Randi ups the ante

[Phobos]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/12/06/supernatural.skeptic.reut/index.html


A sworn enemy of superstition, Canadian-born magician James Randi has thrown down the gauntlet to mystics, promising $1 million to anyone who can prove supernatural powers or a phenomenon beyond the reach of science.

[James R]

Randi's million dollar prize has been up for grabs for a number of years now.

See www.randi.org for more information.

[Kerrie]

i am not sure i understand this guy's stand on the paranormal...is he for or against it? or is he the type saying, "i will believe it when i see it"? with the example of astrology, the test would be doomed to fail because astrology is not a science...but if these skeptics had some education on the subject, then perhaps they would stop trying to "prove it" and perhaps understand its use...

as for being psychic, doesn't edgar cayce have an entire library in Virginia Beach that has documentations on his abilities?

many skeptics have made up their mind to claim that some of these abilities are not possible. our CURRENT VERSION AND ABILITIES within the realm of science may not be advanced enough to prove some of this stuff as valid, or give some kind of logical explanation. i think many forget our science is constantly a work in progress and not a final method of understanding our universe...

and please don't assume by my post i am an advocate for voodoo magic :smile: as my quote says below:

[Tom Mattson]

Randi does not believe in anything paranormal, but neither does he deny the possibility. The famed "Randi's Million" is offered to anyone who claims paranormal abilities and can demonstrate it under controlled conditions. So far, all psychics, spoon-benders, and soothsayers have declined to subject themselvs to the scrutiny, which says a lot. If I were really psychic, I'd gladly retire from my "1-900" dial-a-fortune job to collect a cool million.

Randi has a website (http://www.randi.org) which has a message board (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin) that is currently being terrorized by lifegazer. :biggrin:

[Artorius]

Randi doesn't have to worry too much about someone winning his $1,000,000 IMHO. :tongue2:

(On an aside, the most recent South Park made fun of psychic detectives, credulity, and the "Dead Zone" main character. Funny stuff! :smile:)

[Ivan Seeking]

There have been quite a few reports of reproducible laboratory results showing that people can sense when they're being watched. We need to hook up Randi with these guys. They can probably use the funding. :wink:

[Ivan Seeking]

Something else that bothers me about Randi
phenomenon beyond the reach of science

It seems to me that subjects like entanglement still qualify here. We have a mathematical model forced by conservation of spin, but do we have any proven physical models to account for the "spooky action at a distance"? I think this still qualifies as unexplained phenomena.

Until we have a proven TOE, if we ever do, I declare that existence itself is a phenomenon that goes beyond science and I win the million dollars. I can prove that I exist.

Of course, this doesn't count, right?

And communication between humans and other animals by means of pheromones doesn't count either, right? This mode of communication was once hidden among other ESP claims, but now that it might be true - that we communicate with each other via pheromones - this doesn't count either, right? Does proof in retrospect count?

[The_Professional]

Randi has a website (http://www.jref.org) which has a message board (http://www.jref.org/vbulletin) that is currently being terrorized by lifegazer. :biggrin:

Just want to make a correction when I clicked on that link. It took me to a loan application for business :biggrin:

This is the right one: http://www.randi.org/ And the forum is here: http://forums.randi.org/

[Tom Mattson]

Links fixed. :redface:

[Kerrie]

Something else that bothers me about Randi


It seems to me that subjects like entanglement still qualify here. We have a mathematical model forced by conservation of spin, but do we have any proven physical models to account for the "spooky action at a distance"? I think this still qualifies as unexplained phenomena.

Until we have a proven TOE, if we ever do, I declare that existence itself is a phenomenon that goes beyond science and I win the million dollars. I can prove that I exist.

Of course, this doesn't count, right?

And communication between humans and other animals by means of pheromones doesn't count either, right? This mode of communication was once hidden among other ESP claims, but now that it might be true - that we communicate with each other via pheromones - this doesn't count either, right? Does proof in retrospect count?

Ivan, I totally hear what you are saying...it's almost like these folks have "selective hearing". Not once do you ever hear an acknowledgement that our current version of science is limited to what we know. Instead, it is regarded as the absolute, but only absolute within our current knowledge and understanding. Do they not realize we still have a lot of room for growth?

[Overdose]

'any phenomenon beyond the reach of science"? lmao well plenty of things are beyond the reach of science at this point in time, but it cant be proved that they will ALWAYS be beyond the reach of science untill the paradigm draws it last breath or the human race simply dies out. Of course Rhandi knows this, and yet again the unclaimed million is supposed to stand as a testiment to the fact that 'nothing is beyond the grasp of science' of course thats complete BS we simply dont know how far science can stretch its self at this point in time. This is really cheap trick, and im sure it will no doubt convince alot of impressionable people that everything can be known through science.

Well done Rhandi, doing his best to put intellectual and scientfic thought back a few hundered years as useall.

