No, the word is used entirely consistently with the accepted meaning as understood by skeptics of Randi’s ilk. And as understood by nearly everyone else.
Evidence in the form of a demonstration, as made very clear from the outset. But so what? They are inviting people who claim they can do things, to do things - what’s so bad about that?
JREF doesn’t expect anyone to succeed, and this is no secret, neither is it a surprise.
No, it’s a bet - in the form of “bet you can’t”. When people make such bets, it is their expectation that their opponent will lose the bet. Otherwise it’s just charity.
Toss a softball through the hole and win a prize. Only thing is, the hole is smaller than the ball. Of course this is an obvious cheat but it has the same probablity as you guys are defending. >0. The prize is not technically unwinnable because hey, a warlock might show up and magically shrink the ball just before it enters the hole and then return to normal right after leaving the hole.
Randi’s challenge is just as bogus as a carnival cheat.
The word paranormal precisely describes the nature of the challenge. If you are claiming something normal (which is demonstrably true), then they’re going to bin your application. Also, the challenge is specifically targeted towards the sort of claims that self-identify as paranormal. Hence the use of the word.
Demonstrations are evidence. Sure, they don’t accept any random thing you can fake up in advance as being acceptable evidence; the goal is to screen out the fakers.
It’s not a lottery. It’s a challenge. Recognize the difference.
“Probable winners”? A probable winner is anybody who can reliably start fires with their mind, see through opaque walls, move objects with their mind, or make specific predictions about the hear future -that is, any of your phsychics and meduim types that are NOT LIARS. That no-one has won the million says more about the claimants than it does about Randi, to everyone that recognizes that you have to do more to win this money than saying “I’d like to win, Randi: spin the wheel.”
I don’t think the prize can be won, and neither does Randi, but the reason for that has nothing to do with his honesty.
Yes; what he’s done is he’s merely asked people to do the impossible. That would only be an unreasonable request if there weren’t people out there who claimed they could do so.
I suggest you call Webster, Oxford, Cambridge, American Heritage and all the others and pead this nonsense. They seem to have a different accepted meaning.
Not clear at all from the outset. In fact, appears to be intentionally misleading in the opening statements from the foundation. Now had they, like you, said “evidence in the form of a demonstration” that would be an honest representation and easy enough to say, as you just demonstrated.
Which is exactly why it is bogus. Bogus being dishonest and deceitful. They offer a prize they with the full expectation of never awarding it. Bogus.
You should learn the difference between a wager and a prize.
I have come to the conclusion that you are either willfully ignorant of the terms of the challenge, and/or the concept and definition of the words ‘cheat’ and ‘bogus’.
Randi’s challenge is specifically designed as a response to persons who claim to be able to do the impossible. They say they can, and he bets that they can’t. It’s exactly like if you bet a friend ten bucks that you can make 10 out of 10 free throws, and he says “no you can’t” and takes the bet, and you proceed to miss one of your ten shots. Is he being a “cheat” or “bogus” if he fails to pay up?
The graped text in post 264 (copied and pasted directly from the challenge home page) presumably doesn’t say it in the precise wording you no doubt expect.
How can you be this pedantic and actually function in everyday life?
I know…it’s crazy. I say this thing is bogus and you guys keep saying take it back, take it back, take it back… matter of fact, I thought you said this was a waste of time. I don’t have much else to do but by all means, get doing whatever it is that this is keeping you from. Your insistance of “take it back” is noted.
Now, again, here in the real world, we have to judge things on their merits. What we have is a prize that has never been awarded although many have tried. The prize, by all accounts, is impossible to win, in the closest sense of “impossible” that we can derive, without speaking in absolutes. In “real world” terms, it is indeed, impossible. The odds are exactly 0, in the real world. In the world of the unknown, the odds are also 0 with the exception of the > (less than) symbol which denotes the smallest expression of an actual number possible. A number that is, in the real world, impossible to even observe. It’s just an idea of a number.
You see, here in the real world, this challenge is, infact, unwinnable. The prize never to be awarded. The only rational and reasonable chance that can be exhibited of winning this prize dwells in the realm of the unknown.
