Not at all. I’ve said many times I consider the chances essentially zero.
But you’ve been scraping around trying to come up with anything to call the challenge and Randi a liar and cheat, all based on silly semantic arguments and poor logic.
First it was that he didn’t allow your “not explained = unexplainable = paranormal”, then it was because he lied about wanting a demonstration instead of just evidence, then it was that Randi ”offered a prize with 0%, demonstable” (sic) chance of winning, then it was that he lied about the goal of the test, then it was that the goal of the test was to lose, then it was that the test tortured people, and in between all of that you continue to play word games and think it means squat.
So counteracting a bit of your nonsense by saying the chances of winning are not absolutely zero to try to shoot down some of your poor logic (he must be a liar because the chances of winning are zero) is an (admittedly last ditch and not likely to work given your history in this thread) attempt to allow you see where you might have gone wrong.
Randi is an odd guy. Irascible ass in many people’s opinion, certainly sometimes abrasive. But I admit I kind of like what I know about the guy. And having said that, the challenge isn’t the perfect tool to counteract every bit of nonsense we come up against, but it can be used effectively in the areas it’s designed for.
Paranormal: This word is used over and over again by Randi and JREF. Paranormal means, beyond the scope of science, scientifically unexplainable. There are a multitude of “paranormal” events listed here. I invite anyone of you to explain any one of them and prove that they are explainable. I can’t prove a negative. If you wish to prove that any of these events are explainable, it’s up to you to explain them. Until then, they are unexplainable. A good starting point is human consciousness. We all have it, it is demonstrable, now explain it’s existence. The paranormal exist in your very effort to explain anything.
As for unexplained = unexplainable, I submit that before the discovery of pathogens, disease was unexplainable. Without first the knowledge to explain, an event is very well unexplainable. Absent the knowledge to explain, things are both unexplained and unexplainable.
Demonstration: The JREF states that “At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.” The statement is flase by several reasons. First there is the misuse of the word “paranormal”. The challenge obviously does not seek occurances that are out of the range of science, we have those. Also, the challenge does not seek “evidence”. In fact, the application says “Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts or records of previous events are not accepted nor considered.” Records of previous events are certainly “evidence”. They also ask for a “performance”. This isn’t what they say in the Challenge info. They lie.
Interesting note: “Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.) gathered as a result of the setup, the protocol, and the actual testing, may be used freely by the JREF.”
While denying the use of data by applicants, they completely reserve the right to collect it and use it to prove their point. But you can’t.
Intent: Most anyone, upon examining this challenge, can come to the conclusion that the purpose of the challenge, as several stated here, is to expose frauds and cheats. There is no sincere motivation to award a prize, discover paranormal activity or otherwise.
It is not a prize. It’s idiot bait. It is disingenuos. It’s bogus.
What are you talking about? Of course it does. The idea of dowsing goes against how we understand the laws of physics work, and so it falls under the heading paranormal. Someone trying to demonstrate dowsing is trying to show an occurance of something outside known science.
Once, again, evidence is exactly what it seeks. Objective evidence gained by an observed double blind test.
Since when is anecdotal anything ever considered evidence? The plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data’. If someone has a verified record of an independent test then they shouldn’t have a problem taking a test that both they and JREF agree on.
What? It specifically says ‘At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show’. Sounds an awful lot they’re expect thing the subject to do a bit more than talk about what they do. Save youre epithets for when you understand what you’re talking about.
Where in there does it say they deny the data to the applicants? All it says is that the JREF can use the data freely, meaning they can publish it, put it on their website, cite it, etc. It looks like you’re purposefully reading things that aren’t there.
Of course the purpose is to expose frauds and cheats. They need exposing, and the temptation of money is a good way to bring them out. They have plenty of motivation to award a prize: the things they test for usually violate one or more law of physics, and a real tested demonstration of something like that would shake science. If you have any actual evidence that they won’t give the prize out to a winner, please present it, because right now it just sounds like you’re insulting them without any real reason.
Why would someone with a genuine paranormal ability care how sincere the JREF’s motives are? As long as the money’s good, what difference does it make?
That the JREF says they won’t award the money unless evidence of the claimed ability is very strong, with safeguards in place to rule out trickery and such, shouldn’t matter, either. I think (honestly, I’m not sure) it was Martin Gardner who described a test protocol for telekinesis that involved an arrow balanced on a string inside a vacuum bell jar. The amount of force required to make the arrow start rotating is trivial and if there is no metal present (ruling out use of magnets) and the vacuum seal is kept intact (preventing the claimant from blowing on the arrow) then I’d take spontaneous movement as a clear indicator of telekinesis.
Now, I choose a telekinesis example because the results are pretty unambiguous and immediate. Wart charming as you have described isn’t. The warts took four weeks to vanish and it’s by no means clear that the charming had anything to do with it.
Do you believe that someone who can make the arrow rotate or someone who can make warts vanish in minutes would not be awarded the prize? That’s really all that matters, isn’t it?
Your other criticisms are just equivocating and nonsensical:
What is the quality of that evidence if it wasn’t collected under controlled conditions? Your stance is akin to giving a million-dollar lottery win to the person who claims he had the winning ticket (and has some friends willing to testify to such) but lost it. It is certainly fair of a lottery commissioner to require the claimant to produce an actual ticket and it’s fair of the JREF to require the claimant to demonstrate an actual ability.
I don’t see the difference between “performance” and “anyone who can show”, i.e. anyone who can perform. Where exactly is this alleged contradiction?
