Lets look closer at randi's $1 million challange

iamhunted

Its gets spouted a lot in here does the million dollar challange. Heres some interesting thoughs on it:

There’s been a lot of talk about James Randi’s Million dollar challenge. In this challenge, Randi promises a prize of one million dollars to anyone proving his paranormal abilities. Skeptics of anything paranormal use the fact that no one got the prize that they are right and nothing paranormal exists all claiming otherwise are either misguided or frauds. I’ve written about Randi before in James Randi attacks Uri Geller again.

Some good write-ups about Randi’s prize are available from these sources:

Michael Prescott’s blog – Prescott posted a series of article’s about Randi’s challenge. You can read his posts in The challenge, part one and in The challenge, part two. In these posts Michael Prescott reviews the FAQ of the JREF Million Dollar Challenge. JREF stands for James Randi Educational Foundation. One of the things going against the challenge is that it’s hard to apply and to get to the part where you actually have to prove something. In the review of the FAQ Prescott shows various parts of the challenge that demonstrate the nature of the prize offer, where some claims are not even considered because they are being pre-decided as being false claims. Read those posts.

PsiPog’s founder Sean (aka Peebrain) wrote about his try to take and win the million dollars. Sean describes how his question about the nature of the Million dollars (offered in some kind of bonds) was left unanswered and his correspondence with the foundation was edited to remove foul language of the foundation’s representative and an email which he never wrote was posted on the forum as being written by him. This is a very interesting evidence of how hard it is to apply and how the foundation treats the applicants.

Read more - its an eye-opener

iamhunted

made the observation that the prize was in the form of bonds, and not cash. She tried to explain to me how bonds can be "worth" a million dollars legally, but in reality could be completely worthless.

- http://psipog.net/print-beware-pseudo-skepticism.html

I've heard that mentioned before.

iamhunted

c'mon skeptics - if you cant think of anything to say then you can nick some of the comments on the page linked

sambuka41

I believe that Randi claim is COMPLETELY for his own publicity.

When offered a chance to have a Dr. in Psychology try and win his "million dollar prize" he ignored him. He choose to respond to Dr. Schwartz emails on his own website instead. Here are the responses on Dr. Schwartz website.

http://survivalscience.50megs.com/torandi.htm

Dr. Schwartz conducted some pretty amazing experiments with mediums like Allison du Bois and John Edwards, results were statictically significant.
So this man knows his stuff. Instead of actually examining the evidence as he was invited to Randi has attacked the credibility of man who has tenure at the univerity of Arazona, real smart;)

Oryx

In my reading of Randis site, it seems he just likes to take cheap potshots at the more obvious loons who apply, for the publicity that generates. (Lets face it this kind of offer will always attract a lunatic element), but tends to avoid any interaction with the more credible people who have an interest, as mentioned above. His standpoint, which he makes no excuses for, is 'you are a fraud and I will prove it'. Hardly conducive to discussion with academics who study the field.

He sidesteps questions about his million dollar offer in the same way he accuses the 'frauds' of avoiding his own scrutiny.

Zombrex

iamhunted wrote: »

c'mon skeptics - if you cant think of anything to say then you can nick some of the comments on the page linked

if you actually read the email correspondence from Peebrain he just keeps asking question after question about the million dollars until they get annoyed at him. Given that they probably get emails all the time from people who aren't serious I can understand why they gave him the short straw. Most organisations that require applications don't even take correspondence until you apply. You aren't going to get very far hassling the X-Prize guys either wanting to know the exact way the money is paid out.

Now I mean I don't really know Randi much, I've no great affection for him. He could be a douche bag for all I know (we was a magician). But the emails don't make Peebrain come off very well.

pH

Just come up with a repeatable test that shows your paranormal powers and keep doing it. Then as well as a Nobel prize and your name going down in history you will have the added bonus of proving Randi a fraud and being a discredited and dishonest nay-sayer left in your wake.

Seriously guys, do the test either you win a million or your "arch-enemy" is left humiliated as a charlatan. Either way given the praise and accolade you'll be receiving anyway it won't matter much to you either way.

