James Randi Offers $1M Award for Proof of Expensive Speaker Cables

Click For Summary
James Randi has offered a $1 million prize to anyone who can demonstrate that a pair of $7,250 Pear Anjou speaker cables performs better than standard Monster Cables. Randi criticized an audiophile review that described the expensive cables as "danceable," labeling it as absurd. The discussion highlights the subjective nature of sound quality, with some arguing that while high-end cables may improve audio for expensive equipment, the differences are negligible for lower-end systems. Participants express skepticism about the value of such expensive cables, with some suggesting that the claims surrounding them are exaggerated or unfounded. Overall, the conversation underscores the ongoing debate about audio quality and the marketing of high-priced audio equipment.
  • #31
I suggest that Randi has no way to draw the line in the sand that he wishes to draw because modern physics has no way to draw the line either.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
There is no such thing as "supernatural" that actually exists. It's our own ignorance of the causes of things that makes us use the tag "supernatural." Again, just because we can't explain something yet does not make it above nature. I don't know how anything could be above nature. That just seems like adding a layer for the sake of adding a layer.
 
  • #33
Ivan Seeking said:
I corresponded with Randi by email and was convinced that he is a man with a mission that does not include an open mind to discovery. He leaves people with the impression that everything in the universe can be explained; less a few semantics. To me this is like dropping an atom bomb on physics.
So you think Randi is anti-science? That's an interesting opinion. (I don't share it.)

As far as having a mission and being "open-minded" to discovery, that kind of depends on the topic. What's he's skeptical of includes the usual crackpot roster: mind-readers, spoon benders, psychics, astrologers, human magnets. And apparently he is willing to test such claimants.

On those topics I (me, not Randi) am extremely skeptical--the burden of proof is entirely on them. I go further in that I wouldn't even waste the time listening to talk of such things. Life is too short to listen to yet another "faith healer" or "remote viewer" or "metal bender". I'm glad that someone enjoys the challenge of "debunking" such things; I'm too interested in all the real stuff that I don't quite understand.

(The more I hang out with magicians, the greater my disinterest in these fakers. These guys do really amazing things--things that blow Uri Geller and company out of the water. And after seeing enough real magicians in action, it's incredibly hard to take the high-profile fakers seriously.)
 
  • #34
It is a real phenomenon that has no natural explanation. Therefore, by any science that we have, it is supernatural.

As a final blow to this assertion, science cannot explain the underlying natural causes in detail to things such as homosexuality. This does not suggest that homosexuality is a supernatural concept. It is not, because it can be investigated and observed in the natural world.
 
  • #35
LightbulbSun said:
May I plug in my input here and state that just because we haven't figured out the cause for something does not make it supernatural. Our ignorance does not equate to supernatural. I know I'm extrapolating by saying everything has its natural cause, but I feel like stating that something is supernatural because of our own ignorance of its cause is fallacious reasoning.
Agreed. To me that sounds like the reasoning people used before the invention of the scientific method. It was a dark time, indeed.

Now Ivan, I do see that this creates somewhat of a catch-22, but the catch-22 isn't Randi's, it is part of the claim of "supernatural" phenomena. The prize isn't a sham, it is the people who claim "supernatural" phenomena that are the sham. Randi made the rules, but he made them to focus on a specific type of claim and yeah, he's pretty confident that no one will ever win. The point of the contest is to shine a big spotlight on the sham that is the claim of "supernatural" phenomena.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
Ivan Seeking said:
I suggest that Randi has no way to draw the line in the sand that he wishes to draw because modern physics has no way to draw the line either.
That's a very anti-science point of view. The line in the sand is crystal clear, as stated by the scientific method (and pointed out by Morodin). Simply put, if it can be tested scientifically (if it can, in principle, be falsified), it falls within the realm of science.
I corresponded with Randi by email and was convinced that he is a man with a mission that does not include an open mind to discovery. He leaves people with the impression that everything in the universe can be explained; less a few semantics.
Those two sentences are precise opposites of each other.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
Ivan Seeking said:
As for supernatural, the word has no meaning. Either a phenomenon is real or not.
[separate post]
It is a real phenomenon that has no natural explanation. Therefore, by any science that we have, it is supernatural.
These two are also direct opposites of each other. Obviously the word has a definition - you can find it in a dictionary...and that ain't it (not the full definition, anyway). It doesn't just have to be unexplained, but fundamentally unexplainable.

