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.
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?
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 ]
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?
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?
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.
Yes, there are plenty. Way too many. This is a filter to keep out the most ridiculous ones.
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. 
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.
The answer to your question can be found in this thread.
Either continue this line of questioning in the thread I’ve linked to, or drop it altogether.
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.
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?
[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]
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].”
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.
My totally on-topic response to that is as follows. Replying directly to the OP’s points I would like to say this :
-
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.
-
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
For some reason now I’m picturing you as one of these guys.
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 ]
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.