Ask James Randi to take Victor Zammit's million-dollar challenge.

[Psibeliever]

Mr Zammit has asked psychics and other paranormal practitioners NOT to deal with Randi until Randi takes his version of the MDC. Two can play the same game.

Let's see Randi take his own medicine.

[Psibeliever]

And I'm not impressed by Randi and his challenge. But what's good for one side is good for the other.

And the description of Zammit in the skepti-wiki sounds a lot like Randi and his challenge.

[Arouet]

I've gone in detail about Zammit's version of the MDC before (maybe even in a thread with you? can't be sure). Unless he's completely changed it is nothing like randi's. His challenge, if I remember it correctly is to convince a panel of three people picked by him that an entire book that he wrote is wrong. The applicant wins if the three people are convinced.

How is that anything like the Randi challenge which is to mutually come up with a protocol where the success or failure can be objectively determined and it's based on the person's own claims, not on the claims of someone else?

[Psibeliever]

There have been many threads also about Randi's problems, not the least of one case in which he backed out with the Greek homeopathist. Zammit has also spoken of the many serious flaws in Randi's challenge, and I think Zammit has decided to turn the tables on him.

But let's say we ask Randi to prove HIS beliefs. Let him prove the statement he made in this video, where, 41 seconds in, he says he can't say it doesn't exist and the powers don't exist. Well, he's been saying that for decades that psi doesn't exist, and now he says he CAN'T say it doesn't exist.

Oh, and one other thing - Randi has a choice of accepting or refusing, and, if he refuses, that's evidence Zammit is right. Like I said, two can play the same game.

[Arouet]

On my blackberry right now so can't watch the video but it sounds like Randi is saying that you can't prove that psi doesn't exist - which is exactly right. All you can do is look at the evidence in favour of it. That's consistent with what most skeptics say. o

[Psibeliever]

Originally Posted by Arouet

On my blackberry right now so can't watch the video but it sounds like Randi is saying that you can't prove that psi doesn't exist - which is exactly right. All you can do is look at the evidence in favour of it. That's consistent with what most skeptics say. o

Don't waffle. He's been saying this is all woo woo.

[Craig Weiler]

Certainly every argument and every objection that skeptics make in favor of Randi's challenge can be used with Zammit's challenge.

"If skeptics are so sure of themselves, why don't they take the challenge? What are they afraid of?"

"Skeptics are afraid of Zammit because he exposes them for the frauds and charlatans they are."

"Who cares if the test is hard? If skeptics really can prove their point it should be easy. Just walk right up, explain the evidence and collect your million. Easy!"

"If you don't think it's fair you can always sue Zammit. But no one does because he's right."

See how easy it is to be insulting and confrontational and make sweeping assumptions? All of these arguments have been directed at me with regards to Randi's challenge.

[Psibeliever]

And don't forget, tell Randi he doesn't have to take it, and, when he refuses, use that as a propoganda tool.

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by Psibeliever

Don't waffle. He's been saying this is all woo woo.

Right, that's not the same as saying that it's impossible. (not that I'm a fan of the term.)

Originally Posted by Craig Weiler

Certainly every argument and every objection that skeptics make in favor of Randi's challenge can be used with Zammit's challenge.

Not sure that's true.

"If skeptics are so sure of themselves, why don't they take the challenge? What are they afraid of?"

Zammit has set a completely subjective manner of winning the challenge. That's not the case with the Randi challenge. If a protocol is agreed upon (and I understand there are often frustrations there), whether an applicant wins or loses will be clear and not subject to interpretation. There is no convincing in the MDC. The protocols will be clear. Can you say that even in the slightest about Zammit's challenge? Also: the MDC is about proving one claim. Zammit's is about disproving many claims. Can you see the difference?

"Skeptics are afraid of Zammit because he exposes them for the frauds and charlatans they are."

Except that you can't conclude that by a failure of Zammitt's challenge. All you can conclude is that you didn't convince the panel. While not passing the MDC is not proof the person is a fraud, at least it will be clear whether they were able to do what they said they could do.

"Who cares if the test is hard? If skeptics really can prove their point it should be easy. Just walk right up, explain the evidence and collect your million. Easy!"

yes, given that the claimant in the MDC is picking what they want to prove. It's a single isolated test. Zammitt has a thesis worth of information to debunk.

"If you don't think it's fair you can always sue Zammit. But no one does because he's right."

If someone passes the MDC and Randi doesn't pay it will be very clear whether someone has passed or not. can you say that about Zammitt's test?

See how easy it is to be insulting and confrontational and make sweeping assumptions? All of these arguments have been directed at me with regards to Randi's challenge.

Thing is, there are many ways to challenge the MDC, others have done it much more effectively. Zammitt fails because his test is NOT a valid counterpart. If it was meant as a satire it'd be fine, but I'm not sure that's the case. Randi is clear that his challenge is a publicity stunt. Does Zammit say the same thing?

[Craig Weiler]

Arouet,

Zammit has set a completely subjective manner of winning the challenge. That's not the case with the Randi challenge. If a protocol is agreed upon (and I understand there are often frustrations there), whether an applicant wins or loses will be clear and not subject to interpretation. There is no convincing in the MDC. The protocols will be clear. Can you say that even in the slightest about Zammit's challenge? Also: the MDC is about proving one claim. Zammit's is about disproving many claims. Can you see the difference?

Zammit is asking people to disprove the evidence for the afterlife. If you're going to disprove it, you have to disprove all of it. That is very clear. I don't know how that can be open to interpretation.

Except that you can't conclude that by a failure of Zammitt's challenge. All you can conclude is that you didn't convince the panel. While not passing the MDC is not proof the person is a fraud, at least it will be clear whether they were able to do what they said they could do.

The MDC doesn't even prove that. People have to agree to tests that are too hard before they can try. I've already proved that in previous threads.

yes, given that the claimant in the MDC is picking what they want to prove. It's a single isolated test. Zammitt has a thesis worth of information to debunk.

See above.

If someone passes the MDC and Randi doesn't pay it will be very clear whether someone has passed or not. can you say that about Zammitt's test?

Either you can disprove the evidence or you can't. That is pretty clear.

Randi is clear that his challenge is a publicity stunt. Does Zammit say the same thing?

Unless you can provide a link here, I don't believe that Randi has claimed that the MDC is a publicity stunt. If it is, then you have no basis for defending the Randi challenge since by definition, it's a fraud.