Marcel Cairo's i2i Challenge

[SkepticalBry]

Mcairo asked:
> Do you know that no one has ever been accepted for the JREF Million Dollar Challenge?

I did not know that -- for the very good reason that it is false.

JREF has accepted and tested quite a few claimants. Under the rules, JREF and the claimant negotiate the test, and to win the million dollars the claimant has to demonstrate twice. The 100% failure rate of tested claimants to do what they said they could do means that they've all failed on the first, preliminary, test. Contrary to Mcairo's reporting, the early and obvious failure of the psychics does not mean that JREF did not accept the challenge.

The million-dollar sponsorship is a fairly recent development. For some years before, Randi offered several thousand dollars of his own money. One can find video of some of the tests. Several professional psychics tried, but in general they learned that their tricks would not work. With the pros steering clear, and then with the prize up to a million dollars, JREF has spent most all their time in the past few years dealing with kooks. The recent rule-change to require a “media presence” is an attempt to avoid that.

Is the JREF challenge a "stunt"? Is Mcairo right about "bias being the obvious"? Absolutely! But make no mistake: the stunt is legit on JREF's part. We skeptics think that psychics will either avoid the test, or re-cast their demonstrations to be within ordinary bounds, or fail. So far that expectation has been correct 100% of the time.

Is there "antagonism and nastiness that surrounds the JREF" challenge? Yeah, O.K., you got me there. We skeptics have not always done ourselves proud on that. Randi has retracted allegations, and at least once he did so only when clearly caught claiming to know what he did not. Some challenge applicants have faced unsportsmanlike conduct. Sorry. I'm still a Randi and JREF supporter, because I believe they are fundamentally correct, and I have never, not even once, seem them run from a legit test.


Mcromer: If you want to really challenge skeptics, you'll need to claim something paranormal, and you'll need to write clearly. Your "challenge" rules here do not make sense. Beyond the basic issues of coherent writing, if you want to "draw media attention to consciousness survival research" you might try demonstrating a result showing survival of consciousness. What have you got?


-Bryan

[daresh]

the we skeptics don't sound skeptical but just dogmatic in their assumption that it is not possible. skepticism is a two edged sword

[ufojoe]

Originally Posted by SkepticalBry

Mcromer: If you want to really challenge skeptics, you'll need to claim something paranormal, and you'll need to write clearly. Your "challenge" rules here do not make sense. Beyond the basic issues of coherent writing, if you want to "draw media attention to consciousness survival research" you might try demonstrating a result showing survival of consciousness. What have you got?

-Bryan

His challenge rules are crystal clear.

He doesn't need to demonstrate survival of consciousness. His attempt
to acquire information through other means than his five senses is
good enough. His rules basically rule out cold reading and leave us
to consider a paranormal explanation.

Once people see this being done, then we can move onto whether or
not this is evidence of survival of consciousness. And that seems to be Marcel's goal. And this challenge will introduce more people to the subject and get the debate going.

IMO...

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by mcairo

I am interested in all comments, observations, objections and questions regarding the nature or construct of this challenge.

Thanks,
Marcel

P.S. BTW, in the first edition of this challenge, I would be the intuitive.

Why not write down the readings without them being rated by the subject.? Then give each of the subjects the 40 readings and get them to rate all 40 of them without them knowing which one is which.

If the readings are really specific you would expect the subject to rate his personal reading high and the other 39 low.

How many of the subjects do you think would be able to select their own personal reading?

[mcairo]

I want to be perfectly clear as to what my intentions are with my i2i challenge (demonstration). The protocol I set up is not meant to be the perfect medium experiment. Dr. Gary Schwartz has done a decent job testing mediums in both double blind and triple blind experiments with no visible gain in bringing scientist to take up his protocol and replicate his results.

Yet, looking at the current Fall TV lineup, "spirit/angel" themed shows abound, marking a year over year rise in public interest for this subject. Perhaps, we've even reached critical mass, making the timing of my experiment even more prescient.

The part of my challenge that some people tend to overlook is that it was designed to take the argument of consciousness survival and study to the streets. The challenge is really a way to draw media attention to the larger cause, not to me. What cause? Simple - Put Consciousness To The Test.

This catchy ad slogan is really directed at scientists at major universities, not at the public. However, since most universities receive some form of public research money, I'm hoping that public interest and media attention would spark a movement among researchers and universities to invest in the study of consciousness survival.

Truly, what the consciousness survival movement really needs is a showman like P.T. Barnum calling people over to the sideshow. P.T. Barnum knew that the best way to get people inside the big top was to give them a sideshow they soon wouldn't forget.

My challenge is a sideshow. Consciousness survival is what's waiting for us all under the big top.

For me, the i2i (or the soul2sole) challenge is no longer about countering James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge or trying to convince the skeptical community to take Psi research seriously. Now, it's all about elevating the interest and investment of the scientific community by promoting my Put Consciousness To The Test. campaign.

It may take me a year or two to get this off the ground, but risking the derision of new atheists everywhere, I walk with faith.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by mcairo

I want to be perfectly clear as to what my intentions are with my i2i challenge (demonstration). The protocol I set up is not meant to be the perfect medium experiment.

Do you have any comments about my suggestions?

Try it with just five subjects. Do you think that all five would be able to identify their 'true' reading from the other four?

If you are just interested in entertainment then say so up front.

[mcairo]

Chris,

The add-on to the experiment you are suggesting has already been done by Dr. Gary Scwartz. It's nothing new, and in my opinion, nothing relevant.

Though my experiment may contain some entertainment value, it is truly intended as a "skeptic-proof" public experiment. Get it.

I doubt you have produced many events, designed focus groups or been involved with any experiential marketing, but I have. It takes a lot to get people to volunteer.

My experiment was designed to be portable, spontaneous, and yes, entertaining. It would be a miracle to show up randomly in a public space, convince 40 people to be read by two mediums for 10 minutes each, and then wait for the results. Remember, the people chosen from the streets have other things going on.

I have already designed another experiment that is intended for researchers in a lab environment, but the i2i experiment is not it.