James Randi—Discuss

[Bilderberger]

Following on from the IHTM thread - I am opening a more general Randi thread in Parapsychology. In particular - to discuss his approach to investigation and his $1M challenge.

So, far the Randi threads on the Forum seem to concentrate on specific events (and scandalous claims )

To get things rolling have a look at the following:

"James Randi's "

"James Randi's "$1 million challenge"

Most people have heard of the challenge by James Randi offering $1 million to anyone who can demonstrate psychic powers.

On the face of it, Randi's challenge must be a good thing mustn't it? There's a million dollars just sitting there waiting to be picked up, and all anyone has to do to win it is perform under controlled conditions the kind of claim we read about every day in the newspapers -- spoon bending, mind-reading, remote viewing.

So doesn’t the mere fact that no-one has won Randi's challenge prove that such things are impossible? As usual in the murky world of "skepticism", things are not exactly what they appear to be.

Randi's $1M challenge was unveiled on 1st April 1996. You can read its terms in full at the website of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) the organisation administering the challenge.*

A quick glance through the provisions seems to show an eminently reasonable and fair challenge. But now go back and look again a little more carefully, this time with the kind of critical eye that Randi brings to exposing cheats and frauds. What you find are some ambiguities that are likely to make any serious claimant uneasy to say the least.

The first such ambiguity is contained in the preamble where it says, "Since claims vary greatly in character and scope, specific rules must be formulated for each applicant."

This means, quite reasonably, that the rules for any particular attempt cannot be finalised until a claimant steps forward and announces what he or she is going to do -- bend spoons, read minds or walk on fire. But it also means that Randi will fomulate the rules for each individual attempt at his challenge on an ad hoc basis. And, of course, the claimant has to agree to these ad hoc rules. If he or she does not agree, the contest will not take place at all.

The second ambiguity is in Clause 4, which says that "Tests will be designed in such a way that no "judging" procedure is required. Results will be self-evident to any observer, in accordance with the rules which will be agreed upon by all parties in advance of any formal testing procedure taking place."

This means, quite reasonably, that there will be no interminable arguments by 'experts' over statistical measurements. Either the spoon bends or it doesn't: either the claimant reads minds or he doesn't. The written rules, agreed up front, will decide.

But it also means that there will be no objective, independent judging or adjudication, by scientific criteria, carried out by qualified professional scientists. Randi alone will say whether the terms of the challenge have been met -- whether the metal was bent psychically, or the electronic instrument deflected by mental power, or the remote image was correctly reproduced. In the event that the claimant insists the written terms have been met, but Randi disagrees, then it will be Randi's decision that prevails.

Not only will Randi be the sole judge of whether the claimant is successful, but even if a claimant appeals on scientific grounds that he has met the agreed terms of the challenge, Randi will be the sole arbiter of any appeal as well. Randi says there will be "no judging". In reality, he is both judge and jury -- not only of the claimant's cause but of his own cause as well.

With these two major ambiguities in the rules it would not be surprising if Randi never found a serious claimant to accept his challenge. Any potential claimant who reads the rules carefully will be concerned about two things.

First that the terms enable Randi to draw up specific rules that are unwinnable -- and hence that no claimant would agree to -- and then enable him to claim that "no-one has won the prize".

Second there is Randi's own objectivity. His position can be understood from his own writings such as this.

"The scientific community, too, must bear the blame. When a Mississippi inventor obtained the signatures of some thirty Ph.D.'s (most of them physicists) on a document attesting that he had discovered a genuine "free-energy" machine (essentially a perpetual motion device), and when the U.S. Patent office issued a patent in 1979 to another inventor of a "permanent magnet motor" that required no power input, there was little reaction from the scientific community. The "cold fusion" farce should have been tossed onto the trash heap long ago, but justifiable fear of legal actions by offended supporters has stifled opponents." [Click here for the real scientific facts].

"These absurd claims, along with the claims of the dowsers, the homeopaths, the colored-light quacks and the psychic spoon-benders, can be directly, definitively, and economically tested and then disposed of if they fail the tests."

It doesn't seem to have occurred to Randi that the thirty Ph.D.'s who attested to the new machine might know a little more about physics than he does.

Given uninformed and prejudiced views such as these, the concern will be that Randi, as sole judge of success, will never accept that paranormal phenomena have been demonstrated because his position is that he knows on a priori grounds that the paranormal is impossible and hence whatever the claimant has demonstrated must be merely an unexplained trick of some kind.

I put these ambiguities in the rules to James Randi. He dismissed them, saying only that I should "read the rules", and suggesting that I am a "nitpicker" and "pedant".

Randi is a non-scientist who has announced that -- by some undisclosed but non-scientific means -- he knows that such anomalous claims are farcical and 'absurd', and should be 'tossed on the trash heap.'

The real facts are that Randi is doing exactly what he has accused some scientists of: he has conducted no properly designed experiments, has published no empirical results (reproducible or otherwise) and has not submitted himself to any peer-review process. Yet he expects us to accept his conclusions as having some scientific significance and meriting attention.

Randi says, "There seems to be a certain quality of the human mind that requires the owner to get silly from time to time. Sometimes the condition becomes permanent, a part of the victim's personality."

Here, at least, are words that no-one can disagree with.

*To find out what happened when a serious challenger applied to take Randi's "challenge" click here."

http://www.alternativescience.com/james-randi.htm

million challenge"

Most people have heard of the challenge by James Randi offering

"James Randi's "$1 million challenge"

Most people have heard of the challenge by James Randi offering $1 million to anyone who can demonstrate psychic powers.

On the face of it, Randi's challenge must be a good thing mustn't it? There's a million dollars just sitting there waiting to be picked up, and all anyone has to do to win it is perform under controlled conditions the kind of claim we read about every day in the newspapers -- spoon bending, mind-reading, remote viewing.

