[Moderated]Hypothetical Million Dollar Winner

[Kevin_Lowe]

Because science does not currently know it is the practise to say everything that is usually described as paranormal, supernatural, or occult is either total bunk or a trick. So it is the practise because science does not know to say things like "supernatural powers do not exist".

Yes, and more.

For example I know of no scientific research on the specific topic of whether I can paranormally pull an unlimited number of fluffy bunny rabbits out of my ear. However there is also no support in existing science for such a claim. So for now it is true to say "Kevin cannot paranormally pull an unlimited number of fluffy bunny rabbits out of his ear".

If I demonstrated this ability to Randi for the money, of course that would change.

However things like psi are actually much more unlikely to be true than the claim that I can paranormally pull an unlimited number of fluffy bunny rabbits out of my ear.

Why, you ask? Because psi has been researched to death. Lots of researchers have designed incredibly sensitive trials in an attempt to detect the slightest whiff of reproducible psi powers and found nothing.

Here's another analogy for you.

I have a locked box, and I tell you there is a dragon in it. Is my claim true? Almost certainly not, but then again you have not looked in the box yet. It's at least conceivable there might be a dragon in there if we looked, even though it's terribly unlikely.

But suppose we open the box and explore every bit of it with our hands and eyes, with microscopes, with ultrasound, with x-rays and every other technology at our disposal and conclude that the box is completely goddamn empty. At that point the claim that there is a dragon in the box goes from "incredibly unlikely but at least conceivable" to "you'd have to be on crack to believe that".

The psi box has been opened and gone over with a microscope. It has been thoroughly investigated and the conclusion is that the box is completely goddamn empty. At this point you would have to be on crack to believe anyone running around the world today can channel spirits, or read minds, or see the future.

Do you understand my position? Feel free to ask questions if I have been in any way unclear.

 

[maatorc]

Yes, and more.
1... For example I know of no scientific research on the specific topic of whether I can paranormally pull an unlimited number of fluffy bunny rabbits out of my ear. However there is also no support in existing science for such a claim. So for now it is true to say "Kevin cannot paranormally pull an unlimited number of fluffy bunny rabbits out of his ear".If I demonstrated this ability to Randi for the money, of course that would change.
2... However things like psi are actually much more unlikely to be true than the claim that I can paranormally pull an unlimited number of fluffy bunny rabbits out of my ear.Why, you ask? Because psi has been researched to death. Lots of researchers have designed incredibly sensitive trials in an attempt to detect the slightest whiff of reproducible psi powers and found nothing.
3... Here's another analogy for you. I have a locked box, and I tell you there is a dragon in it. Is my claim true? Almost certainly not, but then again you have not looked in the box yet. It's at least conceivable there might be a dragon in there if we looked, even though it's terribly unlikely.
But suppose we open the box and explore every bit of it with our hands and eyes, with microscopes, with ultrasound, with x-rays and every other technology at our disposal and conclude that the box is completely goddamn empty. At that point the claim that there is a dragon in the box goes from "incredibly unlikely but at least conceivable" to "you'd have to be on crack to believe that".
4... The psi box has been opened and gone over with a microscope. It has been thoroughly investigated and the conclusion is that the box is completely goddamn empty. At this point you would have to be on crack to believe anyone running around the world today can channel spirits, or read minds, or see the future.Do you understand my position? Feel free to ask questions if I have been in any way unclear.

1... This is not psi-esp: It is diversionary nonsense.
2... There are no scientific trials capable of detecting psi-esp.
3... This also is totally unconnected to and entirely outside the psi-esp question.
4... The psi-esp box is inaccessible to material scientific methods. It has been concluded to be empty because material science cannot open it.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

2... There are no scientific trials capable of detecting psi-esp.

Does psi-esp do anything?

If so, what?

 

[ProbeX]

(Welcome to the Forum by the way)

Secondly - I m sure many people would consider it interesting and quite surprising and my own view is that it would stimulate fresh and credible scientific research into the area in which the Challenge was won.

Unfortunately this is not likely to happen. Randi employs aspects of science but does not adhere to established scientific protocol in completion; failing to meet the strictures of clinical testing, which is a prerequisite for being taken seriously in the actual professional scientific community.

He is a magician, not a scientist. And his tests are tainted from the beginning because he couches them as "advisarial" in nature. That automatically lowers the credibility of his finding (and his organization, by proxy) ... especially because money and fame are at stake.

One thing that continues to get overlooked about the Challenge, is that if classical scientific approach isn't strictly applied from start to finish, it will have little to no credibility to the scientific community en masse.

A biased magician and his adversarial's "findings" will fail to win over the professional scientific community, regardless of any alleged positive outcome. There's only one way Randi, as a layperson, could begin to hope to gain respect from competent scientists en masse.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I think you're about as wrong as you can get, ProbeX.

