The mandatory "Million Dollar Challenge is a fraud" thread

[erislover]

@MaxTheVool

And, of course, as has been argued before, both sides agree to the terms of the test, and what is tested is only what is claimed.

What could a professional baseball player claim? Let’s use this. Clearly, pro players are above and beyond “average”. Their history is available for all to see. What could they claim? What test makes sense here? What does “chance” mean here?

Suppose I had precognition. Suppose further the underlying mechanism for this requires the acceptance of the many-worlds theory, and that what I am “actually” doing is examining a subset of possible futures. Suppose that this is even a literal “observation”, i.e., I go into a trance and “see” from a disembodied perspective what may happen. I can’t control which reality manifests itself to me, so I will be wrong. How often will I be wrong? I will do much better than chance at reporting what I see. But whether or not that future comes to pass is, for all intents and purposes, outside my control.

Suppose that, somehow, a brain maintains a set of particles that are entangled with the environment. Over the course of one’s life, one gets “flashes” about what is happening around them, sometimes in dreams, sometimes when waking. The entangled particles only yield sporadic information about the environment they are in, and only reveal information the moment their entanglement fades. Can you see what is happening in distant places? Can you pass a test?

Suppose there are subatomic wormholes that allow the transfer of information. Further suppose that only certain people have the ability to use one end of these wormholes to get information about the other end: it happens when that portion of the brain passes over one, or a group of them, that gives meaningful information. Some may give information about the future, or the past. Others about what is going on right now. Still others about alternate realities that seem like ours but aren’t (let’s call them ‘writers’ :p). What test could they pass?

Let’s face it. I don’t think most people here would think for a moment that John Edwards communicates with the dead. Hell, I doubt people can exhibit any reliable form of ESP, or precognition, or telekenisis, or… But that doesn’t mean 100% accuracy, or anything approaching it, is any more plausible than the effect itself. That is, in absence of any proposed mechanism, there is no reason why any particular mark should be set… including “better than chance,” for non-charlatans, should they, of course, exist. Ask me what criteria should be set for a particle accellerator to work. How the hell should I know? I don’t know how they work, so how could I test that they do?

For the paranormal, the existence of a mechanism, including its a description of how it fuctions, is precisely what is in question. It makes as much sense to ask an ignorant psychic as it does to ask an ignorant skeptic. What does the caveman suggest a good gas mileage is? Etc.

Again: I don’t believe there are any such activities. The BS I spelled out above is hack science fiction and tortured examples. It is only meant to illustrate that one must have a grasp of the phenomenon in question before one can meaningfully test for it, or even decide what a meaningful test is. I have no doubt about the veracity of organic chemistry. That doesn’t mean if you took a mass spec to me tinkering with chemicals you’d see a great synthesis, and if you didn’t know how to make or read the results from a mass spec, then the whole thing, to me, is ridiculous on its face.

[Princhester]

@Peter Morris

Because it’s a classical logical fallacy. It’s called a loaded question. Look it up.

Codswallop. I think you’re the one who should be looking it up. I’m well aware what a loaded question is, and Max’s question simply isn’t one.

As has already been pointed out to you, you were quite prepared to comment on exactly the same question, with the odds only very slightly changed, and there is no way that that simple change could take the question from being loaded to unloaded.

If you think to the contrary, go look up what a loaded question is.

@Peter Morris

This example shows that people can want a test WITHOUT being certain they will pass.

Therefore a test CAN be unfair and people might still be willing to take it.

She doesn’t say she is uncertain she can pass because the test is unfair, she says she is uncertain of her powers.

This example gets you nowhere.

No, I pointed out that Randi’s protocol was badly flawed. That is not the same.

Go back and re-read. You asserted that Carey’s powers would not be sufficient to pass the level of test JREF proposed, even though Carey was not saying that, and even though you don’t know what the limitations on Carey’s alleged powers are. Basically you speculated without foundation that Carey would not have powers sufficient to pass, and then asserted on the basis of foundationless speculation that the test was unfair. You can deny it all you like, but after three or four pages you have come up with nothing to support your speculation.

