Talk:One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge

Article created from JREF article

This article was extracted and created from content on the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) page. The topic seemed to be one that the public was specifically interested in when arriving on the JREF page, and I think stands well on its own. Also it was taking up a lot of the JREF page content, but was fairly buried in other content, making it harder to ultimately find. Extracting it out to here made both articles cleaner and more focused; makes information on the Million Dollar Challenge easier to find (it currently does not "google" well); and it made a Challenge criticism section easier to add, where trying to add it to the JREF page made it confusing exactly to what the criticism was directed. Rjmail (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

New Section?

Others who have backed out after accepting the challenge publicly

In an appearance on ITV's Good Morning, magician Paul Zenon challenged Welsh psychic Leigh Catherine [aka Leigh-Catherine Salway] to take the one million dollar challenge and she accepted. Phillip Schofield, a Good Morning host, stated that the program would pay for her flights to the USA to be tested.. Salway subsequently backed out of the challenge, claiming via Twitter that it was 'dodgy as legally & [sic] set up to make it impossible to pass'..

Joolzzt (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the new section is an interesting idea. It seems to overlap somewhat with the existing controversy section. How would you see handling that overlap? Rjmail (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I felt that the other points in the controversy section were specifically related to James Randi, the originator of the challenge and were events that garnered a lot of publicity. The incident I refer to didn't involve Randi or blow up into a big argument, it was a 'yes I will' in public then a 'no I won't' via twitter. As it's a matter of public record I think it should be recorded, but I'm happy to consider another title for the section, or perhaps I should add another subheading under the existing controversy section? Would appreciate your advice/suggestions. Joolzzt (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if we could just change the title of the Controversies section to Controversies and Claimants, and catch them all under there? Rjmail (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Perfect, thx. I put a '?' in my topic as I was hesitant about a new section but you've solved my prob Joolzzt (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The other side...

The whole article seems very biased, the following is a quote from "Science and Psychic Phenomena" ch. 8, can anyone add the facts?

"Randi often publicizes his “challenge” to psychics, in which he offers to pay $1 million for any convincing demonstration of psychic ability under controlled conditions. The problem with this test is that Randi himself acts as policeman, judge, and jury. Given his countless disparaging and insulting remarks concerning parapsychology, and his financial stake in the debunking movement, he can hardly be considered an unbiased observer. It is also Randi who decides who will be tested, and he has explicitly refused to test at least one challenger: homeopath John Benneth. Randi also backed down from a challenge issued by Dr. Jule Eisenbud, who wagered $10,000 that Randi could not duplicate the “thought photography” of Ted Serios, even with the aid of a prop in which a gimmick could be housed.26 More typically, Randi simply ignores challenges, such as the challenge to test English psychic Chris Robinson live on television. Occasionally, Randi will appear to agree to a serious test. Dick Bierman, a psychologist at the University of Amsterdam with a Ph.D. in experimental physics, has published extensively in the fields of experimental physics, psychology, and parapsychology for over a quarter of a century. Bierman took up Randi’s challenge with an offer for an experiment testing a form of precognition known as presentiment, to which Randi responded:

Dr. Bierman: I’ve received and read your response. Thank you. I’ve turned this over to my colleague, Andrew Harter, for first viewing, and it will eventually go to several other persons who will give me their learned opinions. That should not take very long… . I will stay in touch with you as we consider your proposal.

Sincerely, James Randi

Bierman described what happened next:

Basically this was followed by a few other irrelevant mails between me and Randi and then I never heard anything on my proposal again.27

Randi also insists on a “preliminary test” before the real test, and he has never let anyone past the preliminary stage. This means that Randi’s “challenge” is really nothing but a publicity stunt. Even psychologist Ray Hyman, a Fellow of CSI/CSICOP, has pointed out that this “prize” cannot be taken seriously from a scientific point of view: “Scientists don’t settle issues with a single test, so even if someone does win a big cash prize in a demonstration, this isn’t going to convince anyone. Proof in science happens through replication, not through single experiments.”28 With regard to his “challenge” Randi has been quoted as saying, “I always have an out.”29 However, because of his many outrageous remarks, Randi has been the target of several expensive lawsuits, and in May 1991 Randi resigned from CSICOP in order to prevent it from being named as a defendant in subsequent suits.

