[Moderated]Hypothetical Million Dollar Winner

[ben m]

Maatorc, you're still defending the point that no experiment can "prove" psi-esp. Let's ask the question in a different way:

If psi-esp exists, would a standard telepathy/esp/image-transmission experiment rule out the null hypothesis?

If such an experiment was done, and the null hypothesis ruled out, would scientists be correct to say "This experiment proves that psi-esp or ESP or something like it exists"?

 

[maatorc]

Maatorc. You have edited my post to remove certain possible test cases. Then you have replied "No" to the ones that remain in the list. Does that mean that you consider the cases you removed to be testable? If so, why?

Maatorc: which of these things would you consider to be testable?
1... - Is it possible to test if someone can run faster than 40 km/h?
2... - Is it possible to test if someone can find metal using a metal detector?

1... Use a stop watch.
2... Use a metal detector.

Both physical means measuring physical facts.

 

[maatorc]

Maatorc, you're still defending the point that no experiment can "prove" psi-esp. Let's ask the question in a different way:
If psi-esp exists, would a standard telepathy/esp/image-transmission experiment rule out the null hypothesis?
If such an experiment was done, and the null hypothesis ruled out, would scientists be correct to say "This experiment proves that psi-esp or ESP or something like it exists"?

It depends on the form of the above suggested experiment.
The point of the distinction between the forms of perception, which have been declared to be unmentionable in this thread, is there exists no common means of measurement: This is critical to the decidability of any demonstration in the JREF-MDC.
If the suggested test measures effects only it does not directly measure the perception process itself.
If a test actually measures the perception process directly, then the test itself must be a simultaneous direct participation in the perception process.
If I am reading you correctly, the above test-experiment could not directly participate in the perception process and therefore could not experientially prove psi-esp as such, but could under good control procedures strongly infer it is real.

 

[ben m]

If psi-esp exists, would a standard telepathy/esp/image-transmission experiment rule out the null hypothesis?

It depends on the form of the above suggested experiment.

We've discussed the suggested experiment on another thread: (a) person alone in room A rolls a die, writes down rolls; (b) psi-esp user in room B, by whatever means you believe are available to him, tells experimenters "The person in room A rolled 3, 4, 5, 1, 1 ....". (c) experimenters compare A's written records to psi-user's verbal report. The null hypothesis is that the written record and the psi-user's verbal report agree 1/6th of the time, since science knows of no mechanism for getting non-chance agreements. I repeat my question: can this test rule out the null hypothesis, or not?

 

[Michael C]

Here's my list of examples again, this time with appropriate comments.

1 - Is it possible to test if someone can run faster than 40 km/h?

Maatorc says this is possible: "use a stopwatch". We'd also need something to measure distance, and check that the person is really running without any hidden technical help (some cleverly designed machinery in the shoes, for instance). Once we'd got the conditions sorted out, we could then see if the person runs faster than 40km/h. This does not test how the person runs faster than 40km/h, only that they're doing it using their own physical and mental powers.

2 - Is it possible to test if someone can levitate above the ground for at least one minute?

Maatorc says this is impossible. There is however no basic difference between this example and the previous one. We'd need a watch, and some means to check that the person isn't using any technical help (hidden wires or levers, very strong magnets...). Then we could see if the person could levitate for more than a minute. This wouldn't tell us how the person is levitating, only that they are doing it using their own physical and mental powers.

3 - Is it possible to test if someone can tell what sort of object is hidden in a sealed opaque contained by shaking the container?

Maatorc says no. Why not? The test is simple: give the person the container, let them shake it, let them say what they think is concealed within, then open the container to check if they are right or wrong. In fact most people can indeed work out something about the object just by shaking the container. If the choice of objects were suitably limited - let's say either a small block of wood, a bottle of wine, a rubber ball, an inflated balloon or a bell - I could easily say which object was hidden in the container, without needing any paranormal help.

4 - Is it possible to test if someone can tell what sort of object is hidden in a sealed opaque container by mental powers, without touching the container?

Maatorc says no. Why not? This test is also simple: show the person the container, don't let them touch it, let them say what they think is concealed within, then open the container to check if they are right or wrong.

5 - Is it possible to test if someone can find metal using a metal detector?

Maatorc says yes. I agree: give the person a metal detector, devise a test where (for instance) there is some metal in just one of ten containers, see if they can find the metal using the detector.

