[net.sci] Randi's $10,000 Challenge

tino@hou2f.UUCP (A.TINO) (02/18/86)

Several posters have questioned the terms of James Randi's
famous offer of $10,000 to anyone who effectively demonstrates
paranormal ability.

I think it's appropriate to quote Randi himself.  Although a 
poster said that Randi's challenge was printed in a recent
issue of "The Skeptical Inquirer", I could find no reference 
to it in the six most recent issues (fall '84 through winter
'85-'86).  However, in his book FLIM-FLAM (Prometheus Books, 1982),
Randi reprints a formal statement (dated 6/18/81) of his 
challenge.  The statement includes 12 rules that must be 
agreed to before any demonstration of paranormal ability is
accepted.  I quote from these rules:

	1) Claimant must state in advance just what powers or
	abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the 
	proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and 
	other variables are concerned) and what will constitute
	a positive or a negative result.

	2) Only the actual performance of the announced nature
	and scope will be acceptable, done within the agreed
	limits.

	3) Claimant agrees that all data, photographic materials,
	videotape or film records and/or other material obtained,
	may be used by Mr. Randi in any way he chooses.

	4) Where a judging procedure is needed, such procedure will
	be decided upon in advance after the claim is stated.
	All such decisions will be arrived at by Mr. Randi and
	the claimant, to their mutual satisfaction, in advance
	of any further participation.

	.
	.
	.

	12) CLAIMANT MUST AGREE UPON WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A 
	CONCLUSION THAT HE/SHE DOES not POSSESS THE CLAIMED
	ABILITY OR POWERS.  This will be a major consideration
	in accepting or rejecting claimants.

Another quote from FLIM-FLAM will clarify Randi's intent in 
setting up these terms:

	In my thirty-five years of looking into these matters,
	I have found that the most common reason for failure
	to come to any firm conclusion in such testing procedures
	is the lack of a firm understanding of the conditions and
	parameters from the beginning.  Thus I insist that the
	subject must know in advance exactly what is expected,
	must agree in advance that conditions are satisfactory 
	for the demonstration of whatever miracle is to be shown,
	must know exactly what will be accepted as proof, and 
	finally must agree to abide by the decisions reached
	under these conditions.  This way, second-guessing and
	weak rationalizations for failures are not acceptable.


_______
Al Tino
..!hou2f!tino