Questions for The Atheist about his $1m challenge

[tkingdoll]

I've started a new thread because a) I didn't want to derail the other one, and b) the Million Dollar Challenge section of the forum is about the JREF challenge specifically, and this thread sort of isn't. But if it gets moved I won't weep. Much.

OK, here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1969189#post1969189

The Atheist claims that

Extreme Atheists' Society has another million available with the same rules as JREF. We don't have a helpful benefactor with a mio to spare, so we've laid the liability off by getting a consortium of bookmakers involved. Being risk-takers by trade, the bookies are happy to offer odds of between 1,000:1 and 10,000:1.

Now, I'm fairly familiar with the history of the JREF challenge, and it strikes me that Randi is in a fairly unique position to preside over a challenge like this, because of these factors:

1) possibility of cheating. It takes someone very skilled in sleight of hand and other magic techniques to be aware of and spot potential opportunities to cheat and write them out of a protocol.

2) experience. Randi has tens of years experience dealing with fraudsters, claimants, the media, the woo community and the folk they fool. He probably knows just about every trick in the book and can spot anything new a mile off.

3) resources. Randi and a few others work full time for the JREF - at the peak of the challenge it had a full-time administrator, KRAMER, who was actually employed to run the thing.

4) contacts. Randi doesn't participate in the actual tests so he can't be accused of interfering. But he has a lifetime of contacts to call upon to help him, from universities to skeptic organisations to individuals, if JREF email and ask for help, people say yes. Which leads us to...

5) reputation. James Randi is famous and highly-regarded as a professional magician and leading skeptic. He came up with the challenge, back when it was a tiny little thing, and developed it into the $1million challenge to today, on the back of his education foundation, which also does other work to further critical thinking in the world.

And I would argue that the challenge in its current incarnation has run its course and it's time to move on to a slightly different tactic.

So, given all of the above, I'm really interested to know what qualifies you and your group to comfortably say you can't be fooled?

It's a genuine question, not a dig or anything. I'd hate to see someone be able to slip a sloppy protocol past you simply because of lack of experience on your part (although if there's a million up for grabs and potential loopholes, I might just apply...).

OK, that was all. Hope you get time to reply

 

[NiallM]

Note: cross-posted from the other thread (the 25 million one).

Incidentally, in the case of the atheist "million", I see a serious problem.

You don't have the million, and obtaining the million depends on the agreement of an entirely different group of people - the bookmakers.

The JREF rules can't be used in your case.

If an applicant passes a preliminary and then a full test, they may well then be forced to display their tests again to a whole new group of people in order to get the money.

I can imagine that the bookies will be pretty rigorous in their demands - probably moreso even than would be defined in a JREF test.

Where Randi miht confidently ask for 8 cards out of ten, they may ask for 30 out of 30.

In other words, their payout requirements may completely undermine the ones that you may feel are appropriate. Think of it: they stand to lose a lot of money - on your say-so? They may well look at the test protocol that you draw up, and agree that it looks good, but if they accept it totally, then they are in effect paying out large amounts of money to a person who has defined the criteria which dtermine success.

It won't wash. They will want to separately define a test (in all likelihood with significantly higher requirements), and the applicant will then be forced to meet those requirements for each of the bookies with whom bets have been placed.

This is in no way analogous to the JREF.

Thus the difference are:

JREF has the money and can prove it on request:
You don't have the money.

JREF designs the protocol with the applicant and allows the results to determine whether a payout has been won.
You may attempt to do the same, but the people who decide on a payout may impose significantly different conditions.

Your "offer" is less than helpful and may actually undermine the JREF's offer. The woo-woo's can always muddy the waters by pointing at yours and allowing guilt-by-association to condemn the JREF Million as well.

 

[NiallM]

Actually, I'd like to see the wording of the bets that have been placed.

As a bookie, I would be happy to offer 10,000 to 1 on a 10k bet that the punter couldn't display a paranormal achievement.