[arildno]

Ivan, I totally hear what you are saying...it's almost like these folks have "selective hearing". Not once do you ever hear an acknowledgement that our current version of science is limited to what we know. Instead, it is regarded as the absolute, but only absolute within our current knowledge and understanding. Do they not realize we still have a lot of room for growth?
I suggest you actually read what Randi says, rather than lapping up Sylvia Browne's version of it.

[Tom Mattson]

Something else that bothers me about Randi


phenomenon beyond the reach of science



Why should that bother you? That quote only makes Randi's case look better!

Allow me to explain...

First, the quote is from the headline, not from Randi's website. The rules for the actual million dollar challenge are described here:

http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html

Second, despite the fact that what you quoted aren't Randi's words, there is an interpretation of those words that is intended by Randi. But it is not the interpretation that you and Kerrie give. You two seem to think that Randi's challenge writes off anything that is "beyond the reach of science" as flim flam. That reflects a total misunderstanding of what he actually says. Randi's challenge stipulates that claimants' powers must be observable by a third party, not explainable in terms of current scientific knowledge. That is, both parties agree on the claim, and then the claimant has to actually do it under (mutually agreed-to) controlled conditions, in front of observers not connected to the JREF.

The fact that some things are beyond our scientific knowledge actually works against Randi, because if someone can really do something that is not currently explainable, but will be explainable once future discoveries are made, then that person can collect the million despite the fact that he is not in fact endowed with supernatural powers.

[NateTG]

The fact that some things are beyond our scientific knowledge actually works against Randi, because if someone can really do something that is not currently explainable, but will be explainable once future discoveries are made, then that person can collect the million despite the fact that he is not in fact endowed with supernatural powers.

Technically, anything that is repeatable is science. Hence, as soon as something is demonstrated under the JREF conditions, it's, more or less, covered by science. Of course, that particular plum of poor phrasing is from the journalist rather than Randi.

The challenge is only for psychic, supernatural, or paranormal activity. That means that strictly physical phenomena are generally excluded. Moreover, the rules are created so that there must be consensus regarding the demonstration before JREF money gets involved, so there is an 'out' in the sense that JREF can stipulate unreasonable terms for the experiment in addition to the 'out' of refusing to recognize an unexplained phenomenon as psychic, supernatural, or paranormal in nature.

[Kerrie]

I suggest you actually read what Randi says, rather than lapping up Sylvia Browne's version of it.

i really don't appreciate you insulting my posts by referring to Sylvia Brown. this shows you as biased individual, a terrible flaw to have-especially since you have been "recognized" as a science advisor. your words are much better accepted when coated with honey as oppossed to vinegar.

Tom~thank you for clearing that up better. At least you know how to communicate a good point without being degrading.

Of course Rhandi knows this, and yet again the unclaimed million is supposed to stand as a testiment to the fact that 'nothing is beyond the grasp of science' of course thats complete BS we simply dont know how far science can stretch its self at this point in time. This is really cheap trick, and im sure it will no doubt convince alot of impressionable people that everything can be known through science.

Overdose, I have to agree with your message here.

[Phobos]

Randi's million dollar prize has been up for grabs for a number of years now.


Oops. I was thinking that the "prize" was smaller before now. Never mind! :blushing:

[Chronos]

It used to be $10,000, which was offered by Randi personally. When he formed JREF several years ago a number of people and groups donated to the prize fund and the ante was upped to a cool mil.

[Ivan Seeking]

psychic, supernatural, or paranormal

Were pheromones a psychic mode of communication before they were discovered?

I also consider existence itself to be supernatural. Prove me wrong.

[Ivan Seeking]

"James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions. Such demonstration must take place under these rules and limitations".

So he doesn't require that such powers can be shown to exist, he requires that one person can demonstrate it as their own power. So proof alone, say from a large study, wouldn't matter?

Sylvia Brown :rolleyes:

[Ivan Seeking]

Okay lets see if we can get a bite on this. I have emailed a personal request to a Dr Schmidt who claims proof of the ability to know if being watched. A link to Randi's challenge was included. I will follow up with more later. Here is some more information about this issue. I want to see one of these guys put head to head with Randi and see what happens.
http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-03/stare.html

http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Sixth_20Sense_20Eraser

I don't really know much about this particular claim but it has been in the news from time to time over the last few years.

[Ivan Seeking]

Okay one last point. Why wouldn't a demonstration of entanglement meet the challenge; because its not my own magic powers? Is this a supernatural phenomenon until we have an explanation, or does the term supernatural no longer apply since we know that this actually happens?

[James R]

Kerrie:

i am not sure i understand this guy's stand on the paranormal...is he for or against it? or is he the type saying, "i will believe it when i see it"?

He's the "believe it when there's reliable evidence for it" type. Randi is not interested in how people think something might be possible (e.g. how ESP might work, or how the stars might influence our lives). All he says is: "Show me that your ESP or astrology or whatever works under conditions set up to prevent fraud or mistaken impressions."

