Thread: James Randi's $1 Million Dollar Challenge

Q. If psychic powers like psychokinesis or precognition really exist why is there no credible laboratory evidence for them?

A. In 1986 a medical study was conducted in the US to test the effectiveness of aspirin in helping those with heart trouble. Had the researchers restricted their study to 3,000 test subjects they would have found that aspirin was no better than a placebo.

But because they had an unprecedented 22,000 people in the study they discovered almost at once that aspirin had an overwhelmingly powerful curative value -- in fact if you take an aspirin a day it will cut your chance of a heart attack by a massive 45%, almost in half.

The reason for this curious result is that what statisticians call the 'effect size' of aspirin is very small (0.03). Even though aspirin is a lifesaver that is now prescribed automatically to every coronary victim, its effect could not be observed in clinical trials until there was a large enough sample -- and it has taken more than 100 years for the effect to be discovered.

Something very similar appears to be the case with paranormal phenomena. The studies conducted in the past with a few hundred or a few thousand subjects produced marginal results that were not much better than chance expectation -- just like aspirin.

In recent years a new approach called meta-analysis has enabled parapsychologists to combine the results of many different studies to make the aggregate results statistically significant.

Some of the most outstanding results so far have come from meta-analysis of experiments like those carried out by Robert Jahn and Roger Nelson of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) programme at Princeton University, where researchers have accumulated years of statistical trials on microscopically small psychokinetic effects -- known in the jargon of the paranormal business as Micro-PK.

Test subjects are asked to try to consciously influence electronic devices whose output should be random, rather like an electronic version of coin tossing.

In December 1989 Dean Radin of Princeton's Psychology Department and Roger Nelson of the PEAR lab published a paper on the meta-analysis of micro-PK experiments not, as might be expected, in a parapsychology journal but in the respected physics journal Foundations of Physics. Their paper was entitled, 'Evidence for consciousness-related anomalies in random physical systems.' In their analysis, Radin and Nelson tracked down 152 reports describing 597 experimental studies and 235 control studies by 68 different investigators involving the influence of consciousness on microelectronic systems.

Radin and Nelson's studies showed that the aggregate of all these trials dramatically provided powerful evidence for micro-PK. For they found that the odds against the overall result being the result of chance was 1 in 1035.

To understand how unlikely it is that this result was obtained by chance, it is like finding a lottery ticket in the street, finding that it is the winning ticket and you have won first prize of millions -- and then continuing to find the winning lottery in the street every week for a thousand years.

That such findings continue to be dismissed shows more clearly than anything could that the \"skeptics\" are not evaluating the data with extra care -- they are in denial.[/b]

please note in fact if you take an aspirin a day it will cut your chance of a heart attack by a massive 45%, almost in half. 45% and I think someone said that people should be able to prove psi 85% of the time, Randi thinks this way too... science does not!

Firstly, I'll dismiss all the arguments above.

Perhaps instead of whining about it all, you should take the test. It's very well thought out after 1,000+ claimants. Usually they do the prelimnal (first) test at your residence, and nobody's even passed that. Passing that would make me defintely think again about all this stuff.

Originally posted by Kaniaz
Firstly, I'll dismiss all the arguments above.

Oh... ok thats that then

Are you Randi? That sort of dismissing of facts sounds about right.

Perhaps instead of whining about it all, you should take the test. It's very well thought out after 1,000+ claimants. Usually they do the prelimnal (first) test at your residence, and nobody's even passed that.[/b]

If the Randi organisation allowed (funded) the testing of 10,000 people at once (non of whom need to claim psi skills) under the directorship of the psi skeptic Richard Wiseman in say a test to see if a person knew they were being watched in a closed room by remote camera, by monitoring physical subliminal cues like skin conductivity then I would be happy to take part.

If you want me or others to levitate dolphins then I'm afraid I can't Randi only wants to see the aspects of psi demonstrated that he and everyone knows are not true, its the safest bet in history

So that means out of 1000 people who claim they have these abilities, not one has met standards??
Do you think they'll use the, 'i can't do it when people are watching' excuse?

Originally posted by pantalimon+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pantalimon)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Kaniaz

Firstly, I'll dismiss all the arguments above.

Oh... ok thats that then

Are you Randi? That sort of dismissing of facts sounds about right.[/b]

Yes. I'm Randi. He is posessing me through possesssionkinesis.

