Gr8wight
red-shirted crewman
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,661
Perfect! Let's test that, then.
Merged Odds Standard for Preliminary Test
- Thread starter Rodney
- Start date
-
- Tags
- challenge mdc preliminary test
Perfect! Let's test that, then.
Let's. See post #249 above.
It is consistent with what he said in the Challenge thread - he visualizes what he will find when he opens the envelope in the near future. The idea of visualizing what is revealed when a card is turned over isn't much different.
Linda
I suppose you could argue that kicking a soccer ball isn't much different than kicking an American football, but most soccer players don't make it as kickers in American football. Maybe Pavel can tell us whether he thinks he has any ability to see what card is coming up in Blackjack or Poker.
Gr8wight
red-shirted crewman
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,661
Well, yes, I've read that, and the 248 posts that preceeded it, and the 150 or so posts in the other thread about Pavel's application. It is clear that Pavel needlessly complicates his trials in order to confuse the statistical landscape and fool himself into thinking he is performing at a higher rate of success than he actually is. If Pavel tests himself strictly following some of the protocols that have been suggested here, he is going to find that he performs at no better than chance. The result will be that he never goes through with the challenge test.
On the other hand, if he refuses to self test honestly, he will go into the JREF challenge test full of optimism, and be either embarrassed, or unbelieving, or hostile when he fails miserably.
I would love for a different result, but I am not prepared to hold my breath waiting for one. I don't look good in blue.
I certainly understand why they rejected it. My head spins when I try to figure out just what is going on in this protocol! And the odds for false positives have been calculated for this?
He has vacillated a bit about this, but I think he ended up with the claim that he can "see" the picture in the future as it is revealed. It does not seem so much different to "see" a playing card as it is revealed in the future in a card game.
But anyway, you and I know that he invented this explanation solely in order to have an argument for why he needs to know the well he is doing as the test proceeds.
I have said it before: Submit your proposal of a correction to the JREF and tell us how it went.
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
I have to disagree with you on Pavel's behalf. Pavel is not deliberately complicating the protocols, Pavel clearly did not know how to put one together nor did he know what was required to meet JREF's 1:1000 odds pass rate.
He stated this in a number of posts prior to applying to the Challenge.
It's quite clear that he came to the Forum to determine at what level he needed to perform his skill to, to pass the Challenge. Others who now claim that JREF is doing hard by him overlook the point that he never claimed a performance % but asked JREF what the threshold % was.
Again, in his defence, Pavel has done some semi-blinded tests at Forum member's urgings and shared them in the Forum. We (surprise, surprise) were quick to demonstrate to him that his then current (pre application) success rate was not better than chance (his 70% claim) and that he'd have to perform better to pass the Challenge.
I haven't seen any of Pavel's posts that indicate he is doing this in anything but good faith, so I have to disagree with your pessimism here. I do think that he will fail, but have confidence in him and the Forum members helping him that he'll end up getting tested.
Just to reiterate, since it is relevant to the thread.
Pavel came to the Forum to find out what success rate was required for him to pass the Challenge.
The accusations that JREF is forcing him to attempt something at a level of success that he didn't claim he could do are unfounded.
Last edited:
Been there, done that. On May 10, 2008, I e-mailed the JREF as follows:
"I recently initiated the following thread on the Million Dollar
Challenge Forum --
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3692318#post3692318
"What I argue on that thread is that: (a) In tests where the odds of
success can be readily calculated, it is unclear what odds standard
must be met; and (b) It is unclear whether time-consuming protocols,
such as Ganzfeld experiments, are eligible for the Challenge.
