4 ms·

There are plenty of reasons the $1M might have not found a psychic new owner yet. (1) Randi is condescending and downright nasty to people who identify as psyc

There are plenty of reasons the $1M might have not found a psychic new owner yet. (1) Randi is condescending and downright nasty to people who identify as psychics. $1M might not be worth being in his presence, let alone scrutinized by him. (2) Randi has a lot invested in being right, so the tests could be downright rigged (3) Many psychics propose all humans radiate quasi-electromagnetic energy, and their power comes from consciously directing it. Randi could therefore be unintentionally interfering. (4) The test could be inadequate to describe the psychic phenomenon. For example, the psychic could be skilled at generating a particularly strong placebo effect, which would get written off regardless. (5) The results might dismissed because they would invalidate too many existing theories, all of which have been constructed on the assumption that psi does not exist. A frequently accepted circular argument. I'm not saying any of these explanations are true, but I am saying that no one knows either way.

tokenadult 12y ago
I will note for onlookers that your critique of the James Randi Challenge for persons who claim to have paranormal abilities is largely responded to in the FAQ[1] on the website for the challenge, which I invite you and all interested readers here to read. Certainly, if you personally know someone who has paranormal abilities, you should encourage the person to gain the one million dollars and then tell the world about it. [1] http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/content/article/37-static/254-jref-challenge-faq.html http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/content/articl...
- rainmaking 12y ago
  That's a long FAQ, which argument has been answered by which FAQ entry? Be specific.
  - DerpDerpDerp 12y ago
    2, 3, and 4 have all been dismissed by the explanation of the tests offered to me in the past, particularly in pointing out that the person being tested has a great deal of influence on both the specific claim being tested and the way in which is is tested. The tests happen on a basis of consensus between the two as to what would be a reasonable test, rather than the testers simply dictating. 1 denies the history of psychics taking the test and speaking about it in relatively friendly terms, and 5 denies the history of major scientific upsets caused by evidence backed theories which contradicted the established school of thought.
    - rainmaking 12y ago
      Fair enough for 1-4. As for 5, it's just plain hard to get solid results when studying humans, which seems to leave plenty of room for outright ignoring evidence.
      - jodrellblank 12y ago
        FAQ 1.4: "we ask the applicant to design the test". FAQ questions to Randi: "The hardest part has always been to get the claimant to state clearly what he or she thinks they can do, under what conditions, and with what accuracy. Most are very vague about these aspects, and very few have any notion of how a proper test should be conducted. We at JREF sometimes take months getting those matters settled" FAQ 5.2: "All tests are videotaped and stored. You will be asked to state, on camera, that the protocol is fair prior to the test. You will be asked to state it again afterward. If you do not feel that the protocol is fair beforehand, you are not obligated to continue the test." The videotaping particularly, and videotaping compating against a mutually agreed specific plan that the applicant designed, leaves little room for outright ignoring what happened.
        rainmaking 12y ago
        > leaves little room for outright ignoring what happened I'm not saying Randi is ignoring evidence. The scientific community is ignoring evidence in parapsychological papers that conform to current standards of scientific scrutiny. There are legitimate causes to examine scientific methodology, but doing so specifically to be able to ignore parapsychological evidence just speaks "bias" to me. But I am saying that absence of proof is not proof of absence. Randi could well be selectively attracting poor psychics. Lady Gaga didn't go on American Idol.
codeflo 12y ago
Just one point: > (3) Many psychics propose all humans radiate quasi-electromagnetic energy, and their power comes from consciously directing it. Randi could therefore be unintentionally interfering. If they really believe that's the case, then they should make a different million dollar claim: that they can remotely detect Randi's presence or absence in the monitoring room by observing whether or not their psychic powers are currently working. It's very easy to imagine a test protocol for that. Of course, one can invent an even more elaborate effect that would explain why that test also wouldn't work, and then I can design a test for this new idea, ad infinitum.
- ajcarpy2005 12y ago
  I can't speak of psychic energy as it's not well-defined but if anyone is interested in some interesting science on radiation emitted by humans, here are two good studies: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1767800 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1767800 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23865304 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23865304
mikeash 12y ago
(1) has to be one of the weakest arguments for psychic phenomena I've ever seen, and that's saying a lot.
- rainmaking 12y ago
  I'd say it's good enough as an argument for not outright dismissing psychic phenomena.

