ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » Welcome to ISF » Other Skeptical Organizations » JREF » Million Dollar Challenge
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags carina landin

Reply
Old 10th November 2009, 02:55 AM   #481
buzz lightyear
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 650
Originally Posted by MattC View Post
The problem with using one data point, particularly given the circumstantial controls that you (don't) suggest, is that the scope of "impossible for her to know" information is completely personal. You know nothing of me and I of you, yet I'd be willing to bet that at least one of the statements in this list below is correct and that I had no way of knowing it before posting them:

- You are male.
- You are between 20 and 40.
- You have made a significant purchase on credit card that you have later regretted.
- You have had an unhappy relationship at some point in the past.
- You were deeply upset when a relative passed away.


Consider as well that "intimate details" and "data" are not completely uninclusive - in the trial I described above involving the claimant attempting to locate those "intimate details" about me, several attempts at figuring them out would constitute "data" on the experiment. If the claimant could determine those five things in an agreed-upon number of guesses, they would succeed at the test and move on to the final test (which has a purpose as well, though not particularly relevant here. I'll be happy to discuss it with you in a seperate thread if you like).

~ Matt
Matt, this is what she says she can do!

***********************************
If I hold an article like a ring, a peace of jewellrey or something else which has belonged to the dead person, I can most of the times make a contact with the former owner of the peace.

I describe the dead persons by telling my sitter about how they looked like, what caused their death (or how they passed over), diseases, sometimes what they worked with, personality and so on, and I have a message to my sitter about his/her situation today, in the future or real personal message from the dead person to my sitter about their relationship.

In my description the goal is that the sitter has recognized the dead person, and if he she doesn't do that, I don't get further with any messages. If I'm going to talk about their lives on earth, my sitter has tio know, that it is my contact who is talking, not me.

********************************************

Basically it is psychometry, detecting aspects of someone through an object that they possessed.
She needs a sitter so that amongst the maze of thought, intuition, noise and general mind chatter that we all have, she can zero in on the tiny fragments on information in the object.

Its a fairly simple claim. Unfortunately JREF has turned it into a TV style quiz game. If by fluke she guessed 18 of the 20 envelopes correctly it would, by their "science", be "proof" of her ability. Can you see the stupidity of that?

Give her 20 items, let her handle them all whilst blindfolded and pick one.

If she then says something like "this belonged to a German soldier who died at the western front" then she is doing exactly what she originally claimed.
If she cant then she cant.......end of story.

As for your attempt at "woo".........you only got 1 correct.

I'm pushing 60, no credit card (one of the last believers in cash), couple of failed relationships, but didn't fail from unhappiness, I was just a prick, and when my father passed away a couple of years ago I was pleased as the poor bugger was leading a miserable life and wanted to die.

And the fact that I call myself Buzz Lightyear and have a dude with a big mustache as an avatar is a pretty good clue that I am male.

Not as easy as you might think.
buzz lightyear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2009, 04:36 PM   #482
MattC
ducky's chatroom assassin
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 425
Originally Posted by buzz lightyear
Its a fairly simple claim. Unfortunately JREF has turned it into a TV style quiz game. If by fluke she guessed 18 of the 20 envelopes correctly it would, by their "science", be "proof" of her ability. Can you see the stupidity of that?
Easily, and I am sure that the JREF can as well. It is perpetually possible that someone could guess their way through a challenge of any sort, scientific or otherwise - blind luck can never be controlled out, the idea that it is possible presumes perfect knowledge (which I would happily give both eyes for, to do Odin one better). We are imperfect men in a world that we barely perceive, accordingly we must and do play the odds on every action we take. I will admit that I thought I'd get more of my "psychic" guesses right, but one is more than normal - psychic clearly is not my ideal career path.

A further discussion of the odds employed in the JREF testing procedures would necessitate a great deal of technically off-topic discussion, if you would like I'll be happy to discuss them in a new thread with you.

Originally Posted by buzz lightyear
Give her 20 items, let her handle them all whilst blindfolded and pick one.

If she then says something like "this belonged to a German soldier who died at the western front" then she is doing exactly what she originally claimed.
If she cant then she cant.......end of story.
The problem that I have had with this from the beginning is the very unclear definition of "can" and "can't" implied herein. As there is a considerable amount riding on "can," it makes sense to establish criteria well in advance (and have the applicant agree to them). If I may apply a bit of criterion analysis to your example of her claimed abilities, the following criteria suggest themselves:

- 1) soldier
- 2) German
- 3) Western front

Admittedly this list of things is particularly specific, something I commend you for. However I must point out that this short list in no way offers any certainty - what if, for example, instead of saying "German soldier" she'd said "French soldier who died on the Western front?" In this case, she'd have gotten two out of three criteria correct, but how are we to evaluate the correctness of this (it gets even more difficult if she'd said "partisan on the Western front" - is a partisan a soldier or a civilian? How do we know for sure) compound claim? As Meat Loaf tells us, "two out of three ain't bad," but it isn't perfectly accurate (I'm presuming in saying all of this that you meant for her to be correct in saying "a German soldier who died on the Western front" in that the ring you mention actually belonged to one, if you didn't my apologies).