Thus, if you claim to be able to heal people by laying your hands on them, for example, Randi says "Prove it." He would test your claim by selecting a large enough random group of ill people, splitting them into a control group and a test group, getting you to try to heal the test group while leaving the control group alone, and then comparing outcomes to find if your supposed healing power gives statistically better results than doing nothing. If it does, you get the million dollars. Randi doesn't care whether your healing power comes from special mind powers, alien implants, channelling Rama the Guru, or whatever. He just wants you to prove you can do what you say you can do.

Surprisingly, practically no professional psychics, astrologers or other people who make money from their supposed paranormal abilities ever take up Randi's offers to be tested for the million dollars, despite the fact that such tests are always worked out by agreement with the test subject. Think about why that may be.

...with the example of astrology, the test would be doomed to fail because astrology is not a science...

Wrong. It doesn't matter how astrology works. It only matters that it works - or not. If you can show that astrology actually does any of the things it claims (e.g. predicts the future, predicts people's personality traits, etc.), then you can collect the million. You don't need to explain how it works.

but if these skeptics had some education on the subject, then perhaps they would stop trying to "prove it" and perhaps understand its use...

What use is something which doesn't work?

as for being psychic, doesn't edgar cayce have an entire library in Virginia Beach that has documentations on his abilities?

Probably. Edgar Cayce, from memory, was a fraud, though.

many skeptics have made up their mind to claim that some of these abilities are not possible. our CURRENT VERSION AND ABILITIES within the realm of science may not be advanced enough to prove some of this stuff as valid, or give some kind of logical explanation.

Right! That's why the first step is simply to show that effects are real. Then we can try to work out how they work.

i think many forget our science is constantly a work in progress and not a final method of understanding our universe...

Science is typically much more amenable to change than pseudosciences.

[Kerrie]

Wrong. It doesn't matter how astrology works. It only matters that it works - or not. If you can show that astrology actually does any of the things it claims (e.g. predicts the future, predicts people's personality traits, etc.), then you can collect the million. You don't need to explain how it works.


not to take this thread off topic, but what do you know about astrology? like i said, it's not a science, thus cannot be proven. can you prove psychology? it's the same kind of thing, but many don't understand it because they lap up what they are fed instead of finding out on their own.

Probably. Edgar Cayce, from memory, was a fraud, though

you are making a claim from memory? this statement sounds like your opinion formed by biased assumptions. before you make comments like these, i suggest you do some unbiased reading on both sides of the subject

That's why the first step is simply to show that effects are real. Then we can try to work out how they work

we can't prove these effect if our current version of science cannot measure them.

Science is typically much more amenable to change than pseudosciences

that depends on what kind of change and who is conducting.

Biased Scientists (http://twm.co.nz/sciencebias.htm)

and this one:

Science and corporations (http://www.nofluoride.com/science_for_sale_sjmn.htm)

[Janitor]

Thus, if you claim to be able to heal people by laying your hands on them, for example, Randi says "Prove it." ... Randi doesn't care whether your healing power comes from special mind powers, alien implants, channelling Rama the Guru, or whatever. He just wants you to prove you can do what you say you can do. Surprisingly, practically no professional psychics, astrologers or other people who make money from their supposed paranormal abilities ever take up Randi's offers to be tested for the million dollars...

It makes you wonder about televangelists who call out healings among their listening audience. The most recent example I have seen of someone doing this was Rev. Richard Roberts, the son of the famed Oral Roberts, a frequent guest on Larry King's show. The younger Roberts was shown by God that, "a woman wearing a dark-colored top, you woke up with a sore lower back this morning. That pain is GOING AWAY right now!" [Disclaimer: it's been long enough that I don't remember the exact words, but what he said was that sort of thing.]

Why wouldn't Rev. Roberts take Randi's test, and then hand over the million dollars to missionary work? Hmmmm. Kind of makes you think. :rolleyes:

[Fredrik]

A sworn enemy of superstition, Canadian-born magician James Randi has thrown down the gauntlet to mystics, promising $1 million to anyone who can prove supernatural powers or a phenomenon beyond the reach of science.

I understand that the author of this article probably meant something other than what he's actually saying, but as it stands, this statement couldn't possibly be more wrong. All of the claims that the Randi challege applies to are within the reach of science. If someone e.g. claims to be able to bend a spoon with his mind, this is a claim that's extremely easy to prove if it's actually true. It's certainly not beyond the reach of science.

What the author probably had in mind is that scientists wouldn't be able to explain these phenomena if they did exist. This is true, but completely irrelevant.


with the example of astrology, the test would be doomed to fail because astrology is not a science

Astrologers make claims and predictions that are very easy to test.

'any phenomenon beyond the reach of science"? lmao well plenty of things are beyond the reach of science at this point in time, but it cant be proved that they will ALWAYS be beyond the reach of science
Sure, there are plenty of things that are currently beyond the reach of science, but the Randi challenge only deals with claims that are very easy to prove if they're actually true.


the unclaimed million is supposed to stand as a testiment to the fact that 'nothing is beyond the grasp of science'

No it's not. What gave you that idea? Randi would never make a claim like that, and neither would any actual scientist.


im sure it will no doubt convince alot of impressionable people that everything can be known through science.

