# The mandatory "Million Dollar Challenge is a fraud" thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 11, 2005, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555 "2005-02-11T06:37:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Valgard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7feea3/32.png) [@Valgard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valgard)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2005, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/301 "2005-02-20T16:32:46Z")
Peter, let’s try turning this around a little bit (and I apologize in advance if this was previously asked and answered): Can you give an example of a JREF applicant that you think might have been legit and based on their claims, give an idea of the testing procedure that you would have used? What would define successful demonstration of a paranormal ability, what would define failure to demonstrate same, how many trials you’d do, that sort of thing? Keep in mind that if the person passes this will be taken as strong evidence that they have a genuine paranormal power (we’re talking Nobel Prize kinda impact on the scientific world here) and they will also be one million dollars richer. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/302 "2005-02-21T08:34:33Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > Sadly, that is not the case. What he is doing is re-writing what they claim, and then demanding they prove what HE says, rather than prove what they say. So you always assert. Actual claimants disagree. Round and round the mulberry bush. > [@](#): > > Seriously, you haven’t seen many claims if that is the “weakest” one. The vast majority of claims are a few percentage points above chance level. See for example the [Rhine experiments](http://psychicinvestigator.com/demo/ESPdoc.htm), where his star performer achieved a 32% hit rate, against an expected 20% chance level. Waht you are talking about the results a tiny handful actually achieved, not about **what they claim**. > [@](#): > > Seriously, Princhester, most self-professed psychics claim a hit rate in that sort of region. No. Bear in mind there are probably tens or hundreds of thousands of claimed paranormalists out there. Pick up a crappy magazine and there will dozens of ads for psychic phone lines. Astrologers are everywhere you look. And they say they can predict your future. Period. Not that they can do so 30% of the time. If they’re exaggerating that’s their problem, not mine. > [@](#): > > Actually, what they say is "I hear a name beginning with D … or maybe B " Not exactly a claim of 100% success rate, is it? Two points. Firstly, that type of “psychic” always starts off with a vague guess to get things going, then they make more specific guesses (often dozens in rapid succession) when they’ve found their mark. So your example is not typical. Secondly, you are confusing two things. You are confusing the vagueness of the prediction with the claimed success rate. It is rare indeed to see a John Edward type psychic accept that their predictions have a low success rate. They may well (if tested) only achieve that. They may well make only make what are (when you analyse it) only vague guesses, but they claim to be able to speak to the dead. And their excuses when they fail don’t usually involve simply accepting they can’t do what they say very reliably. > [@](#): > > Look at the [Mars Effect.](http://cura.free.fr/xv/14starbb.html) The claim was that the position of Mars at the time of birth has a slight influence on someone’s choice of career. A matter of a few percentage points, only observable when looking at a large population. That is 22% of athletes were born with Mars in a particular position, compared to 17% of people generally. You again dealing with atypical astrology. There is a tiny minority of astrologers who do data mining to try to find small percentage differences of this sort. Meanwhile, the majority of people who are into astrology are using it to make strong statements. I’ve heard plenty of people say things like “oh, you were born at such and such a time. That’s why you’re a good etc” I’ve never ever heard any popular astrologer say “oh you were born at such and such a time. That correlates very slightly with this particular attribute, though frankly only 5% more than for those who were not born at that time”. “Academic” astrology and psi bear little relationship to “popular” astrology and psi. > [@](#): > > What makes you think that many paranormalists claim 100% rates? Nothing. Never said that. Would you mind answering my questions posed at paragraphs 197, 198 and 199 of this thread. > [@](#): > > Some people will take offense at anything. Can’t argue with that. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/303 "2005-02-21T22:02:35Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Done, Not remotely. You have, once again, dodged the point. The point is that Randi does NOT test the claims people make. He sets the bar far higher than they actually claim, and demands they meet his standard. That is why his tests aren’t valid. All your excuses don’t change that simple fact. > [@](#): > > though if your point is that the JREF challenge is worthless, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I find your reasoning unconvincing. Yeah, well. Just look through B.C.'s application, and the whole fiasco surrounding it. THAT is probasbly the biggest flaw with the challenge. Someone with a genuine paranormal power might refuse to apply because he knows that this is the treatment he can expect. > [@](#): > > The amusing thing is that I’m not even a Randi fan. I saw his special on _Nova_ a few years back, and I’ve been to the JREF website a few times, though never registered to post there. In fact, the only time I ever write about Randi is in threads like this one, and it’s not even to defend Randi but the scientific method itself. What I perceive is that you find your position under attack (and it is _such_ an easily-attackable position), two of your primary weapons are: > [ul][li]No-one but a Randi fan would defend Randi, and[/li][li]Randi fans are little more than mindless cult members[/ul][/li] Utterly wrong. There is a big difference between a casual reader like yourself, and an obsessive fanatic like Miskatonic. If you read more of his stuff, you might see why I object to him. My remarks about Randi fans do NOT follow an attack on my position. They follow an attack on me personally. Some completely illogical, and deliberately provocative attack on me personally, with no attempt to discuss the matter logically. Such as the guy that attacked me for what I said, ignoring the fact that a Randi supporter had said the same thing a few posts earlier. That is a hypocritical piece of nonsense, and was treated accordingly. Or, the childish name calling from Princhester earlier in the thread. He does that a lot, and some of the stuff he produces is so oozing with hatred and resentment that it makes me feel sick to read it. > [@](#): > > Now, a sneer can be an effective rhetorical tool, but when it’s overused it actually gets in the way. It suggests you have nothing else to say. Indeed, which is why I so object to Randi fans who do nothing but sneer. Maybe you should take a more detailed look at Randi’s writings. All he does is sneer. Look at how he throws names around, like “deluded”, “grubby” and the perpetual favourite “woo-woo.” The result of this is that his fan base consists of people that think “woo-woo” is a big and clever word. Maybe you should join his message board, and participate in a few debates there. Just see how often his supporters argue _you are a woo so I will ignore what you say._ In fact, sneering IS pretty muuch the only weapon Randi and his fans have. _Hey, he wont take the Randi challenge. He must know he’s a fraud then. What a woo-woo. Sneer, sneer, sneer._ And I agree, it does look like they have nothing else to say. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/304 "2005-02-21T22:15:11Z")
> [@Valgard](#): > > Peter, let’s try turning this around a little bit (and I apologize in advance if this was previously asked and answered): > > Can you give an example of a JREF applicant that you think might have been legit Yes, it’s been done before - to death. It’s one I get asked frequently. Its based on the supposition that ; 1. Every single skeptic adores Randi 2. Everyone that doesn’t love Randi is a believer. So, when I criticise him, I get accused of being a beliver. They challenge me to name a claim that I think is valid - and then prove that it’s true. Unless I can prove the truth of the claim, they say, I can have no argument against Randi. I get tired of pointing out that I am a sceptic. But 1. I see Randi for what he is, a dishonest and irrational man. And I don’t make excuses for him, as some skepics do. 2. I think that a few of these claims are worth testing, and they need to be tested fairly and properly. Randi is not the man to do it. So, no, I can’t name a claim that I think might be legit. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/305 "2005-02-21T23:03:34Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > So you always assert. Actual claimants disagree. Round and round the mulberry bush. Rubbish. The fact is, that most claimant won’t take the test that Randi offers them . So a small number have accepted, and from this you assume that: 1. Accepting a test is the same as saying you think it’s fair. 2. The few that accept speak for the majority that don’t. People like B.C. approach Randi with a claim of powers that work once in a while. Randi refuses to test them. A few of them may accept a test with the bar set higher. It doesn’t mean they \*like \*the test they are given. > [@](#): > > Waht you are talking about the results a tiny handful actually achieved, not about **what they claim**. A hair split so fine you couldn’t see it with an electron microscope. > [@](#): > > No. Bear in mind there are probably tens or hundreds of thousands of claimed paranormalists out there. Pick