Randi nonsense

[steenkh]

I am of course talking about an exclusion based on opinions about what are acceptable levels of performance of the claim.

But nobody has ever been rejected if they can do better than chance. Even a few percent better than chance is good enough: you just have to conduct a correspondingly high number of trials to ensure a high level of confidence.

 

[davidsmith73]

But nobody has ever been rejected if they can do better than chance. Even a few percent better than chance is good enough: you just have to conduct a correspondingly high number of trials to ensure a high level of confidence.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29763

Please be aware that I am not commenting on the validity of the claim as it stands. I am just citing this as an example of the JREF deciding to reject a claim even though above chance levels were proposed.

 

[Rasmus]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29763

Please be aware that I am not commenting on the validity of the claim as it stands. I am just citing this as an example of the JREF deciding to reject a claim even though above chance levels were proposed.

I only skimmed over the thread. I copuldn't see where the JREF rejected the claim made. What I saw suggests that after some communication, both parties couldn't agree on a protocl and the applicant agreed that there was little chance to move on.

Care to point out where exactly the JREF rejected the claim, and - if possible - how this had anything to do with the expected levels of success?

 

[steenkh]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29763

Please be aware that I am not commenting on the validity of the claim as it stands. I am just citing this as an example of the JREF deciding to reject a claim even though above chance levels were proposed.

Yes, this was the claim of "Beth Clarkson, Flame Thrower". Her claim was accepted, but the two parties never managed to agree on a protocol that could eliminate random air flow from the setup. This has nothing to do with confidence levels.

 

[PBTree]

Imagine a guitar school that offers a million dollars for someone to demonstrate a flawless Mr Crowley solo just once. If you pass the test you get the million, if you fail you get ridiculed and ostracized from the rest of the guitar playing world. You may have been practicing your solo and observe that you can do it about 1 in every 10 attempts but the guitar school insists on only 3 attempts to get it right. Would you fancy your chances? If not, would you think it fair if the guitar school claimed you are ignoring the test and running away, or would you claim that the school is simply setting too high a standard for you?

I don't think this is a good analogy because it has already been proven that hundreds (guessing) of people can play that solo and have probably done so in public. That being the case, noone would or could deny that you may very well be able to play the solo as well. Just by showing you can play the guitar would most likely prove you have the skill to learn/play that solo at some stage in your life.

There is also a formula for playing the solo, it is called the music. You, or anyone else who can play the guitar could sit there and play every note and I am sure it would be recognised as the solo.

I don't think the JREF asks people to play the (paranormal) solo perfectly, I think they ask them to at least play some of the (paranormal) sheet music so that it is recognisable to "music" experts. (correct me if I am wrong)

 

[Gr8wight]

Imagine a guitar school that offers a million dollars for someone to demonstrate a flawless Mr Crowley solo just once. If you pass the test you get the million, if you fail you get ridiculed and ostracized from the rest of the guitar playing world. You may have been practicing your solo and observe that you can do it about 1 in every 10 attempts but the guitar school insists on only 3 attempts to get it right. Would you fancy your chances? If not, would you think it fair if the guitar school claimed you are ignoring the test and running away, or would you claim that the school is simply setting too high a standard for you?

It depends on how loudly you had bragged to everyone that you could do it. Your example does not equate to the challenge, however. The JREF does not specify the ability or phenomenon to be tested. That comes directly from the applicants. Your analogy cannot applied because playing a guitar is not an extraordinary talent. We know that the guitar solo from Mr. Crowley can be played, because we have empirical evidence. There is a recording of Randy Rhodes playing it. If we wanted to make your analogy more accurate we might say that one of the students at the guitar school claims he can play his guitar in a fashion that makes it sonically indistinguishable from a trumpet. There's an extraordinary claim that can be likened to the claims received by the JREF.

 

[Rasmus]

Perhaps. That would depend on whether the JREF would accept the results of their work as paranormal and whether the claimant was given enough trials to produce a weak but statistically significant effect.

So you claim that nobody who claims to have proof for the paranormal could possibly be aware that they are not tellign the truth? Absolutely everybody making such claims does at leastr honestly believe that they are right?

