what IF someone won Randi's challenge

[kellycat]

Now, before the skeptics barrage me with messages that it is impossible...

I am only speaking THEORETICALLY. You know, for fun.

What do you imagine would be the reaction of believers and skeptics? Of the media? Of organized religions? Of the gov't?

[anonymous]

Originally Posted by kellycat

Now, before the skeptics barrage me with messages that it is impossible...

I am only speaking THEORETICALLY. You know, for fun.

What do you imagine would be the reaction of believers and skeptics? Of the media? Of organized religions? Of the gov't?

It would have exactly the same effect as all the other times paranormal phenomena were proven: NOTHING WOULD CHANGE.

Skeptics would immediately disown Randi and say he is senile.

This has happened many times in the past: a skeptic makes an open minded investigation and becomes convinced a paranormal phenomena is real and says so. But none of his skeptical friends believe him.

One example is William Crookes.


http://www.survivalafterdeath.org.uk...rs/crookes.htm

First began his investigations into 'psychic' phenomena in 1869 as a hostile doubter. In his article, 'Spiritualism Viewed by the Light of Modern Science' he declared:

The Press received the announcement with jubilation. It was taken for granted that a scientific man of Crookes' caliber would expose the whole thing as fraud and simple humbug. Foregone conclusions have never been met with more bitter disappointment. Crookes' experiments with Daniel D. Home demonstrated the existence of a 'psychic force' wholly ignored by science.

Crookes proved PK in a laboratory under controlled conditions in 1871:

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org.uk...estigation.htm

TWELVE MONTHS ago in this journal I wrote an article, which, after expressing in the most emphatic manner my belief in the occurrence, under certain circumstances, of phenomena inexplicable by any known natural laws, I indicated several tests which men of science had a right to demand before giving credence to the genuineness of these phenomena. Among the tests pointed out were, that a "delicately poised balance should be moved under test conditions"; and that some exhibition of power equivalent to so many "foot-pounds" should be manifested in his laboratory, where the experimentalists could weigh measure, and submit to it proper tests." I said, too, that I could not promise to enter fully into this subject, owing to the difficulties of obtaining opportunities, and the numerous failures attending the enquiry; moreover, that "the persons in whose presence these phenomena take place are few in number, and opportunities for experimenting with previously arranged apparatus are rarer still."

Opportunities having since offered for pursuing the investigation, I have gladly availed myself of them for applying to these phenomena careful scientific testing experiments and I have thus arrived at certain definite results which I think it right should be published. These experiments appear conclusively to establish the existence of a new force, in some unknown manner connected with the human organization, which for convenience may be called the Psychic Force.

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org.uk...rs/crookes.htm

Crookes later stated:

A harsh attack on Crookes' character and scientific credentials ensured.

....
But even greater things were to amaze his colleagues: the case of Florence Cook and the 'spirit' entity Katie King.
...
Yet again, Crookes had to face the full wrath of ridicule and hostility of his critics. Eventually Crookes abandoned his attempt to convince his scientific brethren. But he never withdrew or modified his opinions during his long subsequent scientific career.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by anonymous

It would have exactly the same effect as all the other times paranormal phenomena were proven: NOTHING WOULD CHANGE.

Skeptics would immediately disown Randi and say he is senile.

Probably

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Who cares what some skeptics would say? The more interesting question is whether the demonstration would be compelling enough to get some scientists interested. It depends to some degree on whether the claimant simply demonstrated some amazing ability or whether the results were based on the usual statistical analysis of dozens of similar trials.

I don't think Randi's state of mind would have much to do with it, since he probably would not be involved in the testing.

~~ Paul

[Psibeliever]

The more interesting question is whether the demonstration would be compelling enough to get some scientists interested.

Some scientists are already interested in psychic phenomena. You know that.

As for what would happen if someone won the prize, Ray Hyman said it would prove nothing, and, for once, I agree with him. The prize is just a gimmick, and it proves and disproves nothing. The test says that the results must be self-evident with no judging or voting is required. Well, evolution is not self-evident; nuclear physics is not self-evident; radio astronomy is not self-evident, so, in the end, the prize means nothing.

Of course, participants must be media personalities, not scientists, which is a very interesting requirement.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Psibeliever

Some scientists are already interested in psychic phenomena. You know that.

Yes, excuse me, I should have said some more scientists.