When he arrives with proof - say a guy who can call 30 spins of the roulette wheel - I'll say: "Nice trick, now prove to me that it's paranormal".

"What?", he'll say, "I've just broken astronomical odds!".

"Aye, I see that happen a lot.", will be my reply, "But the point is that it's perfectly possible - even if remotely and vanishingly unlikely - that you were lucky with your guesses. We need to eliminate even that remote possibility before I can be assured that this is paranormal. I need proof that you are either controlling the ball, or predicting the future - and I need to know the mechanism that you use in order to establish that it is paranormal".

End of discussion.

Randi asks you to demonstrate an effect that is not explicable - and one that has safe guards against trickery. Defeat those safeguards, and even if your ability isn't paranormal, you'll be paid.

The bookies in this situation will have an entirely different set of requirements - including some conditions which may not possibly be possible to meet.

In that position, you may have a liability for the prize - but may not have the funds that you counted on.

 

[The Atheist]

I've started a new thread because a) I didn't want to derail the other one, and b) the Million Dollar Challenge section of the forum is about the JREF challenge specifically, and this thread sort of isn't. But if it gets moved I won't weep. Much.

No sweat, I'll do my best - but you shouldn't have felt guilty about a derail - I never do. (feel guilty, that is)

Now, I'm fairly familiar with the history of the JREF challenge, and it strikes me that Randi is in a fairly unique position to preside over a challenge like this, because of these factors:

1) possibility of cheating. It takes someone very skilled in sleight of hand and other magic techniques to be aware of and spot potential opportunities to cheat and write them out of a protocol.

Good point, especially as I'm no magician! I actually cover this point at the EA site, for this very reason. We are fortunate in having NZ's answer to Randi aboard. He's a magician who has previously taken on and repeated supposed "paranormalists" acts, much in the same way that Randi used to.

2) experience. Randi has tens of years experience dealing with fraudsters, claimants, the media, the woo community and the folk they fool. He probably knows just about every trick in the book and can spot anything new a mile off.

Pretty much covered by the above. In addition, we have a group of people we can call upon to assist with setting testing procedures.

3) resources. Randi and a few others work full time for the JREF - at the peak of the challenge it had a full-time administrator, KRAMER, who was actually employed to run the thing.

Given that we're in NZ, we aren't going to get as many challengers coming our way as does the JREF. To date, despite inviting many frauds and charlatans to participate, none have even bothered to ask for any details. It's "beneath" them, apparently - which is quite interesting as most of them operate $2-99 per minute phone lines, so I find it hard to equate why a mio is beneath them but $2-99 isn't. (And say so to them and their supporters at every opportunity!)

4) contacts. Randi doesn't participate in the actual tests so he can't be accused of interfering. But he has a lifetime of contacts to call upon to help him, from universities to skeptic organisations to individuals, if JREF email and ask for help, people say yes.

I will certainly be participating in any test. Randi isn't staking his own money, I am.

Which leads us to...

5) reputation. James Randi is famous and highly-regarded as a professional magician and leading skeptic. He came up with the challenge, back when it was a tiny little thing, and developed it into the $1million challenge to today, on the back of his education foundation, which also does other work to further critical thinking in the world.

While I wouldn't claim anywhere near James' profile, I am a well-known businessman, running several businesses which are all longstanding and respected entities.

And I would argue that the challenge in its current incarnation has run its course and it's time to move on to a slightly different tactic.

So, given all of the above, I'm really interested to know what qualifies you and your group to comfortably say you can't be fooled?

Hopefully, the above has answered most of your questions, but I'd like to add that among the group of people there are two PhD level engineers and a small number of scientists we can call upon at a moment's notice.

It's a genuine question, not a dig or anything. I'd hate to see someone be able to slip a sloppy protocol past you simply because of lack of experience on your part (although if there's a million up for grabs and potential loopholes, I might just apply...).

OK, that was all. Hope you get time to reply

Thanks - I certainly didn't take it as a dig!