6 - Is it possible to test if someone can find water using a dowsing rod?

Maatorc says no. Why not? Give the person a dowsing rod, devise a test where (for instance) there is some water in just one of ten containers, see if they can find the water using the dowsing rod.

7 - Is it possible to test if someone can move an object by breathing on it?

Maatorc doesn't bother to comment on this one. Apparently he thinks it's possible, since he removed it from my list when he quoted it. It seems simple enough: put the object in front of the person, let them blow on it, see if it moves. Of course you need to check if the person is not using any other method to move the object, such as invisible thread or hidden magnets.

8 - Is it possible to test if someone can move an object by mental power?

Maatorc says no, it's not possible. This is strange, because this test is as simple as the previous one: put the object in front of the person, see if they can make it move without touching it. Of course you need to check if the person is not blowing, using invisible thread or using hidden magnets.

---------------

All these cases are similar: they are testing for the existence of something, not examining its inner workings. If, for example, someone is measured running at more than 40km/h, scientists could examine the person and try to work out how they run so fast. If someone is shown to levitate, scientists would certainly be interested in looking into how this happens.

Of the 8 tests above, tests 2, 4, 6 and 8 would be suitable for the MDC.

 

[maatorc]

Here's my list of examples again, this time with appropriate comments.
- Is it possible to test if someone can run faster than 40 km/h?
- Is it possible to test if someone can levitate above the ground for at least one minute?
- Is it possible to test if someone can tell what sort of object is hidden in a sealed opaque contained by shaking the container?
- Is it possible to test if someone can tell what sort of object is hidden in a sealed opaque container by mental powers, without touching the container?
- Is it possible to test if someone can find metal using a metal detector?
- Is it possible to test if someone can find water using a dowsing rod?
- Is it possible to test if someone can move an object by breathing on it?
- Is it possible to test if someone can move an object by mental power?
---------------
All these cases are similar: they are testing for the existence of something, not examining its inner workings. If, for example, someone is measured running at more than 40km/h, scientists could examine the person and try to work out how they run so fast. If someone is shown to levitate, scientists would certainly be interested in looking into how this happens.
Of the 8 tests above, tests 2, 4, 6 and 8 would be suitable for the MDC.

Detailed comments from post 225 out for space only.
The above examples would infer or imply ( or any other suitably approximate synonym ) that psi-esp is true, without actually proving it because this is possible only at its own now thanks to your inability to comprehend it - the unmentionable level of perception.

 

[steenkh]

The above examples would infer or imply ( or any other suitably approximate synonym ) that psi-esp is true, without actually proving it because this is possible only at its own now thanks to your inability to comprehend it - the unmentionable level of perception.

You have been asked this before: how would you prove that atoms exist?

Practically nothing in of modern science is proven. Everything is inferred. For those of us who are not philosophers, this is as good as a proof. We would also accept that if a person claims that he can read what is inside a closed envelope, and he actually does it without trickery being possible, he is performing psi-esp.

In this vein, I can prove that I can read today's paper by reading it aloud, and the remote reader can prove that he can perform remote reading by telling us what is inside the famous cupboard at JREF.

 

[nathan]

The above examples would infer or imply ( or any other suitably approximate synonym ) that psi-esp is true.

... in exactly the same way as they infer or imply that the person performed the mundane tasks Michael C described. Why do you accept the mundane tasks can be proven when you claim paranormal ones cannot be?

ETA:Actually, I notice that you now seem to be claiming that one cannot prove a mundane task, as you included all of Michael C's examples. Are you retracting post #222?

Please clarify

 

[nathan]

You have been asked this before: how would you prove that atoms exist?

... and also whether maatorc believes atoms exist.

 

[Pup]

Is it possible to test if someone can find metal using a metal detector?

Just to pull that one out at random... It's easy to test that they can find the metal while they happen to be holding a metal detector, but how could we prove the person didn't actually use psi-esp while only pretending to work the metal detector?

The same could be asked of all the examples, of course: How can we prove the person's breath is moving the object and not his psi-esp kinetic force, etc.

Maatorc, if we can't actually prove that psi-esp is causing an effect, can we prove when it's not involved? Or do you have to keep open the possibility that psi-esp might be behind everything?

 

[Dutchman]

I'm late in this discussion, but still...