Overblood

I think the application procedure is pretty solid. It filters out anything that can't be properly tested.

Loony: I can fly

Randi: Ok, step over to the window please.

Loony: Ah wait, I can't just do that, I need my magic curtain and my special this that the other and you also have to look away for 5 minutes.

Randi: So you can't fly.

Loony: Well...


He also turns away anyone claiming to be able to survive without eating or drinking, aka breatharianism, due to it's potential lethality. People have come close to death while trying to prove their magic powers in previous laboratory tests.

Zombrex

pH wrote: »

Just come up with a repeatable test that shows your paranormal powers and keep doing it. Then as well as a Nobel prize and your name going down in history you will have the added bonus of proving Randi a fraud and being a discredited and dishonest nay-sayer left in your wake.

Seriously guys, do the test either you win a million or your "arch-enemy" is left humiliated as a charlatan. Either way given the praise and accolade you'll be receiving anyway it won't matter much to you either way.

That is a good point

The argument that they could do the testing process and demonstrate the paranormal and win the prize but they won't because they are not sure if the bonds will be worth anything is a bit ridiculous (bonds are a perfectly normal way of moving money around)

Surely if they all hate Randi so much they would happily do it for free just to pass the test and demonstrate the paranormal.

iamhunted

im sorry boys but wtf is this? X Men? Arch enemies?

Sometimes it does seem more rewarding talking to a wall than posting in here, but Randis challenge has been 'challenged' quite a few times over the years. As mentioned by someone else - its all about his own publicity.

Also, 'skeptics' - you shoudl do something about thinking that the paranormal is all about physical feats of one sort or another (I can do this, i can do that etc etc). Theres way more to it than that, but Randis challange doesnt exactly cover it.

Oryx

I suppose my main problem with Randi on this forum, is that he is our own little version of Godwins law. No discussion can take place it seems without inevitably ending with a sceptic saying why hasnt the 'believer' claimed the infamous million if they are so sure of themselves. Its a cheap way of closing an argument without making your own actual argument.

Zombrex

iamhunted wrote: »

Sometimes it does seem more rewarding talking to a wall than posting in here, but Randis challenge has been 'challenged' quite a few times over the years. As mentioned by someone else - its all about his own publicity.

Not by this guy

iamhunted wrote: »

Also, 'skeptics' - you shoudl do something about thinking that the paranormal is all about physical feats of one sort or another (I can do this, i can do that etc etc). Theres way more to it than that, but Randis challange doesnt exactly cover it.

When ever someone wants to believe something that they cannot demonstrate is anything other than an over active imagination they always appeal to the mysterious "more" than testing and experiment cannot explore.

iamhunted

hmmm ..... so why dont priests do the old randi challange. or anyone who goes to mass - or anyone who has a 'belief' in anything.

Your argument is pretty thin and basically seems to be based around people who believe things. Last time I checked, everyone in the world believed something.

iamhunted

randis challange doesnt have any way of covering EVPs for example as basically they are just voices on tape - anyone could fake that. People can also fake DVDs but that doesnt mean there arent any genuine. Publicity is what it is - and free too. he cant lose.

iamhunted

its great to see the skeptics not bothering answering anything, but instead going back to the old same old, tired and much abused 'psychics' argument

bubonicus

As a skeptic for me it's simple. I would sooner draw a conclusion from a testable physical claim, rather than even entertain the notion of an untestable metaphysical claim.

iamhunted

you wouldnt get very far in scientific research then as youve basically poutlined you wont believe it til you see it. You cant research anything with an attitude like that as the main reason for research is to find things out you didnt already know. I wouldnt call you a skeptic. I'd say you're more cynical. I assume though if science discovered that the untestable metapsychical claim is in fact testable then you;d change yer tune quick enough.

bubonicus

iamhunted wrote: »

you wouldnt get very far in scientific research then as youve basically poutlined you wont believe it til you see it. You cant research anything with an attitude like that as the main reason for research is to find things out you didnt already know. I wouldnt call you a skeptic. I'd say you're more cynical.

then i dont think you understood my statement.

