Why did no one ever win the Randi Million Dollar Challenge?

Having read Prescott's take-down of the Randi $1M challenge I don't think you properly characterize what he wrote. Prescott doesn't just talk about the nature of psychic powers and how they may not be "on command", he also goes deep into the varied manipulative aspects of the challenge that allow them to screen out anyone who might win beforehand.

Essentially there's strong evidence that Randi stacked the deck against paranormal claimants, to render impossible or simply avoid from the start any demonstration of genuine psi ability.

I am sorry if I mischaracterized what Prescott wrote. That was not intentional. It is true that the Prescott blog posts argues that there was loopholes for not allowing people to apply to the challenge, or not allowing them to complete the challenge, or rejecting them from the challenge. But if these loopholes would be used to make sure that no one wins the prize, as @Sciborg_S_Patel put it "screen out anyone who might win beforehand" or as @RViewer88 put it "to render impossible or simply avoid from the start any demonstration of genuine psi ability", then Randi and/or the other pseudoskeptics at the JREF must be aware that there are real psychics and mediums and use these loopholes to stop them from winning. I don't think that is the case. Randi and all of the other pseudoskeptics seems to be genuinely convinced that there are no real psychics and mediums. If Randi and the other pseudoskeptics are genuinely convinced that there are no real psychics and mediums, then they won't feel any need to use these loopholes in order to stop real psychics and mediums from winning the prize. If they are using these loopholes in order to stop psychics and mediums from winning the prize, then that means that they must think that there are paranormal phenomena after all? Perhaps one could argue that they are subconsciously afraid that they could be wrong and that paranormal phenomena could be for real, but it is difficult for me to imagine that complete fanatics like Randi would even for a second consider the possibility that paranormal phenomena could be real.

Essentially there's strong evidence that Randi stacked the deck against paranormal claimants, to render impossible or simply avoid from the start any demonstration of genuine psi ability. Physicist Richard Bierman offered one of the best and clearest testimonies highlighting this, which very much suggests that Randi deliberately kept out those seeking the prize who could successfully give the evidence allegedly sought: https://skepticalaboutskeptics.org/inves...ndi-prize/. 

Another case is covered in Graham Watkins' obituary for Randi, which is indicative of Randi's willingness to actively interfere with and bully claimants to prevent a situation from arising that would force him to pay up:

>[Randi's] prize was never awarded to anyone, was restricted to “public figures” in 2007, and discontinued in 2015. That it was never awarded is hardly surprising (McLuhan, 2010), considering the conditions under which the tests were conducted. A good example can be found in Randi’s treatment of Natalya Lulova, a ten-year-old girl who apparently could read when totally blindfolded. In preliminary tests she did well and seemed poised to claim the prize. But Randi got personally involved, almost encasing the girl’s head in tape and insisting that she perform over and over (while accusing her of cheating and making odd comments about her facial anatomy) until she no longer could perform (Komissarov, 2004).

I see that Michael Prescott's blog has been linked to, and one can find there, IIRC, a lot of additional material showing not only that Randi was thoroughly ideological and dishonest, but, if that weren't enough, a vicious and malevolent little freak to boot.

Regarding the evidence for Randi making it impossible for people to win the challenge, I don't think that the Bierman case needs to be interpreted as Randi consciously trying to stop him from winning. If I have understood the article correctly, Randi seemed to talk a lot about technical points a lot, but that does not make it impossible for Bierman to win. The only thing that Randi did in this case that I think was really problematical was that he never contacted Bierman again after he said that he was going to propose the experiment to his "scientific committee". But perhaps Randi just forgot about it. At least that is one possible alternative explanation.
I looked on the Internet for more information about the case from Watkins' obituary and it is described in detail by the person that was in conflict with Randi here: http://www.theblindcarefoundation.com/Randi-eng.html This person seems to on his website claim that he can teach anyone to see without their eyes. http://www.theblindcarefoundation.com/index.html That doesn't seem credible to me. It is possible that there could be some people that has the gift to see without their eyes, but I find it very difficult to imagine that it is something that anyone can learn by methods that this person has managed to discover. I think it is more likely that the girl never had any paranormal ability and that this person that wanted her to take part in the test is insane. After all, although there are people with real paranormal abilities, there also exists insane people that thinks they have paranormal abilities or can teach others paranormal abilities.
I agree with you that Randi was an extremely unsympathical person, a bully and a bigot. However, I don't think the two cases you mentioned are strong evidence that Randi consciously tried to render any demonstration of paranormal abilities impossible.

Perhaps one could argue that they are subconsciously afraid that they could be wrong and that paranormal phenomena could be for real, but it is difficult for me to imagine that complete fanatics like Randi would even for a second consider the possibility that paranormal phenomena could be real.

Just look at history - some of the most supposedly ardent believers of a faith are the most zealous about persecuting heretics.

And we know Randi lied about doing his own experiment to refute Sheldrake's claim about telepathic dogs, along with other times pseudo-skeptics have been dishonest.

I might be wrong, but I personally doubt that psi is controllable.  There seem to be things one can do to increase the probability of experiencing it but all the cases that to me seem genuine have been spontaneous experiences.  Nonetheless, Randi made it impossible to win the prize.  "I always have an out" says it all.  He would always find a way to deny the results.

There was a documentary film on Netflix (I think it was Netflix) called Superhuman which showed kids playing games wearing blindfolds. 

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8756802/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk

I watched it in, admittedly, disbelief because this was something that would surely be major news if true. A quick google came up with lots of sites claiming it is possible though I read a newspaper article where the sceptics dismissed it out of hand as trickery.

@Wanderer 

>Randi and all of the other pseudoskeptics seems to be genuinely convinced that there are no real psychics and mediums. If Randi and the other pseudoskeptics are genuinely convinced that there are no real psychics and mediums, then they won't feel any need to use these loopholes in order to stop real psychics and mediums from winning the prize.

