[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Ok, I want to know what you meant by ‘paranormal’, when you said this:(in Post #12 of this thread.
[/QUOTE]
I do not have any “power” that can not be expained by science. I can drive a car, eat Doritos, get an erection, type, the regular stuff. If I do have any paranormal power, I am unaware of it or haven’t thought of it yet. Although consciousness is something I have that, on second thought, may be paranormal.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Operating from assumption can produce no valid conclusion. We must operate from the known. I know, you know, webster knows, what paranormal means. Read it again. Maybe it will sink in.
[/QUOTE]
Now you’re trying to dance around the question. You said this:
The question I asked you is a yes or no question. Explain if you want, and in fact I hope you do, but you should start with yes or no.
Is this statement a lie: “At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of astrology, dowsing, or occult power or event.”
Previously you said it was a lie “Aside from the misuse of that word” . I’ve changed the word and now ask if it is still a lie. Yes or no.
[QUOTE=RJKUgly]
Now you’re trying to dance around the question. You said this:
The question I asked you is a yes or no question. Explain if you want, and in fact I hope you do, but you should start with yes or no.
Is this statement a lie: “At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of astrology, dowsing, or occult power or event.”
Previously you said it was a lie “Aside from the misuse of that word” . I’ve changed the word and now ask if it is still a lie. Yes or no.
[/QUOTE]
You didn’t change the word. I just checked the website and it’s still there. Keep trying though, maybe you can get them to change it.
I already explained that “can sow, under proper observing conditions, evidence of…” is also a lie. I can show all kinds of evidence. Again, while they ask you to “show evidence”, the rules go on to ask for a demonstration, not a simple showing of evidence.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Here you expose the shallow nature of your diction. “Magic” includes illussions. So you think Randi wants illusions ? I think you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Psst…take an English course.
[/QUOTE]
My choice of words is not shallow. Your hairsplitting is. And it’s dishonest hairsplitting. I leave you to it.
Up until “So you think Randi wants illusions?” you might have been arguing honestly. You abviously aren’t.
I’m out of this game - and I’m now convinced that’s all it is.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
You didn’t change the word. I just checked the website and it’s still there. Keep trying though, maybe you can get them to change it.
I already explained that “can sow, under proper observing conditions, evidence of…” is also a lie. I can show all kinds of evidence. Again, while they ask you to “show evidence”, the rules go on to ask for a demonstration, not a simple showing of evidence.
[/QUOTE]
This is disingenuous, and you know it.
From this I can only conclude that you are not interested in actual debate about Randi’s challenge. You only want to talk semantics and smirk to yourself that it makes a point. If you wanted to be honest, you would have answered the question.
[QUOTE=Yllaria]
My choice of words is not shallow. Your hairsplitting is. And it’s dishonest hairsplitting. I leave you to it.
Up until “So you think Randi wants illusions?” you might have been arguing honestly. You abviously aren’t.
[/QUOTE]
Nothing dishonest at all. Here is what magic means:
magic
• noun 1 the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces. 2 conjuring tricks performed to entertain. 3 mysterious and enchanting quality. 4 informal exceptional skill or talent.
You seemed to think it takes magic to win the challenge. If that were the case, prove it. That’s all I’m asking.
[QUOTE=RJKUgly]
This is disingenuous, and you know it.
From this I can only conclude that you are not interested in actual debate about Randi’s challenge. You only want to talk semantics and smirk to yourself that it makes a point. If you wanted to be honest, you would have answered the question.
[/QUOTE]
I did answer the question. I also got smirky. With or without the word paranormal, the statement is bogus. It does not reperesent, truthfully, the challenge.
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
I’m out of this game - and I’m now convinced that’s all it is.
[/QUOTE]
Just like the bogus “Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge”. Just a play on words, a game.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
I did answer the question. I also got smirky. With or without the word paranormal, the statement is bogus. It does not reperesent, truthfully, the challenge.
