# Changes to Randi's Challenge **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 12, 2007, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695 "2007-01-12T13:56:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/181 "2007-01-17T04:55:17Z")
[QUOTE=Princhester] The problem which does exist is that there are people who claim to be paranormalists and there are people who believe them. If the barrier to application to the Challenge is set so high that many such people can never apply, then it becomes useless as a tool for challenging their validity. [/QUOTE] But what some of us are trying to explain is that the “barrier” is only meant to keep out the poorest and most low-profile frauds and the mentally ill. Anyone with a claim even remotely approaching legitimacy will still easily be able to apply. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/182 "2007-01-17T05:05:01Z")
Well, if a paranormal claim can’t be tested, then what the fuck do you expect Randi to do about it? He can only test testable claims. If you have a paranormal claim that isn’t testable then the Randi challenge can’t do anything for you. So if you’ve got a power that only works intermittently, well, that’s nice. But how in the hell can we test whether such a power actually exists or not? If your one psychic insight is that you predicted the Challenger disaster back in 1980, how can we test that if you didn’t leave any contemporaneous records? If you get results that are just barely distinguishable from chance then a large number of trials is guaranteed to give you positive results in a couple of trials. If your power is that you can roll a “6” 1 in 6.00000000000001 times instead of 1 in 6 times, the JREF people aren’t interested. And is this a problem? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/183 "2007-01-17T05:06:06Z")
**Cisco** , **Lute Skywalker** , **Peter Morris** and everyone else: The topic is whether the new Challenge rules are excessive or appropriate, how or why, and what, if anything, you would set differently. Please take all the sidebar discussions regarding the quality of human being that Randi represents and move them to a separate thread. (I am not claiming that none of your posts have been on topic, only strongly urging you to submit no more off-topic posts.) [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/184 "2007-01-17T05:13:05Z")
**Lute** , I think we’re agreed that the “on demand” thing is an intractable problem for those who can’t perform on demand. However, as I understand it, you have no GD standard basis for suggesting this is a signicant problem. It’s just something “you think” with no actual basis that you can put your finger on. If I’m wrong about that, please feel free to support what you think. For the moment, we can pretty much ignore this part of your position, can’t we? [QUOTE=Lute Skywatcher] As I said upthread, I _think_ Randi has established too much of a personal stake in his Challenge. Since changing the rules to accomodate anyone who may come along eventually and be able to perform–though not on demand–isn’t feasible, make a change that _is_ feasible. [/quote] You are not really getting down to any level of detail as to how it is that the rules currently allow Randi’s personal stake to be relevant. I may be misunderstanding but so far you seem to have established that it is your opinion that he would do anything in his power to prevent anyone passing the challenge. Let’s accept that for the sake of the argument and you need say no more on that. But what it leads to is a question I’ve asked you several times now which is, what about the current rules allows it to be in Randi’s powers to prevent anyone passing, and what could be altered to stop this? [QUOTE=Cisco] But what some of us are trying to explain is that the “barrier” is only meant to keep out the poorest and most low-profile frauds and the mentally ill. Anyone with a claim even remotely approaching legitimacy will still easily be able to apply. [/QUOTE] I appreciate what the barrier is meant to do and I fully understand that the intentions are good. I’ve never suggested any different. I’m not interested in claims “remotely approaching legitimacy” and I’m not sure why you are, since we both agree that there are no such claims. What I’m interested in (and what JREF say they are interested in) is challenging claims of the paranormal. There are plenty of them about, and there are plenty of people who believe in them. If the Challenge is only going to test claims that are or are approaching legitimacy, then it may as well not exist since there are no such claims. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/185 "2007-01-17T05:33:00Z")
[QUOTE=Princhester] . . . claims of the paranormal. There are plenty of them about [/QUOTE] Yes, there are plenty. Way too many. This is a filter to keep out the most ridiculous ones. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/186 "2007-01-17T06:19:23Z")
