Thoughts about the JREF Million Dollar Challenge

[robinson]

Every time I come to the Million Dollar Challenge page it says "Million Dollar Challenge Have any thoughts about the JREF Million Dollar Challenge?" at the top of the page. After countless attempts at finding the topic/thread for answering that question, I thought there should be a topic for just that.

Thoughts. You know, those things that would not qualify for the MDC. Because while everybody knows that thoughts occur, thoughts are real, in the sense of existing, nobody can prove that thoughts exist. Certainly not with the requirements of the MDC.

Or can you? I think some people here find any questioning of the MDC an attack on it. I think questions and sceptical inquiry makes things that are real more believable, stronger, that probing and researching something tends to fine tune rather than destroy.

In another thread I brought up the thought about the legality of the contract, in regards to believability of the challenge. I did some research, thought about it a bit.

Asked some questions about the legal history of the MDC application/contract. I thought it must have been discussed here before, or at least vetted by some lawyer. There didn't seem to be anyone with evidence of this. I thought it strange that some people simply attacked my motives, rather than trying to discuss the issue.

Thoughts about the MDC ... I find it one of the most interesting things.
I like to think it is a completly honest and true challenge. That anyone willing and able to jump through the hoops to get to a test would be welcomed, and that no trickery would be allowed, by either party. That the process would be transparent, open and beyond reproach.

I think that exposing frauds is great. I support the idea 100%. I would even put money up if asked. I think any and all criticisms of the protocol should be answered, and in a way that is clear and easy to understand. I think nasty short-tempered responses only detract from the aura of professionalism, logic and rational thought that the JREF wants us to apply in our own lives, especially in regards to bunk.

These are just thoughts. I think if you don't want to hear somebodies thoughts on the MDC, then the damn question that appears everytime should be removed.

Or you should stop reading this forum.

NO NO! I was kidding!

I think that in regards to the MDC (which is going to change soon), truth is better served by intelligent conversation than a dog pack mentality throwing $hit at anyone percieved to be challenging the challenge, or trying to go for it.

I think it would be interesting to see people trying, rather than the void of nobody even bothering to try. These are my thoughts. It would be far more interesting to hear yours, than wading through a bunch of blathering about what you think of MY thoughts.



And I think a sense of humor is vital. Because that is something Woos seem to lack, concerning "supernatural" stuff. I also think the MDC is an important tool in the everpresent battle with the forces of evil and trickery, that do indeed cause harm to people.

Of course I think it can be improved. And that other measures could be added to increase the amount of good the JREF can do in a world of darkness and ignorance.

Thoughts ... just a bunch of thoughts, but HEY... somebody asked for it. If you don't believe it, look at the top of the page! Now, after I typed out all these damn thoughts, will it go away now? Stop asking me for thoughts?

And for all of our sakes, please don't quote this entire opening post when you reply. I think that is really annoying, and a waste of time.

Oh, really? You read all the way down here? Throught all that dreck? All those thoughts? Words? Stuff? I think of all the crap that the poor person who answers the letters concerning the MDC must go through. At least we get some amusement from it. Right?

 

[Crowbot]

The million dollar challenge really is one of the most interesting things to talk about. Just the other day I had a conversation with a co-worker about how sufficiently advanced technology could "fool" anyone (even mr Randi) out of the prize money. The idea involved extremely small wireless communication implanted devices. Hopefully anyone who developed or employed this kind of technology to win the million would admit to their ruse (although keeping the money would be optional really)...and that is when we realized that 1 million dollars is actually the perfect reward price. It's enticing enough to draw out any average delusional and certainly enticing enough to be a thorn in the side of any of the "big ones" like Sylvia and Edwards.

'The Atheist' and the extreme (wooo drink mountain dew!!!) atheists society want to raise the prize to 25 million. It'd take one hell of a crazy venture capitalist to invest short of 25 million for the purpose of "beating" the challenge...but when you factor in the fame associated with it...is it crazy?

My co-worker and I came to the conclusion that anybody capable of producing sufficiently advanced technology to "fool" Randi would be, by trade, a Scientist themselves and hopefully would hold the purpose of the JREF challenge in high regard. Not to say every scientist is a beacon of critical thinking and skepticism (a good friend of mine has a biology professor who is a diest...how does that even happen? Talk about blind faith...)

Anyway I hope I typed enough of a response for you to enjoy. Which beach in FL are you located at? If you're close enough maybe I could buy you a beer sometime...

 

[Thinktoomuch]

Well, Robinson, you should already know what I think from another thread. Unfortunately, I made the mistake of jumping on a very dubious bandwagon with the result that now I am probably being misjudged by association.

