Bias in Challenge Protocol?

[ChristineR]

In all honesty there seems to be a little bit of bias. Often it seems as if the testing organization has the attitude that "Oh this person isn't going to make it anyway, why bother?" Naturally this is somewhat destructive and can lead to mistakes in protocol implementation. Furthermore from the standpoint of the challenger they are essentially acting in desperation and encouraged to tolerate any irregularities. Despite what is said to them to the contrary. After all, if they deny the challenge as given, do they know they will be gven another opportunity? I have seen Randi himself advise that if the challenger does not feel the test is right, do not administer the test. Some challengers may take this to mean "take it or leave it" rather than "we can fix the mistakes or problems you have and then try again later". It is much like a person whom desperately needs a loan. But the only bank in town presents a 30% APR. Well then it is either take it or leave it and the challenger almost surely gets this sense. Don't get me wrong now. For the most part Randi and the skeptic organizations do a great job. Especially considering how hard of a job it is. But there is the unavoidable human factor in all this which should not be denied.

The testers have to be mutually agreed upon. The JREF actually encourages people to use their friends when it's possible, and for friends to be in the room when it's not. For example, in GzuzKryzt's box test, a friend could not place the objects because he might cheat and place them in a predetermined fashion, but he could be in the room.

As for the supposed negative vibes, I'd think that the positive vibe of "we will give you a million dollars if you turn out not to be a crank or fake" balances out "we actually do think you are a crank or a fake" pretty well. But if it doesn't, then there are other venues where you could demonstrate your power. There are parapsychologists who believe in the paranormal but conduct their tests honestly.

 

[gnome]

Who judges that the claim is paranormal in nature to begin with?

Doesn't that imply that the judger knows about all powers in the universe if he knows what is paranormal and what is not before science has pronounced it so?

The judgment of whether a claim fits the scope of the challenge has nothing to do with knowing everything about the universe. It only matters that Randi/JREF are sufficiently skeptical that the claimed phenomenon could be produced naturally that they are willing to stake the million on it. There's nothing that says they couldn't be wrong about it--in fact, if the challenge is ever won, I expect it to be something of this nature, and not an actual supernatural event. Just the same, since at the time the test was agreed to Randi believed it to be supernatural, the prize would still apply.

And T'ai Chi--I believe you've heard this before... so I wonder why you keep "innocently" asking the same question that's been answered many times. To someone new to the forum, there is an excuse. For you, there's none.

 

[paradigm]

The testers have to be mutually agreed upon. The JREF actually encourages people to use their friends when it's possible, and for friends to be in the room when it's not. For example, in GzuzKryzt's box test, a friend could not place the objects because he might cheat and place them in a predetermined fashion, but he could be in the room.

As for the supposed negative vibes, I'd think that the positive vibe of "we will give you a million dollars if you turn out not to be a crank or fake" balances out "we actually do think you are a crank or a fake" pretty well. But if it doesn't, then there are other venues where you could demonstrate your power. There are parapsychologists who believe in the paranormal but conduct their tests honestly.

Sorry, sometimes I do not express myself very well. By tester I am speaking of the person who administers the preliminary test on the behalf of JREF. The ones who often work with supervision from Randi and are responsible for providing an account. On the vibes, that may be a factor but isn't what I meant. It is more along the lines of being sloppy in implementing the protocol and not taking it seriously because "of course they are deluded or lying". For example if someone specified that they wanted blue sheets or paper used but the challenge administrator decided to go ahead and use white sheets of paper for some portion of the test because "what does it matter". This sort of thing. Again, the human factor. "Why am I bothering with this and wasting my time?", etc. Probably NOT a good thing to have present since it can easily translate into errors in protocol implementation.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Of course there is bias.

It is the default position of JREF that Paranormal powers do not exist.

It follows that anyone who says he has such powers is either:-
1. Mistaken
2. Deluded. (ie Mistaken and incapable of realising it.)
3. A knowing and deliberate fraud.

There remains a fourth possibility- that the default position of the JREF is wrong and that paranormal powers do exist.

Look at the history of the challenge. Randi was a stage magician who became angry when he saw people using standard stage magic tricks to fool people into believing in the reality of paranormal powers.

The challenge was set up to stop such trickery, not to do fundamental scientific research into the nature of reality. Other people at various universities have carried out the latter sort of research with a clear intent to produce evidence that paranormal powers exist.

They have failed to do so.

Let's repeat that, so we have it clear.

They have failed to find evidence for the real existence of paranormal powers.