As for what would happen if someone won the prize, Ray Hyman said it would prove nothing, and, for once, I agree with him. The prize is just a gimmick, and it proves and disproves nothing. The test says that the results must be self-evident with no judging or voting is required. Well, evolution is not self-evident; nuclear physics is not self-evident; radio astronomy is not self-evident, so, in the end, the prize means nothing.

Of course it would prove nothing, since there is no proof in science.

The word self-evident is not a good choice. What the JREF is trying to do is eliminate the necessity of using a judging or voting procedure to gather the data necessary for the statistical analysis. I don't think that evolution and the other things you mention require a judging or voting procedure.

Of course, participants must be media personalities, not scientists, which is a very interesting requirement.

Participants must have "media presence." There are plenty of scientists with media presence.

It's all over next March anyway.

~~ Paul

[Psibeliever]

The word self-evident is not a good choice. What the JREF is trying to do is eliminate the necessity of using a judging or voting procedure to gather the data necessary for the statistical analysis. I don't think that evolution and the other things you mention require a judging or voting procedure.

Evolution and the other things I mentioned were explored in journals and conferences that had judging procedures - those procedures are called peer review. As for voting procedure, there are always controversies in science, and experts in the particular areas are often tallied, to get a sense of who is taking what position.

But, without some form of peer review, how else can anyone really prove anything?

Participants must have "media presence." There are plenty of scientists with media presence.

What about scientists who don't have a media presence? Most research are done outside the media, with trained professionals working in obscurity. If they had a breakthrough, shouldn't they be allowed to win the money?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Psibeliever

Evolution and the other things I mentioned were explored in journals and conferences that had judging procedures - those procedures are called peer review.

But I'm not talking about deciding what to publish. I'm talking about deciding whether some effect occured or not.

As for voting procedure, there are always controversies in science, and experts in the particular areas are often tallied, to get a sense of who is taking what position.

That's fine, but that's not what the JREF is trying to eliminate. It's trying to eliminate judging/voting as part of the statistical analysis of the outcomes of trials.

What about scientists who don't have a media presence? Most research are done outside the media, with trained professionals working in obscurity. If they had a breakthrough, shouldn't they be allowed to win the money?

They were up until the rules were changed in 2007. With only three more years to the challenge, the JREF wanted some of the biggies to come out and play. Surely Sylvia Browne or John Edward or Uri Geller can win the money, no?

~~ Paul

[Psibeliever]

But I'm not talking about deciding what to publish. I'm talking about deciding whether some effect occured or not.

There's always peer review of any experiment, which are published. If the experiment or trial or whatever was not published, then there would be no record of it.

It's trying to eliminate judging/voting as part of the statistical analysis of the outcomes of trials.

There must be some form of judging and voting. A statistical analysis is a form of judging, especially between teams of experts. And voting is a canvassing of opinions from those teams. How is the JREF going to decide if something is proven? IOW, what's the methodology?

They were up until the rules were changed in 2007. With only three more years to the challenge, the JREF wanted some of the biggies to come out and play.

What about Putoff and Targ, the renowned physicists who were referred to as Laurel and Hardy? Or Jessica Utts? Or Freeman Dyson, the renowned Princeton mathematician/physicist?

With three years to the challenge, why not leave it open to any physicist or scientist with the appropriate credentials?

And, ultimately, if the challenges proves nothing, why bother?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Psibeliever

There's always peer review of any experiment, which are published. If the experiment or trial or whatever was not published, then there would be no record of it.

Yes, yes, I agree, but that's not what I was talking about.

There must be some form of judging and voting. A statistical analysis is a form of judging, especially between teams of experts. And voting is a canvassing of opinions from those teams. How is the JREF going to decide if something is proven? IOW, what's the methodology?

The claimant and the JREF have to devise a method of distinguishing hits from misses that does not involve third-party judging.

What about Putoff and Targ, the renowned physicists who were referred to as Laurel and Hardy? Or Jessica Utts? Or Freeman Dyson, the renowned Princeton mathematician/physicist?

What about them? They can apply for the million.

With three years to the challenge, why not leave it open to any physicist or scientist with the appropriate credentials?

I'm sure that most well-known scientists would be allowed to apply.

And, ultimately, if the challenges proves nothing, why bother?

Because it's fun and someone might actually demonstrate something. Can't anyone who claims to have paranormal powers actually demonstrate them?

~~ Paul