I hope not. The purpose of the Randi challenge is to get people to start thinking, not to stop thinking.



So he doesn't require that such powers can be shown to exist, he requires that one person can demonstrate it as their own power. So proof alone, say from a large study, wouldn't matter?

He usually requires an actual demonstration, but I think he has offered to make an exception in a few specific cases (like the afterlife experiments performed by Gary Schwartz at the university of Arizona).

Okay one last point. Why wouldn't a demonstration of entanglement meet the challenge; because its not my own magic powers? Is this a supernatural phenomenon until we have an explanation, or does the term supernatural no longer apply since we know that this actually happens?
I think the last thing you said is one of the reasons, but there are others that are more relevant. For example, entanglement is not something that millions of people ever believed in for no good reason. Also, it has never been the case that a majority of the people who studied the phenomenon were using unscientific methods in order to get desirable results instead of reliable results.

The difference between science and pseudoscience is only a matter of what methods are being used. It has nothing do to with what subject is being studied.

One thing that all claims that the Randi challege applies to have in common is that they can be studied using scientific methods.


we can't prove these effect if our current version of science cannot measure them.

Wrong. You don't have to understand a phenomenon, or directly measure it to prove that it exists. Here's a very simple example of what I'm talking about: Imagine an island that's been isolated from the rest of the world for hundreds of years. Everyone on that island is deaf because of a genetic defect that they all share. No one on the island knows anything about physics. One day a boy is born who isn't deaf (a "mutant"). As he grows up, the people start to notice that this boy seems to be able to do things that the rest of them can't. For example, he seems to be able to "supernaturally" sense when someone tries to sneak up on him from behind. Some people believe that what they've heard about this boy can't be true. For example, the boy himself says that he can sense when two rocks are slammed together behind his back, even when he's blindfolded. The skeptics laugh at this "absurd" claim and demand proof.

If you were one of the people on that island, would you be able to give it to them?

Of course you would. You wouldn't have to explain what sound is. You wouldn't have to measure it's frequency or its intensity. All you would have to do is to instruct the boy (using sign language) to raise his hand every time someone slams two rocks together, and then have the skeptics blindfold him, and start slamming rocks together behind his back.

That would be good science.

[selfAdjoint]

Astrologers make claims and predictions that are very easy to test.


Not so. Depending on the claims, the verification can be very subtle, and provides inifnite wiggle-room for astrologers. Skeptics have had egg on their faces before this by underestimating the situation.

[Fredrik]

I didn't mean that all claims they make are easy to verify or disprove, but a lot of them are. More importantly, if astrologers actually have the ability to make some kind of predictions, it's possible to design a test that will have an unambiguous result.

[Kerrie]

I didn't mean that all claims they make are easy to verify or disprove, but a lot of them are. More importantly, if astrologers actually have the ability to make some kind of predictions, it's possible to design a test that will have an unambiguous result.

astrologers don't make predictions necessarily...your statement is proof of how unaware most skeptics are of the subject...and this unawareness might be more prevalent on other subjects too.

[Ivan Seeking]

Kerrie, you don't meant to suggest that this works like QM; where we can't predict the outcome of any particular event?

[Kerrie]

Kerrie, you don't meant to suggest that this works like QM; where we can't predict the outcome of any particular event?

exactly...in astrology, there are no predictions because the human mind has ultimate will and choice of their behaviors. anyway, i don't want to drag this off topic, but you are the mentor ivan :biggrin:

[Ivan Seeking]

Me bad. :blushing:

[James R]

Kerrie:

I have read plenty of horoscopes which include a kind of "disclaimer" at the end, or at the start, which goes something like this:

"Remember, the stars do not determine your destiny. But they do influence your life. By understanding your horoscope, you will be able to make the most of opportunities, and to understand more about yourself and the events in your life. Your horoscope is a useful guide which you must interpret in light of your own experiences. It is not a prescription for your future."

In the skeptic "trade", these kinds of statements are known as "weasel words". Basically, they tell you that anything which "fits" you or events in your life is "in the stars". And anything which doesn't quite fit you can safely toss away. Most of the time, though, horoscopes are vague enough that most people can find some event in their life which seems to match any prediction made by the horoscope.

Astrology is eminently testable using current methods of science. Unfortunately, it has failed all such tests. It might make people happy, but it seems to have no objective predictive power, either in terms of events or personalities.

[Kerrie]

James, I sent you a pm, i don't want to drag this off topic, plus i have discussed astrology in numerous threads within the forum.

my basic beef is the skeptics that make absolute claims about things being impossible, yet forget science is continuously advancing. i wish they would have more of the mindset of "X subject cannot be proven within our current science", as oppossed to "it's impossible, and cannot be proven."

