Just Another Magic Trick?

[GzuzKryzt]

If you couldn't find any evidence that might suggest the MDC is not up to scientific standards in the article, then maybe you will want to read it again. There are several statements by scientists that prove otherwise.

Go ahead and attack the scientists now in true JREF form.'

When Randi discloses the truth about this challenge one day, how will all of you feel.

I will feel like he is the greatest magician of all time. I will feel he has created an illusion that went on for decades, and everyone believed the illusion. I will believe he is the greatest showman of all time. I will believe he is truly a genius, unrivaled by anyone.

Please don't Michael Moore my quotes, tapman.

I read the site you linked to thoroughly. I found a lot of strawmen and innuendo. However, you were asked to provide your evidence. So far, you came up short.



I invite you again to join the discussion about Pavel Ziborov's protocol. Are you up to constructive work?

 

[Akhenaten]

Last I checked, magicians don't claim to be fooling you either.

Nor do actors keep dropping out of character to remind us that they are simply pretending. Do you take this to mean that actors are trying to fool us?

When Penn and teller did thier bullet catching trick on network tv, did they open the show by saying Ok everyone we are not really catching the bulllit in our mouth.

Probably not. Should all non-fiction carry a similar disclaimer? (albeit with the grammar and spelling corrected.)

No, they created an illusion that it was really being done.

Or can they actually catch bullets in their mouths and they're just creating the illusion that they're really good magicians.

 

[tapman]

Please don't Michael Moore my quotes, tapman.

I read the site you linked to thoroughly. I found a lot of strawmen and innuendo. However, you were asked to provide your evidence. So far, you came up short.



I invite you again to join the discussion about Pavel Ziborov's protocol. Are you up to constructive work?

Why do you call them strawmen. Do you have better qualifications than they do. Does Randi? I have provided evidence. Just because you don't think it is credible doesn't make it so. Like I said, these are scientists. Unless you have proof they are lying, you must accept what they say as the truth.

What is the innuendo you are talking about. You haven't proven there is any innuendo at all, and you haven't proven anyone is a strawman.

You have come up short. You can't just claim someone is a strawman without proof of that. If you give me proof, I will shut up about the so called strawmen. Till then, it is proof.



After all, that is what you are asking me to do.

 

[Rasmus]

If you couldn't find any evidence that might suggest the MDC is not up to scientific standards in the article, then maybe you will want to read it again. There are several statements by scientists that prove otherwise.

Moving around goalposts much?

Your claim was that the challenge is rigged, not that it is "unscientific".

Never mind that the points raised on that page have been addressed, too, and that you have been pointed to the rebuttal. Even if the standards of the challenge were unreasonably high when compared to regular scientific tests it doesn't follow that the challenge couldn't easily be won much less than it's fraudulent or rigged in any way whatsoever.

Go ahead and attack the scientists now in true JREF form.'

Their points are irrelevant to your claims. It doesn't matter how likely or unlikely it is that I could achieve something by chance if my claim is I can achieve it by will, effort, paranormal powers or by means of a well-trained pet swamp dragon.

When Randi discloses the truth about this challenge one day, how will all of you feel.

And your point is?

I will feel like he is the greatest magician of all time. I will feel he has created an illusion that went on for decades, and everyone believed the illusion. I will believe he is the greatest showman of all time. I will believe he is truly a genius, unrivaled by anyone.

Yes, but you've already demonstrated that you think there is no difference between an admitted magician and a regular con artist ...

 

[tapman]

Moving around goalposts much?

Your claim was that the challenge is rigged, not that it is "unscientific".

Never mind that the points raised on that page have been addressed, too, and that you have been pointed to the rebuttal. Even if the standards of the challenge were unreasonably high when compared to regular scientific tests it doesn't follow that the challenge couldn't easily be won much less than it's fraudulent or rigged in any way whatsoever.



Their points are irrelevant to your claims. It doesn't matter how likely or unlikely it is that I could achieve something by chance if my claim is I can achieve it by will, effort, paranormal powers or by means of a well-trained pet swamp dragon.



And your point is?



Yes, but you've already demonstrated that you think there is no difference between an admitted magician and a regular con artist ...

Everyone else on here seems to get it, why are you always so far off? What makes you think I have demonstrated I think magicians are con artists. I think they are brilliant. I have said this many times, and I mean it. You don't ever quite get the real meaning of what is said here do you.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Why do you call them strawmen. Do you have better qualifications than they do. Does Randi? I have provided evidence. Just because you don't think it is credible doesn't make it so. Like I said, these are scientists. Unless you have proof they are lying, you must accept what they say as the truth.

What is the innuendo you are talking about. You haven't proven there is any innuendo at all, and you haven't proven anyone is a strawman.

You have come up short. You can't just claim someone is a strawman without proof of that. If you give me proof, I will shut up about the so called strawmen. Till then, it is proof.



After all, that is what you are asking me to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

[tapman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Again, typical for JREF.

Why does everyone on here want proof, but have none to offer for their own claims.
You claimed these particular men were strawmen. prove it, or shut up. I'm willing to.