[/QUOTE]
This is closer to an answer. I assume your circumlocution of “It does not reperesent, truthfully” means lie. Ok, that’s a start.
Why is it not a truthful representation? Are you confused that “show evidence of” means “show evidence that it is real and actually works”? Or do you have some other objection?
[QUOTE=RJKUgly]
This is closer to an answer. I assume your circumlocution of “It does not reperesent, truthfully” means lie. Ok, that’s a start.
Why is it not a truthful representation? Are you confused that “show evidence of” means “show evidence that it is real and actually works”? Or do you have some other objection?
[/QUOTE]
There is no reference to “ability” which seems paramount in the application. Showing evidence is not a difficult proposition. In fact, they go on to say that most evidence is simply discarded.
In example, I could show the evidence of the horizon problem. Of course the evidence is there, and it can be shown. It can not be explained. Therefor, we have evidence of the event or occurance.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
There is no reference to “ability” which seems paramount in the application. Showing evidence is not a difficult proposition. In fact, they go on to say that most evidence is simply discarded.
In example, I could show the evidence of the horizon problem. Of course the evidence is there, and it can be shown. It can not be explained. Therefor, we have evidence of the event or occurance.
[/QUOTE]
Ok, you didn’t get the “ability” part. I can see that.
But the rest doesn’t count as “aside from the word paranormal”. If we take out the word paranormal, then the horizon problem (and other currently unexplained scientific conundrums) no longer qualify, even using your definitions. Taking out the word paranormal, and using whatever word(s) fits your diction that includes things like telekinesis, astrology, dowsing, mind reading, viewing at a distance, perpetual motion, etc., we’re left with the kinds of things Randi is willing to test.
So aside from the word paranormal, and that you didn’t understand you’d actually have to do something, do you have any other objections? And if your answer is that those things are enough to make the statement useless in your opinion, that’s fine.
[QUOTE=RJKUgly]
Ok, you didn’t get the “ability” part. I can see that.
But the rest doesn’t count as “aside from the word paranormal”. If we take out the word paranormal, then the horizon problem (and other currently unexplained scientific conundrums) no longer qualify, even using your definitions. Taking out the word paranormal, and using whatever word(s) fits your diction that includes things like telekinesis, astrology, dowsing, mind reading, viewing at a distance, perpetual motion, etc., we’re left with the kinds of things Randi is willing to test.
So aside from the word paranormal, and that you didn’t understand you’d actually have to do something, do you have any other objections? And if your answer is that those things are enough to make the statement useless in your opinion, that’s fine.
[/QUOTE]
Sure it is. It says that one must "show evidence of " . It says nowhere that one must display or demonstrate anything.
So, aside from the word “paranormal” and that they don’t say you have to do anyhting other than "show evidence, there is little left of the statement to verify as having any truth what so ever. It’s a demonstrable lie. You just proved that by having to cut it all to bits in such a feeble attempt to demonstrate it’s truth.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
And there we have it. The fact is that, like I said, the challenge operates from the position that everything is explainable, merely by it’s existence.
[/QUOTE]
This may well be true–but that’s not key to the challenge. Randi has said before how dearly he would love to lose the challenge, because losing it would mean a quantum leap forward (to misuse some physics terminology) in scientific understanding. That is, if someone could prove, for example, that dowsing works under rigorous conditions, what an amazing new field of science there would be! Imagine the increase in human understanding if someone can reliably demonstrate telepathy!
Of course anything demonstrated by the challenge would be studied; logical positivists like (I think) Randi will of course believe that anything demonstrated under rigorous conditions can be explained. You’re reading too much into the word “paranormal” in that respect. The challenge is pretty clearly referring to stuff that appears to contradict all current scientific theory. Not just stuff for which there is an inadequate explanation, but stuff that, if proven, would require a radical rewrite of major scientific theory, more radical than Einstein’s rewrite of Newton.