The scientific discovery and documentation of supernatural powers would be a huge coup for the first people to do it. Something pretty exiting would have to happen to compete with it for a Nobel, and their name would be in science textbooks forever.

If scientists investigate such dodgy subjects as test-tube cold fusion based on uncorroborated reports, I think they'd investigate a bona-fide supernatural event caught on film under controlled conditions.

 

[maatorc]

Does psi-esp do anything? If so, what?

The real question is not what it 'does' but what it 'is'.

 

[maatorc]

The scientific discovery and documentation of supernatural powers would be a huge coup for the first people to do it. Something pretty exiting would have to happen to compete with it for a Nobel, and their name would be in science textbooks forever.

There are no supernatural powers: There is nothing super beyond the natural.
Every function of the human mind is natural.
Psi-esp is just a name for sensing beyond the phenomenal range, that we call psychic.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The real question is not what it 'does' but what it 'is'.

Yes, but does it do anything? Anything at all?

 

[Kimpatsu]

Does psi-esp do anything?

If so, what?

It has the paranormal ability to generate pages and pages of debate like this one.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Yes, but does it do anything? Anything at all?

See above.

 

[Michael C]

There are no scientific trials capable of detecting psi-esp.

What sort of trial is capable of detecting psi-esp, then?

 

[steenkh]

Unfortunately this is not likely to happen. Randi employs aspects of science but does not adhere to established scientific protocol in completion; failing to meet the strictures of clinical testing, which is a prerequisite for being taken seriously in the actual professional scientific community.

James Randi is already taken seriously in the actual scientific community. He was called upon by Nature to assist in assessing the laboratory procedures of Jacques Benveniste, and scientists line up to talk at congresses that have James Randi as the main event. But I think you misunderstand the MDC much like maatorc does: the MDC is not and has never been presented as a scientific test. The results of the test will never be presented in a scientific paper; there will be no peer review. But the publicity gained from a carefully controlled successful test will attract real scientific researchers. Not least because the woo society will start loving James Randi if someone wlaks away with the million, and they will milk the story for all it is worth. Real scientists will know that grants will be readily available for research into a subject like this.

He is a magician, not a scientist. And his tests are tainted from the beginning because he couches them as "advisarial" in nature. That automatically lowers the credibility of his finding (and his organization, by proxy) ... especially because money and fame are at stake.

I do not follow you. If someone is successful at the test, you think that the adversarial nature of the MDC will have 'tainted' the result so that the credibility is low? I would have thought it was the other way round, that the adversarial nature would make it even more remarkable if somebody wins at the challenge.

 

[ChristineR]

The term supernatural is poorly defined. In ancient times the use of some drugs was considered supernatural as their actions were so bizarre and poorly understood. If we ever discover an "ESP wave emitter" structure in the brain then that will undeniably be natural. Some people go so far as to claim that that anything that is proven to exist must by definition be considered natural.

For the purposes of the MDC supernatural is whatever Randi says it is. Randi has been pretty liberal in his definitions, except that he has arbitrarily excluded certain dangerous practices (not eating) and cloud busting, apparently because he was simply sick of dealing with people who are incapable of designing a good test and understanding statistics.

You could argue that cloud busting and fasting are not supernatural as they are simply people misinterpreting and mismeasuring natural phenomena, but I think it's unfortunate that the JREF has declared that they are not supernatural, as it confuses an already confused issue.

 

[ProbeX]

I think you're about as wrong as you can get, ProbeX.

The scientific discovery and documentation of supernatural powers would be a huge coup for the first people to do it. Something pretty exiting would have to happen to compete with it for a Nobel, and their name would be in science textbooks forever.

If scientists investigate such dodgy subjects as test-tube cold fusion based on uncorroborated reports, I think they'd investigate a bona-fide supernatural event caught on film under controlled conditions.

You misunderstand: “scientific discovery”, as you state it, requires strict adherence to extremely rigorous, classical scientific methodology. Since Randi is not imploring classical scientific methodology from beginning to end (although he hires scientific clinicians at times - chosen from his pre-selectedpool of clinicians [by the "adversary"] ), there can be no official “scientific” discovery on his watch. The scientific community en masse sees Randi as a magician; an entertainer; not a scientist. Unfortunately for him, strict, classical scientific methodology (which requires credentials he lacks) is ubiquitously understood to be the most esteemed form of objective testing.

One limitation that renders his process of testing useless, is the fact that he seems to ignore the fact that he's involved in human testing; not just (pseudo) scientific testing. Where performance testing is involved, there are a very specific set of objective conditions that Randi fails to meet. Ask me what some of these standards are (hint: I’ve already mentioned a couple in the last post).

 

[ProbeX]

James Randi is already taken seriously in the actual scientific community. He was called upon by Nature to assist in assessing the laboratory procedures of Jacques Benveniste, and scientists line up to talk at congresses that have James Randi as the main event. But I think you misunderstand the MDC much like maatorc does: the MDC is not and has never been presented as a scientific test. The results of the test will never be presented in a scientific paper; there will be no peer review. But the publicity gained from a carefully controlled successful test will attract real scientific researchers. Not least because the woo society will start loving James Randi if someone wlaks away with the million, and they will milk the story for all it is worth. Real scientists will know that grants will be readily available for research into a subject like this.