Along with the career magician, a couple of PhD graduate engineers and others, we have pretty sharp lawyer aboard, so I'm pretty confident that all the bases are covered.

Thanks for your interest.

 

[The Atheist]

When he arrives with proof - say a guy who can call 30 spins of the roulette wheel - I'll say: "Nice trick, now prove to me that it's paranormal".

Love to see that kind of challenge - starting with a $1 bet, we'd be up to $275 quintillion after only 10 consecutive parlays. I'd be tipping the drinks girls a mio each, never mind the psychic!

 

[tkingdoll]

OK, cheers for that, and good luck with your challenges.

Yes, I think you answered all my questions, although the only comment I would add is that Randi doesn't participate in the tests not because it's not his money, but because the applicants can and have accused him of interfering (for example by sending negative energy waves or blocking their psychic powers with his own superior powers etc). You might run into the same criticism eventually!

I stand by my assertion that challenges of this nature have had their day, but perhaps it's something new in NZ. If you can get enough media interest you will get a few years out of it, but the key is to keep pulling a new gimmick out of the hat, so if I were you, I'd think about your long-term strategy to keep your audience interested alongside your stated objectives.

 

[The Atheist]

Thanks!

We haven't bothered seeking a great deal of publicity yet, but leading up to Christmas I'm going to get the message broadcast more widely so that we can piss off christians as well as the psychic set!

 

[NiallM]

Love to see that kind of challenge - starting with a $1 bet, we'd be up to $275 quintillion after only 10 consecutive parlays. I'd be tipping the drinks girls a mio each, never mind the psychic!

Well, a hell of a lot of the challenges involve breaking extremely long odds. That's the nature of the challenge - to make the chances of a natural explanation or a freak random occurence as unlikely as possible. Thus, those who claim to be able to divine the presence of water will face a protocol in which the chances of randomly selecting the right sites is greater than 1,000,000 to 1.

You've completely ignored my point, though.

The point is: who will judge the test? If it is to be you, then will the bookies accept your word on it? If they don't, then what happens? Are you or the people you recruit as supporters liable for the entire Million?

Or will the bookies be the judges? Knowing the way they operate, I can't see them handing over large sums of money without extraordinary proof - of which they shall be the judges.

In other words, the challenge is no longer in your hands.

In fact, as you describe it, all you are providing is a free bet for the challengers. Not quite a million dollar challenge.

Perhaps you could clarify these issues.

 

[The Atheist]

I've copied your post from the other thread so I don't miss any of your questions:

And I note that you haven't answered any specifics about your "challenge".

Who judges? You or the bookmakers?

It isn't necessary for the bookie to have a representative at an "event". Just in the same way that if NASA scientists certify and conclusively show that life existed on Titan, every bookie would pay out their bets on the discovery of alien life forms - and that current liability is waaaaay over a lousy million. They wouldn't have to travel to Titan to look at it/them.

Bookies hold many millions of dollars in liability every hour of every day. A million dollar payout doesn't scare them half as much as you seem to be suggesting. Even in Australia, million-dollar payouts by bookies are no big deal. The sums internationally, and in UK in particular, are huge and make Aussie's figures look like the Kiwis' ones do against Aussie - piss weak.

We have an accredited panel of independent observers should the need ever arise. At that stage, suitable members will be approved and selected by the bookies and the actual protocol is left to EA, me and that panel to formulate an individual test for the type of challenge involved. The panel will have the final say on pretty much everything. At this stage, they're doing it pretty much for love and potential expenses.

What happens if the applicant wins and the bookies don't agree with the results of the test? Will you have liability for the million, or will the people who back the challenge separately share liability?

Well, I've never yet heard of a bookie welshing on a bet, so I think it's so unlikely as to be unworthy of consideration. If a bookie has any doubts, he won't take the bet, because once he's stamped your ticket, if you win, you win. Anything the bookie decides not to do, will happen prior to money changing hands.

