Just Another Magic Trick?

[Rasmus]

I respectfully disagree, the numbers say it all. Only 5% of potential testers make it to the test. I think it sounds rigged. You haven't proved to me it isn't.

the evidence is right here on the site. You're refusal to acknowledge it is not our problem.

In fact as a skeptic you would say the same thing about anyones test.
I know you want to believe whick makes you yourself a bleever, that this test is fair, but it really doesn't look fair to anyone.

You haven't bothered to look. How would you know anything about how the test looks?

Why hasn't Randi taken the other magician's test. Answer-for the same reason? rigged? I don't know.

You have been asked about this and so far haven't given anyone a chance to look at that matter. just an other baseless accusation.

Also, what kind of test could that possibly be? Randi doesn't claim any paranormal powers - so what should they be testing to begin with?

 

[tapman]

the evidence is right here on the site. You're refusal to acknowledge it is not our problem.



You haven't bothered to look. How would you know anything about how the test looks?




You have been asked about this and so far haven't given anyone a chance to look at that matter. just an other baseless accusation.

Also, what kind of test could that possibly be? Randi doesn't claim any paranormal powers - so what should they be testing to begin with?

Yes I have looked at the test. A one in one million chance. Is that fair. why does someone have to be published etc.. Why out of all the people who want to take the test only 5% actually make it to the test.
Sounds slanted to me. I'm just saying.]]

No need to get upset. These are all good question. Why is it everyone on here gets so upset about everything. Take it easy. Can't you guys talk about something without getting so emotional.

 

[EHocking]

I respectfully disagree, the numbers say it all. Only 5% of potential testers make it to the test. I think it sounds rigged. You haven't proved to me it isn't.

You make the claim that it is rigged - it is up to you to provide evidence of that accusation.

In fact as a skeptic you would say the same thing about anyones test.

OH? I thought you said YOU were a sceptic.

I know you want to believe whick makes you yourself a bleever, that this test is fair, but it really doesn't look fair to anyone.

The fact that you brought this up in General Skepticism and not in the forum for discussing the MDC, indicates to ME that you have not read any of the protocols nor any of the discussions on the protocols and are just making wild accusations based on your own bias.

How about joining in at the appropriate forum. Here's a start. There are 3 applications at the MDC Applications forum that were updated by the JREF representative today.

How about starting a thread in the appropriate forum, Million Dollar Challenge, and we'll discuss actual applications and why they have failed or gone ahead.

You know, discuss facts.

 

[Rasmus]

Yes I have looked at the test.

Which one?

Anyway, you need to look at all tests, and the events that led up to either the tests or their cancellation if you want to make the claim - as you did - that the low number of tests carried out was significant.

A one in one million chance. Is that fair.

No. It puts the JREF in considerable danger of losing the money to a fake. The chances should be much worse, say one in one hundred million.

What you fail to grasp is that this is a safeguard against winning the challenge by chance. Winning the challenge by ability may be a little tedious, but your chances should be a lot higher.

Consider I'd claim an ability to look through walls. Easy to test: Someone behind the wall holds up a sign with a number between 1 and 1.000.000 - now my chances of guessing the right number correspond to those in the challenge. But my claim wasn't that I could guess the number! All I have to do is look at it! (So my chance increase drastically and just leave a margin of error for me confusing the digits of the number, or mispronouncing it or something.)

Those odds aren't unfair to the claimants in any way whatsoever.

why does someone have to be published etc.. Why out of all the people who want to take the test only 5% actually make it to the test.

It's a simple nutcase filter. If anyone actually had the abilities they claim to have, then getting some media coverage would be dead simple.

Sounds slanted to me. I'm just saying.

Instead of just saying stuff you might want to think about what you say a little first and consider the replies you're receiving.

No need to get upset. These are all good question. Why is it everyone on here gets so upset about everything. Take it easy. Can't you guys talk about something without getting so emotional.

I have a low tolerance for wilfully ignorant.

 

[AndyD]

Welcome to the discussion. Try to keep your anger checked.

Let's make an agreement. You stop trolling by making up baseless crap about whatever tickles your fancy and I'll stop pointing out that you're making up baseless crap about whatever tickles your fancy.

You said Randi was a lying cheat. I said I was a fan, and thought he was brilliant.

Trolling 101: Claim to be a huge supporter of that which you are disparaging purely in the interests of "discussion" of course.

You also said that "if it was you", you'd cheat so you would naturally idolise someone you accuse of doing just that.

Do you think you could pass a test to prove something psychic doesn't exist?

Such a test is based on a stupid premise (like "prove to me there is no all-powerful wombat digging craters on Jupiter") but I'll promise to take it just as soon you prove to me that you are not a home-wrecking, water-poisoning, puppy-hating troll. I already asked for that proof and you ignored it, just as you ignored information on what Randi is supposed to prove and just as you ignored calls to produce evidence he's a scammer.

I can only assume that, since you are unable or unwilling to disprove my accusation against you that I must have got it right. Just thinking, my friend.

(I feel a blog article coming out of this nonsense)

 

[tapman]

You make the claim that it is rigged - it is up to you to provide evidence of that accusation.
[quoteIn fact as a skeptic you would say the same thing about anyones test.

OH? I thought you said YOU were a sceptic.
[quoteI know you want to believe whick makes you yourself a bleever, that this test is fair, but it really doesn't look fair to anyone.[/quote]The fact that you brought this up in General Skepticism and not in the forum for discussing the MDC, indicates to ME that you have not read any of the protocols nor any of the discussions on the protocols and are just making wild accusations based on your own bias.

How about joining in at the appropriate forum. Here's a start. There are 3 applications at the MDC Applications forum that were updated by the JREF representative today.

How about starting a thread in the appropriate forum, Million Dollar Challenge, and we'll discuss actual applications and why they have failed or gone ahead.

You know, discuss facts.[/QUOTE]






Tapmans reply-----

Ok here are some facts. I'm really glad you asked. In the beginning i just wanted to point out I felt the challenge was open to skepticism. Now I know it is.

Go to www.dailygrail.com. "the myth of the million dollar challenge" the people that wrote that are all more qualified than any one here to comment.
It seems all of you have been tricked by master magician James Randi. The challenge is just a magic trick, and you fell for it.

 

[tapman]

Let's make an agreement. You stop trolling by making up baseless crap about whatever tickles your fancy and I'll stop pointing out that you're making up baseless crap about whatever tickles your fancy.



Trolling 101: Claim to be a huge supporter of that which you are disparaging purely in the interests of "discussion" of course.

You also said that "if it was you", you'd cheat so you would naturally idolise someone you accuse of doing just that.



Such a test is based on a stupid premise (like "prove to me there is no all-powerful wombat digging craters on Jupiter") but I'll promise to take it just as soon you prove to me that you are not a home-wrecking, water-poisoning, puppy-hating troll. I already asked for that proof and you ignored it, just as you ignored information on what Randi is supposed to prove and just as you ignored calls to produce evidence he's a scammer.

I can only assume that, since you are unable or unwilling to disprove my accusation against you that I must have got it right. Just thinking, my friend.

(I feel a blog article coming out of this nonsense)

You said he is a scammer, not me. I said he is brilliant.
cant you discuss anything without getting your little panties in a bunch.
Sounds like you need some anger management little buddy.
I thought most people here were discussing this in a nice way. Why can't you. Refer to my above post. All the proof you need.

 

[EHocking]

Ok here are some facts. I'm really glad you asked. In the beginning i just wanted to point out I felt the challenge was open to skepticism. Now I know it is.

OK. Discussion over.

Go to www.dailygrail.com. "the myth of the million dollar challenge" the people that wrote that are all more qualified than any one here to comment.
It seems all of you have been tricked by master magician James Randi. The challenge is just a magic trick, and you fell for it.

Ah, so you don't have any evidence, in fact you don't even have your own opinion, just regurgitating someone else's.

This is probably the lamest trolling you've attempted so far since you joined "Dr" Pat "the psychic" Tapman.

 

[tapman]

Which one?

Anyway, you need to look at all tests, and the events that led up to either the tests or their cancellation if you want to make the claim - as you did - that the low number of tests carried out was significant.