So doesn’t the mere fact that no-one has won Randi's challenge prove that such things are impossible? As usual in the murky world of "skepticism", things are not exactly what they appear to be.

Randi's $1M challenge was unveiled on 1st April 1996. You can read its terms in full at the website of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) the organisation administering the challenge.*

A quick glance through the provisions seems to show an eminently reasonable and fair challenge. But now go back and look again a little more carefully, this time with the kind of critical eye that Randi brings to exposing cheats and frauds. What you find are some ambiguities that are likely to make any serious claimant uneasy to say the least.

The first such ambiguity is contained in the preamble where it says, "Since claims vary greatly in character and scope, specific rules must be formulated for each applicant."

This means, quite reasonably, that the rules for any particular attempt cannot be finalised until a claimant steps forward and announces what he or she is going to do -- bend spoons, read minds or walk on fire. But it also means that Randi will fomulate the rules for each individual attempt at his challenge on an ad hoc basis. And, of course, the claimant has to agree to these ad hoc rules. If he or she does not agree, the contest will not take place at all.

The second ambiguity is in Clause 4, which says that "Tests will be designed in such a way that no "judging" procedure is required. Results will be self-evident to any observer, in accordance with the rules which will be agreed upon by all parties in advance of any formal testing procedure taking place."

This means, quite reasonably, that there will be no interminable arguments by 'experts' over statistical measurements. Either the spoon bends or it doesn't: either the claimant reads minds or he doesn't. The written rules, agreed up front, will decide.

But it also means that there will be no objective, independent judging or adjudication, by scientific criteria, carried out by qualified professional scientists. Randi alone will say whether the terms of the challenge have been met -- whether the metal was bent psychically, or the electronic instrument deflected by mental power, or the remote image was correctly reproduced. In the event that the claimant insists the written terms have been met, but Randi disagrees, then it will be Randi's decision that prevails.

Not only will Randi be the sole judge of whether the claimant is successful, but even if a claimant appeals on scientific grounds that he has met the agreed terms of the challenge, Randi will be the sole arbiter of any appeal as well. Randi says there will be "no judging". In reality, he is both judge and jury -- not only of the claimant's cause but of his own cause as well.

With these two major ambiguities in the rules it would not be surprising if Randi never found a serious claimant to accept his challenge. Any potential claimant who reads the rules carefully will be concerned about two things.

First that the terms enable Randi to draw up specific rules that are unwinnable -- and hence that no claimant would agree to -- and then enable him to claim that "no-one has won the prize".

Second there is Randi's own objectivity. His position can be understood from his own writings such as this.

"The scientific community, too, must bear the blame. When a Mississippi inventor obtained the signatures of some thirty Ph.D.'s (most of them physicists) on a document attesting that he had discovered a genuine "free-energy" machine (essentially a perpetual motion device), and when the U.S. Patent office issued a patent in 1979 to another inventor of a "permanent magnet motor" that required no power input, there was little reaction from the scientific community. The "cold fusion" farce should have been tossed onto the trash heap long ago, but justifiable fear of legal actions by offended supporters has stifled opponents." [Click here for the real scientific facts].

"These absurd claims, along with the claims of the dowsers, the homeopaths, the colored-light quacks and the psychic spoon-benders, can be directly, definitively, and economically tested and then disposed of if they fail the tests."

It doesn't seem to have occurred to Randi that the thirty Ph.D.'s who attested to the new machine might know a little more about physics than he does.

Given uninformed and prejudiced views such as these, the concern will be that Randi, as sole judge of success, will never accept that paranormal phenomena have been demonstrated because his position is that he knows on a priori grounds that the paranormal is impossible and hence whatever the claimant has demonstrated must be merely an unexplained trick of some kind.

I put these ambiguities in the rules to James Randi. He dismissed them, saying only that I should "read the rules", and suggesting that I am a "nitpicker" and "pedant".

Randi is a non-scientist who has announced that -- by some undisclosed but non-scientific means -- he knows that such anomalous claims are farcical and 'absurd', and should be 'tossed on the trash heap.'

The real facts are that Randi is doing exactly what he has accused some scientists of: he has conducted no properly designed experiments, has published no empirical results (reproducible or otherwise) and has not submitted himself to any peer-review process. Yet he expects us to accept his conclusions as having some scientific significance and meriting attention.

Randi says, "There seems to be a certain quality of the human mind that requires the owner to get silly from time to time. Sometimes the condition becomes permanent, a part of the victim's personality."

Here, at least, are words that no-one can disagree with.

*To find out what happened when a serious challenger applied to take Randi's "challenge" click here."

http://www.alternativescience.com/james-randi.htm

million to anyone who can demonstrate psychic powers.

On the face of it, Randi's challenge must be a good thing mustn't it? There's a million dollars just sitting there waiting to be picked up, and all anyone has to do to win it is perform under controlled conditions the kind of claim we read about every day in the newspapers -- spoon bending, mind-reading, remote viewing.

So doesn’t the mere fact that no-one has won Randi's challenge prove that such things are impossible? As usual in the murky world of "skepticism", things are not exactly what they appear to be.

Randi's

"James Randi's "$1 million challenge"

Most people have heard of the challenge by James Randi offering $1 million to anyone who can demonstrate psychic powers.

On the face of it, Randi's challenge must be a good thing mustn't it? There's a million dollars just sitting there waiting to be picked up, and all anyone has to do to win it is perform under controlled conditions the kind of claim we read about every day in the newspapers -- spoon bending, mind-reading, remote viewing.

So doesn’t the mere fact that no-one has won Randi's challenge prove that such things are impossible? As usual in the murky world of "skepticism", things are not exactly what they appear to be.

