Earn big dollars .. prove this man wrong!

CMIYC · Sep 19, 2005

VICTOR ZAMMIT said:
One million dollars is offered to any closed minded skeptic who can rebut the existing evidence for life after death

http://www.victorzammit.com/

meogi · Sep 19, 2005

Darn. I'm an open minded skeptic...

And it's hard to prove something wrong that hasn't been proven in the first place. (Proof is not applicable here). And I mean, he IS a lawer... and I'm sure his work has been thoroughly peer reviewed and accepted. Or, he's just written a book and is out to make money. I happen to think the latter is most likely.

Malus 12:9 · Sep 19, 2005

Not another con to a get rich quick scheme

CMIYC · Sep 19, 2005

Malus01 said:
Not another con to a get rich quick scheme

Definitely, when one cannot disprove something it has to be a con! Victor Zammit didnt just make a claim and then you go prove him wrong, he made a claim using extensively documented evidence. Surely by now there must have been some young smart go getter in need of some cash YES-NO?

JerryL · Sep 19, 2005

Of course, conversely, Randi has a million dollars to the person who can prove life-after-death (or any supernatural ability). Perhaps we should get these two together for a boxing match.

MdmSzdWhtGuy · Sep 23, 2005

Both of those might be the 2 safest bets ever placed. They have offered money to prove that which cannot be proved by scientific means. Funny, since a great deal of credence in religion is placed on beleiving something in spite of a dearth of evidence, while science requires proof before something is to be believed.

I am going to lay 10 to one, that nobody will ever take either of those gentlemen up on their wagers.

Lets try this little logical exercise. Person A offers a million bucks to anyone who can prove there is absolutely no life after death. Nobody ever collects. . . conclusion? Life after death therefore must exist.

Person B offers a million bucks to anyone who can prove there absolutely is life after death. Again, nobody ever comes forward to collect the prize. . . conclusion? Life after death therefore does not exist.

It would seem at first glance, that one of the two MUST be true. Either there is life after death, or there is not. Simple enough, but neither of those statements can ever be tested. It is outside of the realm of prove-able fact. Thus we descend into an argument of faith. So the money of both these fellas is as safe as if it were in a bank.

B.

michel · Sep 23, 2005

MdmSzdWhtGuy said:
Both of those might be the 2 safest bets ever placed. They have offered money to prove that which cannot be proved by scientific means. Funny, since a great deal of credence in religion is placed on beleiving something in spite of a dearth of evidence, while science requires proof before something is to be believed.

I am going to lay 10 to one, that nobody will ever take either of those gentlemen up on their wagers.

Lets try this little logical exercise. Person A offers a million bucks to anyone who can prove there is absolutely no life after death. Nobody ever collects. . . conclusion? Life after death therefore must exist.

Person B offers a million bucks to anyone who can prove there absolutely is life after death. Again, nobody ever comes forward to collect the prize. . . conclusion? Life after death therefore does not exist.

It would seem at first glance, that one of the two MUST be true. Either there is life after death, or there is not. Simple enough, but neither of those statements can ever be tested. It is outside of the realm of prove-able fact. Thus we descend into an argument of faith. So the money of both these fellas is as safe as if it were in a bank.

B.

That is quite clever -but I hope tongue in cheek............

MdmSzdWhtGuy · Sep 23, 2005

Yes, it was tongue in cheek to a certain extent. I am serious about my point that these gentlemen's money is safe, as they are definately asking folks to prove things which cannot be proved /disproved by scientific means.

B.

Fatmop · Sep 23, 2005

His money is just as safe as those who made the challenge to "Prove that Jesus is not the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster."

If you don't know what the FSM is, go to www.venganza.org
I actually have lost the link to the FSM challenge.

rAmen.

Mr Spinkles · Sep 24, 2005

Mdm said:
Both of those might be the 2 safest bets ever placed. They have offered money to prove that which cannot be proved by scientific means.