Zombrex

iamhunted wrote: »

you wouldnt get very far in scientific research then as youve basically poutlined you wont believe it til you see it.

Believe what exactly?

Science is about modelling phenomena in the hope of greater understanding what is happening. It is about forming explanations in such a way that they can be tested to judge how accurate they are at explaining the phenomena.

When you say you won't believe it till you see it what you are actually taking about is not the phenomena itself (lights in the sky for example), but the paranormal explanation put forward by some in an attempt to explain it.

You will not get very far in science is you believe an explanation is accurate when you cannot test if it is or not.

Without the ability to test an explanation it is little more than a guess (in scientific terms an hypothesis as opposed to a theory)

iamhunted wrote: »

You cant research anything with an attitude like that as the main reason for research is to find things out you didnt already know.

You cannot research anything if you cannot test your theories about what is responsible for some phenomena.

iamhunted wrote: »

I assume though if science discovered that the untestable metapsychical claim is in fact testable then you;d change yer tune quick enough.

Yes, that is the whole point.

Once someone figures out how to test something in a scientific fashion scientists have a field day because it now becomes possible to properly research the phenomena. A good example is the famous Irish physicist, John Bell, working out an experiment to test theories of quantum entanglement, something that original scientists thought could not be tested.

The important bit though is that until Bell (and others) came up with this experiement scientists didn't embrace any guess that anyone could come up with.

They said "We don't know"

iamhunted

and you know what? Thats exactly the point.

Cant 'Skeptics' (with the usual disclaimer on how people term themselves) say 'I dont know' about the paranormal? If not, why not?

We dont know if the paranormal exists or not. You have every right to say it doesnt exist as we cant prove it - semantics, yes, but a valid point but once someone proves it then the point is no longer valid. Not very helpful.

Have a listen to this and answer me this riddle:

Thats a recording of three of our team in a room - very well insulated from the outside world. They are the only people in a big enough complex, which is locked and secure. They have hours and hours of recordings from this same room and are well aware of the natural noises from the room and complex plus a damned good idea what sounds from the outside sound like.

- right - go click ....

---

Its preferable you have a listen first then read this.

No-one in the room either laughed or heard anyone laughing when that was recorded. You can hear it. its pretty clear. Who laughed?

We dont know. We dont say its a ghost but we'd like to know how it got there. Infrasound is out as the mics wont record less than 50hz. We've gone as far as looking at quantum physics and the idea that maybe because we go with the intention of capturing an evp, that intention, and not a ghost, creates one. Alas Ive no idea of quantum physhics so it's clutching at straws.

Seriously, have a listen to that and give me some ideas.

'Dont Know' is a good enough answer for me as thats what I say about it.

'Its a sound' that coincidently sounds like a laugh' (as someone on here said about it before) just doesnt cut the mustard though as thats not really answering the riddle - its just saying theres a sound there that sounds like a laugh.

Oryx

Id heard about that sound clip, but never actually 'heard' it. Sounds exactly like your common or garden spook should sound. So if it was something from another realm, it knows exactly what its supposed to do to sound eerie.

I trust your bone fides on this, but a critical listener will first mention fraud, thats something you will inevitably come up against. Especially when the laugh seems to end on someones inhaled breath as they begin to speak, and it actually sounds to my ear like that breath is a follow on or part of the laugh. This is where science and the paranormal fall out. Even if you videoed the episode, thats all it is, a maybe real, maybe faked piece of evidence. Unless you can make this evidence repeat, somehow, you can keep banging your head off this lovely wall, like the rest of us masochists here.

iamhunted

to be honest, its something that makes us scratch out heads but its not proof of anything. as you say, fraud, fake etc etc is the obvious word to use but its still doesnt answer the question for us as we know its genuine. Its pointless trying to prove that to anyone but as I say - we only need to prove these things to ourselves and in this case we're pretty definite it wasnt one of the three there. the original came off a camera with a stereo mic. the laugh comes from a completely different direction than where Dans voice is.