up a crappy magazine and there will dozens of ads for psychic phone lines. Astrologers are everywhere you look. And they say they can predict your future. Period. Not that they can do so 30% of the time. If they’re exaggerating that’s their problem, not mine. Oh, so if I see an an advert for a doctor, saying that he can treat certain ailments, it automatically follows that he can cure it completely every time without fail? After all, it’s an advert, isn’t it. > [@](#): > > Two points. Firstly, that type of “psychic” always starts off with a vague guess to get things going, then they make more specific guesses (often dozens in rapid succession) when they’ve found their mark. So your example is not typical. > > Secondly, you are confusing two things. You are confusing the vagueness of the prediction with the claimed success rate. It is rare indeed to see a John Edward type psychic accept that their predictions have a low success rate. They may well (if tested) only achieve that. They may well make only make what are (when you analyse it) only vague guesses, but they claim to be able to speak to the dead. And their excuses when they fail don’t usually involve simply accepting they can’t do what they say very reliably. From what I’ve seen, and I’ve not seen very much, they are saying they can only devine a part of the information, get vague impressions, etc. And they can’t always get the spirit the client wants. They don’t claim anything like total accuracy. > [@](#): > > You again dealing with atypical astrology. There is a tiny minority of astrologers who do data mining to try to find small percentage differences of this sort. > > Meanwhile, the majority of people who are into astrology are using it to make strong statements. I’ve heard plenty of people say things like “oh, you were born at such and such a time. That’s why you’re a good etc” > > I’ve never ever heard any popular astrologer say “oh you were born at such and such a time. That correlates very slightly with this particular attribute, though frankly only 5% more than for those who were not born at that time”. I’ve never read much astrology at all, even as a small child I didn’t take it seriously enough to study. But what I’ve read, the asrologers say things like “Capricorns tend to be blah blah blah.” I’ve not seen them make specific statements that \*every \*Capricorn has certain qualities. > [@](#): > > Nothing. Never said that. Oh? You said **"Astrologers are everywhere you look. And they say they can predict your future. Period. Not that they can do so 30% of the time. "** And you have made plenty of statements along similar lines. Perhaps you would clarify what you mean by that emphatic “period.” I interpreted it as meaning 100% of the time. If you meant something else, by all means clarify. > [@](#): > > Would you mind answering my questions posed at paragraphs 197, 198 and 199 of this thread. We’ve been over this point before, Princhester. In a debate a lot of people ask a lot of questiions. Nobody has the time to answer every single one of them. Just because a few go ignored does not mean that you have won anything. Those three questions were trivial bits of nonsense that I didn’t consider worth my time answering. I mean before your first post I make a prediction that you will shortly join this thread. So, when my prediction comes true you ask “The significance being?” Then whine when I don’t bother answering. The significance is that you will always rush to Randi’s defence in threads like this… And doubtless you will ask “so what” again and again and again. It’s a trivial point. Get over it. As for your other two questions, I know because of the information Kramer provided, and I don’t have to believe a claim to advocate a fair test for it. See how easy the answers are, and why I didn’t bother replying before? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/306 "2005-02-21T23:25:02Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > Or, the childish name calling from Princhester earlier in the thread. Where? Cites. Quotes. Or accept you are deluded. ---
**Author:** ![Valgard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7feea3/32.png) [@Valgard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valgard)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/307 "2005-02-21T23:29:42Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > Yes, it’s been done before - to death. It’s one I get asked frequently. Its based on the supposition that ; > > 1. Every single skeptic adores Randi > 2. Everyone that doesn’t love Randi is a believer. > > So, when I criticise him, I get accused of being a beliver. They challenge me to name a claim that I think is valid - and then prove that it’s true. Unless I can prove the truth of the claim, they say, I can have no argument against Randi. > > I get tired of pointing out that I am a sceptic. But > > 1. I see Randi for what he is, a dishonest and irrational man. And I don’t make excuses for him, as some skepics do. > > 2. I think that a few of these claims