the contract specifies the following : ** 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. **
Now, if at the end of the test Randi agrees that the tested audio device works, but isn’t paranormal, then can’t he refuse to pay? After all, the applicant has failed to perform any supernatural act.
Hampden Vs Walsh 1881, a challenge similar in style and intent to Randi’s was ruled in a court of law to be legally unenforceable… Tell me what is the legal difference that makes his challenge legally binding, where others weren’t.
It certainly does. It was a big discussion item on the JREF boards a while back, and one poster even applied to take the the preminary test, even tho she didn’t believed it worked. I think that sparked some resentment at JREF, but the test went thru.
She said she wanted to see if she would tell the difference between “treated” CDs and controls, hoping that if she could, she would win the mil. She tried, and got only chance results.
It was an odd situation, since she didn’t really make a paranormal claim and didn’t even claim to have the ability in question. For a while, it looked like she wouldn’t be accepted for that reason. I think this test was probably one more nail in the old rules’ coffin.
I think the new rules will result in a more vigorous attack on claims like the CD enhancing gadget. Rather than waiting for them to come to JREF, JREF will go to them and try to confront them head-on. It should make for more sparks than before as people get backed into a corner more frequently. Whether that’s a good thing in the long run remains to be seen.
(I’d provide a link to the JREF threads, but the search function over there isn’t working for me at the moment. Either they’re being attacked by poltergeists or moving to a new server.)
IANAL, but I believe this is an initial statement of intent, not a binding contract. The final, binding contract would have to be filled out specifying what is to be done and what constitutes a success or failure. The details cannot be agreed upon until the claim is made and the test designed. How could they?
So, no, if at the end of a successful test, Randi could not refuse to pay the money, even if he has come to believe the claim is or is not paranormal.
You’re looking for an out. But there is none. All participants must live up to what they agree upon, in writing. Any other outcome would end in court and Randi would be sure to lose. No link handy, but I seem to recall him willingly admitting that once.
What Musicat said. As to Hampden v Walsh, there’s some information here that seems to be what is required. I’m not qualified to comment. The conclusion of the lawyers who comment in the cite is that the JREF would be obliged to pay if someone passed a test.
But now you have changed the terms of the contract in your hypothetical. According to the link you have provided, both sides have to agree to the terms prior to the tests. Since all of the terms relate to the invocation of paranormal or related events, Randi could not simply change his mind at the end of the test without calling down a lawsuit on his head.
Stop the phone: I have actual information on the subject of the OP!!!
According to a Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe interview with the guy that runs the challenge day to day (which isn’t Randi by the way, but a fellow named Jeff Wagg), if folks don’t have a media profile there is a way in which they can satisfy both major criteria easily, which is to pass one of the many other regional skeptics’ tests (which offer prizes of something like 1000$ or so). In fact, as this guy points out, the challenge had mostly drifted into outsourcing a lot of the preliminary work to the people running these challenges already, since they were being so overloaded with claims from the mentally ill. The guy also pointed out that they were just getting sort of depressed dealing mostly with people who weren’t even capable of filling out the application forms in a coherent manner or expressing their claims in coherent or consistent english.
So does the existence of this sort of “semi-finals” system as an alternative to getting academics and a media profile change anything for anyone?
It just adds another layer of legitimacy which, I suppose, will have the same effect on the members of the other side of the debate that all the other layers have: none.
I did post this question in a different forum. Somebody has copied it to the other forum without my permission or knowledge. Maybe the admins wanted to pad out a low traffic board. I understand that there are message boards that have lifted threads from the SDMB.
What’s really strange is that I use different names in various different forums. On the forum that I originally posted it I used the name Tom Pierce. You can see the replies addressing me as Tommy.
Somebody not only copied my questions, but figured out that Tom Pierce = Peter Morris and posted it under my name. I’m slightly annoyed by that.
On the dope I hgave chosen to use my real name. On other boards I have a right to maintain a secret identity if I so wish. No-one has the right to reveal my real name if I don’t want them to.
I don’t follow the legalese in the rationale. I know the basic principles of contract law, not the minute detail, and don’t understand them.
I asked Princhester for an opinion because I have found previously that he can express complex legal points in a few words that can be easily understood. (He also seems to know a lot about boats).
That link is to the main page, which may show different podcasts depending on when it is accessed. Specifically, Podcast #78, 1/15/2007, is the one referenced. An excellent interview with Jeff Wagg on the Challenge rules changes, and thanks for bringing it to our attention, Apos.
I don’t think the wagering point is worth discussing and certainly not in this thread.
Firstly, the only qualifed opinions I’ve seen on the point are as linked at #324 and they say the Challenge would not be unenforceable as a wager. Even taking the worst case scenario (ie those opinions ultimately would be held to be wrong), at the least it seems clear that a successful claimant would have a good arguable case for payment of the million. That being so, any actual paranormalist would be well motivated to take the Challenge, which is all we need to know for present purposes.
Secondly, the argument is moot in this thread. Either the Challenge is enforceable by a successful claimant or it isn’t. If it isn’t, it isn’t but unless there is a lawyer Doper qualified to advise as to how the rules could be tweaked to make the Challenge enforceable, there’s nothing anyone here is qualified to add as far as changes to the Challenge are concerned, that being the subject of the OP.
If I had paranormal powers, I would not want everyone to know about them. Even when I imagine having powers, such as flight, I always worry about how to keep them secret.
One million dollars would not be nearly enough to buy my anonymity, and I think it is likely that someone with actual paranormal abilities would feel the same way.
The test really only works on high profile paranormal practitioners, who presumably would jump at the chance for more money and fame if they could really do what they claim.
As such, the changes to the test are nothing more than rightfully putting the focus on the only ones the test really applied to in the first place. The test will not become too selective, because anyone who would have been attracted by the lures of the test in the first place (money and fame) will easily be able to get through to the new test.
You are of course not qualified to say how those with paranormal powers feel since you don’t have paranormal powers. Do you have a cite for the proposition that those with paranormal powers would not want everyone to know about them? There could be a body of Real Paranormalists out there who just don’t tell anyone, but there could be an IPU under my bed, too.
If you have particular access to facts that the rest of us don’t, please provide your cites. Otherwise there doesn’t seem to be much of a basis for taking your views into account when considering changes to the challenge.