That is simply not the case with Randi's Paranormal Challenge. With Randi, you don't have to demonstrate that a claimed ability/event was the result of the supernatural...all you have to do is demonstrate that the claimed ability/event exists. If someone claims to be able to knock people off their feet using balls of Chi, for example, all they need to do is knock someone off their feet under controlled conditions (in other words, without trickery). They don't have to prove the existence of Chi.

Mdm said:
I am going to lay 10 to one, that nobody will ever take either of those gentlemen up on their wagers.

Many have already taken up Randi's challenge, but none of them have been able to demonstrate their claims under the agreed upon conditions.

JerryL · Sep 24, 2005

That is simply not the case with Randi's Paranormal Challenge. With Randi, you don't have to demonstrate that a claimed ability/event was the result of the supernatural...all you have to do is demonstrate that the claimed ability/event exists. If someone claims to be able to knock people off their feet using balls of Chi, for example, all they need to do is knock someone off their feet under controlled conditions (in other words, without trickery). They don't have to prove the existence of Chi.

Yes and no. Randi, among other things, has the "I can't reproduce it" requirement... which essentially says if he can pull off the same trick, regardless of if it the same mechanism, then it doesn't count.

There are some other problem.
- He can disqualify you before you ever meet him (read the rules).
- He appoints the judges if you do get to the point of meeting him.
- Everything is at your cost until / unless his judge decides you won.

DrDino has the same problem:
- You have to prove it to him

Many have already taken up Randi's challenge, but none of them have been able to demonstrate their claims under the agreed upon conditions.

According to Randi's website; not a single one has even gotten that far. He's disqualified every one before there was ever even the semblance of impartial review.

I would imagine, for example, that hynosis would be next to impossible to prove under Radni's criteria.

Mr Spinkles · Sep 24, 2005

JerryL said:
Yes and no. Randi, among other things, has the "I can't reproduce it" requirement... which essentially says if he can pull off the same trick, regardless of if it the same mechanism, then it doesn't count.

That seems perfectly reasonable to me. As I said, he's not asking people to demonstrate that Chi or telepathy is their mechanism...he's asking them to demonstrate an ability/event without the use of trickery. If their abilities are reproducible using trickery, then they have failed to do that.

JerrL said:
There are some other problem.
- He can disqualify you before you ever meet him (read the rules).
- He appoints the judges if you do get to the point of meeting him.
- Everything is at your cost until / unless his judge decides you won.

- There are literally thousands upon thousands of people out there who believe they have some kind of paranormal ability: Randi can't be expected to personally meet with every one who applies. (I've read some of the letters he recieves, too....some of these people are totally incoherent nut jobs.)
- Can you provide the link where it states that Randi appoints judges? My understanding is that there is no need for judges at all. Randi and the claimant agree beforehand what constitutes failure or success to demonstrate the claim.
- It is perfectly reasonable that applicants must pay their own travel and living expenses. You expect Randi to fly every self-proclaimed psychic out to him? Also, please do provide the link and/or quote where it says in the rules that judges appointed by Randi decide the outcome.

JerryL said:
DrDino has the same problem:
- You have to prove it to him

My understanding is that Randi and the applicants agree beforehand what constitutes failure or success, so there is no need to "prove it to Randi" or anyone else--the results of the test are empirical and speak for themselves.

JerryL said:
According to Randi's website; not a single one has even gotten that far. He's disqualified every one before there was ever even the semblance of impartial review.

That is simply false: many people are not disqualified, but simply drop out. Many people cannot coherently articulate exactly what their claim is and what result would constitute success/failure. Furthermore, many have been tested by impartial review in the preliminary testing, but they have failed those tests.

From http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html#randi

FAQ said:

(3) To date, how many persons have been tested for the million-dollar prize offered by JREF? That's not a simple question to answer. Many hundreds have applied, and most have had to be instructed to reapply sometimes several times because they did it incorrectly or incompletely. There are, at any given time, about 40 to 60 applicants being considered, but from experience we know that the vast majority will drop out even before any proper preliminary test can be designed. Of those who get to the preliminary stage, perhaps a third will actually be tested, and some of those will quit before completion. To date, no one has actually passed the simple preliminaries and arrived at the formal test stage, though a couple hundred have completed and failed the preliminaries. So, no one has been formally tested for the big prize, though we're ready and willing.