[brewnog]

my basic beef is the skeptics that make absolute claims about things being impossible, yet forget science is continuously advancing. i wish they would have more of the mindset of "X subject cannot be proven within our current science", as oppossed to "it's impossible, and cannot be proven."

The problem is people who don't understand what's been more or less unquestioned (which is usually the laws of thermodynamics) and then try to make stupid claims which blatently violate such laws.

I realise that many people believe that "the laws may be proven wrong", we must not forget that almost all of our engineering achievements have been based on these laws, and actually work. It's healthy to question what's been "proven", but to ignore it is folly.

I, for one, (aged ~10) spent endless hours trying to run a dynamo off a motor, and use the energy provided by the dynamo as the source for the motor. But that's what learning's about right?

[Ivan Seeking]

Blind man sees [detects] emotion
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=56761

Was this ESP for a blind man until we began to understand what was happening?

[James R]

Either astrology works as advertised, or it doesn't. Anybody can test it to see if it works, without knowing any details of how it might work. This has been done, and astrology has not measured up well.

[Ivan Seeking]

Considering our blind man who apparently sees emotion, if true as reported, this strikes me as one of many examples of something that genuinely qualified as ESP but was never officially recognized. Note that we never heard about the man who sees emotion, we only hear once we begin to discover an explanation - the proof is now seen only in retrospect. Wasn't this man entitled to Randi's million until a few months ago?

This example demonstrates the essence of my objection to Randi's challenge. I don't think the "challenge" qualifies as a measure of credibility, less perhaps to expose complete charlatans. I don't think Randi is doing real science any favors. I think he helps to put up mental blocks that stifle the imagination and discourage creative thought. I see him and many similar debunkers [not skeptics] as being counterproductive to the pursuit of knowledge.

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh yes, as already noted, Randi didn't up the ante. My take is that he was just upping the hype, as usual.

[Alkatran]

Considering our blind man who apparently sees emotion, if true as reported, this strikes me as one of many examples of something that genuinely qualified as ESP but was never officially recognized. Note that we never heard about the man who sees emotion, we only hear once we begin to discover an explanation - the proof is now seen only in retrospect. Wasn't this man entitled to Randi's million until a few months ago?

This example demonstrates the essence of my objection to Randi's challenge. I don't think the "challenge" qualifies as a measure of credibility, less perhaps to expose complete charlatans. I don't think Randi is doing real science any favors. I think he helps to put up mental blocks that stifle the imagination and discourage creative thought. I see him and many similar debunkers [not skeptics] as being counterproductive to the pursuit of knowledge.

Ah, but the point is he WASN'T a blind man: his eyes still worked. However, his BRAIN was damaged: most of his visual data was just lost. I guess the part that interpreted emotion wasn't lost so...

Yes, it is up to the JREF wether or not they will test a claim. If the guy had said he could see the emotions through a wall.. well then...


But yes, I agree the case is 'border line' on wether or not it would qualifiy. He should have applied.

One of the rules all parties must follow once an application is complete is that the rules should not change. (there are usually exceptions made for the one being tested [ie: the books on that case are interfering, please move them]) but no change can be made without consent of BOTH parties.

[Ivan Seeking]

Ah, but the point is he WASN'T a blind man: his eyes still worked. However, his BRAIN was damaged: most of his visual data was just lost. I guess the part that interpreted emotion wasn't lost so...

I think it is a little more clear cut than this. As I understood the story, this is a new form of vision that goes beyond the definition of being blind. He IS blind by any previous definition. Its not like he sees a little, he is blind.

The man, identified only as 'patient X', has suffered two strokes which damaged the brain areas that process visual signals, leaving him completely blind.

So by definition this is a sixth sense. We can expand our defintion of sight but this is a matter of hindsight - a quick fix which will leave debunkers claiming that nothing special ever happened. Sorry Randi but, barring any problems with peer review, this is ESP; now proven and published. You lose.

[russ_watters]

Well, I don't think I would consider it a different sense - like you said, it goes beyond the current definition of "blind." Its simply an expansion of the definition and evidence that we didn't really understand how sight works. Obviously, this phenomena has something to do with the relationship between the eyes and brain. That, to me, pretty clearly qualifies it as having to do with "sight."

I think you're really reaching for something to hang your hat on here: this isn't it.

[Curious3141]

Interesting story with the blind man - a sort of "reverse" Anton syndrome (http://www.whonamedit.com/synd.cfm/1877.html).

[Alkatran]

So by definition this is a sixth sense. We can expand our defintion of sight but this is a matter of hindsight - a quick fix which will leave debunkers claiming that nothing special ever happened. Sorry Randi but, barring any problems with peer review, this is ESP; now proven and published. You lose.

This is NOT a new kind of sight. This is information being sent down multiple paths and being cut off everywhere but one spot.

I can't see apples but I can see oranges. Is my ability to see oranges supernatural or my inability to see apples supernatural?


If it was ESP he wouldn't need the light going into his eyes. Period.

