# Randi ups the ante

1. Dec 8, 2004

### Phobos

Staff Emeritus
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/12/06/supernatural.skeptic.reut/index.html [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
2. Dec 9, 2004

### James R

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

3. Dec 9, 2004

### Kerrie

Staff Emeritus
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 as my quote says below:

4. Dec 9, 2004

### Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
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 which has a message board that is currently being terrorized by lifegazer.

Last edited: Dec 9, 2004
5. Dec 9, 2004

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! ) 6. Dec 9, 2004 ### Ivan Seeking Staff Emeritus 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. Last edited: Dec 9, 2004 7. Dec 9, 2004 ### Ivan Seeking Staff Emeritus 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? Last edited: Dec 9, 2004 8. Dec 9, 2004 ### The_Professional 9. Dec 9, 2004 ### Tom Mattson Staff Emeritus Links fixed. 10. Dec 10, 2004 ### Kerrie Staff Emeritus 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? 11. Dec 10, 2004 ### 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. Last edited: Dec 10, 2004 12. Dec 10, 2004 ### arildno I suggest you actually read what Randi says, rather than lapping up Sylvia Browne's version of it. 13. Dec 10, 2004 ### Tom Mattson Staff Emeritus 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. Last edited: Dec 10, 2004 14. Dec 10, 2004 ### NateTG 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. 15. Dec 10, 2004 ### Kerrie Staff Emeritus 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. Overdose, I have to agree with your message here. 16. Dec 10, 2004 ### Phobos Staff Emeritus Oops. I was thinking that the "prize" was smaller before now. Never mind! 17. Dec 10, 2004 ### 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.

18. Dec 11, 2004

### Ivan Seeking

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

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

Last edited: Dec 11, 2004
19. Dec 11, 2004

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
"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

Last edited: Dec 11, 2004
20. Dec 11, 2004

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
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.

Last edited: Dec 11, 2004