Who judges?

ruach1

Muse
ruach1
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
561
After reading the "Sent in my Application Today" thread, I got to reading the Challenge Rules plus the FAQ's. The rules make it clear that the applicant and the JREF will agree beforehand what will constitute a positive and negative test result.

However, nowhere (nowhere) does it state who judges a positive or negative test result and who makes the final decision concerning failure or success.

The test-givers may say that the applicant (who actually "showed up") achieved a postive test result, but nowhere does it say in the formal rules that Randi can't nullify the result--for whatever reason--be it professional or otherwise.

If there is no rule allowing the test-givers to officially pronounce success or failure, what's the point in applying when the JREF can just nullify the process at will without fear of legal reprisals?
 
You must have missed the first Rule:

http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html - Emphasis by me:
...snip...

This is the primary and most important of these rules: Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. This is the primary and most important of these rules.

...snip...
Click to expand...

And Rule 12:
http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html :
...snip...
EVERY APPLICANT MUST AGREE UPON WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A CONCLUSION THAT, ON THE OCCASION OF THE FORMAL TEST, HE OR SHE DID OR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CLAIMED ABILITY OR POWER. This form must be accompanied by a brief, two-paragraph description of what will constitute the demonstration.
...snip...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ruach1 said:
After reading the "Sent in my Application Today" thread, I got to reading the Challenge Rules plus the FAQ's. The rules make it clear that the applicant and the JREF will agree beforehand what will constitute a positive and negative test result.

However, nowhere (nowhere) does it state who judges a positive or negative test result and who makes the final decision concerning failure or success.

The test-givers may say that the applicant (who actually "showed up") achieved a postive test result, but nowhere does it say in the formal rules that Randi can't nullify the result--for whatever reason--be it professional or otherwise.

If there is no rule allowing the test-givers to officially pronounce success or failure, what's the point in applying when the JREF can just nullify the process at will without fear of legal reprisals?
Click to expand...
the tests must be conducted in a way which requires no judging, to a protocol agreed by all participants. For instance If I predict that I can predict whether a coin will land heads or tails every time, there is no judging required, records (including I believe video records) will be kept of all the tests, the agreed on protocol will be binding on both the participants and the JREF, a test protocol which requires subjective judgement will not be accepted.
 
ruach1 said:
After reading the "Sent in my Application Today" thread, I got to reading the Challenge Rules plus the FAQ's. The rules make it clear that the applicant and the JREF will agree beforehand what will constitute a positive and negative test result.
Click to expand...
My bolding emphasis. This is the key, ruach1. All test criteria are agreed upon beforehand so that no judgement is necessary after the tests are conducted.
 
ruach1 said:
...
The test-givers may say that the applicant (who actually "showed up") achieved a postive test result, but nowhere does it say in the formal rules that Randi can't nullify the result--for whatever reason--be it professional or otherwise.

If there is no rule allowing the test-givers to officially pronounce success or failure, what's the point in applying when the JREF can just nullify the process at will without fear of legal reprisals?
Click to expand...

Ruach1, if you find the time, check out the threads from applicants Achau Nguyen http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28936 and Angela Patel http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34609

The mutually agreed upon test protocols and the tests themselves show excellent examples of how it all takes place.

No judging whatsoever.

Do as you claim. Fail or succeed.
 
A large part of the negotiations over the test protocol are to reach a situation where a positive or negative result is immediately evident. If you believe you can dowse the location of a certain amount of gold and determine which of ten coffee mugs it is under, then the result is self evident once the coffee mug is lifted. The gold is either there or not. If you believe you can transmit a particular random pattern of playing cards to a receiver in another room, then the result is self evident once the cards received are compared with the cards sent.

this is done precisely so judging doesn't enter into the picture. It can never be said that passing or failing the test came down to someone's decision. The proceedings are almost always taped, so there is an objective record of what happened. This is good for the testee because they can be sure they pass or fail on their evident merits. This is good for JREF because it reduces the avenues for excuse that an unsuccessful applicant might have.
 
ruach1 said:
The test-givers may say that the applicant (who actually "showed up") achieved a postive test result, but nowhere does it say in the formal rules that Randi can't nullify the result--for whatever reason--be it professional or otherwise
Click to expand...

You're missing that at the point of taking the preliminary test, the applicant and the JREF have a binding contract between them, specifying exactly how the pass/fail test is to be done. If the applicant sticks to the protocol and passes, and then Randi nullifies the test, the applicant would have standing to sue for breach of contract.
 
nathan said:
You're missing that at the point of taking the preliminary test, the applicant and the JREF have a binding contract between them, specifying exactly how the pass/fail test is to be done. If the applicant sticks to the protocol and passes, and then Randi nullifies the test, the applicant would have standing to sue for breach of contract.
Click to expand...
I am not questioning the integrity of the JREF. What is at question is the application rules. There is no stipulation concerning who determines the applicant has achieved the positive or negative result: the skeptic society to which the JREF has farmed out the test or Randi when he gets the videotape. I understand well Darat's points, and I have read the application which is less complex than I expected. But there is no rule stating the following:

The test-givers to whom the JREF has asked to conduct the paranormal test will decide if the agreed upon positive result has or has not been met. JR will have no say concerning test results unless he himself is giving or overseeing the test. This allows the applicant to be sure that JR will not withold the prize due to any personal reasons.