Meanwhile, the fakers and fakirs are still out there , in greater numbers than ever, claiming all manner of abilities and lying to people.

The JREF challenge is aimed squarely at those people. It challenges them to put their money where their mouth is. To stand up in public, state clearly what they can do and be tested.

And they run away in droves.

Their list of excuses is endless. The money does not exist. They don't want the (nonexistent) money. Randi is a fraud. The test is rigged.

Hogwash.

Let's get real here. Real PSI research consistently shows that results are statistically extremely weak and tend to get weaker as controls are tightened. These are programmes which run for years.

No way can a single test run by volunteers equal that sort of research. All it can hope to do is show if someone can, or cannot do , under controlled conditions, what he claims he can do.

If the subject does not agree to the test conditions, then the test does not go ahead.

Endit.

 

[Flange Desire]

I'm all for the objective testing of alleged paranormal activity and abilities. But:

Doesn't the fact that claimants aren't allowed to collaborate on the choice of judges, experts and intermediaries, etc., create too much potential for bias behavior and unchecked duplicity from Randi's organization and/or his appointed experts?

Also, in keeping w standard scientific protocol, observing parties in a test trial aren't supposed to be invested in a particular outcome. But doesn't the fact that Randi is risking the loss of his appointed organizational funds (and possibly, his reputation), place him in a position of non-neutrality and bias in scientifically or objectively determining what or who (de facto) is or isn't paranormal?

Are the people he hires or uses for final testing trials, by extension, suspect of the same potential bias? ... Why isn't there a mutual agreement on who helps facilitate the final round of testing?

If you can bend a spoon with your mind then it does not really matter too much who observes.

Likewise, the challenger will be demonstrating something with the measure of success clearly stated, ie, with no opportunity for subjective bias.

 

[Flange Desire]

oh sorry - ignore that - i see about a eleventy seven others have alread posted much the same

which reminds me ProbeX, why didn't you read the FAQ before posting?

 

[Flange Desire]

In all honesty there seems to be a little bit of bias. Often it seems as if the testing organization has the attitude that "Oh this person isn't going to make it anyway, why bother?" Naturally this is somewhat destructive and can lead to mistakes in protocol implementation.

Why on earth would someones attitude lead to mistakes in the protocol implementation?
I do not see the connection at all.

Furthermore from the standpoint of the challenger they are essentially acting in desperation and encouraged to tolerate any irregularities. Despite what is said to them to the contrary. After all, if they deny the challenge as given, do they know they will be gven another opportunity? I have seen Randi himself advise that if the challenger does not feel the test is right, do not administer the test. Some challengers may take this to mean "take it or leave it" rather than "we can fix the mistakes or problems you have and then try again later". It is much like a person whom desperately needs a loan. But the only bank in town presents a 30% APR. Well then it is either take it or leave it and the challenger almost surely gets this sense.

No, they are specifically advised not to tolerate any irregularities, as you noted in the middle of this paragraph.
And why would the level of desperation (finacial, idealogical, or whatever) have any bearing on the implementation of the protocol, or the success of the applicant?
Either you can bend the spoon or you can't.

Don't get me wrong now. For the most part Randi and the skeptic organizations do a great job. Especially considering how hard of a job it is. But there is the unavoidable human factor in all this which should not be denied.

Yes there is a human factor, but how does that bear on the bending of the spoon?

 

[Darat]

Who judges that the claim is paranormal in nature to begin with?

The JREF and the applicant who claims what they do is within the remit of the JREF Challenge.

Doesn't that imply that the judger knows about all powers in the universe if he knows what is paranormal and what is not before science has pronounced it so?

No.

 

[jimtron]

If you can bend a spoon with your mind then it does not really matter too much who observes.

Likewise, the challenger will be demonstrating something with the measure of success clearly stated, ie, with no opportunity for subjective bias.

Exactly. There are so many paranormal claims, surely one can be properly demonstrated? For those critical of the challenge: apply for it, and if you think it's rigged or so biased that you're unable to prove your paranormal ability or whatever, then go to the media and report your evidence, and demonstrate your paranormal thing to others.

If you can bend a spoon with your mind but you can't win the million because the test isn't legit, contact your local TV news station, or college, or anyone that will pay attention. Only don't use your hands the way mentalists and Uri Geller do; put the spoon on a table and bend it with your mind.

People can criticize the challenge until the cows come home, which is fine, but apparently Randi's right because no one seems to be able to prove that dowsing works, or that anyone can remote view, or predict the future, etc. Show the world your paranormal ability! Prove the challenge wrong! But be sure you have good solid evidence.