Here is what I said:

I assume that money (approx $1.2m or 10m Kronen) is available with wider canvassing, either as hard cash (say 120 x $10k) or a Lloyds name type commitment (say 12 x $100k). I am happy to consider either. Probably the commitment will have to be doubled to ensure that it is not a one time wonder.

With all respect, JREF is not in the same credibility league as, say, the Nobel Prize but has served and could still serve a useful purpose in defining protocols.

My proposal is that "we" put up the money, JREF defines the terms of reference for awarding the prize eg. "for proving the predictive power of astrology" and the Nobel Prize Committee awards it, if ever.

This implies that both Randi and Stockholm must be on side. Even if it does not eventuate, I think that just the discussion would be a bonus for JREF, unless the other side thinks (it is possible) that we are only despicable amateurs wasting their time and say so publicly. This can be prevented initially with confidentiality agreements.

Nobody as yet has made any intelligent criticism of this proposal (sorry Larsen, that includes you).


Let me present an even simpler scenario.

Let's assume that I could just squeeze enough together to make a bequest of $1m and the current beneficiaries of my will don't get me committed first.

I could use the money instead to pay Lloyds an insurance premium to cover for n years the extremely unlike event that a reputable body like the Nobel Committee award a prize in a newly established category, Proof of a Supernatural Belief. Because I am such a nice guy, the Nobel Committee accepts to establish this new category.

To help me in this endeavour, I ask politely the JREF to assist the Nobel Committee in laying the terms of reference for the new category. Because it raises its profile, the JREF obliges. Of course, the partecipation of the JREF is purely at my discretion, if they decline I create the Thinktoomuch Foundation instead and set my own terms of reference in collaboration with the Committee.

I put to you that the suggestion of JREF organising a consortium of sponsors as envisaged in the first scenario is a much more beneficial proposition for the Foundation. Personally, after this experience I find the second much more appealing.

In any case: who in their right mind would think of achieving this purpose by giving their money to an individual, whathever his/her character, as somebody thougth I and others were doing?

 

[Thinktoomuch]

PS

To clear any misunderstanding: in my scenario, it is not the dowser who gets the prize, it is the scientist who finds out how dowsing works. The chance of paying out is still ~=0, isn't it?

 

[drkitten]

To clear any misunderstanding: in my scenario, it is not the dowser who gets the prize, it is the scientist who finds out how dowsing works. The chance of paying out is still ~=0, isn't it?

This addendum made little sense to me.

The problem with "the scientist who finds out how dowsing works" getting the prize is that, well, to the best of our knowledge, dowsing does not work.

To find out that dowsing works at all -- I don't care about the mechanism -- would be a breakthrough of the highest order. To find out how it works would be a second breakthrough. If you want a historical example of this kind of thing in "real" science, think about the discovery of the photoelectric effect. Becquerel, Hertz, and von Lenard found it, but it took Planck and Einstein to explain it.

Until there's something to explain (which is where the JREF MDC comes in), there's no point in trying to explain it. There's a reason that there aren't many Nature articles on the evolutionary history o the unicorn....

In this sense, the JREF and the Swedish Academy are looking for two different things. Merely spotting something wierd is not usually considered Nobel-caliber research, but it's easily JREF-caliber MDC-caliber. So I don't see what benefit you're trying to get out of dragging Stockholm into it.

 

[robinson]

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

The million dollar challenge really is one of the most interesting things to talk about. ...

...Anyway I hope I typed enough of a response for you to enjoy. Which beach in FL are you located at? If you're close enough maybe I could buy you a beer sometime...

Yes, and to think about as well. I was just reading the Texas Sceptic challenge http://www.ntskeptics.org/challenge/challenge.htm , and it seems fair. Both parties have rights to all documentation of any test. But it suffers from some of the same drawbacks as the MDC. They do the maddening "we have to work out the protocol" thing, and even worse, they don't even list what they consider paranormal. They state - "Prior to any demonstration or test, challengers and claimant will enter into a complete, written agreement called "the protocol", which will set out what power or ability is to be demonstrated, how it is to be tested, and what test results will constitute success or failure"

It is one of the more or less silly parts of the MDC as well. If you Challenge that something is not real, but then want to work out a protocol to show it is, I just think, WTF???

Now calm down you hotheads, I'm just thinking here. Maybe it is crazy, but if you say you want somebody to prove something, and you will give them a million bucks to do so, and you get to decide what is proof, why not just state clearly the test for each power, event, or ability?

Why involve them in some long drawn out protocol first? Why not start with a test you have designed, or used before, and work out any sticking points about that? I mean it. C'mon, what is up with the very nature of the challenge having to be hammered out?

Sure if it is some new whackjob ability nobody has ever heard of, but what about the list? The things considered paranormal on the FAQ page? Why not have a list of test that would be considered fair?