If you want me or others to levitate dolphins then I'm afraid I can't Randi only wants to see the aspects of psi demonstrated that he and everyone knows are not true, its the safest bet in history [/b]

Read:

I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions. Such demonstration must take place under these rules and limitations.[/b]

That means anything that cannot be a fluke, if you like. If it means a speck of dust moving across a table in the same route each time, then even that will do.

Hmm, that would mean that Randi would like to observe someone who claims they can live off water and an invisible life force, alone? No food at all? You would think so.

While searching for failed claimants, all I found was negative towards Mr Randi.
Here is the letter that Mr James Randi sent to an applicant (Mr Kolodzey from Germany) to the JREF Prize:

Date: 6/18/99 12:03 PM

Mr. Kolodzey:

Don't treat us like children. We only respond to responsible claims.

Are you actually claiming that you have not consumed any food products except water, since the end of 1998? If this is what you are saying, did you think for one moment that we would believe it?

If this is actually your claim, you're a liar and a fraud. We are not interested in pursuing this further, nor will we exchange correspondence with you on the matter.

Signed, James Randi.
(A hard-copy of this letter will be sent by post to you, today.)

James Randi Educational Foundation
201 S.E. 12th Street (Davie Blvd.)
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316-1815



James Randi doesn't sound so fair after all. Here is the page I received this information from: http://www.alternativescience.com/randi-retreats.htm
If you believe that this page is lying, I can find more.

There are numerous accounts of this. If you think this is a one-off, then read this:

"A number of persons have been asking me why I won't test any more of these claimants who say that they don't eat or drink anything for years on end. There are a few dozen of them out there at this time, and new ones come up every month or so. "

http://www.rense.com/general50/james.htm

"I've been out on a couple of these expeditions in the USA, and I get bored out of my mind sitting in a car in a parking lot waiting for the claimant to emerge from a Holiday Inn room, sneak down the stairs, and visit the local burger joint for the needed nourishment."

I thought James Randi was not involved in the testing process? I was told that it is conducted by third parties.

The more I read about JR, the more I find out how much of a dick he is. He often calls claimants to be 'frauds' or 'self-deluded fools'. Yet:

Randi's most recent appearance on the Larry King show, King asked Randi: "Is one of the possibilities that Sylvia [a believer of the paranormal] is telling the truth?" Randi's response to this was: "Absolutely." It would seem that Randi would have us believe that he has not yet made up his mind about Browne's alleged "abilities," and only wants to see her tested fairly. If this is Randi's attitude about Browne, then why does he not apply the same logic to others who have attempted to apply for the Challenge?

It is claimed by doctors of an Ahmedabad hospital that Mr Jani lived healthily for ten days without water nor food. Mr Randi, when commenting on Mr Jani makes sure to mention that

Mr. Jani, who dresses in the female costume of a devotee of the goddess Ambaji, a red sari-like garment, nose ring, bangles and crimson flowers in his graying hair...

Don't believe everything you read, regardeless of wether not it's on "your side".

James Randi may seem like a "dick" to you. Regardless, I think his style of writing gets to the point and dosen't dance around saying lots of nice words to cushion the fall. He can respond to letters in whatever way he wishes. If he wants to write:

"You suck, you didn't pass, cusscusscusscusscuss"

Then that is ultimately his decision, and there's nothing you can do about it. Maddox comes to mind.

Hmm, that would mean that Randi would like to observe someone who claims they can live off water and an invisible life force, alone? No food at all? You would think so. [/b]

Actually, I wouldn't. A human can live for up to 9 weeks without food, and just water. How impratical it would be to sit there for 2 months, give or take a week, with all those possible chances to cheat.

While searching for failed claimants, all I found was negative towards Mr Randi.[/b]

What?

Here is the letter that Mr James Randi sent to an applicant (Mr Kolodzey from Germany) to the JREF Prize:

Date: 6/18/99 12:03 PM

Mr. Kolodzey:

Don't treat us like children. We only respond to responsible claims.

Are you actually claiming that you have not consumed any food products except water, since the end of 1998? If this is what you are saying, did you think for one moment that we would believe it?

If this is actually your claim, you're a liar and a fraud. We are not interested in pursuing this further, nor will we exchange correspondence with you on the matter.

