The mandatory "Million Dollar Challenge is a fraud" thread

[Musicat]

@devilsknew

Here’s something. Perhaps the best way to judge his fairness and true intentions is to look at the tests that had results that were most favorable to the tested (although not entirely successful). Does anyone know or have any documentation of the most successful Million Dollar Challenge test that has ever been taken? Something that showed more than chance results. Something that showed, however small, that there might be statistically something more than chance going on? Surely there must be one test that stood apart from all others in partially fulfilling the conditions that were agreed upon?

The most successful test was a miserable failure. No test has shown any more than chance results. As far as “however small,” below a certain threshhold, it becomes statistically insignificant. Any test that “partially fulfilled” the conditions would be, by mutual agreement beforehand, a complete failure.

If I claim to be able to guess which card is at the top of the deck 90 times out of 100 and I am able to get only 5 right, is this a “partial fullfillment”? Is this worth more investigation? Nonsense.

In any task where the odds are 50/50 that I guess something right, some trials will have results of 51/49, some 52/48, and some 53/47. Does this mean there is something paranormal going on? No, it just illustrates the basic, simple statistical concept known as the bell curve. You EXPECT trials that are not exactly 50/50. It’s normal, not paranormal. Anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant of statistical analysis and the laws of chance.

FYI to all: I contacted Mr. Randi a year ago or so asking him if he would consider publishing a book with perhaps a dozen or so complete cases, documenting each from start to finish (preliminary test finish, that is). He replied, “It’s already in the works.” Although the log kept on the JREF web site tracks recent applications, I don’t believe there is a similar, publicly-available log of the ones that actually went as far as the prelim. I would certainly welcome this book.

And if anyone would like to add their voice of encouragement, there is a thread on the JREF forum here.

[Humanist]

I feel this is important, even though it has been stated several times. The JREF prize does not disprove the paranormal. It does not disprove the paranormal. IT DOES NOT DISPROVE THE PARANORMAL. It can remain unwon in perpetuity and still it will not disprove the paranormal.

Its purpose is to be offered to those who claim that they can perform with a reasonable ratio of success some ability that is in some way outside of the laws of nature. If you claim some other paranormal power, something untestable, then guess what? You can continue to believe it. And the JREF prize won’t be claimed. Any claim that is unfalsifiable is not subject to scientific testing, period, regardless of whether it is a normal claim or a paranormal claim.

I make no claim with respect to paranormal powers, except that they’re unproven. I make the same claim about gods, werewolves, vampires, faeries, and magic. They are filed away in the dark recesses of my mind as unproven. If your view of paranormal powers, gods, werewolves, ghosts, or demons is such that you don’t require proof to believe in them, then no amount of scientific research will or should be spent to convince you otherwise. The JREF prize doesn’t need to be awarded for you to have permission to believe in anything unproven.

The integrity of the JREF prize or Randi himself doesn’t have to be called into question if you don’t take scientific proof seriously. If you don’t believe thta the scientific method is the best tool developed for solving the mysteries of an unexplained universe, that’s fine. You’re in the majority there. The JREF can’t take away your beliefs.

If, however, you want scientific vindication of your beliefs, the unwon JREF prize represents the biggest mental hurdle you have to overcome. You can take the easy way out: “Randi’s a fraud; the money isn’t there; he’s a self-professed liar; the tests arent’ fair because no one’s passed them.”

Or, you can accept that scientific validation of your beliefs is not possible. Your choice.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@devilsknew

Here’s something. Perhaps the best way to judge his fairness and true intentions is to look at the tests that had results that were most favorable to the tested (although not entirely successful). Does anyone know or have any documentation of the most successful Million Dollar Challenge test that has ever been taken? Something that showed more than chance results. Something that showed, however small, that there might be statistically something more than chance going on? Surely there must be one test that stood apart from all others in partially fulfilling the conditions that were agreed upon? Does he suppress this information and slant the outcome reports and write a biased view or resort to acrobatic reason to explain it away?

You are aware that the major failing of psuedoscience is a determination to find something even if there is nothing, right?

[devilsknew]

@Musicat

The most successful test was a miserable failure. No test has shown any more than chance results.

Cite?

[devilsknew]

@Mr. Miskatonic

You are aware that the major failing of psuedoscience is a determination to find something even if there is nothing, right?

You are aware that the major failing of Randi is a determination to find nothing even if there is something, right?

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@devilsknew

You are aware that the major failing of Randi is a determination to find nothing even if there is something, right?

I am aware of no such failing. That would appear to be your prejudice.

On the other hand, you seem to feel that you can mine data until you find what you want.

[devilsknew]

@Mr. Miskatonic

I am aware of no such failing. That would appear to be your prejudice.

On the other hand, you seem to feel that you can mine data until you find what you want.

I haven’t made that claim, I really don’t know. I have no wish to “mine data until I find what I want”. I’d like to see some evidence and judge for myself, impartially. I have no agenda.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@devilsknew

I haven’t made that claim, I really don’t know. I have no wish to “mine data until I find what I want”. I’d like to see some evidence and judge for myself, impartially. I have no agenda.

Your scrawl:

@devilsknew

Here’s something. Perhaps the best way to judge his fairness and true intentions is to look at the tests that had results that were most favorable to the tested (although not entirely successful). Does anyone know or have any documentation of the most successful Million Dollar Challenge test that has ever been taken? Something that showed more than chance results. Something that showed, however small, that there might be statistically something more than chance going on? Surely there must be one test that stood apart from all others in partially fulfilling the conditions that were agreed upon? Does he suppress this information and slant the outcome reports and write a biased view or resort to acrobatic reason to explain it away?

Sorry, but this does not look like someone trying to judge fairness, this looks like someone with an axe to grind and a desire to find things that are not really there.

[devilsknew]

@Mr. Miskatonic

I am aware of no such failing. That would appear to be your prejudice.

…I suggest your prejudice has blinded you if you can’t see the “Skeptiganda” that Randi puts out.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@devilsknew

…I suggest your prejudice has blinded you if you can’t see the “Skeptiganda” that Randi puts out.

I’m still waiting for you to present any evidence of this that is anything more than a statement of your prejudices.

[devilsknew]

I fall evenly in the middle.
I believe Randi is an extremist and therefore his “evidence” is no more than propaganda for his viewpoint and liveliehood.

I believe there are propagandists in both the skeptic and paranormalist camps. They are both biased viewpoints and have invested interest. They prove nothing either way and present an ideology that polarizes.
I’m looking for the truth. Not somebodies jumble of ideological rubbish.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@devilsknew

I fall evenly in the middle.

If I had a nickle for every time I heard that one…

[Musicat]

@devilsknew

@Musicat

The most successful test was a miserable failure. No test has shown any more than chance results.

Cite?

Here’s one, a dowsing test.

The participants were all able to show strong reactions when they knew where the sought-after substance was, but failed grandly when they actually underwent a proper test.

[Musicat]

@devilsknew

I fall evenly in the middle.
I believe Randi is an extremist and therefore his “evidence” is no more than propaganda for his viewpoint and liveliehood.

It appears you have not read the Challenge. Or, if you have, please tell us what this “evidence” is of which you speak, and where it is in the Challenge.

Besides, what difference would it make if Randi was a monkey on a rock? The Challenge exists independent of any philosophy you or he may have. Read it and tell us where you find it faulty.

I believe there are propagandists in both the skeptic and paranormalist camps. They are both biased viewpoints and have invested interest. They prove nothing either way and present an ideology that polarizes.

There may be something in what you say, but what does that have to do with the Challenge?

I’m looking for the truth. Not somebodies jumble of ideological rubbish.

So am I. How do you propose we arrive at “the truth” if not by scientific testing?

[JRDelirious]

@devilsknew

So how does that prove or disprove that the paranormal exists?
It doesn’t.

That’s what I said, wasn’t it?

And that’s an entirely separate issue than if the Challenge itself is wothrwhile or not.

Wasn’t it yourself or another of the Randi-bashers in the thread that said that only the frauds/phonies/delusionals would make the upfront claim of being able to perform paranormal feats “on demand” with “100% confidence”?

Well, then the person calling out them as frauds must base that opinion on something, most likely personal experience or study of case evidence. Or is that person also prejudiced? And if even the believers assume a presumption of fraudulency for such claims, then there’s no foul in placing a damn bloody heavy burden-of-proof. “Fairness” does not mandate absolute tabula rasa presumption of equal validity for every proposal.

That the patron of the test, a Mr. James Randi, is a contrarian curmodgeon who by now has seen so much bulldada come his way that he has concluded by “preponderance of evidence” that it’s all bulldada, no matter what happens, is a separate issue. As is if he uses the Challenge record as proof of that. Knock heads with him over these at your pleasure.

But the Challenge, as a way to call out those who claim to be able to perform on cue, stands well for me.

[Peter_Morris]

@Bricker

I have an idea.

Rather than Peter Morris saying that Randi is inflexible, and others saying, “No, he isn’t,” why don’t we approach it this way: Peter Morris, suggest a protocol that strikes YOU as a fair trial for a given ability.

In other words, describe a paranormal ability, and then describe what sort of test would be fair.

No can do. The claimants have to say what would be fair. I can’t say it on their behalf.

I can point to specific examples of Randi acting in an unfair manner, by imposing HIS will on applicants. I can’t say what would be fair, because a claimant might object to it. Randi doesn’t listen to objections, which is why I don’t like him.

[Bricker]

@Peter Morris

No can do. The claimants have to say what would be fair. I can’t say it on their behalf.

I can point to specific examples of Randi acting in an unfair manner, by imposing HIS will on applicants. I can’t say what would be fair, because a claimant might object to it. Randi doesn’t listen to objections, which is why I don’t like him.

OK. Please point to specific examples of Randi acting in an unfair manner.

[Peter_Morris]

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]

Well that was very entertaining. Peter Morris, have you followed this link? I await your “tomorrow” cites with great interest. What time tomorrow do you predict this information will be available?

Yeah, I’ve followed the link. I knew about it before it was posted. I’ve already seen it.

I estimate that I shall post the information … now.

[Peter_Morris]

My opinion of Randi has been formed by a scutiny of his own information, and these threads give two examples of such.

NOTE I do not endorse either of these claims. My point is only that they have been unfairly treated by JREF. I do not claim that they would succeed in a fair test. It is very important that you understand that. I am very much a critic of Randi and his methods. That does not mean I believe in the paranormal.

===========================
CASE STUDY 1 - Mrs B.C.

Relevent links:

1. initial contact

2. correspondance

3. discussion

Several points to consider here.

First of all, she wished to be tested anonymously. Randi & Co refused to honour that and published her name, calling her ‘deluded’ and the usual range ofinsults. Rule 3 which

Kramer cites only authorizes publicationof photographs of the test. He could have respected her anonymity during the discussions, at least, only publishing it when she actually took the test.

Her actual claim is the ability to move a candle flame with her mind-power. There are two problems with testing her claim.

First problem: she says her power only works occasionally. She estimates that she can move the flame about one time in three that she tries it. So, she wants a long trial with many tests to establish the truth of her claim. Randi & co will not accept this. They demand that she show a high success rate in a short series. They are just not prepared to test powers that work only occasionally.

Second problem: she says she is not certain it works at all. She makes many statements such as: “I have conducted sufficient tests to eliminate to my own satisfaction all explanations other than the experimenter effect. While I have tried to be as honest as possible, unconscious experimenter bias could indeed explain my results.” So, she declares that she may be mistaken, and would be happy to admit it. Randi and co are not willing to test her under this condition. They like telling tales of how deluded woo-woos come saying they are certain of their own abilities, and cannot accept when they fail. With someone like B.C. they have no opportunity for mockery, and they don’t like that.

So, all in all, they have refused to test her claim. She says that she thinks she can do it 1 time in 3, and Randi won’t test that. If she wants to be tested, she must say she is certain that she can do it every time.

==========================
CASE STUDY 2 - Paul Carey

Relevent Links:

correspondence

discussion
Randi’s assistant Kramer alleges the applicant is rude. Well, maybe so. But Kramer himself is not exactly innocent in that respect. The attacks Kramer makes on the applicant would certainly get him banned if he tried it on the SDMB. Let’s say there was fault on both sides.

Now, let’s ignore the exchange of insults, cut the crap, and look at the attempt to negotiate the protocol.

What we see is that Randi & co. dominated it completely. They did not discuss it - they TOLD him how the test would be performed.

The applicant wanted the test in Amsterdam. Randi & co decided that the test would be in Dublin, no arguments permitted, take it or leave it.

So, the applicant agreed to the location. They found a skeptical organisation in

Ireland willing to carry out the test. JREF and the Irish skeptics discussed the protocol between themselves - at no time asking the applicant for his opinion.

On 16th November they emailed the applicant, telling him: the test will be on 27th November and this is the protocol that will be used.

He responded, saying that the 27th was a no go, how about after Christmas.

The Skeptics told him that he must accept all the conditions within one day, or his file would be closed.

He didn’t accept, and his file was closed.

SUMMARY

The lessons we learn from these two cases can be summed up in a few lines each.

From B.C. we learn that Randi will only test you if you claim near 100% accuracy. Powers that only work occasionally CAN be tested - but Randi won’t do so.

From Paul Carey, we learn that Randi doesn’t negotiate the test protocol, he dictates it. No part of the protocol is open to discussion - not even the time and location of the test. The applicant has to accept Randi’s demands, or not take the test at all. Carey’s rudeness doesn’t alter that basic fact.

[JRDelirious]

Like I said, powers that work only ocassionally and only if the subject is totally at ease, are useless curiosities.