The above examples would infer or imply ( or any other suitably approximate synonym ) that psi-esp is true, without actually proving it (.....)

No they don't. The examples would show that
-someone can levitate above the ground for at least one minute
-someone can tell what sort of object is hidden in a sealed opaque container by mental powers, without touching the container
-someone can find water using a dowsing rod
-someone can move an object by mental power

And that is all that is required to win the million dollars. Any inferences or implications about whether or not psi-esp is true are outside the scope of the MDC.
Scientists, or non-scientists for that matter, may or may not want to do research in this field as a result of someone succeeding in demonstrating any of these things, but that is entirely up to them, and has nothing to do with the MDC. There's not even a hint in the MDC rules that succesful claimants are expected to cooperate in scientific research afterwards.

 

[maatorc]

I'm late in this discussion, but still...
Any inferences or implications about whether or not psi-esp is true are outside the scope of the MDC.

Then why does the JREF-MDC want:

JREF: ...evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. ...

?

 

[Dutchman]

This is the official challenge:

I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 [One Million Dollars/US] to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions. Such demonstration must take place under the following rules and limitations:

1. (.......)

And apparently, from your quote, a succesful demonstration is seen as evidence. But the challenge is: demonstrate. No theories, no scientific proofs, nothing. Just: demonstrate.

 

[ben m]

Then why does the JREF-MDC want:
?

They want evidence of a paranormal event. They don't care exactly what flavor of paranormal is involved.

The demonstrations we've talked about (the ones which "infer" psi-esp in your opinion) are indubitably evidence of a paranormal event; they don't "prove" that the mechanism was telekinesis, astral projection, psi-esp, regular-ESP, time-travel, especially good astrology, or communication with a helpful ghost. They really don't care how it works, and say so over and over again. The paranormal event is "the subject correctly named 9 out of 10 of the cards drawn in a locked room under controlled conditions" or whatever.

 

[maatorc]

They want evidence of a paranormal event. They don't care exactly what flavor of paranormal is involved.
The demonstrations we've talked about (the ones which "infer" psi-esp in your opinion) are indubitably evidence of a paranormal event........

My point is the JREF-MDC cannot know how to recognize a psychic event.
It can be recognized only at its own level: psychically.
The protocols cannot determine whether a demonstration is or is not evidence of a psychic event.

 

[steenkh]

Then why does the JREF-MDC want:

JREF: ...evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. ...

?

Why would a person levitating 30 cm off the ground not be evidence that he can levitate 30 cm off the ground? This is an event that the JREF has defined to be paranormal, and would net the claimant the million dollars.

 

[Dutchman]

My point is the JREF-MDC cannot know how to recognize a psychic event.
It can be recognized only at its own level: psychically.
The protocols cannot determine whether a demonstration is or is not evidence of a psychic event.

The general point of view of the JREF, as I see it, is that there are no such things as psychic events to be recognized in the first place.
The MDC has the purpose to challenge people that say that there are, and that they can make them happen.
The protocols have up to now been very adequate to show them wrong.

 

[nathan]

It can be recognized only at its own level: psychically.

Nope.

 

[Dutchman]

I think we may have a different opinion on what constitutes a psychic (I prefer "paranormal" though) event.
As in one of Michael C's examples:
-someone can levitate above the ground for at least one minute
This is generally regarded as a paranormal event.

But maatorc says:
-It can be recognized only at its own level: psychically

Now someone levitating can definitely be recognized on a physical (not psychical) level, so I guess maatorc doesn't regard this as an actual paranormal event.

My question to maatorc: What is your definition of a paranormal (or if you wish, psychic) event? Or, if "definition" is too rigid, can you give an example of what you think is a paranormal/psychic event?

 

[steenkh]

My question to maatorc: What is your definition of a paranormal (or if you wish, psychic) event? Or, if "definition" is too rigid, can you give an example of what you think is a paranormal/psychic event?

I believe maatorc has previously identified remote viewing as a possible psi/esp event. But accordingly to his use of the terms, it will does not have to be a psi/esp event. He does in no way indicate what else it could be (barring fraud).

His definitions seem useless because if you can prove that it exists, it will according to his definitions immediately stop being psi/esp events. And yet, he believes that it is a wide-spread phenomenon commonly practised in a secret ruling elite of the world.