Randi’s prize disappears
January 9, 2008
The
James Randi Educational Foundation Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge will end on March 6, 2010 — so you have just a little over two years to prove (to the JREF) that you can do paranormal things. I think I’ll be glad to see the end of this. Randi’s gimmick has been mistaken for science by far too many people, and I think he’s given genuine scientific inquiry a bad name.
The JREF, you see, is very interested in making sure there is no doubt the winner has performed a paranormal feat. And this means the test requires something dramatic and immediate, or “storybook magic.” And the nature of the demonstration requires that the applicant be able to perform the same feat with a high degree of repeatability, something that’s quite difficult to do with a complex system especially when you don’t understand the processes involved.
There are also other significant practical barriers to entry. For example common paranormal acts are disqualified because Randi believes science has already sufficiently proven them impossible. ( Michael Prescott covers the limitations admirably, although based on a FAQ that has apparently been substantially revised.) And there are practical barriers as well: you have to fill out an application get it notarized, and do all written communication in English. In April 2007, an additional barrier to entry was put up which meant you either had already be famous or run a gauntlet of smaller Randi challenges in order to win the prize:
In April 2007, the JREF made several changes to the testing procedure in an effort to streamline the process and refocus it to target high-profile and professional paranormalists. The foundation now requires a demonstrated media profile as well as the support from some member of the academic community before it will discuss the challenge with claimants. The foundation has also stated that these qualifications can be essentially met by anyone who can win any of the smaller and more regional skeptics prize challenges. [ Wikipedia ]
It’s no wonder, then, that so few people have made it through the applicant phase. If you do, and finally make it to the formal test, you get to do your stupid human trick and Randi will decide whether or not you win.
Does this have any resemblance to scientific inquiry? The “test” — or experiment — is designed by Randi’s team and the applicant, not necessarily to scientific standards. The pass or fail of the test depends on almost perfect repeatability. And the judgment is not independent peer review but the JREF and, ultimately, Randi himself (a magician and not a scientist). Even if you are real you risk ridicule as a charlatan, because failure will demonstrate you to be one and success is not guaranteed to be acknowledged.
And what does winning the challenge prove? Nothing. It doesn’t prove anything because it’s not scientific. Skeptics will still claim that all you really managed to do was put one past Randi, and yes — that was a good magic trick.
But ultimately the real problem is the attitude of skepticism itself. “I don’t believe you, so come over here and prove it to me to my satisfaction” is not an attitude of scientific inquiry. In fact, as of December of 2006 the FAQ stated at one point:
While you may be neither mistaken nor a cheater, the JREF will always assume that you are one or the other. Most applicants may feel that this is hardly fair, but that’s how it is, and you need to prepare yourself for that reaction. [ JREF Million Dollar Challenge FAQ at the Internet Archive ]
It was never a good-faith offer to begin with, something I think most people understood. It’s good to see this go away.
Posted in Science
content rss
January 9th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
I’ll admit, I was not aware of those significant barriers. In principle, I always felt like this was a good thing — along the lines of Randi’s exposing Uri Geller for the talentless fraud he is on Carson. But I also found, during my short stint with the Penn State Skeptics Society as an undergraduate, that for some people, skepticism is their True Belief. Maybe because they’d been wronged by faith healers or quackery earlier in life, I don’t know. But it sometimes felt less like “I won’t believe that unless there’s scientific proof,” and more like “I won’t believe that because those people believe it.”
That said, if the Prize had been more open and more rigorously scientific — in effect the things I’d always assumed it to be — I think it could have been a very good thing. Because I share Randi’s skepticism about paranormal ability. I’ll always be disappointed that I’d quit the Skeptics Society before they brought Randi to campus. I got to hear him speak, but I believe the Society had dinner with him afterwards.
Any idea why the Prize is going away? Was this a built-in timetable?
January 9th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
I don’t know specifically why the prize is going away. They claim that they don’t think they’ll have a winner and so they want to put the money to other good use. Which seems fair to me, especially since they don’t seem particularly eager to actually test anyone.
There’s nothing wrong with healthy skepticism, of course, and I love to see liars and charlatans exposed for what they are. But there’s a point at which “skepticism” ceases to be a healthy attitude and becomes central to someone’s identity. At that point, I think you stop looking at information critically and start *not* believing in stuff just because you are a big-s Skeptic, and Skeptics aren’t fooled by the things everyone else is. It’s not a rational analysis of facts but a bias you maintain unconsciously because to accept a fact threatens your sense of self.
The Skeptics Society strikes me as the kind of place where such people get together and talk about how they are all too smart to be fooled by anyone.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
I don’t recall Randi ever referring to his endeavors as “science.” I was going to look over his site for confirmation of this, but I just don’t have the Google-fu in me tonight.
That said, Randi’s challenge, while not science, did apply scientific principles, as you stated: duplicability and the use of a control.
I think a lot of Randi’s anger/attitude came from the simple fact that so many people claiming paranormal ability use this to dupe others out of their money, as Fred mentioned.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
It did apply scientific principles, but not completely or well; reproducibility is important, of course, but science doesn’t require a perfect performance — nor is it satisfied by the two or three perfect performances that Randi, apparently, would have been satisfied with if anyone had ever managed to get the paperwork done.
If this narrative (by Gary Schwartz, a professor at the University of Arizona) is to be believed, at least in one instance Randi bragged of a panel of scientists who would review the data:
The problem in this case was that Stanley Krippner had, in fact, declined to be part of the panel. Interestingly, Randi challenged the accuser to prove this, which the accuser did, but Randi still refused to “push a peanut across Times Sqaure with his nose, naked,” as he had promised. >shrug<