The mandatory "Million Dollar Challenge is a fraud" thread

[Princhester]

@Peter Morris

Words mean whatever you want them to mean.

And they mean you were faced with a simple hypothetical that it didn’t suit your position to answer answer, so you came up with some crap about “loaded questions”.

She wasn’t certain she could do it. She wanted to take the test anyway.

Your argument is that she thought the test unfair. She doesn’t say that. It’s that simple.

No, Kramer’s account shows there were a lot of disagreements, aside from the ones he lists explicitly.

Here is the whole of what you posted:

Here I disagree. The tests Randi proposes are frequently problematic. Consider the Paul Carey example. The protocol designed by Randi is that Carey must transmit a message such as “THE SKY IS BLUER TODAY THAN YESTERDAY” and the receiver must note it down. Any deviation, however tiny, Randi marks him wrong. Receive "THE SKY’S BLUER TODAY THAN YESTERDAY " it’s a wrong answer. Receive “THE SKY IS BLUER THIS DAY THAN YESTERDAY” and its a wrong answer. He has to transmit 5 messages. He is permitted one wrong answer in the whole test. Two errors (however small) and he fails the whole test. Get every one of them exactly right, but in the wrong order, he fails the test.

I don’t brelieve 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.

Carey has never said he can’t be as exact as you say. You made this up.

The exact quotes follow. The question is underlined, so Princhester recognises it.

I have asked a question previously. That does not mean that your recent posts deal with that question or were meaningfully in response to it.

Quite simply, you have produced no evidence that paranormalists often claim a low success rate. The suggestion that what a small handful achieve is the same as what they claim is not splitting hairs unless you think claims and achievements are the same. A position that, in the context of the paranormal, is simply silly.

You say there is little difference between testing what a claimant can do, and testing what they claim they can do. To test the former, you have to test for what? Everything? How do you know what to test for? It’s a nonsense. To test the latter, you see what is claimed and test for it.

The two things are chalk and cheese.

This is a trivial matter. Please stop obsessing over it.

As per usual, you raged into this thread making assertions of unfairness. You were asked for cites and you attempted to give them. Your “cites” don’t say what you want them to say or simply have not been given. I questioned and have continued to question your “cites”. You clearly resent this, and now want to brush me off by calling me obsessive. You would prefer it if you were able to just go on making baseless assumptions of unfairness supported by cites that don’t exist, and that no one challenges you on this.

Understandable, but it ain’t going to happen, no matter how much you call me obsessive.

You have no cite for the proposition that claimants think the tests unfair. You have no cite for the proposition that they think the tests impossible to pass. You have no cite for the proposition that most paranormalists claim low success rates.

The word “obsessed” is accurate. I deny any insult.

So if you make a negative comment about me that you consider accurate that is not an insult, but if I do the same to you, that is.

And you give this as part of an argument that you are not a hypocrite.

Gotcha.

@Peter Morris

A dozen experts may test and accept the claim, Randi feels he has the right to overrule all of them. To Randi’s followers, Randi is the only game in town.

Which dozen is that? When has this happened? Or are you just making stuff up again?

@Peter Morris

That is, someone might have genuine ability, and still fail.

Randi has nothing to do with the scientific method.

As I understand it, setting up hypotheses and then trying to knock them down is in fact the essence of science.

The claimant will only fail if they have an ability that they do not claim. It makes no sense to castigate Randi for not testing people for abilities they do not claim.

To put it in scientific terms, it is like criticising a scientific test for failing to test a hypothesis that no one relevant is suggesting may be true.

@Aeschines

And skeptics on this board do hold him and his Challenge up as something great for some reason, even though there are much better media skeptics out there.

And for a good and simple reason. Ordinary scientists can observe a herd of goats endlessly and arrive at the conclusion they can’t fly, but someone will always say: “they could if they wanted to”.

Randi throws the whole lot off a cliff, yet they still don’t fly. Of course, you can still come up with excuses, but to suggest that what Randi does isn’t interesting and probative is to bury your head.