[QUOTE=Princhester] You are not really getting down to any level of detail as to how it is that the rules currently allow Randi’s personal stake to be relevant. I may be misunderstanding but so far you seem to have established that it is your opinion that he would do anything in his power to prevent anyone passing the challenge. Let’s accept that for the sake of the argument and you need say no more on that. [/QUOTE] Thank you for finally acknowledging that I have been stating opinions. You’re still a little off though: I think he’ll do _almost_ anything in his power to prevent anyone passing the challenge. I don’t think he’ll commit murder should anyone manage to somehow meet his requirements. 😉 > [@](#): > > But what it leads to is a question I’ve asked you several times now which is, what about the current rules allows it to be in Randi’s powers to prevent anyone passing, and what could be altered to stop this? And you’ll keep getting the same answer: “Frankly, I don’t think that’s possible. The very nature of the test is the problem. It can only be done on those who claim to perform on demand and, as I keep saying, I think those who repeatedly claim to be able to perform on demand are frauds.” In deference to **tom** , I think we’re done here. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/187 "2007-01-17T06:31:37Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] Oh, and I’ve got a hundred other examples, but this will do for starters. Do you think he was telling the truth, or do you think he was lying? [/QUOTE] The answer to your question can be found [in this thread.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8160482&postcount=15) Either continue this line of questioning in the thread I’ve linked to, or drop it altogether. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/188 "2007-01-17T07:01:50Z")
[QUOTE=Czarcasm] The answer to your question can be found [in this thread.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8160482&postcount=15) Either continue this line of questioning in the thread I’ve linked to, or drop it altogether. [/QUOTE] > [@Czarcasm](#): > > The trouble is, Peter Morris damn well knows the real answer is of course: > C. Mr. Randi made a minor mistake in his statement, and corrected his statement on the other board. Peter Morris is fully aware of both the minor error and the correction, which means that the only lies being told when it comes to this dilemma are being told by Peter Morris. Ahhh, this is exactly what I suspected and what I was getting at in my post #178. Alas, it’s useless. Arguing reasonably about Randi with **Peter Morris** is like shooting a Red Ryder at a Panzer tank. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/189 "2007-01-17T07:07:32Z")
[QUOTE=Lute Skywatcher] The very nature of the test is the problem. It can only be done on those who claim to perform on demand and, as I keep saying, I think those who repeatedly claim to be able to perform on demand are frauds." In deference to **tom** , I think we’re done here. [/QUOTE] You may be. I’m not. There is no need for deference to Tom as we are on topic. I’m not prepared to let you have the last word lest it be anything other than crystal clear where we’ve got to in our discussion. You’ve stated in this thread that you believe Randi will do anything to prevent anyone from passing. You’ve said that as if that is relevant to whether someone can pass or not but you have been unable to articulate anything wrong with the present rules that would enable Randi to prevent someone passing and naturally have not been able to suggest any change to the rules that might stop him doing that. You’ve stated that in your opinion only frauds would able to perform on demand and therefore the Challenge, which requires performance on demand, can’t test them. You freely accept you can’t back this opinion with anything at all and it is therefore a statement without any value whatever, and certainly not fit to form the basis for any useful discussion of changes to the Challenge. In short you’ve got nothing. Fair summary? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/190 "2007-01-17T07:13:50Z")
[QUOTE=Cisco] Ahhh, this is exactly what I suspected and what I was getting at in my post #178. Alas, it’s useless. Arguing reasonably about Randi with **Peter Morris** is like shooting a Red Ryder at a Panzer tank. [/QUOTE] [Official Moderator Hat On]I did not attempt to steer this conversation over to it’s proper forum just so that you could bring it right back here. You will _not_ make another post on this subject in this thread. This is your last warning.[/Official Moderator Hat On] ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/191 "2007-01-17T11:17:41Z")
Sorry, correction to my last post: It should read: “You’ve stated that in your opinion only frauds would able to perform on demand and therefore the Challenge, which requires performance on demand, can’t test [anyone but frauds].” ---
**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:** [January 17, 2007, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/192 "2007-01-17T15:17:10Z")
[QUOTE=Czarcasm] The answer to your question can be found [in this thread.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8160482&postcount=15) Either continue this line of questioning in the thread I’ve linked to, or drop it altogether. [/QUOTE] First, please do not make up opinions for me. You have completely and deliberately misrepresented me. The fact is that your post in the other forum is a direct and deliberate lie. You have wilfully misrepresented the situation. Second, I don’t go to the pit. If you wish to discuss the point civilly, then start a thread in some decent forum. If you don’t want to discuss the matter civilly, then admit that you’ve lost and move on. Thirdly, the discussion IS on topic for the original post. let’s look at \*\* Princhester\*\*'s stated opinion in the first post, the whole point of this thread. > [@](#): > > The broad reach of the JREF Challenge has always, to me, been a bulwark against claims of the paranormal. To me it is a powerful argument that if there was someone out there who could really do something paranormal they would have won the prize by now. My take on it is that the changes will largely negative that argument. The Challenge will become too selective for the argument to work. My totally on-topic response to that is as follows. Replying directly to the OP’s points I would like to say this : 1. The challenge has never been a strong argument, it’s always been a very weak one. People only ever cite it when they have nothing else to say. Anyone who does so has automatically lost the argument. 