So if I won your prize, does that make you a loser ?
You know, if anyone here had said that the intent of the challenge was to make people think, that might make it a bit easier to swallow. If Randi had said that, OK, even better. But that’s not the intent. In as much as Randi and others think he is doing some great service to humanity by exposing frauds with idiot bait, I have yet to hear any argument for those otherwise harmless souls that get sucked in by this deceitful scam. How many decent people, people who had never given a though to such things before, are now paining themselves to try and win some money that is not winnable. How many people are there out there trying to figure a way to cheat this challenge ? I’d bet that for every fraud exposed, two more are born simply by this stupid idea to dangle a million bucks. What an idiotic, self serving, egotistical, bogus, dishonest thing to do.
Well, are we using Hobbes’s definition or Hume’s definition?
Doesn’t matter to me. So long as you’re comfortable with the title of loser.
Oh, I was asking about “prize”. Never mind.
Anyway, your earlier post used “bogus” without offering up your incorrect definition, so I take it you’re finally adopting the “youthful and fun-loving” meaning. Consider that a victory for truthfulness.
Well, if someone moves objects with his mind, reads thoughts, tells which playing cards are red or black a majority of the time and you agree that he will pay up in those situations, then the prize is winnable, isn’t it?
But as someone mentioned already, this is merely a different definition of ‘scientifically unexplainable’ than Randi has, and having a different definition isn’t evidence of the challenge’s bogusness.
Surely you know that when Randi first issued the challenge he was aware that the scientific world hasn’t explained how everything works and that that couldn’t possibly be the definition of ‘scientifically unexplainable’ he was going for.
From his website:
Would you agree that he would pay up if one could move objects with his mind, read thoughts, tell which playing cards are red or black a majority of the time while they’re face down, etc? I’m asking again because I’m not sure when you started your last post with "No, not at all " was an answer to that question.
There in no evidence that these things are ‘beyond the realm of science’.
Is that proof that the horizon problem can be explained scientifically? No. But we also have no evidence that fairies don’t drag the Earth around the Sun.
Not the definition, a definition. He has explained what he would award the prize for and I believe you can find on his site what claims he allowed people to demonstrate, yet they failed. Do you have reason to believe that if they successfully demonstrated the paranormal power they claimed to have Randi wouldn’t have paid up?
Well, no, there hasn’t been a winner (yet) but I don’t see where you’re getting the odds are 0 from. Unless you think that it is absolutely impossible for someone to read minds, move objects with their minds, etc.
How do you know that Randi thinks it’s impossible for someone to have one of the powers I mentioned? Even if he does, can’t the prize be offered as a legitimate way to show others that all of these people such as Uri Geller that make outrageous claims are the ones that are bogus because they will easily make a million? I think that’s an awesome way to spread skepticism while still keeping the promise that if someone can do it, they will get the money.
As I wrote earlier, there have been people who took the challenge. The fact that Randi allowed them to demonstrate what they claimed they could perform, is evidence that he would accept a successful demonstration as paranormal and would have awarded the prize.
I have to ask a simple question: What is the scientific explanation of human consciousness ? Again, the horizon problem. Some nice work there but no evidence or explanation. Just some theories.
Of course you admit that Randi is using an alternate meaning of the word “paranormal”. Not the meaning we find in our many books that we use to understand the meanings of words so that we don’t get all confused like Mr. Ekers and start thinking that paranormal means what ever I want it to mean. It would be easy enough to say exactly what it is that Randi wants proof of. But the thing is, he doesn’t really want proof of anyhting, as we have shown here, he just wants to debunk frauds. That’s fine but you don’t have to be dishonest to do it.
Here is my challenge: I offer ten million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate the ability to sprout wings, fly to the sun and bring a piece of it home.
Is that a reasonable challenge ? Is that a real prize ?
