No.
The challenge uses a legal agreement between both Randi and the claimant, and the money is in place.
Nobody has ever passed a preliminary test, let alone an actual one.
You can see a typical claimant here:
How do you figure?
This requirement has been added, on a case by case basis, for some claims as a step towards weeding out the most outrageous ones. It was an intermediate step towards the latest announcement.
I have been watching the Challenge applications over the years, and often wondered if the “class” of applicants was what had been originally expected. I think they have been a great dissapointment. Rather than serious, albeit deluded, applicants claiming to be astrologers or dowsers (“mainstream” paranormal), the Challenge has attracted the kooks among kooks. Often it is impossible to figure out just what is being claimed. The applicants NEVER follow the rules or procedures and ramble on using incomprehehensible language to justify their claims even tho the rules say “we don’t want to hear about and will ignore your theories, just propose a test.”
There’s a big difference to the public between the latest crackpot who looks like a crackpot to Joe Average, and someone like Sylvia Browne, who is worshipped by many.
So I think this latest development may be a wise one. It looks like JREF is shifting from a passive to an active role by seeking out the frauds and putting them on the spot publicly. But while this may be good for the promotion of critical thinking, I worry that it will increase the tension between adversaries. I think JREF needs to seriously upgrade their security, as it will invite retaliation more than ever.
On a side note, it looks like the invisible barrier that often held critical thinkers back from attacking religion may be breached. While I agree with Sam Harris and others that religion should not be a taboo topic, traditional religion has a lot of entrenched momentum in scientific societies, and I worry about a backlash. Is it too early to tackle religion, or is it past due?
That the purpose of the challenge is to get publicity for discrediting claims of paranormal abilities and that the changes are an attempt to get more and better publicity for less work.
It wasn’t obvious from my previous post, so FWIW, I think the challenge and the changes to it are fine ideas.
As to why I used the word “just”: It’s already established that there are lots of scammers and deluded people. Adding more to the list of people who can’t show they’re psychic seems to me to establish nothing scientifically or sociologically. And you could fill such a list with an offer of a lot less than a million bucks.
Randi can’t claim - and I assume he hasn’t - that there are no people with paranormal abilities. What he can claim is that 100% of people who’ve tried to show they have such abilities under a fair challenge have utterly failed. That’s not an interesting research claim at all. But it is a good claim to advertise. And the changes will make good copy.
I think that either way nobody is going to win the money. Ever. Famous or not.
Of course no one is ever going to win the money. That’s the whole point of the challenge - if any of these frauds and thiefs were legitimate they would’ve been first in line to claim a free $1 million.
Why can’t he claim that?
He can also claim that $1m for a day’s work is a pretty damn good motivator, which strongly suggests that there is not a body of paranormalists out there who have not challenged successfully but could, since if they could they would have done so by now. I agree that the challenge has, as one of its benefits, that of being a publicity stunt, but I disagree with the idea it is “just” a publicity stunt.
He specifically avoided making such a claim during his Nova special. The specific conversation, as I recall, was to a bunch of college students after he demonstrated that seemingly convincing horoscopes were actually meaningless. One challenged him, critical of his attacking things he couldn’t be sure were fake. Though Randi admitted he couldn’t prove astrology (and by extension, all things paranormal) didn’t exist, he was eager to find a demonstration that couldn’t be simulated by a moderately-skilled magician or cold reader.
Of course, this was a few years ago. I think Randi’s gone a little nuts lately with that “bright” stuff.
He seems largely to have dropped that crap, thank Og.
Randi’s challenge always has been the Godwin’s Law of paranormal discussion. It is only cited by people who hate the idea of the paranormal, but don’t know enough to discuss it rationally. Don’t know enough about geology to argue about Dowsing? Just say “why don’t you apply for Randi’s test?” don’t know enough about astronomy to discuss astrology rationally? No problem, just cite Randi’s test. Anyone who cites his test just shoots himself in the foot. It’s as good as saying that you don’t know anything, and have no opinions of your own.
The real trouble is that Randi is a known liar and fraud, the flaws in his test are very obvious. Those people that cite his test have to keep on making excuses for Randi’s cheating. And doing so just brings the whole sceptical movement into disrepute.
Frankly, the changes will mean that he is now slightly less of a liability than he was before.
By replacing Randi with someone honest and intelligent who actually knows how to conduct a proper test.
You called?
Yes, several times. Randi has issued challenges then backed out of it and refused to actually conduct the test when someone applies. I’m one such example.