And don’t bother with that dross about Carey never agreeing to the test: he only suggested one problem with the test, and it was not the problem that you speculate about.

@Peter Morris

I never presumed to say what he can do.

@Peter Morris

I don’t believe Paul Carey has telepathic powers. But if he does, there is no way on Earth he would pass that test. The test is way too difficult. It is simply not a fair test of his ability.

How many more times do you plan on baldly asserting that you didn’t do what in fact is precisely what you did? Of all my questions, don’t bother responding to that one, I already know the answer

Actually, I knew fine. You found yourself in a corner, tried to change the subject and got yourself into even worse trouble. I just answered the question you asked. The fact that it was a dumb question is your fault.

This is fantasy. There was no question. You clearly have no idea what started out this aspect of our debate.

The facts clearly show that they consulted each other for a mutually agreeable date, but didn’t bother including him in the discussion. This is not ambiguous in the least.

Assert what you like, but stating to me that “the facts clearly show” something may as well be the wind in the trees for all I (or anyone else who has debated you significantly) is going to listen, unless you come up with cites and quotes. The quote you have come up with so far does not support your assertion.

Well, this is typical of your logic. You deny your insulting behaviour, and while doing so, you accuse me of “whingeing” and “hypocrisy.”

[blah blah blah…]

Let’s see if we can get this down to something simple:

1/ Do you deny you insulted me before I even came into this thread? Yes or no?

2/ Do you deny that you subsequently complained that I had insulted you? Yes or no?

3/ How do you not call that hypocrisy?

Answer my questions, or accept you just can’t face the answers you know you have to give.

[Princhester]

@Peter Morris

In the Rhine experiments the star performer claimed a success rate of 32% on a 1 in 5 chance. Many self-proclaimed psychics claim even lower scores.

There is a reason that when I debate you I insist on cites and quotes. That reason is that you make stuff up, and you give cites that simply do not say what you claim.

Nothing in the cite you give says that the star performer “claimed” a success rate of 32%. The cite does not mention anywhere what percentage he claimed: it merely says that the tests showed 32% above chance.

Try again.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Regarding these references to the Rhine experiments, it’s worth nothing that they took place in 1933-34, some 70 years ago. If they were evidence of the existence of psychic ability, shouldn’t we be seeing the effects by now? On the assumption, of course, that ESP abilities can be channeled into more useful pursuits than reading card symbols.

[MaxTheVool]

@erislover

<snip>

Again: I don’t believe there are any such activities. The BS I spelled out above is hack science fiction and tortured examples. It is only meant to illustrate that one must have a grasp of the phenomenon in question before one can meaningfully test for it, or even decide what a meaningful test is. I have no doubt about the veracity of organic chemistry. That doesn’t mean if you took a mass spec to me tinkering with chemicals you’d see a great synthesis, and if you didn’t know how to make or read the results from a mass spec, then the whole thing, to me, is ridiculous on its face.

I’m a bit puzzled by some parts of your post, but… what you’re saying seems to reinforce, to me, the idea that you have to see what people claim, and then test that claim. If someone comes in and says “ummm, I have psychic powers sometimes”, that’s not something we can test. If someone comes in and says "I can call a coin flip 50.0004% of the time, that’s something we can test in theory, but probably not in practice because of how long it would take. If someone comes in and says “I can call a coin flip 80% of the time” or “I can use my dowsing rods to find gold 100% of the time”, then THAT is something we can test. Which is (in theory) how the JREF test works, and is (imho) the only reasonable way something of that sort COULD work. Putting aside for a moment the question of whether Randi and his “lackeys” are charlatans or idiots, do you think that’s a reasonable basic structure, or not?
Bear in mind, by the way, that the JREF challenge is NOT some kind of proof that nothing paranormal exists. If person A says “I believe in fairies” or “I believe ESP might exist in certain rare situations” and person B says “but what about the JREF challenge? I’ve just proven you’re wrong. And you’re an idiot”, then person B is the one being an idiot.

[DocCathode]

@MaxTheVool

Bear in mind, by the way, that the JREF challenge is NOT some kind of proof that nothing paranormal exists. If person A says “I believe in fairies” or “I believe ESP might exist in certain rare situations” and person B says “but what about the JREF challenge? I’ve just proven you’re wrong. And you’re an idiot”, then person B is the one being an idiot.