The "contract" allows for a lot of wiggle room on the part of the JREF. It also allows them to nullify anything and anyone they want. Not that they would, but the application rules allow for the JREF to cancel out anything they so desire--even if they have agreed beforehand with the applicant what will and what will not constitute a positive test result. Even if the results favor the applicant, the application doesn't stipulate that Randi can't just throw them out at will. Randi could see the videotape and conclude the test-giver(s) was wrong and that they somehow did not achieve the "necessary scientific observing conditions" he envisioned when he agreed to the protocols. Rule seven disallows for legal action agaisnt the JREF if they feel contract has been broken--which even furthers the JREF's dominant position.

Simply stated, there is no rule that Randi can't pick up his ball and leave the playground leaving everyone else powerless to do anything about it.
 
Last edited:
you mean apart from the rule that says "JR will have no say concerning test results unless he himself is giving or overseeing the test"?
 
ruach1 said:
The "contract" allows for a lot of wiggle room on the part of the JREF. It also allows them to nullify anything and anyone they want. Not that they would, but the application rules allow for the JREF to cancel out anything they so desire--even if they have agreed beforehand with the applicant what will and what will not constitute a positive test result. Even if the results favor the applicant, the application doesn't stipulate that Randi can't just throw them out at will. Rule seven disallows for legal action agaisnt the JREF if they feel contract has been broken--which even furthers the JREF's dominant position.
Click to expand...

Um, no, it doesn't. You aren't understanding that rule if you believe it allows breach of contract wihtout recourse.

Also, there is no judging. The testing procedure is defined to give clear cut results (i.e.-if the subject correctly identifies 8 of 10 objects under conditions X Y Z, the test is a success.) There's no judging involved.
 
ruach1 said:
Simply stated, there is no rule that Randi can't pick up his ball and leave the playground leaving everyone else powerless to do anything about it.
Click to expand...
Yes.

You're absolutely right.

There's no legal obligation.

Why should there be?

It's an OFFER to pay $1 million for what should be a simple demonstration.

Why do you have a problem with that?

It's a challenge. It's incentive.

It's not a contract. It's not payment for services rendered. It was never meant to be.

Why do you have a problem with that?

The only enforcement is that of public opinion. If one were to be able to perform an agreed upon protocol and it were to be dismissed, one could publicize it and discredit James Randi and JREF. JREF might pay to retain its reputation, it might not.

Why do you have a problem with that?

Thousands of people think they exhibit paranormal abilities. Applicants are being OFFERED $1 million to perform what would be a simple task if these abilities are real. The Challenge is a tool to show that these abilities don't exist.

Why do you have a problem with that?

Why do you have a problem with that?

Why do you have a problem with that?

- Timothy
 
ruach1 said:
I am not questioning the integrity of the JREF. What is at question is the application rules. There is no stipulation concerning who determines the applicant has achieved the positive or negative result: the skeptic society to which the JREF has farmed out the test or Randi when he gets the videotape.
Click to expand...
Maybe a real-life example would help here.

There was a girl in Russia who claimed to be able to see into people's bodies and determine what illnesses they had.

The test they (the JREF and her guardians) came up for her with was this:
Seven people, all with very different illnesses that couldn't be detected from just looking at them, were gathered together. Their illnesses were written on pieces of paper. She was to match up the illness on the paper with the person who had that illness.

Both she (i.e. her guardians) and the test-takers decided that getting 5 or more out of 7 would constitute a success. 4 or less would constitute a failure. This was agreed to before the test.

She got 4 right.

While 4 out of 7 is a pretty impressive hit ratio, it met the previously-agreed-upon failure criterion. She therefore failed the test.

There was no need to determine anything. No judging needed. The success criterion was 5 or more. She did not get 5 or more.

Simply stated, there is no rule that Randi can't pick up his ball and leave the playground leaving everyone else powerless to do anything about it.
Click to expand...
That simply isn't true. While it's not spelled out in the Challenge rules, it doesn't need to be -- for an accepted Challenge is a legally binding contract, and if the JREF decided to pick up its ball, the applicant would be able to sue the JREF in a court of law and easily win.
 
Since the test results are self-evident, the only possible problem would be if the testers lied. A very simple example might be someone predicting die rolls. Success might be eight of ten rolls. The claiment must clearly indicate 1-6, the die is thrown, everyone looks at it and the die value is written down.