Click to expand...

JerryL said:
I would imagine, for example, that hynosis would be next to impossible to prove under Radni's criteria.

You would first have to specify exactly what you claim to be able to do with "hypnosis" and what would constitute success/failure. If you claimed, for example, that you could make anyone to cluck like a chicken within 30 minutes by simply talking to them while they sit in a quiet room, then if you REALLY did have this power, it would not be difficult to demonstrate it and claim the prize.

JerryL · Sep 24, 2005

That seems perfectly reasonable to me. As I said, he's not asking people to demonstrate that Chi or telepathy is their mechanism...he's asking them to demonstrate an ability/event without the use of trickery. If their abilities are reproducible using trickery, then they have failed to do that.

That assmes that there's only one way to skin a cat. Just because I can use hidden cables, or magnets to lift a metal-covered piece of balsa wood in the air doesn't mean that "foaters" don't do so based on an entirely different mechanism (ionic breeze).

- There are literally thousands upon thousands of people out there who believe they have some kind of paranormal ability: Randi can't be expected to personally meet with every one who applies. (I've read some of the letters he recieves, too....some of these people are totally incoherent nut jobs.)

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Hypotetically, if someone did have a legetimate claim, it would be simple to disqualify them at this stage. His job and fame depend on never being proven wrong.

- Can you provide the link where it states that Randi appoints judges? My understanding is that there is no need for judges at all. Randi and the claimant agree beforehand what constitutes failure or success to demonstrate the claim.

Riight. So it must be something Randi agrees to or it doesn't happen. Sure, the claimant can also abort, but they could have not tried in the first place. Again, he gets the judges he accepts or nothing happens. It all relies on how reasonable he is; which is something neither of us can comment on as neither of us know him, and there's no positive responses (people he actually got to that point) from whom to evaluate.

- It is perfectly reasonable that applicants must pay their own travel and living expenses. You expect Randi to fly every self-proclaimed psychic out to him? Also, please do provide the link and/or quote where it says in the rules that judges appointed by Randi decide the outcome.

http://www.psicounsel.com/marius/dearjames2.htm discusses Randi creating the panel of "highly qualified experts" with no input from the other party.

My understanding is that Randi and the applicants agree beforehand what constitutes failure or success, so there is no need to "prove it to Randi" or anyone else--the results of the test are empirical and speak for themselves.

If Randi agrees.

That is simply false: many people are not disqualified, but simply drop out. Many people cannot coherently articulate exactly what their claim is and what result would constitute success/failure. Furthermore, many have been tested by impartial review in the preliminary testing, but they have failed those tests.

http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html

In all cases, applicant will be required to perform the preliminary test either before an appointed representative, if distance and time dictate that need, or in a location where a member of the JREF staff can attend. This preliminary test is to determine if the applicant is likely to perform as promised during a formal test. To date, no applicant has passed the preliminary test, and this has eliminated the need for formal testing in those cases.

You would first have to specify exactly what you claim to be able to do with "hypnosis" and what would constitute success/failure. If you claimed, for example, that you could make anyone to cluck like a chicken within 30 minutes by simply talking to them while they sit in a quiet room, then if you REALLY did have this power, it would not be difficult to demonstrate it and claim the prize.

But that's not a true claim of hyponsis... which can make a large percentage of cooperative people go into a hypnotic state.

Yerda · Sep 25, 2005

Out of curiosity, what is this existing evidence for life-after-death?

Mr Spinkles · Sep 25, 2005

JerryL said:
That assmes that there's only one way to skin a cat. Just because I can use hidden cables, or magnets to lift a metal-covered piece of balsa wood in the air doesn't mean that "foaters" don't do so based on an entirely different mechanism (ionic breeze).

