Challenge applications

[Cuddles]

This surely is vital, and a very simple precaution in helping with the elimination of time wasters and the casual applicant, from the challenge.

You're really not making sense here. How exactly do you think someone can negotiate a protocol with the JREF and run a self-test based on that without first talking to the JREF? The whole point of having to meet certain conditions before you can apply is so that time wasters can be eliminated before they've wasted the JREF's time. Apparently you want the JREF to go through the entire negotiation process and settle on a final protocol before before they decide whether they should spend time going through the negotiation process. That's just plain nonsensical.

It is clearly nonsense when it has been demonstrated to be nonsense, when the claimant has not been able to prove with compelling evidence, its valdity.

Surely that is not a new statement on here?

It's not new, but neither is it correct. People do not exist in a vacuum. If a claim has been proven to be nonsense many times in the past, it is not rational to treat yet another identical claim as if it's an entirely new claim. Science, skepticism, and indeed just plain common sense and every day human life, are not based on refusing to come to any conclusion until all possible evidence has been gathered and analysed in detail. That would mean no-one could ever draw any conclusion about anything. No, we based conclusions on what evidence we have so far, on the understanding that it's possible for new evidence to alter that conclusion.

When it comes to claims like dowsing, we have more than enough evidence to come to the conclusion that it doesn't exist, and therefore any claim involving dowsing is clearly nonsense. It doesn't matter if someone tries to make it sound as though their dowsing claim is slightly different, all the evidence we have says that dowsing is nonsense and this new claim is not likely to be any different. We of course remain open to seeing evidence that proves otherwise, but until that happens we don't pretend that there is no existing conclusion.

As I said earlier, the MDC does not say "Maybe your claim about dowsing is correct, come over here and let's test it together.". It says "Dowsing is nonsense. Prove us wrong.".

Edit:

I repeated it, because I am getting conflicting messages from posters who supposedly are unified against my postings.

Yeesh, another one? What is it with people constantly saying things like this? This is a forum. Every single person on it is an individual with their own thoughts, beliefs, and arguments. No-one is united about anything. Sometimes people agree, sometimes they disagree. Often people who agree on one thing disagree on others. Just because some people happen to disagree with you on one point does not mean we must all be a hive mind who agree with each other an absolutely everything, and it's utterly bizarre to expect us to do so.

 

[realpaladin]

No, the writer is still alive, at least I would hope so, as he was up to this morning.

I repeated it, because I am getting conflicting messages from posters who supposedly are unified against my postings.

The reason for you repeating is of no concern of mine. I do not mean that in a bad way.

It simply means, you say it, you defend it, no matter where it comes from.

It would be an exceedingly difficult world if we all just repeat things we heard or read but pointed to the originators for rebuttals.

Either you choose a standpoint and stay with it, or you write down both of them coupled with a 'which of these is it?'

There needs to be some effort on your part here.

 

[realpaladin]

How?

Easy. Try sticking a banana in your ear and run around in circles when you are sure nobody sees you.

It is still nonsense, but has not been demonstrated to be that.

 

[zooterkin]

It is clearly nonsense when it has been demonstrated to be nonsense,

So, what do you think that the tests which the JREF and other researchers have done with dowsers have demonstrated so far?

The dowsers in Chris French's test claimed they can detect water. They agreed that they could detect whether a plastic bottle was filled with water or sand when hidden under a bucket. They were given the opportunity to validate that for themselves. They still believed they could do it; the effects they felt were the same as when they were dowsing for water in other circumstances. In the next stage of the testing, when they did not know where the water was, they could not find it.

This is a demonstration of the ideomotor effect; it wasn't new research into how dowsing works, because there has been plenty of testing which shows that it doesn't. If there really was such a thing as the ability to dowse, then either the dowsers would have said, at the open stage, that they could not detect water in a bottle (because dowsing only worked on flowing water underground, or some such), or they would have detected the water at a rate significantly greater than chance. If either of those had occurred, then I am sure that Chris French or some other interested researchers would have designed further tests to investigate it.

 

[zooterkin]

The best chance is a scientific test, without pre-judgement, I fully agree. However, I have been corrected by being told that JREF is not a scientific research centre, and therefore does not carry out formal and academically valid testing

You're referring to this?

As has been explained many times before here, the JREF is not a scientific research centre. The challenge is not an attempt to find out if magic exists. It's a PR stunt by people who don't believe magic exists and are calling out believers by telling them to put up or shut up. Then when no-one is actually able to put up, they can just point at the challenge and ask how come they still have a million dollars.

What did you think the JREF was?