Supernatural phenomena would be extremely easy to prove if they actually existed. All they require (as I said above) is showing a cause-effect relationship with no physical link between them. If I snap my fingers and shut off gravity and the planets flew out of their orbits, I'm certain Randi would give me the money.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
Doc Al said:
As far as having a mission and being "open-minded" to discovery, that kind of depends on the topic...

On those topics I (me, not Randi) am extremely skeptical--the burden of proof is entirely on them. I go further in that I wouldn't even waste the time listening to talk of such things. Life is too short to listen to yet another "faith healer" or "remote viewer" or "metal bender".
The way I see it, when you'v'e seen enough scams and can recognize the signs, rejecting claims with the wave of the hand is not "closed-minded". As you say, the burden of proof is heavy on the claimant. Once you've listened to six faith healers, there is no need to listen to a seventh.
 
  • #39
russ_watters said:
Once you've listened to six faith healers...
...you are beyond healing!
 
  • #40
Doc Al said:
So you think Randi is anti-science? That's an interesting opinion. (I don't share it.)

I have listened when he talks about things that I happen to know something about, and he is no scientist or friend of science. Science requires objectivity, but Randi has an agenda - a personal agenda.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
Moridin said:
As a final blow to this assertion, science cannot explain the underlying natural causes in detail to things such as homosexuality. This does not suggest that homosexuality is a supernatural concept. It is not, because it can be investigated and observed in the natural world.

There is nothing about biology that I know of that lacks the fundamental physics required to explain a mechanism. If there is such a process, then apparently we don't know about it yet. However in the case of entaglement, there is no mechanism in the physical world that we can measure. And as I pointed out given your own definition, this exactly meets the criteria for being supernatural. What bothers you is that your definition of "supernatural" is "unreal", in which case Randi's challenge is to prove that the unreal is real. Clearly this is not science or sensible. And if we should ever discover that there is a legitmate form of ESP of some kind, then we will instantly say that THAT is real, but other things that we don't want to accept are still "the supernatural". That is where Randi's defintinion completely fails. He demands that if they exist, potentially real phenomena must be supernatural to qualify, and that is a sham.

Would a ten dimensional hypersurface be natural or supernatural by any standards that we know?

If Randi has modified the challenge to be specific to mind readers and fortune tellers, then perhaps he finally realized the flaw in his thinking that I have objected to for a decade. If not, then I might just challenge him.
 
Last edited:
  • #42
Nah! He is just more open (publicly) about it! Most every scientist out there holds essentially the same opinions as Randi does on the matters of seances, faith healing, crystal power, and psychic divination.
 
  • #43
Ivan Seeking said:
There is nothing about biology that I know of that lacks the fundamental physics required to explain a mechanism.
On the contrary, much of biology is emergent (for a physicist) and does not have the physics tools to explain it as yet.
 
  • #44
Ivan Seeking said:
However in the case of entaglement, there is no mechanism in the physical world that we can measure.

Umm... quantum mechanics (for example, measuring the spin of entangled particles. The spin is an observable quantity)

And as I pointed our givin your own definition, this exactly meets the criteria for being supernatural. What bothers you is that your definition of "supernatural" is "unreal". In which case Randi's challenge is to prove that the unreal is real. Clearly this is not science or sensible. And if we should ever discover that there is a legitmate form of ESP of some kind, then we will instantly say that THAT is real, but other things that we don't want to accept are still "the supernatural".