[russ_watters]

So by definition this is a sixth sense. We can expand our defintion of sight but this is a matter of hindsight... Perhaps it would help if you gave us your definition of ESP. "Sixth sense" is not descriptive enough, considering most scientists agree that there are more than 5 conscious senses and perhaps hundreds of unconscious ones.

My definition of ESP would be any sense that involves no physical connection to the object/event being sensed.

[Alkatran]

Perhaps it would help if you gave us your definition of ESP. "Sixth sense" is not descriptive enough, considering most scientists agree that there are more than 5 conscious senses and perhaps hundreds of unconscious ones.

My definition of ESP would be any sense that involves no physical connection to the object/event being sensed.

Well, usually there is a connection in the explanation. I would say no 'known' physical connection. IE one which doesn't use known physical phenomena (like, say, LIGHT)

[russ_watters]

Well, usually there is a connection in the explanation. I would say no 'known' physical connection. IE one which doesn't use known physical phenomena (like, say, LIGHT) And that's where the problem is going to come in: something like telepathy. If it turns out we can literally send radio waves to each other, does that mean its ESP or just another physical sense we didn't know we had (or didn't understand completely)? The dictionary definition (Communication or perception by means other than the physical senses) implies to me that for it to be ESP, it must be completely non-physical. However, the word "extrasensory" seems to be looser: "Being outside the normal range or bounds of the senses".

I guess I could accept the second one, with the stipulation that it not be connected to an already existing sense: ie, if it involves your eyes, its still sight even if we didn't realize our eyes were capable of it (pretty much like you said).

[Alkatran]

And that's where the problem is going to come in: something like telepathy. If it turns out we can literally send radio waves to each other, does that mean its ESP or just another physical sense we didn't know we had (or didn't understand completely)? The dictionary definition (Communication or perception by means other than the physical senses) implies to me that for it to be ESP, it must be completely non-physical. However, the word "extrasensory" seems to be looser: "Being outside the normal range or bounds of the senses".

I guess I could accept the second one, with the stipulation that it not be connected to an already existing sense: ie, if it involves your eyes, its still sight even if we didn't realize our eyes were capable of it (pretty much like you said).

I would consider sending radio waves to each other extra-sensory at this point. However, if it were found to be true...

I believe the intent of the 1mil challenge, besides debunking claims, and besides debunking claims, is to find SOMETHING that isn't explained yet. 1 million dollars for a new branch of science! Too bad dowsers keep showing up, lol.

[Ivan Seeking]

Randi's challenge actually says anything paranormal.

Quick definitions (paranormal)

adjective: not in accordance with scientific laws (Example: "What seemed to be paranormal manifestations")

adjective: seemingly outside normal sensory channels

emphasis added.

[Ivan Seeking]

I think the key to Randi's challenge is that Randi controls who is elegible. Basically, the old shell game.

[russ_watters]

Randi's challenge actually says anything paranormal.

Quick definitions (paranormal)

adjective: not in accordance with scientific laws (Example: "What seemed to be paranormal manifestations")

adjective: seemingly outside normal sensory channels

emphasis added. Same problem as before. So let me ask you this: is the second definition really useful?

I mean, its trivially obvious that the extension of the existing parameters of sight in this example is "seemingly outside normal sensory channels." Its also obvious that it is "still in accordance with scientific laws." But if you use that first definition and call this "ESP," doesn't that trivialize the concept of ESP? This isn't in the same league as telepathy, clarvoyance, telekenisis, touch therapy, etc. It wouldn't advance the ESP cause at all. Its too weak.

Imo, for it to be ESP, it needs to fit both of those definitions.

[TheStatutoryApe]

But his eyes and optic nerves are intact and brain scans show that he appears to somehow use a part of the brain not usually used for sight to process visual signals linked to some emotions.
His eyes still work and so they are the tool being used but he's not using them normally at all. He's not even using the visual center of the brain. You could make a case that this is extra-sensory I think.
And if you state that it has to not be in accordance with scientific laws to pass then by putting it to the test to scientifically prove the phenomena wouldn't it then be added to what fits with in scientific law if proven real? That is if it can be tested in a scientific manner then it fits with scientific laws, if it really doesn't fall with in scientific laws then how do you test it in a scientific manner?
I'm finding it hard to word this properly but I think that may be what Ivan is getting at.

[Alkatran]

His eyes still work and so they are the tool being used but he's not using them normally at all. He's not even using the visual center of the brain. You could make a case that this is extra-sensory I think.
And if you state that it has to not be in accordance with scientific laws to pass then by putting it to the test to scientifically prove the phenomena wouldn't it then be added to what fits with in scientific law if proven real? That is if it can be tested in a scientific manner then it fits with scientific laws, if it really doesn't fall with in scientific laws then how do you test it in a scientific manner?
I'm finding it hard to word this properly but I think that may be what Ivan is getting at.

No no, he isn't doing anything extra, he's just doing LESS. I can recognize emotions and object and people and ..., he can recognize emotions. The part of his brain that handes the OTHER stuff is damaged.