 

[Moochie]

Who judges that the claim is paranormal in nature to begin with?

Doesn't that imply that the judger knows about all powers in the universe if he knows what is paranormal and what is not before science has pronounced it so?

Only a certified dingbat would ask such a puerile question. Grow up!

M.

 

[Moochie]

In all honesty there seems to be a little bit of bias.

Please demonstrate this with some evidence.

Often it seems as if the testing organization has the attitude that "Oh this person isn't going to make it anyway, why bother?"

See above.

Naturally this is somewhat destructive and can lead to mistakes in protocol implementation.

BS. Mistakes might be made if you're talking about morons. Assuredly, the parties implementing the protocol do so in the spirit of co-operation and the pursuit of knowledge.

Furthermore from the standpoint of the challenger they are essentially acting in desperation and encouraged to tolerate any irregularities. Despite what is said to them to the contrary.

Getting sick of saying it: Evidence, please!

After all, if they deny the challenge as given, do they know they will be gven another opportunity?

Please read every last scintilla of information on this web site pertaining to the Challenge, before assailing us with your inane assumptions.

I have seen Randi himself advise that if the challenger does not feel the test is right, do not administer the test.

Evidence required. But so what?

Some challengers may take this to mean "take it or leave it" rather than "we can fix the mistakes or problems you have and then try again later".

Evidence required. S I G H

It is much like a person whom desperately needs a loan. But the only bank in town presents a 30% APR. Well then it is either take it or leave it and the challenger almost surely gets this sense.

You're so full of it. Where do you get this gumpf? At the local sewage farm?

Don't get me wrong now.

Oh, NO! Of course we won't! Whatever gave you THAT idea?

For the most part Randi and the skeptic organizations do a great job. Especially considering how hard of a job it is. But there is the unavoidable human factor in all this which should not be denied.

You have the makings of a swell song lyric there

M.

 

[Moochie]

Of course there is bias.

It is the default position of JREF that Paranormal powers do not exist.

It follows that anyone who says he has such powers is either:-
1. Mistaken
2. Deluded. (ie Mistaken and incapable of realising it.)
3. A knowing and deliberate fraud.

There remains a fourth possibility- that the default position of the JREF is wrong and that paranormal powers do exist.

Look at the history of the challenge. Randi was a stage magician who became angry when he saw people using standard stage magic tricks to fool people into believing in the reality of paranormal powers.

The challenge was set up to stop such trickery, not to do fundamental scientific research into the nature of reality. Other people at various universities have carried out the latter sort of research with a clear intent to produce evidence that paranormal powers exist.

They have failed to do so.

Let's repeat that, so we have it clear.

They have failed to find evidence for the real existence of paranormal powers.

Meanwhile, the fakers and fakirs are still out there , in greater numbers than ever, claiming all manner of abilities and lying to people.

The JREF challenge is aimed squarely at those people. It challenges them to put their money where their mouth is. To stand up in public, state clearly what they can do and be tested.

And they run away in droves.

Their list of excuses is endless. The money does not exist. They don't want the (nonexistent) money. Randi is a fraud. The test is rigged.

Hogwash.

Let's get real here. Real PSI research consistently shows that results are statistically extremely weak and tend to get weaker as controls are tightened. These are programmes which run for years.

No way can a single test run by volunteers equal that sort of research. All it can hope to do is show if someone can, or cannot do , under controlled conditions, what he claims he can do.

If the subject does not agree to the test conditions, then the test does not go ahead.

Endit.

Excellent post, Soapy.

M.

 

[Moochie]

Exactly. There are so many paranormal claims, surely one can be properly demonstrated? For those critical of the challenge: apply for it, and if you think it's rigged or so biased that you're unable to prove your paranormal ability or whatever, then go to the media and report your evidence, and demonstrate your paranormal thing to others.

If you can bend a spoon with your mind but you can't win the million because the test isn't legit, contact your local TV news station, or college, or anyone that will pay attention. Only don't use your hands the way mentalists and Uri Geller do; put the spoon on a table and bend it with your mind.

I, along with countless others here, have been saying this for so long that it becomes obvious we're dealing with a new class of moron here -- morons who cannot understand written words.

People can criticize the challenge until the cows come home, which is fine, but apparently Randi's right because no one seems to be able to prove that dowsing works, or that anyone can remote view, or predict the future, etc.

Yeah, what is it with those dang cows?