No. It puts the JREF in considerable danger of losing the money to a fake. The chances should be much worse, say one in one hundred million.

What you fail to grasp is that this is a safeguard against winning the challenge by chance. Winning the challenge by ability may be a little tedious, but your chances should be a lot higher.

Consider I'd claim an ability to look through walls. Easy to test: Someone behind the wall holds up a sign with a number between 1 and 1.000.000 - now my chances of guessing the right number correspond to those in the challenge. But my claim wasn't that I could guess the number! All I have to do is look at it! (So my chance increase drastically and just leave a margin of error for me confusing the digits of the number, or mispronouncing it or something.)

Those odds aren't unfair to the claimants in any way whatsoever.



It's a simple nutcase filter. If anyone actually had the abilities they claim to have, then getting some media coverage would be dead simple.



Instead of just saying stuff you might want to think about what you say a little first and consider the replies you're receiving.



I have a low tolerance for wilfully ignorant.

For me wilfully ignorant is only seeing one side of something, and not taking the time to educate myself on what might be a differing opinion. You can make silly insults at me all day, but it doesn't move the conversation forward.

I get some of your points, they are good and add to what I wanted to know. thank you.

 

[tapman]

OK. Discussion over.

Ah, so you don't have any evidence, in fact you don't even have your own opinion, just regurgitating someone else's.

This is probably the lamest trolling you've attempted so far since you joined "Dr" Pat "the psychic" Tapman.

I have more evidence to support my claim than you do of yours. I stated my opinion over and over. If you are too closed minded to get it that's not my problem.

That said, you have to admit there is reason for me to be skeptical of the challenge. BTW. I only googled the info after you were crying about evidence. In the beginning it was all my opinion, and i said (regurgitated) nothing that was in the article I read.

It is easy to call me a troll etc. but you have to admit I'm right about the challenge.

 

[tapman]

I've asked a couple of times, and no one seems able to deny that the final arbiter as to whether the million is won/lost is Randi himself.
If that is so, and the only judge happens to be a guy who has spent his life's work saying one thing, then the chances of him saying another... thus negating the position he has fought for all his life... well, to me at least, that is not a situation conducive to a fair and independent judgment.
The fact that 'skeptics' seem not to question this (on the contrary some of them take the fact that the million has never been won as proof positive that the paranormal does not exist) is comical.
These big money offers are, in the end, cheap publicity stunts.

Agreed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[EHocking]

I have more evidence to support my claim than you do of yours. I stated my opinion over and over. If you are too closed minded to get it that's not my problem.

That said, you have to admit there is reason for me to be skeptical of the challenge. BTW. I only googled the info after you were crying about evidence. In the beginning it was all my opinion, and i said (regurgitated) nothing that was in the article I read.

It is easy to call me a troll etc. but you have to admit I'm right about the challenge.

As you say, you've stated your opinion over and over.

You have not produced any evidence to support it.

I pointed you to the JREF FAQ, Challenge Applications and the Application discussion forums - none of which you wished to discuss.

Your "evidence" was vague referral to some site article.

Produce one of their compelling arguments and I'm sure you'll find enough members here to discuss it.

 

[Rasmus]

For me wilfully ignorant is only seeing one side of something, and not taking the time to educate myself on what might be a differing opinion.

Exactly.

So did you go and read up some of the discussions that led up to challenges not taking place? Did you see that many of the applicants were unable or unwilling to develop a fair protocol that simply limited their opportunities to win either by chance or by cheating?

Or are you wilfully ignorant? Do you refuse to educate yourself about the differing opinion?

You can make silly insults at me all day, but it doesn't move the conversation forward.

I wasn't making silly insults, I was describing your stance based on the things you said.

I get some of your points, they are good and add to what I wanted to know. thank you.

And?

 

[tapman]

Exactly.

So did you go and read up some of the discussions that led up to challenges not taking place? Did you see that many of the applicants were unable or unwilling to develop a fair protocol that simply limited their opportunities to win either by chance or by cheating?

Or are you wilfully ignorant? Do you refuse to educate yourself about the differing opinion?