The fact is, the odds are the same that someone could legitimately do that just as soon as do any of the things Randi is looking for. My proposition is beyond the realm of science. We cannot say it is impossible by the same rules of probability that apply to Randis challenge. His proposition is equally impossible. The only diference is that you are not familiar with people making the claim of being able to fly to the sun. The challenge is the same. Neither is possible, with the exception of the unknown. It is really easy to say that would do something when you qualify it with an “if” that you know is literally impossible. The whole “put your money where your mouth is” is just a canard, as Randi like to say, it’s just a hook. The events he seeks are just as impossible with or without the money. It’s a game of “look at the birdy”.
We have already proved that the laws of probability and statistics are in the favor of the prize not being awarded.
Number known psychics, levitation, telepathy, etc = 0
Number of known winners of contest = 0
Number of unknown things we know = 0
The evidence says The prize can not be won.
If you have **any **evidence that it can be won, let’s have it.
Wow! You just ignored all my points and questions.
I believe you are being purposely evasive and pretending you didn’t understand my explanations, but I’ll go through this one more time for the hell of it.
You know from my previous post that I have no explanation for consciousness or the horizon problem and that I don’t think I need one to be convinced the paranormal exists.
No, I don’t. I think you are using definitions such as “unable to be explained or understood in terms of scientific knowledge” in a way that no one else I know would when concerning the context it was written. I can’t imagine that anyone would think ‘consciousness’ or ‘gravity’ as paranormal because we can’t yet scientifically explain the mysteries about them.
You have failed to demonstrate any dishonesty on his part. If a lot of people believe in talking monkeys because plenty of others claim to own talking monkeys, and I want to convince people that this belief is irrational in lieu of a demonstration, I may offer a million dollar prize for a demonstration of one. As long as I really have the money and you have no reason to believe I won’t award the money, you have no leg to stand on by claiming my challenge is bogus. Whether I’m relatively certain no one has such a monkey is irrelevant. That’s not an example of dishonesty.
Now again, Randi HAS allowed people to demonstrate their claims and you have no reason to assume he wouldn’t have paid up had the demonstration been successful. Or do you? If you do, please share.
If there is a significant portion of the population that believes it is possible, and another portion that not only thinks it’s possible but claim they can do it, then yes, it’s a reasonable challenge and ten million dollars is a real prize.
You really think so? If I could place a bet with someone who would accept, I’d bet all I have that someone will win the Randi challenge before someone sprouted wings, flew to the Sun and brought a piece back. If you’re convinced psychic phenomenon and the like will never be demonstrated, that is irrelevant to the charge that the challenge is bogus.
Irrelevant, and a pretty silly comment.
And if either of these numbers were over 0 would the challenge exist? If I offer a million dollar reward for a 300 lb. watermelon, is my challenge and award bogus because the number of known 300 lb. watermelons and winners of the million dollars is 0?
That’s logical.
No, it doesn’t.
If I had some, I’d be collecting the cash. That doesn’t mean that someone else never will.
Do you have any evidence that the prize is winnable ?
No, you don’t have any evidence. If someone ever collects this cash, you can change my mind. I’m kinda like Randi, I don’t believe in ghost and goblins. But hey, if you want to put yourself in the corner of psychics and such, have at it.
Don’t you find it strange that for something so patently bogusbogusbeingdishonestanddeceitful, it’s also remarkably transparent, forthright and open?
I mean Randi is so bogusbogusbeingdishonestanddeceitful as to use not the proper definition of ‘paranormal’ (the one that is useful in that it includes nearly everything), but rather, merely uses the one that is abroad in the popular media and elsewhere, and yet despite being so bogusbogusbeingdishonestanddeceitful, he makes no secret of the fact that by describing himself as ‘paranormal investigator’, he’s actually limiting himself to just those set of paranormal phenomena that pertain to claims of special abilities or powers claimed to be wielded or experienced by people such as psychics, mediums, dowsers and the like. He’s bogusbogusbeingdishonestanddeceitful enough to limit himself in this way - never once showing any interest in determining whether the horizon is real - but he makes no effort to hide this fact - quite the contrary - he makes it widely known by publishing it in books, and by announcing it on television.
