::snort:: We are risking something. We are risking our money. You are risking nothing. (This is also edging dangerously close to spam, IMHMO, though I am letting it ride for now since it can be construed as an offer to provide evidence if I am feeling credulous.) The fact that you apparently do not recognize the blatant unfairness of the deal you propose suggest to me that you are being appallingly disingenous, and it is only the hope that perhaps your logical skills are so deficient that you have no idea how ridiculous your “bet” is that prevents my utter loathing and disgust for such a deceitful con from spewing forth.
Ok, I’m in for the small money bet, $300 to $1000 in the mail in the next two weeks. You get 50% if it shows. On the big money deal, I’d consider it for the 1% Andros mentioned, though I would like to see a penalty for you in the event of failure. If you have anything like the success rate you claim, it’s a totally safe bet. But I’m considering, anyway.
Ok, you’ve got two (for the small money bet, anyway). If we get three more, you should get four out of five based on your claimed success rate of 80%. Even with just two, you should probably get one. An easy chance to show us what magic can do.
Ugly
Am I the only one thinking that this has gone WAY beyond the realm of “ridiculous” and has entered the realm of Regis Philbin?
First off, thanks, Usurer, for at least responding to the OP’s request. I was feeling pretty lonely out here and had just about given up replying to this thread anymore.
Having said that, I think that your economic wheeling-and-dealing in this matter is throwing the entire discussion off-base. Anyone can see that your proposal is akin to a pyramid scheme. Even if your success rate is 5%, instead of 80%, you stand to win big as a result of the agreement. And if you have 200 hundred people who sign up for the “big-money” spell, there can be no doubt that your chances of pulling in 50K increase dramatically, regardless of whether or not the magic works.
I’d like to suggest that we try to find an alternative. One possibility would be a “binding”, like the one your group did on the garbage incenerator. It should be relatively easy to pick a target, set a date, and perform the spell. I’m sure the results could be independently verified.
A second possibility would be to set up a controlled group experiment. We would need, let’s say, 10 people who are willing to participate in your “quick-money” spell, and provide you with all the necessary info. You and your associates select 5 at random (Group A). The remaining 5 (Group B) function as a control group. You inform an independent, non-participating third party (how about Czar?) of the membership of Groups A and B, but not the participants. You then cast your spell (only on Group A) and wait for the results. After two weeks have gone by, everybody lays their cards on the table. If there is a statistically significant difference between Groups A and B, in terms of moneies received, then you’ve made your point.
Of course, even if successful, neither of the experiments suggested above will prove that magic works, but they will at least lend some credence to the possibility. Likewise, should they fail, they won’t disprove the expediency of magical workings, but will throw them more into doubt.
I’m curious. Both here and on your web page you claim to have an 80% success rate. How have you arrived at that figure?
Please can we have a scientific experiment with a control group etc. Like the one that offers $1,000,000!
I can’t believe there are posters who instead are making these ‘money deals’ with a ‘magician’.
I will happily ‘prove’ magic doesn’t exist:
Any poster is welcome to sign a legally binding contract with me along the following lines:
I promise to do absolutely no magic at all.
Any money you unexpectedly receive, you give me 10%.
I have no financial obligations at all.
Well, it’s as stupid as the ‘tests’ you’re proposing :wally
Not at all, glee. Like I pointed out above, the question of payment is throwing the entire discussion off-base. You may have noticed that I didn’t mention anything at all about paying Usurer in my post.
On the other hand, Usurer’s contention is that he can affect a statistically significant difference in income for those upon whom he casts his spell. The only way I can see of judging such a claim is to approach it with an open mind and try to set up test to “falsify” it.
In addition, you’ve completely ignored my first suggestion.
You approach this question with the presuppostion that there is no such thing as “magic.” We have someone here who is willing to put that claim to the test, finally. This is what Czar has been waiting for since he posted the OP. It’s what he asked for, for chrissakes! And now the minute someone shows up who’s willing to submit to a test (after 5 long pages, I might add), he’s subjected to all this?
Either you’re interested in finding out about this stuff or you aren’t. If you aren’t, then this thread is nothing more than vehicle merely to bait the very people the OP claims he wants to question. And if that’s the case, I don’t blame the Neo-pagans for avoiding it like the plague.
Alright, I can see that half of the bone of contention here is whether I get paid, how much, and how I’m fleecing the public. Now why I, as a supposedly clever individual, would go fishing for rubes on a board like SDMB (which is filled with other clever individuals) rather than on a page filled with morons, like “Psychic Friends” remains to be answered. Maybe I’m not as clever as I thought; I’ll have to take a refresher course of Grifter 101. I therefore rescind all previous offers.
I would be interested, though, in Svinlesha’s proposed controlled group experiment. Any statisticians out there who could help set this thing up?
“The fact that you apparently do not recognize the blatant unfairness of the
deal you propose suggest to me that you are being appallingly disingenous, and it is
only the hope that perhaps your logical skills are so deficient that you have no idea
how ridiculous your “bet” is that prevents my utter loathing and disgust for such a
deceitful con from spewing forth.”