In theory the testers could erase the claiment's guess, or write the wrong die value down. But the claiment would be there, witnesses would be there, and the whole thing is videotaped.
 
Timothy said:
There's no legal obligation.
It's a challenge. It's incentive.
It's not a contract. It's not payment for services rendered. It was never meant to be.
Click to expand...
Actually, once the Challenge is accepted and the method and the success criteria are decided on, it is a legally binding contract. Otherwise, ruach would be right; the JREF could just pick up and leave, the Challenge would be a farce, and there would be no reason for anyone to ever apply.

It's not a farce because it ends up legally binding.
 
Beleth said:
Maybe a real-life example would help here.

There was a girl in Russia who claimed to be able to see into people's bodies and determine what illnesses they had.

The test they (the JREF and her guardians) came up for her with was this:
Seven people, all with very different illnesses that couldn't be detected from just looking at them, were gathered together. Their illnesses were written on pieces of paper. She was to match up the illness on the paper with the person who had that illness.

Both she (i.e. her guardians) and the test-takers decided that getting 5 or more out of 7 would constitute a success. 4 or less would constitute a failure. This was agreed to before the test.

She got 4 right.

While 4 out of 7 is a pretty impressive hit ratio, it met the previously-agreed-upon failure criterion. She therefore failed the test.

There was no need to determine anything. No judging needed. The success criterion was 5 or more. She did not get 5 or more.

That simply isn't true. While it's not spelled out in the Challenge rules, it doesn't need to be -- for an accepted Challenge is a legally binding contract, and if the JREF decided to pick up its ball, the applicant would be able to sue the JREF in a court of law and easily win.
Click to expand...

That was a CSICOP test, not a JREF test. A JREF test would have been harder. The four she got right were all based on logical guessing. The old, thin man was the heart patient, the woman who walked oddly had the artificial hip, the woman who breathed shallowly was missing part of her lung and the young kid who looked like a healthy college student, was. The ones she missed were the ones that had no obvious external signs.
 
Timothy.
The Challenge is a tool to show that these abilities don't exist.

Why do you have a problem with that?

Why do you have a problem with that?

Why do you have a problem with that?
Click to expand...
 - Timothy

Aye, here's the rub (a rub at least). The Challenge is that JR will pay 1 mill to anyone who can demonstrate paranormal abilities under satisfactory conditions. But Timothy may just be right. Maybe the Challenge has the above bolded motives--may be not. Unless Huntsman is right about "breach of contract without remorse," without a rule stipulating who has final say on positive or negative test result, the test becomes a farce, and it becomes exactly what Timothy thinks it is: a do not pass Go card that is impossible to bypass because JR has the power to quash any test he chooses.

And even the word farce would be difficult to make stick. Think of all the equivocating that has been done on this Forum. If there was a successful applicant, JR could easily explain it away--if he really wanted to (not saying he would)--and the rest of the skeptics might just back him up.

Oh, and I have no problem here--exept with redundancy maybe...;)
 
Last edited:
Beleth said:
That simply isn't true. While it's not spelled out in the Challenge rules, it doesn't need to be -- for an accepted Challenge is a legally binding contract, and if the JREF decided to pick up its ball, the applicant would be able to sue the JREF in a court of law and easily win.
Click to expand...
Even in light of rule seven about not being able to sue the JREF? If that is the case, then my lack of legal proceedings has been made known. However, rule seven seems to shut the door on any complaints on the part of applicants and opens the door to allow the JREF to do just about anything.
 
ruach1 said:
Timothy. - Timothy

Aye, here's the rub (a rub at least). The Challenge is that JR will pay 1 mill to anyone who can demonstrate paranormal abilities under satisfactory conditions. But Timothy may just be right. Maybe the Challenge has the above bolded motives--may be not. Unless Huntsman is right about "breach of contract without remorse," without a rule stipulating who has final say on positive or negative test result, the test becomes a farce, and it becomes exactly what Timothy thinks it is: a do not pass Go card that is impossible to bypass because JR has the power to quash any test he chooses.

And even the word farce would be difficult to make stick. Think of all the equivocating that has been done on this Forum. If there was a successful applicant, JR could easily explain it away--if he really wanted to (not saying he would)--and the rest of the skeptics might just back him up.
Click to expand...

Ruach1,

Are you intentionally ignoring the clear responses to your question. The rules of the Challenge state both the claimant and the JREF must agree before hand EXACTLY what constitutes a success and what constitutes a failure. It additionally states James Randi will not have any input on the outcome once agreed upon. Several people have even copied and pasted the exact wording from the Challenge Rules themselves. What precisely are you looking for besides that very straight-forward wording. No judging, predetermined successes or failures, no interference from JR; I am not sure what more you are asking for.


Santa
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom