued a challenge and I’ve accepted. How he responds to my acceptance will then be public knowledge.

[glee]

@Peter Morris

I have decided to apply for the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge.

1. Have you sent your application in to the JREF?

2. Which ‘psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability’ (as per the terms of the challenge) are you claiming to demonstrate?

3. Did you write this on the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) website?

“People, there are extremists on both sides of the paranormal debate. On the one side, you have the woo-woos, who totally believe in the paranormal. On the other side, equal and opposite, you have the oww-owws such as James Randi, guru of hypocritical thinking. Their tactics are essentially the same. Believers really need it to be true, so they make up all kinds of false facts and pseudoscientific gibberish to rationalize their position. Randi passionately hates the paranormal. He really needs it to be false, so he makes up all kinds of false facts and pseudoscientific gibberish to rationalize his belief.
In this article I will show several examples of Randi’s pseudoscience. These examples demonstrate Randi as a man obsessed with discrediting the paranormal any way he can, without caring much about the accuracy of his statements.”

3. Have you posted written many such criticisms of Randi’s accuracy on the JREF website?

@Peter Morris

People making claims are challenged by James Randi to prove them. Some of the claims are mental powers, such as telepathy. But note that some of the claims are “pseudoscience” i.e. scientific theories that Randi does not believe. An example of this may be seen here where someone claims that a magnetic clip will change the flavour of a bottle of wine. Randi does not believe the theory as stated, and issues the challenge “prove me wrong and win a million dollars.” The thus challenged person does not have to show a paranormal power, they have to prove the truth of their theory, and show that Randi is wrong in his disbelief.

4. Where in the JREF Challenge does it say you have to ‘prove the truth of a theory’?

5. Has the ‘magnetic clip changes taste of wine’ been tested in any scientific way?
   If not, why is it simply not a paranormal claim?

[treis]

Does it concern you that you are coming off as arrogant and evasive in this thread?

[Rigamarole]

I have been reading this thread very carefully, and there is only one thing that is unclear to me - if I make a statement which is not a question, will you argue with me?

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Peter Morris

publicity. I want as many people as possible to know that Randi has issued a challenge and I’ve accepted. How he responds to my acceptance will then be public knowledge.

Ok, i’ve another question.

I assume from what you’ve said here and what you’ve said on your site that by spreading public knowledge of his acceptance/rejection you’re looking for some way to discredit Randi (or, to put it another way, make other people see him as you see him). Feel free to correct me on this.

Now, it’s a fact that pretty much no-one in this thread has agreed with you on this - whether it’s on whether or not he has made a genuine challenge, or whether your claims are scientific in nature, or whether you’re seeking to prove a theory or a statement, etc - and you honestly don’t care what they think. Correct?

So to sum up; assuming your goal is to discredit Randi, your main task is as said to get other people to agree with you. However, your method of discrediting Randi is one that people think is flawed. Hence, should you succeed in discrediting Randi, it may be that many people actually do not agree that you have discredited him; you’ll gain a sense of being right out of it, and possibly “convert” a few more people, but it just doesn’t strike me as having a huge amount of difference.

Am I way off base with this? I apologise if i’ve got completely the wrong end of the stick.

[Oakminster]

@Peter Morris

That’s not a question.

You’re right. It’s 3 statements of fact, and one prediction. Let me try a question:

What exactly do you propose to do to prove your theory?

[Cisco]

1. When and how did your extreme dislike for Randi begin?

2. Does it concern you that, if you could convince Randi to accept your application, it would not be in the spirit of the challenge?

3. Do you legitimately believe that he will accept your application?

4. Have you ever had any sort of personal correspondence with Mr. Randi - be it by phone, letter, email, in person, etc.?

[Contrapuntal]

@Peter Morris

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.

I’m not asking you to answer it again. I’m asking you to show me where you have answered it the first time. Simple, really. Hit reply, then link to the post, then hit submit.
To re-emphasize, I am not answering you to repeat your answer, only to show it to me. I have never said I do not like the answer, although stating that seems to be a favorite trick of yours. I have said I have not seen it. Please show it to me.
Shoot, I forgot to frame this, from my last post, as a question. –

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.

Are you? Stating A and B?

[Peter_Morris]

@glee

1. Have you sent your application in to the JREF?

Yup. Read my website. Application sent, notarized, signed sealed and delivered.

2. Which ‘psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability’ (as per the terms of the challenge) are you claiming to demonstrate?

The ability to show that :

1. water flows underground
2. underground rivers exist.
3. good spots for a well are hard to find
4. “dry spots” are ten a penny

Each of which is “pseudoscience” according to Randi, and pseudoscience is paranormal according to precedent.