Ultimately the implied decision involved in declaring this kind of compound statement a "hit" or a "miss" is anathema towards any sort of rational inquiry, as each observer will have their own ideas of what the results mean. If success and failure are not clearly defined, we have accomplished little after the test (it certainly makes trying to determine passing or failing very difficult, and given the stakes riding on this transparency is a great and necessary attribute). Subjective biases tend to become more prominent in this sort of qualitative evaluation, and frankly if we veer this way we either have to go for a statistically neutral group of judges (which would skyrocket the cost of this challenge, extensive polling and surveying would be required), or come up with some alternative method of testing to strategically remove most of these obstacles, and tactically control for the remainder.

That is why I have suggested the idea of a "hit list," or set of characteristics that she must find rather than simply allowing her to shoot in the dark. It seems the JREF and I were on the same page in our thinking, the decision to have her search for an already-known characteristic (gender) of the author is most certainly clear - she either gets it right or does not, no qualitative judging of criteria is needed. Naturally steps will need to be taken to ensure that the testing materials offer no physical clues to the gender, but in terms of testing theory you and I seem to be on the same general page.

~ Matt
__________________
"Si, je suis Marxiste - tendance Groucho."
[09:56] <Hawk_one> In my much more awesome opinion, I should be ruling the world!
"But don't whine if you find that you can't afford the multithousand dollar software package or the multimillion dollar equipment, and if you find that CERN won't loan you the LHC for a weekend." ~ drkitten
MattC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2009, 07:29 PM   #483
buzz lightyear
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 650
We could waffle on here forever Matt, but I would eventually be called "off topic" by one of the clowns who run this show, have a bitch and get suspended,.......... its an old story.

But I do congratulate you on this statement.


Originally Posted by MattC View Post
We are imperfect men in a world that we barely perceive, ~ Matt

It should be the banner across the top of the JREF web page!
buzz lightyear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2009, 07:56 PM   #484
Czarcasm
Groovy Groovy Guru
 
Czarcasm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 1,035
Originally Posted by buzz lightyear View Post
We could waffle on here forever Matt, but I would eventually be called "off topic" by one of the clowns who run this show, have a bitch and get suspended,.......... its an old story.

But I do congratulate you on this statement.





It should be the banner across the top of the JREF web page!
Or you could make it your signature-that would show 'em!
__________________
The sun is out, the birds are singing and all is right with the world.
I loooove my meds!
Czarcasm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2009, 08:50 PM   #485
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,363
Originally Posted by buzz lightyear View Post
...
It should be the banner across the top of the JREF web page!
It should.



Missed you, buzz. Glad to see you're still around.
GzuzKryzt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2009, 12:09 AM   #486
MattC
ducky's chatroom assassin
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 425
Originally Posted by buzz lightyear View Post
We could waffle on here forever Matt, but I would eventually be called "off topic" by one of the clowns who run this show, have a bitch and get suspended,.......... its an old story.

But I do congratulate you on this statement.

Originally Posted by MattC
We are imperfect men in a world we barely perceive. ~ Matt


It should be the banner across the top of the JREF web page!
Thank you, you have been very kind. I would enjoy continuing the discussion, for my own edification, but if you would prefer to call it off that shall have to do. For my own part, I may say that if we barely perceive the world around us, I greatly enjoy knowing how I can be tricked.

~ Matt
__________________
"Si, je suis Marxiste - tendance Groucho."
[09:56] <Hawk_one> In my much more awesome opinion, I should be ruling the world!
"But don't whine if you find that you can't afford the multithousand dollar software package or the multimillion dollar equipment, and if you find that CERN won't loan you the LHC for a weekend." ~ drkitten
MattC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2009, 12:55 AM   #487
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 23,748
Just in case you have not seen it, another thread has been started The $1,000,000 challenge fraud.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2009, 04:47 AM   #488
Galerie
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12
RemieV

Is there going to be a retest? It must be three years since Randi say that.
Galerie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » Welcome to ISF » Other Skeptical Organizations » JREF » Million Dollar Challenge

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:27 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.