The worst that could happen is a drastic change in odds and I guess since it's my name all over everything and I'm the one who signs the e mails challenging frauds to come forward and have a go, I guess my arse would be on the line and I'd have to wear the cost myself.

You make a lot of noise about "putting money where your mouth is". Have you actually placed bets eyt? Are they open-ended? Can you display these bets - in the manner of JREF showing that they have the million? What are the conditions specified in the bets?

Not a single challenger has come forward yet, let alone getting anywhere near a bet being needed. In the early stages, we'll work much the same way as JREF works - find a challenger, agree on how to test it, then get the approval of the panel. From there, obviously we differ and I'll ring up the bookies and get them to get their charts out.

As to displaying them, since they don't exist until a challenge is made, accepted and approved, there is nothing to display. If/when someone plucks up the courage to have a crack, they will be most welcome to talk to the bookies and have whatever information and evidence they need to be assured that the mio will be theirs if they can strut their stuff for real.

(An interesting point here, I have a conservative estimate that the tv value of a successful challenger being paid out by a couple of the world's leading bookies would be worth a lot more than the challenge prize. The bookies are aware of this.)

The JREF Challenge is a well-documented standing prize, the funds for which are well-documented and visible to applicants. The manner of acquiring it is simplicity - if not the means. You haven't shown any of the following:

* Proof that the money is availabe for a successful challenge;

Well, short of showing you the correspondence and material I have to date, I guess you'll just have to take my word for it. Have a Google and see what kind of loopy bets bookies are holding right now - from David Beckham's son playing for England, to Jesus re-appearing this year. Bookies thrive on this stuff - much easier than setting odds for a horse race.

* How the test will be performed and who will judge success;

Can't answer that - just like JREF, there will be different rules for dowsers, psychics, mediums and mind-readers. Judging as above.

* Whether this judgement will satisfy the bookies *What happens if they don't pay up.

As above

My accountant may not be concerned if I were to splashon a bulletin board the news that I will commit 100k to such an effort. That means nothing and holds no terrors from him regarding any future commitment.

If it came to formalising such a commitment, I promise you that he will become rather more concerned. He may even start looking for forms and legal papers to show all of the above.

Do you have any such contracts drawn up for those who wish to make a commitment? Can we see what we would be signing?

This one beongs back in the other thread, so I've answered it in there. Sorry to be a pest, but I want to keep these two bits apart - thanks, tkingdoll, I would have just derailed the hell out of the other one!

 

[NiallM]

Well, bookies routinely withhold winnings if they have any doubts whatever about the outcome of an event. Believe me, it happens frequently.

The usual reasons provided include where they have suspicions of possible collusion, rigging, "swamping" the market with simultaneous bets to obtain odds before internal processes can adjust the price, use of "runners" to achieve this. And that's even before they begin to query whether the outcome of the event was set up.

Of course, bookies have major liabilities outstanding against lots of weird bets - I don't deny that.

My point, though, is that the whole issue depends on how the test is judged. Who does the judging will be a subject which exercises them in advance ofpaying a million dollars.

For horse races, there are officials at the race track, and a major organisation such as "The Jockey Club", which operates to ensure airness of the proceedings. Bookies are happy to accept their decision - especially as this means that the bookies themselves don't have to perform any rigorous check to establish the fairness of a result.

It must also be said that a race has several different posible outcomes, and that the issue is not simply about the bookie having to pay out - it's a matter of how much and how much profit (in general) he realises from the outcome.

In this case, the bookie has no such organisation observing the outcome of a test. The credentials of the testers aren't of much use to him; the money is such that it is potentially profitable to the testers to validate a result - at the bookies' expense.

You also seem to be taking on the responsibility to pay bookies each time there is a test. Is this the case?

 

[The Atheist]

Well, bookies routinely withhold winnings if they have any doubts whatever about the outcome of an event. Believe me, it happens frequently.

Sure, but in every case, the money is paid out. Horse races are a classic example. Even though there are current charges against jockeys in Hong Kong and UK for cheating, the bets have been paid out.