Randi's $1M challenge was unveiled on 1st April 1996. You can read its terms in full at the website of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) the organisation administering the challenge.*

A quick glance through the provisions seems to show an eminently reasonable and fair challenge. But now go back and look again a little more carefully, this time with the kind of critical eye that Randi brings to exposing cheats and frauds. What you find are some ambiguities that are likely to make any serious claimant uneasy to say the least.

The first such ambiguity is contained in the preamble where it says, "Since claims vary greatly in character and scope, specific rules must be formulated for each applicant."

This means, quite reasonably, that the rules for any particular attempt cannot be finalised until a claimant steps forward and announces what he or she is going to do -- bend spoons, read minds or walk on fire. But it also means that Randi will fomulate the rules for each individual attempt at his challenge on an ad hoc basis. And, of course, the claimant has to agree to these ad hoc rules. If he or she does not agree, the contest will not take place at all.

The second ambiguity is in Clause 4, which says that "Tests will be designed in such a way that no "judging" procedure is required. Results will be self-evident to any observer, in accordance with the rules which will be agreed upon by all parties in advance of any formal testing procedure taking place."

This means, quite reasonably, that there will be no interminable arguments by 'experts' over statistical measurements. Either the spoon bends or it doesn't: either the claimant reads minds or he doesn't. The written rules, agreed up front, will decide.

But it also means that there will be no objective, independent judging or adjudication, by scientific criteria, carried out by qualified professional scientists. Randi alone will say whether the terms of the challenge have been met -- whether the metal was bent psychically, or the electronic instrument deflected by mental power, or the remote image was correctly reproduced. In the event that the claimant insists the written terms have been met, but Randi disagrees, then it will be Randi's decision that prevails.

Not only will Randi be the sole judge of whether the claimant is successful, but even if a claimant appeals on scientific grounds that he has met the agreed terms of the challenge, Randi will be the sole arbiter of any appeal as well. Randi says there will be "no judging". In reality, he is both judge and jury -- not only of the claimant's cause but of his own cause as well.

With these two major ambiguities in the rules it would not be surprising if Randi never found a serious claimant to accept his challenge. Any potential claimant who reads the rules carefully will be concerned about two things.

First that the terms enable Randi to draw up specific rules that are unwinnable -- and hence that no claimant would agree to -- and then enable him to claim that "no-one has won the prize".

Second there is Randi's own objectivity. His position can be understood from his own writings such as this.

"The scientific community, too, must bear the blame. When a Mississippi inventor obtained the signatures of some thirty Ph.D.'s (most of them physicists) on a document attesting that he had discovered a genuine "free-energy" machine (essentially a perpetual motion device), and when the U.S. Patent office issued a patent in 1979 to another inventor of a "permanent magnet motor" that required no power input, there was little reaction from the scientific community. The "cold fusion" farce should have been tossed onto the trash heap long ago, but justifiable fear of legal actions by offended supporters has stifled opponents." [Click here for the real scientific facts].

"These absurd claims, along with the claims of the dowsers, the homeopaths, the colored-light quacks and the psychic spoon-benders, can be directly, definitively, and economically tested and then disposed of if they fail the tests."

It doesn't seem to have occurred to Randi that the thirty Ph.D.'s who attested to the new machine might know a little more about physics than he does.

Given uninformed and prejudiced views such as these, the concern will be that Randi, as sole judge of success, will never accept that paranormal phenomena have been demonstrated because his position is that he knows on a priori grounds that the paranormal is impossible and hence whatever the claimant has demonstrated must be merely an unexplained trick of some kind.

I put these ambiguities in the rules to James Randi. He dismissed them, saying only that I should "read the rules", and suggesting that I am a "nitpicker" and "pedant".

Randi is a non-scientist who has announced that -- by some undisclosed but non-scientific means -- he knows that such anomalous claims are farcical and 'absurd', and should be 'tossed on the trash heap.'

The real facts are that Randi is doing exactly what he has accused some scientists of: he has conducted no properly designed experiments, has published no empirical results (reproducible or otherwise) and has not submitted himself to any peer-review process. Yet he expects us to accept his conclusions as having some scientific significance and meriting attention.

Randi says, "There seems to be a certain quality of the human mind that requires the owner to get silly from time to time. Sometimes the condition becomes permanent, a part of the victim's personality."

Here, at least, are words that no-one can disagree with.

*To find out what happened when a serious challenger applied to take Randi's "challenge" click here."

http://www.alternativescience.com/james-randi.htm

M challenge was unveiled on 1st April 1996. You can read its terms in full at the website of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) the organisation administering the challenge.*

A quick glance through the provisions seems to show an eminently reasonable and fair challenge. But now go back and look again a little more carefully, this time with the kind of critical eye that Randi brings to exposing cheats and frauds. What you find are some ambiguities that are likely to make any serious claimant uneasy to say the least.

The first such ambiguity is contained in the preamble where it says, "Since claims vary greatly in character and scope, specific rules must be formulated for each applicant."

This means, quite reasonably, that the rules for any particular attempt cannot be finalised until a claimant steps forward and announces what he or she is going to do -- bend spoons, read minds or walk on fire. But it also means that Randi will fomulate the rules for each individual attempt at his challenge on an ad hoc basis. And, of course, the claimant has to agree to these ad hoc rules. If he or she does not agree, the contest will not take place at all.

The second ambiguity is in Clause 4, which says that "Tests will be designed in such a way that no "judging" procedure is required. Results will be self-evident to any observer, in accordance with the rules which will be agreed upon by all parties in advance of any formal testing procedure taking place."

This means, quite reasonably, that there will be no interminable arguments by 'experts' over statistical measurements. Either the spoon bends or it doesn't: either the claimant reads minds or he doesn't. The written rules, agreed up front, will decide.