Signed, James Randi.
(A hard-copy of this letter will be sent by post to you, today.)

James Randi Educational Foundation
201 S.E. 12th Street (Davie Blvd.)
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316-1815 [/b]

That is perfectly correct of James Randi to say. I'm sure any good doctor will tell you you can't live much longer than 9 weeks without food. It's perfectly impossible for that guy to of lived like that. Please tell me you didn't actually believe that claim?

James Randi doesn't sound so fair after all. Here is the page I received this information from: http://www.alternativescience.com/randi-retreats.htm
If you believe that this page is lying, I can find more. [/b]

Note, from other pages that are run by enemies of James Randi.

There are numerous accounts of this.[/b]

Once again, from enemies of James Randi.

I thought James Randi was not involved in the testing process? I was told that it is conducted by third parties. [/b]

Haha. Note nobody has ever taken the real test, and if you read everything properly, you'd know that the JREF conduct the first test to make sure it's not just a load of bullshit.

The more I read about JR, the more I find out how much of a dick he is. He often calls claimants to be 'frauds' or 'self-deluded fools'.[/b]

And that they are.

It is claimed by doctors of an Ahmedabad hospital that Mr Jani lived healthily for ten days without water nor food. Mr Randi, when commenting on Mr Jani makes sure to mention that [/b]

Doctors that could of easily been paid, you'll agree. It's proven that you can live for about 3-4 days without water.

And finally, your comments about him being a dick. He has every right to be "a dick" if he so wishes. That is no reason not to take the test.

That is perfectly correct of James Randi to say. I'm sure any good doctor will tell you you can't live much longer than 9 weeks without food. It's perfectly impossible for that guy to of lived like that. Please tell me you didn't actually believe that claim?
[/b]

Although I don't believe in "magic", what you said above doesn't make any sense at all. "Perfectly impossible". Now, you of all people, should know that this "contest" isn't to test the possible. He is making this challenge to prove anyone wrong who thinks they can do the impossible. He isn't going to test people that can do something that is possible. If someone claims they can do something considered "impossible", he should test them.

By the way, I'm pretty sure it is to live 9 weeks without food. But you have to do it right.

Originally posted by wasup

That is perfectly correct of James Randi to say. I'm sure any good doctor will tell you you can't live much longer than 9 weeks without food. It's perfectly impossible for that guy to of lived like that. Please tell me you didn't actually believe that claim?

Although I don't believe in \"magic\", what you said above doesn't make any sense at all. \"Perfectly impossible\". Now, you of all people, should know that this \"contest\" isn't to test the possible. He is making this challenge to prove anyone wrong who thinks they can do the impossible. He isn't going to test people that can do something that is possible. If someone claims they can do something considered \"impossible\", he should test them.

By the way, I'm pretty sure it is to live 9 weeks without food. But you have to do it right.[/b]

You will die if you do that.

Nobody would pass up a chance for a million dollars.

Randi probably also dosen't want to get in trouble if he accepts this guy, the guy sits in this room, and dies when he tries to hold out long enough without eating.

And "perfectly impossible". If I was Randi, I would accept this kind of claim:

"I can make pens move with my mind."

I wouldn't accept:

"I can jump onto a bed of metal skewers from 10,000 feet in the sky and survive."

Because:

A) I'd rather that person didn't die trying, and me get in trouble (the law is odd like that).
B) It's a waste of my time in the first place, because you just can't anyway.

A few more examples:

I would accept:

"I can levitate myself."
"I can see auras."

I wouldn't accept:

"I can blow up an entire street with my mind" - Science is pretty damn sure you can't do that.
"I can go into space with a spacesuit and survive (ie: not breathe)" - Science is pretty sure you can't do that either - and you wouldn't want them to die trying.
"I can live without food for more than 9 weeks" - Medical Science is pretty sure you can't do that - and once again, you don't want them to die trying.
"I can make pink elephants spontaneously appear" - Obviously a waste of time.

There's two kinds of claims:

* Ones that aren't a waste of time/could happen (ie: telekinesis)
* Ones that are obviously a load of crap/have an extremely slim chance of happening (ie: pink elephants spontaneously appearing)

And which would you rather spend time doing? Claims that could have an anwser, or claims that are just a waste of time?

Oh well, if you all still have a whine, talk right to him: [email protected], instead of making me act as some sort of unoffical spokesperson. We currently have zero claims on the competition front. How surprising.