@Aeschines

Further, there is a large sement of the population that won’t respond well to simplistic arguments. Intelligent theists certainly won’t, and for that matter stupid theists won’t either. Skepticism is a hard battle to be sure, but the slop of Randi’s org only provides any easy excuse to dismiss him.
Robust, yes; idiotic, nay.

The vast majority of physical scientists already favor your position. It’s time to propagandize effectively the rest.

Forget intelligent atheists and scientists. They are a proportionally insignificant part of the population.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Peter Morris

The FAQ describes the challenge as being as if the applicant is put on trial by the JREF and has to prove he’s in the right. In the first place, they’ve completely mangled the metaphor, in law a defendant doesn’t have to prove anything. It’s up to the plaintiff to make the case. It does, however, show what the JREF is all about. They are not interested in * testing* your claim, they will put you on trial and try to prove you wrong any damn way they can.

You’re reading it exactly backward. The claimant isn’t the defendant; established science is. Established science goes along merrily in its presumed innocence when somebody comes along and claims ES is guilty of being incorrect or incomplete. A “trial” (peer review or a properly monitored test) is conducted with the assumption that ES is actually “innocent” and that the claim is bogus until proven otherwise.

Ironically, the people who wrote the JREF FAQ seem a little backward on the concept, too. Portraying claimants as “defendants” gives them more credibility than they’ve earned. Yet another reason they need a good rewriter.

[CurtC]

@Bryan Ekers

Ironically, the people who wrote the JREF FAQ seem a little backward on the concept, too. Portraying claimants as “defendants” gives them more credibility than they’ve earned. Yet another reason they need a good rewriter.

Yes, that FAQ was written relatively recently, by someone who posts under the name Beleth on the JREF Forums. Sort of like if someone here came up with a Straight Dope FAQ on his own.

At first, Randi didn’t want a FAQ, but I see that it’s now a part of the randi.org web site. I guess those at the JREF reconsidered. There was a lot of dissent on the forum about the defendant vs. plaintiff language, with most of us saying that ( claimant = defendant ) is not a good analogy. But I see that it’s still there. I’m sure it will change in the near future. The spirit of what Beleth was trying to convey is that the challenge process is an adversarial one, which I don’t even agree with that much.

So don’t read too much into the defendant language - it was one person’s contribution, most of us disagreed, but the original version is apparently what’s on the JREF site now. We’ll get it changed soon.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@CurtC

We’ll get it changed soon.

Well, good, because there is a (faint) tone of hostility to some of the points (and a somewhat stronger tone of hostility in Kramer’s writings) and this is giving people like Peter their ammunition. This is because Peter has nothing to go on except personal attacks, i.e. a dowsing challenger fails to demonstrate his claimed ability and a JREF reader snickered about it, using the term “woo-woo”, therefore the test was unfair, all of the JREF readers are mantra-chanting stooges, and the JREF itself is the unholy hand of Satan (aka James Randi) manifested on Earth with the savage goal of devouring the souls of those with paranormal abilities, assuming such people exist, which Peter won’t actually admit he believes nor suggest a way in which they may demonstrate their talents because the brutality of the JREF keeps getting in the way of the truth.

Personally, I think neutralizing the official documentation will help to neturalize Peter, though his comments are pretty lukewarm in their value already.

[dropzone]

I stopped reading this thread several pages ago because it had become too repetitious. I come back and it is still the same thing, over and over. One of the pseudoscientific types claims that the JREF test is biased, the scientific types ask for evidence that it is while pointing out that by the rules the person whose abilities are being tested helps design the test, and the pseudos, rather than answering the question, go off on a tangent complaining about what a jerk Kramer is. And I still haven’t seen how the test is biased.

[Abe]

Since my earlier display of clairvoyance obviously failed to impress anyone, I will give it another shot:

@dropzone

… I still haven’t seen how the test is biased.

I boldly predict that you will not encounter such evidence in this thread, even if it should double in length. I also predict that within three months you will see another thread containing the same angry and unsupported claims from the same two or three suspects.

Let us now turn our psychic energies to search for the spirit of Peter’s dog. Wait… I feel something… Peter, your dog wants you to know it’s O.K. to let go of your resentment and forgive Randi.

[dropzone]

His dog’s isn’t a black Labrador named Harvey, is it? :eek: