talkmagic.co.uk

I'll not say much, other than this is something ALL fans of the JREF really needs to read, study and digest.

http://www.dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge

It is an interesting article and it does look to me like some of the conditions of the challenge have been excessive e.g. the levels of statistical significance that have been expected. However, did you read the response from the foundation? There were some factual errors in the Daily Grail article (according to the JREF response!) and also the levels of statistical significance have now been lowered. I'd concede that it seems strange that the conditions have been eased now the challenge is coming to an end. Even so, people have still got 2 years to get their applications in with the reduced levels of statistical significance.....

Two Years left on something that was supposed to run on even after the old bu**er croaks...

C'mon, Randi & Co. have changed the rules and standards around that thing more than he changes pants. Add to this the fact that they refuse to explain the Bonds, who holds them, the interest rate attached to them, maturity dates, etc. He and Kramer both tell people investigating such to just bu**er off... almost as if they are hiding something... like the fact that they aren't all that viable or even "real".

My personal hopes and dreams is that enough details are collected to finally warrant a Federal Investigation into Randi's game BEFORE he dies so that the entire cult can be shaken to its foundations for the joke that it is and the science it's not.

The thing is, there's no proof WHATSOEVER that psychic ability exists? Craig, I respect you, I really do, you've kindly responded to any questions I've had about the performing arts with your infinite wisdom but, you seem to have a personal vendetta against James Randi?

This isn't an attack on you either just, I don't understand why you continue to get soo annoyed by Randi and JREF? Do you feel the debunking affects your trade or do you actually believe in psychic ability? If someone was psychic surely they would fly through the rounds anyway? It's a little convenient that a 'real psychic' wouldn't have a 100% strikerate.

There's never been any evidence of real psychic ability anywhere on planet earth. It's like these ghost hunters, I think we'd have proof of ghosts by now if they actually existed, instead of seeing jumped up actors screaming on a nightvision camera.

I can't see why it shouldn't be closed in two years. Why bother staying open? If you're psychic you'll be all over the news anyway. You wouldn't need that 'prize money'.

I'm a skeptical would-be believer (a son of one working psychic, and brother of another), and I agree that Randi's tests aren't all that fair. Re the convenience or otherwise of psychics not having a 100% hit rate, can you name any form of heightened skill where a person has 100% skill? This is problem number 1 with testing for psychic abilities; they are tests of human ability, and humans are fallible.

Secondly people who believe they have special abilities have a tendancy to make sense of those abilities through their own belief system. In other words someone who can reveal information about people they don't know may feel that this information is coming to them from outside of their immediate sphere of perception, be it from God, or the dead, or some alien intelligence or other. The belief they have of how they do what they do has nothing to do with their actual ability, real or imaginary, no more than the dragon I believe lives in my stomach has anything to do with the ability for my digestive tract to turn food into energy.

Thirdly, psychic phenomena that are reliant on outside intelligent forces are difficult to test for for that reason. Many mediums and ghosthunters talk of the "trickster spirits" and although this is a handy escape clause when they've received false information, it is no less valid a possibility. If someone lies to you over the phone, it doesn't negate the reality of the conversation or, for that matter, the phone itself.

If someone claims an ability, then that ability alone should be tested, and not the belief system hanging from it. If such abilities can be proved (and there is a smattering of admittedly weak proof of some weirdness out there we are yet to understand), it would be a shame to dismiss it simply because the person with that ability believes that it had been granted to them by Noddy and Big Ears.

Having seen him on that recent TV show featuring the 'Baby Whisperer' I though Randi looked very old and possibly coming to the end of his time on this planet. I don't wish anyone an early journey to the hereafter but he looked very unwell to me. Perhaps his successors wouldn't be able to carry on 'redefining the rules' in the same way as Randi has done for the last umpteen years of the challenge?

Mr_Grue wrote:I'm a skeptical would-be believer (a son of one working psychic, and brother of another), and I agree that Randi's tests aren't all that fair. Re the convenience or otherwise of psychics not having a 100% hit rate, can you name any form of heightened skill where a person has 100% skill? This is problem number 1 with testing for psychic abilities; they are tests of human ability, and humans are fallible.