But it also means that there will be no objective, independent judging or adjudication, by scientific criteria, carried out by qualified professional scientists. Randi alone will say whether the terms of the challenge have been met -- whether the metal was bent psychically, or the electronic instrument deflected by mental power, or the remote image was correctly reproduced. In the event that the claimant insists the written terms have been met, but Randi disagrees, then it will be Randi's decision that prevails.

Not only will Randi be the sole judge of whether the claimant is successful, but even if a claimant appeals on scientific grounds that he has met the agreed terms of the challenge, Randi will be the sole arbiter of any appeal as well. Randi says there will be "no judging". In reality, he is both judge and jury -- not only of the claimant's cause but of his own cause as well.

With these two major ambiguities in the rules it would not be surprising if Randi never found a serious claimant to accept his challenge. Any potential claimant who reads the rules carefully will be concerned about two things.

First that the terms enable Randi to draw up specific rules that are unwinnable -- and hence that no claimant would agree to -- and then enable him to claim that "no-one has won the prize".

Second there is Randi's own objectivity. His position can be understood from his own writings such as this.

"The scientific community, too, must bear the blame. When a Mississippi inventor obtained the signatures of some thirty Ph.D.'s (most of them physicists) on a document attesting that he had discovered a genuine "free-energy" machine (essentially a perpetual motion device), and when the U.S. Patent office issued a patent in 1979 to another inventor of a "permanent magnet motor" that required no power input, there was little reaction from the scientific community. The "cold fusion" farce should have been tossed onto the trash heap long ago, but justifiable fear of legal actions by offended supporters has stifled opponents." [Click here for the real scientific facts].

"These absurd claims, along with the claims of the dowsers, the homeopaths, the colored-light quacks and the psychic spoon-benders, can be directly, definitively, and economically tested and then disposed of if they fail the tests."

It doesn't seem to have occurred to Randi that the thirty Ph.D.'s who attested to the new machine might know a little more about physics than he does.

Given uninformed and prejudiced views such as these, the concern will be that Randi, as sole judge of success, will never accept that paranormal phenomena have been demonstrated because his position is that he knows on a priori grounds that the paranormal is impossible and hence whatever the claimant has demonstrated must be merely an unexplained trick of some kind.

I put these ambiguities in the rules to James Randi. He dismissed them, saying only that I should "read the rules", and suggesting that I am a "nitpicker" and "pedant".

Randi is a non-scientist who has announced that -- by some undisclosed but non-scientific means -- he knows that such anomalous claims are farcical and 'absurd', and should be 'tossed on the trash heap.'

The real facts are that Randi is doing exactly what he has accused some scientists of: he has conducted no properly designed experiments, has published no empirical results (reproducible or otherwise) and has not submitted himself to any peer-review process. Yet he expects us to accept his conclusions as having some scientific significance and meriting attention.

Randi says, "There seems to be a certain quality of the human mind that requires the owner to get silly from time to time. Sometimes the condition becomes permanent, a part of the victim's personality."

Here, at least, are words that no-one can disagree with.

*To find out what happened when a serious challenger applied to take Randi's "challenge" click here."

http://www.alternativescience.com/james-randi.htm

Further links can be found by going onto the above website.

P.S. The above opinions are those of the author entirely - I will not be held responsible if Milton's article is a pile of crap!

 

[Anonymous]

From Richard Milton's article
it also means that Randi will fomulate the rules for each individual attempt at his challenge on an ad hoc basis. And, of course, the claimant has to agree to these ad hoc rules. If he or she does not agree, the contest will not take place at all.

It's the JREF's million, they're not going to hand it out without establishing procedures that are to their satisfaction. As Milton notes, both sides have to agree to the procedure, so I fail to see the problem. Mutually agreed experts are called in to design the protocol, contrary to Milton's claims about Randi designing the test himself.

Randi alone will say whether the terms of the challenge have been met

No, that's completely wrong. The whole point is that Randi isn't the judge. There is NO judging required. That's what the rules say, Milton just repeated them.

As an example, using dowsing: both sides agree that the claimant can tell under which of three containers a glass of water has been placed. Both sides agree that if the dowser gets it right more than X times out of 20, the dowser wins. That's all there is to it.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to Randi that the thirty Ph.D.'s who attested to the new machine might know a little more about physics than he does.

Perpetual motion machines come and perpetual motion machines go, but the last time I checked, the laws of thermodynamics still hadn't been repealed, suggesting that those 30 PhDs had been hornswaggled. Having a PhD does not make you immune to making a mistakes or credulous gullibility. I really don't think it's Randi who ought to be feeling foolish here. Perhaps if those 30 PhDs had known as much as Randi does about the history of free-energy devices, they wouldn't have been so keen to attest to its authenticity.

Yet he expects us to accept his conclusions as having some scientific significance and meriting attention.

No he doesn't. He's admitted it's a stunt. But it's a stunt with

From Richard Milton's article
it also means that Randi will fomulate the rules for each individual attempt at his challenge on an ad hoc basis. And, of course, the claimant has to agree to these ad hoc rules. If he or she does not agree, the contest will not take place at all.

It's the JREF's million, they're not going to hand it out without establishing procedures that are to their satisfaction. As Milton notes, both sides have to agree to the procedure, so I fail to see the problem. Mutually agreed experts are called in to design the protocol, contrary to Milton's claims about Randi designing the test himself.

Randi alone will say whether the terms of the challenge have been met

No, that's completely wrong. The whole point is that Randi isn't the judge. There is NO judging required. That's what the rules say, Milton just repeated them.

As an example, using dowsing: both sides agree that the claimant can tell under which of three containers a glass of water has been placed. Both sides agree that if the dowser gets it right more than X times out of 20, the dowser wins. That's all there is to it.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to Randi that the thirty Ph.D.'s who attested to the new machine might know a little more about physics than he does.