Something anybody contemplating the MDC can read and decide on? Is this test for real? Will it work for me? The MDC wants challengers to demonstrate powers BEFORE sending an application. Why not give them the obvious protocol to do so? Then if they can pass that protocol, and document it, then apply.

Doesn't that just make sense? Again, this is for the list of things considered paranormal.

From http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html#2.2

The following things are paranormal by definition:

Dowsing. ESP. Precognition. Remote Viewing. Communicating with the Dead and/or "Channeling". Violations of Newton's Laws of Motion (Perpetual Motion Devices). Homeopathy. Chiropractic Healing (beyond back/joint problems). Faith Healing. Psychic Surgery. Astrology. Therapeutic Touch (aka "TT"). Qi Gong. Psychokinesis (aka "PK"). The Existence of Ghosts. Precognition & Prophecy. Levitation. Physiognomy. Psychometry. Pyramid Power. Reflexology. Applied Kinesiology (aka "AK"). Clairvoyance. The Existence of Auras. Graphology. Numerology. Palmistry. Phrenology.

OK some of those are just absurd, but where are the protocols for them? And when it says "The best way to answer this is to examine this list of things that people commonly apply for." Huh??? That is the best way to decide what is considered paranormal??

Even so, if these are "things that people commonly apply for", where are all the protocols worked out for them? Why does each person have to re-invent the wheel here? If a bunch of people have tried to prove Clairvoyance or The Existence of Auras, where is the protocol for this?

(and if indeed there is a list somewhere, please link me up, really)

Thats the danger of thinking out loud. People might call you names and stuff. Oh well.

Yes, I did read - "We do not design the protocol independently of the applicant, who must provide clear guidelines so that the test may be properly set." WTF?? WHY NOT?? The more I consider this, the more it seems absurd. Yes, if we are talking about some strange new claim, of course, but what about all the obvious and common events listed on the FAQ page? Why would some nutjob get to be involved in setting up the protocol???? Wouldn't it be prudent to just say what counts as a valid test, and if you got a problem with it, we can work it out???

It makes no sense. In regards to common and often claimed woo stuff.

Yes, I have considered that maybe I have become unhinged, but if you think so, please explain, in logical and reasonable terms, why these thoughts are not valid?

Because when I test some whacky claim or power, I don't let the subject have much say at all in the matter.

OK I'm ready for that beer now.

 

[Thinktoomuch]

Robinson- you took the words out of my mouth. Please read my post re the application for a study on the power of prayer.

Drkitten - yes, I agree with every word you say also, I seem to have some problem communicating. Of course dowsing to our knowledge does not work and proving not only that but also how it does work would be an event of earth shattering proportions, that's why I say, and expect Lloyds to reflect in the premium, that the probability of paying out remains ~=0.
You are answering your own question of what the point is to go this way: "Merely spotting something wierd is not usually considered Nobel-caliber research, but it's easily JREF-caliber MDC-caliber." Call me arrogant if you wish, but after trawling through the forum for only a few days I can't be bothered with this caliber either.

 

[Thinktoomuch]

En passant, Robinson: pas de "le" en "faites leur rire", je crois.

 

[Thinktoomuch]

Robinson- you took the words out of my mouth. Please read my post re the application for a study on the power of prayer.

Drkitten - yes, I agree with every word you say also, I seem to have some problem communicating. Of course dowsing to our knowledge does not work and proving not only that but also how it does work would be an event of earth shattering proportions, that's why I say, and expect Lloyds to reflect in the premium, that the probability of paying out remains ~=0.
You are answering your own question of what the point is to go this way: "Merely spotting something wierd is not usually considered Nobel-caliber research, but it's easily JREF-caliber MDC-caliber." Call me arrogant if you wish, but after trawling through the forum for only a few days I can't be bothered with this caliber either.

 

[Thinktoomuch]

I am getting senile as well as arrogant... why is this thing doubling my messages? It is not going to make them any clearer...

 

[petre]

Why standardized tests don't work:

1. Standard test for clairvoyance: We've put something in an aluminium box, tell us what it is and you win.

"Gee, I'd take their test, but darn it all my powers don't work through aluminium".

Having a standard test about an ability would necessarily have to make some assumptions about said ability. Why make any assumptions about something you don't believe exists in the first place?

 

[The Atheist]

Well, Robinson, you should already know what I think from another thread. Unfortunately, I made the mistake of jumping on a very dubious bandwagon with the result that now I am probably being misjudged by association....

(BOLDING MINE)

Mate, I think that might be just a little harsh!

 

[Thinktoomuch]

Sorry Atheist, I did not want it to be... I still hope you will cough up the $100k for the consortium, if we get this off the ground (we'll need levitation, I fear ). Be honest though, your sledgehammer approach has not worked.