That difference appears only to you, because you seem to equate “not currently explained” with “inexplicable.” That’s not an equation that anyone else (Peter Morris possibly excepted) appears willing to make.
Again: “paranormal” does not mean that for which there is currently an inadequate scientific explanation. I doubt you’ll find half a dozen sources on teh Intarwebs that use the word in that context. It means that which appears to contradict bedrock scientific theories, that which cannot be explained using the scientific method. That’s what “scientifically unexplainable” means.
Except that many people have set up test protocols under the challenge. For example, one woman was set to receive $1,000,000 if she could guess, from holding an old, plastic-sealed diary in her hands, whether the diary’s keeper was male or female, with a rate of accuracy beyond that which was likely to be chance. For her, it wasn’t a game: it was a very real chance at a million bucks.
The game is your insistence, very similar to that of Peter Morris, that the challenge is something that it’s clearly not.
What an excellent question! Seriously, do he think that Randi is confident that everything in the universe is currently explained by human science, that science has effectively hit a dead end, that no scientist will ever make a new discovery, and that Randi is therefore offering the challenge to prove the death of innovation?
And one more question, and please answer it truthfully and on your honor: what, if any, is your relationship to the person who posts under the handle Peter Morris?
Daniel
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Sure it is. It says that one must "show evidence of " . It says nowhere that one must display or demonstrate anything.
So, aside from the word “paranormal” and that they don’t say you have to do anyhting other than "show evidence, there is little left of the statement to verify as having any truth what so ever. It’s a demonstrable lie. You just proved that by having to cut it all to bits in such a feeble attempt to demonstrate it’s truth.
[/QUOTE]
Ok, I’ll accept that. I don’t agree, but such is the nature of debate among reasonable people.
Now to follow up, I’m curious about two things. And believe me, there is no snark, no hidden intent, no trick questions. I’m very genuinely interested in your answers.
First, as poorly worded as you seem to think the one sentence summary of the challenge is, why does that mean the challenge is “bogus”.
The “actual” challenge definition is immediately available, and I believe anyone who spends even a very few minutes has no problem determining what those rules are, or where to go for more clarification if needed. So why does a (in your opinion) poorly worded summary make the challenge bogus?
Second, if the summary was changed to say:
“At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can demonstrate to actually work, under proper observing conditions agreed upon in advance by both parties, any magical or occult power or event, such as psychic surgery, telekinesis, astrology, dowsing, mind reading, viewing at a distance, perpetual motion, over-unity energy machines, divination of the future, etc."
or whatever wording that in your opinion properly conveyed that meaning, would your opinion of the challenge change?
Because I truly think that is what Randi’s challenge is. We may quibble about his language, we may certainly think he can act like an ass at times, and we may even debate the methods used at individual tests. But I see no reason not to think that if Randi’s group and I had agreed upon a protocol for testing one of the things mentioned above, and then I met the performance requirements agreed upon, I’d have the million.
But I’m guessing you don’t think that. I think you’ve known about Randi for some time, you’ve given it thought, and you think the whole thing is a scam. I think that you’re using your problems with the summary as one thing to pick on, but that no matter how it was worded you’d still think the whole challenge was a scam. And I’m genuinely curious as to why.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
This may well be true–but that’s not key to the challenge. Randi has said before how dearly he would love to lose the challenge, because losing it would mean a quantum leap forward (to misuse some physics terminology) in scientific understanding. That is, if someone could prove, for example, that dowsing works under rigorous conditions, what an amazing new field of science there would be! Imagine the increase in human understanding if someone can reliably demonstrate telepathy!
Of course anything demonstrated by the challenge would be studied; logical positivists like (I think) Randi will of course believe that anything demonstrated under rigorous conditions can be explained. You’re reading too much into the word “paranormal” in that respect. The challenge is pretty clearly referring to stuff that appears to contradict all current scientific theory. Not just stuff for which there is an inadequate explanation, but stuff that, if proven, would require a radical rewrite of major scientific theory, more radical than Einstein’s rewrite of Newton.