Secondly people who believe they have special abilities have a tendancy to make sense of those abilities through their own belief system. In other words someone who can reveal information about people they don't know may feel that this information is coming to them from outside of their immediate sphere of perception, be it from God, or the dead, or some alien intelligence or other. The belief they have of how they do what they do has nothing to do with their actual ability, real or imaginary, no more than the dragon I believe lives in my stomach has anything to do with the ability for my digestive tract to turn food into energy.

Thirdly, psychic phenomena that are reliant on outside intelligent forces are difficult to test for for that reason. Many mediums and ghosthunters talk of the "trickster spirits" and although this is a handy escape clause when they've received false information, it is no less valid a possibility. If someone lies to you over the phone, it doesn't negate the reality of the conversation or, for that matter, the phone itself.

If someone claims an ability, then that ability alone should be tested, and not the belief system hanging from it. If such abilities can be proved (and there is a smattering of admittedly weak proof of some weirdness out there we are yet to understand), it would be a shame to dismiss it simply because the person with that ability believes that it had been granted to them by Noddy and Big Ears.

It's just too convenient for me. There isn't one scrap of evidence to prove psychic ability. The success rate of supposed 'psychics' is nothing more than guesswork. So, until someone can prove they have an actual ability then I'm afraid I'll stay a skeptic and keep practicing my billet switch.

Mandrake wrote:Having seen him on that recent TV show featuring the 'Baby Whisperer' I though Randi looked very old and possibly coming to the end of his time on this planet. I don't wish anyone an early journey to the hereafter but he looked very unwell to me. Perhaps his successors wouldn't be able to carry on 'redefining the rules' in the same way as Randi has done for the last umpteen years of the challenge?

What I noticed was Randi's odd inability (or unwillingness) to make eye contact with the supposed psychic who took the challenge. No matter how pleasant and friendly the baby whisperer fella tried to be.

Based on what I saw in the documentary, Randi had nothing to worry about, but he came across to be as a thoroughly miserable burger.

Personally, although I'm no fan of Randi, I don't have a significant problem with him either. He serves a purpose - even if that purpose is to promote discussion and bitter heated argument.

Well I, for one, have just fallen in love with Mr Grue. Very elloquently put, sir. And if I knew how to spell "elloquently" correctly, I promise I would have done.

I'm with Masterclyde on this one.
History is full of people who have tried to pull the wool over ordinary peoples eyes, to their own advantage and the detrement of others.
I admire Randi for the stand he has taken, and remember, Houdini spent many years debunking so called mediums and psychics.
He never found one with any genuine powers.

Lownatic wrote:He never found one with any genuine powers.

Ah, but he never met Daniel Dunglas Home. Or me.

Lownatic wrote:History is full of people who have tried to pull the wool over ordinary peoples eyes, to their own advantage and the detrement of others.
.

Yes, Paul Daniels for one.


Ooh, I'm feeling frisky today.

Themagicwand wrote

Lownatic wrote:

He never found one with any genuine powers.

Ah, but he never met Daniel Dunglas Home. Or me.

No but he probably met you great grandpappy.

I've met Paul a couple of times and he was very kind - even my wife who hated his TV shows thought he was OK.

I find it extrordinary that this paranormal business has been going on for centurys and no-one can find a definitive answer, however in my life time I have never had a paranormal experiance or seen anything to suggest otherwise but that doesen't mean it doesen't exist, I myself am on a personal mission to find out whether it does or does not exist but I don't think MR Rand is going about it the right way I personally think he has only done it for exposure and financial gain if it wasn't done for these reason's then it possibly would have given the psychic a chance rather than not much chance but that's just my opinion I shall sit on the fence until my own life experiances tell me otherwise the same has anyone else.

For me, the bottom line has to be this:

Science is about measurement. If something can't be quantified, it can't be accurately researched in a scientific context.

There's an awful lot that can't yet be measured.

But it's silly then to argue that an inability to measure something is proof of its non-existence.

Randi's challenge is far too confrontational, and as the initial post indicates, the price of failure more than quells the lure of any prize money.

Randi's approach will prove nothing. But it will keep people talking, discussing and - more often than not - arguing.