Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

[highflyertoo]

Would Randi in ''good faith'' be prepared to under go a Lie Detector Test to prove that his Million Dollar Paranormal Challange is legitimate in it's proposal to payout the monies without there being a hidden agenda?.

[General Zod]

I doubt it. Why should he?

[highflyertoo]

[General Zod]

First of all, a lie detector test wouldn't be very scientific. I wouldn't take a failure as evidence that he's lying, or success as evidence he's telling the truth.

But let's say we could accept the results at face value- what questions would you ask him?

[brett]

[The Warrigal]

I would just like to chime in here and say lie detector evidence is not only unscientific but it is well known that people can be taught to "beat the machine."

So I must agree with General Zod that if Randi took such a test, it would prove absolutely nothing.

And to be absolutely fair, if Randi were ever to take a lie detector test to "prove" that his MDC is legit, then Victor Zammit should do likewise.

I am unimpressed with million dollar challenges regardless of which side throws down the gauntlet.

I further think that these challenges do more harm than good since even when genuine, they are apt to be perceived by onlookers as publicity stunts calculated to raise the profile of the challenger while at the same time stacking the deck so heavily in that challengers favour that they would be harder to win than a lottery.

I do not say that either Randi or Zammit's challenges are false, but I do think that they a send "the wrong message" and have the effect of making the challenger look like a carny rather than a sober investigator.

For some reason, many people can become obsessed with the legitimacy of these challenges and the challenge becomes yet another sideshow battle field between sceptics and believers.

As if the field of paranormal research needed another of those!

[brett]

[JonDonnis]

To answer the question.
Yes Randi would take a lie detector test and yes he would pass it very easily.

And this is the problem with believers, they do not examine what they say they just say it.

Lie Detectors are easy to beat, anyone can do so, you just tense your sphincter muscles (your bum hole)

Us Skeptics investigate everything, we dont take things at face value.

You talk about the JREF Million Dollar challenge being unpassable, and so on.
Yet if there was anything dodgy it would be the SKEPTICS who would expose it, and Randi knows this, and that is why the challenge is 100% fair.

When Randi has made mistakes (And he has done) it is always the skeptics who point it out, and Randi always humbly apologises.

Maybe people on here and the creators of this site should try and learn about skepticism before attacking it out of ignorance.

[highflyertoo]

[highflyertoo]

[General Zod]

[brett]

jon donnis opined :" Us Skeptics investigate everything, we don't take things at face value." er neither do those of us believers who have brains and use them !! and as for investigating "everything " well that's a laugh - tell me then WHY skeptics never do longitudinal studies of places claiming to be haunted and charging admission to the gullible ?? - and if found to be so expose them as the frauds they are ( they would be doing us all a service ) - why we don't have skeptics ready to come to investigations when requested to provide balance ?? - why on the whole you never question ( or at least publicly question ) the big name skeptics Randi et al ,( oh sorry , i forgot they are infallible ) - why when i challenge to even do 30 minutes of practical research on a subject on this site - they don't feel the need to and find excuses , why none of you ever ask the BIG question of "could we be wrong ??

i have made some sweeping generalisations here - to demonstrate how easy it is to do so - just like your statement !! - some of us on the "believers" side ALSO question everything and accept nothing at face value - that's what makes us researchers - OK i AGREE there are many that don't and are guilty of taking things at face value - but they are "play at it " ghost hunters in the main - SO PLEASE DONT make sweeping generalisations - and tar us ALL with the same brush !!

actually i just thought when you say "Us skeptics " you do mean ALL skeptics and not just those in the US ?? - as if you do you must be different from our home grown brand

[ciscop]

skepticism basis is science and facts
believer´s side is just based on faith and anecdotal evidence
the main problem is that believers jump to supernatural explanations a lot of the time while skeptics wont until faced with real hard evidence.
also i think is funny that you brett acuse skeptics of not questioning if we are wrong, when you do it too, when you were provided with a psychological fact about what could have happened you also stayed with your own story.
i wonder if you have really checked about the ghost story, im pretty sure you accepted the story that guy told you as real without questioning, without looking for evidence THAT DID HAPPEN, your simple psychological case becomes a supernatural experience only after you heard about this story but you didnt checked for real if that did happen right?.. you accept so easily a guy telling you a rumour... amazing.

by the way..
have you heard of joe nickell?, he is a skeptic investigator with many books
he has stayed in a lot of haunted places all over the world
and he has not reported anything paranormal or supernatural at all
if you are a ghost believer, pretty sure you will see some kind of shadow and you will believe it was ghost and thats it, if you are a skeptic.. you will se a shadow and nothing more. go and watch those ghost hunters and paranormal state.. quite funny how suggestion works.. people just running around with cameras like some kind of blairwitch project getting scared of shadows ¨and feelings of being cold¨...

also i think this very thread is asking the wrong question
lie detectors are not reliable,
this is like asking... will randi accepted to be cursed by a voodoo wizard??.. OF COURSE! nothing will happen
you are using woo to ask a stupid question
learn your facts highflyer
and by the way, jref is not an atheist association

[highflyertoo]

These people in this particular Country who perform Polygraph Tests are ''vigorously trained and approved'' by the USA standard of Scientific Instrumental (that's Scientific) Lie Detection Methods. http://www.privateinvestigator.com.au/a ... rvices.htm

Because Randi has trust in Science, then he should have ''no prob'' in under going a controlled Lie Dection Test in the Lab.

[ciscop]

yep
and homeopaths swear they are doctors and what they do is science..

is just water