Bias in Challenge Protocol?

[Terry]

ProbeX, please be careful with your quotes. I did not say some of the things you attributed to me in post #40

 

[ChristineR]

Generally Randi suggests a tester and the claimant comments. It's perfectly acceptable for a claimant to say every participating in the test must be a believer, or even that everyone right down to the guy with the video camera must be a believer. In practice, that kind of test may never get done. I'm not aware of anyone making that kind of demand--I think only a celebrity would get that much consideration. The burden is on the claimant to set the test up.

The test he offered to Sylvia Browne was her, Larry King, and ten people who would sign an affidavit stating that they were believers and had had no previous contact with her. I think there would also have been camera crew, but she has no problem doing readings on Larry King's show normally.

 

[gnome]

In fact, I think it can be fairly said that JREF will usually accept any test conditions on the part of the applicant that do not leave the outcome open to cheating. Unless someone has a counter-example?

Sorry to say, they're rarely impressed with powers that only work if they leave themselves vulnerable to a scam artist.

 

[temporalillusion]

". ... 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.

There is no monetary stake in the results by Randi or the JREF, the money isn't theirs to begin with. Randi couldn't fold the test and take the money and go on a vacation if he wanted; the money was donated for a specific purpose and if it doesn't go to that purpose it would have to go back to the donor.

Plus the whole thing has to be agreed upon by both sides, if the claimant doesn't like the statistician or whatever they can nominate someone else.

The whole setup by necessity is adversarial, but from what I've seen and read from all the tests they treat them with dignity and respect.

For example, Randi (like Dr/ Shwartz lol), inserts himself into the testing procedure at times. (Which I see no one has attempted to defend).

Again the whole setup is agreed upon, and they bend over backwards to ensure there is no way the applicant can later claim the test was rigged. If they wanted Randi to be absent, why wouldn't he be absent?

 

[Flange Desire]

In reply to "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.

I think you miss my point ProbeX.
Whether or not you can bend the spoon with your mind will be obvious under controlled test conditions.
The result will be a one or a zero.
You should not need a statistision to tell you whether the spoon is bent or not.
Get my drift?

We are not talking about some miniscule deviations from chance reported by some ganzfield study - I doubt that the JREF is interested in claimants of such an insignificant thing.
Either you can bend the spoon with your mind or you can't.

 

[temporalillusion]

"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.

The protocol must be negotiated between the two parties to both of their satisfaction. If one party wants to refuse to remove their "hearing aids" for a remote viewing test, well then that's probably not satisfactory. If the other party wants to require that the telekinesis claimant move, say, an X-Wing fighter instead of a small rock then that's probably not satisfactory either.

Just reading through this thread It seems to me you're seeing a conflict where none exists.

The only point I can agree with you on is about the choice of the experts required required, and then again only in that it should be agreed upon by both parties. If the claimant can only trust experts from their own group (using an astrologer to verify cases of astrology for example) then that's obviously wrong.

The goal of the test is to produce a self-evident result; something that is not open to interpretation. Even with the statistics, if a test was run and Randi somehow cooked the books (as you feel is possible), the raw data is still there and you can be sure a claimant who feels wronged would take that to other statisticians, and if it was seen that the analysis was flawed or slanted, Randi would quickly lose the respect and participation of the scientific community.

The goal is to "demonstrate", to manifest, exhibit, or show paranormal abilities. Not scientifically research them. If an ability can't be demonstrated, then it doesn't qualify for the test.

 

[Cuddles]

". ... We consult competent statisticians when an evaluation of the results, or experiment design, is required." (Under Rule#2)

". ... 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?

Whoa, there's an echo in here. Why are you hung up on this? Are you saying Randi shouldn't consult statisticians? Randi is in no way a mathematician or a scientist or a statistician. While he is not stupid, he would not be able to design a test himself because he simply isn't trained in all the maths involved. Are you really suggesting he should be allowed to ask people who are trained for help? And where does it say you are not allowed a statistician? You are allowed all the help you like. In fact, the JREF would much prefer it if you did get help, a comprehensible aplication and protocol would be a rather nice surprise for them. Heck, they'll even give you contacts so that you can find people to help you.