Also, I think you'll find that a lot of scientific methodology is used in setting up the tests for the MDC; double blind tests, controlling for the minimum number of variables, statistical analysis, and so on. The protocol is agreed with applicants beforehand. Yes, the presumption (based on decades of experience) is that the paranormal does not exist, and as a result the tests will be designed to ensure that the challenger cannot do what they claim by using some normal method (and the fact that professional magicians are involved in designing the tests is significant, as pure scientists have been fooled by magic tricks before now), but if they can do what they claim, then the test will not prevent them.

 

[Explorer]

You're really not making sense here. How exactly do you think someone can negotiate a protocol with the JREF and run a self-test based on that without first talking to the JREF? The whole point of having to meet certain conditions before you can apply is so that time wasters can be eliminated before they've wasted the JREF's time. Apparently you want the JREF to go through the entire negotiation process and settle on a final protocol before before they decide whether they should spend time going through the negotiation process. That's just plain nonsensical.

Here is my suggestion in stages for clarity:

1.Applicant carries out personal tests (as per DD) at his own cost and time. Affadavit on the success of these is presented as part of the application. Forget the media issue.

2. Formal application made to the MDC with back up affadavit, which is accepted by the MDC as a green light for protocol discussions.

3. Protocol for the final agreed MDC test method is agreed within a specific time limit set by the JREF team (non-negotiable). A date is set for the actual test after method agreement.(non-negotiable)

4. Applicant must replicate agreed test method as far as possible, for personal evaluation prior to the test date. He/she has four weeks to back out of the MDC before the test date.(non-negotiable) If they cancel prior to the date, then they forgoe their right to another challenge in the future for similar claims. "Similar" meaning in the definition as dictated by the MDC (non-negotiable).

5. The applicant replicates the tests, and is satisfied he/she can reproduce the same results under the MDC scenario and the challenge goes ahead on the agreed date.

What is wrong with that procedure? For me it has a number of advantages over the status quo. It cuts out the early time wasters, and nutters. It cuts out those more serious applicants, like DD perhaps, who have misplaced confidence in their abilities mid-term in the procedure. It cuts the time down by setting time limits on each stage, so that prevarication, diversions etc, are less likely to occur. It treats the "big names" as equally as the more obscure applicant, which it should if it is going to be credited with a "scientific" approach to the procedure.

If a claim has been proven to be nonsense many times in the past, it is not rational to treat yet another identical claim as if it's an entirely new claim.

Then in that specific scenario it has already been tested with compelling evidence and has clearly been demonstrated to be nonsense. That is precisely what I AM saying, and have said, as long as you are quite clear on what is identical. For example, a dowser claiming he/she can detect running water, is qualitively different from a dowser who claims to be able to detect disturbed earth.

.
Science, skepticism, and indeed just plain common sense and every day human life, are not based on refusing to come to any conclusion until all possible evidence has been gathered and analysed in detail. That would mean no-one could ever draw any conclusion about anything. No, we based conclusions on what evidence we have so far, on the understanding that it's possible for new evidence to alter that conclusion.

Of course, but dowsing is not an everday event, and is not treated like rain falling out of the sky. Yes, we base conclusions on compelling evidence, but only after that evidence becomes available in the public domain. This covers most everyday events, but not apparently paranormal ones, which is why we are having this debate, surely.

When it comes to claims like dowsing, we have more than enough evidence to come to the conclusion that it doesn't exist, and therefore any claim involving dowsing is clearly nonsense. It doesn't matter if someone tries to make it sound as though their dowsing claim is slightly different, all the evidence we have says that dowsing is nonsense and this new claim is not likely to be any different. We of course remain open to seeing evidence that proves otherwise, but until that happens we don't pretend that there is no existing conclusion.

We have tests that dowsers have consistently failed on the record, and you may be correct in your conclusion that this represents compelling accumulated evidence that dowsing is indeed "nonsense". As you can tell by now, I have been less than happy with some of the tests, so I am still reserving my final judgement at this juncture.

I would much prefer the dowser to renounce his perceived abilities through his own discovery processes, in the manner I have suggested above, then there would be no need for an MDC. Perhaps, I am being naive here, but DD does give me some hope in this respect. This I know would negate the need for the circus of the MDC if it consistently worked in that way, but then I have always been more interested in the science, and experimentation, as being the most productive route to reason and knowledge, rather than de-bunking processes and publicity.

 

[Explorer]

The reason for you repeating is of no concern of mine. I do not mean that in a bad way.

It simply means, you say it, you defend it, no matter where it comes from.

It would be an exceedingly difficult world if we all just repeat things we heard or read but pointed to the originators for rebuttals.