But, despite over 200 years or so of searching for stuff like ESP of some kind, or astrology, divination, faith healing, etc we've found no scientific evidence, and this is what Randi asks for. He wants the such claims to be tested in controlled, scientific experiments, before someone proclaims they exist.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
russ_watters said:
That's a very anti-science point of view. The line in the sand is crystal clear, as stated by the scientific method (and pointed out by Morodin). .

He desires a defintion that covers all false claims, which is fine, but there is no clear line that tells us the limits of reality, and that's what Randi really wants here.
 
  • #46
siddharth said:
Umm... quantum mechanics (for example, measuring the spin of entangled particles. The spin is an observable quantity)

Then please explain the mechanism through which spin is conserved at a distance when a measurement is made on one particle in an entangled pair.

But, despite over 200 years or so of searching for stuff like ESP of some kind, or astrology, divination, faith healing, etc we've found no scientific evidence, and this is what Randi asks for. He wants the such claims to be tested in controlled, scientific experiments, before someone proclaims they exist.

That would be fine if he was an objective scientist, but he clearly has an agenda, and that means that he can't be trusted... unless of course Randi's work is published in a peer-reviewed, mainstream, scientific journal, which is our basic minimum here and throughout science.

Or do we make a special exception for Randi - the slight of hand and misdirection expert with a million bucks to lose?
 
Last edited:
  • #47
Gokul43201 said:
On the contrary, much of biology is emergent (for a physicist) and does not have the physics tools to explain it as yet.

Tools and mechanisms, or foundational questions [foundational to physics]? Are you saying that there are biological mechanisms that by definition cannot be measured or observed - even in principle?
 
Last edited:
  • #48
In order to be above board, first of all, Randi would have to publish a list of all claims that he has refused to consider, and why. Does he publish such a list? Is the assumed list open to challenge and review by impartial experts who don't have a million bucks on the line?
 
Last edited:
  • #49
Gokul43201 said:
Nah! He is just more open (publicly) about it! Most every scientist out there holds essentially the same opinions as Randi does on the matters of seances, faith healing, crystal power, and psychic divination.

Nah what? He has not changed the language?

Frankly, I don't care about personal opinions. Science is not based on personal opinions. If it was, we would probably still live in a Newtonian world. And based on this discussion it would seem that some people still think we do.
 
Last edited:
  • #50
I'm starting to think that many people here don't fully appreciate the significance of "no hidden variables".
 
Last edited:
  • #51
what's going on here?
 
  • #52
Ivan Seeking said:
Then please explain the mechanism through which spin is conserved at a distance when a measurement is made on one particle in an entangled pair.

I don't know. However, the point is that the "mechanism" (if that even means something) here is irrelevant, only the predictions that quantum mechanics makes, which can be (and are) experimentally verified.

Compare this with astrology. The "mechanism" by which astrology takes place is irrelevant. However, when people try to test the predictions that astrology makes in a controlled test, they find that the predictions are not true. Same thing with fortune tellers, etc.

That would be fine if he was an objective scientist, but he clearly has an agenda, and that means that he can't be trusted...

As long as he performs the tests properly, I don't see what's wrong if he has a personal opinion. He's just exposing people who assert that astrology, faith healing, etc works for the frauds they are.

unless of course Randi's work is published in a peer-reviewed, mainstream, scientific journal, which is our basic minimum here and throughout science.

I'm surprised that you expect Randi to publish in a a peer-reviewed, mainstream, scientific journal, before he can perform such tests, while the people who he tests have never done so.

Also, most scientists don't take any of the claims seriously cause there's no evidence for the past hundred years. So, why would a journal be remotely interested in publishing such studies?
 
Last edited:
  • #53
siddharth said:
I don't know. However, the point is that the "mechanism" (if that even means something) here is irrelevant, only the predictions that quantum mechanics makes, which can be (and are) experimentally verified.