are worth testing, and they need to be tested fairly and properly. Randi is not the man to do it. > > So, no, I can’t name a claim that I think might be legit. Just for the record, I don’t think that every skeptic adores Randi nor do I think that everyone who does NOT adore the man is an avid defender of the paranormal. I’m also not asking for anyone to PROVE that a particular claim is true, I was just looking for one that you thought had some meat to it and an idea of what you would suggest as a fair test, that’s all. Since the big debate here seems to be whether the rules that have been used for any given challenge application are so tough that a real paranormal ability couldn’t pass muster, I was interested in what you would consider acceptable rules. It’s not a personal attack or a request for proof of anything, however since we’ve got the hardcore skeptics saying “These rules are fair” and others saying “No they aren’t”, I’d like to hear what the latter group would put forward as a fair alternative. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/308 "2005-02-22T00:07:23Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > Rubbish. The fact is, that most claimant won’t take the test that Randi offers them . So a small number have accepted, and from this you assume that: > > 1. Accepting a test is the same as saying you think it’s fair. > 2. The few that accept speak for the majority that don’t. It is howevever entirely your assumption that they think tests they have accepted are unfair. You have no evidence for this whatever. If they accept a test they think is unfair, that is their problem. Without evidence, you are simply assuming they are silly enough to do so. I thought it was us skeptics who made negative assumptions about claimants? > [@](#): > > It doesn’t mean they \*like \*the test they are given. How is whether they like it relevant? The question is whether it is fair. You have no evidence they think the tests unfair. It’s just your assumption. As to why most applicants never agree a protocol, it’s quite simple. _As you accept_ most if not all applicants can’t do what they think they can do. How do they nonetheless come to say they can do what they say? There can be only two answers (1) they are a fraud (2) they never perform their feats under controlled conditions and so are able to delude themselves. What is going to happen when they realise they are faced with performing their feat under controlled conditions under which they are almost certainly going to fail? It doesn’t take a genius to predict that a very high percentage are not going to bother going on with it, once they realise they are not going to be able to perform. In other words, most applicants dropping out is _exactly what you would expect upon the imposition of a fair controlled test_. So it _could_ be that dropouts by most applicants are attributable to JREF setting unfair tests, but given that dropouts are precisely what one would expect from the setting of fair tests, it seem to say more about your predilictions than anything that you are so sure that the former is the explanation rather than the latter. > [@](#): > > hair split so fine you couldn’t see it with an electron microscope. Wait a minute. You are seriously suggesting that it is splitting hairs to suggest there may be a significant difference between what one claims to be able to do and what one can do? You need to rethink that one. > [@](#): > > Oh, so if I see an an advert for a doctor, saying that he can treat certain ailments, it automatically follows that he can cure it completely every time without fail? After all, it’s an advert, isn’t it. If I saw an ad for a doctor saying “I can cure your cancer” (or whatever) I would think ill of the integrity of that doctor. I’ve never seen that sort of an ad. I have seen plenty for astrologers saying they can predict your future. [quote] From what I’ve seen, **and I’ve not seen very much** , they are saying they can only devine a part of the information, get vague impressions, etc. And they can’t always get the spirit the client wants. They don’t claim anything like total accuracy. Well I’ve highlighted the important part. Come back when you’ve done some basic research. > [@](#): > > I’ve never read much astrology at all, even as a small child I didn’t take it seriously enough to study. But what I’ve read, the asrologers say things like “Capricorns tend to be blah blah blah.” I’ve not seen them make specific statements that \*every \*Capricorn has certain qualities. No. Exactly. They certainly don’t say “Capricorns have a tendency barely above statistical significant towards blah blah blah” > [@](#): > > Oh? You said **"Astrologers are everywhere you look. And they say they can predict your future. Period. Not that they can do so 30% of the time. "** And you have made plenty of statements along similar lines. > > Perhaps you would clarify what you mean by that emphatic “period.” I interpreted it as meaning 100% of the time. If you meant something else, by all means clarify. Ask the astrologers. By period, I mean that is all they say, unqualified. > [@](#): > > We’ve been over this point before, Princhester. In a debate a lot of people ask a lot of questiions. Nobody has the time to answer every single one of them. Just because a few go ignored does not mean that you have won anything. You seem to have plenty of time to make extensive posts when you want to. Questions with awkward answers, or that you can’t answer somehow never get answered by you unless I prod. > [@](#): > > I mean before your first post I make a prediction that you will shortly join this thread. So, when my prediction comes true you ask “The significance being?” Then whine when I don’t bother answering. The significance is that you will always rush to Randi’s defence in threads like this. And the reason I wanted the question answered (which you have now done, thank you) is so that I can point out that your presence in this thread was equally predictable. So to the extent that your point appears to be that my opinions are somehow less valid because I always “rush to Randi’s defence” that point also applies in reverse to you. See? > [@](#): > > As for your other two questions, I know because of the information Kramer provided… You don’t know because of information Kramer provided, there is no such information. As I’ve said to you before, no one who debates you regularly believes a word you say unless you provide actual cites, with actual quotes in support of your alleged points. Cites, quotes or accept you are making stuff up, Peter. > [@](#): > > and I don’t have to believe a claim to advocate a fair test for it. You know damn well that is not an answer to my point. My point is you don’t believe a claim, you have no inside knowledge of what the claimant can or can’t do, the claimant has not said they can’t do a particular thing, and yet, somehow, you claim to **know** that the test is unfair because the applicant’s telepathic powers that you don’t think he has and that he hasn’t said have the limitation you assume aren’t good enough to pass the proposed test. How does that make sense? > [@](#): > > See how easy the answers are, and why I didn’t bother replying before? I think it’s quite clear why you didn’t reply before. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/309 "2005-02-22T01:30:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* Peter :\*\* Or, the childish name calling from Princhester earlier in the thread. > > **Princhester :** Where? Cites. Quotes. Or accept you are deluded. Well, I think “deluded” would qualify as name calling. Only A Randi-fan would object to being accused of name-calling, and call a name when doing it. But actually, I was thinking of your behaviour in post #237. On reflection, it would be more accurate to say “sneering” than “name-calling.” However, I stand by “childish.” (notice, Brian, how I use the term Randi-fan in respose to an attack on me, not against any logical argument". And see how the Randi-fans use the tactic of sneering when logic fails) ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/310 "2005-02-22T01:57:34Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > Not remotely. You have, once again, dodged the point. The point is that Randi does NOT test the claims people make. He sets the bar far higher than they actually claim, and demands they meet his standard. That is why his tests aren’t valid. That doesn’t follow. He sets a high standard to eliminate or greatly reduce the chance of fraud or the vagaries of chance. How is that invalid? > [@](#): > > All your excuses don’t change that simple fact. I don’t recognize that anything I’ve said is an excuse. > [@](#): > > Yeah, well. Just look through B.C.'s application, and the whole fiasco surrounding it. THAT is probasbly the biggest flaw with the challenge. Someone with a genuine paranormal power might refuse to apply because he knows that this is the treatment he can expect. And those _without_ paranormal powers are filtered out as well. Frankly, if someone _did_ have paranormal powers (assuming such things exist) and they were demonstrable and reliable, I daresay the $1 million is sufficient incentive to put up with a fairly trivial amount of hassle. > [@](#): > > Utterly wrong. There is a big difference between a casual reader like yourself, and an obsessive fanatic like Miskatonic. If you read more of his stuff, you might see why I object to him. Miskatonic’s views are irrelevant. As a casual reader (though I’ve never actually read any of Randi’s books; I assume he has a couple), I can find flaws in your position quite easily. Any personal problem you have with Misk or anyone else you consider to be a “fanatic” is none of my concern. > [@](#): > > My remarks about Randi fans do NOT follow an attack on my position. They follow an attack on me personally. Some completely illogical, and deliberately provocative attack on me personally, with no attempt to discuss the matter logically. I dunno, it looks like you’re as eager to attack them as they are to attack you. I’ve gone over this thread for all occurrences of “Peter” (i.e. posts by you, quoting you, or referring to you) and the first “attack” I can find is yours, in post #136, directed at Miskatonic: > [@](#): > > I get the impression that you wouldn’t see mass murder as a failing if Randi did it. Seriously, what would it take to convince you? The fact that Randi hasd constantly broken his own stated rules is abundantly clear, but you always have an excuse. And this was not I response to any attack on you by Miskatonic, but only him disagreeing with your interpretation on how the Carey business was, heh, carried out. For this disagreement, you suggest Miskatonic would excuse mass murder. It’s hard to view this as anything _but_ a (admittedly mild) personal attack, and it was yours. If you can find an earlier example in this thread of an attack on you, please point it out to me. If you evidence consists solely of attacks made on you in _other_ threads, than I’ll have to ask if you feel you can _ever_ “make a clean break” and discuss the subject without bringing in past baggage. I’d suggest you simply ignore anything you perceive as a personal attack, if you make such an attempt. > [@](#): > > Such as the guy that attacked me for what I said, ignoring the fact that a Randi supporter had said the same thing a few posts earlier. That is a hypocritical piece of nonsense, and was treated accordingly. Or, the childish name calling from Princhester earlier in the thread. He does that a lot, and some of the stuff he produces is so oozing with hatred and resentment that it makes me feel sick to read it. An accorded treatment for hypocritical nonsense can be to ignore it. Your sickness is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > Maybe you should take a more detailed look at Randi’s writings. All he does is sneer. Look at how he throws names around, like “deluded”, “grubby” and the perpetual favourite “woo-woo.” _ALL_ he does is sneer? Hardly. > [@](#): > > The result of this is that his fan base consists of people that think “woo-woo” is a big and clever word. Maybe you should join his message board, and participate in a few debates there. Just see how often his supporters argue _you are a woo so I will ignore what you say._ So there are some idiots on his board. Of what possible relevance is that to the validity and methodology of the JREF challenge? > [@](#): > > In fact, sneering IS pretty muuch the only weapon Randi and his fans have. We’ll have to disagree on that point. Randi has tools at his disposal like logic and his experience as a magician, to be used when it comes to uncovering charlatans. I also think it’s possible he (and his backers) would genuinely like to see something paranormal. > [@](#): > > Hey, he wont take the Randi challenge. He must know he’s a fraud then. What a woo-woo. Sneer, sneer, sneer. I _get_ it; you don’t like the people you call Randi fans and the political hay they make or try to make from the existence of the as-yet unwon challenge. Of what relevance is any of this to the validity of the challenge itself? If it has no relevance, can we concentrate on the challenge itself? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/311 "2005-02-22T02:14:38Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > Well, I think “deluded” would qualify as name calling. Possibly, if he’d wanted to imply you were suffering under a psychotic delusion. In a more general sense, that you believe something because you’ve been deceived. > [@](#): > > Only A Randi-fan would object to being accused of name-calling, and call a name when doing it. Heh, _only_ a Randi-fan? > [@](#): > > But actually, I was thinking of your behaviour in post #237. On reflection, it would be more accurate to say “sneering” than “name-calling.” However, I stand by “childish.” I’d characterize it as “sarcastic” myself. > [@](#): > > (notice, Brian, how I use the term Randi-fan in respose to an attack on me, not against any logical argument". And see how the Randi-fans use the tactic of sneering when logic fails) Your use of my name (well, sort-of) is why I’m responding to this post. I’m not your scorekeeper, or an anthopologist, nor is “Randi-fan” some magic phrase that distinguishes a justified argument from an unjustified one. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/312 "2005-02-22T02:17:03Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > In a more general sense, that you believe something because you’ve been deceived. Err, In a more general sense, that you believe something because you’ve been deceived, I don’t know that it’d qualify as an insult. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/313 "2005-02-22T02:32:27Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > And this was not I response to any attack on you by Miskatonic, but only him disagreeing with your interpretation on how the Carey business was, heh, carried out. For this disagreement, you suggest Miskatonic would excuse mass murder. It’s hard to view this as anything _but_ a (admittedly mild) personal attack, and it was yours. It was that darn “Pol-Pot: Swell guy” thread I started those months ago. I knew it would come back to haunt me. That and “Hitler-iffic!” Oh, and the thread locating the unmarked graves of James Randi’s victims. Shoot! I did it again! Fell right into Peter’s hands! ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/314 "2005-02-22T02:33:52Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > How is whether they like it relevant? The question is whether it is fair. You have no evidence they think the tests unfair. It’s just your assumption. And what evidence do you have that they think it’s fair? All you haven is the fact that a few people have agreed to take his test. You assume because they took it that they think it’s fair. And that they speak for all the ones that didn’t. But here’s a bit of logic to support my side: Randi says that he hardly ever catches peopkle trying to cheat. MOST of them actually believe their claims. Yet they won’t agree to Randi’s test. Why would they refuse if the test is fair? Obviously, they do not think the test is fair. > [@](#): > > In other words, most applicants dropping out is _exactly what you would expect upon the imposition of a fair controlled test_. On the contrary, it’s what you would expect if the test was dishonest, unfair and badly run. Why would anyone confident of their own abilities refuse a fair test? > [@](#): > > Wait a minute. You are seriously suggesting that it is splitting hairs to suggest there may be a significant difference between what one claims to be able to do and what one can do? > > You need to rethink that one. The Randi challenge test what people can do. The Randi challenge tests what people claim they can do. Sure there’s a difference. But not a significant one. > [@](#): > > You seem to have plenty of time to make extensive posts when you want to. Questions with awkward answers, or that you can’t answer somehow never get answered by you unless I prod. They were just trivial bits of nonsense. You’ve done this before. You and the rest fire a hundred rude questions at me, and if I only answer 99 of them you claim that I am “unable” to answer the other one. Never mind the 99 questions that I answered. The phrase “clutching at straws” springs to mind. > [@](#): > > You don’t know because of information Kramer provided, there is no such information. Actually, Kramer’s report describes how Randi & co discussed the matter between themselves, without involving the applicant, then simply told him what they had arranged. > [@](#): > > I think it’s quite clear why you didn’t reply before. Because it was an utterly trivial point, and you wasted everyone’s time by going on about it. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/315 "2005-02-22T02:42:49Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > Well, I think “deluded” would qualify as name calling. You said I’d done something. Twice. I hadn’t, as you now accept. You knew damn well what I’d written. You’re not stupid, and you have an eye for detail, when it suits you. But you chose nonetheless to describe what I’d written as name calling. You chose to call it “insults”. Even though you must have either (a) known it was neither of those things but decided on a “big lie” approach or (b)somehow managed to convince yourself that I did something that at another level you must have known I didn’t do. How would _you_ describe your own behaviour? How would you describe the behaviour of someone who _first_ calls someone unreasonable, obsessive and fanatical and then complains that they are being insulted, when they are not? I have no idea how your own conscience deals with the way you behave in these debates. I’d genuinely like to know. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/316 "2005-02-22T02:50:21Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > All you haven is the fact that a few people have agreed to take his test. You assume because they took it that they think it’s fair. And that they speak for all the ones that didn’t. Where does **Princhester** make this last assumption? > [@](#): > > But here’s a bit of logic to support my side Your logic is flawed. > [@](#): > > Randi says that he hardly ever catches peopkle trying to cheat. MOST of them actually believe their claims. Both premises supported by Randi’s own statements. > [@](#): > > Yet they won’t agree to Randi’s test. False inference, which does not follow from the premises. That most of the people who do take the test honestly believe in their abilities doe NOT imply that most of the people who do not take the test are honest as well. > [@](#): > > Why would they refuse if the test is fair? This question has numerous answers. > [@](#): > > Obviously, they do not think the test is fair. This conclusion does not follow from your premises. If you’d like a more detailed explanation of why your logic is faulty, I can get my old symbolic logic textbook, or ask **Liberal** to explain it. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/317 "2005-02-22T03:08:00Z")
> [@Valgard](#): > > Just for the record, I don’t think that every skeptic adores Randi nor do I think that everyone who does NOT adore the man is an avid defender of the paranormal. > > I’m also not asking for anyone to PROVE that a particular claim is true, I was just looking for one that you thought had some meat to it and an idea of what you would suggest as a fair test, that’s all. . No, I’ve walked into that trap before. Even a comment that _this_ claim is slightly less absurd than _that_ claim is twisted into an admission that I believe it. I’m not going down that road again. Fool me once … Here’s the point. I don’t HAVE to think a claim has “some meat to it” to want it tested fairly. A few times in the past claims that seemed totally ridiculous turned out to be true. See, for example, continental drift, or meteorites. Both of them at one time were considered ridiculous and absurd by the scientific community. Way back when, these ideas were considered pseudoscientific or supernatural, and only crackpots believed in them. Had I lived at the time, I too would probably have considerd these claims absurd. I don’t go believing these things until I see proof. Of course, once the claims were validated and the science books were re-written, the claims seemed ordinary and mundane. That sort of thing is very rare, but it does happen. So, when I see any given claim, I don’t go believing in it. But I want to see it tested fairly and properly. There is a slight possibility that it might turn out to be true. As for the design of the test, that would have to be done by someone with the appropriate scientific and statistical qualifications. I have only an elementary knowledge of statistics. I know enough to see basic problems with Randi’s test, but not enough to design one myself. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/318 "2005-02-22T03:13:58Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > You said I’d done something. Twice. I hadn’t, as you now accept. You knew damn well what I’d written. I’ve given evidence that you DID say that. The “as you now accept” part is your own imagination. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/319 "2005-02-22T03:16:54Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > And what evidence do you have that they think it’s fair? We’ve been over this. People take the tests, they must think they’re fair. Don’t bother challenging that statement unless you are prepared to accept that you know claimants’ abilities better than they do, or that they are stupid or dishonest. Plus what **Doc** said. > [@](#): > > The Randi challenge test what people can do. > The Randi challenge tests what people claim they can do. This is not to the point and you know it. Go back and read what we were talking about. Your comments about what people could do had nothing to do with the Challenge. > [@](#): > > Actually, Kramer’s report describes how Randi & co discussed the matter between themselves, without involving the applicant, then simply told him what they had arranged. Quotes, cites, Peter. Or shut up. None of us believe you. You can’t answer my question so you are making stuff up, and pretending my question is trivial. In fact, the idea that applicants are treated badly is a key argument of yours, but this particular example is not factually accurate. Provide cites and quotes or accept that. > [@](#): > > Because it was an utterly trivial point, and you wasted everyone’s time by going on about it. The idea that JREF impose impossible testing conditions is a key element of your argument. You gave as a proving example a particular testing condition imposed on Carey that you say he could never have met. Carey does not say that. Explain how you know Carey’s abilities better than him, or accept that your example has no foundation and that your pretence that my question is trivial is just the protestation of an emperor who has no clothes. In fact, this whole discussion is typical of a debate with you. You make certain assertions about the JREF challenge. Those assertions are without foundation, and you provide no cites or quotes to back them. Then you are asked awkward questions which you ignore because you can’t answer them. If pressed, you say you’ve already answered the question, or that it is unimportant, or give an unresponsive answer. Then the thread ends. Then another thread starts and you make exactly the same assertions, and the whole process begins again. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/320 "2005-02-22T03:23:54Z")
Don’t try to confuse the issue. You referred to alleged: > [@Peter Morris](#): > > …childish name calling from Princhester earlier in the thread… You then said: > [@Peter Morris](#): > > On reflection, it would be more accurate to say “sneering” than “name-calling.” So this comment: > [@Peter Morris](#): > > The “as you now accept” part is your own imagination. Is just another lie or self delusion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555.md?page=17)