No, you are assuming that it's Randi's job to disprove supernatural/paranormal claims. It's not. It's the job of other people to demonstrate their supernatural/paranormal claims. If your demonstration of lifting metal-covered pieces of balsa wood in the air is reproducible using hidden cables, you have failed to demonstrate that you can lift metal-covered pieces of balsa wood without the use of cables. If you wanted to convince someone that you have such a power, you would have to demonstrate that you can lift pieces of balsa wood explicitly without the use of cables. It would then be the skeptic's job to thoroughly inspect your demonstration and ensure that you have not used cables, as promised, and see if you really did lift the balsa wood. As I said twice before, Randi is not asking people to demonstrate a mechanism--he's asking them to demonstrate an ability (e.g., lifting balsa wood without the use of cables or magnets).

JerryL said:
Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Hypotetically, if someone did have a legetimate claim, it would be simple to disqualify them at this stage. His job and fame depend on never being proven wrong.

Hypothetically, if someone were disqualified for no good reason, it would be simple to publicize it. His job and fame would be seriously injured if he refused to test someone for no other reason than for fear of being proved wrong. If you have any examples of Randi rejecting an applicant for anything other than legitimate reasons, please present them.

JerryL said:
Riight. So it must be something Randi agrees to or it doesn't happen.

Yes. Whom he has refused to test and for what reasons is a matter of public record. He will not test people whose claims involve dangerous substances or devices. He won't test people who cannot coherently articulate what exactly they claim to be able to do and with what degree of accuracy. Again, if you know of any instance where JREF has refused to test an applicant for anything other than legitimate reasons, please show me.

JerryL said:
Sure, the claimant can also abort, but they could have not tried in the first place.

Yes, they can choose whether to try in the first place or not. Do you think that is unreasonable?

JerryL said:
Again, he gets the judges he accepts or nothing happens.

What judges?

JerryL said:
It all relies on how reasonable he is

No, it does not. The data gathered by JREF is open to public scrutiny, as are the applications sent to JREF. See http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?forumid=16

You can read the applications yourself, and JREF's response, and if any legitimate claims have been disqualified simply because JREF is afraid they'll really demonstrate a paranormal ability, please direct me to the application in question.

JerryL said:
...which is something neither of us can comment on as neither of us know him, and there's no positive responses (people he actually got to that point) from whom to evaluate.

Got to what point? To the formal testing? Yes, you are correct. However, the preliminary testing is no less empirical, and no less a matter of public record. The only real difference between the preliminary test and the final test is that in the final test, a third party individual is present with a check for $10,000 which is given to the applicant immediately upon their successful demonstration, and JREF is then required by contract to pay the rest of the one million within ten days.

And again, there is plenty of stuff out there we can evaluate. For example, anyone who wishes can view the video of a person from the Yellow Bamboo Group purportedly knocking people down simply by yelling at them. Upon reading Randi's observation that some of the people were "knocked down" slightly before the man yelled at them, anyone who wishes can then go back and scrutinize the video themselves to confirm this was the case.

JerryL said:
http://www.psicounsel.com/marius/dearjames2.htm discusses Randi creating the panel of "highly qualified experts" with no input from the other party.

Randi created no such panel. In fact, the author of the article in your link is not even an applicant to the JREF Paranormal Challenge. Dr. Schwartz has been conducting research on the paranormal and Randi sent a letter to his university suggesting that a panel of experts examine this research. The experts appear highly qualified and balanced: one of the suggested experts is a member of the American Society for Psychical research and author and President of the Parapsychological Association; another is " [font=arial, helvetica]Author and founding member of the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. Consultant, U.S. Government, Department of Defense, CIA, inquiries into "remote viewing."[/font] ; the other two also appear highly qualified (I think Michael Shermer was a particularly good choice).

I'm confused as to what point you were trying to make with that link.

JerryL said:
If Randi agrees.

Yes, he does not have to agree. However, all applications are a matter of public record, and if Randi has refused to test an applicant for illegitimate reasons (presumably because he knows that the paranormal ability is real and the person will pass all tests), please point this out to me.

