I think the Randi Challenge comes up so much on the board for a variety of reasons, one of them being that it’s simply an interesting topic. Howbeit, the reasons why it is interesting lie in the subtleties; unfortunately, we here do not argue the subtleties, but treat our argument about the Challenge as a proxy for warring directly over whether the “paranormal” exists in the first place. This is unfortunate, as the reasons we disagree about the Challenge really have nothing to do with the “paranormal” (which is itself an illy defined folk category, nothing more).
Before we get to those subtleties, let me say this. Here we have a group of skeptics, people trained in sniffing out the truth and smoking out faulty claims. Is it not odd (I will not say “supernatural”) that the Randi Challenge, though subject to the trained noses of all the skeptics here, invariably comes out smelling like a rose, and a perfect rose at that? The Challenge is perfect; Randi is scrupulously honest; the Challenge’s rules are perfectly fair; the tests themselves fairly and impartially administered; and the interpretive conclusions that Randi reaches about the results always correct.
Such perfection is a rare thing in human affairs. If you skeptics cannot find the slightest flaw in any aspect of the Challenge, not the smallest thing that might be improved, then I humbly suggest that your own skepticism and impartiality is open to serious question.
Again, before we get to the subtleties of the Challenge, I’d like to reiterate that the problems one may have with the challenge, or even the reasons one may wish to support the Challenge, have little to do with the paranormal per se, and not merely because the “paranormal” is so vague a category to begin with. In essence, the Challenge is attempting (and largely succeding, it would seem) to be a Challenge to Complete Very Difficult (or Impossible) Tasks.
In fact, Randi lumps things in there that would not usually fit the “paranormal” category. On the website of his I’ve seen one or more that would fit the “pseudoscience” category: substances or devices that have unusual powers, etc. Although all of these claims are put forth by the biggest nuts you can imagine, it may be that one day Randi will get a nasty surprise when someone really does invent a device that can do something “impossible.”
Similarly, I might make a claim that, in my mind, has nothing to do with the paranormal; yet it might be perceived by Randi as applicable to the Challenge. For example, if I claimed to be able to read a book held up one mile distance because of my “good eyesight,” Randi might choose to label the claim “remote viewing” or “clairvoyance” and thus permit me to take the challenge.
In short, the acrimony that attends all debates on SDMB about the “paranormal” and which is greatly evident in this thread, is entirely unnecessary. The real question is whether the Randi Challenge is a fair test of “very difficult or impossible” tasks. My view is that it is fair in some instances, not fair in others.
One more thing: the skeptics here seem to think that, as they are on the “same side” as Mr. Randi, they have acquired an unusual (I will not say “paranormal”) degree of information about the JREF (its inner workings and moral calibre, etc.) as well as Mr. Randi’s motives and thoughts. How many statements are there in here that begin “Randi would…”? The fact of the matter is that we do not have access to a sufficient number of the test records to judge whether the test has, in actuality been administered fairly and consistently. I understand that you think Randi is a fair and great guy and that, in each and every case, people have been treated with fairness and their abilitites accurately assessed. But I will raise a basic philosophical principle to which I believe you adhere as well: “He who posits must prove.” Until someone here claims to have done more than peruse Randi’s website and bulletin board, which has limited information (not to mention open to aggressive selecting), then I should think glowing bromides about his character and the fair administration of the Challenge are inappropriate and a smirch on your claim to skepticism. For my part, all I can say is that what I’ve read seems reasonably fair (but with such qualifiers as I describe below), and the jury is out on the rest.
Finally,
Points about the Challenge I Find to Be Pertinent
A. No judging. The application states:
This is highly problematic for the simple fact that many tasks–easy, difficult, or impossible–require a judge. Ergo, there are many tasks for which one cannot apply to the Challenge.
Here’s a simple example. Suppose I claimed to be able to look at a few works by an skilled artist and then draw or paint a perfect pastiche of his/her works (again, I am not saying this is “paranormal,” merely difficult). A knowledgable judge would be required to determine whether my pastiche was up to snuff.
Suppose I claimed that I could juggle 11 balls at once (or however many is deeped exceptionally difficult or impossible). Someone knowledgeable in juggling would be required to determine first whether the task was actually difficult and then whether my technique was proper (i.e., was I actually keeping all the balls properly aloft).
If you wish to get even more concrete, people could claim all manner of abilities in which they affect temperature, light, mass, etc., all of which might require special instruments and persons knowledgeable in their workings as judges of a sort.