 

[Hokulele]

Why does everyone on here want proof, but have none to offer for their own claims.

Because you are the one making the claim (that the MDC is a "trick"). The burden of proof is on you.

You claimed these particular men were strawmen. prove it, or shut up. I'm willing to.

You may want to reread the link. I don't think you know what a strawman is.

 

[Rasmus]

Everyone else on here seems to get it, why are you always so far off? What makes you think I have demonstrated I think magicians are con artists.

Because you made a few posts to the effect that they deceive their audiences about the nature of their shows. If I see a magician I do not for a moment think that they really cut the woman in half.

I think they are brilliant. I have said this many times, and I mean it. You don't ever quite get the real meaning of what is said here do you.

That you think they are brilliant doesn't address anything I've said.

Never mind the continuous discrepancy between calling them "brilliant", even "honest" on one hand and accusing them of fraud on the other. (and it would be fraud and not a brilliant, intelligent performance if the MDC really was rigged. People invent time and money into it without the reasonable expectation to just witness a magical performance.)

 

[chillzero]

I've put this thread on moderated status due to the inability of some to stay civil and on topic despite prior warnings.

maatorc - you have other threads to discuss your theory. This one is not to be derailed further on that topic. They will not be approved in this thread.

Everyone else. Stay on topic, and address the topic instead of each other.

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

 

[dustbunny]

Again, typical for JREF.

Why does everyone on here want proof, but have none to offer for their own claims.

I still believe James Randi would never jeopardize his credibility or the respect he's gained over many years.

The MDC will probably be remembered as one of the most famous challenges ever. It was designed to be fair and agreeable by the applicants. The only people that fear it are the ones who make false claims. Unfortunately I don't think it would matter whether JR was a magician, doctor or a famous news reporter, etc. Someone would find a reason to question it. Wanting proof of these psychics abilities is what the MDC is all about.

We all differ in our opinions but are asking for the same thing, evidence. I just hope that one day we'll get it.

 

[Kuko 4000]

tapman, if I've understoof you correctly, you think that the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge is just a trick.

If so,

how could we or someone else prove to you that it is not a trick, but an actual, real life challenge worth million dollars to the person that can prove his / her paranormal abilities?

What kind of evidence would it require for you to see that there is nothing fishy going on on JREF's end?

Think about it and let the forum know, thanks.

 

[Ashles]

I respectfully disagree, the numbers say it all. Only 5% of potential testers make it to the test.

And the reasons why are well discussed and explained elsewhere.

I think it sounds rigged.

This is the real issue. You have decided it is rigged and any amount of explanation why it cannot be (Randi isn't involved in early testing, testing can take place on different continents, results must be mutually agreed...) will simply not sway you.

That isn't scepticism.
That is someone who has already decided and cannot by swayed pretending to be a sceptic.

The WHOLE POINT of a magician/illusionist being a sceptic is that they can identify trickery on the part of the claimants. Paranormal claims are where over the years trickery has been used over and over again.

Magicians tend to be sceptical because they know far better than most how easy it is to create 'paranormal' illusions.
And magicians don't become sceptical lae in their careers (they already know how these scams can be carried out) - but they can only really become publicly sceptics when their careers are established well enough.

If you were serious about criticising the challenge as trickery or rigged you would do better to pick a test that has been carried out and explain why you think it was specifically rigged.
Maybe follow up - speak to the claimants. test them yourself.

Because as it stands your entire argument seems to be you think it's rigged just because you do.

 

[buzz lightyear]

I have been thinking of the million dollar challenge. Is it just another one of the amazing Randi's magic tricks? I really wonder. There is another magician out there that has offered Randi money to accept his challenge, and Randi has not. Everyone on here said it was a trick, and it was controlled by the magician, and it was a hoax.
Isn't Randi's challenge controlled by him also. Randi is a great magician too, better than the other guy.
Isn't Randi's challenge worthy of skepticism?
If I were a great magician, and was offering a million dollars of my hard earned money, I would make sure no one could win it.
Given that premise, and the fact that Randi is one of the smartest guys around, don't you think Randi's trick million dollar challenge is somehow rigged so no one can win it. I kinda do.
If it is a trick, and no one has been able to win it, doesn't that make it Randi's greatest magic trick of all times. And if you accept that premise, doesn't that make Randi the greatest magician of all time?
Just thinkin
Your friend Tapman

This clause is the crux of the problem with the MDC, Tapman.


8. When entering into this challenge, as far as this may be done by established legal statutes, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, and/or against any persons peripherally involved, and/or against the James Randi Educational Foundation. This applies to injury, and/or accident, and/or any other damage of a physical and/or emotional nature, and/or financial and/or professional loss, and/or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize, once it is properly won in accord with the protocol.

If you win, fine and dandy, BUT, if by some "inconsistency" as in the Carina Landin case, you cant jump through the hoop, tough bickies! Old Jimmy can ridicule you, your ideas, in fact do anything he wants to do and there is sweet bugger all you can do legally about it.