Furthermore, the challenge is bogusbogusbeingdishonestanddeceitful in that it most probably can’t be won, because the people it invites to enter probably can’t do what they say they can - yet despite being so bogusbogusbeingdishonestanddeceitful as to pose an unwinnable challenge, Randi makes the unusual move of telling everybody that he doesn’t think the challenge can be won - on the internet, in books and on television.
Not only that, but in spite of it being such a wholly bogusbogusbeingdishonestanddeceitful setup, armchair laymen such as yourself have managed to uncover the bogusbogusbeingdishonestanddeceitful nature of it, just by reading the documentation it provides to all potential applicants.
Don’t you think that’s unusual?
So it might be bogusbogusbeingdishonestanddeceitful, but as such, it’s a terribly honest example.
Yeah, sure.
Let’s take a look at the noble James Randi’s remarks in his never ending quest to serve science and debunk these frauds:
Yes, the terrible scourge of witches attempting to use some kind of magical thing called “cold fusion” to meet the despicable ends of helping solve global energy. He probably deserves a medal for exposing the legal conspiracy to keep this hoax alive with all of it’s malicious motives.
Thank you Randi. Thank you so much for throwing your weight behind a stupid ass challenge and not getting behind serious efforts to actually open new scientific frontiers. You have the nerve to say that you hope some psychic does actually win your challenge so we would have a new scientific frontier to explore. But of course, that’s just lip service so people, like the many here, will think you are genuine. When the truth is, a potential break through, like cold fusion, chaps the hell out of your shorts becuase there is an actual chance that it will take everything you beleive and stand it on it’s head. This is your reaction to any real threat of opening a new door of science. You would rather have it “tossed onto the trach heap”, than to have to face the real possibilty that we don’t know everything, much less have to face the possibility of having to pay a prize you never intended to pay.
Bogus. Bogus being dishonest and deceitful.
When I was a child, I repeated the word ‘bread’ so many times, it became meaningless to me. ‘bogusbogusbeingdishonestanddeceitful’ has taken on a similar quality. You’re not doing your argument any favours by the repetition.
And by the way, considering that Randi says cold fusion is garbage, is there anyone here who thinks Randi is gonna pay a million for a cold fusion demonstration ? He says it’s garbage. But he’ll find a way, if he hasn’t already, to deny the claim.
Any legitimate demonstration of the things Randi claims to be bunk, will already be science before they get to his challenge, therefore they can be denied the challenge. There is no legitimate way to win. Like someone else said, the only way to win is to fool Randi. The paranormal of yesterday is the normal of today and it didn’t get here in a challenge. It got here by determination. Randi’s challenge is just plain idiot bait. Bogus. Bogus being dishonest and deceitful.
Shit. That must suck when you make a sandwich.
Doing even more digging on Randi, I find that Randi attributes many things to the placebo effect. This is a great demonstration of why his Challenge is a hoax. Like I said before, the mere existence of phenomenon disqualifies it from the challenge. The placebo effect is quite a phenomenon. People are healed of sickness and relieved of pain through inert medicine and faith healers. So you think a faith healer could win ? Nope. Not according to Randi. He attributes it to the placebo effect. So there is an explanation. Well kind of. What is the placebo effect ? Well, it’s unexplained. Lots of theories and guesses but the bottom line is that it is unexplained. So how does Randi explain things and keep the money ? By there mere existence. If there is a real occurance, does not qualify . The challenge operates from a bogus position. If it exist, there must be an explanation and any one will do for Randi. Faith healer ? Nope. Placebo effect. Placebo effect ? Nope, won’t accept the challenge. Why not, it’s an unexplained phenomenon ? Becuase they know it exist . That’s all it takes to be disqualified. It is entirely impossible to demonstrate something that does not exist. The challenge is bogus.
Well, not really, because I grew out of the phase where I had to repeat things over and over.
I’m not sure whether cold fusion would be summarily rejected by Randi or not, but the fact remains that there are plenty of cases that he didn’t summarily reject - there is a list of applicants who tried for the challenge, and were accepted. So I don’t think it can be argued that he will just wave away all possible comers.