It is understandable why Randi wishes only to test those tasks in which success is self-evident to a layman. But that is only a small subset of potential tasks. Hence, I don’t see any way to get around describing the Challenge as being extremely limited in scope.
B. Quantifiability. Based on what I have seen on Randi’s web site and elsewhere, he requires each challenge to have a quantifyable result, such as locating a hidden object among several choices. That is, something that anyone could do if s/he were lucky enough (a de facto highly difficult task). The test of the ability requires several attempts.
Contrariwise, Randi will not accept a test that requires interpretation, or, as per point A above, judging. For psychic phenomena, this would serve to include what one may term basic ESP (the kind that could give one a boost in general perception and intuition) while ruling out “big-hit psi,” in which a person perceives a certain thing that would seem impossible to guess.
Again, this rule (or testing principle) would prevent the testing of many different kinds of phenomena, “paranormal” and otherwise. To take the juggling example again, what if I claimed that I could keep an arbitrarily large number of balls in the air for 15 seconds if I tried my absolute damnedest and at the peak of concentration? Suppose I said I could screw up my strength and courage and do it once, but Randi wanted me to do it three times? It is easy to see how an impasse could develop.
So, this desire for quantifiability and multiple attempts could also rule out many kinds of tests. If Randi has found out a way to get around this problem, I should like to see it. Show me the records. If he hasn’t, let’s admit that there is much that he does not attempt to test. I don’t necessarily blame him for that, either; it’s in the nature of the Challenge to begin with.
C. Astronomical odds. Granted per point B above that the task must have quantifiable results, then it also follows from the nature of the Challenge that the odds against chance for successful completion (of the test as a whole) are at most 1 in 1,000,000. For, owing to the principle of mathematical expectation, even at odds of 1 in 1 million, Randi stands to lose $1.00 when he gives the test.
As a concrete example (from Randi’s website), one task for a dowser was to locate (with 100% accuracy) an object hidden in ten containers ten times. As indeed the agreement between the man and Randi stipulated that he find the object each and every time, the odds of success were 1 in 10,000,000,000 or 1 in 10 billion. At such odds Randi risked losing 1/100 of a cent.
Skeptics say that, inasmuch as the dowser and Randi agreed on the terms of the test beforehand that said terms were fair. I have no problem with that logic. But I do request that the skeptics understand the implication of the requirement of astronomical odds.
It is simply this: most psychics who are not lunatics would never claim such accuracy in the first place. If you want to know why “serious” skeptics both with the Randi Challenge, this pretty much explains it. Either their task is not quantifiable per point B above, or the odds of success are so against them that they know they will fail. The Challenge really is impossible.
Some skeptics think this is fair anyway; they say that a psychic, if his/her ability is real, should be able to perform under any circumstances with 100% accuracy. Yet obviously there is a wide gulf between this strict standard and a level of ability that will impress many people. It is dangerous for skeptics to hold psychics or other task performers to a standard that is so high that the layman ends up dismissing the skeptic’s standard and not the claim of the task performer. Whether this is fair or not, it is the case.
Conclusions
Whether Randi’s test or not has meaning has very little to do with the nature of the paranormal and a lot to do with mathematics and the philosophy of test construction. Insofar as we bicker about the nature of the “paranormal” in this thread, we are not getting to the heart of what’s right and wrong about the Challenge.
Personally, I have very little to say against what Randi does. He tests a lot of kooks and determines that some kooks claim they can do things that they really can’t. (I seriously doubt that he ends up testing self-acknowledged frauds. Randi himself consistently describes the challengees as “sincere.” Common sense also tells us that frauds would have no interest in getting exposed by an intelligent magician. So let’s drop from the rhetoric the part about the Challenge exposing frauds; it doesn’t.)
The trouble is that it all doesn’t mean very much. First, the requirement of “no judging” weeds out a large portion of tasks. The requirement of quantifiability weeds out more. Finally, what tasks are left–the quantifiable–are required to be performed at level of success whose odds are astronomical. Since no sincere skeptic claims to be able to perform at those odds, no sincere skeptic has an interest in taking the Challenge.
The skeptics who always bring up the rhetorical dig, “If that were real, then why doesn’t the person collect a cool million?” either have not thought through the above or willfully ignore it. Owing to the skeptics lack of skepticism toward the Challenge and anything related to their hero, I suspect that it is the latter.