That doesn't matter. We are talking about definitions, and the mechanism here [whatever that means] meets the criteria given for being supernatural. We can only say what the result is, and not how it happened, not even in principle. And it seems that it is not possible, even in principle, to measure any "mechanism".

Compare this with astrology. The "mechanism" by which astrology takes place is irrelevant. However, when people try to test the predictions that astrology makes in a controlled test, they find that the predictions are not true. Same thing with fortune tellers, etc.

The mechanism is what would make it qualify for the challenge. The point is not what might be real or not, the point is how we qualify for the challenge. And I argue that entanglement qualifies since we have no physical explanation [less perhaps unproven theories that are usually considered fringe, such as "The Implicate Order" and "Wholeness in Time", which are themselves considered by some to be "mystical"] that even in principle can account for how it happens. You all want to argue that entanglement doesn't qualify because we know it's real, which in itself should make my point. You are arguing that nothing real qualifies for the challenge, whether we can explain it or not; even if it is one of the deepest mysteries of physics.

As long as he performs the tests properly, I don't see what's wrong if he has a personal opinion. He's just exposing people who assert that astrology, faith healing, etc works for the frauds they are.

Who says what challenge he accepts? Randi, and Randi alone.

Oh how low our standards are when we agree with the premise.

I'm surprised that you expect Randi to publish in a a peer-reviewed, mainstream, scientific journal, before he can perform such tests, while the people who he tests have never done so.

Also, most scientists don't take any of the claims seriously cause there's no evidence for the past hundred years. So, why would a journal be remotely interested in publishing such studies?

That isn't the point. The point is that Randi is not a scientific resource and he certainly doesn't qualify to be treated like one. From a scientific point of view, his million dollar challenge is meaningless and has no place here.
 
Last edited:
  • #54
Ivan Seeking said:
You all want to argue that entanglement doesn't qualify because we know it's real, which in itself should make my point. You are arguing that nothing real qualifies for the challenge, whether we can explain it or not; even if it is one of the deepest mysteries of physics.
The point is that experimentally provable phenomena (repeatable observations under controlled conditions) need not be considered "supernatural", even if the mechanism behind the phenomena are not currently understood. That is a limitation of our understanding, and it is to be expected. We will never understand everything. It is quite a stretch to say that Randi is obligated to pay out a million bucks every time he cannot explain something that is so foundational that we cannot explain it through science. Does Randi owe a million bucks to everyone who asks him to explain how particle masses arise or to explain the mechanics of wave/particle duality? That's a huge stretch.

To Randi's credit, he has taken it upon himself to weed out frauds and charlatans like Uri Geller, who claim to be able to do things that no person can do. Randi is a magician, and as such he understands the tricks and misdirection that such charlatans use to perform their "miracles" and can easily prevent their use. People who make a living off fortune-telling, psychic "readings", spoon-bending-type tricks, etc could try to take Randi's money, but it will never happen, and they all know it. That is the nature of Randi's challenge.

Consider this: this country is chock-a-block full of people who claim to have psychic abilities, and (for a sum) will gladly tell you things about your future. Where were all these "real" psychics on Sept. 10th, 2001? Why weren't they jamming the phone lines telling everybody about the horrific tragedies that were going to occur the next day? I have a pretty good idea why they said nothing. It's one thing to make a living taking money from people who are willing to suspend disbelief or who are genuinely gullible or just plain stupid. It's another thing entirely to claim to have paranormal abilities and demonstrate those abilities under controlled conditions. This is where Randi's challenge is directed.
 
  • #55
This looks interesting : http://www.randi.org/joom/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=27

The superior cable audophile has actually consented to participating in the JREF challenge.

I find it a little alarming that Randi was the one to throw the word "paranormal" into the discussion, especially when the audiophile was at pains to make sure that he did not represent his abilities (such as they are) as paranormal. Do any of you know the case of Dr Arthur Lintgen?

Dr Lintgen claimed that he could distinguish between classical music compositions merely by "reading" the grooves of vinyl records. Apparently, years back, Randi actually tested him and found his claims to be true. But Dr Lintgen got nothing because he never represented his claims as being paranormal, and Randi conveniently agreed.