The usual reasons provided include where they have suspicions of possible collusion, rigging, "swamping" the market with simultaneous bets to obtain odds before internal processes can adjust the price, use of "runners" to achieve this. And that's even before they begin to query whether the outcome of the event was set up.

Doesn't quite work like that in reality. If a bookie gets swamped he certainly cannot withhold payment because he got caught with his pants down. I even think you might be mixing up totalisators and bookmakers - those kind of problems are normally issues for totalisators rather than bookies. Consider the example of Ben Johnson at the Olympics - the bookies paid out on him and people who had backed Carl Lewis did their money cold. Collusion and rigging are matters which always come to light after the bookie has paid out.

Of course, bookies have major liabilities outstanding against lots of weird bets - I don't deny that.

My point, though, is that the whole issue depends on how the test is judged. Who does the judging will be a subject which exercises them in advance ofpaying a million dollars.

Haven't I already covered this? An approved panel, etc.

For horse races, there are officials at the race track, and a major organisation such as "The Jockey Club", which operates to ensure airness of the proceedings. Bookies are happy to accept their decision - especially as this means that the bookies themselves don't have to perform any rigorous check to establish the fairness of a result.

And quite often bookies give odds on very dodgy propositions - boxing for example, where the bookies know that the rip-off is always "on" and set odds accordingly.

It must also be said that a race has several different posible outcomes, and that the issue is not simply about the bookie having to pay out - it's a matter of how much and how much profit (in general) he realises from the outcome.

In this case, the bookie has no such organisation observing the outcome of a test. The credentials of the testers aren't of much use to him; the money is such that it is potentially profitable to the testers to validate a result - at the bookies' expense.

Which is why there is going to be an enormous amount of documentation and procedure to be satisfied each and every time a challenger gets past first base. And, in reality, how often is that likely to be? I don't know whether anyone's ever got to the stage of being accepted and tested for the JREF million, but given the preliminary testing, I can't imagine how anyone has, unless a top-flight prestidigitator managed to pull the wool over preliminary testers' eyes. As I said, we've got an absolute genius with the top hat and rabbits on the case and I don't believe there are any tricks he doesn't know - I bloody well hope not anyway!

You also seem to be taking on the responsibility to pay bookies each time there is a test. Is this the case?

Yes indeed. I take full responsibility for placing any bets - as I said before, it's my arse on the line and if things turn bad, it'll cost me plenty, but on the other hand, if someone flew through preliminary testing and I only scrape together 10:1, I'd take the pain on it and make damned sure I had my tv rights well sorted out. Plus, wouldn't even a hundred grand be a small price to pay to watch a genuine telekinetic prove their skills for the very first time in history?

 

[SusanB-M1]

That Dr Karl, the Australian Scientist who answers questions on Radio Five Live each week and who can be found referred to on the following page http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/programmes/upallnight.shtml and whose surname I can never remember might be a useful addition to the list of people connected with your Challenge?

 

[tkingdoll]

The Atheist, I can confirm that no-one has so far passed the JREF preliminary test and made it to the big test

 

[NiallM]

But you must see clearly how this looks:

You don't have 157K, let alone a million.

You can't describe a testing policy.

You still can't decribe in a certain manner how the bookies will pay out without having an input into the process.

You are also decribing two separate and ill-defined scenarios: a 25M challenge, which appears to require money up-front.

Another one based on betting against an outcome.

The first one requires money upfront, yet you don't seem to have condiions available for backers.

The second requires bets for each applicant (of an unspecified and unquantified scale).

How the hell do you expect people to contribute to this?

On top of that, you lambast people because they won't put their money where their mouth is.
#
OK, I'll give 20k, based on the receipt of contractual and legal documents which show that my money will remain safe and will be used solely for the purpose for which it is intended.

I'm prepared to pass on my address (either snail mail or e-mail) so that I can receive and review these guarantees before I make a commitment.