That difference appears only to you, because you seem to equate “not currently explained” with “inexplicable.” That’s not an equation that anyone else (Peter Morris possibly excepted) appears willing to make.
Again: “paranormal” does not mean that for which there is currently an inadequate scientific explanation. I doubt you’ll find half a dozen sources on teh Intarwebs that use the word in that context. It means that which appears to contradict bedrock scientific theories, that which cannot be explained using the scientific method. That’s what “scientifically unexplainable” means.
Except that many people have set up test protocols under the challenge. For example, one woman was set to receive $1,000,000 if she could guess, from holding an old, plastic-sealed diary in her hands, whether the diary’s keeper was male or female, with a rate of accuracy beyond that which was likely to be chance. For her, it wasn’t a game: it was a very real chance at a million bucks.
The game is your insistence, very similar to that of Peter Morris, that the challenge is something that it’s clearly not.
What an excellent question! Seriously, do he think that Randi is confident that everything in the universe is currently explained by human science, that science has effectively hit a dead end, that no scientist will ever make a new discovery, and that Randi is therefore offering the challenge to prove the death of innovation?
And one more question, and please answer it truthfully and on your honor: what, if any, is your relationship to the person who posts under the handle Peter Morris?
Daniel
[/QUOTE]
Never heard of Pete Morris. Don’t know him, not related, no connection.
YOu hit on some very nice, and contradictory, statements. We have unexplained events that are at odds with everything we know. They exist. What a wonderful thing it will be to figure them out. Except that figuring them out means they aren’t paranormal anymore. Again, you are operating from the assunption that once you are shown an event, there must be an explanation. You simply can not prove that everything that can ever be shown is possible of a scientific explanation. That’s it. Again, I ask you this time, to explain any one of the unexplained occurances listed here. Tetraneutrons, dark energy, the horizon problem. They are each real phenomenon, that can be demonstrated but not explained using current science. If Randi was indeed, as you say, anxious to give the money away in light of new phenomenon that would change the laws of science, then he should have given it away already. We find, and have found, phenomenon that force us to examine and change what we believe about things. It has happened many times and will most likely continue to happen. These are not the things Randi is looking for in the challenge, as I can tell by his the wording. He is indeed offering an unwinable prize. It is bogus. There is no magic, no telepathy, no psychics. Only real paranormal phenomenon, such as the horizon problem. It’s real, it’s evidenced, it’s there for anyone to see and offers exactly the radical shift in current science that you claim Randi would happily give the prize for.
[QUOTE=RJKUgly]
Ok, I’ll accept that. I don’t agree, but such is the nature of debate among reasonable people.
Now to follow up, I’m curious about two things. And believe me, there is no snark, no hidden intent, no trick questions. I’m very genuinely interested in your answers.
First, as poorly worded as you seem to think the one sentence summary of the challenge is, why does that mean the challenge is “bogus”.
The “actual” challenge definition is immediately available, and I believe anyone who spends even a very few minutes has no problem determining what those rules are, or where to go for more clarification if needed. So why does a (in your opinion) poorly worded summary make the challenge bogus?
[/QUOTE]
The challenge is bogus because it operates from attempting to scientifically verify the existence of scientifically unverifiable phenomenon. If they were truely attempting to verify the “paranormal”, it’s not bogus. A “prize” is something awarded, given for an achievement. The prize will not be awarded as there is no such thing as magic, telepathy, etc. It’s not even a prize. There must be at least a provable means by which to win the money before it can even be called an award or prize. Otherwise, it’s bogus. It’s not a prize, it’s just money in a bank. There are paranormal events but I think we have all concluded that no one is going to get a prize for showing Randi the horizon problem.