Perpetual motion machines come and perpetual motion machines go, but the last time I checked, the laws of thermodynamics still hadn't been repealed, suggesting that those 30 PhDs had been hornswaggled. Having a PhD does not make you immune to making a mistakes or credulous gullibility. I really don't think it's Randi who ought to be feeling foolish here. Perhaps if those 30 PhDs had known as much as Randi does about the history of free-energy devices, they wouldn't have been so keen to attest to its authenticity.

Yet he expects us to accept his conclusions as having some scientific significance and meriting attention.

No he doesn't. He's admitted it's a stunt. But it's a stunt with $1m payoff for the successful claimant. In my opinion, failure to take the JREF challenge tells us nothing about the objective reality of paranormal phenomena. It is, however, telling how much whining about the JREF challenge there is emanating from some quarters and just how inaccurate and downright wrong most of it is. It's almost as if there are some people out there who will do almost anything to excuse themselves from being put to the test. I rather wish they would put up or shut up, but I think we all know there's little chance of that happening.

*To find out what happened when a serious challenger applied to take Randi's "challenge" click here."

m payoff for the successful claimant. In my opinion, failure to take the JREF challenge tells us nothing about the objective reality of paranormal phenomena. It is, however, telling how much whining about the JREF challenge there is emanating from some quarters and just how inaccurate and downright wrong most of it is. It's almost as if there are some people out there who will do almost anything to excuse themselves from being put to the test. I rather wish they would put up or shut up, but I think we all know there's little chance of that happening.

*To find out what happened when a serious challenger applied to take Randi's "challenge" click here."

JREF were eminently sensible in turning down this claimant. Rico Kolodzey claimed to not have to eat, being able to live off water and life energy from the sun.

Now, how is the JREF supposed to test this? Contrary to Milton's claims, you can't just lock him in a room "for a week or two" - there's nothing particular supernatural about starving for two weeks. He would have to be kept under observation for much longer. How can the JREF invalidate his claim? At best, he would be made extremely ill. At worst, he could die. It would be utterly irresponsible for JREF to encourage people to starve themselves for money. However, Randi does claim to have tested breatharians before.

Randi responded to Milton's article in his July 5th 2002 commentary - I find that his rudeness is extremely poor publicity for JREF, but that's par for the course with the guy, I suppose.

 

[_Lizard23_]

In my opinion Randi has formed his opinions a priori and is quite evangelical about them.

I imagine he feels that he is providing a valuable service to the world in educating people not to believe in pseudo-scientific and fraudulent nonsense and I would be hard pressed to disagree.

However I personally do not share his certainy either in the philosophy and methodology of contemporary science nor the exclusive reality of purely material existance.

I do feel though that sometimes the answer to "is x real?" is "wrong question" : you can't measure joy with a torque wrench and litmus paper.

Of course Mr Randi and myself are two very different kinds of magician : I hope there is room in the world for both kinds

This is interesting incidentally, on the subject of the uneasy interface of science and the paranormal : Randi is mentioned a few times

http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/textbooks/irwin/Images/Chapter17.pdf

 

[Bilderberger]

Re: Re: Randi - Discuss...

JREF were eminently sensible in turning down this claimant. Rico Kolodzey claimed to not have to eat, being able to live off water and life energy from the sun.

Now, how is the JREF supposed to test this? Contrary to Milton's claims, you can't just lock him in a room "for a week or two" - there's nothing particular supernatural about starving for two weeks. He would have to be kept under observation for much longer. How can the JREF invalidate his claim? At best, he would be made extremely ill. At worst, he could die. It would be utterly irresponsible for JREF to encourage people to starve themselves for money. However, Randi does claim to have tested breatharians before.

Randi responded to Milton's article in his July 5th 2002 commentary - I find that his rudeness is extremely poor publicity for JREF, but that's par for the course with the guy, I suppose.

How is the JREF supposed to test this guy? Fair question - but you mention that Randi has tested Breatharians before. How did he test them?

As a supplementary point, a very recent FT reported on an Indian who underwent a period of enforced food/water deprivation and passed with flying colours. The experiment was overseen by Doctors and they are now interested in testing him further.

The reason why people don't "put up or shut up" is simple. If Randi's million (well, not strictly his - but lets use the common term) was only put out there as a stunt - fair enough. The issue is that Randi (or, at the very least, the sceptic community) use the fact that Randi has not paid out his £1M as enduring proof that claims of the anomolous are fraudelent. That puts the onus back on those who consider the reality of supposedly outlandish claims. They cannot "put up or shut up" because if there are flaws in the challenge - not taking the challenge is used as proof of failure. And, not being able to take the challenge puts them in an even harder position...

 

[Jerry_B]

I sometimes wonder what would happen if someone offered $1m to prove some things that currently are accepted parts of science - things to do with some aspects of astrophysics, for example. It seems as if every few years some new theory is posited, but the actual evidence for it only seems to exist within mathematical theory. Does that make it true? Should we accept it simply because the numbers add up?

I'm not sure why people get so bothered by Randi, and it should be remembered that he's a good showman - after all, this challenge is good PR for him.

 

[Anonymous]

I wonder what Randi makes of quantum physics and all the associated weirdness. I assume that, if something is proven through established scientific methods (in this case, probably mathematics) he would accept this as physical proof, regardless of how absurd the result? Examples could include time flowing in reverse, anti-matter, cosmic strings, etc.....

Given that accepted scientific orthodoxy and even the very basis of our understanding of the physical world in some cases is often superceded - doesn't that put a non-scientist like Randi in an awkward position.

Hitler and Stalin also had some notable scientific authorities who were willing to vaildate their ideas, by the way, so a list of Dr.'s on a letterhead should never impress anyone with any sense.