Show the world your paranormal ability! Prove the challenge wrong! But be sure you have good solid evidence.

YES YES YES! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT!

Or shut the [rule 8] up.

M.

 

[paradigm]

Why on earth would someones attitude lead to mistakes in the protocol implementation?
I do not see the connection at all.


No, they are specifically advised not to tolerate any irregularities, as you noted in the middle of this paragraph.
And why would the level of desperation (finacial, idealogical, or whatever) have any bearing on the implementation of the protocol, or the success of the applicant?
Either you can bend the spoon or you can't.


Yes there is a human factor, but how does that bear on the bending of the spoon?

Attitude may lead to mistakes because of the human factor. The person responsible may not take test as seriously as they should. Read the reply above that I gave which gave scenerios (blue vs white paper). Desperation. "Home field advantage". Because psychologically the challenger may be left with a take it or leave it attitude. Upon seeing things that are off, they may decide that they had better just let it go because this might be the only shot they get. It is simple human psychology here. Human factor vs bending spoons. I'm not talking about bending spoons, I am talking about possible biases and the consequences upon protocol implementation and the challenger.

 

[paradigm]

Please demonstrate this with some evidence.



See above.



BS. Mistakes might be made if you're talking about morons. Assuredly, the parties implementing the protocol do so in the spirit of co-operation and the pursuit of knowledge.



Getting sick of saying it: Evidence, please!



Please read every last scintilla of information on this web site pertaining to the Challenge, before assailing us with your inane assumptions.



Evidence required. But so what?



Evidence required. S I G H



You're so full of it. Where do you get this gumpf? At the local sewage farm?



Oh, NO! Of course we won't! Whatever gave you THAT idea?



You have the makings of a swell song lyric there

M.

I've read some logs of the challenges and did a few hours of research thoroughly examining the documents available to me. I have seen some potential problems possibly in the nature of what I have stated previously in this topic. However, they are not proven to be this yet. I have inquired about them and await answers. Can you explain what you mean by this in more detail please:

BS. Mistakes might be made if you're talking about morons. Assuredly, the parties implementing the protocol do so in the spirit of co-operation and the pursuit of knowledge.

It isn't clear to me whether you are being fully sarcastic and hostile or are at least in part sincere.

 

[ChristineR]

Sorry, sometimes I do not express myself very well. By tester I am speaking of the person who administers the preliminary test on the behalf of JREF. The ones who often work with supervision from Randi and are responsible for providing an account. On the vibes, that may be a factor but isn't what I meant. It is more along the lines of being sloppy in implementing the protocol and not taking it seriously because "of course they are deluded or lying". For example if someone specified that they wanted blue sheets or paper used but the challenge administrator decided to go ahead and use white sheets of paper for some portion of the test because "what does it matter". This sort of thing. Again, the human factor. "Why am I bothering with this and wasting my time?", etc. Probably NOT a good thing to have present since it can easily translate into errors in protocol implementation.

The claimant can ask for or exclude a particular tester, and some have. I'm not aware of anyone having a problem finding a tester that he liked, although I think there probably have been some people who would only agree to be tested by someone who was obviously in cahoots with the claimant and wanted to cheat. I know that in one case Randi asked a priest to help. Priests aren't trained for this, but sometimes you don't need much training.

Now as for the blue and white paper example, it's actually the JREF that is so exacting about the details, not the claimants. If such a thing were to happen, the claimant would immediately declare that it was because the paper was the wrong color. The JREF wants to be able to say "Look, you signed a contract that said you could do this with ordinary notebook paper, and now you are telling us that you need special paper. How could you expect us to know that if you didn't tell us? You are the expert, not us."

In fact, people do this sort of explanation after the fact all the time, like our friend edge who claimed he could douse for metal coins except it turned out that it doesn't work in a library full of hardcover books with foil on the spines.

There is in fact one case where the testers did make a mistake, that of Carina Landin. The protocol did not spell out things like "majority" and "personal" and "recent" and she objected that not a large enough majority of the personal diaries were recent enough. They are going to retest her, if they can ever come up with a solid enough test.

 

[ShowMe]

I've read some logs of the challenges and did a few hours of research thoroughly examining the documents available to me.

Then you had a bias of your own, a preconceived notion that would not be dispelled no matter what evidence was shown to you.

My evidence? The fact that your questions are all answered in the FAQ and online application.

But, what the heck...just this once, let’s ignore evidence. Let’s pretend that there is a shift in the world of physics. Tomorrow morning you wake up and discover you can heal people. By a simple touch you’re able to cure any disease or injury.