Oh, yes, and will somebody please get round to just taking the test now, instead of moaning about how he's a dickhead, how he's treated others, what time of day it is, etc.

Originally posted by Kaniaz
Oh, yes, and will somebody please get round to just taking the test now, instead of moaning about how he's a dickhead, how he's treated others, what time of day it is, etc.

No one who has stayed in this thread to actually discuss the matter has claimed any special abilities.

Originally posted by Uriel+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Uriel)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Kaniaz

Oh, yes, and will somebody please get round to just taking the test now, instead of moaning about how he's a dickhead, how he's treated others, what time of day it is, etc.

No one who has stayed in this thread to actually discuss the matter has claimed any special abilities.[/b]

I never said that the people here had the special abilites. Note somebody, not "you people", "the people arguing", etc. I should of put "having people moaning". Sorry, my bad.

Look I don't see the problem of understanding, break the problem down like this.

1.Randi and many of the public only want to see proved/disproved abilities of an extraordinary nature like for example spoon bending.

2. Real psi has not yet been proved, like a subatomic particle it is decribed but as yet unproved. Many intrested in this feild think that true psi is a very very weak effect sense (if that be the right word) and has evolved in certain animals. If its anywhere near as weak as subatomic particles we might need to refous our intent as high-energy particle accelerators needed to delve into sub particles cost a lot, a new one is being built in europe it costs 6 billion.

3. Randi has no intrest in investigating psi phemonenon, he does have an intrest in exposing psi frauds. This is fine but its no where near saying that psi is untrue. Randi is a showman like many of the fakes he tests.

Come on you have to seperate the two, Randi is no scientist and I don't think he's ever laid claim to be...

Ok, let's do it your way. He's not a scientist. Will you go take the test now?

Originally posted by Kaniaz
Ok, let's do it your way. He's not a scientist. Will you go take the test now?

Sure I claim I can make beers disapear... oops there goes another. 8)

Originally posted by Uriel
You're right in that individuals making claims to psychic or psionic powers can be disproven. But how many disproven individuals negates or proves a theory?

Good question. The fact is, you can't fully disprove something purely based on the fact that nobody can prove it true, like with the age-old question: is god real? However, out of all of the people who claim to be psychics, with all the opportunities they've had to prove the existance of mind powers, there isn't a shred of proof out there! And the funny thing about this is that the supposed psychics say they can summon these powers at will, which means it should be easy as pie to just go ahead and pass James Randi's test, or some other test to prove psi powers true, once and for all! So, the fact that mind powers haven't been proven doesn't mean they've been proven false, but it does say a heck of a lot about the likelyhood of them being anything more than hokus-pokus when you think about how incredibly easy it should be for the psychics to prove their case (if, of course, they actually do posess mind powers). But they still haven't, unfortunately.

This guy doesn't seem to be a dick any more than he is a champion, it seems more like bitterness and an anger fueled by failure from applicats more than anything.
There was a few people on the news earlier on in the year in Aus and they claimed all they needed for living was oxygen, and prayer/meditation. This news programm challenged the leader of this group to prove it. After a few days she was hospitalised, it proved the point quiet well.

Although we are beginning to understand alot of these strange subjects, it doesn't seem wise to claim absolutely stupid things, not being able to eat and stuff is just looking at physics and pulling a face at it, (metaphorically speaking), all that will happen is that you will be crushed by the laws of nature.

In perspective, this is like a whole team of sports players, claiming that they each can do superhuman efforts on the big day, then arriving to that day and they pull of the worst game in history. Maybe it's time to give other people credit, when credit is due, like a scientist proving that a virus can be killed by a type of chemical for example. In hind-sight we could laugh at our opinions that we are making now, as futuristically all this might be common-place. But seriously, unless we see it happen on live tv or something, these people that claim all this stuff, should stop winging all the time at us, calling us 'no-faith' type of people.

But seriously, unless we see it happen on live tv or something, these people that claim all this stuff, should stop winging all the time at us, calling us 'no-faith' type of people.[/b]

Look I'm really not getting at you Xisdence just making a point but this is just typical of the TV generation, I want it now, I don't want to read, I want to be spoon fed everything. Come on this isn't science, I think in my posts I've shown that Randi is only intrested in testing those bonkers individuals and not intrested in the more difficult task of proving psi in a correct scientific way.