 

[Anonymous]

I wonder what Randi makes of quantum physics and all the associated weirdness. I assume that, if something is proven through established scientific methods (in this case, probably mathematics)

Quantum physics is proven through experimental verification, not mathematics. Until the weirdness predicted by quantum theory is experimentally observed, it remains merely speculation of theoreticians.

 

[Jerry_B]

I wonder what Randi makes of quantum physics and all the associated weirdness. I assume that, if something is proven through established scientific methods (in this case, probably mathematics) he would accept this as physical proof, regardless of how absurd the result? Examples could include time flowing in reverse, anti-matter, cosmic strings, etc....

I agree - alot of these theories ask us to take on abord alot of concepts that seem more 'out there' than any claims made about the 'paranormal'. I wonder if anyone could theoretically describe, say, psychokinesis with mathematics? If so, would that mean that it's as vaid as a theory as superstrings?

 

[Anonymous]

I sometimes wonder what would happen if someone offered

Originally posted by JerryB
I sometimes wonder what would happen if someone offered $1m to prove some things that currently are accepted parts of science - things to do with some aspects of astrophysics, for example. It seems as if every few years some new theory is posited, but the actual evidence for it only seems to exist within mathematical theory. Does that make it true? Should we accept it simply because the numbers add up?

I'm not sure why people get so bothered by Randi, and it should be remembered that he's a good showman - after all, this challenge is good PR for him.

m to prove some things that currently are accepted parts of science - things to do with some aspects of astrophysics, for example. It seems as if every few years some new theory is posited, but the actual evidence for it only seems to exist within mathematical theory. Does that make it true? Should we accept it simply because the numbers add up?

I'm not sure why people get so bothered by Randi, and it should be remembered that he's a good showman - after all, this challenge is good PR for him.

Now there's an example of synchronicity if ever I'm managed never to prove one! See my post. Maybe scientists who are hard pressed to find research funding (and things are tight in the UK at the moment) should be making a path to his door.

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Re: Re: Re: Randi - Discuss...

How is the JREF supposed to test this guy? Fair question - but you mention that Randi has tested Breatharians before. How did he test them?

As a supplementary point, a very recent FT reported on an Indian who underwent a period of enforced food/water deprivation and passed with flying colours. The experiment was overseen by Doctors and they are now interested in testing him further.

That is an fascinating case but he from what I've read things weren't very tightly controlled - it'd be interesting if he was willing to come over here and be tested. I bet a newspaper or TV channel would be up for it - esp. as they could charge for watching streaming footage (the Sun brought the girl with X ray eyes over, for example).

For those interested see here:

forteantimes.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9769

Link is dead. The current link is:

https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...liquids-and-or-air-sunlight-exclusively.9769/

I'll post the rest of the Breatharian stuff there.


We have dsicussed the Randi Challenge before and his investigation of homeopathy seemed above board:

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6730

By its very nature he will have to decide on the specific criteria at the time,

Bilderberger: Could you put that quoted passage in quotes - I was reading it thinking they were your words until I reached the end - it would help avoid confusion

Emps

 

[ArthurASCII]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Randi - Discuss...

We have dsicussed the Randi Challenge before and his investigation of homeopathy seemed above board:

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6730

I too was fascinated by the homeopathy documentary. I remamber Mr. Randi saying that there was nothing he'd like better than to be proved wrong, and for a paranormal event to be proved to have occured. I believe him.

As I said on a related thread, Mr. Randi has exposed some nasty "psychics" who prey on the bereaved, people like Geller who decline to admit that they are illusionists and claim supernormal powers, and credulous academics who should know better.

I can forgive his sometimes abrasive manner.

 

[_schnor]

Just edited the original post incase BB isn't about

 

[Anonymous]

Where do the JREF publish their test result data?

Where can one see a list and detail of previous applicants?

"self evident" to whom? Randi?

Who has the final say in this "agreement"?

How can you trust a professional charlatan?

Why isn't the application and protocol system independantly arbitrated for the sake of fairness and inherent bias on behalf of the one holding the $1m?

For all we know, the guy could be doing a hustle here, bilking the rubes by pretending to be a skeptic. Didn't he used to do a similar thing at fairs and carnivals by doing a fake 'psychic' routine many years ago.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Re: Randi - Discuss...

Perpetual motion machines come and perpetual motion machines go

... they just don't stop.

Talking of stopping...

James, do you know what happened about the investigator who went to check out the 'Yellow Bamboo' people for Randi?

"Surprise, surprise! A man who visited Bali to test the "Yellow Bamboo" group, who make supernatural claims that they can knock down an attacker just by shouting, has reported to me that he actually fell to the ground during the test! As soon as I get around to looking into this further, I'll give you a full report. This might actually be something….! " Randi
http://www.randi.org/jr/091903.html

That was September last year. You'd think after passing the prelims, Randi'd be making more of an effort.

"Yellow Bamboo first contacted Randi in December 2002 and underwent lengthy negotiations to eventually agree on a protocol and location.

The demonstration finally took place on 14 September 2003 in the early evening on the beach in Singaraja on the north coast of Bali. Mr Joko Tri from Solo, Java was chosen by Randi to carry out the demonstration.

Mr Tri was supposed to go towards and then tap Mr
Serengen but something amazing happened.
Instead of tapping Mr Serengen, Joko Tri was
unexpectedly slammed to the ground before he could reach his target.

Explains Mr Tri “I tried 100% to tap him. I really did. All I can say is I felt a small push come from no where and smack me down.”
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2003/9/prweb80745.htm

 

[Anonymous]

I find Randi incredibly rude and irritating in the extreme. I applaud anyone who exposes charlatans, but I find very little use for narrow-minded people who seem convinced of their own infallibilty, and the inherent stupidity of those who don't share their 'knowledge'. Their knowledge is little more than opinion. Just because some kind of 'phenomena' can be copied (however badly) doesn't automatically mean that that is the single explanation for every phenomena that bears any resemblance to it.

