Talking warts away

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
I think most reasonable persons, upon reading the definition of the word, would agree that “paranormal” is an accurate, acceptable adjective to describe the placebo effect,
[/quote]
Guess again, as pretty much everyone in this thread has disagreed with your definitions.

Possibly, depending on how the question was phrased.

No it isn’t, because the challenge isn’t a word game, it’s what the rules say it is. Randi gets all kinds of challenges where both he and the people making the challenge feel that that it fits the requirements. You think he should be morally obligated to accept your challenge because you don’t like the way he used a word? Regardless if you, Randi, or the staff at the OED use the word paranormal to describe something, each challenge must be worked out individually between Randi’s group and the challenger. If either party doesn’t agree with something, it doesn’t go forward. Obviously if Randi doesn’t think it’s worth testing, can’t be tested, or is outside the scope of the challenge, it doesn’t go forward.

Besides, if you said to most people:

“There is a challenge that asks people to prove the paranormal, and I intend to prove that the placebo effect exists and win.”

I think they’d say:

“What in hell does the placebo effect have to do with the paranormal?”

I know you like to think you’ve caught someone in a great mistake, but no one thinks it significant but you. (Well, almost no one.)

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
If I were motivated enough, and perhaps I will be at some point, I would challenge this notion before a court.
[/QUOTE]
I’m trying not laugh, but exactly what law do you think he has broken? Improper dictionary use? If not a law, what will say he has done to damage you? Offended your sense of English?

62

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Well, probably not gonna take him to court. But still, if I offered a prize for proving sexual activity and then defined sexual as only pertaining to anal sex, I suppose I might be taken to task.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but the Randi challenge doesn’t say “something wierd” it says “something paranormal.” If you example said, “deviant sexual activity”, it would be parallel. And given that deviancy is up to the beholder, where simple “sexual activity” isn’t, the issuer of the challenge is free to designate his own standards for deviancy.

63

[QUOTE=RJKUgly]
Guess again, as pretty much everyone in this thread has disagreed with your definitions.

[/QUOTE]

Umm…I haven’t defined the word. These are not my definitions. You understand that the several dictionaries I quoted aren’t written by me or Randi ?

If an advertiser advertises a specific claim or event using the english language and fails to honor the advertisement, as stated, may be subject to provide relief. It’s that simple. We do have protection from flase claims and advertisements. You can’t promise pyro events and provide aqua events and not expect soem flack.

64

As I understand it, it’s not actually Randi’s money and he doesn’t personally decide if a paranormal claim has been sufficiently demonstrated. Anyway, Randi doesn’t have to define “paranormal” in any particularly unusual way, There are so many nutty claims floating around that the only selection his associates have to make is to weed out the ones that are so vague and incoherent as to be simply untestable.

I’m kinda curious now what claims Randi has rejected for not being paranormal enough. Example, please.

65

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
.

I’m kinda curious now what claims Randi has rejected for not being paranormal enough. Example, please.
[/QUOTE]

Me too. I haven’t read much of what has been tested and would be surprised if the placebo effect has not been offered up and rejected.

66

So when you say the challenge is bogus, it’s just based on what you’re assuming Randi would do, rather than on anything specific he has actually done?

67

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
So when you say the challenge is bogus, it’s just based on what you’re assuming Randi would do, rather than on anything specific he has actually done?
[/QUOTE]

You are right to not assume how the Randi guy or his people would define 'paranormal". I was pretty much going on the same assumptions that others made, that he would bend the definition to his chosing. Maybe not. Only one way to find out.

68

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
If an advertiser advertises a specific claim or event using the english language and fails to honor the advertisement, as stated, may be subject to provide relief. It’s that simple. We do have protection from flase claims and advertisements. You can’t promise pyro events and provide aqua events and not expect soem flack.
[/QUOTE]
So you think Randi has offered you something and backed out? You actually think you have a valid claim based on false advertising?