James Randi has said ‘If I throw a hundred reindeer off of a cliff, I haven’t proven that reindeer cannot fly. I’ve only proven that none of those reindeer can fly.’

[erislover]

@MaxTheVool

Putting aside for a moment the question of whether Randi and his “lackeys” are charlatans or idiots, do you think that’s a reasonable basic structure, or not?

Honestly, I can’t answer the question. Not having any understanding of how the paranormal is supposed to work, I cannot say whether any particular test is good or not. I do think, however, that if someone could perform mind reading or something of the sort, that it probably wouldn’t manifest itself in a way that could easily lend itself to such a test. I can say, without reservation, that it is a fair test, in the sense that the standards must be agreed upon in advance. Whether these kinds of tests could actually discover ESP, should it exist… well, I can’t say. I think it is reasonable, at this time, to suggest that if something like ESP manifested itself in a way that was amendable to this kind of testing, that it would have been proven long before this test came about.

[Princhester]

@erislover

Not having any understanding of how the paranormal is supposed to work, I cannot say whether any particular test is good or not.

I think you are illustrating the point. If one has no understanding of how the paranormal works, and have therefore no idea where to look, surely looking where the claimant is pointing is the appropriate thing to do?

[erislover]

As a phenomenon becomes more widely observed, a method of testing comes about which refines the qualification and quantification of the phenomenon, which further refines testing. I think the test in question serves only as a bulwark against charlatans. I believe there is an aphorism in magical circles, that those who can do don’t talk about it, and those who talk about it can’t. That adage is about as strong of a selective agent to me as the JREF challenge. I doubt that anyone will collect the million dollars, and I also doubt that such phenomena exist, but there’s no connection between the two doubts, for me.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@erislover

I believe there is an aphorism in magical circles, that those who can do don’t talk about it, and those who talk about it can’t. That adage is about as strong of a selective agent to me as the JREF challenge.

I rather doubt that adage is nearly as strong as the promise of a million bucks. If those with true psychic abilities aren’t interested, is it because:
[ul][li]Possessing psychic abilities somehow eliminates or reduces the conventional human instinct for greed, and/or[/li][li]Those with such abilities have realized they can get as much money as they want without having to go through the hassle.[/ul][/li]
Offhand, I can’t think of a third possible reason, so I’m left with the notion that possessing psychic abilities somehow modifies human behaviour and compels secrecy. So what are the people who can, using their abilties for? Are they averting (or creating) crimes or disasters? Becoming personally wealthy? And somehow not being discovered?

[erislover]

I feel as good about using the adage as I do about using the fact that no one has won yet. “Selective agent.”

[Musicat]

FYI:

Thanks to an impressive amount of work by JREF Forum poster Beleth, and possibly pushed along in a small way by yours truly, there is now an official FAQ about the Challenge posted on the JREF site. This may answer, elaborate on or firm up some of the items discussed here.

[Princhester]

The adage is just words, which amounts quite simply to: those with paranormal powers keep them secret.

That may be so, but that

1/ contradicts everything I know about people. People usually talk about extraordinary things they can do

2/ gives the idea that people have paranormal powers all the force of the idea that there are IPU’s: you can’t prove there isn’t, but nor is there any reason to think there is.

Do you think there is any more reason to believe in paranormal powers than in IPU’s, Erislover? If so, why?

[erislover]

I don’t think there are paranormal powers or abilities, no.

[Abe]

@Musicat

Thanks to an impressive amount of work by JREF Forum poster Beleth, and possibly pushed along in a small way by yours truly, there is now an official FAQ about the Challenge posted on the JREF site. This may answer, elaborate on or firm up some of the items discussed here.

Excellent, looks like they turned the unofficial FAQ I used earlier into an official one. This should become a standard link in the Peter Morris Unreasonable & Unsubstantiated Attacks Deconstruction Kit. Here’s the link for easy copy and paste:

Home

I’ll write the foundation and suggest to them to add a section on peer review, I urge everyone else to contribute in a similar manner before we’re due for Peter’s next bout of devious calumny, so that we might strive to keep threads on this relatively simple subject somewhat shorter than 8 pages.

[Aeschines]

This thing is a mess and will be fodder for my side of the argument (to wit, that the Challenge is unworthy the especial praise or respect that skeptics give it). The whole thing is written in a cranky, semiliterate style that will do little for the PR side of skeptical life.

Here’s the kind of logical garbage to be found on the page:

Other claims, such as “Crop Circles” and UFO’s are rejected because they have been definitively proven to be the result of hoaxes or mass hysteria.

I won’t argue about crop circles, but UFOs? That word includes about a thousand different phenomenon. Personally I don’t believe in the extraterrestrial hypothesis (as many intelligent researchers, such as Jack Vallee do not), but too much weird shit (paranormal or otherwise) has been captured on film to just blow the whole category off with such sophistry.

Applicant: “I can prove the paranormal–it’s this weird thing that happens in the sky, and I can catch on tape anytime I choose, and I uh–”

Randi’s flunky: “Wait a sec–did you say ‘the sky’? If it’s in the sky, then that’s a UFO and has been definitively proved a hoax! Rejected!”

This FAQ is just plain pathetic and reveals the Randi-ites as the science and philosophy wannabes that they truly are. And this has nothing to do with whether the paranormal is this or that, or whether Randi is fighting the good fight. It’s just a shame on a very basic level.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Aeschines

This thing is a mess and will be fodder for my side of the argument (to wit, that the Challenge is unworthy the especial praise or respect that skeptics give it). The whole thing is written in a cranky, semiliterate style that will do little for the PR side of skeptical life.

Here’s the kicker, though; the skeptical side doesn’t need PR. It needs (and has) logic on its side.

I have to admit, the FAQ has a number of sloppy moments, including the repeated mention of “Perpetual Motion Devices” in section 2.3. It could use a good copy editor to avoid giving the nitpickers their trivial ammunition, but the overall position has merit.

[Musicat]

@Bryan Ekers

I have to admit, the FAQ has a number of sloppy moments, including the repeated mention of “Perpetual Motion Devices” in section 2.3. It could use a good copy editor to avoid giving the nitpickers their trivial ammunition, but the overall position has merit.

The PMD repeat may be due to its placement as a “not sure” item in the original FAQ as suggested by Beleth, then getting moved into the paranormal group where there already was a reference to violations of Newton’s Laws.

Abe – is this the original FAQ you are referring to? Or is there an earlier one that Beleth drew upon?

[Aeschines]

@Bryan Ekers

Here’s the kicker, though; the skeptical side doesn’t need PR. It needs (and has) logic on its side.

Every side in every battle needs good propaganda. “Right makes right” is for people who don’t really care if they win.

I have to admit, the FAQ has a number of sloppy moments, including the repeated mention of “Perpetual Motion Devices” in section 2.3. It could use a good copy editor to avoid giving the nitpickers their trivial ammunition, but the overall position has merit.

Yeah. Randia does not = skepticism and rationality. He is not a good ambassador for your position, and the sooner all of you recognize it, the more you will start having influence in American society.

I’m a New Ager, but I’ll take the skeptics over the wingnut Christians any day. So I’m actually rooting for you to a degree.

[Princhester]

Bryan mentions sloppy moments and opportunities for nitpickery in an FAQ and you say

@Aeschines

Yeah. Randia does not = skepticism and rationality.

Give an inch…

He is not a good ambassador for your position, and the sooner all of you recognize it, the more you will start having influence in American society.

I think you misjudge the standards of public debate and the type of people who have influence. A Carl Sagan might have all us geeks wetting our panties with intellectual delight, but he would send Mr Average Joe to sleep with his caution and prudence.

To be heard by the herd, you have to make bold simple (simplistic?) statements.

That is going to put you off side with uber careful people who think that you should never make any negative statement about the paranormal without hedging the statement around with qualifications.

But in a world where many people love to believe and will take a statement from a learned scientist such as “we can’t positively disprove this phenomena” as virtual confirmation of that phenomena by the scientific establishment, a certain degree of robustness is required.