You would think more people would want a million dollars

[punkchique]

For those of you who don't know what the JREF Million Dollar Challenge is:
"The Challenge was first introduced in 1964 when James Randi offered $1,000 of his own money to the first person who could offer proof of the paranormal. When the word got out, donors began stepping forward to help, and soon the prize had grown to One Million Dollars."

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226770

Listof challenge applications and email correspondence:

http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43

James gets his fair shar of diverse applicants. Some are funny, some I wouldn't want finding out where I live some are sad and a few are genuinely mentally incapacitated.

My question is mainly directed towards "believers". Why don't more "gifted" people take this challenge? Why wouldn't you? How do you explain people being unable to demonstrate supernatural abilities when subjected to the scientific method?

Do you consider this woman a true psychic? And if she is, why wouldn't she take the challenge? Why don't ALL renowned mediums take it? http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/...er-powers.html

I am legitimately curious as to the thought process behind both believing fully in an ability yet not being willing to prove it for a million dollars. And also if anyone could explain what keeps a person going and believing even after being proven wrong such as the individuals who have taken and failed the JREF Challenge.

[punkchique]

I'm sorry, I forgot to include a link to the Challenge FAQ/rules:

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/...lenge-faq.html

[Of Mike and Men]

I don't understand what your point is, to be honest. First of all, to prove anything to anyone is nearly impossible. If I say, "My hair is blonde (which it is)," I have no way to prove this to you. I can take a picture, give you witnesses, I can give you my hair, etc. But none of this proves my hair is blonde. Sure, it might give us reason to believe my hair is blonde, but it's never provable. Which brings me to the next point.

Science never claims to prove anything. It only provides evidences, not proof. For example, as Dawkins pointed out in his book, "The G-D Delusion," gravity is a theory. He then says, "Anyone who doesn't believe in gravity can go jump off a cliff." Of course, we believe in gravity, it's well accepted, but gravity has not been proved. It has only been supported. So, asking someone to prove anything is rather pointless and relative.

Not only so, you're asking for them to prove the paranormal. According to the dictionary, Paranormal is: ·nor·mal /ˌparəˈnôrməl/Adjective: Denoting events or phenomena such as telekinesis or clairvoyance that are beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding.

How can you prove anything that is still beyond scientific understanding? If science cannot understand it, yet, why bring it under the scientific method? And why should it need to be put under that method anyways? How is the method even a provable method if it weren't for intuitive reasoning, which none is testable.

Lastly, science would need to provide what qualifies as paranormal, and why the qualifications of the paranormal make it paranormal.

[punkchique]

*sidenote: don't take my exclamation marks for shouting. In my head I sound like Bill Nye The Science Guy being Emphatic. haha

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

I don't understand what your point is, to be honest. First of all, to prove anything to anyone is nearly impossible. If I say, "My hair is blonde (which it is)," I have no way to prove this to you. I can take a picture, give you witnesses, I can give you my hair, etc. But none of this proves my hair is blonde. Sure, it might give us reason to believe my hair is blonde, but it's never provable. Which brings me to the next point.

But you can prove things! Stating that your hair is blonde is one thing. Color, or haircolor at least, is subjective. You're right, you could say your hair is blonde i could say its dark brown, neither one of us is wrong, neither on of us is right. However, the JREF is testing abilities. This is as if you were to say "I can make may hair grow 2 inches in 2 minutes by just thinking about it." Now we have something that can be proved! Now we have something that can be measured and can carry out an experiment! First I measure your hair, then I time 2 minutes. Now one of 2 things can happen either your hair has gained 2 inches the second time I measure it which proves your claim OR your hair DOES NOT gain 2 inches which refutes your claim.
Now do you see how something can be "proved"?

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

Science never claims to prove anything. It only provides evidences, not proof. For example, as Dawkins pointed out in his book, "The G-D Delusion," gravity is a theory. He then says, "Anyone who doesn't believe in gravity can go jump off a cliff." Of course, we believe in gravity, it's well accepted, but gravity has not been proved. It has only been supported. So, asking someone to prove anything is rather pointless and relative.

Alright I'll give you that, but I am well aware of the scientific definition of "proof" nothing is ever established as a "truth" it simply has not been shown as fals yet. But come on! Calling something proof is a laymen's way of referring to make it and makes it easier for some to understand. But back to me agreeing with you, I will say this, the JREF is conducting experiments to find evidence of paranormal claims. Better?

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

Not only so, you're asking for them to prove the paranormal. According to the dictionary, Paranormal is: ·nor·mal /ˌparəˈnôrməl/Adjective: Denoting events or phenomena such as telekinesis or clairvoyance that are beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding.

You are misunderstanding that definition of paranormal. You are overlooking this key phrase "normal scientific understanding" emphasis on the word normal. What it really means is, lets go back to the hair example. Normal science has shown much evidence that hair normally grows a microscopic amount in 2 minutes. So your claim that you could grow your hair 2 inches in 2 minutes would be paranormal, meaning above the norm, outside of anything the science has ever witnessed or something that has no apparent explanation. Does this means it can't be tested? Of course not! I just told you how we could construct and carry out an experiment to prove this true or false! In the same way that, for example, a claim of being able to effectively use dowsing rods can be scientifically tested (and has, and proven, sorry, shown evidence to be false numerous times).
What i think you're doing is confusing the meaning of paranormal with the meaning of supernatural which means something that is outside the laws of science such as religious claims. These are no testable thus the JREF does not even attempt to conduct experiments on these.