Perhaps. Psi experiments are not reliable. Its the old Mr Crowley scenario again.

Do you claim that it isn ot possible that these experiments are lacking in and off themselves, and that these shortcomings would have nothing to do with the paranormal? For example, there might exist problems as the ones I have poutlined above. Do oyu not agree that it is at least possible that Sheldrake knows that his protocols are useless? (Regardless of anything the JREF may be doing!)

 

[Pennywise]

This discussion never should have gone this far. I don't even think this davidsmith is serious. His comments and questions just go around in a circle.

He has ignored the following points that should have settled it for him:

1. Procedure requires that an applicant actually apply before the specific details are worked out.

davesmith doesn't like that...too bad. It's necessary because the JREF has a finite amount of resources. Those resources include the time it would take for someone to read over a particular webpage and respond. There are NO EXCEPTIONS.

2. The actual statistical percentages are specific details. See number 1.

However, simply achieving a success rate that is higher than statistically probable in one experiment does not prove anything. Science requires more definitive proof, but the million dollar prize will not be held to such a high standard. An applicant has a much better chance of winning the million than they have of ever proving their claims elsewhere.

davesmith's argument about the JREF possibly setting standards too high is simply wrong. Their standards will likely be lower than they should be.

3. Randi's stating that he accepts the claim simply meant that Sheldrake's and others claims would be eligible for application.

davesmith has been using semantics and child-like banter as an out when he's left with no other logical response. Randi's comment could possibly have been made with a better choice of words, but honestly, there are not many people who would fail to understand what he meant.

 

[RandFan]

To win the challenge you have to APPLY first, THEN come to agreement on the protocols (and all that I have seen so far have been reasonable.) Those are the rules of the challenge, period. Don't like 'em? Go away.

Sheldrake needs to apply, before JREF has to do anything.

If Sheldrake wants a million dollars and he has confidence in his claim (e.g. that people have paranormal powers) then there is no reason for him not apply for the challenge.

There's a procedure for making a real claim. It's called "applying."

If Sheldrake applies and submits the protocol of his previous experiment, then he will get JREF's response to it.

Apply, negotiate an agreed on protocol and be tested. This is not a difficult thing to do. It's fair, appropriate and understandable based on the history of other such claims.

Well, that's pretty straight forward. First you need to apply. Got it. Cool. Surely no one would not understand that?

Now I get it. The JREF challenge is a publicity stunt.

Damn dude, you just won the non-sequitur award of the year.

 

[Wheezebucket]

I think Pennywise nailed it. If this Sheldrake fella can demonstrate even a basic level of psychic ability (which would be decided upon by both parties once he applied) then he'll end up winning. If anything the odds will be in his favor, because the expectations for it to work are low.

But what I think you don't understand is you have to start the process, it's a two-way street. You're asking him to do his part without doing yours, and the application process is not that difficult. Then, once you've applied, you'll be asking these questions of the actual testers and not just random board people.

Applying will literally solve *all* of your problems. And it's very, very easy. It would take a few hours at most to fill everything out and send it in.

Edit - Just saw Randfan's post - that's exactly it, dave - right there. Hell, I'll even help you fill it out, honestly. Application time, you and me (and this S-guy). I've got the spare time and I'm a speedy typer. All my contact info is in my profile.

I promise not to laugh, even.

 

[Piggy]

And what's more, there's no requirement that Sheldrake must apply himself.

If his protocol works, then anyone can use it, reproduce the experiment, and win a million damn dollars!

If I honestly thought that this protocol would produce bona fide results demonstrating telepathy, you can bet your sweet bippy I'd be taking time off to apply and perform that experiment.

I mean, it's not like it requires access to a particle smasher or anything.

 

[T'ai Chi]

An applicant has a much better chance of winning the million than they have of ever proving their claims elsewhere.

Says you.

What we know, is that in the standard scientific channels, tests have been passed by chance. Since that has never occured in the JREF challenge AFAIK, we can conclude that an applicant has a much better chance of winning things besides the million dollar challenge.

A better question, is why do you believe the challenge, or any challenge, has anything to do with the standard channels of science that people have a right to? What gets you so upset if people ignore challenges (ran by people known to have bias) as anything more than entertainment?