What you really seem to be missing is that the JREF and the applicants can both do exactly the same, from providing people as observers to designing a protocol with help from people who know what they are talking about. Just because most applicants choose not do is no fault of Randi or the JREF. You really should stop implying things are Randi's fault when it is simple laziness or incompetence on the part of the applicants.

 

[Hauteden]

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).

So my question is how would you completely eliminate bias from your "pool of candidates?" If you cannot eliminate bias from your Judges then you really shouldn't use them as they cannot be relied upon. It would be better to only have 2 sides one "for" one "against" agreeing upon, in advance, what would constitute success as well as determining how to test a particular claim. And if I am not mistaken that is how the Challenge is implemented.

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."

It seems to me that in a claim where the claimant states that they can dowse gold under a bucket for example, it may be necessary to consult a Statistician to determine what result is chance and what is greater then chance. Consulting a Statistician in this regard would fit the evaluation of the results AND evaluation of experiment design of the part you quote. This would happen before any attempt was made to perform the claim. So the Statistician is not doing any judging just shedding light on statistics which may effect how the claim is tested.

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?

The claimant is more the welcome to review the findings from the Statistician and even provide input on the validity of their findings. They could do this by providing a Competent Statistician of their own to confirm or deny the findings. If they didn't review the findings I would feel that the claimant was being negligent in their part of the protocol. And the JREF cannot be held accountable for negligence of another party.

It must be stressed that this Challenge requires a mutually agreed upon protocol to demonstrate an outcome which does not require interpretation or judgment, the outcome should be self-evident.

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.

If this is true, then the Claimant would have to provide evidence of this "latitude" and how it applies to the current claim. Remember they are a part of the process and have a duty to eliminate, cheating, errors, and the like from the protocol.

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).

I didn't see anywhere in what you quoted where "Their consultants also determine "experimental design"??" I did see that the JREF consults with competent statisticians when required. I believe the exact quote is

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

This does not mean in any way that the competent statisticians determine the design. Only that they provide input just like the claimant can and should.

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.

What you quote above is not Rule #1. It is a statement of the Challenge itself.

As stated before it is up to the Claimant and the JREF to determine what is satisfactory. Also take a look at Rule #4 of the Challenge application. It explicitly states that both parties must agree to any changes to the testing protocol and the Randi will not interact with the materials use but may be present. Do the materials include the claimant? To me the Claimant seems to be a integral part of the testing materials if they are the one performing the paranormal ability.

Hauteden

 

[Moochie]

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

Fully sarcastic. As if you didn't know...

M.

 

[Dancing David]

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



". ... 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. C

Sorry ProbeX but you seem to be using a magic mantra here.

Let us examine shall we:

"competent statisticians", the math of statistics is not going to change because of observer bias, objectivity will remain objectivity, now if you want to use the chicanerry of the ganzfeld and claim that as statistics, that is different.

Then there is this gem;
"even the attitude of the tester/s can have a negative impact on procedure and test results"

This is total bull wash, if you knew anything about test protocol you would know better. Observer bias occurs when the observer if making a qualitative judgement and using an imprecise measure.

If I think and hate the fact that "heads" on a coin will land head side up, will that really effect the outcome?

Show where the protocol is weak. Show where the methodology is flawed!

Can you , will you?

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.

That is the only thing you s y that makes sense.

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.

That is the only thing you have stated that makes sense, but then you have to rule out people who are friendly to the testee as well.

 

[paradigm]

Fully sarcastic. As if you didn't know...

M.

Then communication with you serves no productive purpose for me. Added to Ignore list. Feel free to PM if you wish to engage in sincere discussion at some point in the future. Goodbye.

 

[Darat]

He can't PM you if you have him on ignore.

 

[ProbeX]

ProbeX, please be careful with your quotes. I did not say some of the things you attributed to me in post #40

My sincere apology Terry. Was going too fast and made a careless mistake. I will repost what I said, addressed toward the original poster. Will also amend the old post.

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 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.