The only way any of these things can be proved to anyone is if that person goes out and tries to do their own research into the paranormal. If they do it right, I would bet money they would have at least one audio recording they'd be wondering about within a year or two. otherwise, as Ive said in another thread - this whole thing is as useful as armchair politics.

Zombrex

iamhunted wrote: »

and you know what? Thats exactly the point.

Cant 'Skeptics' (with the usual disclaimer on how people term themselves) say 'I dont know' about the paranormal? If not, why not?

They do. But not about the "paranormal". They say it about the phenomena, which is where terms like UFO come from (unidentified flying object). Believers then start making up paranormal explanations and attributing them to these phenomena.

It is all very well saying that sceptics should be honest and say they don't know what some phenomena is. But this is a two way street. A sceptic saying "I don't know what that was" is not a license for a believer to start going on about how they do know what it was. They don't know either!

That is the issue most, if not all, sceptics have with the "paranormal". It is explanations with nothing to back them up. That was a ghost! That was an alien! That was a spirit! That was ESP! That was electro-plasm! That was an spirit orb!

Sceptics are sceptical of the explanations, and rightly so. You seem to think that is being a cynic.

iamhunted wrote: »

We dont know if the paranormal exists or not. You have every right to say it doesnt exist as we cant prove it

The "paranormal" is simply a collection of explanations, devised by humans as all explanations are, for certain unexplained phenomena that share a common thread of bending or breaking current scientific understanding (hence they are "para"-normal explanations)

To say we don't know if the "paranormal" exists or not is slightly inaccurate way of putting it. It is that we don't know if these explanations are accurate or not since we lack any method to test or verify any of them. What ever exists is simply "normal", it is our understanding that changes.

Which is where being a sceptic comes in (or a cynic as you call it). The responsibility is with the person putting forward the explanation to demonstrate that it is accurate before it is accepted. Until that happens it is proper to be sceptical of any explanation.

iamhunted wrote: »

- semantics, yes, but a valid point but once someone proves it then the point is no longer valid.

Nothing is ever "proven". What you do is build up a strong case that your explanation (a model as it where) of some phenomena is accurate by demonstrating that the explanation explains and predicts various aspects of the phenomena. In science such a model that attempts to explain something is known as a "theory"

So far I'm unaware of anyone who has ever done that with a paranormal explanation for some phenomena.

iamhunted wrote: »

Not very helpful.

Who are we trying to help?

iamhunted wrote: »

No-one in the room either laughed or heard anyone laughing when that was recorded. You can hear it. its pretty clear. Who laughed?

We dont know. We dont say its a ghost but we'd like to know how it got there.

It would be helpful then if you didn't call it a "laugh" since that hasn't been established yet. In fact given that no one was in the room apart from the team it would seem that "laugh" would be the last thing you would start thinking it is.

But of course you have already biased the entire thing by going searching for ghosts. So you are expecting to hear things like that.

This highlights one of the huge problems with paranormal investigations, something that science recognised 300 years ago, that being the problem of human interpretation of phenomena.

What makes that sound a "laugh".

It is the fact that when we hear it we pattern match it to the sound of someone laughing. We pattern match it. No some machinery or some independent test. But us. We particularly do this if you have already biased the interpretation by for example going ghost hunting, or in this case labelling your mp3 file "laugh.mp3"

So again this goes back to being sceptical. The sceptic in me, and in you, should be saying "Ok, what was that sound", not "Who laughed".

If you were being scientific about this you might form an hypothesis that it was in fact a laugh and then try and determine tests to falsify this hypothesis. But given that there is no definition of what a "laugh" is without human vocal cords that is some what jumping the gun.

So again, you need to go right back to the beginning. What was that noise. What caused it. And how do we test our ideas.

iamhunted wrote: »

Infrasound is out as the mics wont record less than 50hz. We've gone as far as looking at quantum physics and the idea that maybe because we go with the intention of capturing an evp, that intention, and not a ghost, creates one. Alas Ive no idea of quantum physhics so it's clutching at straws.