Randi accepts the challenges that he knows are frauds. That’s the bottom line. He choses his battles so that he always will win. Whether you believe exposing frauds to be worth offering a bogus prize is the only debate here. To quote Randi, "Concerning the challenge, I always have an out. " . That sound like a man offering a chance at a prize to you ?
More on the placebo effect:
“The placebo effect is a well-documented medical phenomenon. Often, a patient taking pills will feel better, regardless of what the pills contain, simply because they believe the pills will work. Doctors studying the placebo effect have noticed that large pills work better than small pills, and that coloured pills work better than white ones.”
Here we have a well documented phenomenon. What makes this “phenomenon” not admissable in Randi’s challenge ? It’s documented. It is known to exist. That’s all it takes to be disqualified. Do you seriously believe that as long as people have tried to explain this and as widely verified as it is, that Randi will cough up a single dime if we prove that we can make sugar have the same effect as morphine on the human body ? Can you explain that ? Can anyone ?
On cold fusion, the thing is, like most real manifestations of paranormal or impossible into the realm of possible, a million bucks is small change. While Randi may (but I would bet small change he won’t) accept a challenge, no one in the feild will waste the time to set up an experiment for the cash he has to offer when there are much larger fish to fry. By the time anyone who can do it gets around to Randi, it’s established science, (much to Randis dismay, I’m sure) and the claim has no merit of breaking any law of science by the sheer virtue of the law it will have established.
There are many things beyond the realm of science (I have said this way too many times now) and many of them will enter the realm at some point and become part of our base of knowledge. Randi’s challenge has absolutely zero to do with any of these phenomenon. He won’t touch them. His claim, to anyone who examines it and has a basic understanding of the scientific process, is just as transparent as you say: You can see right through it. Real science begins with thought, postulation, research, peer collaboration and review, small advances published, scrutinized and recorded, if you’re lucky, there’s a little “eureka !” at the end. That’s the real world of discovering the unknown and the paranormal. (although I’m sure I missed quite a few steps along the way) For Randi’s challenge to be in anyway genuine, we would have to assume he is ignorant of the scientific process. We know he is not. He knows that no one is going to show up, without any notice, without any notariety, without any published account, without any well known research, and display any sort of radical occurance or event that he offers the prize for. He will, the scientific community will, we will, know about it before it gets to him. And it is disqualified, just like the placebo effect. Not because it is explained, but because it’s existence is known. Like I said before, it’s a dog who has chased and caught it’s own tail. Randi’s challenge is to prove the unknown. If you prove it, it’s known, you lose. The challenge is bogus.
Well, OK, but it’s not as if Randi started out with a broad definition of ‘paranormal’ and whittled it down later to exclude the sorts of things you’re including. As a ‘paranormal investigator’, he’s always focused on psychics, mediums, dowsers, etc - he hasn’t retreated into his current position, as you imply. It was always the case.
Actually, I think he calls himself a ‘psychic investigator’. The field of interest we’ve been trying to talk about in this thread is quite roundly defined here
Actually, I can conceive this happening; a genetically- or surgically-modified human might have wing-like appendages, and said human might pilot (“fly”) a spaceship that makes an orbital pass close to the sun, collecting gas from the corona (a “piece”) and returning to Earth, satisfying the literal conditions of your challenge using technology which, though far more advanced than anything we have now, is not wholly unreasonable. Admittedly, it could easily take several centuries, and cost far more than $10 million. I suggest you put the money in a well-managed trust, since you’re not going to remain youthful and fun-loving forever. Unless, of course, you take this opportunity to start moving the goalposts, i.e. editing the scrolls.
The mechanisms of telekinesis or wart charming, however, are based on ideas that have no foundation and have not been firmly demonstrated even in their earliest proto-stages, despite the grandiose claims of proponents. Is the goal of Randi’s challenge to put such claims to the test? Well… of course. I’d guess this isn’t explicitly stated in the challenge terms simply because it isn’t necessary. Display a paranormal ability under test conditions and win a million bucks. Randi doesn’t care about the applicant’s motives, so why should anyone care about Randi’s?