This is the best quote I could find :
On one occasion Randi did agree that the claimed ability existed.
Arthur G. Lintgen claimed an ability to identify LP records without
labels. Randi tested him on behalf of Time magazine, and found that
Lintgen could in fact do this by reading the patterns of loud and
quiet in the groove. Lintgen did not get Randi's reward because he
had not demonstrated (or claimed) any paranormal ability.

Startling parallels to the current developing audiophile case. This chap is also not claiming any paranormal abilities, but Randi for some reason best known to himself, chose to use that loaded word in the argument. For now, it seems Randi is willing to concede the prize if a double blind test bears out the cable claims (without invoking "paranormality" or whatever), but this has become an interesting test case to gauge Randi's integrity (and indeed, that of the "cable guy").
 
  • #56
I agree that it still looks like Randi is leaving a loophole open for him to crawl out of. Although, there is no way in H...that he would need to. I would feel better if he redrafted the rules for the Pear folks and said plainly "A million if you prove it." No paranormal or any other crud mixed in.

You know that they will never do it though. They squabble about the rules and the protocol from now 'till the cows come home.
 
  • #57
Curious3141 said:
Dr Lintgen claimed that he could distinguish between classical music compositions merely by "reading" the grooves of vinyl records. Apparently, years back, Randi actually tested him and found his claims to be true. But Dr Lintgen got nothing because he never represented his claims as being paranormal, and Randi conveniently agreed.
Lots of classical music is structured into movements that can result in recognizable patterns in the textures of the grooves. In addition, the grooves in recordings of violins and other higher-pitched instruments with lots of even higher overtones will have a noticeably finer texture than, say, an AC/DC record. I don't have the link, anymore, but some years ago, a clever fellow wrote a program to reproduce music from optical scans of albums. The quality was pretty poor, but the application was impressive nonetheless.
 
  • #59
Curious3141 said:
This looks interesting : http://www.randi.org/joom/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=27

The superior cable audophile has actually consented to participating in the JREF challenge.

I find it a little alarming that Randi was the one to throw the word "paranormal" into the discussion, especially when the audiophile was at pains to make sure that he did not represent his abilities (such as they are) as paranormal.

As a physisict who also happens to be an audiophile I must side with Randi here. While the "cable crowd" rarely CLAIM do to anything paranormal a lot of the ideas, terminology, techniques etc they use have more in common with New Age "healing crystals" etc than with science. The whole idea is that cables (usually made from what they claim is a VERY expensive material) can significantly "improve" the sound despite the fact that you can't measure the difference; e.g. silver cables make the sound "cooler" gold "warmer" etc (there is even a cable that uses water as a dielectric). There are also cables that claim the improve the sound by removing the "quantum noise".
There is also a LOT of money in this business; high-end cables cost many thousands of dollars and there are some that costs TENS of thousands of dollars.
 
  • #60
f95toli said:
As a physisict who also happens to be an audiophile I must side with Randi here. While the "cable crowd" rarely CLAIM do to anything paranormal a lot of the ideas, terminology, techniques etc they use have more in common with New Age "healing crystals" etc than with science. The whole idea is that cables (usually made from what they claim is a VERY expensive material) can significantly "improve" the sound despite the fact that you can't measure the difference; e.g. silver cables make the sound "cooler" gold "warmer" etc (there is even a cable that uses water as a dielectric). There are also cables that claim the improve the sound by removing the "quantum noise".
There is also a LOT of money in this business; high-end cables cost many thousands of dollars and there are some that costs TENS of thousands of dollars.
Thank you! I have re-worked lots of old tube amplifiers and there are some impressive and some not-so-impressive changes that you can make early on in the signal chain. The best changes are early in the signal chain, and get propagated on and on. The last thing I would worry about is some odd coupling/capacitance/etc in the speaker wires. These people are weird.