Well again the first thing you should to is stop using such a nonsense term as electronic voice phenomena. Who says it is a "voice"? If your team is expecting sounds that appear voice like then their brains are going to be pattern matching every single sound against what we think voices sound like.

This is exactly what the scientific method attempts to avoid, humans making interpretations as to what a particular phenomena is.

Figure out a way to test, independently of human interpretation, if it is a voice or not.

iamhunted wrote: »

'Dont Know' is a good enough answer for me as thats what I say about it.

I have no idea what that sound was. Again that is not an excuse to let the imagination run wild. If you are serious about tackling these phenomena scientifically, rather than simply indulging in paranormal belief, you shouldn't even be considering terms like "ghost" or "evp".

I would also seriously reconsider your testing methods. A bunch of guys wondering around a room with a mic is not the best way to get data.

iamhunted wrote: »

'Its a sound' that coincidently sounds like a laugh' (as someone on here said about it before) just doesnt cut the mustard though as thats not really answering the riddle - its just saying theres a sound there that sounds like a laugh.

Let me be very very clear.

There's a sound there that sounds like a laugh.

That is exactly what you have here. The key part being sounds like a laugh.

You do not even have enough of a theory to determine it is actually a laugh let alone to test theories about what was generating it. All you have is your interpretation that it is a laugh. You could simply be wrong. Can you demonstrate you aren't?

If you guys are serious about trying to make an head way with this field you need to read up on the scientific method, particularly the issues with human interpretation and testability, and some what more importantly understand why these things are important.

iamhunted

wicknight - really, if you cant be arsed actually reading my posts then please, dont answer them with waffle. One more cynic who doesnt know the definition of skeptic who has amazingly come up with the 'its a sound that sounds like a laugh' line. We already know that enstein, but i see you cant help me with figuring out what made made the 'laugh like' laugh sound.

Plus, dont give me the 'scientific method' line either - its a bit obvious paranormal research hasnt developed any kind of scientific method yet. Critisism is one thing but absolute waffle (re-read your post and see if you can find any information in it that hasnt been rehashed round here a million times) is just that - waffle.

So again, you need to go right back to the beginning. What was that noise. What caused it. And how do we test our ideas.

- isnt that what I asked you to help me with in my previous post? Are you just requoting what I said or just not reading any of the posts?

Actually, please dont answer that as Im sure it'll be a cliched as your last post.

But of course you have already biased the entire thing by going searching for ghosts.

- ah - further proof you obviously have no idea of what Im been on about. When have i ever said I go hunting ghosts? Try 'never'. If you think paranormal research is bollocks then thats fine with me but please, spare me the talking down to as you just arent up to it.

Zombrex

iamhunted wrote: »

wicknight - really, if you cant be arsed actually reading my posts then please, dont answer them with waffle.

I did read your post, including this bit

'Its a sound' that coincidently sounds like a laugh' (as someone on here said about it before) just doesnt cut the mustard though

It does "cut the mustard" because that is exactly the data you have at the moment. You have no further data or theory to assess this sound as anything other than that.

Consider you railed against sceptics for not simply saying "I don't know" it seems quite bizarre that you now turn around and say that that this conclusion doesn't cut it for you.

That in itself should tell you something.

iamhunted wrote: »

i see you cant help me with figuring out what made made the 'laugh like' laugh sound.

How could I possibly do that? I wasn't there, nor was I participating in the study nor have you gathered enough data to assess this independently of the study. A low quality MP3 file is not enough data for me, or anyone else, to do anything.

I can certainly start throwing out guesses as to what that sound might be, but that is exactly what people shouldn't be doing if they are interested in properly studying the phenomena. Why are you bringing up terms like ghost or evp? To say you weren't going there looking of ghosts is just silly, you mentioned ghosts and evp ("voice" being a biased statement in that term, voice implies a person speaking).

It is the whole attitude that you think this sound must be something significant that is the problem.

iamhunted wrote: »

Plus, dont give me the 'scientific method' line either - its a bit obvious paranormal research hasnt developed any kind of scientific method yet.