Ah! You have a paranormal power, something that defies all laws of physics. You’re going to show us skeptics, going to make us eat our words. You read the new challenge rules and call up your local television station. They’ve seen all kinds of nut cakes and fruit balls before so they probably roll their eyes and tell you they’ll get back to you.

What to do? Take a stroll through the burn unit at your local children’s hospital and heal kids simply by touching them. A few phone calls are made and you suddenly have all the media attention you want.

Before I go any further do you think this would NOT be the top story on CNN? Goodness gravy on a lemon-lime Popsicle stick, I’m willing to bet they would pre-empt Anna Nicole’s autopsy report to bring that one live!

Ok, you’ve covered all your bases and have everything you need to take the challenge. You’re in a position to really stick it to us skeptics.
Now imagine (because it would take a really good imagination to imagine this) that the JREF challenge was completely rigged to show you failing. Randi pulls out all the stops; he emphatically states you do not have this power, that the television tapes are all fakes, all the witnesses that have seen you work miracles are lying, that all of the healed children were never really hurt, that the hospitals are all in cahoots with the military-industrial-medical complex and the NWO and he can prove it by showing that the devils face appeared in the orb on one of those television broadcasts.

What is the likely outcome of this scenario?

1.) Since you really are able to heal people you do so, in front of thousands & eventually millions of witnesses. Movie contracts are offered. You're the subject of latenight monlogues for weeks. You receive cars as gifts. Women throw their panties at you. You’re on the front page of Time as man of the year. Endorsements are offered. American Idol invites you to be a guest judge. "My people" are always trying to contact "your people" but “your people” are far to busy to talk to me. You take several million out of petty cash and create a large electronic billboard on Times Square of the Simpson’s kid saying “Ha-Ha” to a caricature of James Randi. The word "skeptic" becomes as bad as the word "racist" in describing someone.

2.) Everyone on the planet says "The JREF said no", kicks a rock and walks home.

In short, if someone were able to do something truly paranormal they probably *couldn’t* prevent themselves from being discovered. The JREF challenge really would almost be an afterthought. It would be used as "further proof" as opposed to THE test.

If such a paranormal power were every truly discovered any true skeptic would be tickled pink and would gladly take their lumps. I would be overjoyed if there was someone that could shake my stepfather’s hand and remove his need for dialysis.

Instead it’s an endless cycle of failure because people are either deluded or lying.

 

[ProbeX]

To all: Excuse typos. Lots to say. Had to do it quickly.

It's not unilateral though... the entire test procedure, including its participants, must be agreed upon by both parties, or it doesn't happen. I can't imagine any other alternative that doesn't force one side or the other to participate in a test they don't agree with.

". ... We consult competent statisticians when an evaluation of the results, or experiment design, is required." (Under Rule#2)
That's a huge problem. There is (a high) monetary stake in the results, and the party who's testing (Randi * JREF) are adversarial[sic], as stated by him in writing.

At the very least there should be a second opinion from the opponent's side, as it regards the criteria set about by the statistician/s. Actually, third party experts of all types should be chosen collectively by both sides, in order for this adversarial "challenge" to be objectively viable in respect to either party.

Gzuz, you keep asking when bias has occured in the past. You ask this as if a 3rd party had been granted the opportunity to witness bias behavior.that may have Where there's no neutral 3rd party, even the attitude of the tester/s can have a negative impact on procedure and test results. As any behavioral scientist will tell you, even the attitude of the testers (in this case, hostility from adversarial position) can result in such a problem.

For example, Randi (like Dr/ Shwartz lol), inserts himself into the testing procedure at times. (Which I see no one has attempted to defend).
As in any human performance test, silent and verbal intimidation from the tester/s or foundation funding the experiment must be ruled out. The way to do this is to have such persons (like Randi) absent during all stages of testing. Scientific methodology may be distained by some people, but there's a reason it is implored. Of course scientists will err, but that's no excuse to use cheaper, more careless methods of testing (quasi-science).
Ex: If someone is being tested for alleged telepathy, a reasonable way to safeguard against intimidation of the subject, or hostile distraction (including in the form of body language), is to exclude the adversary (Randi) from the test environment. Mental focus (which comes from ease of mind) is an implied qualification for most who claim telepathic abilities.

 

[ProbeX]

A completely equal share in this would be fair IF the applicant agreed to pay the JREF one million dollars should he/she fail to perform as claimed, so that both have something to lose and something to gain.

