Count BlacKJackula: Take the JREF Million Dollar Challenge

If you can do what you claim -- use astrology in such a way that you never have a losing blackjack session -- that will easily qualify for the million-dollar prize offered by the James Randi Educational Foundation:

One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge

The Foundation is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims.

At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant."

If you decide you're going to apply for the challenge, you might post your proposed application on the JREF forum first, and people there will give you objective feedback and help you design the test. (That will probably save you at least a couple of rounds of e-mail with JREF.)

On the other hand, if you decide you're not up to the challenge, I do hope you will show the people here the courtesy of not clogging up this board with a mountain of excuses and rationalizations. (Astrologers and "mediums" seem to be particularly prone to doing that.) Whereas there are billions of people on the planet who would be interested in your successful winning this prize, it's hard to imagine anything more boring than the excuses for why you won't even apply.

(I am now placing my psychic prediction about whether you ever take the challenge in a sealed envelop. Unfortunately, such predictions are not eligible for the prize, since there's nothing paranormal about them.)

the Prog 21 software and often posted on the progression page against progression systems?

But astrologers are tougher nuts to crack. ;-)

You can contact me here.

... after reading the FAQ, it'll be a cold day in hell before anyone pries a nickel from Randi's faster-than-the-eye fingers. A thousand entrants, and not one has passed the "preliminary" test?? Oh, and they won't let you play if *they* determine you might be "metally unstable," or if there's ANY CHANCE of you harming yourself. Is this a joke?

I don't believe in psychics -- but I don't believe in JREF either.

"At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event." Flat out lie.

ETF

I really wanted to go to the convention in January, but it was bad timing for the project I was working on. Hope to make it this year, though! I haven't been to Vegas for over two years -- not since I quit smoking. I didn't think I could handle the temptation to start again in one of the smokiest places on Earth, but I think I'm ready to give it a try.

"Flat out lie."

Well, yes, there is some fine print. How about this, then:
"At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who isn't obviously mentally unstable who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event, provided it isn't something where someone could get seriously hurt."

You might worry that the first clause might be used as a catch-all cop-out -- "anyone who even thinks they have paranormal abilities must be insane, so they are automatically disqualified" -- but the fact that JREF has allowed hundreds of applications proves that they don't use it that way. Basically, it's just to avoid long and utterly pointless "negotiations" with people who aren't playing with a full deck, and JREF gets a lot of those. (The only times I've seen them use that clause were cases where it was difficult to even tell what the claims were, or with people who couldn't quite get it through their heads that the test needed to be something with observable, quantifiable results.) Unless you think that paranormal abilities are only present in such individuals, I don't see that as an unreasonable restriction.

The second clause is partially a matter of legal considerations and partially an ethical matter, I think. Yes, they could (and do) have people sign a liability waiver which would probably stand up in court, but defending against a lawsuit can be expensive even if you win. The ethical considerations seem to me to be even more important. The challenge is really more of a dare than a scientific experiment. Would you dare someone (and offer them a lot of money) to do something dangerous, even if there was a reasonable chance they might do it without getting hurt? How about if you were pretty sure there was no chance at all of success and an extremely good chance of getting hurt, or worse?

"A thousand entrants, and not one has passed the 'preliminary' test??

Hmmm, I'm not sure what you're getting at. How many would you expect to pass?

"At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who isn't obviously ...

Obviously to whom? Obviously to them! They come right out and say it's an adversarial proposal. Adversarial is not objective. They may think anyone who believes in anything paranormal is "obviously" unstable. Or they may think different things on Tuesday and Thursday. Whatever is convenient for them.

the fact that JREF has allowed hundreds of applications proves that they don't use it that way.

I don't see how. Are you saying they can't use this clause after the preliminary test? There are zero applicants at that point.

Basically, it's just to avoid long and utterly pointless "negotiations" with people who aren't playing with a full deck, and JREF gets a lot of those. (The only times I've seen them use that clause were cases where it was difficult to even tell what the claims were, or with people who couldn't quite get it through their heads that the test needed to be something with observable, quantifiable results.)