If we were to take this reasoning to its logical conclusion, we'd decide that we almost never need to worry about conflicts of interest. The tobacco lobby people sure look like they're convinced that cigarettes don't cause cancer. So why worry about whether or not the studies they sponsor are fairly designed tests of the hypothesis that cigarettes are carcinogenic? Being so persuaded of the safety of cigarettes, surely they wouldn't be motivated to bias their studies to get results favorable to the pro-tobacco position. Clearly this line of reasoning can't be right, because it leads to such an absurd conclusion. The reality is that human motivation is rather complicated and not adequately explicable in terms of what individuals explicitly believe or are aware of, let alone what they publicly claim about themselves and their motivations. We're left having to infer motivation from behavior. And Randi's pattern of behavior demonstrates that he was a man resolutely and entirely biased against paranormal claims. One can take any one of those lines of evidence, such as Bierman's experience, and construct some alternative explanation of it. But why bring in some special explanation just for that one example, motivated by no evidence, when that example and many others in Randi's case are easily and well accounted for on the single hypothesis that he wanted to debunk paranormal claims no matter what, even if he had to do so dishonestly or unfairly? Perhaps he often felt justified in his lies and distortions because of his deeper certainty that any paranormal claimant "must be wrong somehow," whether Randi could figure out how or not, so better to keep the masses from being duped by "harmful primitive superstition" through a lie than admit a mystery and lose people to "irrational magical thinking." This would be the skeptic's version of a "pious lie." On the other hand Randi may simply have been an immoral person who really didn't care about what was true, about being honest, or whatever. He never did anything to show a meaningful interest in thoroughly investigating or seriously studying paranormal claims--it was always a matter of shutting down inquiry through vindictive attacks, spotlight seeking, slimy rhetoric, and other narcissistic antics, never anything consistent with a fair, zetetic, truth-seeking approach. He said a number of things in his life, and acted in ways, consistent with his having been a bona fide psychopath and frequent liar, so I do think the latter explanation is the real key to understanding his behavior.

With respect to Lulova, there is good evidence for "eyeless sight" from a few paradigms, such as the following: https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/artic...perception. Lulova could've had or maybe still has a real paranormal ability--I don't see how her mentor's tendency to make incredible claims rules that out. But one way or the other, I don't think it's too relevant. What is relevant is that Randi had no difficulty subjecting a candidate for his prize to abusive, bullying treatment to make inconvenient evidence disappear. If that isn't indicative of severe bias calling the entire prize process into question, I don't know what is.

This is one of my favorite critiques of Randi and cynics in general:



I always liked the idea of the Randi Prize, though obviously its implementation was extremely biased and set up to fail, some of which is discussed in the video. I have zero respect for spirituality or the beliefs thereof, I care about what actually works in the real world, not how it makes people feel. And putting a bold challenge out to the true believers to prove that they're not just more feelz>realz weaklings is a very good way to go. After all, if its as real as they say, they should be able to prove it. I would love to see a similar challenge brought back, however, only if it was set up with trials designed ahead of time so that things weren't so loosey goosey or prone to all the problems the Randi Prize was. 

For example, if someone wants to prove that PK is real or that they can do it, then you'd have a trial where they must move a weight across a table that is under hermetically sealed glass, while standing a set distance away from the glass, in a room covered in cameras capturing it all from every angle. Everyone gets the exact same trial, and they all know about it ahead of time. Which means they could conceivably train for it and get good enough to do it on demand before even signing up for the challenge. Make applicants pay a a decent amount of money, perhaps $500, to help make sure only those who are serious are taking up your researchers time and to incentivise them to not sign up until they're confident that they can succeed. Which means there'd be no excuse for not performing on the day. You could set up a whole licensing thing for people who prove they can meet a certain threshold of ability.

I know I'd love to do that myself, that concept is something I use for my own training, because I know I'm nowhere near a point where I'd be able to prove things on demand and do try to soften how I talk about my own abilities and expereinces as a result. But on demand ability is the point of why I keep going.

The reality is that human motivation is rather complicated and not adequately explicable in terms of what individuals explicitly believe or are aware of, let alone what they publicly claim about themselves and their motivations. We're left having to infer motivation from behavior.

Very well said - and you rightly put that into its context here too. It is absurd to assume that Randi - a magician or illusionist, would not be attempting to deceive or mislead, when that was after all his ordinary day job. Rather, we should assume nothing but look critically at things, no special dispensation or free pass to be given.

There was a documentary film on Netflix (I think it was Netflix) called Superhuman which showed kids playing games wearing blindfolds. 

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8756802/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk

I watched it in, admittedly, disbelief because this was something that would surely be major news if true. A quick google came up with lots of sites claiming it is possible though I read a newspaper article where the sceptics dismissed it out of hand as trickery.

This is one of those areas which I recall hearing about as a child at school, maybe when I was ten years old. I didn't know what to make of it then and today I'm still undecided. Certainly I've seen some video demonstrations which I reasoned could be simple deception. But that doesn't automatically mean there might not be something worth considering in other cases.

There was a documentary film on Netflix (I think it was Netflix) called Superhuman which showed kids playing games wearing blindfolds. 

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8756802/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk

I watched it in, admittedly, disbelief because this was something that would surely be major news if true. A quick google came up with lots of sites claiming it is possible though I read a newspaper article where the sceptics dismissed it out of hand as trickery.

I have seen so much stuff like this before that was easily debunked once the trickery was revealed.  There might be something in it but I have good reason to doubt any "documentary" of this kind.  You will see what you want to see if you don't keep reminding yourself that there are things you don't yet know - whichever side of the fence you are on.