davidsmith73
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2001
- Messages
- 1,697
This is in relation to the sept 8th SWIFT comments on Brian Josephson. Randi replies to some of Josephsons remarks on the JREF challenge. Josephson's comments are bold, Randi's replies in italics.
The problem is that the Randi Foundation itself decides if an experiment is acceptable for testing or not.
Umm, yes, we do. You see, Brian, it’s our million dollars, and our challenge. For an example, we decide whether a gal in Australia is eligible to apply if she says she can fly by flapping her arms; we would tend to decide – though you might not, being a Nobel Laureate! – that this person should not be encouraged in her delusion. However, if an applicant appears to be rational, we confer with our experts in statistics, physics, psychology, engineering, chemistry, biology, etc., etc., concerning his/her eligibility. Most often, such a person is accepted. Certainly, Sheldrake’s claim is eminently testable, and we would accept it, but unfortunately he declines to be tested. Pity!
Randi either does not understand Josephson's point or is deliberately not addressing it. The point is that the challenge merely reflects the personal opinion of JREF members on the ligitimacy of any specific claim. This is a trivial point when applied to example of the kind Randi gives such as flying girl but most important when applied to a potential claim involving a typical parapsychology experiment. Here, the claim would involve a statistical deviation from chance expectation. The difficulty that Josephson points out is that it is the JREF who ultimately decides the acceptable level of chance deviation and effect size for the challenge. Would the JREF accept a large series of ganfeld experiments that would obtain a significant (say an alpha of 0.01) hit rate of 35% above the chance level of 25% ? I don't believe they would (I could be wrong), but this is what such a series of experiments would be expected to achieve. A parapsychologist would be wise not to take up the challenge if a higher hit rate has to be achieved. Notice that Randi says Sheldrakes claim is testable, not that Sheldrakes experimental method and hit rate are acceptable for the challenge.
Next:
Parapsychologists have accordingly concluded that it is a waste of time putting in for the Randi award.
Yes, I’d have to agree on that point. It’s a waste of time because we simply can’t get any parapsychologists – such as Sheldrake – to stand up and be counted. They run for cover, they lie about the conditions of the challenge, they waffle and complain, and they finally retreat into their Ivory Towers. And while we’re on the subject, Josephson, will you kindly provide me with one example of a scientist who says we gave him a run-around…? No, you won’t, because you cannot – though you’ll freely publish such a canard in a major media outlet.
Sheldrake is still clinging to some strange story he relates about a previous encounter with me, a tale that fails to make its point. He’ll depend upon this to avoid becoming involved with any testing process related to the million-dollar challenge, of course. I find it not at all strange that these folks fear involvement with the JREF more than they fear Hell itself…!
There's no content to Randi's comments here, just snide rhetoric. We need to know what the JREF would find acceptable in terms of results in order for a parapsychological experiment to be acceptable for the challange. If we don't know this then we can't make a judgement on whether the refusals to take the challenge are due to unrealistically high demands of the JREF as to what will constitute a success.
With regards to the "strange story" that Sheldrake has about Randi, you can read about it here:
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/Randi_dogs.htm
This is serious stuff. If true, it cleary shows Randi's character to be that of a dishonest man. And I tell you what, if it indeed were true, I would certainly not trust a challange associated with this man.
The problem is that the Randi Foundation itself decides if an experiment is acceptable for testing or not.
Umm, yes, we do. You see, Brian, it’s our million dollars, and our challenge. For an example, we decide whether a gal in Australia is eligible to apply if she says she can fly by flapping her arms; we would tend to decide – though you might not, being a Nobel Laureate! – that this person should not be encouraged in her delusion. However, if an applicant appears to be rational, we confer with our experts in statistics, physics, psychology, engineering, chemistry, biology, etc., etc., concerning his/her eligibility. Most often, such a person is accepted. Certainly, Sheldrake’s claim is eminently testable, and we would accept it, but unfortunately he declines to be tested. Pity!
Randi either does not understand Josephson's point or is deliberately not addressing it. The point is that the challenge merely reflects the personal opinion of JREF members on the ligitimacy of any specific claim. This is a trivial point when applied to example of the kind Randi gives such as flying girl but most important when applied to a potential claim involving a typical parapsychology experiment. Here, the claim would involve a statistical deviation from chance expectation. The difficulty that Josephson points out is that it is the JREF who ultimately decides the acceptable level of chance deviation and effect size for the challenge. Would the JREF accept a large series of ganfeld experiments that would obtain a significant (say an alpha of 0.01) hit rate of 35% above the chance level of 25% ? I don't believe they would (I could be wrong), but this is what such a series of experiments would be expected to achieve. A parapsychologist would be wise not to take up the challenge if a higher hit rate has to be achieved. Notice that Randi says Sheldrakes claim is testable, not that Sheldrakes experimental method and hit rate are acceptable for the challenge.
Next:
Parapsychologists have accordingly concluded that it is a waste of time putting in for the Randi award.
Yes, I’d have to agree on that point. It’s a waste of time because we simply can’t get any parapsychologists – such as Sheldrake – to stand up and be counted. They run for cover, they lie about the conditions of the challenge, they waffle and complain, and they finally retreat into their Ivory Towers. And while we’re on the subject, Josephson, will you kindly provide me with one example of a scientist who says we gave him a run-around…? No, you won’t, because you cannot – though you’ll freely publish such a canard in a major media outlet.
Sheldrake is still clinging to some strange story he relates about a previous encounter with me, a tale that fails to make its point. He’ll depend upon this to avoid becoming involved with any testing process related to the million-dollar challenge, of course. I find it not at all strange that these folks fear involvement with the JREF more than they fear Hell itself…!
There's no content to Randi's comments here, just snide rhetoric. We need to know what the JREF would find acceptable in terms of results in order for a parapsychological experiment to be acceptable for the challange. If we don't know this then we can't make a judgement on whether the refusals to take the challenge are due to unrealistically high demands of the JREF as to what will constitute a success.
With regards to the "strange story" that Sheldrake has about Randi, you can read about it here:
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/Randi_dogs.htm
This is serious stuff. If true, it cleary shows Randi's character to be that of a dishonest man. And I tell you what, if it indeed were true, I would certainly not trust a challange associated with this man.