Anyway lets look at his methods of testing the mad and fakers, you are allowed to negotiate your testing procedure. If this were a scientific study you say test me about 50 times a day for the period of at the minimum a few years and test me against a control subject who will attempt to do the exact same thing. The data will be examined to see where the the events differ from the baseline of the control subject... not very TV is it. Randi has been asked but will not agree to use proper scientific methods. All he wants is the circus sideshow for TV, the one shot, step into the limelight and do your thing, "come on its just like switching on a light switch!"

Randi has been asked but will not agree to use proper scientific methods.[/b]

He has? Can I see some evidence (ie: his site, some other site, etc etc)

Originally posted by Kaniaz

Randi has been asked but will not agree to use proper scientific methods.

He has? Can I see some evidence (ie: his site, some other site, etc etc)[/b]

Yes you may

The Randi/Schwartz episode

That these doubts about the genuineness of Mr. Randi's dedication to objective research are far from theoretical may be concluded from the efforts made by Professor Gary Schwartz of Arizona University in designing his multi-centre, double-blind procedure for testing mediums. Schwartz was not interested in the prize money: he merely sought to obtain Mr. Randi's approval for his protocol for testing mediums - and he duly modified it to met Mr. Randi's suggestions. Having falsely declared that the eminent parapsychologist Professor Stanley Krippner had agreed to serve on his referee panel, Mr. Randi ensured that the other judges would be his skeptical friends Drs Minsky, Sherman and Hyman, all well-known and dedicated opponents of anything allegedly paranormal.

As the ensuing Randi/Schwartz correspondence (which Mr. Randi declined to print on his website) makes clear, when the outcome of the experiment proved an overwhelming success, Mr. Randi subsequently confused a binary (yes/no) analysis with the statistical method required to score for accuracy each statement made by a medium, and falsely accused Dr Schwartz and his colleagues of selecting only half the data for analysis. He then derided the publication of Professor Schwartz's findings in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, the world's oldest scientific peer-reviewed publication devoted to the paranormal, and in which Mr. Randi himself has published contributions. He criticised the fact that the Schwartz findings appeared in neither Nature nor Science, although he must have been aware of the long-standing refusal of these two leading scientific journals to publish anything touching on the paranormal. He then reported that one of the gifted mediums, John Edward, could have seen the sitter through a 2\" curtain gap, regardless of the facts that the crack was about quarter of an inch, was subsequently sealed from ceiling to floor, and that readings were later done long distance. Mr. Randi declined an invitation to see all the raw footage for himself, while protesting that he would never [be allowed to] see it. Yet all the media representatives who visited the Arizona laboratory saw the raw footage, as did magicians and visiting scientists. Mr Randi specifically declined an invitation to be videoed viewing the data and commenting on it.

Equally, despite his confident assertions that cold reading can produce results as impressive as any from a platform medium, he declined an offer to prove it by comparing his performance with that of a genuine medium, surely a crucial test. Similarly, Mr. Randi accused the experimenters of \"blatant data searching\", i.e. remembering the hits and forgetting the misses. This was false, and could readily have been shown to be so . He thereafter publicly declined to read any of Professor Schwartz's emails, having confined himself to deriding the Professor for believing in the tooth fairy, making wild claims and being a \"doctor who embraces bump-in-the-night theories without a trace of shame\". Further, that he had been a colleague at Harvard of Dr John Mack, \"the man who has never met anyone who hasn't been abducted by aliens\", and similar abuse. This is the language and conduct of the gutter, not of an honest difference of opinion expressed in civilized and restrained terms about scientific issues..

Mr. Randi notoriously failed to fulfil his boast to be able to replicate Ted Serios' \"thoughtography\" tests (as described by his investigator, Dr Jule Eisenbud in The World of Ted Serios, Jonathan Cape, 1968) and has consistently ignored efforts by Mr. Maurice Grosse, the principal investigator of Britain's most famous recent poltergeist event, the Enfield Case (See Guy Lyon Playfair's book This House is Haunted, Souvenir Press, 1980), to examine the recorded visual and aural evidence to support a claim of paranormality and apparent veridical messages from a discarnate entity.