Therefore, I recommend that something along the lines of the following
be added to the Challenge Rules:
"'(1) An applicant must pass a preliminary test, in which the general
criterion for success will be that the applicant must perform at
significantly above the chance level. In tests where the odds of
success can be readily calculated -- such as numbers guessing -- the
applicant must perform at least at the P=.001 level; that is, the odds
must be only one in one thousand that the applicant could have
achieved that performance level by random chance. (However, if the
applicant achieves a lesser, but above chance, performance level in a
limited number of tests -- for example, if the applicant performs at
the P=.05 level in 20 trials -- the preliminary test may be extended
on a different day or days to include more trials.) If the applicant
passes the preliminary test, a final test will be administered, in
which the performance level must meet a significantly more stringent
criterion for the million dollar prize to be awarded. In tests where
the odds of success can be readily calculated, the applicant must
perform at least at the P=.000001 level; that is, for the prize to be
awarded, the odds must be only one in one million that the applicant
could have achieved that performance level by random chance.
"'(2) All protocols, including time-consuming ones such as Ganzfeld
experiments, are eligible for the Challenge; or
"'(2a) Some time-consuming protocols, such as Ganzfeld experiments, are
not eligible for the Challenge due to the impact on JREF resources."
"If you wish, you may respond to these questions on the above thread."
Still no response more than three months later.
Awww, poor Rodney. They ignored your unreasonably complicated and exclusionarily specific proposal.
What about:
"At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper and feasible observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event."?
Linda
The formal test is carried out using the same protocol as the preliminary test. Number of trials, required performance, testing conditions all remain the same. It is likely that additional measures may be taken to demonstrate any fraud, but such measures must abide by any requirements in the protocol (i.e. if the applicant insists on having only people directly involved in the testing present, the JREF cannot suddenly request a live audience of academics witness the formal test). This is why passing a preliminary test would be so exciting, a simple repeat performance is worth $1 million!
The real purpose of having two tests is to allow the possibility of catching Randi sleeping and sneak through a clever way to make something appear paranormal. You can bet if someone passes the preliminary, he would certainly give the matter his full attention to ensure nothing short of the paranormal would pass in the formal test.
It is a bit of an unanswered question how this might be achieved in cases where the preliminary test was a one-off prediction (e.g. it will snow in a California valley on a particular day in July, an earthquake will strike a certain city on a certain date between 11 and noon, etc). It has never been an issue, since all predictions made for an accepted preliminary test have all proven incorrect.
I guess hitting the reply button and stating "Your specific proposal is unreasonably complicated and exclusionary" is too much effort for the JREF.Awww, poor Rodney. They ignored your unreasonably complicated and exclusionarily specific proposal.
I can just see it now. Randi: "You mean there is an applicant who has a paranormal power? Uh, what do I do now? Wait, I've got it: Tell him that the observing conditions are not feasible!"
What do you base the above on?
If you think Randi is simply a liar, isn't it silly for you to waste your time trying to understand or improve upon the MDC?
Linda
Linda, Linda, Linda! It was a joke.
Damn. I thought I'd figured out a way to get you off this obsession.
Linda
It's been mentioned a number of times in the forums (some helpful person with a more complete link library may be able to help out here with a post from Remiev, Darat, or heck Kramer maybe), but it's possible to conclude this fact from the challenge application.
Emphasis mine of course. Note that in the first bolded section it identifies the steps to the challenge:
1. Apply
2. Agree on protocol
3. Take preliminary test
4. Take final test
Note that no "renegotiate protocol for final test" step is indicated. Further on in the second bolded section it notes that no changes to the protocol are allowed unless both parties agree. Finally, in the third bolded section it notes a link between both tests and the "agreed-upon protocol" (not protocols).
It is still possible to abuse syntax and scope in the English language and argue the challenge, as worded, does not preclude the JREF from demanding a change in the protocol before the final test. It's convincing to me though just from the wording that passing the preliminary test makes the applicant eligable for the formal test.
I'm not talking about a change in the protocol, I'm talking about the odds standard that must be met. I've always been under the impression that the formal test would require a higher odds standard than the preliminary test. For example, in Pavel's case, he might have to get 30 of 40 to pass the preliminary test, but 60 out of 80 to pass the formal test.
Gr8wight
red-shirted crewman
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,661
Being required to pass the same test twice in a row results in the higher odds standard. That's the way I have always read that requirement.