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

How can you prove anything that is still beyond scientific understanding? If science cannot understand it, yet, why bring it under the scientific method? And why should it need to be put under that method anyways? How is the method even a provable method if it weren't for intuitive reasoning, which none is testable.

See my point above for how to test it (you can also read some of the applications for the challenge which most of them have scientific testing procedures already structured. And we bring things under scientific method because that is the very nature of science itself! If an extraordinary claim can be proven that means there must be an extraordinary explanation (or a very simple one, hint cheating). If Psychics are real, why shouldn't we observe them to try and learn as much as possible! And to the hair example once more: if the experiment had proved that you could in fact grow your hair by thinking about it why shouldn't we study it? The cure to male patterned baldness could by lying right on top of your noggin! But I digress. And I don't understand the last part of your statement, can you explain further please?

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

Lastly, science would need to provide what qualifies as paranormal, and why the qualifications of the paranormal make it paranormal.

Its already been defined, you said it perfectly yourself "Denoting events or phenomena such as telekinesis or clairvoyance that are beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding."

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by punkchique

But you can prove things! Stating that your hair is blonde is one thing. Color, or haircolor at least, is subjective. You're right, you could say your hair is blonde i could say its dark brown, neither one of us is wrong, neither on of us is right. However, the JREF is testing abilities. This is as if you were to say "I can make may hair grow 2 inches in 2 minutes by just thinking about it." Now we have something that can be proved! Now we have something that can be measured and can carry out an experiment! First I measure your hair, then I time 2 minutes. Now one of 2 things can happen either your hair has gained 2 inches the second time I measure it which proves your claim OR your hair DOES NOT gain 2 inches which refutes your claim.
Now do you see how something can be "proved"?

You're forgetting several key concepts of scientific research. First, the study has to be replicable. If Mike is the only person in the world who has hair that can grow 2 inches in 2 minutes by thinking about it, then any other studies must be case studies. While they do provide excellent information, they can be extremely limited in terms of generalizing to the rest of the population, which is a second limitation.

Originally Posted by punkchique

JREF is conducting experiments to find evidence of paranormal claims. Better?

Finding evidence of paranormal claims is necessary if there are to be any scientific studies, so far we are in agreement. However, the purpose of scientific research is to also understand the mechanisms behind something, thus for paranormal events, they have to be not just verifiable but also testable. Returning to the hair example, it is testable since the hair can be examined but if it is along the lines of ghosts, then it's not testable. My point is, there may be some facets of paranormal claims that can be tested but not all of them, which doubts much of the research.

Originally Posted by punkchique

You are misunderstanding that definition of paranormal. You are overlooking this key phrase "normal scientific understanding" emphasis on the word normal. What it really means is, lets go back to the hair example. Normal science has shown much evidence that hair normally grows a microscopic amount in 2 minutes.

In my mind, "normal science" also includes the techniques used to analyze the event. If techniques and equipment are the same that are used for "normal science", this begs the question whether paranormal (i.e. the hair) is within this arbitrary vague bound of normality.

Originally Posted by punkchique

So your claim that you could grow your hair 2 inches in 2 minutes would be paranormal, meaning above the norm, outside of anything the science has ever witnessed or something that has no apparent explanation. Does this means it can't be tested? Of course not! I just told you how we could construct and carry out an experiment to prove this true or false!

Again, the study must be replicable and examine the mechanisms behind the event. Using a ruler and stopwatch is fine but doesn't indicate the hair is paranormal since such equipment cannot assess why or how the hair can grow in such a manner, so you're jumping to conclusions.

Originally Posted by punkchique

See my point above for how to test it (you can also read some of the applications for the challenge which most of them have scientific testing procedures already structured. And we bring things under scientific method because that is the very nature of science itself! If an extraordinary claim can be proven that means there must be an extraordinary explanation (or a very simple one, hint cheating). If Psychics are real, why shouldn't we observe them to try and learn as much as possible! And to the hair example once more: if the experiment had proved that you could in fact grow your hair by thinking about it why shouldn't we study it? The cure to male patterned baldness could by lying right on top of your noggin! But I digress.

If we are to test whether psychics are real, it would take more than writing a bunch of numbers hidden and asking the psychic to state those numbers. The only way they can be determined to be extraordinary is if the mechanisms behind their abilities are assessed and found to be statistically significant, that is, ensuring they don't have amazing luck in guessing numbers.

Originally Posted by punkchique

Its already been defined, you said it perfectly yourself "Denoting events or phenomena such as telekinesis or clairvoyance that are beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding."

I'm not sure if Mike and I are thinking of the same idea, however, scientific research that investigates a particular phenomenon often uses inclusive and exclusive criteria. That is, suppose I were conducting a study of nocturnal epilepsy. My inclusive criteria would be that the epileptic episodes occur during the night, whereas my exclusive criteria would be epileptic episodes that occur during any time of the day or brought on by light stimulation. Using this analogy, paranormal is a large broad area, so if a study were to examine a particular facet, such as psychics, there must be inclusive and exclusive criteria. Furthermore, if certain psychics are found to indeed be psychic while others are not, then it is necessary to construct a label or criteria for non-psychics.