Are you active in this group somehow? Unless you've personally investigated every case, and the reasons for dismissal, I don't see your point.

mentally unstable who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event, provided it isn't something where someone could get seriously hurt."

Roger, come on now, EVERYTHING is something where someone could get seriously hurt!

"The second clause is partially a matter of legal considerations and partially an ethical matter, I think."

There's very little ethical about this challenge to begin with.

"The challenge is really more of a dare than a scientific experiment."

I agree. So if it's not scientific, what purpose does it serve? Hmmm??

""A thousand entrants, and not one has passed the 'preliminary' test??""

Hmmm, I'm not sure what you're getting at. How many would you expect to pass?"

Roger, if I were to believe that not one entrant in a thousand, among all the people in the world who want a million dollars, could fool the JREF, I would have to believe in the paranormal! A group so impervious to every con is, by it's very nature, a group with extraordinary "extra sensory" perception.

Almost nothing human beings do is accurate to one-tenth of one percent. In this case, it's the whole world versus the JREF on every single trial, so mistake rate ought to be high. There should have been at least two or three actual PAY OUTS by now! The fact that nobody can even pass the "preliminary" test, just makes it a slam dunk for me.

ETF

Last month, there was an article on Slate.com that began like this:

In line to get my badge for this year's skeptics conference in Pasadena, Calif., I recognized the little man standing behind me. He was bald, with a full, white beard, and he looked older than I would have imagined. "Excuse me," he said, "is this the line for the skeptics meeting?" When I nodded, he looked me up and down and replied, "Oh, I doubt that."

Ladies and gentlemen, meet the world's most famous skeptic, the Amazing Randi.

So, I suppose Randi would appreciate your skepticism about JREF. ;-)

But I would say that if your skepticism is based on the belief that the challenge is administered in an unethical manner, I sincerely don't believe that is what protects JREF's million bucks. You suggest that at least 2 or 3 people out of a thousand should have been able to fool them, while I'm convinced it would much tougher than you think to do that. You seem to believe that JREF would just cop out if they thought they were up against someone who might be too clever for them (or presumably if they were up against someone who might possess real paranormal abilities), but I honestly don't believe they would.

Randi is not a scientist or a statistician, but he has access to plenty of both when needed. Randi's specialty is illusion, and he also has plenty of access to other magicians and illusion designers. That's not to say that I think Randi knows how ever trick is done, or could figure it out after seeing it a few times, but rather that he is an expert on the basic principles of illusion (and "paranormal" frauds, which is really the same thing). It's that expertise that protects the million from outright frauds, even in cases where he may not know the exact nature of the trick.

One obvious example is that all magic tricks depend on the fact that the audience doesn't know everything that's going on -- either the props used are not what they seem to be, or the magician or an assistant is doing something that the audience is not aware of. So, of course, Randi will insist on test conditions that eliminate as much of that as possible, even if he doesn't know specifically what it is that's being hidden.

Another slightly less obvious example is that magic tricks generally depend on a certain element of surprise: The audience does not know (except possibly in general terms) what is about to happen, so they do not know what to be watching for. That's the reason that the challenge rules require that the test protocol must be very precisely defined in advance, and absolutely no deviation is allowed during the test. Knowing exactly how the test will be performed makes it easier to add conditions to prevent cheating. A collateral principle is that good magicians never repeat a trick to the same audience, whereas the challenge requires repeating the trick twice. That gives JREF the opportunity to re-evaluate the protocol based on observations of the first test and to tighten the controls and restrictions if necessary (which shouldn't matter if the ability is really paranormal).

Another very important principle is that magicians don't take requests; what you see is what you get. If he pulls a rabbit out of his hat, don't ask him to produce a poodle from your hat. But why not, if it were real magic? Some illusions are designed such that an audience member makes a choice at some point, to increase the illusion that the trick is not totally canned so it "must" be real magic, but in those cases, obviously the mechanism of the trick doesn't really depend on the choice. Many times, I've seen JREF insist on changing the applicant's proposed test protocol in what may seem to be an arbitrary and picayune manner. But what they are clearly getting at is, if the demonstration really depends on paranormal abilities, those changes shouldn't matter, whereas if a fraudulent applicant has invented a way to produce a certain illusion following one particular protocol, he will not be able to do the "same thing" a different way.