Well luckily for you the scientific method has already been developed.

You simply need to use it.

iamhunted wrote: »

Critisism is one thing but absolute waffle (re-read your post and see if you can find any information in it that hasnt been rehashed round here a million times) is just that - waffle.

If it has been "rehashed" a million times why do you still not seem to understand any of it?

sink

To determine what it was beyond guessing you need much more sensitive equipment and for the phenomenon to repeat itself. Something like the sonar system used by the US army to detect the angle range and elevation of sniper fire couple with more sensitive audio recording equipment which can record sounds outside the range of human hearing. You would then need to spend a few weeks analysing the sound, comparing it in detail other plausible sources for the sound and ruling them out one by one. And after you have done all that spent a fortune on new equipment and you found it was an echo of window rattling being amplified by the building ventilation system you can declare a successful investigation. Maybe you could even get it published in a journal.

Zombrex

sink wrote: »

To determine what it was beyond guessing you need much more sensitive equipment and for the phenomenon to repeat itself. Something like the sonar system used by the US army to detect the angle range and elevation of sniper fire couple with more sensitive audio recording equipment which can record sounds outside the range of human hearing. You would then need to spend a few weeks analysing the sound, comparing it in detail other plausible sources for the sound and ruling them out one by one. And after you have done all that spent a fortune on new equipment and you found it was an echo of window rattling being amplified by the building ventilation system you can declare a successful investigation. Maybe you could even get it published in a journal.

Yeah but where is the fun in that :pac:

iamhunted

i honestly believe a lot of people dont understand in real terms the difference between a skeptic, a believer and a cynic - thats one thing.

Secondly, this thread has again ended up like most thread on the skeptics forum ... no new information, just paranormal research armchair bashing. Its probably why theres hardly any threads worth reading on here.

Thirdly, many could do with realising that those of us interested in the paranormal dont fit snugly into the 'believer' category. Thats the point i was raising with wicknight as that poster seems to think that i 'believe' in ghosts. As ive said before - 'I dont know'.

Sink has a point, in an ideal world but as far as the paranormal is concerned if you found somewhere with consistant and testible paranormal activity then the question would be answered.

In saying that, who is going to find such a thing? The more cynical who prefer to talk about how they know the paranormal isnt real without even looking, or those who put their money where their mouth is and go looking?

Mr. Presentable

iamhunted wrote: »

i honestly believe a lot of people dont understand in real terms the difference between a skeptic, a believer and a cynic - thats one thing.

Secondly, this thread has again ended up like most thread on the skeptics forum ... no new information, just paranormal research armchair bashing. Its probably why theres hardly any threads worth reading on here.

Thirdly, many could do with realising that those of us interested in the paranormal dont fit snugly into the 'believer' category. Thats the point i was raising with wicknight as that poster seems to think that i 'believe' in ghosts. As ive said before - 'I dont know'.

Sink has a point, in an ideal world but as far as the paranormal is concerned if you found somewhere with consistant and testible paranormal activity then the question would be answered.

In saying that, who is going to find such a thing? The more cynical who prefer to talk about how they know the paranormal isnt real without even looking, or those who put their money where their mouth is and go looking?

Well put!

And yet, no one has shown any evidence of paranormalism that can be backed up. Whether or not the $m exists should not preclude the existence of evidence if the paranormalians are right.

The onus is not on the sceptic to show "x" doesn't exist, rather it is upon the believer to demonstrate it does.

iamhunted

I posted an audio click with a 'sound like a laugh' on it - to which all i can be told is that its a sound that sounds like a laugh.

I know that - I just want to know who made that sound and since its our own recording we know who it wasnt.

Its our little bit of research we cant work out - certainly not evidence of paranormalism that can be backed up ... but Im not seeing too many constructive suggestions as to what might have caused it outside of the obvious point that its a sound that sounds like a laugh.

iamhunted

plus - I dont care whose onus is what, in all honesty. My goal isnt to convince anyone of anything more than to satisfy my own curiousity.