Or he has conducted the test, and after the person succeeded, gave the excuse that “it’s not paranormal”
The first time I ever saw him on television, he was testing a dowser. The dowser succeeded in the test he had been set. Randi just made excuses as to why that test doesn’t count. I formed an opinion of Randi from that, and what I’ve seen since has only shown my original opinion to be correct. I have no doubt that if a dowser did the same thing 100 times in a row, then Randi would just make 100 excuses in a row.
Indeed, that seems to be a typical test administered by Randi, and typically full of basic flaws and cheats. A brief guide to what’s wrong with this test, and pretty much all the others.
First of all you must understand that Mike Guska has had his claim completely rewritten by Randi. Mike actually claims the ability to find bits of gold by dowsing in dried up creek beds in California. The protocol given by Randi is a totally wrong way to test this claim. No matter how you look at it, the test is wrong. It is different to what Mike actually claims he can do, and that makes the meaningless.
In theory, these protocols are negotiated between Randi and the applicant. In practice, Randi does not negotiate. Applicants try to discuss things with him, and just get an appallingly rude response, or no response at all. In the end, an applicant must agree to the conditions Randi imposes, or not get tested at all.
Almost nobody agrees to his changes. Thus they don’t get tested. And Randi twists this. He tries to make it seem that he has been reasonable, and the applicant has refused to be tested, rather than vice versa. This is wrong, in many cases Randi has simply refused to give the applicant any reasonable test, or even a polite discussion.
Out of 1000 dowsers, about 980 of them have seen him do this time after time and don’t bother to apply. Of the 20 that apply, 19 run into Randi’s insulting behaviour and cannot negotiate with him - this is often entirely Randi’s fault. Maybe 1 in a thousand actually accepts his test. Mike Guska is one of the very few to do so.
Then Randi uses several shabby tricks to make it appear to be a reasonable test. His twisted description makes it seem as if the test protocol was exactly what Mike’s wanted all along, that all the others could have got a test they wanted too.
The really dishonest trick that Randi plays is the so called “open test” where the location of the target is known in advance. Mike is required to show that when he already the gold is then he can find it. If he fails to find it when he knows where it is, Randi will declare that “obviously” he won’t find it in the real test, and disqualify him.
So, here’s how it goes. The gold is put in cup #4, and Mike is told that he must show a reaction from cup # 4, or be disqualified. Then the gold is put in cup #2 and Mike is told that he must show a reaction from cup #2 or be disqualified.
Repeat this 20 times. A success rate of 100% is required, that is 20 out of 20. Anything less will not be accepted. If he gets it right 19 times in a row, then wrong on the 20th his will be disqualified. Mike actually claims a success rate of 50%, but displaying that in the open test would get him disqualified.
Randi claims that “when Mike G. knew the location of the concealed target he obtained 100% results.” This is not true. This was a statement that Mike made under duress, and probably does not reflect what he actually believed.
So, there we have Randi’s tricks. The test protocol is full of basic and obvious flaws. It is utterly worthless. But Randi’s apologists dismiss the flaws because Mike Guska signed a contract agreeing to the test, and Mike Guska said (under threat) that he was succeeding in the open tests. Neither of these arguments is worth a pair of fetid dingoes kidneys, but it’s all they have.
The final Randi fraud comes from the implication that Mike as being a typical example of a dowser, and judging all dowsers by his performance. Mike has agreed to dowse for gold under a cup, therefore ALL dowsers think they can find gold under a cup. Mike signed an agreement saying the test is a fair one, therfore ALL dowsers agree that the test is a fair one. Mike said (under threat) that he could find gold 100% in the open test, therefore ALL dowsers think the same. And so on.
This is wrong. Most dowsers are much more intelligent than he is. Hardly any of them say the things he said, and even he only said them under threat. Thus the view of dowsers presented here is grossly distorted.
As a postscript to this, Mike has recently been in contact with the JREF trying to negotiate a new test. This time Mike is adamant that he wants the test to take place in California, at his favourite creek using jars filled with sand taken from the creek. Randi has refused to compromise. He demands that Mike can either be tested at the JREF offices in Florida, or at his home, but NOT at any creek in California. Randi simply hurls insults at Mike, while refusing to actually test him. This is the result of most applications.
Princhester, surely you realized that posting this thread would attract Peter Morris like nectar to a hive of bees, right? It only took 2 days! Peter – what took you so long?
I think I’ll watch this one from the sidelines unless you (Princhester) get desperate. Good luck!