Worse still are the multiple errors of fact, admixed with derision, abuse and misrepresentation, which Mr. Randi makes in his book Flim-Flam (1980) about a number of distinguished scientists, notably Russell Targ, Harold Puthoff and Charles Tart and their roles in the remote viewing experiments with Ingo Swann and the clairvoyant claims of Uri Geller. That Randi's denunciations turned out to be mainly a tissue of lies is apparent from the penetrating account given by parapsychologist D. Scott Rogo in Psychic Breakthroughs Today (Aquarian Press, 1987, pp.216-226), and devastatingly amplified in a recent website publication by Michael Prescott (http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm) [/b]

I can agree pantalimon that Mr.Randi (from you above post) may have manipulated the testing conditions to suit his commercial audience. Co-incidently i saw a show about him about 3 hours ago, where a guy claimed he could read people's minds by testing the strength in they're fingers when asked questions. Simply, Mr.Randi held a substance in one hand, while the 'claimer' held his other hand, doing stuff to his fingers. This substance in Mr.Randi's hand was either a chemical or water. Out of 20 attempts of the 'claimer' trying to read Mr.Randi's mind to see what the substance was, he got it wrong 12 times, out of a 50% chance, that's worse than just guessing. The reason why it seems these people can read minds or heal using they're hands is because of the placebo effect in patients. They will feel better, but not becuase of the healer or whatever.
Or another example of 13 people who claim they can feel people's aura/energ field's, heal them ect......a girl made a un-biased test to see if these people could really do it. After each one was tested many times, out of 10 they got an adverage in the range of only 4. Keeping in mind this test involved the people putting both they're hands through holes in a carboard slide, so the tester and person being tested couldn't see each other. Then the tester put they're hand over either the left or right hand of the person, and that person would say which hand they could feel the energy coming from, either left or right, so a 50% chance of sucess. Even guessing can produce better results. Look at it either way, it doesn't even give credit to the 'claimers', it makes them look silly.

A good as that report is, it's no better than one prepared by a sceptic, or benefiting third party which i think this is.

I don't know how much more simple it needs to be, i mean if you do the testing of a claimer and normal person over years and compare results, then that is obviously showing that there is almost no distinguishable difference in the two's abilties. Even so, any effect could be mostly contributed to the 'placebo effect' after this great amount of time.

We don't want to be metaphorically spoon fed this information, we want to see and not just hear stories of sucess. To be honest, how can you prove something in this nature by just reading about it, you can read an equation but you can't read about a person being levitated. Therefore TV being used as a dummy for the commercialist pig is nonsense, it is a viable tool to be used to convey multiple levels of information, audio/visual.

Why does the ancient history of magick seem so much more deep and true than today's, well id be thinking that it is from the lack of testing mediums, and state of mind of primitive, highly religious cultures which hung on to anything possibly perceivable as being paranormal.
It comes to a point where with the knowledge we have today, the 'clamiers' of these abilities need to step on the podium, i have never said it was impossible, i think it is. But can people do it now, well so far knowone has got any evidence that really proves it.
The shows on Tv that show psychics or watever talking to audience members dead relatives/friends. Well i have seen a 'behind the scenes' lok at one of these. Audience members where selected and probed, had background checks, had friends asked questions ect, all in a manner which would not seem obvious. The psychic then was informed about these people, and these were the ones he chose to select for the spirits wanting to contact. That way, there was no spirit being contacted, just alot of "i can hear the messages now" and hmmm ahhh (with all the background information coming to his mind) and then it was yes it's someone named greg, he says he is still enjoying pool ect ect, which could easily be found out by be-friending this persons neighbour at a bar or local fast food joint ect.

With all of this critisicm of Mr.Randi not providing adequate testing grounds for the challege, why don't all these paranormal gifted people develop they're own, and prove it to us. If these abilities can do so much for our lives, then they are robbing and denying us many possible treatments and life gifts that we don't normally have. The arguement has now shifted from proving you can do something that is paranormal to criticizing Mr.Randi, this surely shows signs that these 'claimers' are now pulling at straws.

I believe that the paranormal is possible, somewhere and somehow. It's like believing that we can live on pluto, we know it but we also don't, the debate won't exist anymore until the first person lives there.

As much as this is debated, we are all on the same grounds, trying to prove something which is not entirely understood, both by supporters of the paranormal and by scientists. I think everyone here has good opinions and have provided excellent posts.