Randi lives in a very boring world, and I pity the people who live there with him.

 

[Alexius4]

According to the report I googled up from Kindred Spirit, having floored the CSICOP rep three times out of four, the Yellow Bamboo claim has been disputed by Randi on the grounds that the video equipment the CSICOP team employed was substandard.

Which seems a little like special pleading. OK, alot like special pleading.

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Yellow Bamboo was discussed here:

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10880

It sounded to me like they weren't prepared to do the experiment in a clear and unequivocal context.

That said I can't see how this experiment can be done with a human subject anyway - Derren Brown has done this kind of thing. They'd need to be able to knock over an inanimate object under laboratory conditions. Anything else would be interesting but largely applicable to how suggestable human beings are

Emps

 

[Alexius4]

Thanks for that, Emps

Interesting to read Randi's objections in full.....yep, they seem reasonable enough, but I am surprised he didn't have more control over the procedings given the context and his insistence on strict protocol.

Interesting how hypnotism and suggestion, which was once a notable paranormal controversy, has been so thoroughly absorbed into the mainstream. Wonder what will happen to telepathy & PK should they be demonstrated within the context of a respectable scientific framework?

 

[Anonymous]

That said I can't see how this experiment can be done with a human subject anyway

With these kung-fu-related qi things, you could rule out the more obvious effects to do with momentum and so on, by doing as Randi instructed Joko Tri: just walk forward slowly and give a very light tap.

Additionally, you could put a thin (and non-transparent) wall/barrier/partition between the striker and the strikee, so they can't see each other and can't get visual cues to fall over. Then you would carry out a series of tests where sometimes the striker used his powers, and sometimes not, and see how often the strikee fell over.

There are obviously difficulties with this protocol - maybe qi (or whatever is is) can't flow through the barrier, removing other cues (such as auditory ones), judging when someone has fallen over (does down on one knee count?) and so on, but I think you could narrow down the parameters a bit in such a way.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Re: Re: Randi - Discuss...

you mention that Randi has tested Breatharians before. How did he test them?

I don't know, it was a very off-the-cuff comment, about putting them in a hotel, waiting outside to catch them sneaking back with a takeaway and then going home. Sorry I can't be more help.

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

JamesM: Breatharians have been tested just not by Randi (as far as I'm aware):

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=328086#post328086

Results were....... equivocal.

About Yellow Bamboo -I believe the person who communicated with Randi about these tests wasn't there in an official capacity and the conditions were certainly unsuitable.

To properly test it with a human you'd need:

1. A subject unknown to the person being tested.

2. Elimination of any possible contact or even air movements.

3. Elimination of an auditory cues (thats how I think DB does it - when you are waiting for the strike you are straining to pick up any noise, etc. and just the rustle of a sleeve would suffice).

4. Elimination of any visual cues - like spectators flinching.

So you'd need some kind of opaque, soundproof box for the subject to stand in. The dark beach environment couldn't be worse for testing this kind of thing but I think the suggestion that they might have used a tazer is overly complicated.

Emps

 

[OneWingedBird]

I think Randi's problem there is that he's skeptical to the point where he dismisses hypnosis as a viable option - we know it can be done that way because we've seen it done by McKenna, Brown and others (in fact it's not far off some of the things that Mesmer himself was doing).

But he can't buy that so this time he's had to come up with a more complicated explanation.

If we're trying to devise an experiment to test this, we need to remember that if it is hypnosis that's being used, it does rely on complience by the subject, even if they don't want to consciously acknowledge that. Expectation and anticipation are also key factors. So ideally we need to use a subject who is calm and self confident, and who also doesn't know what is supposed to happen in this situation.

 

[Jerry_B]

And is facing the other way - seriously! Surely the Yellow Bamboo type of thing should work from any direction? If the shouter faces his target, there are chances that other 'forces' are at work, i.e. suggestion.

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Updated: Sat 4 Dec 2004 | 01:10 GMT


Flying pig payout promised

Fri Dec 3, 2004 05:37 AM GMT

By Sven Nordenstam

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - A sworn enemy of superstition, Canadian-born magician James Randi has thrown down the gauntlet to mystics, promising a million dollars to anyone who can prove supernatural powers or a phenomenon beyond the reach of science.

An arch-sceptic who demonstrates with his own sleight of hand how easily it is to dupe the gullible into mistaking trickery for the supernatural, the bearded 76-year-old has written nine books and lectured at the White House, NASA and several top U.S. universities.

The million-dollar "paranormal challenge" lends publicity to Randi's life-long mission.

His pursuit of scepticism was sparked by a visit to a spiritualist church in his native Toronto when he was just 15.

Already an amateur magician, he was upset at seeing "common tricks" pass for divine intervention. But his attempts at enlightening the churchgoers cost him four hours questioning at the police station.

Sixty years on, Randi is still trying to persuade people to give up their belief in mystic forces beyond their control.

"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense. You're giving away your money to the charlatans, you're giving away your emotional security, and sometimes your life," he explained in an interview before giving a lecture in Stockholm.

A MAN OBSESSED

Deeply concerned with the spread of beliefs not based on the principles of science, Randi is especially worried about the growing popularity of exotic cures and therapies catering to sick people who are then lured away from effective treatments.

"It's a mission, and also an obsession," he said.

The challenge also serves to dent the image of professional psychics, as they so far have balked at the chance to win the million.

"They offer all kinds of strange excuses," he said.

On a European tour of Germany, Italy, Ireland, Belgium and Sweden, Randi tested people who wanted to go for his million. Most applicants sincerely believe they have supernatural gifts, the vast majority claiming to possess the power of dowsing -- the ability to detect water with the help of a cleft stick.

