What standards can we expect from challengers?

[The Atheist]

Hopefully, this won't turn into a flame-fest (which means I'm going to keep my flame-thrower firmly under the desk), or be diverted to another forum, because I would like to consider the type of people who actually claim they have something worth testing or apply for the MDC.

I haven't been involved with any for long, but there is clearly a shining example of how a challenger would act to retain credibility and respect: Achau Nguyen, and how not to retain those things: everyone else I've seen. I think the clear consensus is that we all wish Achau luck! To me, that's quite an amazing sensation.

It appears to me that challengers - and those who claim they want to challenge - fall into fairly simple groups:

Trolls (not to mention any names, nut someone who is no stranger to infinity and beyond is representative)

Deluded - Edge is probably a good example. As pointed out to me, he certainly honoured his promise by having a go, but he's obviously deluded about his abilities. I think most challengers fall into this category.

Malicious intent - knowingly or unknowingly. I do refer to Saizai's "challenge". His implicit belief that prayer will help cure cancer:

Ilya Starikov, aka Sai, aka Saizai: I hope that you join in this effort, and demonstrate to the world that prayer can produce real results

is exactly the type of statement which could lead to a parent deciding prayer was better than medicine.

This attitude has cost lives of children in this country. Innocent young lives snuffed out due to ignorance.

Where do we draw the line at claims of these people? I know that the wee challenge I run would only have involvement to point out the danger of these views rather than look at it as a challenge opportunity.

Interested to see other opinions - I think mine are pretty clear.

ps. If I don't return for a few days, or ever, it will be due to being suspended or banned! I'll watch the other opinions regardless.

 

[colin]

Trolls (not to mention any names, nut someone who is no stranger to infinity and beyond is representative)

I think you mean 'but' not 'nut', but... well... if the shoe fits... 'nuogh said! ;-)

...is exactly the type of statement which could lead to a parent deciding prayer was better than medicine.

This attitude has cost lives of children in this country. Innocent young lives snuffed out due to ignorance.

Where do we draw the line at claims of these people?...

I think you've hit on one of main reasons why Mr. Randi and most of us skeptics keep plugging away like we do. I mean, what's the alternative? Get shocked, then angry, then depressed at the injustices? Let's face it: this is not a good way to make friends, but not trying is even worse. I have to look in that mirror you know.

 

[The Atheist]

One other point to add in terms of expectations, I certainly don't expect failed and would-be applicants to accuse JREF or Randi of anything other than respect for giving people the opportunity to have a go.

Edge is a classic example - he was quite happy with conditions during the practice run, but when he failed miserably, he cried foul.

The loser who inspired the "What do you think of the anti-JREF article" thread is another. He claims all sorts of BS at his PsiPOG, but none of it amounts to anything other than a weak attempt to put Randi down.

Should we expect failures to show a bit more decorum, or is it just further evidence of the delusion?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Should we expect failures to show a bit more decorum

Funny that we actually do (in a wishful sort of way). Plenty of people equate "skeptic" with "cynic" but your question alone shows that we mostly think the best of people. Or, even if we expect all the excuses and rationalizations after a failed demonstration, we at least genuinely don't have a prejudice against any individual that way--which is why there's such a mixture of "I saw that coming" and "how can he behave that way" in our reactions.

I for one commend and applaud Jeff Wagg, Kramer and the others who've been able to deal with these people respectfully and extremely patiently.

 

[maatorc]

........... I would like to consider the type of people who actually claim they have something worth testing or apply for the MDC...............It appears to me that challengers - and those who claim they want to challenge - fall into fairly simple groups:.....

Generally speaking claimants will be unable to control what they say they can do or experience, or not be able to do it atall.
If there are those who actually can do what is covered by the MDC they will not be interested because they are not performing clowns.

 

[buzz lightyear]

.

It appears to me that challengers - and those who claim they want to challenge - fall into fairly simple groups:

Trolls (not to mention any names, nut someone who is no stranger to infinity and beyond is representative)

Hey ! Not fair, fat boy.
You are supposed not to be acknowledging my presence.
Remember!

 

[The Atheist]

One final point - I'll get there eventually: none of the paranormal challenges will accept "breatharian" type challenges on the basis that self-harm may result.

What about instances where harm may be done to others as result of a challenge.

 

[autumn1971]

Funny that we actually do (in a wishful sort of way). Plenty of people equate "skeptic" with "cynic" but your question alone shows that we mostly think the best of people. Or, even if we expect all the excuses and rationalizations after a failed demonstration, we at least genuinely don't have a prejudice against any individual that way--which is why there's such a mixture of "I saw that coming" and "how can he behave that way" in our reactions.

I for one commend and applaud Jeff Wagg, Kramer and the others who've been able to deal with these people respectfully and extremely patiently.

Having read many of the challenge application threads, I do commend the folks at the JREF for mustering so much more patience than I ever could. I work behind a counter, and today I mentioned to a customer that the horrible part about working with the public is that "they let anyone into that club".

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Don't forget to check their O-rings.

 

[Darat]

One final point - I'll get there eventually: none of the paranormal challenges will accept "breatharian" type challenges on the basis that self-harm may result.

What about instances where harm may be done to others as result of a challenge.

I've not seen any applicant suggesting something like that. Looking at the "application" that inspired your thread that doesn't seem to be doing anything more then other researchers into prayer non-effectiveness have done - e.g. it does not require anyone stop conventional treatments.