JerryL said:
http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html

In all cases, applicant will be required to perform the preliminary test either before an appointed representative, if distance and time dictate that need, or in a location where a member of the JREF staff can attend. This preliminary test is to determine if the applicant is likely to perform as promised during a formal test. To date, no applicant has passed the preliminary test, and this has eliminated the need for formal testing in those cases.

I'm once again confused as to what point you are trying to make by providing this link. You said that "[Randi]'s disqualified every one before there was even the semblance of impartial review". That was as false before as it is now. Many have been tested in impartial review, but none of them have passed. They were not "disqualified", they simply failed to demonstrate what they said they could demonstrate. The difference between the preliminary test and the formal test is that if an applicant passes the formal test he/she is paid immediately.

JerryL said:
But that's not a true claim of hyponsis... which can make a large percentage of cooperative people go into a hypnotic state.

That's not a "true claim of hypnosis"? If you're saying that no one can do what I described in my last post, then I agree with you, but anyone could claim to be able to do that if they wanted, and their claim could be tested by JREF. Furthermore, IF someone really did have the ability I described, they would indeed win the $1million. Your claim, however, must be refined before it can be tested. What is a "hypnotic state"? What is a "large percentage"?

JerryL · Sep 25, 2005

No, you are assuming that it's Randi's job to disprove supernatural/paranormal claims.

Of course it is. Randi's intention has been to reveal frauds, not to seek out genuine supernatural events, which he doesn't believe in.

As I said twice before, Randi is not asking people to demonstrate a mechanism--he's asking them to demonstrate an ability (e.g., lifting balsa wood without the use of cables or magnets).

"without the use of" is a mechanism; and you don't really know what his criteria are... you are taking what you conclude to be honest skepticism and presuming that's what he's doing.

Hypothetically, if someone were disqualified for no good reason, it would be simple to publicize it.

People prtest that they've been unfairly disqualified all the time.

Yes. Whom he has refused to test and for what reasons is a matter of public record.

It is? Where can I find the record of the people he's disqualified and why?

What judges?

See the link I provided for an example of when Randi got more detailed.

You can read the applications yourself, and JREF's response, and if any legitimate claims have been disqualified simply because JREF is afraid they'll really demonstrate a paranormal ability, please direct me to the application in question.

I'm not interested enough to do that level of data mining.

Got to what point? To the formal testing? Yes, you are correct. However, the preliminary testing is no less empirical, and no less a matter of public record.

Where can I find the records?

I'm confused as to what point you were trying to make with that link.

I'm responding to your question. I'm not making a point.

Yes, he does not have to agree. However, all applications are a matter of public record, and if Randi has refused to test an applicant for illegitimate reasons (presumably because he knows that the paranormal ability is real and the person will pass all tests), please point this out to me.

I've never seen his representative go out to any claimaint, much less any that had legitemate claim.

I'm once again confused as to what point you are trying to make by providing this link. You said that "[Randi]'s disqualified every one before there was even the semblance of impartial review". That was as false before as it is now.

"Randi's representative" is not impartial.

That's not a "true claim of hypnosis"? If you're saying that no one can do what I described in my last post, then I agree with you, but anyone could claim to be able to do that if they wanted, and their claim could be tested by JREF.

I said what I'm saying. It's not a TRUE claim of hypnosis. I'm not interested in discussing your straw-man parody of actul hypnosis.

I said that hypnosis, which is accepted fact (I'm sure Randi accpets is) is likely unprovable under the conditions at hand.

Furthermore, IF someone really did have the ability I described, they would indeed win the $1million. Your claim, however, must be refined before it can be tested. What is a "hypnotic state"? What is a "large percentage"?

I'm sure f you do a google search, there's data on what percentage of the population is susceptable to hypnotic suggestion.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=percentage+of+people+hypnotic+suggestion

Mr Spinkles · Sep 25, 2005

JerryL said:
Of course it is. Randi's intention has been to reveal frauds, not to seek out genuine supernatural events, which he doesn't believe in.