26. Eisenbud, The Psi Researcher.

27. Personal correspondence, September 27, 2002.

28. From www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Organskeptics/index.html (accessed November 20, 2010).

29. Rawlins, “Starbaby,” 89."

The other side...points are incorrect/irrelevant/need citations/on the wrong page

A few comments/clarifications: Re "Randi himself acts as policeman, judge, and jury" - this is incorrect as the challenge rules state that the person in the application agrees to and signs a protocol saying what they can do and how it will be measured.

"he can hardly be considered an unbiased observer" incorrect. If someone claims to be psychic and proves they are by doing what they have signed to say they can do then Randi will have no option but to award them $1m. AFAIK the people being tested can agree to have the process video recorded and there are some tests on youtube.

"Randi could not duplicate the “thought photography” of Ted Serios" - not relevant to the $1m challenge. I can't replicate Penn & Teller's magic tricks but I still know they are tricks.

"Randi simply ignores challenges, such as the challenge to test English psychic Chris Robinson live on television" - please produce evidence of this. A lot of people back out of the challenge as they are not prepared to state what they can do.

"he has never let anyone past the preliminary stage." - incorrect. Randi does not attend every preliminary challenge as they take place all over the world and are done by local people, the local people check that the agreed protocol has been followed. If the challenger passes then they go to the USA for the challenge test.

"I never heard anything on my proposal again" unverified. Has anyone contacted the JREF to find out what happened? Some people don't like to admit that they withdrew from the challenge when they saw it was a serious challenge.

"I always have an out" personally I think this is correct, this is because there are no genuine psychics, not because Randi doesn't honour his side of the agreed protocol.

"even if someone does win a big cash prize in a demonstration, this isn’t going to convince anyone" - irrelevant to the challenge WP page. The page is about the challenge, which is about the test protocol and doesn't involve convincing the world. The challenge is therefore much easier for a genuine psychic to pass than undergoing what you say are 'proper' scientific tests. They only have to pass the agreed protocol to win.

CSICOP comments are not relevant to the challenge page. Joolzzt (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Also Randi doesn't have a financial stake in the challenge - the money is locked in a bank account and is legally ties up to be a challenge prize, neither Randi nor his foundation can take the $1m. Joolzzt (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Also ... here's a comment from one of the protocol experts... the tests are designed to have an objective outcome, so no judging actually takes place The applicant defines what they can do. Then they try to do it. Either they do it or they don't. No judging required.Joolzzt (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Also - Chris Robinson has been tested on TV - http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/Robinson.htm

But thanks for adding your comments, it's sent me off into some enjoyable research on the challenge Joolzzt (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Propose reinstate paragraph deleted by Vzaak 12 August 2013‎

Vzaak - you may think Skeptico is a bad website, but the podcast itself is an interview with DJ Groethe and in it he can be heard making the statements attributed to him. I suggest that recorded comments by DJ Groethe are a WP:RS for comments by DG Groethe and the info be reinstated.

Comments anyone? Joolzzt (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, remember this is skeptiko, not skeptico (big, big difference). I didn't say skeptiko was a bad website; I said it's not a reliable source. Why do you think it meets WP:RS? The only thing I see that could possibly apply is WP:SELFSOURCE, but Grothe has no control over the site, so it's not self-published. As my edit comment mentioned, the site pushes crystal healing, talking with spirits, and the like. It is known for pushing a point of view by sandbagging guests, e.g [1], and unfairly editing the audio, e.g. [2]. It spectacularly fails as a reliable source.

I just finished a highly weird conversation with a highly misinformed Rupert Sheldrake proponent who had cited skeptiko. I think WP readers are ill-served by being directed to it.