Gaudere: Seems like everytime I post to a thread, the only people I get attacked by are moderators. While other posters on this thread were engaging in open discussion, only you came in dripping venom. Aren’t you guys supposed to be, well, moderate?
While the idea of casting spells for pay seems, on the surface, to be a bit whacked, it’s no more weird than Pepsi hiring a consultant to do systems analysis or whatever. Said consultant gets paid large sums of money whether he actually does any good or not. Would you, in your career of web designer, offer to pay a penalty if the page you designed for your clients did not result in increased sales from their site? Of course not. Would you expect to be paid for the time and effort you put in on their project whether or not that time and effort generated increased sales? I’m sure you would. I get paid only if I generate results. You get paid either way. Who’s running the deceitful con?
Were I unscrupulous, perhaps I would tell people owning a website that I would cast spells on their website, and if their traffic increases 10% I get $50. However, I am not a grifter, so I don’t do stuff like that. I get paid if I produce a tangible website, a website that under no conditions could appear without a person working on it. You are asking to get paid if someone’s net worth increases to a certain point, an event which could happen without you or your “magic” doing a damn thing. Unless you can scientifically demonstrate that your “spells” increase the likelihood of someone’s net worth increasing, all you are doing is getting free “lottery tickets” from people who don’t think things through. Anyone with half a brain would agree to take a percentage of someone’s money, should it show up, with no risk to themselves!
Moderators act in an official capacity to clean up bad code, double-posts, posts that violate the rules of the forum, spam, trolls, etc. When we are not acting in an official capacity, we may post as would any other poster, and certainly are allowed to demonstrate our disdain for grift. I am becoming increasingly convinced that you do know what is unfair about the “deal” you proposed, which make my opinion of you to sink to the point that I cannot express it in this forum. For shame.
Usurer, here is my comment on your experiment.
It is a cheap con.
You propose that people send you money if they make a profit, which a certain percentage are guaranteed to do, without your showing us that you had anything to do with it. Did you take lessons from Uri Geller?
How about an alternate proposal-you cast a spell of “Prosperity” on me, with the guarantee that you will pay a agreed-upon percentage of any unexpected bills, fees, and fines that pop up in the coming year. Surely your abilities can defend me from such, so you have absolutely nothing to lose, right?
No
Why am I not surprised?
Ok, I understand that Usurer’s offer has the element of a scam in that if he gets enough people to join in, he is guaranteed to make some money, whether he does any work or not.
However, this seemed to be the only way to get him to perform. So if we can get 4 or 5 (or preferably 10 or 20) people to sign up, people who understand this and don’t mind losing a few bucks in the fight against ignorance, then we can show that conclusively whether the 80% figure is bull or not. I was willing to take the risk of being the one person in five to pay the money, at least on the scale of a couple of hundred bucks.
But if that won’t fly, a couple of options come to mind. If 10 people sign up, and if 5 or less of them receive money, he admits it was chance and receives no money. If 6 or more receive money, those six pay their cut, and Usurer gets a shot at Randi’s million-dollar prize. Note here I would be willing to drop the bar to 60% percent success, but all participants would have to agree on a rate before anything went forward. It might be that others would want to hold him to the 80% he claimed.
Or better yet, if he is willing to take a shot at it without pay (or for a token fee). I’m sure we can scare up a few folks to participate. We can decide on some non-monetary test. If he scores at chance or below, he owns up to his magic not working. If he scores at a rate agreed upon before hand, we eat crow, and again, he gets a shot at the million-dollar prize.
And I’m not kidding about the million-dollar prize. This kind of testing is the kind of thing that skeptical groups all over the country have done to try to qualify people for Randi’s big prize. I would think if it were carefully done, and especially if we notify Randi before hand and get someone to look over the plans, then if you pass this test you’d be a cinch to qualify to test for the big money.
So Usurer, if you can make things like this happen 80% of the time, it’s in your interest to step up and do the test for free. Because if you’re right, you could be a millionaire shortly thereafter.
So there is the challenge we have issued to the magicians time and time again. If you really think you can do it, step up to the plate.
Ugly
I will admit that I skipped page four, but I am assuming that no one offered to do any magic on that one. so. . .
Here is a straightforward test.
On my desk are a computer, a telephone, an answering machine, two speakers, a monitor, and several manila files of printed papers. These first objects are listed to avoid trivial guesses at office supplies. (My pens and pencils are in the drawer.) There are also three other objects. Here is the set of tests.
Test one: Describe them. (With enough detail that each description fits one, and only one of the objects.)
Test two: Put a visible mark on one.
Test three: Move one of them. (Enough to disturb the dust)
Test four: Move all of them.
Test five: Take one of them.
Test six: Take one of them, and mail it to Cecil.
Test seven: Take one of them and teleport it to Czarcasm’s desk. ( I assume he will let me know. )
Test Eight: Tell us when you will do a test, which one, and then do it.
Text Nine: Start tomorrow, and do one a day, test one through seven.
If you pass test two, you will convince me you have some sort of magical power. If you pass test nine, you’re a fuckin’ wizard.