2. The changes to the challenge improve things somewhat, I think that it is now less damaging to the sceptical cause, but really they don’t resolve the fundamental problems. So, am I allowed to comment further on this? Can I list what those flaws are, cause I think I should? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/193 "2007-01-17T15:32:56Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] So, am I allowed to comment further on this? Can I list what those flaws are, cause I think I should? [/QUOTE] Of course. You may comment on any aspect of the flaws of the Challege, itself, or make any suggestions that you believe would improve it. OTOH, if you resort to going back and throwing stones at Randi or his supporters, then you will be out of this thread. ---
**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:** [January 17, 2007, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/194 "2007-01-17T16:46:06Z")
The basic flaw of the challenge is that it is run by a man who is bigoted, dishonest and stupid. It could best be improved by replacing Randi with someone else. May I post examples of Randi’s dishonesty and stupidity? Since they are what is wrong with the challenge, I think I should. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/195 "2007-01-17T16:53:49Z")
[QUOTE=Princhester] The first is media profile. Obviously any celebres meet that bar easily. What about the common or garden variety dowser? Aren’t they going to say that dowsing is pretty dull and uninteresting and that they are locked out because they can’t get media attention for doing the boring old “finding water with a stick” thing (which many many people not only believe is possible but don’t even understand to be controversial)? [/quote] But the point is that the biggest of these can still get in: anoint yourselves a champion, and go for it. It’s not like the completely fraudulent Intelligent Design movement has had any trouble inventing itself and getting a media profile. The media LOVES crazy claims. > [@](#): > > The second is academic recognition. I am a little doubtful of the proposition that absolutely all celebre paranormalists would have no difficulty getting someone academic to confirm their abilities. While I may be wrong about that, I am very doubtful that Joe Astrologist could. I suppose it depends on Randi’s definition of what constitutes an acceptable academic. I guess that’s true, since “academic elitists won;t listen to our wisdom” is a chief crank complaint. Still, there are a LOT of nutty professors and colleges out there. It really depends on how lax Randi is going to be, you’re right. > [@](#): > > I think that the Challenge will end up being much diminished as a universal tool for disputing Average Joe Paranormalist’s abilities. But it was never useful for that precisely because most of these “average joes” were the same people that scream on street corners or nice old grannies who think their cats can predict the future. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/196 "2007-01-17T16:55:04Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] The basic flaw of the challenge is that it is run by a man who is bigoted, dishonest and stupid. [/QUOTE] bzzzt. You’ve now dodged, repeatedly, the point that the challenge is set by rules, not by Randi’s direct say-so. If you think there is a problem with the challenge, you have to point to where in the rules the flaw lies. Stop dodging the question. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/197 "2007-01-17T17:00:22Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] The basic flaw of the challenge is that it is run by a man who is bigoted, dishonest and stupid. It could best be improved by replacing Randi with someone else. May I post examples of Randi’s dishonesty and stupidity? Since they are what is wrong with the challenge, I think I should. [/QUOTE] No, you may not. Regardless of your opinion of Randi, the question in the OP was in regards to the **published rules**. If you think that removing Randi is the only requirement to improving the Challenge, then you have already stated your view and you are done. We already know (at some depth) your opinion of Randi and any further attacks on his person will simply be another hijack of this thread that avoids discussing the rules, themselves. Go open your own thread to discuss your views of the person rather than insisting that you have a need to hijack this thread. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/198 "2007-01-17T17:00:37Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] I’ve only ventured into the pit on three occasions previously. The filth that lies there made me sick to the pit of my stomache. I’m not going there again. Ever. [/QUOTE] For some reason now I’m picturing you as one of [these guys](http://www.spotlightpublications.com/images/fops.jpg). ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/199 "2007-01-17T17:02:53Z")
[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip] For some reason now I’m picturing you as one of [these guys](http://www.spotlightpublications.com/images/fops.jpg). [/QUOTE] That was unnecessary and directly counter to my specific request that this thread not be hijacked, particularly with personal attacks. Do not do this again. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/200 "2007-01-17T18:12:52Z")
[QUOTE=Princhester] In short you’ve got nothing. Fair summary? [/QUOTE] In short, this whole thing started with a driveby and, as such, I hadn’t expected anyone to pay attention to it–let alone respond. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695.md?page=11)