Independent of these points, the removed paragraph doesn't actually add to the article -- it just says that something was planned. The next paragraph says something happened. Might as well skip to the something that happened. If anything is missing from the removed paragraph then it can be added to the paragraph about what actually happened. If something was planned but didn't happen then that doesn't sound very interesting or notable. Vzaak (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response. Didn't know about the unfair editing point. As you say, it's just about future plans so happy to leave as is. :-) 82.42.118.35 Joolzzt (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

1.000.000 Dollars?

Can it be confirmed that '1.000.000. Dollars' in "cash" is actually being offered by Mr Randi's Foundation? There have been claims that the Randi Prize consists of '1.000.000. Dollars of "Stock Bonds valued at 1.000.000"', these Bonds may or may not be valued at 1.000.000 Dollars when the winner calls to claim his Prize it is claimed.

Also the actual Legal Rules which any contestant has to sign before taking the Test are said to virtually rule out any well known Medium or Psychic from taking the Test; (i.e. the forgoing of any Right to claim Damages from the Foundation resulting from the Test). Would it be correct to assume that any Celebrity (Medium or any other kind) would be 'strongly advised' by their Lawyers not to sign such an agreement which would risk Bankruptcy? Which could explain why no high profile Medium has taken the challenge.Johnwrd (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it is quite clear from the JREF website that the money is not "stock bonds" If you have a citation that proves otherwise please link it here. "claims" are not evidence which is what the challenge is all about after-all. Also the website does not rule out any well-known person, in fact they have challenged many well-know psychics to take the challenge. I'm removing the "citation needed" tag in the lede. Sgerbic (talk) 06:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah no idea what Johnwrd is referring to about celebrities. If you are a genuine celebrity medium or whatever, then while the $1 million may not be such a big prize, the media attention you'd get from running would surely make it worth it. The only likely reason you'd risk bankruptcy would be because you're exposed as a fraud (but in reality, it may make a dent in your earnings, but probably not that much). Perhaps more importantly, AFAIK none of the celebrities who've challenged and rejected have said anything about "my lawyer said I shouldn't", instead they say stuff like "the money doesn't exist" or "the test is unfair" or whatever else. Nil Einne (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Article is mistitled

The official name on the JREF website is clearly "The Million Dollar Challenge" not "The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge" as this Wikipedia aticle currently claims. The prize applies to any "psychic, supernatural, or paranormal ability." In the interest of factual accuracy, I would support any editor doing a rename. Please let me know if there's a consensus vote if ever, wherever, and whenever, as I'm not a regular here. Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Additional comment: I see Million Dollar Challenge goes to a disambiguation page, where there is also a Million Dollar Challenge (poker) listed. This article could be renamed Million Dollar Challenge (paranormal). In the meantime, the intro line should at least note parenthetically (officially called "The Million Dollar Challenge") in my opinion. 5Q5 (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, on the JREF site the challenge I see that it is variously referred to as million-dollar reward, million Dollar Challenge, Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, and the Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge. Rjmail (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Seth Raphael

What happened with this guy? Did they really pay him money for cheap magic tricks, using his own computer (person hand signalling the card, the picture (after they saw it on their linked computer) and reading brain patterns when randi saw the picture, no magics here cheap and simple magic tricks. Im shocked randi could get taken so easily.--Simon19800 (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Seth Raphael was a prank put on by Raphael and Randi - this was acknowledged by both at the end of the prank. No payout Thisdaytrivia (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Paranormal activity

Dear sir , If you want to see the paranormal activity or ghost , Then I will request you to go for mehndi pur Balaji mandir in Rajasthan India . Here you will see a lot of things that is unbelievable but true . I will not prove you about ghost by any video ,because it is tough to prove by the videos but I can surely suggest you to go for mehndipur Balaji Rajasthan. 103.210.29.139 (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

In reality, the status is unclear

Unfortunately, it seems that the status of this challenge is unclear. Is it really terminated? The citation used to say it is terminated is this one which has one line of text and one link. The text says "The James Randi Educational Foundation's Million Dollar Challenge has been terminated." However, this is followed by one other line: "Please see http://web.randi.org/home/jref-status for details." Well, that link is a page from 2015 which contradicts the terminated claim -- see here! That page announces a major change in the challenge, and basically says stand by for details. So what is the actual status? Is it terminated or in some limbo state? I can find no current info on this to clear it up. BTW, this also affects the List of prizes for evidence of the paranormal page, as this challenge is in the List of defunct prizes table there. Rp2006 (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)