[QUOTE=RJKUgly]
Second, if the summary was changed to say:
“At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can demonstrate to actually work, under proper observing conditions agreed upon in advance by both parties, any magical or occult power or event, such as psychic surgery, telekinesis, astrology, dowsing, mind reading, viewing at a distance, perpetual motion, over-unity energy machines, divination of the future, etc."
or whatever wording that in your opinion properly conveyed that meaning, would your opinion of the challenge change?
[/QUOTE]
They are still offering something that cannot be won. It’s bogus. Magic does not exist. It’s a lie, fundamentally. It’s like offering a prize for the first man to sprout wings and bring back a piece of the sun with his bare hands. It’s not real and does not offer any real chance of taking the so called “prize”.
[QUOTE=RJKUgly]
Because I truly think that is what Randi’s challenge is. We may quibble about his language, we may certainly think he can act like an ass at times, and we may even debate the methods used at individual tests. But I see no reason not to think that if Randi’s group and I had agreed upon a protocol for testing one of the things mentioned above, and then I met the performance requirements agreed upon, I’d have the million.
But I’m guessing you don’t think that. I think you’ve known about Randi for some time, you’ve given it thought, and you think the whole thing is a scam. I think that you’re using your problems with the summary as one thing to pick on, but that no matter how it was worded you’d still think the whole challenge was a scam. And I’m genuinely curious as to why.
[/QUOTE]
No one will ever claim the million. Take that to the bank, cause that’s all you’re gonna get. It’s bogus. No one ever explained why, in the agreement, you must sign away all right to any legal action in claiming the “prize”.
And I never heard of this guy or this challenge until I read it here a few days ago, mentioned in another discusion. Your implication otherwise is an insult. I have argue here with complete honesty and facts. There are no lies, deceit or otherwise.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
They are still offering something that cannot be won. It’s bogus. Magic does not exist. It’s a lie, fundamentally. It’s like offering a prize for the first man to sprout wings and bring back a piece of the sun with his bare hands. It’s not real and does not offer any real chance of taking the so called “prize”.
[/quote]
This is interesting, and makes me completely re-evaluate my thinking in regards to your posts.
Let me ask one more question if I may. What do you think the point of the challenge is?
I apologize for that implication, it was wrong of me.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
They are still offering something that cannot be won. It’s bogus. Magic does not exist. It’s a lie, fundamentally. It’s like offering a prize for the first man to sprout wings and bring back a piece of the sun with his bare hands. It’s not real and does not offer any real chance of taking the so called “prize”.
[/QUOTE]
No matter how many times you repeat this, it is still untrue. They are not offering a prize for “magic.” I suppose it is possible for you to categorize the general idea of what is being challenged as “magic,” if you must, but the actual prize is offered for specific claims of specific abilities, with an agreement between claimant and challenger as to what constitutes a successful test. It makes no difference whether you disagree with any particular definition of paranormal, all that matters is whether someone can persuade Randi to accept a claim. And since many many claims have been accepted, I submit that it is your assertion that is bogus.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
No one ever explained why, in the agreement, you must sign away all right to any legal action in claiming the “prize”.
[/QUOTE]
The reason for this is actually simple, and not nefarious at all. We live in a litigious society. People sue for anything these days.
Randi simply does not want to be sued when someone loses and is pissed off about it. Since both parties agree to all conditions beforehand, he doesn’t want to be sued because after the claimant loses he suddenly decides the test was unfair. He doesn’t want to be sued if you stab yourself with your dowsing stick, poke out your mind’s eye trying to read the future, etc. He doesn’t want to be sued if your dowsing business goes to hell after you fail the test.
Additionally, many people have tried to get to take the test on the condition that the results not be released without their permission. Since Randi’s entire purpose is to expose these beliefs as wrong, he will not do a test without being guaranteed he can actually expose the results. What good would it do?
The rule about suing specifically exempts the prize money, so if you won and didn’t get the money, you could still sue about that. And if you win and you get the money, why would you sue?