What kind of threat? If there was one one why not say what it was? Or would undermine your point if you mention how the threat was applied?
A couple of cites, perhaps?
So, Peter, are you saying that paranormal abilities exist?
I love the idea of the paranormal, but have never seen a shred of evidence for its existence. Can I cite the challenge?
I’m somewhat less obsessed by Randi than most of you are. You may spend your days hunting for every reference to Randi to pounce upon, and join every discussion as soon as it is posted. I don’t.
If you read my post, the threat given by Randi is explicitly stated.
But for the hard of thinking, once again.
Randi tells applicants that they MUST score 100% in the open test. Anything less than that WILL result in disqualification.
from the FAQ : JREF - Home
<<Obviously, if you are unable to successfully demonstrate that you can dowse for water when you are fully aware of its location, this demonstrates that you do not possess the claimed ability, and the test is then cancelled. >>
And the required success rate in the base line test is 100%.
If Mike had shown anything less than that in the open test, he would have been disqualified. If he had shown 95% that isn’t good enough. If he had got it right 19 times in a row, then failed on the 20th, Randi would have declared that “obviously” he doesn’t have the ability to dowse, and canceled the test.
So, if the gold is in cup#4, Mike is told that he MUST show a reaction from cup #4. If he fails to show a reaction, even one time in 20, then the test will be canceled. So, when Mike shows a reaction to cup#4, this does not mean that he actually thinks he is dowsing. Far more likely, he is reacting to Randi’s explicit threat.
for what? Which facts do you doubt, and want cited? I’m willing to do this.
No, I’m saying that Randi cheats and lies, and his tests provide zero evidence against claims.
I’m also saying that he is the biggest liability the scepical movement has got. His lies are obvious, and damage us every time he tells them.
No is not that, the impresion I’m getting is that you are saying the dowser **could not then have stopped ** just there and tell Randi there was no need to continue since Randi was not sincere, but what I get is that the dowser did still feel confident that he could do it. Sorry, but I only get that the dowser should have stopped before the test even was performed.
Heh.
I’d like to say “every point of contention in your post”, since there were zero cites, but knowing you you’d probably respond with something silly and refuse to post cites, so let’s try these:
“Randi has issued challenges then backed out of it and refused to actually conduct the test when someone applies. I’m one such example.”
I’d like a credible cite for the above, but we’ve been through it already. It all comes down to you (and only you, which should worry you slightly) misunderstanding a statement of Randi’s. Still, it needs to be mentioned for completeness.
Cites requested for the following:
“Or he has conducted the test, and after the person succeeded, gave the excuse that “it’s not paranormal””
“In theory, these protocols are negotiated between Randi and the applicant. In practice, Randi does not negotiate.”
“Almost nobody agrees to his changes.”
“Out of 1000 dowsers, about 980 of them have seen him do this time after time and don’t bother to apply. Of the 20 that apply, 19 run into Randi’s insulting behaviour and cannot negotiate with him - this is often entirely Randi’s fault. Maybe 1 in a thousand actually accepts his test.”
“The really dishonest trick that Randi plays is the so called “open test” where the location of the target is known in advance. Mike is required to show that when he already the gold is then he can find it. If he fails to find it when he knows where it is, Randi will declare that “obviously” he won’t find it in the real test, and disqualify him.”
You provided a cite for this, but apparently failed to read it yourself. First of all, it says nothing about a 100% success rate. Second of all, the point is so that the claimant can see that everything works fine. If it doesn’t, complain about the test.
“This was a statement that Mike made under duress”
“Mike has agreed to dowse for gold under a cup, therefore ALL dowsers think they can find gold under a cup. Mike signed an agreement saying the test is a fair one, therfore ALL dowsers agree that the test is a fair one. Mike said (under threat) that he could find gold 100% in the open test, therefore ALL dowsers think the same.”
“As a postscript to this, Mike has recently been in contact with the JREF trying to negotiate a new test. This time Mike is adamant that he wants the test to take place in California, at his favourite creek using jars filled with sand taken from the creek. Randi has refused to compromise. He demands that Mike can either be tested at the JREF offices in Florida, or at his home, but NOT at any creek in California.”
“Randi simply hurls insults at Mike, while refusing to actually test him. This is the result of most applications.”
Finally: This is hardly the first time you’ve gone through this, and every time you claim that the flaws are obvious, that the fact that Randi is a lying cheater is obvious and so forth. Does it not worry you even a little bit that these obvious things are missed by so many?