Either you choose a standpoint and stay with it, or you write down both of them coupled with a 'which of these is it?'

There needs to be some effort on your part here.

The poster was claiming to have detailed knowledge of the MDC rules and raison detre, which I clearly wasn't aware of, and therefore not in any position to disagree at the time.

 

[zooterkin]

I would much prefer the dowser to renounce his perceived abilities through his own discovery processes, in the manner I have suggested above, then there would be no need for an MDC. Perhaps, I am being naive here, but DD does give me some hope in this respect. This I know would negate the need for the circus of the MDC if it consistently worked in that way, but then I have always been more interested in the science, and experimentation, as being the most productive route to reason and knowledge, rather than de-bunking processes and publicity.

What do you think the purpose of the MDC is, and who do you think it is aimed at?

 

[realpaladin]

The poster was claiming to have detailed knowledge of the MDC rules and raison detre, which I clearly wasn't aware of, and therefore not in any position to disagree at the time.

Then you simply 'quote' that and put your question or remark, like 'what about this then' below it.

 

[Explorer]

So, what do you think that the tests which the JREF and other researchers have done with dowsers have demonstrated so far?

The dowsers in Chris French's test claimed they can detect water. They agreed that they could detect whether a plastic bottle was filled with water or sand when hidden under a bucket. They were given the opportunity to validate that for themselves. They still believed they could do it; the effects they felt were the same as when they were dowsing for water in other circumstances. In the next stage of the testing, when they did not know where the water was, they could not find it.

.

You say the dowsers now "were given the opportunity to validate" prior to the test. Was this ever done without knowing where the targets were hidden?. Did they do that? It is still not clear from your comments above.

 

[zooterkin]

Fine, but you had better address that point to the poster who was arguing differently. It wasn't my statement, I was only repeating what the poster wanted me to be the real raison detre of JREF. I was quite disappointed when I read it, but he cannot have both ways.

Cuddles was not arguing differently, he was simply saying that the JREF is not a scientific research establishment. That doesn't mean they don't use scientific methods, as I said above.

If you, or someone else, demonstrates that there is actually a phenomenon to be explained, then there would be scientific research into what it was. At the moment, no-one has managed to dowse under conditions that enabled other explanations to be ruled out.

 

[Explorer]

What do you think the purpose of the MDC is, and who do you think it is aimed at?

Good question zooterkin. The purpose is to debunk, and the targets are the charlatans, hoaxers and fraudsters. Is that your own take?

If so why is DD given the time of day? Does he fall into any of the above. Or perhaps you would give him another category. The "gullible" or the "naive"?

 

[zooterkin]

You say the dowsers now "were given the opportunity to validate" prior to the test. Was this ever done without knowing where the targets were hidden?. Did they do that? It is still not clear from your comments above.

Why do you keep asking that? I've already answered it at least once.

What would doing it your way achieve?

 

[realpaladin]

Good question zooterkin. The purpose is to debunk, and the targets are the charlatans, hoaxers and fraudsters.

Not really. The purpose is actually to have people demonstrate to have a special ability whilst filtering out anyone that by mistake, unknowingly or knowingly, or on purpose is actually doing something else which is already explainable and does not constitute a special ability.

Your wording suggests that it is only targeted at the meanspirited, but the ignorant are just as much candidate as well.

 

[Almo]

"Gven the mindset of most potential applicants" is pre-judging, and not a very scientific position to take, even if it turns out to be true..

Have you read these?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=43

I read every one of these threads all the way through when I first arrived at the forum. Most applicants are not all there.

 

[JayT]

I don't think the $1 million challenge really means very much these days.

The contest is 'rigged' and impossible to win anyway, but in the legal sense, not a fraud in any way. It's rigged in the sense that science cannot prove anything is supernatural nor can science prove something isn't supernatural either. Neither side can prove its case.


Only the truly deluded would submit to such a challenge, but these people are not the main problem. It's the people who know pseudoscience for what it is and bilk millions using it for fame and profit. You won't find those people taking any such challenge seriously.

If I were a popular psychic offered the challenge, I could flippantly say:
"Who needs your million dollars? I can make five times that much by simply continuing what I've been doing."

Unfortunately, there's not too much Mr. Randi could say to answer that slur, except to concede that it is a valid point and becoming more so all the time.

This is especially true when the Internet becomes the primary source of popular information in cultures rife with superstitions.

The best science can do is occasionally demonstrate that we do not need to resort to a supernatural presumption for an explanation, even when cannot explain something scientifically at the moment. In any event, magic should never be the default assumption.