I was not talking about Randi, I was talking about JREF's one million dollar paranormal challenge, and the website is quite clear as to its objective:

"[font=arial, helvetica]At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event."

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html[/font]

JerryL said:
"without the use of" is a mechanism; and you don't really know what his criteria are... you are taking what you conclude to be honest skepticism and presuming that's what he's doing.

No, I am not. I have read his articles, his opponents' responses, and I have read applicants' claims, and (try as his opponents might) I have never seen anything that would suggest he is anything other than honest. If you have any examples of him deliberately distorting facts or otherwise being dishonest, please present them.

JerryL said:
People prtest that they've been unfairly disqualified all the time.

Then it shouldn't be too difficult to show me an example of someone being disqualified unreasonably.

JerryL said:
It is? Where can I find the record of the people he's disqualified and why?

http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=68

JerryL said:
See the link I provided for an example of when Randi got more detailed.

I looked at the link you provided, but I do not understand how it is relevant to our discussion. Perhaps you could quote the specific parts that are relevant?

Again, what judges?

JerryL said:
I'm not interested enough to do that level of data mining.

So you're interested enough to suggest that Randi is dishonest, but you're not interested enough to back up your accusation. Forgive me for not taking you very seriously.

JerryL said:
Where can I find the records?

On the JREF forum. Here's one of many examples of JREF's interactions with a self-described psychic: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46657

JerryL said:
I'm responding to your question. I'm not making a point.

Responding to what question? You said that every applicant has been disqualified, and I said that many people had been tested but failed. You then quoted from the JREF site that many people had been tested but failed.

JerryL said:
I've never seen his representative go out to any claimaint, much less any that had legitemate claim.

By "legitimate" I simply meant that they met the simple requirements of the JREF paranormal challenge (e.g. they communicate in English, they coherently state what it is exactly that they can do, etc). I asked you to point out any instances in which Randi has refused to test such a "legitimate" applicant. Please do so.

JerryL said:
"Randi's representative" is not impartial.

Okay, you've made an accusation. Now back it up. I'm listening.

JerryL said:
I said what I'm saying. It's not a TRUE claim of hypnosis.

Well I suppose I agree, but that's not really relevant. People can and do make UNTRUE claims all the time. The UNTRUE claim that I proposed, if it were true, could easily fulfill the requirements of the JREF challenge and would win the $1million.

JerryL said:
I'm not interested in discussing your straw-man parody of actul hypnosis.

Okay.

JerryL said:
I said that hypnosis, which is accepted fact (I'm sure Randi accpets is) is likely unprovable under the conditions at hand.

Which of the JREF's conditions would prevent someone from demonstrating hypnosis (e.g., that you can put "a large percentage" of people into a "hypnotic state")? Please quote the specific JREF rules that you are concerned about, and why they would prevent someone from demonstrating hypnosis.

JerryL · Sep 26, 2005

I was not talking about Randi, I was talking about JREF's one million dollar paranormal challenge, and the website is quite clear as to its objective:

Oh. We are not talking about Randi. Who heads JREF again? Who foudned it? Who's name is before the ".org" in their website. You sure we are not discussing Randi?

No, I am not. I have read his articles, his opponents' responses, and I have read applicants' claims, and (try as his opponents might) I have never seen anything that would suggest he is anything other than honest. If you have any examples of him deliberately distorting facts or otherwise being dishonest, please present them.

http://www.psicounsel.com/marius/dearjames2.htm

Then it shouldn't be too difficult to show me an example of someone being disqualified unreasonably.

Which devolves into another debate for which I don't really have enough care to put in the effort.

On the JREF forum. Here's one of many examples of JREF's interactions with a self-described psychic: http://forums.randi.org/showthread....&threadid=46657

With every post by the same JREF "facilitator". Not at all odd.

Not that I don't think that the JREF finds any large numbers of frauds and self-deluded people frmo which to have perfectly legetimate stories. Believe me, I've done that to more than one person myself. (heck, it's just a variation of the anti-religious arguments).