Also there is this:

IMPORTANT: Only claims that can be verified by evidence under proper observing conditions will be accepted. Also, JREF will NOT accept claims of the existence of deities or demons/angels, the validity of exorcism, religious claims, cloudbusting, causing the Sun to rise or the stars to move, etc. JREF will also NOT test claims that are likely to cause injury of any sort, such as those involving the withholding of air, food or water, or the use of illicit materials, drugs, or dangerous devices.

I would have thought that once you had rendered JREF free from the possibility of legal liability it would be a simple case of "do whatever it takes".

You are correct Tapman, the MDC is a very cleaver magician's trick, and as the log of applicants shows it is only the foolhardy and poor who dare to venture up on stage with a master performer.

 

[lionking]

Tapman, don't you realise that many, if not all, contributing to this thread would be delighted if the MDC was won as it would constitute a previously unknown or unproven branch of science? If the rules were unfair they would have been torn apart by forum members long ago.

 

[tapman]

tapman, if I've understoof you correctly, you think that the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge is just a trick.

If so,

how could we or someone else prove to you that it is not a trick, but an actual, real life challenge worth million dollars to the person that can prove his / her paranormal abilities?

What kind of evidence would it require for you to see that there is nothing fishy going on on JREF's end?

Think about it and let the forum know, thanks.

Best question so far. Thank you. Really got me thinking.

I think there should be a pool of say 100 scientists that are familiar with things paranormal. They (the pool of 100) should be chosen by the quality of their methods for testing by other scientist that don't have any connection with things paranormal, but are well versed in testing methods.

They (the pool of 100)should come up with an acceptable standard of what percentage of right or wrong answers constitutes that the person being tested (the testee... couldn't help myself) is actually psychic. The standard should be far above chance, and mutually agreeable (by the pool of 100)that a degree of correct answers of this magnitude would be considered psychic.

When a subject is to be tested, this pool of 100 scientists names should be put in to a lottery ball type machine(the type you see in bingo perhaps), and ten of them will be randomly picked by the lottery ball machine with the oversight of both Randi and the subject, and anyone else that wants to bear witness.

This final ten will then get together and formulate a test that is agreed on by all ten members that will test the subject. Not what a magician thinks, or even a crazy claimant, but actual scientists.

The test and data collected by the testers will be watched over by a panel of scientists that are not related to the test, or anything paranormal. Just a groop that is an overseer.

The test will also be given to ten other randomly picked people to make sure the results are well below that of the self proclaimed psychic.

If the results are agreed upon by the ten scientists to prove "ability" the million is awarded.

This could all be easily financed by the interest from the million $.


A test like this couldn't be refuted by anyone ever. A crazy psychic, or a magician. Every one picked at random, double blind, you know real sciency type stuff. Not a magician creating an llusion.

Just a thought

 

[tapman]

Because you are the one making the claim (that the MDC is a "trick"). The burden of proof is on you.




You may want to reread the link. I don't think you know what a strawman is.

Sure I do Hoke. Debate term. However, if you are claiming someone is playing the strawman, or being a strawman, you will need to prove it in some way to make it acceptable in a debate or otherwise it is insignificant.

Nice to hear from you Hokulele.

 

[tapman]

Because you made a few posts to the effect that they deceive their audiences about the nature of their shows. If I see a magician I do not for a moment think that they really cut the woman in half.



That you think they are brilliant doesn't address anything I've said.

Never mind the continuous discrepancy between calling them "brilliant", even "honest" on one hand and accusing them of fraud on the other. (and it would be fraud and not a brilliant, intelligent performance if the MDC really was rigged. People invent time and money into it without the reasonable expectation to just witness a magical performance.)

Thank you once again for illustrating my point for me.

I never acused anyone of fraud. That is what you said, not me.

first of all, anyone who invested in the challenge knows Randi is a great magician and showman. Secondly, The million dollars would have to be spent on something to be fraud. It is sitting in the bank, right where it always has been. (or is that a magic trick too). Lastly, no one could ever call anyone out on it because no one has won, and the money still sits there.

Lastly, anyone putting money in the challenge knows it can never be won. People aren't stupid. Are they?

 

[Crundy]

Just a note about Randi using magic tricks to make the applicant fail: It should be noted that Randi has not actually attended any prelim tests for a while. They are carried out by trusted test centres in his absence. Not a single failed applicant has claimed that they failed because of trickery, they always use excuses like "There was a painting on the wall that was messing with my psychic energy", or "The weather wasn't nice enough for the test", or a similar excuse which seemed to be absent when they did the open trials before and after the blind trials (where they did quite well!).

 

[Kuko 4000]

Thanks for the answer tapman, but do you see the problem here?

As has been noted many times, scientists are not experts in fooling people. There could easily be cases where the scientists could be fooled by a normal ability claimant, it would at least be much more likely than if the test was co-designed by a person who is an expert in fooling people and who would knew what things to look for when designing it.

If, on the other hand, you trust your pool of scientists to know their stuff at least as well as Randi, would you accept a test designed by Randi and his team but approved by the pool of scientists you had in mind?