JREF Challenge - Criticisms and Rebuttals

[Mizzark]

This subject has been touched upon before, but too often skeptics (quite offensively) dismiss all criticism of the Randi challenge without even giving any reasons why the criticism is flawed. There is nothing more frustrating than going through a long argument with many specific points about the problems with the challenge only to have a skeptic at the end say something like, "If psi believers spent as much time doing research as they did whining about the Randi challenge, then they might have proven psi by now." So with the newly minted "No Asshole Rule" in play to protect against that sort of thing, I would like to start a discussion about the criticisms of the Randi challenge. I personally find it very arrogant for Randi to say that there is no good reason for anyone with legitimate paranormal abilities to refuse to take his challenge, as I can think of many good reasons. The first one that I would like to start this thread out with is the problem that I hear brought up the least. The problem of trust. Trusting James Randi to approve a fair set of testing protocols for a test of the paranormal would be like trusting James Dobson to approve a fair set of testing protocols for a test of evolution. Even if Dobson was scientifically qualified, I would still be highly uneasy about trusting such an individual, to say the absolute least. (In fact, I think I heard that there is a highly Christian scientist over at Liberty University offering a reward for proof of transitional fossils, though I could be wrong) If anyone has any rebuttals to my point or any more criticisms go ahead and post them, as I would like this thread to be about various criticisms of the Randi challenge, not just the one I brought up. I just thought that the problem of trust would be a good starting point.

[Venom]

I trust James Randi and the JREF team to do a fair and honest job when it comes to testing claimants.

So the real question here is: why don't you? I reckon it's because he doesn't share you're metaphysical view of how the world works.

But nevertheless, he's testing of claimants is straightforward (and transparant), so if they could do what they claim to be able to do, whatever Randi thinks don't interfere with the results: they should succed in the test.

So for me the reason why you don't trust James Randi is unfounded (well it's founded in your belief system, wich Randi does challenge, but not on logical or empirical reasons).

[Psibeliever]

I'm tired of this ongoing debate - I'm a believer, as my name suggests, and I think it does exist. But why should one individual, who has made his career of discrediting psi, be trusted?

In any case, he has apparently conceded that his Million Dollar Challenge (MDC) has had no effect on the psychic industry, so I offer a counter challenge:

if he wants me to take the challenge, he must give me the million dollars up front. Even if I get zero hits, I still keep the money, and psi is proven. Psi will only be disproven if I get less than zero hits.

If he doesn't like it, what's he going to do about it?

[Mizzark]

Venom, to be honest, I think that you jumping to the conclusion that you know why I don't trust Randi is very similar to to Randi jumping to the conclusion that everyone who claims to have paranormal abilities and does not apply for his test is a fraud. I think that it's very bad reasoning on both yours and Randi's part. I though that I was clear enough, but let me put it into concrete terms. I do not trust Randi because of the fact that he is very far to one side of the spectrum of belief combined with the statements he makes and the bad reasoning that he uses and illustrates with those statements. (like saying that anyone who claims to have paranormal abilities has to apply for his test or that person is a fraud, and that there is no other possible explanation) Is it possible that in spite of all of that Randi would still be able to create a fair testing protocol? Yes. However, given all of this, I would never trust him or anyone who thinks that it is good reasoning to say what he has said, unless someone could convince me that it is good reasoning.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Mizzark

This subject has been touched upon before, but too often skeptics (quite offensively) dismiss all criticism of the Randi challenge without even giving any reasons why the criticism is flawed. There is nothing more frustrating than going through a long argument with many specific points about the problems with the challenge only to have a skeptic at the end say something like, "If psi believers spent as much time doing research as they did whining about the Randi challenge, then they might have proven psi by now." So with the newly minted "No Asshole Rule" in play to protect against that sort of thing, I would like to start a discussion about the criticisms of the Randi challenge. I personally find it very arrogant for Randi to say that there is no good reason for anyone with legitimate paranormal abilities to refuse to take his challenge, as I can think of many good reasons. The first one that I would like to start this thread out with is the problem that I hear brought up the least. The problem of trust. Trusting James Randi to approve a fair set of testing protocols for a test of the paranormal would be like trusting James Dobson to approve a fair set of testing protocols for a test of evolution. Even if Dobson was scientifically qualified, I would still be highly uneasy about trusting such an individual, to say the absolute least. (In fact, I think I heard that there is a highly Christian scientist over at Liberty University offering a reward for proof of transitional fossils, though I could be wrong) If anyone has any rebuttals to my point or any more criticisms go ahead and post them, as I would like this thread to be about various criticisms of the Randi challenge, not just the one I brought up. I just thought that the problem of trust would be a good starting point.

How nice of you to use the "No Asshole Rule" to launch what amounts to an ad hominem attack against James Randi.

Can you provide a single example of a fair proposal being rejected by the JREF?

Why not submit a fair proposal and see if it is rejected?

The "Randi is a liar" excuse doesn't cut it.

[Mizzark]

I do not think that this is an ad homenim attack nor did I accuse anyone of being a liar. All I'm saying is that if I am a psychic, (which I'm not) and I want to apply for a test of my abilities, I have to have a lot of trust in the people crafting the test. You need to do more to gain my trust than to simply not lie. You have to show that you are a well-reasoned individual, among other things, and Randi is not, as far as I can tell. Oh, and I can't apply. I don't have any paranormal abilities.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Mizzark

I do not think that this is an ad homenim attack nor did I accuse anyone of being a liar. All I'm saying is that if I am a psychic, (which I'm not) and I want to apply for a test of my abilities, I have to have a lot of trust in the people crafting the test. You need to do more to gain my trust than to simply not lie. You have to show that you are a well-reasoned individual, among other things, and Randi is not, as far as I can tell. Oh, and I can't apply. I don't have any paranormal abilities.

It is an ad hominem attack. You are attacking the person.

The applicant crafts the protocol themselves with input from the JREF. It is up to the applicant to say what they can under what conditions.

Once the protocol has been agreed to and both parties have signed a legally binding document then Randi has no control and his alleged untrustworthiness is irrelevant. This is the critical difference between the MDC and fake challenges such as made by Kent Hovind. Kent Hovind can always move the goal posts and say that that doesn't prove evolution. The same is not true for the JREF MDC. The goal posts are fixed and the judging is not done by Randi.

The only thing that you achieve by personally attacking Randi is to make you and other "psi" proponents appear foolish.

[Psibeliever]

See one allegation about James Randi's dishonest claims.

See also the problems in dealing with the fine print.

But let's say every psychic tries for the prize and fails. Does that mean psi is disproven? Of course not. Even Ray Hyman says the challenge has no scientific value.

[Mizzark]

Randi's challenge protocols have to be approved by Randi. Both parties have to agree. If I don't agree with his protocols, (like if they are unfair, or the bar is set so ridiculously high that no one could ever reach it, even with paranormal abilities) the test does not go forward, and I get called a chicken. I would just want to avoid the whole thing. If Randi was really interested in being fair, he would cede the authority to approve a testing protocol to a more open-minded organization, and only advise that organization while still providing the money. If you want to call what I'm doing an ad homenim attack, then fine. Randi's character is a key part of the whole thing. And don't call me foolish.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Mizzark

Randi's challenge protocols have to be approved by Randi.

Can you provide a single example of a fair protocol being turned down by Randi?

Randi's character is a key part of the whole thing. And don't call me foolish.

By focusing on Randi's character you turn this into an ad hominem attack and you make yourself look foolish especially when you also complain about how nasty the skeptics are.