Christine, thanks. Sounds like only one of two adversarial parties gets to "suggest" the testers to be yayed[sic] or nayed by both sides. That's problematic. For all the claimant knows, Randi's side is choosing from a pool of skeptics who are attesting/swearing to be "believers".

Sylvia is a difficult case to begin with (I think) because she's already proven she'll lie to the public to use her alleged talents lol.

In fact, I think it can be fairly said that JREF will usually accept any test conditions on the part of the applicant that do not leave the outcome open to cheating. Unless someone has a counter-example?

I've given examples. Test conditions are monitored and overseen and judged (yes, judged) by his appointed experts and testers. And Randi violates a basic principle in objective testing by including himself in the observation of some tests.

Sorry to say, they're rarely impressed with powers that only work if they leave themselves vulnerable to a scam artist.

Scams are a vulnerability for both sides. It's careless to accept the integrity of either side, based on faith. Which is why I've several xs over suggested all candidates needed for running or evaluating the test be collectively presented in order that both sides might compromise re: who participates. The results should be judged (by way of the evidence), by an outside organization/3rd party, perhaps drawn by lottery, by a list of chosen candidates from both sides. Full background checks would apply to all candidates.

 

[paradigm]

He can't PM you if you have him on ignore.

Oh. I was not aware of this. Thank you for telling me. Then perhaps someone can relay on his behalf should the situation arise (which appears doubtful).

 

[paradigm]

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.

I have read your message and it shows good points. However it is in part assumptive. The reality you present does not necessarily translate into the reality for a challenger or the nature of their claim. I believe it is also in part what is often called a Red Herring. The supposed realities a theoretical challenger may face given one particular claim does not directly correlate into the question of biases within the protocol and its implementation. It addresses the question of psychological aspects in regards "take it or leave it" partiall, but is also assumptive of the options available to the challenger and the nature of their claim. Where are my questions answered in the FAQ to the degree I seek? I read it twice previously. Perhaps I missed it. Can you point out exactly where this was answered for me?

 

[ProbeX]

There is no monetary stake in the results by Randi or the JREF, the money isn't theirs to begin with. Randi couldn't fold the test and take the money and go on a vacation if he wanted; the money was donated for a specific purpose and if it doesn't go to that purpose it would have to go back to the donor.

Ti, the funds are in the JREF account, it is therefore the JREF who would lose the funds. In some ways it's even worse that it isn't Randi's money because the donors will suffer the loss of his gamble, and not just massively lose face (like him). It's a gamble on all sides.

Plus the whole thing has to be agreed upon by both sides, if the claimant doesn't like the statistician or whatever they can nominate someone else.

Both sides negotiate around some clinicians that Randi's side initially picks. Both sides need to present candidates they've initially chosen. Then each side chooses from their collective pool of candidates.

The whole setup by necessity is adversarial, but from what I've seen and read from all the tests they treat them with dignity and respect.

You are reading a controlled portion of emails granted by one side of the challenge. You and I aren't savvy to the nature of the emails that aren't posted; to the test accounts they chose not to present ... and they admit they don't post them all. You have too much blind faith IMO. Reminds me of nationalists who blindly follow a leader because of what he seems to stand for, without knowing the entirety of what happens behind closed doors.

Again the whole setup is agreed upon, and they bend over backwards to ensure there is no way the applicant can later claim the test was rigged.

This is heresay. They say they bend over backwards but we aren't around to observe them through each step of the procedure. A controlled set of data they choose to publish does not tell you the whole truth. Again, too much faith being demonstrated here.

 

[paradigm]

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.

Hello. I commend Randi for being flexible in this regard. Yes, obviously controlled conditions must be kept and I completely understand. I also understand that sometimes these things can be heavily resource intensive or difficult to set up properly.

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."

I understand this too. I have read where ideally JREF wants the challenger to set up the protocol and then JREF would merely sign off on it and ensure adherence to it. In theory this is understandable. But in practice few of the people making these claims probably have much scientific background. Thus, it seems to necessitate some degre of working together to develop a mutually acceptable protocol. I have noticed that JREF and its agents does this and usually in a very thorough manner. To reiterate now: The challenger is the expert in the phenomenon they seek to demonstrate yes. But it does not mean that the challenger knows the way of science or even has the phenomenon that they will seek to demonstrate down to a scientific level. In practice I think for the most productive and conclusive results much interaction is needed. For the most part this is done.

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.

I have read many logs of the challenges and applications, as well as forum posts and commentary on other websites. I also read Randis newsletter. I concur with what you have said. I do not recall the case of "edge". I will look into it now out of curiosity.

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.

Yes, you sense or reason correctly. The Landin case is the one I have most thoroughly examined. In addition to the question of the age of the "diaries", I also noticed some disagreement of what constitutes a diary and this not being clearly defined in the protocol. I have asked about this and some other things in the other thread, but haven't received a response yet (I understand people are busy, and do not seek to be unreasonable). I have read every single document available to me in the English language and have many personal opinions and observations. Unfortunately I realize that even in so thoroughly researching I still do not have all of the details. So I have largely refrained from bringing up too many accusations or criticisms to this point. I will state now something about it, however. First off I do realize that people are not perfect creatures and that we all make mistakes. So please do not see what follows as an attack in any way or form. I also acknowledge that it seems apparent that many of the people involved are doing so as volunteers, which is to be commended. But in the Landin case there seemed to be many issues in the protocol and I honestly feel (based on evidence and instinct) that perhaps the case was not given the attention it deserved. As you have seemed to have picked up upon, this case is largely related to some of my responses in this topic. I wonder if the "human factor" I have described came into play here to some degree such that so much ambiguity was allowed into the protocols and the implementations. If so, I would hope that this would be addressed in the future. Regarding this retest, I have seen it said that one was forthcoming, but from the correspondence available to me (or lack thereof) in the usual places, it would seem that othing is actually going on. I've asked about this in the other topic, and I am patiently awaiting a response. I am very interested in the case now.

 

[ProbeX]

[Flange Desire;2347108]Whether or not you can bend the spoon with your mind will be obvious under controlled test conditions.[/quote]

What you're missing is that "controlled test conditions" - and it's not my opinion, it's established scientific testing protocol - is that, where humans are involved, "controlled" includes "blinding" the experimentor from the subject of the experiment.

It is a proven fact, not just my opinion Flange, that tests of human performance are often significantly adversely affected by environmental factors, including presence of the experimentor (and almost certainly an adversarial one LOL!). If you find my definition of "controlled" bothersome, take it up w the field of science. Randi's method is flawed, as mentioned.

Just reading through this thread It seems to me you're seeing a conflict where none exists.

Here's another problematic example: A guy goes about proving that some or other paranormal power exists. It's even captured on video tape for the world to see (yee hah). Randi, in an attempt to save face, tosses the vid into the garbage and declares a lack of evidence ... or says, I reviewed the tape and found you'd cheated (tossing the evidence awat)... or, the organization lost the tape, sorry we have no proof. ... Or he or someone on his team or at his organization chooses to tamper w the taped or otherwise recorded evidence.

If you're telling yourself that I'm paranoid, then you're putting too much faith in the improperly monitored human behavior of an adversary w a reputation and organizational funds on the line ... not to mention a beloved, opposing paradigm.

The goal is to "demonstrate", to manifest, exhibit, or show paranormal abilities. Not scientifically research them.

Scientific evalution, not necessarily research, is the surest known way to reach objective conclusions. I noticed he seems to have issues w scientific method, citing that scientists make errors. But that's an attack on other scientists; the method itself is outstanding for gathering proof, disproving, etc.

It would behoove him to use science to his advantage. His current approach has holes the size of Wyoming (already mentioned). And he's been critized for this by scientists and lay people alike. If he reserves the final say about whether or not someone has presented decent evidence, he should be confident enough (as a non-scientist) to defer each and every test outcome to an independently chosen panel of scientists for evaluation.

Btw, do any of you know what degree/s Randi has? Just curious and too busy to look it up at the moment. Thanks.

Are you saying Randi shouldn't consult statisticians?