Here is a direct quote from the official application, which contain the official rules of the challenge:

[QUOTE=JREF - Home]
Applicant must state clearly what is being claimed as the special ability upon which they wish to be tested,
[/quote]
In the case of the placebo effect in general, there is no special ability being demonstrated, and so your challenge is quite clearly ruled out.

So what exactly do you think he has falsely advertised?

Now if you say that the intent of the caregiver changes the efficacy of the treatment even though completely unknown by the patient, I think you could qualify, if (and this is a big if) you could come to an agreement over the protocol. I’ve already said why I think this would be very difficult in the context of the challenge.

Now, having ruled out your main contention of false advertising, you got anything else?

69

“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.”

Bolding mine
Hmmm…any paranormal event . That seems to really open up the definition.

70

Well, at the very least I’d expect them only to entertain claims that were feasibly testable in an afternoon or so. Telekinesis, telepathy and dowsing are pretty much the big three. Wart-whispering, though, is difficult to test and cures can be explained by the psychosomatic effect (as well as the good old fashioned passing of time).

Now, if someone could whisper closed a four-inch incision, I’d be impressed.

71

There youn have it. I have no special ability. Only the evidence that the placebo effect is real and that it is paranormal by every definition of the word.

As I suspected, this rule contradcits the advertisement, strengthening a case for false advertisement.

This statement says that only evidence of an event is needed. The application seems to disagree. Looking more and more bogus.

72

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
As I understand it, it’s not actually Randi’s money and he doesn’t personally decide if a paranormal claim has been sufficiently demonstrated.
[/QUOTE]
Actually $10,000 of it is Randi’s personal money, and if fact will be given on completion of a successful challenge immediately in the form of Randi’s personal check. But as I understand it, that check is drawn on funds that have been in an escrow account for so long (over 30 years) that I doubt he’d miss it much if it were gone. The rest of the money is pledged by other people.

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
he doesn’t personally decide if a paranormal claim has been sufficiently demonstrated.
[/QUOTE]
Correct. The criteria for what constitutes a successful challenge are agreed upon in advance by both parties in such a way that no judgment should be required. In most cases (in preliminary tests, no one has gotten to the final test) Randi is not even present.

73

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Well, at the very least I’d expect them only to entertain claims that were feasibly testable in an afternoon or so. Telekinesis, telepathy and dowsing are pretty much the big three. Wart-whispering, though, is difficult to test and cures can be explained by the psychosomatic effect (as well as the good old fashioned passing of time).

[/QUOTE]

The psychosomatic effect is virtually the same as placebo and has no scietific proven explanation. It is just a concept.

74

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
There youn have it. I have no special ability. Only the evidence that the placebo effect is real and that it is paranormal by every definition of the word.

As I suspected, this rule contradcits the advertisement, strengthening a case for false advertisement.
[/quote]
Um, no. The rules are on the website, and in a document that must be read and agreed to before the challenge can move forward in any way. It is, in fact, the very first link, and the only link, you can click on if you want to go forward. If you want to proceed in any fashion, you must read and agree to this requirement. There is no other page that sets out the rules.

I take it you never actually read the rules previously, or you wouldn’t be surprised by this rule. Strange way of poking holes in someone’s claim to not know what the claim is.

75

[QUOTE=RJKUgly]
Actually $10,000 of it is Randi’s personal money
[/QUOTE]

I stand corrected and now remember that the whole thing started with the $10,000 offered by Randi. The inflation came after Randi’s quest generated enough publicity (and no winners) that he got other contributions.

Anyway, the claim can be paranormal by any definition one wants, but it has to be testable. I could claim the paranormal ability of telekinesis, but it only works in a downward direction. If Randi will let go of a ball, I will use the power of my mind to accelerate it rapidly to the floor and maybe up and down again a few times. Randi pointing out that this movement is adequately explained by gravity and bouncing in no way disproves my claim, but I can honestly expect them to demand a more impressive test before I get a check for a cool mill. Similarly, the disappearance of warts is explainable by the passage of time and if that time seems shorter than average, the disparity can be explained by the known-though-not-fully-understood psychosomatic effect. If one wants to claim something else, the test is going to have to be designed so that neither time nor positive thinking is a factor. I’m not sure exactly how this would work.

