March 27, 2000

Million Dollar Challenge Criticism

We ran the last update for the first two days without the two major illustrations..... Sorry. Things are hectic here as we prepare for the upcoming Fourth Annual Pigasus Award ceremonies on April 1st. A special invitation-only lunch and press event will reveal to the eager world just who will be honored this year.


A few weeks back I referred to a yogi from Benares, India, who was on a Japanese TV show with me performing feats of strength, including the bust-a-big-rock-on-my-chest business. I give you here a photo of this charming and venerable gentleman, for your edification. He is a respectable but naive chap, who I'm sure believes he has some "powers" going for him. We met, discussed various matters on TV, agreed to disagree, and parted as good friends.


PUZZLE SECTION.....

From time to time, I'll drop in a bit of a puzzler for you on this page. Observe the second photo here, which shows a weird spindle-shaped orange-colored figure high in the sky during an electrical storm here in Florida. It's just to the right of center, at the top edge of the print. I snapped this a couple of years back.

Now, UFO buffs have often shown such photos as evidence that extraterrestrial craft are buzzing about in our skies. To them, this is an accepted and recognized variety of UFO configuration. However, there was no UFO in the sky as I snapped this photo. I ask you to examine it and offer your explanation as to its true nature. To further aid you in your inquiry, I provide you with another example, this one not snapped by me, which has the same explanation. What's your opinion?


NEWS: I've accepted the offer of a weekly radio show, to start (appropriately) on April 1st. It will be heard over station "SuperTalk 940" which is at 940 on the AM dial in South Florida, for one hour from 7 to 8 p.m., EST, Saturday nights. It can be heard as well on the Internet, so tune in! I will always be looking for guests to be interviewed, and I'll be carrying equipment for recording conversations with important folks I run into while roaming around the world.


Sad news. Dr. Martin T. Orne, an outstanding authority on the polygraph, psychological coercion, and the limitations of "hypnosis," has died at the age of 72. His was one of the few rational voices to be heard in the still-ongoing academic and legal arguments involving "recovered memories" and "multiple personalities." It was his professional opinion that resulted in the famous Hillside Strangler Kenneth Bianchi losing his appeal from a multiple-murder conviction that was based upon a multiple-personality claim, in 1981. Dr. Orne conducted an excellent test on Bianchi which showed clearly that he had faked being under hypnosis, and had invented his other personalities.

Dr. Orne was frequently the subject of attacks both from the academic world and from the media. He survived these very nicely, and served both the public and the law courts with great dedication. Now that the days of Salem seem to have returned with the outlandish, bizarre, accusations being made by now-grown children against their closest relatives of incredible sexual molestation and other forms of cruelty, we certainly hope that this man's shoes will be filled by an equally-dedicated authority will receive the same amount of respect.


I'm told that one Stephan Matthiesen has prepared a criticism of the JREF million-dollar challenge, that will appear in "Skeptiker." the journal of the German group "Gesellschaft zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften" (GWUP) and I've been sent a summary of points his article will include. I hasten to respond to each of these at this time.

Mr. Matthiesen's comments follow, along with my responses.....

(1) [The challenge] assumes double standards: if somebody fails, it is accepted as failure, but if somebody succeeds, in all likelihood this will be seen not as proof for supernatural powers, but for the claimant being a better magician than Randi.

Wrong. If anyone should fail, after having agreed to the correctness and fairness of the protocol -- which agreement must be arrived at first, in any case -- that person is then automatically invited to try again under the same or a different protocol. "Failure" is never accepted. On the other hand, a single success constitutes a "win," and that cannot be contested; the prize is immediately awarded. The expression "in all likelihood" shows that what follows the comment is Mr. Matthiesen's personal opinion and invention. I am all too familiar with this tendency of my detractors to construct my philosophy and future actions for me, based solely upon their imaginations. Mr. Matthiesen thus matches the expected pattern quite well.