Responding to what question? You said that every applicant has been disqualified, and I said that many people had been tested but failed. You then quoted from the JREF site that many people had been tested but failed.

None have made it to formal testing. All have been disqualified in preliminary testing. Most of the assurances regarding procedure exist in formal testing only.

By "legitimate" I simply meant that they met the simple requirements of the JREF paranormal challenge (e.g. they communicate in English, they coherently state what it is exactly that they can do, etc). I asked you to point out any instances in which Randi has refused to test such a "legitimate" applicant. Please do so.

I've never seen his representative go out to any claimaint, much less any that had legitemate claim. - Post 16

Okay, you've made an accusation. Now back it up. I'm listening.

Definitional. An impartial person would not, by definition, be "Randi's".

Well I suppose I agree, but that's not really relevant. People can and do make UNTRUE claims all the time. The UNTRUE claim that I proposed, if it were true, could easily fulfill the requirements of the JREF challenge and would win the $1million.

You are missing the forest through the trees. I'm not interest in untrue claims regarding hypnosis in the slightest.

There really is hypnosis. This is established and accepted. I don't believe that you could prove hypnosis to be real under the JREF requirements.

Which of the JREF's conditions would prevent someone from demonstrating hypnosis (e.g., that you can put "a large percentage" of people into a "hypnotic state")? Please quote the specific JREF rules that you are concerned about, and why they would prevent someone from demonstrating hypnosis.

The subjective nature of the experience. Can you come up with what you think would be an acceptable way to test hypnosis?

JerryL · Sep 26, 2005

Realize as well that you have been tryign to change the argument. I originally said:

There are some other problem.
- He can disqualify you before you ever meet him (read the rules).
- He appoints the judges if you do get to the point of meeting him.
- Everything is at your cost until / unless his judge decides you won.

You have taken that and are arguing against "Randi cheats". This is a straw-man argument as it was not my original position. I pointed out that the conditions are entirely in his favor and his hands, whether a paranormal "power" existed or not.

Mr Spinkles · Sep 26, 2005

JerryL said:
Oh. We are not talking about Randi. Who heads JREF again? Who foudned it? Who's name is before the ".org" in their website. You sure we are not discussing Randi?

I was quite clear in post #10 when I said, "That is simply not the case with Randi's Paranormal Challenge" in response to Mdm's statement "They have offered money to prove that which cannot be proved by scientific means."

JerryL said:
http://www.psicounsel.com/marius/dearjames2.htm http://www.psicounsel.com/marius/dearjames2.htm

Please quote the part(s) that show Randi deliberately distorting facts, as I cannot find them.

JerryL said:
Which devolves into another debate for which I don't really have enough care to put in the effort.

As I said: you're interested enough to suggest that Randi is dishonest, but you're not interested enough to back up your accusation. Forgive me for not taking you very seriously.

JerryL said:
None have made it to formal testing. All have been disqualified in preliminary testing. Most of the assurances regarding procedure exist in formal testing only.

Please explain what assurances regarding procedure are lacking in the preliminary testing, and why this constitutes every applicant being "disqualified before even the semblence of impartial review".

For example, a third-party volunteered to test the Yellow Bamboo group, and this is Randi's explanation of why they failed the preliminary test:

"[font=arial, helvetica]No, YB did not pass the JREF preliminary test. There are many reasons for their failure: [/font] [font=arial, helvetica]First, no continuous videotape record was made, as I'd clearly required. Without that, there is only evidence that Mr. Tri fell down, but no indication of how or why. Second, Joko did not walk up to Serengen and "gently tap him with a piece of bamboo," as I'd specified, and YB had agreed to, but charged at him full tilt, with a huge bamboo pole which he'd supplied himself, he told me. There were people close enough to touch Joko as he ran forward, in fact there was quite a crowd involved. The demo took place when it was very dark, giving much different conditions for viewing than there would have been at ten in the morning, as YB had previously agreed to do. So, essentially, there is no evidence of anything supernatural available here. Most damning of all: the report that Joko Tri gave me regarding what he experienced, is congruent with another modus, one that is not at all new, strange, nor unusual. I'm gathering data on this right now, and I'll report on it. This modus was offered by several readers with experience in the subject."
[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica]From: http://www.randi.org/jr/100303.html
[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica]Anyone who wishes can go to the Yellow Bamboo group's website and view the video in question. Accordingly, one will find that the Yellow Bamboo group failed to demonstrate what they said they would demonstrate. Please explain how this constitutes them being "disqualified before even the semblence of impartial review".