I know we (Mod Team) have a strict brief regarding real treatments v magic. If for instance someone is a diabetic taking their real medicine but praising the effectiveness of their magic-spell water and a Member says "well stop your medicine and just take your magic water" we will remove that suggestion or post "Do not follow medical advice her" etc. So I'm sure that the JREF itself would not accept a challenge that could cause such harm to other people or the applicant even with the full informed consent of all parties.

 

[Georg]

One final point - I'll get there eventually: none of the paranormal challenges will accept "breatharian" type challenges on the basis that self-harm may result.

Not completely true. In spite of the general refusal to test those nutters, Randi is making exceptions.
From swift (25th auf August 2006):

BREATHARIANS
In passing, on another matter, I’ll mention that because of the raucous fuss made – particularly by a chap named Richard Milton – about the JREF’s refusal to test the “breatharians” silly and life-threatening claims, I decided, and announced privately on May 19th, 2006, that I would accept the application of one Rico Kolodzey. He has been the noisiest of the no-food claimants, and Milton apparently accepts his claim that he lives on water alone, and has done so for decades. Yes, read that again, so you’ll appreciate my dilemma. In the 100 days since, we’ve been fussing over an appropriate and acceptable protocol, and getting nowhere. This is quite what I’ve come to accept; consider the Lou Gentile matter. Lou made a huge noise over not being tested, and finally retreated, as have so many, many, others, when given the green light. I’m giving Kolodzey the opportunity of joining this bunch under what I’ve decided to call, The Sylvia Browne Rock, where grubby folks hide when confronted by the JREF challenge.

As far as I know, (sorry, don´t have the reference handy) he also made the offer to Helen Greve, the Australian “representative” of these idiots. O.K., she´s not an idiot, she´s a vulture that makes money with selling her books to idiots and therefore endangering the lifes of those that follow her how-to-become-an-enlightened-breatharian BS. She was tested before, utterly failed, but the test was stopped against her will. I wouldn´t have a problem with letting the test go on until she begs for water and admits she is a fraudulent .....eh, person.

Side note: Please, The Atheist, behave a bit more civil. Not that I´m thinking you are wrong with your comments regarding saizai on the other thread. I think you are quite right.
I know a lot of people on this forum see it different, but I enjoy the content of your postings as well as your writing style. In my opinion it would be a loss for this forum when you get banned.

 

[Big Al]

I think accepted applicants should not only sign an affidavit before the testing that they are happy with the test conditions, but another after the testing and before the results synthesis that the testing was carried out in accordance with the agreed schedule. I think that would make it a lot harder to whine about this and that having been done or not.

 

[Cuddles]

Edge is a classic example - he was quite happy with conditions during the practice run, but when he failed miserably, he cried foul.

Interesting that you criticise Edge for this, yet you praise Achau Nguyen despite him doing exactly the same. If anything, it should be the other way around. They have both failed tests, but Edge has actually learned from his while Achau is still trying to do exactly the same thing in exactly the same way.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

I think accepted applicants should not only sign an affidavit before the testing that they are happy with the test conditions, but another after the testing and before the results synthesis that the testing was carried out in accordance with the agreed schedule. I think that would make it a lot harder to whine about this and that having been done or not.

According to past protocols used in preliminary tests, applicants must state - e.g. on camera - that they agree to the test conditions before and after the test.

Example:
"Achau was asked if all conditions were ok and if there was anything present that would prevent him from succeeding. He said everything was all right and said he would be ready to begin after drinking some Red Bull™ and doing some push-ups. After a couple of rounds of push-ups and Red Bull™, we began. Achau’s face was flush, but he seemed upbeat." from Achau Nguyen test transcript.

"After sending the 20th word, the downstairs crew came upstairs with the results. We asked Achau if everything went well, and he said yes. We asked if he thought he had been successful, and he said yes. E. signed the “received” sheets verifying that they were written by him and accurately received by him." from Achau Nguyen test transcript.

Even after signing three, ten, fifty affidavits, swearing on a fictional book or whathaveyou stating otherwise would not prevent certain types of applicants from bitching about the test conditions after a failure. (The more advanced their age, the more they need their delusions to be true.)

 

[ObscureReferenceMan]

I don't think we can expect anything. I think any applicants will fall into categories:
- Deluded folks who believe they have powers.
- Charlatans who think they can trick their way to a cool million.

(I doubt the ones in the second group will even apply, but there's a chance.)

So, considering the deluded... These are people who suffer one or more of the following:
- Confirmation bias
- Lack critical thinking skills
- Are wishful thinkers
- Unintelligent
- Mentally ill
- Have been duped into believing they have powers
This is just a short list. I'm sure there are many other "issues" a person may have. Not to mention general personality traits (beligerent, short tempered, etc.) unassociated with paranormal types.
So simply asking someone like this to read the Challenge FAQ is asking a lot. Will he understand it? Maybe. Write clearly and consisely? Possibly. Also, I think any of the back-and-forth to work out a protocol that will naturally follow an application might be viewed by such a person as a personal "attack".

But, all that being said, the hopeful side of me says we should expect; good manners, an attempt to communicate and honesty. But I'm an optimist.

 

[Klaymore]

I think accepted applicants should not only sign an affidavit before the testing that they are happy with the test conditions, but another after the testing and before the results synthesis that the testing was carried out in accordance with the agreed schedule. I think that would make it a lot harder to whine about this and that having been done or not.

If there is one thing that reading the challenge applications and threads posted by applicants--tested and untested--has taught me, it is that nothing, nothing, nothing, and nothing and no thing can stop an applicant from whining.

Some take it better than others. Compared to Edge, Mr. Nguyen's excuses were nothing. But never does anyone, it seems, just say "wow, I'm full of crap, and I've been deluding myself. Thanks, guys!"