This is not a black or white proposition lol. I've been saying (ad nauseam) that Randi and the applicant should both present qualified candidates (whatever the expertise), rather than Randi presenting his candidates for both parties to choose from.

... Haut and dd I'll respond soon.

 

[temporalillusion]

Ti, the funds are in the JREF account, it is therefore the JREF who would lose the funds. In some ways it's even worse that it isn't Randi's money because the donors will suffer the loss of his gamble, and not just massively lose face (like him). It's a gamble on all sides.

It's not in a "JREF account", it's held by lawyers who can only release the funds under specific circumstances. The donor doesn't suffer the "loss of the gamble". What gamble? The donor obviously thinks the JREF is a worthwhile thing and sets aside the money. It's not like they're betting on red to win something. And since the donor is anonymous they can't lose face. If the prize were awarded, it's not a gamble because a new area of research and reality has just been opened. If the prize isn't awarded, then the donor is happy because the money has been used to promote critical thinking awareness of the predators and fakers out there.

Both sides negotiate around some clinicians that Randi's side initially picks. Both sides need to present candidates they've initially chosen. Then each side chooses from their collective pool of candidates.

Given how difficult it has been for some claimants to come up with the simplest of things required (such as producing the three required notarized affidavits), this would reduce it to almost zero. And then there'd be people posting a thread saying the requirements are too onerous. But if a person wants to have that as part of their protocol, they'd be happy to comply I'm sure.

You are reading a controlled portion of emails granted by one side of the challenge. You and I aren't savvy to the nature of the emails that aren't posted; to the test accounts they chose not to present ... and they admit they don't post them all. You have too much blind faith IMO. Reminds me of nationalists who blindly follow a leader because of what he seems to stand for, without knowing the entirety of what happens behind closed doors.

I'd rather have too much "blind faith" based on thousands of emails and dozens of videos (which are controlled too I guess?) than be on the other side, where since I don't know "the entirety of what goes on behind closed doors" I have to ignore everything they say as a possible lie and simply go with whatever I make up or am predisposed to believe.

This is heresay. They say they bend over backwards but we aren't around to observe them through each step of the procedure. A controlled set of data they choose to publish does not tell you the whole truth. Again, too much faith being demonstrated here.

Well if you are going to take the step where you say they are being intentionally dishonest and misleading, what's the point of this thread?

You started it saying there's a bias in the challenge protocol, but now that their honesty is in question why stop with a bias? Maybe there are no claimants. Maybe they're all manufactured by the JREF for some dark purpose? Generating all those doctored emails and videos, filtering the data, it all takes a lot of work, there must be a reason.

At some point you have to trust that people are trying to be honest about their actions and intentions. If you don't think Randi is being (mostly) honest, then by starting this thread to discuss a supposed small point in protocol bias you're being dishonest and just trolling.

 

[temporalillusion]

Here's another problematic example: A guy goes about proving that some or other paranormal power exists. It's even captured on video tape for the world to see (yee hah). Randi, in an attempt to save face, tosses the vid into the garbage and declares a lack of evidence ... or says, I reviewed the tape and found you'd cheated (tossing the evidence awat)... or, the organization lost the tape, sorry we have no proof. ... Or he or someone on his team or at his organization chooses to tamper w the taped or otherwise recorded evidence.

If you're telling yourself that I'm paranoid, then you're putting too much faith in the improperly monitored human behavior of an adversary w a reputation and organizational funds on the line ... not to mention a beloved, opposing paradigm.

All of this is addressed by the protocol. Applicants can have their own observers present; so bring some of those people who signed an affidavit saying they believe the applicant's abilities. If doctors, lawyers, whatever are present when Randi throws the tape away, then you've got a good case to sue, or at the very least make a large stink about it.

At any rate, like I said if you question the honesty of the organization to do what it says it will do, what's the point of this thread beyond trolling. At least be honest and say you think they'll hide evidence and such. Because even if they took your recommendation about a pool of experts and both pick or whatever, that won't help if they're doctoring results, destroying evidence, whatever behind the scenes. There's no protocol you could establish that would protect against that.