JerryL said:
[/font]

I've never seen his representative go out to any claimaint, much less any that had legitemate claim. - Post 16

That he does not go out to claimants does not mean he refuses to test claimants. Once again, I asked you to point out any instances in which Randi has refused to test a "legitimate" applicant ("legitimate", as in, an applicant who has applied correctly and coherently). Please do so.

JerryL said:
Definitional. An impartial person would not, by definition, be "Randi's".

I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, Jerry. Who is "Randi's"? Mr. Joko, for example, the man who tested the Yellow Bamboo group, was not, in any sense, "Randi's". Nor is there any evidence that he was not impartial. Nor would it matter whether or not he was impartial. The tests are empirical and the results speak for themselves. Even if Mr Joko was not impartial, the video still clearly shows him being knocked down, and it still clearly shows the Yellow Bamboo group not following the protocoll they had agreed to.

JerryL said:
You are missing the forest through the trees. I'm not interest in untrue claims regarding hypnosis in the slightest.

There really is hypnosis. This is established and accepted. I don't believe that you could prove hypnosis to be real under the JREF requirements.

The subjective nature of the experience. Can you come up with what you think would be an acceptable way to test hypnosis?

No, I cannot test "hypnosis" any more than I can test "electricity". I can, however, come up with an acceptable way to test the things people claim to be able to do with hypnosis and electricity. Similarly, the Paranormal Challenge does not presume to test "chi", but only the things people claim to be able to do with "chi".

JerryL said:
Realize as well that you have been tryign to change the argument.

I have not been trying to change the argument. You said:

JerryL said:
There are some other problem.
- He can disqualify you before you ever meet him (read the rules).
- He appoints the judges if you do get to the point of meeting him.
- Everything is at your cost until / unless his judge decides you won.

You also suggested that Randi has "disqualified every [applicant] before even the semblence of impartial review".

To which I responded:

Mr Spinkles said:
- There are literally thousands upon thousands of people out there who believe they have some kind of paranormal ability: Randi can't be expected to personally meet with every one who applies. (I've read some of the letters he recieves, too....some of these people are totally incoherent nut jobs.)
- Can you provide the link where it states that Randi appoints judges? My understanding is that there is no need for judges at all. Randi and the claimant agree beforehand what constitutes failure or success to demonstrate the claim.
- It is perfectly reasonable that applicants must pay their own travel and living expenses. You expect Randi to fly every self-proclaimed psychic out to him? Also, please do provide the link and/or quote where it says in the rules that judges appointed by Randi decide the outcome.

You then failed to provide a link where it states that Randi appoints Judges. Instead, the link you provided shows that Randi sent a letter to a university suggesting that some experts (whose perspectives clearly include both skeptics and believers) take a look at a researcher's data. You then repeated your claim that Randi appoints judges to decide the outcome of the tests, and you went on to suggest that "Hypotetically, if someone did have a legetimate claim, it would be simple to disqualify them at this stage." You also failed to support your assertion that "every one has been disqualified before even the semblence of impartial review".

So no, I have not been trying to change the argument. You have suggested some things which I have challenged and which you have failed to support. Instead, you have gone on to make further assertions which I have also challenged, and which remain to be supported.

Earn big dollars .. prove this man wrong!

Member

Well-Known Member

Temporarily Deactive.

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator Emeritus

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Mr

Well-Known Member

Mr

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Mr

Well-Known Member

Mr

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Mr