What I mean by “taken seriously” is not that he is called upon to talk or assist someone. Someone with a BS in biology, or a magician with a keen eye can assist or talk theory or dogma. What I mean is the results of his tests, specifically, will not be taken as de facto sound, due to his highly unprofessional and amateurish human performance testing methods.

You are correct: he will not be presented in scientific journals and there will be no peer review (translation: lack of objective oversight and low confidence in his testing methods - oh, plus he is not a scientific peer LOL). Now I agree that some might turn their heads, but that doesn’t establish credibility of his tests whatsoever. Alleged positive results of a test are questionable if classical, objective methods weren’t used. Period. Sad but true. There's no way around this.

I do not follow you. If someone is successful at the test, you think that the adversarial nature of the MDC will have 'tainted' the result so that the credibility is low? I would have thought it was the other way round, that the adversarial nature would make it even more remarkable if somebody wins at the challenge.

Again, I’m concerned about the methods that determined “success”. Whatsoever the alleged results are - positive or negative - they will be questionable due to sloppy “science” used to reach the supposed result. The adversarial piece is another issue; one which will most likely interfere with potentially positive results due to bias in the individual or group initiating and sponsoring human performance tests.

 

[ChristineR]

You are presenting one scenario: somebody passes Randi's test and the scientists dismiss it. I'm racking my brain trying to think of why this might happen, and the only example I come up with is that the applicant found a cheat that evaded Randi. If the applicant found a genuine unknown phenomenon, the scientists would waste no time in looking into the details.

The challenge is unconcerned with the scientific details of the phenomenon. There is a good chance that if someone wins the challenge with a genuine unknown phenomenon then the applicant's claims about his discovery will be completely wrong. So what? That's not the purpose of the challenge.

I see no particular adversarial bias in Randi's protocols. The tests require straightforward, non-subjective results. It's true that not all scientific experiments are adaptable to the protocol, but that's not the purpose of the challenge.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You misunderstand: “scientific discovery”, as you state it, requires strict adherence to extremely rigorous, classical scientific methodology. Since Randi is not imploring classical scientific methodology from beginning to end (although he hires scientific clinicians at times - chosen from his pre-selectedpool of clinicians [by the "adversary"] ), there can be no official “scientific” discovery on his watch. The scientific community en masse sees Randi as a magician; an entertainer; not a scientist. Unfortunately for him, strict, classical scientific methodology (which requires credentials he lacks) is ubiquitously understood to be the most esteemed form of objective testing.

One limitation that renders his process of testing useless, is the fact that he seems to ignore the fact that he's involved in human testing; not just (pseudo) scientific testing. Where performance testing is involved, there are a very specific set of objective conditions that Randi fails to meet. Ask me what some of these standards are (hint: I’ve already mentioned a couple in the last post).

I'm really not sure where you are coming from with this stuff.

If all you're saying is that whatever exact measurements and results come out of a MDC run will not be taken by the scientific community as being as precise as measurements conducted in a lab, well sure.

If you are saying that scientists with simply ignore a clear-cut demonstration of new science because of that assumed lack of maximal precision I think you're out of touch with reality.

 

[Monza]

...Again, I’m concerned about the methods that determined “success”. Whatsoever the alleged results are - positive or negative - they will be questionable due to sloppy “science” used to reach the supposed result. The adversarial piece is another issue; one which will most likely interfere with potentially positive results due to bias in the individual or group initiating and sponsoring human performance tests.

You are missing the point of the MDC. It is not a scientific test, nor is is meant to be. It is simply a demonstration under controlled conditions. In other words, after a claim is made and a protocol proposed, Randi adds controls which will nulify forms of cheating as best as he can determine. If the claimant agrees that these controls will not hinder his/her powers, then the demonstration proceeds.

Assuming that the claimant is successful, you seem to be concerned that the scientific community will ignore the results due to Randi's standing (or lack thereof) in the scientific community. So what? The MDC has already served its purpose. Whether scientists pursue the matter or not is up to them.

 

[Monza]

I should add that the robustness of the testing protocol is shared between the claimant and the JREF. If Randi doesn't do his job well and allows sloppy test conditions, then shame on him. But the contract is between the JREF and the claimant. So if they decide on certain conditions, then that is their perogotive.

 

[ChristineR]

Psi-esp is noumenal reality.

Normal physical consciousness is phenomenal reality.

The reason material science and the JREF MDC cannot measure psi-esp is the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena.

No, I don't think so. If you can send thoughts to another person, that is a phenomena. Certainly it is observable and measurable. That is, if I send you a thought of a blue beach ball, you can observe and measure the blue beach ball.