You are correct that I have not examined how every application has progressed, but I have definitely followed many of them, and all of those were pursued by JREF in a perfectly ethical and reasonable manner -- reasonable, that is, if you understand that they have no way of knowing if they are up against a clever fraud, a self-deluded true believer, or someone who is simply wasting their time with no intention of following through with testing.

Anyway, if we can get Count BlacKJacula to take the challenge, maybe we can put your skepticism of JREF to the test. I certainly don't think he will be disqualified for mental instability, and I don't think it should be hard to specify test conditions that will be acceptable to JREF, and if he takes my advice and does the test in a real casino where he's winning every session anyway then he isn't really risking anything.

So, I wonder what happened to the Count?

"But I would say that if your skepticism is based on the belief that the challenge is administered in an unethical manner"

I don't know about that, but see, when I grew up, people didn't get to advertise stuff like "At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event." and then take it away in the fine print. "Anyone who can show" actually meant ANYONE, once upon a time.

Also, I absolutely believe there are effects that can be shown, that should today be labeled "paranormal." There are simple experiments you can do, with results that are not understood by current science. (Just as, once upon a time, clocks running at different speeds at high velocities should have been labeled paranormal. There were explanations for this, before Einstein, but they were contrived and plain wrong.) Until Science becomes complete -- which may never happen (after all, Godel proved mathematics will never be complete) -- there will always be legtimate paranormal events.

So, I'm just sure they are legalizing out people who have legitimate claims, under some reasonable definition of paranormal.

But if you like them, that's good enough for me, Roger.

"So, I wonder what happened to the Count?"

Yeah, what happened to that guy?

When Uri Geller, the famous spoon-bending "psychic" was scheduled to appear on the Tonight Show, Johnny Carson contacted James Randi. Carson didn't believe for a minute that Geller was truly psychic, so he asked Randi for a way to test whether Geller was bending spoons via psychic ability. Randi told Carson that Geller worked with his own set of spoons that he'd prepared in advance for the "bending". Randi suggested that Carson insist on providing the spoons on the air, just before the "test".

Sure enough, Geller makes his appearance on the show. He and Carson talk for a few minutes about the world of psychic phenomena, then Carson asks Geller if he'll demonstrate spoon-bending for the TV audience. Geller gladly agrees. Carson then whips out his own spoons and asks Geller to use them. You can almost see the horror on Geller's face; Carson appears stoical. Geller tries to bend Johnny's spoons, obviously without success. Carson graciously gives him a way out, saying that sometimes it's hard to summon psychic energy (or something like that).

Randi himself has bent spoons on various TV programs. To his credit, he doesn't tell you how it's done, but he does insist that no psychic ability is required: it's just a standard "magician's" trick.

I really don't think its true. Whenever I watched Geller perform I saw absolutely nothing happen to the spoons, except when the spoon actually broke which was usually accompanied by some palming and/or a cutaway camera shot. Recently I saw mentalist, and psychic sceptic, Derren Brown perform the same trick. He confused two young girls through autosuggestion, induced a kind of hysteria, to make them believe that the spoon was bending, when it clearly wasn't. I don't think Geller's ability depends on anything as rigged props, though it is just possible he may sometimes use these as backup.

I tend to agree with ETFan about Randi. He just strikes me as another charlatan, promoting scepticism with as little scientific rigour as those he exposes promote psychic powers and the like. We shouldn't make excuses for an unscientific approach even if it does some good work in exposing charlatanism in the process.