Dowsing has never been proved to work in a controlled setting, said Randi.

"But no one ever changes their mind," he said, recalling only one single case throughout the years where a man backed down from his claim after being tested.

At a lecture to promote critical thinking, a Swedish audience of about 300 applauded and laughed as Randi blasted away at astrologers, homeopaths, faith healers and psychic mediums, accusing them of defrauding the sick and the desperate.

Riddling his performance with tricks -- divining the symbols on cards put in an envelope by an apparently randomly-chosen audience member -- Randi says his own expertise at "magic" helps him expose fraudsters.

"As a magician I know two things -- how to deceive people and how people deceive themselves."

OFFENDING SPOON-BENDERS

On one particular night Randi was in the company of hundreds of cheering fellow sceptics, but not everyone appreciated seeing their beliefs shattered.

"I get threats all the time. I don't answer the door unless I know who's there," he said.

His most famous adversary is Uri Geller, the Israeli psychic who became a celebrity in the '70s for bending spoons. Geller sued him for libel for his book "The Truth About Uri Geller". I has cost Randi a fortune in legal fees, but he has not yet been able to get the book removed from the shelves.

Randi demonstrated to a reporter how he too is capable of mystically mistreating cutlery, but as a magic trick.

He carefully pointed out that he does not deny Geller might have supernatural talent -- just as he does not rule out the existence of supernatural phenomena.

"If Geller does it by divine power, he does it the hard way," he said.

Randi said he would be happy to hand over the prize if presented with solid evidence.

"That would be such an advance for our knowledge of the universe that it would be well worth a million dollars," he said. "The possibility is very, very small, but it's there."

The prospects for the mystically-minded don't look too rosy, though. The James Randi Educational Foundation, based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, has tested hundreds of applicants. But no one has ever passed even the preliminary tests.

On the lapel of his jacket, Randi wears a pin with the mascot of the organisation, a winged pig called Pigasus.

"We say that we will give away the million dollars when pigs can fly."


--------------------
© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.

Source

 

[headnspace]

Claims, tests, and preliminary tests

I've noticed that the JREF site claims that
"nobody has even passed the preliminary tests"

None of the literature describing the testing procedure says anything about "preliminary" tests or "follow-up" tests.
The little girl who could read while blindfolded passed an early test, and then failed a second test (with a more secure blindfold)
The dowsers seem to pass a first test, then fail secondary tests. (according to the JREF site. The first run is when the dowsers know where the water is, the second test is when they do not).

My question is: What do they define as the preliminary test? Isn't the test set up with both parties agreeing to the protocol? Does that mean only the first test (preliminary) test is the one with both parties agreeing to the protocol, and then a "follow-up" test to then give out the $1 million with stricter protocols?

It is only my guess as to the difference between "preliminary" and "follow-up" since the JREF literature says nothing about separate tests. It only mentions a single testing protocol being agreed to by both parties (JREF and the claimant).

The reason I won't go for the $1 million is because of the lack of respect the claimants usually receive when confronted by Randi and JREF. They just don't seem sincere in their written words by calling claimants frauds, hucksters, and thieves. It's just not worth my time. Okay, and I don't have any paranormal ability either.

 

[JimTheBrit]

My question is: What do they define as the preliminary test? Isn't the test set up with both parties agreeing to the protocol? Does that mean only the first test (preliminary) test is the one with both parties agreeing to the protocol, and then a "follow-up" test to then give out the $1 million with stricter protocols?

It is only my guess as to the difference between "preliminary" and "follow-up" since the JREF literature says nothing about separate tests. It only mentions a single testing protocol being agreed to by both parties (JREF and the claimant).

According to the JREF, your bog standard test consists of three stages: Baseline testing followed by the prelims then final tests. Each of these stages may consist of a number of trials (i.e. tests) - it depends on the type of claim being made. No protocols are implemented during the baseline stage - the applicant does their stuff as per normal. All protocols implemented during the prelims and final stages will be agreed upon by the JREF and the applicant and no changes can be made without the consent of both parties. For clarification on the difference between the prelims and the finals, you'll have to email Randi. He states in one of his weekly commentaries that the protocols for the final stage will be stricter and yet (in an email purported to be his reply to a similar query) he's also stated the opposite - that the protocols will not differ between prelims and finals.

 

[JimTheBrit]

Re: Re: Re: Randi - Discuss...

you mention that Randi has tested Breatharians before. How did he test them?

I don't know, it was a very off-the-cuff comment, about putting them in a hotel, waiting outside to catch them sneaking back with a takeaway and then going home. Sorry I can't be more help.

Source (first article). Also see UK Skeptic magazine volume 6 number 6 for an account of Ann Moore, 'the fasting woman of Tutbury', in the early 1800s. There's really nothing new about claims such as these.

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Re: Re: Re: Randi - Discuss...

you mention that Randi has tested Breatharians before. How did he test them?

I don't know, it was a very off-the-cuff comment, about putting them in a hotel, waiting outside to catch them sneaking back with a takeaway and then going home. Sorry I can't be more help.

Source (first article). Also see UK Skeptic magazine volume 6 number 6 for an account of Ann Moore, 'the fasting woman of Tutbury', in the early 1800s. There's really nothing new about claims such as these.

Nope they are relatively common - we have discussed some common occurences in another thread and this is my post in that thread on the testing of the Breatharians:

www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 086#328086

 

[dreeness]

The Laws of Thermodynamics, are, after all, laws. (And if some vague recollections of the Casimir Effect happen to scamper through your consciousness, please banish them. Details are for the tedious.)

Um. James Randi. Hmm.

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/ ... #randprize

 

[JimTheBrit]

Um. James Randi. Hmm.

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/ ... #randprize

Um. Skeptical Investigations. Hmm.