 

[PBTree]

Can I be allowed one stupid question:

How the hell does this work.
Someone rings me (presumably someone I know) and I can psychically work out who it is.
OK, what is happening that allows me to know who it is. Is there a physical connection, is there some sort of electrical impulse zapping between us. What is doing it. Where in me is the recognition taking place?
eg. If I sat by the phone with my head wrapped in tinfoil, would I still be able to work out who was calling?

I mean we can synthesise all sorts of things these days, so if someone can tell us how this works, the basics, then maybe we can duplicate it somehow????

 

[CFLarsen]

Says you.

What we know, is that in the standard scientific channels, tests have been passed by chance. Since that has never occured in the JREF challenge AFAIK, we can conclude that an applicant has a much better chance of winning things besides the million dollar challenge.

Winning what, exactly?

Why do you leave out that, in science, you have to get your claim tested by other independent scientists? Before you do that, the only thing you have won, is...what?

A better question, is why do you believe the challenge, or any challenge, has anything to do with the standard channels of science that people have a right to? What gets you so upset if people ignore challenges (ran by people known to have bias) as anything more than entertainment?

A true woo response. This has been covered extensively, yet you pretend it hasn't.

 

[Darat]

...snip..

I am of course talking about an exclusion based on opinions about what are acceptable levels of performance of the claim.

An example or two?

 

[Darat]

Yes. This is the exact point that Josephson made which I address at the very start of the thread. The problem is that the JREF ultimately decides what is a paranormal result and what is not.

No it doesn't - the JREF and the applicant have to agree what will represent a successful result.

 

[Darat]

Perhaps. That would depend on whether the JREF would accept the results of their work as paranormal and whether the claimant was given enough trials to produce a weak but statistically significant effect.

That is up to the two parties to discuss - given the number of tests there have been, for example the BBC sponsored homeopathy test, that has used numerous trials and depended on only "statistical significance" the evidence is that this is not any kind of bar to anyone applying for the Challenge.

Have you any evidence that it is?

Perhaps. Psi experiments are not reliable. Its the old Mr Crowley scenario again.

If that is case you are faced with a contradiction - if the experiments are not reliable how did the parapsychologist conducting the experiments ever come to any conclusion?

 

[Gr8wight]

What we know, is that in the standard scientific channels, tests have been passed by chance.

For example...

 

[davefoc]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29763

Please be aware that I am not commenting on the validity of the claim as it stands. I am just citing this as an example of the JREF deciding to reject a claim even though above chance levels were proposed.

davidsmith73,
This was one of the tests that I was thinking about when I thought I understood what your criticism was. In fact, I don't think JREF was very cooperative here. On the otherhand, IMHO, it really came down to JREF wasn't going to put effort into testing this effect before the claimant put the effort into coming up with an unambiguous way to test her effect. A few different ideas were suggested to her by people in the forum if not JREF itself. The ideas seemed to take more effort than Beth was willing to invest.

There are at least two important differences between Beth's claim and the sheldrake claim. The sheldrake claim is readily testable by methods that can produce unambiguous results and the sheldrake claim has substantial test data that suggests a well above chance effect so there is good data to base a decision on how far above chance the claim should be made for.

I know I'm repeating myself and others here, but the Sheldrake claim is so easily testable that if you believe that Sheldrake's data is credible why don't you submit the claim to JREF? Nobdoy else in this thread is doing that because we don't find Sheldrake credible. I think, though, that you could probably get some volunteers from people that have participated in this thread to be subjects for your experiment or to work out the number of trials required to get to the desired confidence levels.

Is it possible that you aren't making a claim based on the Sheldrake test results because you don't find them credible either?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

I know I'm repeating myself and others here, but the Sheldrake claim is so easily testable that if you believe that Sheldrake's data is credible why don't you submit the claim to JREF? Nobdoy else in this thread is doing that because we don't find Sheldrake credible. I think, though, that you could probably get some volunteers from people that have participated in this thread to be subjects for your experiment or to work out the number of trials required to get to the desired confidence levels.


...snip...

I'd certainly help in anyway I could.