The irony here is that the same people who wish to dispell the notion of the paranormal are the same people who are now desperately clinging to the notion of the possibilty that it does exist for that is the only possibilty of this prize being, in fact, a prize. Otherwise, it is bogus. Bogus being dishonest and deceitful.
That the prize is unwinnable is rooted in the bogus claims of the potential applicants. The wart warblers or whatever they are. And please, don’t pretend it’s us being pedantic (go on, whip your dictionary our again and look it up pedantic for us).
GAH! If you want to apply the word “paranormal” to these events, it is incumbent upon YOU to show that they are unexplainable. That’s how you show the word applies. Unless you can do that, I will withhold judgment on whether those events are paranormal. The prize isn’t for events that might possibly be paranormal, after all: it’s up to you to prove they are, not up to Randi to prove they are not.
Again: if I claim the events are NOT paranormal, it’s up to me to show they are explainable through science. If you claim the events ARE paranormal, it’s up to you to show they are not explainable through science. I am making no such claim; I am reserving judgment. Man up and take your burden of proof!
No, it’s bogus as in “entirely straightforward and fair”. The entire challenge, and it’s million dollar prize, are a slap in the face of frauds and liars who pretend to have paranormal powers for personal profit. That’s the purpose of the challenge.
Does Randi expect to have to pay out? No. Of course he doesn’t. If he was expecting to lose, he’d be an idiot to offer a million dollars, right? And he’s not an idiot.
You call him a fraud. That’s because you don’t know the meaning of the word. To be a fraud, you have to make a false claim. He doesn’t claim that it’s possible he can lose. Ergo, he’s not a fraud or a cheat, and you’re a liar when you slander him so.
I am calling his challenge bogus. Bogus being dishonest and deceitful.
When offering a prize, contrary to your assertion, it is generally expected that the prize is to actually be awarded. This is what makes the challenge bogus. Bogus being dishonest and deceitful. There is no intent of awarding the prize. Quite to the contrary, it seems rather obvious that the intent is to expose frauds and fakes, not the stated objective of the contest. The stated purpose is to award a prize. We have pretty much fleshed out that this is not the primary objective, thus, it is bogus. Bogus being dishonest and deceitful.
Prove they are not explainable ? That would be proving a negative. Can’t do it. If that is part of the challenge, it is definitely bogus. Bogus being dishonest and deceitful.
If you can’t prove that your events are paranormal, then you have no business claiming they are paranormal. How on earth are you getting from there to the position that someone else is dishonest and deceitful?
Of course, you could always choose to abandon that definition for paranormal, since by your own admission nothing, by that definition, can be proven to be paranormal. I suspect that you’re not using the same definition of the word that Randi is using, since Randi clearly wants people to attempt the challenge, and your definition makes the word “paranormal” superfluous, inasmuch as, by your admission, nothing can be demonstrated to be paranormal.
Quite the contrary. I beleive that many things are unexplainable. I can only show that they are unexplained. I can claim them to be unexplainable and unless Randi can explain them, I am, for all intents, correct. Of course, this exercise in chasing our own tails serves to prove exactly that the challenge is bogus. Bogus being dishonest and deceitful.
No, there is an earnest offer to present a prize, there just isn’t any expectation that anyone will live up to their own claims in order to be able to claim it. The deceit is on the part of the people making the claims that they have paranormal abilities.
I don’t especially care what you believe, absent evidence to support that belief.
The only intent for which you are correct is your own intent of claiming the challenge is bogus. For the rest of us, if you wish to apply a word to a phenomenon, it is your responsibility to demonstrate that the word applies. What you are doing now is the equivalent of saying, “Nobody can prove what color dinosaurs were. I say they were purple paisley. Unless you can demonstrate that they were not, I am for all intents correct.”
The word “paranormal,” as you define it, can never be demonstrated to apply to a phenomenon. Personally, I think that’s a silly definition and is almost certainly not the one Randi intended. But you are hoist by your own petard, lying in your own bed. If you would prefer to use a different definition, one that you CAN demonstrate applies to any real-world phenomenon, this is the time to put it forth, and then to show that it is the one Randi intended to apply.