You can do the tests up to number seven when we skeptics are not watching, or interfering, or even aware of your spiritual energy fields. We won’t even know who you are. You can work in groups, over long periods, without our interference. I will wait months, without moving the objects. (not a difficult thing, I never move anything on the desk except the phone.)
Not on the test: explaining why the test is not fair. This won’t prove there is no magic, but it certainly could prove that there is.
Tris
By the way, Usurer, I nominated your website for Weird Earl’s.
No, I agreed with you we needed a control group, as in any scientific experiment. My satire was aimed at the earlier posters, who thought offering to take some of their money, if they made any unexpectedly, was proof of anything.
I don’t presuppose magic doesn’t exist. It would be interesting if it did. But I know of a lot of claims over many years (Bermuda triangle, Roswell, Philadelphia incident, Loch Ness, UFO’s, levitation, psychics etc) where there is no evidence. Yet if I ask for some, I’m told I’m biased and a non-believer.
OK, I’m all for a scientific test along the lines you suggest. I even volunteer for it!
I do have 2 worries, though.
- how do you know anyone will tell the truth? (Am I cleverly in league with Usurer, for example?)
- why doesn’t Usurer simply take the Randi $1,000,000?
Firstly, Gaudere, thanks for elucidating your criticism. I half expected that I’d be banned from posting today since I growled at you last week. Perhaps we’ll get into some philosophizing yet.
Triskadecamus: Magic doesn’t have anything to do with psychokinesis. Please attempt to do at least a minimum of research before designing tests. Were I James Randi, I could doubtless pass your exercises easily, and then you’d be convinced that I was a full-fledged wizard. While that would be amusing, it wouldn’t prove anything. Alas, those of us who are self-deluded enough to believe in magic think it has to do with engineering coincidence to one’s advantage [note to other wiccans, etc.–I’m drastically over-simplifying here, but bear with me, eh?].
For the rest of you: Over the weekend, I thought of a quasi- (that is, non-) scientific experiment we could conduct right here on SDMB without my spending huge amounts of time, effort, and money that would be required for something more rigorous. (I’d devote those resources to win the Randi prize, but not just to impress six people on SDMB).
I will, in the next day or two, post a new thread in the GD section which will include a little background on the malleability of so-called objective reality as well as instructions on how to do simple magic yourself. The nice thing about the technique that I’m going to post is that the person doing it doesn’t seem to need to believe that it will work in order to get results, so it oughta be perfect for the skeptics. Dopers who are interested in proving, disproving, or just goofing around with the technique can try it, then report their results on that thread? Sound good?
You talkin’ to me?
looks around
I don’ see anybody else around here…you must be talkin’ to me…
Oh. You weren’t talkin’ to me.
Sorry, glee, I thought you were talking to me. Never mind.
Right. And exactly how does that happen? Through what mechanism? How do you verify that the results you obtain are magickal results, and not just coincidence?
This definition of magick is indeed the traditional one amongst Neo-Pagans. It’s a useless definition with lots of wiggle-room. How, e.g., do you know the working “worked”? How large is the possible pool of events in reality that could be taken as a sign that you did your magick well, and are you willing to narrow that pool before you perform the working? (This is a problem with ganzfeld experiments for psi capabilities: the receiver does not have to name the specific image the sender is sending to score a “hit,” he merely needs to approximate it with “similar images”. Hence the results achieved, which parapsychologists tout as trumping probability, are questionable at best.)
The only way you can prove magick is by repeating working thousands of times and showing with a strong confidence interval that the total results strongly exceed probability. No one single magickal working would be sufficient scientific proof.
-J-
You’re right on target; no causality can be attributed without spending large amounts of dollars and time to conduct a proper experiment. I guess proving causality has never been a big thing for me (tho the Randi prize has got me thinking)–what mattered to me were results.
When I first got into magic about, oh, 12 years ago, I tried it without expecting it to work. The first spell worked, at least I got what I asked for, but naturally I chalked it up to coincidence. Then the second one worked, and the third. The fourth one failed, but I guess the previous 3 successes were enough to make me think I was on to something. Having grown up in a Methodist environment, where prayers NEVER worked (though we were encouraged to keep doing them), I thought this was pretty cool.
Causality seems to be damnably tough to prove IRL anyway; according to Scott Addams (sp?) in, I think, “The Dilbert Future”, scientists have recently discovered that when you, say, touch something hot, your hand retracts before the actual pain message gets to your brain. Thus, his contention is that you move your hand due to some unknown stimulus, then retroactively justify it as moving your hand due to the pain. He’s no physiologist, and neither am I, but I haven’t heard that discovery refuted.
For those wanting to fool around with engineering their own coincidences, the new thread will be called “Does George Exist?” and will be up later today or tomorrow.
All that is is a reflex action. You and Scott Adams both need to brush up on your physiology. It’s no more fantastic than what happens during a physical when the doctor hits your knee with a rubber hammer and your leg moves of its own volition. What happens in both cases is that the muscle is responding to the stimulus directly, without waiting for the brain to register the sensation. I learned abut the physiology of reflexes in the sixth grade more than thirty years ago! There’s nothing new about it.
Scott Adams ought to stick to his comic strip.