This is not extra sensory because it uses the eyes in exactly the way they are supposed to be used: to sense incoming light and recognize patterns (IE emotions).

The fact is: this has an explanation within current science that most people would realize once they heard "brain damage".

[russ_watters]

And if you state that it has to not be in accordance with scientific laws to pass then by putting it to the test to scientifically prove the phenomena wouldn't it then be added to what fits with in scientific law if proven real? That is if it can be tested in a scientific manner then it fits with scientific laws, if it really doesn't fall with in scientific laws then how do you test it in a scientific manner? Being testable scientifically and fitting within the laws of science are two entirely different things. Every unexpected new observed phenomena fits that description. The Michelson Morley experiment was conducted scientifically, but didn't match the predictions of existing science (at the time).

Touch therapy is a recently tested skill: supposedly, touch therapiss can feel and manipulate the "aura" of a person - something that has no scientific basis. Testing it scientifically was easily done by putting a tester's hand in close proximity to a touch therapists (blind) and seeing if the touch therapist could sense which hand it was. If a touch therapist could detect the presence of the hand consistently and significantly better than 50% of the time, that would constitute scientific evidence of the validity of touch therapy, while still not providing an explanation of how it is possible.

[Ivan Seeking]

So it becomes clear that the only test that Randi would ever honor is one that defies the laws of science. In other words, its a sham. There is no reason to believe that any genuine mystery of nature exists outside of the laws of science. In fact, by definition, its impossible. That laws of science follow nature, not the other way around.

The second definition, "seemingly outside normal sensory channels" is the only realistic interpretation of paranormal to be found. Likewise, ESP says exactly that: extra sensory, not magical sensory. The first definition, the one prefered by Randi fans, of course, demands that any genuine claim be magic in order to qualify. Nonsense! I don't believe in magic but I know that mysteries exist nonetheless.

I just noticed in the another thread here that "if was real they would have won Randi's million". Clearly this is not the case. First, Randi must accept the challenge. Then we get to argue about defintions. See how this works? It is a bottomless pit no better than the worst fringe claims, and paraded in the press by a master illusionist. Where would Randi be without his challenge? Has anyone considered why this thread was even started? To announce that Randi had a challenge? I thought we all knew. :wink:

[Kerrie]

So it becomes clear that the only test that Randi would ever honor is one that defies the laws of science. In other words, its a sham. There is no reason to believe that any genuine mystery of nature exists outside of the laws of science. In fact, by definition, its impossible. That laws of science follow nature, not the other way around.


another thing to note regarding this is, science is limited to our own ability to measure and test. if there is natural phenomenon that we are unable to measure and test due to our own lack of understanding/knowledge, how can we rely on science to provide any sort of proof of the phenomenon in question? science is not what it was 100 years ago, 50 years ago, 25 years ago, and science will not remain as it is today 25, 50, 100 years from now. i think there is a sliver of the scientific community that gets caught up in a sort of arrogance that science has the absolute answers, and it does-within our own limitations of understanding. now before you climb all over me, please remember i said "a sliver". :tongue:

i also understand the need for constraint on not getting "carried away" on phenomenom that is considered magical. i think the key is, to remember that there is likely a scientific explanation, but it might be that we haven't progressed to that point of understanding nor has our current version of science progressed there either. o:)

[Alkatran]

So it becomes clear that the only test that Randi would ever honor is one that defies the laws of science. In other words, its a sham. There is no reason to believe that any genuine mystery of nature exists outside of the laws of science. In fact, by definition, its impossible. That laws of science follow nature, not the other way around.

The second definition, "seemingly outside normal sensory channels" is the only realistic interpretation of paranormal to be found. Likewise, ESP says exactly that: extra sensory, not magical sensory. The first definition, the one prefered by Randi fans, of course, demands that any genuine claim be magic in order to qualify. Nonsense! I don't believe in magic but I know that mysteries exist nonetheless.

I just noticed in the another thread here that "if was real they would have won Randi's million". Clearly this is not the case. First, Randi must accept the challenge. Then we get to argue about defintions. See how this works? It is a bottomless pit no better than the worst fringe claims, and paraded in the press by a master illusionist. Where would Randi be without his challenge? Has anyone considered why this thread was even started? To announce that Randi had a challenge? I thought we all knew. :wink:

Here's the wording:

I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions. Such demonstration must take place under these rules and limitations.

So the claim would be testable if we didn't have a non-paranormal explanation.

[TheStatutoryApe]

Then you'd say that it can be tested by showing the effect will or will not occur "better than chance" as in the case of the touch therapy? There is a problem with that though. Every test I have heard of that was run in that fashion (i.e. healing with prayer, sensing someone looking at you, ect.) that showed positive results the skeptics always claimed that there was a flaw in the randomization process. The only time I have ever heard of such a phenomena being accepted as real is when there is testing done that supplies a scientific explination.

