posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 07:37 PM
... IOW seems a reasonable enough test to me.
That does seem like a good test of a remote viewer. I think that the biggest problem with these sorts of paranormal abilities, like with Johnathan
Edwards and psychics, is that we know that 'cold readings' can be done and can be accurate, so the question is, how to maintain accuracy. We've
definitly seen incidences where people remote viewed a location, and seemed to be accurate in describing a room or a clearing, but how is that a test,
is the question. Randi seems to have hit on a simple way to ensure that, AND
even built in some ways to demonstrate to other people that he
himself isn't lying (the code word).
the rules and conditions for winning the prize are essentially impossible to follow
That remote viewing one looked pretty clear. What ones are weasly?
we'd have nothing to yell at each other about.
And requiring that something be "self evident," is a real weasel word. "Self-evident" to whom?
It looks like by self-evident, they mean that it can clearly be shown. Frauds can do convincing cold readings, but that doesn't demonstrate psychic
ability. Similar to the remote viewing one, a psychic could read his mind to determine whats in the box. Or someone that can predict the future
could predict what will be in the box at a future date.
I mean, clearly, lots of people have done amazing tricks, how do we demonstrate actual paranormal ability? There have to be specific conditions.
Anyone claiming to have paranormal abilities, but not, could claim that the requirements are false and that randi is a cheat.
Looking over the rules, this is most telling:
and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result.
THe applicant and Randi both discuss before hand what qualifies as positive and negative. There's no 'weasle room'.
[edit on 6-4-2006 by Nygdan]