If you are serious, then PM me and I will pass on further details (e-mail first, and snail mail address when I'm happy with what I and my lawyer see). E-mail them to me at phile at hotmail dot com.

Deal? 20k? Hell, make it 30k. The house restoration doesn't start until 2008. I have spare cash for a wee while longer. After the restoration I can raise the money more easily anyway.

 

[The Atheist]

That Dr Karl, the Australian Scientist who answers questions on Radio Five Live each week and who can be found referred to on the following page http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/programmes/upallnight.shtml and whose surname I can never remember might be a useful addition to the list of people connected with your Challenge?

Thanks very much, I shall certainly follow up on it.

Cheers

 

[The Atheist]

The Atheist, I can confirm that no-one has so far passed the JREF preliminary test and made it to the big test

Thanks, I was pretty sure that was the case, but it's nice to know for certain.

Cheers

 

[The Atheist]

But you must see clearly how this looks:

You don't have 157K, let alone a million.

You can't describe a testing policy.

You still can't decribe in a certain manner how the bookies will pay out without having an input into the process.

Sheesh! You're a hard bloke to please. The reason I can't specify a great deal is just the same as JREF not being able to specify a single test protocol because of the variety of potential challenges.

You are also decribing two separate and ill-defined scenarios: a 25M challenge, which appears to require money up-front.

Another one based on betting against an outcome.

The first one requires money upfront, yet you don't seem to have condiions available for backers.

The second requires bets for each applicant (of an unspecified and unquantified scale).

How the hell do you expect people to contribute to this?

Ok, but obviously the two subjects are completely different. The EA million is 100% my own responsibility, and as I said, it will be my name on the line.

On top of that, you lambast people because they won't put their money where their mouth is.

If you check one of my last posts in the other thread, I did mention that I accept that not everyone can afford to be in and that moral support is as welcome as financial. This is why I've stressed from the start: - come in for what you can afford if you want to be in. The money & mouth is just a bit of a jibe at people who talk a lot but wouldn't actually risk a dime.

OK, I'll give 20k, based on the receipt of contractual and legal documents which show that my money will remain safe and will be used solely for the purpose for which it is intended.

I'm prepared to pass on my address (either snail mail or e-mail) so that I can receive and review these guarantees before I make a commitment.

If you are serious, then PM me and I will pass on further details (e-mail first, and snail mail address when I'm happy with what I and my lawyer see). E-mail them to me at phile at hotmail dot com.

Deal? 20k? Hell, make it 30k. The house restoration doesn't start until 2008. I have spare cash for a wee while longer. After the restoration I can raise the money more easily anyway.

CHEERS! & Thank you.

Obviously, there is a hell of a lot of work to be done before we ever get to asking for a legal commitment, but I do believe that it's possible to arrange it in a way where everyone is protected from any event other than a genuinely successful challenge.

I'll put you down for 30 then! Obviously, you will only have a contingent liability in place.

 

[NiallM]

...

I'll put you down for 30 then! Obviously, you will only have a contingent liability in place.

When I get the paperwork and am satisfied with the conditions...

 

[The Atheist]

When I get the paperwork and am satisfied with the conditions...

Yeah, of course! Cheers.

(not a bad result considering I copped a warning for my first reply to you. )

 

[roger]

I'm confused.

Everyone is talking about the bookmakers paying out if someone wins the challenge.

Why isn't anyone talking about paying the bookmakers if someone loses the challenge?

The way bookies work in this part of the world, you actually have to put up real money. Hand it over to the bookies. If your bet loses, they keep the money. That's because if they are going to take a risk, they need to be financially rewarded.

So, where is this bookie money coming from? If the payout is $1M, and the odds are 1000:1, that means you have to put up $1000 for every challenge. When the applicant fails, and they will, the bookie will keep the $1000.

Where is this steady stream of money coming from?

Because I don't believe you have found a bookie who has agreed to pay if the bet fails, but not take your money if it succeeds.