[russ_watters]

So it becomes clear that the only test that Randi would ever honor is one that defies the laws of science. In other words, its a sham. There is no reason to believe that any genuine mystery of nature exists outside of the laws of science. In fact, by definition, its impossible. That laws of science follow nature, not the other way around. I don't think that makes it a sham at all. Two reasons: first, it doesn't necessarily preclude finding a scientific explanation (based on new science) later - and I have given examples of this possibility, ie telepathy. Second, and most importantly, a significant fraction of people claiming to have such powers (I won't speculate how many), would readily admit - brag even - that these powers are completely outside science. Then you'd say that it can be tested by showing the effect will or will not occur "better than chance" as in the case of the touch therapy? There is a problem with that though. Every test I have heard of that was run in that fashion (i.e. healing with prayer, sensing someone looking at you, ect.) that showed positive results the skeptics always claimed that there was a flaw in the randomization process. The only time I have ever heard of such a phenomena being accepted as real is when there is testing done that supplies a scientific explination. Well, I'm sorry, but scientific integrity is important and skeptics are going to be demanding in that regard. That said, the healing power of prayer is quite well documented - but it doesn't qualify as paranormal.

[TheStatutoryApe]

Well, I'm sorry, but scientific integrity is important and skeptics are going to be demanding in that regard.
I understand that and I don't neccisarily believe it to be uncalled for. My point was that an acceptable demonstration of something "paranormal" without a scientific explination will be hard met. Randi and/or JREF can easily say "Sorry but there's a problem with your randomization process" and be done with it.
That said, the healing power of prayer is quite well documented - but it doesn't qualify as paranormal.
If you mean personal prayer of the individual who is sick or the individual knowing that he is being prayed for then you're right, that can easily be chalked up to a psychological phenomenon. There are tests though trying to show that people praying for someone else or just sending "healing energy" without that persons knowledge still works. You weren't refering to these as being well documented and not paranormal right? If you don't believe that it is paranormal than I would like your explination as to why it isn't.

At any rate I just don't trust Randi. Not that long ago he claimed that he was going to make a UFO appear in the desert at a predetermined location and time. When it didn't happen he changed his story and stated that it was an experiement in mass halucination and people seeing what they want or expect to see. The part that makes me not trust him is that he stated if the UFO didn't show he was going to give a large sum of money to a charity for orphans which he didn't do even though there wasn't so much as a halucination of a UFO. Art Bell brought him on the show to talk to him about it and when he still insisted that he was not going to give the money to the charity because there had been a couple people that stated they had seen a light moving in the sky Art told him off and now refuses to ever have him back on his show.

[Chronos]

I understand that and I don't neccisarily believe it to be uncalled for. My point was that an acceptable demonstration of something "paranormal" without a scientific explination will be hard met. Randi and/or JREF can easily say "Sorry but there's a problem with your randomization process" and be done with it.That is not consistent with published descriptions by JREF for the rules of engagement. I am not an apologist for Randi, nor have any particular leaning for or against the challenge. But, I think any critique [or endorsement] should stick to the facts. The JREF explicitly states that explanations are irrelevant, only demonstrations of the alleged 'ability' will be considered:We have no interest in theories or explanations of how the claimed powers might work; if you provide us with such material, it will be ignored and discarded... PLEASE: Do not burden us with theories, philosophical observations, previous examples, anecdotal evidence or other comments! We are only interested in an actual demonstration.JREF further asserts the rules and criteria for evaluation will be agreed upon before testing:Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. This is the primary and most important of these rules.Randi's enemies have often complained his rules are unfair. And that is the essence of their 'explanation' why they will not submit to them. Do you really think Sylvia Browne and Uri Geller are more credible, or even remotely as credible as James Randi? If their 'mystical powers' were as genuine and formidable as they claim, would they not have simply taken the prize and pasted it on their resume's? Calling the JREF rule of agreeing what constitutes passing or failing the test in advance as being 'unfair' is stupendously disengenous. I mean really, if you have a 'special' ability, can you not routinely defy the laws of probability at the 4 sigma level? I sense Randi is not the one making excuses here.

Please give links to the UFO stunt. I am always open to new information. Frankly, I don't believe it. It would be totally out of character for Randi to pull such a stunt and not explain the trick.

[Alkatran]

Then you'd say that it can be tested by showing the effect will or will not occur "better than chance" as in the case of the touch therapy? There is a problem with that though. Every test I have heard of that was run in that fashion (i.e. healing with prayer, sensing someone looking at you, ect.) that showed positive results the skeptics always claimed that there was a flaw in the randomization process. The only time I have ever heard of such a phenomena being accepted as real is when there is testing done that supplies a scientific explination.

Because they ARE done wrong. When the studies are replicated they tend to fail so...

By the way, watch out for people playing with words. In one study what was stated was similar to "The results were above 90%!" when what was meant was that there was more than a 90% chance of the results being at least that close to chance! :eek:

[russ_watters]

If you mean personal prayer of the individual who is sick.... Yeah, you understood me correctly. And I'm aware of blind prayer, but from what I've heard (not much), the results are unreliable at best.