OK, back to the topic… I guess it doesn’t really matter that the rules have changed - as far as I know, no promise was ever made that the $1M challenge would continue perpetually in the same form. Maybe this change will make it more obscure and eventually lead to its demise, but maybe it’s run its course anyway.
But the subject of the OP is that it does really matter. To Peter Morris’s chagrin, anytime a paranormal subject came up, a crude but effective club against it was to simply refer that person to collect his million dollars if what he believes is true. We don’t have this club available anymore.
It’s a shame, but I can sympathize with the load placed on an old man with health problems (Randi had heart surgery this last year) just dealing with trying to walk inept people through the applications process.
???
The change in the Challenge really only reinforces what I and many have known all along. The JREF Million Dollar Challenge is bogus. The entire thing was conducted and enacted by Randi in badfaith. It is illegitimate and thoroughly corrupt in science and Data and furthered no cause but a certain Charlatan’s arbitrary whims. The Challenge proves absolutely nothing, except that Randi never had any intention of ever awarding the Million Dollars, under any circumstance.
The Challenge is nothing more than a publicity tool, a cynical challenge that was never taken seriously by Randi and was nothing more than a trick from his bottomless bag to con people and further his own ends and agenda. He uses it for his own purposes, dishonestly, rather than as an open, honest, endeavor. Randi’s nothing more than a cheap Carnie Hawker.
So you say. :rolleyes:
What does the part I bolded mean? How is the challenge corrupt in science and Data?
Good, let’s discuss the OP. As I said earlier, in response to points raised in the OP, the challenge has always been a very weak argument, the Godwin’s Law of paranormal discussions. It’s something that people say when they have no other argument. It’s a club that skeptics drop on their own foot. And you don’t have this club any more. That is a good thing.
Don’t be so sure. If you really have a paranormal ability, and are rebuffed by the lack of “credentials”, it shouldn’t take long to get some thru the press. The press loves to report on fantastic claims and doesn’t readily discard them just because they are unlikely to be true. The press is good at spreading the word to other press. After a while, the accumulation of reports should be sufficient for the JREF Challenge.
What these new rules may do is eliminate claims that no one can understand or get a finger on, or claims like yours. How much press can you scare up for your claim, Peter?
You’re thinking of “John” (with a “h”) Edward (without an ‘s’) the so-called medium. http://www.johnedward.net/
There is a “John Edwards” who is running for President. http://johnedwards.com/
I don’t know who “Jon Edwards” is.
Sorry to nitpick but this has become kind of a pet peeve with me. I told an internet friend that I had met John Edwards and she responded with a story about watching him contacting dead people on TV. :smack:
Claims like mine? A response to a challenge that Randi himself issued? A thing that Randi says is impossible and dared anyone to show it to him?
That sort of claim? Is that what you mean? The ones that demonstrate his ignorance and dishonesty? Are those the ones
Working on it. Wait and see.
word is spreading. People are beginning to know that Randi issued a challenge, then ran away when it was accepted.
I was concerned at first when I heard the changes to the rules because the old rules included anyone who claimed useful psychic powers. However the media and public debate seem to be getting less rational over time. We look less to academics who have spent a lifetime studying a specific field for answers, and more to celebrities. So although Randi’s challenge is a beacon of rational light, it has not yet been successful. So changing it to try to be more effective is a great idea.
One reason for changing rules that has not been mentioned is that many of the claimants are mentally ill. The Randi organization does not want to be responsible for stripping the delusions from someone who believes they can summon UFOs at will with mind bullets.
I think Randi will generate more publicity than in the past with his new more focused rules.
So Peter, what exactly happened in your case? My recollection is that Randi made an offhand remark about how dowsers should prove themselves by trying to find a dry spot, since most places on Earth have water underneath if you dig deep enough. Everyone had a good chuckle except you, who took that up as a legitimate offer to the the million prize.
Was that pretty much it?
No, it was not an offhand remark. It is a favourite theme of his. It’s something he has said over and over again going back at least 25 years. Very very frequently when he talks about dowsing he tells his audience that dowsers are “delusional” because they have such crazy ideas about geology.
Dowsers think that they can find underground streams, but according to Randi there is no such thing as an underground stream. Over and over again Randi sneers at how delusional is anyone that thinks an underground stream exists.
Dowsers think they can find underground water, but according to Randi there is water everywhere. Over and over again he says that a “better” dowsing test would be to challenge the dowser to find a dry spot. Not only that, but he has told stories about how he issued this challenge to dowsers, and how they always refuse to accept it.
No, it was no offhand remark that Randi made, but a carefully considered statement, made on a great many occasions over decades. It is also a direct and mendacious lie.
Dude, I’m having a hard time understanding here – do you think you have paranormal powers, or not?
No. Peter Morris has taken umbrage at a specific (set of) comment(s) Randi made regarding dowsing. From that, Peter Morris extrapolated that he could interpret Randi’s language in the challenge to mean that regardless of any paranormal powers, he could demand the “challenge” be used to disprove some of Randi’s remarks. Since Randi (and every poster who has commented in several short and one insanely long threads on the topic) have disagreed with the interpretation Peter Morris has used to understand the challenge, there is a fairly large knot of tension on the topic, here.
Well, those *are *the best kind.
Randi has directly said that there are underground rivers in some circumstances. However his understanding of the situation seems to bethat most underground water is stationary or slow moving, and is common. Tthere is nothing paranormal to be proved regarding your debate of rivers vs. stationary water. Hopes this clears up the confusion you have had so we can move on.
No.
But I can do something that Randi says is paranormal.
Tom. You are a moderator. You ought to know better.
Stop inventing opinions for me.
For anyone with a perverse interest in teacup climatology, Peter’s issue with James Randi’s use of the word “challenge” is discussed here.
In my setup I count 8 pages after this post. I assure you there is no substantial development in any of them.
As for the OP, I think it’s a shame that the process is no longer so universal, but I suspect it’s a necessary step given that old James probably won’t live too much longer and the foundation must be seen to make any such changes with his blessing. And all you really need to do to enter the process is to generate some press, which is pretty easy in truth, especially if you don’t mind paying a PR professional a few bob for half a day’s work.
As for the charges against Randi, I think there is some truth to claims that some applicants might not strictly have been negotiated with as to testing conditions. Some applicants clearly don’t understand what a cheatproof and luckproof test entails, and ultimately if they continue to hold out on conditions which vastly escalate the cost and difficulty of the test far beyond what it need be if they actually have a paranormal ability, Randi would be justified in offering a take-it-or-leave-it deal. No doubt some would call this dishonest, and he can be as abrasive as many of his opponents, but I don’t think this flaws the process in any fundamental way.