76

[QUOTE=RJKUgly]
Um, no. The rules are on the website, and in a document that must be read and agreed to before the challenge can move forward in any way. It is, in fact, the very first link, and the only link, you can click on if you want to go forward. If you want to proceed in any fashion, you must read and agree to this requirement. There is no other page that sets out the rules.

I take it you never actually read the rules previously, or you wouldn’t be surprised by this rule. Strange way of poking holes in someone’s claim to not know what the claim is.
[/QUOTE]

Um no…the link that says “Challenge info” states:

“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.”:

That’s the advertisement for the challenge and it is false. Although the advertisements says you must only show evidence of a power OR event, the application goes on to completely negate evidence of an event .

False advertising. Bogus.

77

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
The psychosomatic effect is virtually the same as placebo and has no scietific proven explanation. It is just a concept.
[/QUOTE]

It is?

78

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Um no…the link that says “Challenge info” states:

“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.”:

That’s the advertisement for the challenge and it is false. Although the advertisements says you must only show evidence of a power OR event, the application goes on to completely negate evidence of an event .

False advertising. Bogus.
[/QUOTE]
Giggle, snort, chuckle. Oh what the hell, LOL! I’m tempted to send you money to try to hire a lawyer just to see you get laughed at.

Let me tell you a story. In high school I was pissed off about the dress code. I read the rules carefully (something you apparently didn’t do BTW) and noticed that it outlawed something on the order of “all uniforms or other dress intended to show the wearer is part of a specific group”. I pointed out to the Vice Principal that this technically outlawed the football team uniforms, cheerleader uniformss, etc. He looked at it and said….

wait for it….

ready?

He said no it didn’t. “But, but, but…” I sputtered, “it clearly says that..”

But he said forget it. “It’s our rules, and we say they mean that it doesn’t outlaw the football team but does outlaw your military jacket.”

And that was that. Nitpicking the grammar was a high school level tactic 35 years ago, it’s a high school level tactic now, and will be just as effective.

Try it and get laughed at, but please let me know when and where, I’d love to see it.

79

[QUOTE=RJKUgly]
Giggle, snort, chuckle. Oh what the hell, LOL! I’m tempted to send you money to try to hire a lawyer just to see you get laughed at.

Let me tell you a story. In high school I was pissed off about the dress code. I read the rules carefully (something you apparently didn’t do BTW) and noticed that it outlawed something on the order of “all uniforms or other dress intended to show the wearer is part of a specific group”. I pointed out to the Vice Principal that this technically outlawed the football team uniforms, cheerleader uniformss, etc. He looked at it and said….

wait for it….

ready?

He said no it didn’t. “But, but, but…” I sputtered, “it clearly says that..”

But he said forget it. “It’s our rules, and we say they mean that it doesn’t outlaw the football team but does outlaw your military jacket.”

And that was that. Nitpicking the grammar was a high school level tactic 35 years ago, it’s a high school level tactic now, and will be just as effective.

Try it and get laughed at, but please let me know when and where, I’d love to see it.
[/QUOTE]

Too bad you ddin’t have the gumption to challenge that rule to a higher authority. Sounds like you had a good argument.

80

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Too bad you ddin’t have the gumption to challenge that rule to a higher authority. Sounds like you had a good argument.
[/QUOTE]
No it wasn’t a good argument, and neither is yours, for similar reasons.

You seem to think you’ve got a case for false advertising. I think you’re not only mistaken, but very mistaken. So the next step isn’t rambling on about what the web site says or doesn’t, it isn’t to keep insisting that you’re right, or to say “bogus” several more time, the next step is to get a real legal opinion.

So it’s put up or shut up time. Get a lawyer and see if you can get them to file a case. As I said, I think the reaction will be fun to watch. You’re welcome to prove me wrong.

And now, being awed by your ability to put Randi in his place, I’m hitting the sack. If you’ve got anything better, put it up and I’ll look at it in the morning.