tokenadult 12y ago

I will note for onlookers that your critique of the James Randi Challenge for persons who claim to have paranormal abilities is largely responded to in the FAQ[1] on the website for the challenge, which I invite you and all interested readers here to read. Certainly, if you personally know someone who has paranormal abilities, you should encourage the person to gain the one million dollars and then tell the world about it. [1] http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/content/article/37-static/254-jref-challenge-faq.html http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/content/articl...

rainmaking 12y ago
That's a long FAQ, which argument has been answered by which FAQ entry? Be specific.
- DerpDerpDerp 12y ago
  2, 3, and 4 have all been dismissed by the explanation of the tests offered to me in the past, particularly in pointing out that the person being tested has a great deal of influence on both the specific claim being tested and the way in which is is tested. The tests happen on a basis of consensus between the two as to what would be a reasonable test, rather than the testers simply dictating. 1 denies the history of psychics taking the test and speaking about it in relatively friendly terms, and 5 denies the history of major scientific upsets caused by evidence backed theories which contradicted the established school of thought.
  - rainmaking 12y ago
    Fair enough for 1-4. As for 5, it's just plain hard to get solid results when studying humans, which seems to leave plenty of room for outright ignoring evidence.
    - jodrellblank 12y ago
      FAQ 1.4: "we ask the applicant to design the test". FAQ questions to Randi: "The hardest part has always been to get the claimant to state clearly what he or she thinks they can do, under what conditions, and with what accuracy. Most are very vague about these aspects, and very few have any notion of how a proper test should be conducted. We at JREF sometimes take months getting those matters settled" FAQ 5.2: "All tests are videotaped and stored. You will be asked to state, on camera, that the protocol is fair prior to the test. You will be asked to state it again afterward. If you do not feel that the protocol is fair beforehand, you are not obligated to continue the test." The videotaping particularly, and videotaping compating against a mutually agreed specific plan that the applicant designed, leaves little room for outright ignoring what happened.
      - rainmaking 12y ago
        > leaves little room for outright ignoring what happened I'm not saying Randi is ignoring evidence. The scientific community is ignoring evidence in parapsychological papers that conform to current standards of scientific scrutiny. There are legitimate causes to examine scientific methodology, but doing so specifically to be able to ignore parapsychological evidence just speaks "bias" to me. But I am saying that absence of proof is not proof of absence. Randi could well be selectively attracting poor psychics. Lady Gaga didn't go on American Idol.

codeflo 12y ago

Just one point: > (3) Many psychics propose all humans radiate quasi-electromagnetic energy, and their power comes from consciously directing it. Randi could therefore be unintentionally interfering. If they really believe that's the case, then they should make a different million dollar claim: that they can remotely detect Randi's presence or absence in the monitoring room by observing whether or not their psychic powers are currently working. It's very easy to imagine a test protocol for that. Of course, one can invent an even more elaborate effect that would explain why that test also wouldn't work, and then I can design a test for this new idea, ad infinitum.

ajcarpy2005 12y ago
I can't speak of psychic energy as it's not well-defined but if anyone is interested in some interesting science on radiation emitted by humans, here are two good studies: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1767800 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1767800 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23865304 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23865304

mikeash 12y ago

(1) has to be one of the weakest arguments for psychic phenomena I've ever seen, and that's saying a lot.

rainmaking 12y ago
I'd say it's good enough as an argument for not outright dismissing psychic phenomena.