I can't help but be curious about the strict legal ramifications of offering a prize in a contest that is known to be utterly impossible to win? If nobody can possibly ever win, can it legally qualify as a valid contest? How is it a contest under those conditions? Do the rules clearly state that the prize cannot ever be won? Who would participate in a lottery if it were clearly stated in the rules that it is impossible to win the jackpot? You can only win IF you do something that is impossible.

The paradox of the Internet is that while it is one of the best sources of reliable information, it is, at the same time, one of the most unreliable sources of information. The true art is in distinguishing fact from fiction when they both speak the same language and dress like twins.

Since the rate at which irrationality propagates greatly outpaces the development of rationality, I wonder if, in the final analysis, Mr. Randi really had any measurable impact on the problem outside of merely being praised for his well-meaning efforts.

In the meantime, pseudoscience continues to flourish like the social cancer it is with every indication that will continue to do so indefinitely.

If in the days of P. T. Barnum there was sucker was born every minute, then today, there's one born every millisecond! Rationality just can't keep pace!

 

[Southwind17]

If you say so. I don't really care either way.

Well you should care. You misrepresented me, which doesn't bode well here.

As you can tell by now, I have been less than happy with some of the tests, so I am still reserving my final judgement at this juncture.

Your final judgement of what, the right testing regime or the veracity of dowsing?

If so why is DD given the time of day? Does he fall into any of the above. Or perhaps you would give him another category. The "gullible" or the "naive"?

I don't know, but I presume he satisfied all of the prerequisites. He was prepared to put his money where his mouth is, and that should be a good indicator of how seriously an applicant takes himself, in the main.

 

[jsfisher]

I don't think the $1 million challenge really means very much these days.

The contest is 'rigged' and impossible to win anyway, but in the legal sense, not a fraud in any way. It's rigged in the sense that science cannot prove anything is supernatural nor can science prove something isn't supernatural either. Neither side can prove its case.

The MDC is not rigged.

The MDC is not about proof. It is strictly about demonstration.

The test protocols merely attempt to eliminate the mundane explanations. You can win the $1,000,000 by doing something seemly supernatural. Dowsing would be such a thing. Whether it is supernatural is not the concern, though.

 

[Paul2]

I don't think the $1 million challenge really means very much these days.

The contest is 'rigged' and impossible to win anyway, but in the legal sense, not a fraud in any way. It's rigged in the sense that science cannot prove anything is supernatural nor can science prove something isn't supernatural either. Neither side can prove its case.


Only the truly deluded would submit to such a challenge, but these people are not the main problem. It's the people who know pseudoscience for what it is and bilk millions using it for fame and profit. You won't find those people taking any such challenge seriously.

If I were a popular psychic offered the challenge, I could flippantly say:
"Who needs your million dollars? I can make five times that much by simply continuing what I've been doing."

Unfortunately, there's not too much Mr. Randi could say to answer that slur, except to concede that it is a valid point and becoming more so all the time.

This is especially true when the Internet becomes the primary source of popular information in cultures rife with superstitions.

The best science can do is occasionally demonstrate that we do not need to resort to a supernatural presumption for an explanation, even when cannot explain something scientifically at the moment. In any event, magic should never be the default assumption.

I can't help but be curious about the strict legal ramifications of offering a prize in a contest that is known to be utterly impossible to win? If nobody can possibly ever win, can it legally qualify as a valid contest? How is it a contest under those conditions? Do the rules clearly state that the prize cannot ever be won? Who would participate in a lottery if it were clearly stated in the rules that it is impossible to win the jackpot? You can only win IF you do something that is impossible.

The paradox of the Internet is that while it is one of the best sources of reliable information, it is, at the same time, one of the most unreliable sources of information. The true art is in distinguishing fact from fiction when they both speak the same language and dress like twins.

Since the rate at which irrationality propagates greatly outpaces the development of rationality, I wonder if, in the final analysis, Mr. Randi really had any measurable impact on the problem outside of merely being praised for his well-meaning efforts.

In the meantime, pseudoscience continues to flourish like the social cancer it is with every indication that will continue to do so indefinitely.

If in the days of P. T. Barnum there was sucker was born every minute, then today, there's one born every millisecond! Rationality just can't keep pace!

Would you care to back up any of your claims with actual, real, hard evidence?

 

[Pixel42]

I can't help but be curious about the strict legal ramifications of offering a prize in a contest that is known to be utterly impossible to win?

It is believed to be impossible to win by those who don't believe in the existence of the paranormal. It is believed to be possible to win by those who apply, as they do believe in the existence of the paranormal. The purpose of the challenge is to give the latter the opportunity to prove that they are right, as that is impossible for the former to prove (though the more applicants try and fail the stronger their case becomes).