(2) The condition that the result must be obvious for any observer assumes that a complex question can be decided in one single, straightforward test. This is hardly ever the case in science.

No, it is NEVER the case in science, not proper science, at least. Nor is it the case with the JREF challenge, nor has it ever been. This is another creative invention on the part of Mr. Matthiesen. The expression "must be obvious for any observer," describes the nature of the test that would be used. For example, if a claimant were to say that he could fly merely by flapping his arms, and were to step to a nearby window to demonstrate his skill, no judging procedure or statistical analysis would be necessary to decide whether or not his claim had been proved. The result would be "obvious for any observer." There is no assumption here that "one single, straightforward test" would prove anything aside from that one single experiment. In any case, with the claims that have been submitted to us, we find there are very few "complex questions."

(3) The JREF states that it "has no interest in theories or explanations", while every scientist should be interested in precisely that.

I'm sure that Mr. Matthiesen understands quite well what is meant by the phrase that he quotes, but chooses not to. The JREF does not want to hear long, involved, theoretical discussions and rantings, the favorite method used by applicants to avoid getting down to business -- which would be actually stating their claim and getting on with it. They prefer to run on and on endlessly describing how they have discovered the secrets of the universe. That explains our lack of interest in this aspect. I will leave it to the scientists to fall sleep listening to crackpot theories.

(4) It is not well defined what the question is that is being investigated.

Very true, and for an excellent reason. I ask Mr. Matthiesen: how can we possibly define a question before it is asked? This comment of his makes no sense whatsoever. The question for us to ask depends entirely upon the claim. To return to the example above, flying by flapping the arms, the question would be: can this person actually fly solely by flapping his arms? Every claim invokes a different question. I think that should be very obvious.

(5) Therefore the challenge is clearly not scientific, and it is questionable whether support for it is consistent with the skeptical claim as being a scientific movement.

I'm not sure that I quite understand this statement, but we have never stated that the challenge itself is in itself a recognized scientific procedure. We do say that we stay within scientific boundaries when designing the protocol and implementing any tests. To achieve this, we call upon proper academic and scientific expertise to advise us and/or actually conduct the tests.

(6) Noting that the challenge is not meant to be a scientific endeavour, but a publicity thing, I comment that only few "naive believers" are affected, so that the practical relevance is limited, and the money should rather be spent for more useful activities.

I fail to see what Mr. Matthiesen can be referring to as "the money," but perhaps he means the million dollars that we have reserved as the prize money. I do ask him to allow us to decide how to best use that money, and in return I will resist offering him financial advice and direction. I will add here the fact that we are not getting applications from responsible, prominent, well-known, persons and organizations in the paranormal field, but receive only frivolous and fanciful offers. This statement by Mr. Matthiesen appears to be yet another form of alibi used by the "biggies" to explain why they are not coming forward to accept our generous offer. They are very fond of claiming that they have demonstrable effects to show us, but simply choose not to.

Mr. Matthiesen's article runs on about how, in his opinion, the challenge is used in discussions by skeptics to silence opponents. Yes, I think this is often done. That is one reason that the challenge was designed and implemented, so that observers will see that when confronted with the need to prove their claims, most of the claimants merely avoid the issue. We will all have our individual opinions on why this is so. He also says that it is implied that those who do not accept the challenge are charlatans. Not at all. The charlatans, as noted above, do not accept our challenge, it's true. But many more self-deceived and naive persons also refuse to accept. This is an equal-opportunity challenge.

Mr. Matthiesen points out that there are many reasons why people may not want to take the test. I agree, but in our opinion the major reason is that they are very aware that they cannot actually perform as promised. Or, that their claims will fail examination. Again, we will each have our own opinions on that matter.

The million-dollar challenge offered by the James Randi Educational Foundation is genuine, carefully designed, and constantly refined. The fact that the prize sits there unclaimed, is certainly no fault of ours. I do wish that critics such as Mr. Matthiesen would better inform themselves of the facts before rushing into print with tirades that require so much of my time in response.