Petre: I see your point, but that does not apply to research standards. Leave that to the "wierd" people.

 

[The Atheist]

Sorry Atheist, I did not want it to be... I still hope you will cough up the $100k for the consortium, if we get this off the ground (we'll need levitation, I fear ). Be honest though, your sledgehammer approach has not worked.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Perhaps this statement from Jeff Wagg helps: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1980595#post1980595

 

[Ladewig]

Why involve them in some long drawn out protocol first? Why not start with a test you have designed, or used before, and work out any sticking points about that? I mean it. C'mon, what is up with the very nature of the challenge having to be hammered out?

Sure if it is some new whackjob ability nobody has ever heard of, but what about the list? The things considered paranormal on the FAQ page? Why not have a list of test that would be considered fair?

Feel free to take a few hours and read through all the powers that claimants and potential claimants have posted in this sub-forum over the years. You'll find that the majority of them include an exchange where a JREF poster suggests a simple test and the claimant replies "that test is not satisfactory because my power doesn't work that way."

Why do you think that if the JREF came up with standard tests for dowsing, ADC, telekinesis, clairaudience, healing touch, then the number of claimants requiring special circumstances would be reduced? Having standardized protocols would simply increase the number of claimants popping up in websites and USENET boards saying, "they won't accomodate my testing proceedure because they are afraid of me."

The current format is better than what you propose because it is flexible enough to meet all the needs of all the applicants.

 

[robinson]

More of those pesky thoughts

Ha! I'm not proposing anything, just thinking about the MDC. It really is a fun concept. And I have read a lot of the historic threads here.

I'm still reading them, but since a reply causes an old thread to pop to the top, I resist adding a comment or two. I mean really really resist. Because nothing is more annoying than people posting thoughts about the MDC, in the correct topic.

For example-

In a sense, this means that Randi's prize is sort of the same kind of trick that he routinely debunks.

He knows no one will ever claim the prize, because frauds can't claim it and someone with legitimate powers won't claim it.

I don't know if this is true or not, but there is some sort of "rule" or "law" that appears in many different cultures and religions about using "powers" for profit or ego. It is in the ancient Yogi text, in Theosophical teachings, in religions, in Zen and Kung Fu and many others. It is taught that if you use sacred or spiritual powers for gain, you lose them, or they backfire somehow.

In short, it is a bad thing. So it is quite possible that people who believe they really have "powers" will not try to make money, gain fame, or even engage in fights over the existence of such things, based on what they have been taught.

Of course that sounds like a cop out, but this axiom does exist, and no doubt exist in the mind of the true believer, leading to about a zero percent chance that anybody who follows the precepts that surround "powers" and spiritual lifestyle would even consider trying to win money with a "God given gift".

Now please don't think I am making this up, or trying to convince you this is reality. I am explaining a reason that many people won't even consider a challenge. No matter how much money it was for.

And giving it to charity won't matter, not to this mindset, because even the involvement with a challenge would cause the powers to stop working.

heh

What a great out eh? "I can't demonstrate my powers because I will lose them".

And because of my own powers, I bet this has been brought up before somewhere. But do you have any idea how many threads there are here?

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
And because of my own powers, I bet this has been brought up before somewhere. But do you have any idea how many threads there are here?

If the "here" you refer to is the Million Dollar Challenge Forum, the current number of listed threads can be found at the bottom of the overview, in the box "Display Options". While writing this post, it reads 653 threads.

What do you mean by "own powers", robinson? Anything "paranormal"?

 

[robinson]

Geezuz!

If the "here" you refer to is the Million Dollar Challenge Forum, the current number of listed threads can be found at the bottom of the overview, in the box "Display Options". While writing this post, it reads 653 threads.

I know, but I also include the Challenge Applications forum, and there is stuff in other forums as well. It certainly is more than a couple of hours to read them all. But interesting, so I slog on...

What do you mean by "own powers", robinson? Anything "paranormal"?

Doubtful. Especially since I don't believe in paranormal powers. I was thinking observation, prediction, experience, rational thought, search engines, time and energy, that sort of thing. Paying attention to conversations, pattern recognition, and simple predictive reasoning.



One thing I notice here, is that the crackpots get way more attention than the rational, thoughtful folk. Makes sense.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
Doubtful. Especially since I don't believe in paranormal powers. I was thinking observation, prediction, experience, rational thought, search engines, time and energy, that sort of thing. Paying attention to conversations, pattern recognition, and simple predictive reasoning.
...

Are you - yet again - simply thinking out loud? Have you considered making a more concise statement? Well, how about this:

Robinson, do you claim to have paranormal powers, since that last time I asked you this you responded with "Doubtful."?