3. Did you write this on the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) website?

Yes, but that is not a question about my application.

3. Have you posted written many such criticisms of Randi’s accuracy on the JREF website?

See previous answer.

4. Where in the JREF Challenge does it say you have to ‘prove the truth of a theory’?

It’s precedent set by many challenges issued by Randi. A few of them are listed on my Website.

5. Has the ‘magnetic clip changes taste of wine’ been tested in any scientific way?
   If not, why is it simply not a paranormal claim?

Can’t answer that. See my groundrules. I’ll answer questions about my own claim, but I won’t argue about anyone else’s

[Peter_Morris]

@treis

Does it concern you that you are coming off as arrogant and evasive in this thread?

That’s your opinion. I won’t argue about opinions. See my groundrules in the OP.

[treis]

Heh, ok one more serious question. In your application you quote a statement by Randi, it follows along with context:

Only two dowsers said there were natural streams running underground in the area and both agreed these would not interfere with the tests. But—and it’s a very big “but”—they also disagreed with one another about where these streams flowed, and thus also disagreed with all the others who said there were no streams! Besides, the “underground river” notion that dowsers maintain is sheer fiction, not supported at all by geological research.

What precisely is the “underground river” notion that dowsers maintain that Randi feels is unsupported?

[Peter_Morris]

@Revenant Threshold

Ok, i’ve another question.

I assume from what you’ve said here and what you’ve said on your site that by spreading public knowledge of his acceptance/rejection you’re looking for some way to discredit Randi (or, to put it another way, make other people see him as you see him). Feel free to correct me on this.

Nope, My website will be an honest and accurate account of how he behaves, and that’s down to him. I’ll show truthfully how Randi reacts to someone answering his challenge. Whether that discredits him is completely up to him. If he engages in discreditable behaviour, I’ll report that, and the discredit will be down to him. If he behaves with honour, I’l report that, and he can link to my website with justified pride.

you honestly don’t care what they think. Correct?

It is 100% irrelevent to me.

Am I way off base with this?

yes.

[Peter_Morris]

@Oakminster

What exactly do you propose to do to prove your theory?

suggested protocol listed as part of my application

http://www.proverandiwrong.net/Application.aspx

[Peter_Morris]

@Cisco

1. When and how did your extreme dislike for Randi begin?

Not a question about my application. I’m not going to argue about it in any great detail, but the very first time I saw himon TV on the show “James Randi - psychic detective” It was immediately obvious how flawed his tests are.

2. Does it concern you that, if you could convince Randi to accept your application, it would not be in the spirit of the challenge?

It is 100% in the spirit of the challenge.

3. Do you legitimately believe that he will accept your application?

That’s up to him. If he doesn’t, then everyone will know that he issues challenges, thenb backs out when people accept. Bang goes his credfibility.

4. Have you ever had any sort of personal correspondence with Mr. Randi - be it by phone, letter, email, in person, etc.?

Listed on my website. Please read berfore commenting.

[Peter_Morris]

@treis

What precisely is the “underground river” notion that dowsers maintain that Randi feels is unsupported?

What do YOU think? I think the notion is that they exist. I can’t see any other reasonable interpretation.
Jeez, it’s 3AM over here. G’night guys, see ya tomorrah.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Peter Morris

Nope, My website will be an honest and accurate account of how he behaves, and that’s down to him. I’ll show truthfully how Randi reacts to someone answering his challenge. Whether that discredits him is completely up to him. If he engages in discreditable behaviour, I’ll report that, and the discredit will be down to him. If he behaves with honour, I’l report that, and he can link to my website with justified pride.

Which do you believe will be the case? That is, do you believe that Randi engage in discreditable behaviour, or honourable behaviour? What do you predict?

And though I was wrong on that part, the rest of my question still stands. Since people on here do not seem to believe your method of judging Randi’s creditableness is reasonable, do you not think that, whatever the result is, people will be disinclined to believe you?

[treis]

@Peter Morris

What do YOU think? I think the notion is that they exist. I can’t see any other reasonable interpretation.

What does it matter what I think underground rivers are? The specific thing that Randi feels is nonsense is what the Dowsers think, not what you or I consider them to be. I ask again, what did the Dowsers mean by underground rivers?

[RickJay]

1. How do you plan, at the challenge, to prove your first claim?

2. How do you plan, at the challenge, to prove your second claim?

3. How do you plan, at the challenge, to prove your third claim?

4. How do you plan, at the challenge, to prove your fourth claim?

I admit that I would personally be unconvinced by your just asking some geologists what they think. Geologists have been known to be wrong. Randi’s tests generally require specific, demonstrated proof. So how will you prove your claims? Please be specific.