I wasn't making silly insults, I was describing your stance based on the things you said.



And?

Do you know what projection is. You are a classic example. Do you refuse to educate yourself of a differing opinion.
Unwilling to develop fair protocol. Fair to whom. My point from the beginning.
Interesting how you continue to make me right.

 

[chillzero]

I am moving this thread to the correct section for discussing the MDC. Please ensure that from here on, the personal comments are dropped, and you concentrate on identifying evidence regarding how the test is / is not rigged.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[Rasmus]

Do you know what projection is. You are a classic example. Do you refuse to educate yourself of a differing opinion.

I will, as soon as you offer any evidence for your assumptions.

Unwilling to develop fair protocol. Fair to whom. My point from the beginning.

Fair for both sides. You do not have a point. Your objection that a million-to-one chance would be inherently unfair has been addressed. You have yet to respond to that point.

Interesting how you continue to make me right.

Interesting how you keep refusing to address the arguments presented to you.

 

[Senex]

I had my wrist slapped for speaking unkindly to tapman before. I would like a special one-post dispensation to bend rule 11 or whatever rule it is that prohibits a clear thinking member from eviscerating a troll. Personally, I think ignoring him would be the best strategy but you can't enforce that and new people reply to him that don't know his history.

To keep the post on topic -- protocols are set up for the challenge that both parties agree to. They are set up so you clearly pass or fail. No judgement has ever or will ever be needed as to if your demonstration passed.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Tapmans reply-----

Ok here are some facts. I'm really glad you asked. In the beginning i just wanted to point out I felt the challenge was open to skepticism. Now I know it is.

Go to www.dailygrail.com. "the myth of the million dollar challenge" the people that wrote that are all more qualified than any one here to comment.
It seems all of you have been tricked by master magician James Randi. The challenge is just a magic trick, and you fell for it.

Tapman,
Are you really citing Daily Grail and Greg Taylor as authoritative on, well... on anything? Just what makes Taylor "more qualified than anyone here to comment". The Daily Grail's never tested a thing, scientifically. They repeat stories, pat themselves and their fellow paranormalists/ufologists on the back, and have an "all the non-news that fits, we print" policy.

There are numerous posters on these forums who have a lot of experience with the MDC, and there are numerous casual members who have read through every thread on every challenge. Yet you think that The Daily Grail is more competent to discuss this?

 

[tapman]

I had my wrist slapped for speaking unkindly to tapman before. I would like a special one-post dispensation to bend rule 11 or whatever rule it is that prohibits a clear thinking member from eviscerating a troll. Personally, I think ignoring him would be the best strategy but you can't enforce that and new people reply to him that don't know his history.

To keep the post on topic -- protocols are set up for the challenge that both parties agree to. They are set up so you clearly pass or fail. No judgement has ever or will ever be needed as to if your demonstration passed.

are you sure it isn't an attempt by magicians to call themselves skeptics for the benefit of publicity and ultimately money from the books they sell to create "challenges" that cant' be won. Randi is not a scientist. How am I to believe he is capable of conducting a fair scientific test. He is a showman. A great showman, but not a scientist.

 

[tapman]

Tapman,
Are you really citing Daily Grail and Greg Taylor as authoritative on, well... on anything? Just what makes Taylor "more qualified than anyone here to comment". The Daily Grail's never tested a thing, scientifically. They repeat stories, pat themselves and their fellow paranormalists/ufologists on the back, and have an "all the non-news that fits, we print" policy.

There are numerous posters on these forums who have a lot of experience with the MDC, and there are numerous casual members who have read through every thread on every challenge. Yet you think that The Daily Grail is more competent to discuss this?

My point exactly. Randi isn't a scientist iether. Nothing qualifies him to conduct scientific studies. I love Randi, I really do. He is awsome, but the truth is he is also a genius. And a genius capable of making a challenge no one can win. I think it is his true genius that makes this the best trick he has ever done.

Don't misread me. I know Randi is a good skeptic. I know he is an honest person, and he means well taking bad psychics and such off the street, and we are all behind him. But at the end of the day, he is still a very smart magician.

Isn't this worth consideration?