"There are simple experiments you can do, with results that are not understood by current science. "

I understand that in his lecture at the last JREF convention, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins expressed concern that Randi might have to pony up the million because of that very thing. That's not a new concern for the challenge, but Dawkins invented a new word for it: perinormal ("in the vicinity of" normal), meaning natural phenomenon that may seem supernatural or paranormal simply because we don't understand them. But we'll have to wait and see if Randi weasels out of paying if something like that comes up.

"A good story except... I really don't think its true."

It's definitely true that when Geller appeared on Carson's show, Randi advised Carson (among other things) to provide all the props, and not to let any of Geller's people near them before the show. And it's certainly true that Geller failed, not only with the spoon trick, but every other trick that he tried that night. You can probably still find the whole video on the web.

There are actually several variations on the spoon bending trick, and I suspect that Randi also told Carson several slight-of-hand things to watch for. But the method that might have the best chance of standing up under close scrutiny from multiple cameras requires pre-bending the spoon several times to soften it up. Of course, I don't know if that's actually the method Geller intended to use that night, but that's just an example of how Randi insists on controlled conditions without needing to know exactly how the trick is done. Geller definitely appeared surprised and uncomfortable when he came out and found a table full of props already there. (He actually said something like, "This scares me," when he came out and saw it, and then after failing at several of the tricks, he motioned toward the table and complained about being "pressured" to perform specific tricks.)

Calling Randi a charlatan is the favorite dodge used by obvious frauds like Sylvia Browne and John Edward to avoid taking the challenge. But for anyone with genuine paranormal abilities -- or, for that matter, anyone who thinks they can devise a trick that can't be detected or prevented -- proving Randi to be a charlatan should be totally trivial: Just take the challenge and see if Randi weasels out of paying. Calling Randi a charlatan simply because you think that's what would happen if someone had real abilities or a too-clever trick is pure ad hominem illogic.

I also don't see any substantiation whatsoever for your accusations of "little scientific rigour" and "unscientific approach". You can't investigate a phenomenon scientifically until you first establish that the phenomenon even exists, which is why I said to ETFan that I consider the challenge to be more of a dare than a scientific experiment. First, prove that you have paranormal abilities, and then I'm quite sure there will be no shortage of scientists who will be more than eager to investigate it. But there is nothing at all "unscientific" about the challenge's "approach", which is simply to objectively determine if the phenomenon can be produced under conditions that rigorously attempt to rule out non-paranormal explanations. The real essence of science is not what we know, but how we know what we know, and the JREF challenge focuses very squarely on "step one."

I'm baffled that James Randi's work evokes such a negative response. I had no idea!

Here's a link to part of one of his documentaries. It includes excerpts from Geller's Tonight Show appearance. The entire clip is 13min 50sec in length; Geller shows up in the first half. Randi later shows how he exposed Peter Popoff as a fraud.

I'm having a hard time understanding how James Randi's work could be seen as anything but, at a minimum, "commendable". I'd love to have a job like his.

From what I've read in the JREF forums, all they'll need to do is duplicate the feat themselves. If others can perform the same feat while having no paranormal abilities, then the feat must actually fall within the "normal" realm.

This is similar to what happened when a man claimed he can raise his dopamine levels at will. The JREF mis-handled that claim. They should've done more research before they accepted his challenge. They would've discovered that such an ability is not unusual at all.

You can read about the "dopamine" claim in the JREF forum.

... that makes it more paranormal, not less. It means it's provable. Look in a recognized dictionary for the definition of "paranormal." You won't find anything about it being impossible to repeatable.

They should just pay up. They should immediately change the wording of the challenge, and they should pay everybody who was discouraged from pursuing the challenge by the unreasonable requirements.

They are giving the impression, with this challenge, that there's nothing paranormal in the universe. The paranormal is all around us. Science is stunningly incomplete. They've only recently discovered this "dark energy," for example. They're not sure it exists, but they think it's the most powerful force in the universe. How's that for equivocating!? Any phenomenon that would demonstrate the existence of dark energy would be a paranormal event, since it's not fully explained by science. Of course, it's repeatable.

I understand there's no legal requirement to pay because there is no contract. But that's their moral obligation, IMO.

ETF