They also require a one-year waiting period after a failed application, for obvious reasons - if an applicant could be tested as many times as he wanted and the results of these tests could not be publicized without the applicant’s approval, the applicant could get lucky one time in fifty and publicize this success while denying the JREF the right to disclose the 49 failures (further, if after 20 failures, none of which the JREF was free to disclose, the JREF simply refused to retest an applicant, the applicant could then use this refusal to claim the JREF was afraid of his awesome powers, when in fact they were simply barred from giving their reasons). The time delay and the JREF’s publication rights combine to rule out this rather obvious abuse.
You’re ignoring synonyms (pretending “show” and “perform” mean different things, when in context they clearly don’t) and claiming offense at reasonable restrictions. You have said nothing of value about the JREF to us, but we’re making no effort to silence you, because you entertain us. If you register, I only suggest you not make discussing Randi your primary activity, not because Randi is sacred around here, but obsession rapidly becomes tiresome and you’ll bore us.
If the purpose is to expose frauds and cheats, they should just say that. Tempting people with money is just that, temptation, like I said, idiot bait.
Again, you are asking me to prove a negative, “prove they won’t”. We all know that is not possible. If you want to prove the prize is indeed a prize, prove that it can be won. We have already demonstrated the probability and it comes down to >0. In the practical, real world, that means 0. Just get yourself a pen, mark a decimal point and start adding zeros. Just before you reach infinity, mark a one.
It is a disingenuos offer. The offer is made with the knowledge that the contest has absolutely* no chance of being won. It’s bogus.
*Absolute being any known chance.
Fine. Then the chance, being unknown, is paranormal, and since according to you, we are swimming in paranormalities, the chances should be pretty good.
There are plenty of people who claim they have the ability to win the prize - the prize exists primarily to expose the fact that they don’t really have the claimed power. If this fact was kept secret, then the challenge might be a lie, but it’s not a secret at all - nobody who has spent five minutes acquainting themselves with Randi and his work can be under the illusion that he thinks there isn’t anyone capable of relieving him of the money - that’s the whole point - he’s betting a million dollars that nobody can prove him wrong in this conviction.
It’s like when people say “I’ll eat my hat [if such and such condition is true]” - they’re not anticipating eating any hats at all, on account of their certainty. (the difference, I think, is that Randi is in complete earnest about the challenge, whereas people who say they’ll eat their hats often just haven’t thought it through properly and end up backing down.
You are committing the fallacy of false dillema: there is another option besides 1) the Randi callenge is legit, and somebody has won it, and 2) the Randi challenge is bogus, and nobody has won it.
The third option is 3) the Randi challenge is legit, and nobody has won it --because all the claimants are bogus.
The Randi challenge is specifically targeted at persons who claim they can do the impossible, especially the ones who are garnering fame or fortune by making such claims. (The ‘especially’ part is my personal impression.) They make wild claims of miraculous powers. Randi tells them to put up or shut up, and puts his money where his mouth is. If they met his challenge and proved they could do what they claimed, he’d pay. They fail to back up their claims, and he doesn’t pay. That’s all there is to it.
Also, for your information, the Randi challenge is not a lottery. It doens’t have ‘odds’ that every challenger faces, spinning the wheel to decide if they win. Every one goes in and wins or loses on their own merits - or, as your “odds” demonstrate, lack of them.
Nope, that’s not all there is to it. It is not a prize at all. You are right that it is targeted at the impossible. Exactly right. You have to do the impossible to win. Only problem is, the definition of impossible: Not possible. You can’t win. There are no odds of winning. There are no known winners or possible winners. It is not a prize. A prize is something awarded or won.
Bogus. It’s an exercise, an experiment, it’s a lot of things. But there is no “prize”. The challenge is misrepresented, disingeuos, dishonest. Bogus.
This is the guy you speak of here, right? If so, I’m not impressed. I’ve read that entire site and he’s an annoying nitpicker who is trying to win on the basis of a semantic argument. In short, he’s an ass. If I was Randi I’d reject his application on every count, since he’s not making a claim that Randi considers to be wrong, due to his hyperqualified definitions.
You can stop quibbling at anytime if you feel you are wasting your time.
As far as the numbers, the published figures show that the Challenge has backed away from more challenges than it has accepted. Citing a “lack of resouces” they refuse to publish the actual number of claims. They claim to keep them in a file cabinet somewhere. A bit odd that with all the resources to keep and maintain the foundation, website, message board and various other functions, they can’t seem to find anyone to count. It is a difficult thing, counting.
I’ll tell you exactly what Randi tells people who ask about the numbers, do,your own research.
The guy absolutely should be disqualified. He states up front there is nothing paranormal about his claim. He does however, show that Randi doesn’t know what he’s talking, is a complete ass and when replying to the claim says he’s too busy to deal with it. Seems Randi isn’t too busy to deal with people until it seems he might actually have to prove something himself.
He’s a smart guy, he’s “caustic”, as wiki calls him, and his cahllenge is bogus. Bogus being dishonest and deceitful.
That wasn’t a claim that Randi dismissed, it was a nitpicking semantic piece of electric correspondence. I didn’t see any evidence on that site that that smartass semantic challenge that he actually formally submitted wasn’t read and given due consideration.
So your example of Randi’s dishonesty and deceit falls flat, unsurprisingly. Keep swinging, tiger.
I know only what they will allow to be known. They hide the rest in a file cabinet. Of the published claims, they have rejected more than they have accepted. That’s all I know. Maybe if they weren’t being so deceitful or had nothing to hide, they could count them, as they have been asked, and declined.
The ecidence is:
The word paranormal is blatantly misused and misrepresents the nature of the challenge.
The challenge does not accept “evidence”, as stated. They accept demonstrations as evidence.
There is no known statistical chance of winning. The odds are 0.
There are no known winners or probable winners.
The evidence demonstrates that the challenge does not offer a valid, winnable prize. If anyone has evidence that the prize can be won, please bring it forward.
Otherwise, it’s a bogus offer. Bogus being dishonest and deceitful.