Credit is given when credit is due, don't use faith as an excuse, and don't perceive science as being an infant of information, it has come along way. Surely, science is at the point where it can test to see if someone can bend a solid metal bar in front of a live audiece, or levitate an orange. But of course the only things which can't really be tested, will be the things that will remain of debate, all others will be exterminated by failure to provide adequate reason to believe it can be done, or failure of anyone to prove so.

Still got so many ideas, but this is long and jumbled up enough.

Thanks if you got this far, and didn't just read a couple of lines and spew out an angry response

I don't know about levitaters, mediums and spoon benders, maybe their is truth out there amongst the fakers? My point is that Randi's challenge is a test to uncover fakers and in itself this seems a good thing. The problem is that he has seriously prejudiced real research into psi, any scientist with any thought to their career with avoid psi research like the plague or be branded a nut.

To be on the side of the debunkers is very easy Xisdence, look what you have to put up with on the other side of the fence dolphin huggers, space people and reincarnated mystics. Don't forget that lucid dreaming was here before Le Berge got his funding to do proper research.

If the net was as popular 20years ago you might be on a forum argueing with skeptics till your blue in the face that you wake in your dreams to a mind created reality. They would have laughed in your face. Infact to see how agressive skepics can be and how long they can hang onto their beleifs long after the facts have left them behind check this page out at the skeptics dictionary. http://skepdic.com/lucdream.html

I'll make some quotes from that page

Some skeptics do not believe that there is such a state as lucid dreaming [e.g., Norman Malcolm, Dreaming (London: Routledge, 1959)]. Skeptics don't deny that sometimes in our dreams we dream that we are aware that we are dreaming. What they deny is that there is special dream state called the 'lucid state.'[/b]

But LaBerge claims that he has proved the skeptics wrong:

We provided the necessary verification by instructing subjects to signal the onset of lucid dreams with specific dream actions that would be observable on a polygraph (i.e., eye movements and fist clenches). Using this approach, LaBerge, Nagel, Dement & Zarcone (1981)[\"Psychophysiological correlates of the initiation of lucid dreaming,\" Sleep Research, 10, 149.] reported that the occurrence of lucid dreaming during unequivocal REM sleep had been demonstrated for five subjects.

Well, that's a start. However, one should consider that self-awareness resides in the prefrontal cortex, which shows reduced activity during sleep for most people most of the time. This reduced activity may well be why we can dream of the most bizarre things without being aware of how bizarre they are until we wake up and remember them. Perhaps lucid dreaming is possible for some people because their frontal lobes don't rest during sleep.[/b]

This person is actually suggesting that the people on this board are dreaming that we have acheived a conscious state called lucidity?

This is the offical skeptics dictionary? He sort of accepts LeBerges science but then goes onto undmine it and throughout the whole entry seeks to suggest lucid dreaming is mere fantasy!

Also read the futher comments from people who have experinced lucidity writing in to the dictionary and the replys from the authours...

We've all certainly sidetracked from the idea of taking the challenge.

Well i don't know much about psi, i should have mentioned that when i said some of the less 'provable' paranormal things. You state prejudice amongst psi, how is this? only in the general sense that it is very unstable in terms of being able to test it.

If the net was possible 20 years ago, then everything would be out of proportion, not just the outcome of this topic. As good a scenario it is, it wouldn't hold any valadility. (lol if thats a word)

I do agree with you in how your saying that all the idiots give the paranormal supporters image a really bad stain, or make it look silly.

But on the actual topic of provig this (not just testing fakers)all in general, i think i did a pritty good job above in putting things straight, mostly anyway.

Never mind the million-dollar challenge. If psychic power were real, even in just a tiny percentage of people, even if they were only 50% accurate, at best, there would be no casinos, and no state lotteries! They would be cleaned out easily..Think about it. You want to open a casino, where mathmatically, the odds are in your favor, maybe about 51% to 60%, not much of a margin, but enough to assure you won't lose in the long run. Now, if psychic powers are the least bit possible, would you risk opening your casino, knowing that someone with even marginal powers could easily wipe you out? I doubt it. Why don't these psychics go and play Roulette and win millions? I know what they'd say: Psychic power can't be used that way. But Sylvia Browne claims that the dead can move objects, and that they are with you all the time. So all you need to do is bring your dead Grampa with you to the Roulette wheel, and have him nudge that little ball slighty, and you'll be rich!