Proper methodology is not a luxury to be discarded based on who is risking money or not. The main problem w this challenge is in attempting to mix monetary gambling w objective observation, w/in a bias arena.

The reason is not one of doubt, but one of the knowledge of the methods of fraud and deception.

The point being overlooked is that immunity from fraud should not be a luxury afforded to one side - either side. Rather a third party/s should be taken from a pool of candidates chosen from both camps. This third entity/s should have the last word in every step of the procedure (barring the original terms of agreement negotiated by both parties).

which is why the protocol is always set up so that no judgement is required, only counting and comparing to a previously agreed (by both parties) number.

I understand it's claimed there's no judgement allegedly required. But then what's this about?:

". ... We consult competent statisticians when an evaluation of the results, or experiment design, is required."

That's a unilateral privelege. As an applicant, I'm asked by my adversary to have faith that his/their consultations come from "competent" statisticians? And why can't I provide my own? Even if the appointed "competent" statisticians show the applicant proof of competence, how can he know there's not a bias in judgement? Contrary to wht some seem to believe, in statistics there is some latitude for judgement, especially given the esoteric nature of the claims.

Their consultants also determine "experimental design"?? Why that contradicts the initial promise that both sides work together to negotiate the terms of the test. Experim. design leaves even more of a gap for subjective judgement (than setting up statistical parameters).
And Rule#1?:

"I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions." Does this satisfactory observation include the adversary called Randi? If Randi or the JREF (adversaries) determine what is satisfactory, than no one can claim there's no judging involved lol.

 

[ProbeX]

It is clear to me that you haven't bothered to acquaint yourself with all the information regarding the MDC on this web site. Why don't you do that before boring us with your inane assumptions?

And, by the way, the Challenge has nothing to do with science, as you will discover when you read through the site.

Well aren't you classy lol. You are correct, it's quasi science. There are clearly peripheral aspects of objective science being implored, as admitted when Randi when he notes he consults scientists ya duh. ... You see what's going on is that, he's imploring scientists but the context itself (and therefore the scientists involved) are demonstrating a degree of myopia.

A minor part of the problem that Probex has not pointed out in his/her zeal to protect the innocent telepath from the vile money (which he legally can't touch or use) grubbing Randi is that anyone working for the "psychic" would have to be searched thoroughly and be located in a position/place where no signaling could be made to the testee - and if any movement that could be perceived/felt/etc. by the testee occurred, the test would have to be halted. I suspect Randi's people/advisors would be already capable of adding to this list from frauds of the past but I do see that as a problem with Px' suggestion.

You have made assumptions. You see, the Writer has several xs suggested there be a mutually agreed upon outside 3rd neutral party to oversee all aspects of the test. If alleged psychics couldn't agree that reputable scientists or other clinicians would be necessary to rule out fraud, then so be it. There application gets rejected. But in the end, there should be appropriate experts both parties get to pick and agree on.

The testers have to be mutually agreed upon.

Christine, does this mean the testers are mutually chosen too? Couldn't find an affirmative re: this in the rules. Thanks. If so, that might change my outlook somewhat (but not altogether).

SS,
There is a difference btw. attitudinal bias and tester bias. I'm in agreement w you and others re: impatience with sheisters. And frankly, if I chose to do what Randi has done his whole life, I'd be ready to gnaw off my right arm from frustration. I believe that most of the alleged paranormal is a load of crap.

But it has been a choice. He has chosen to be put upon. I do support Randi and others in their (needed) attempts to teach critical thinking skills and highlight erroneous thinking and help people avoid scams. I'm all about that too.

And yes there are droves who back out of Randi's challenge ... and a whole buttload of crazies who apply. Thing is, that doesn't mean problematic tester bias can be tossed to the wind. Where a neutral 3rd party is involved in all aspects of the testing process, it will at least act as a "checks and balances" system. And again, Randi should not be present while his adversaries are being tested. This is a legitimate concern, not an excuse. "Controlled conditions" are not met in this situation. But I love the idea of the challenge, in theory.

If you can bend a spoon with your mind then it does not really matter too much who observes.

Well sure it matters, under strict testing conditions. Decades of psychological testing show us that human behavior, especially in performance testing can critically affect the testing process and outcome. Especially where the tester is deemed an adversary. In such a case testing needs to be done in a controlled and blind manner ... to exclude the adversary, in any form.

... why didn't you read the FAQ before posting?

Why are you making such an inaccurate assumption? lol.