Information on Protocol for Pavel Ziborov Applicant

[fls]

Waaayyy to subtle, obviously!
A quick list of those tested that may be interesting to chase up and check the results (I may be missing one or two in the 12 months before Connie Sonne, I haven't updated my spreadsheet for a year).

I can't recall anyone here objecting violently to the targets set,

Like I said, most people are too naive to know better. I don't know what went on between Startz and Pavel, but it looks like Pavel became educated enough to realize when he was being given a poor choice.

and most of them have so few "trials" in the test, that I don't think the lower, "expected failure" probability actually comes in to play, regardless of results.

It depends upon the probability for each trial, but for the binary (i.e. p=0.5) tests, the number of losses would be as significant as the number of wins (but only if specified a priori).

Linda

 

[Marcus]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73944

Linda

It doesn't sound so bad when you read Randi's explanation in the thread. He was short on time, and borrowed the wording because it mirrored his own thoughts. The real shocker is that Randi was reading the forum, I didn't think he bothered with it.

 

[EHocking]

Like I said, most people are too naive to know better. I don't know what went on between Startz and Pavel, but it looks like Pavel became educated enough to realize when he was being given a poor choice.

I still think that 50 trials is sufficient - insistence on his part for more guesses just looks like he's now trying play the numbers after being educated on the subject on this Forum. My opinion only after participating on the protocol threads from the outset.

It depends upon the probability for each trial, but for the binary (i.e. p=0.5) tests, the number of losses would be as significant as the number of wins (but only if specified a priori).

Linda

Perhaps binary was misleading. By binary I meant - it happened or didn't. Think levitation. You either leave the ground or don't.

 

[fls]

I still think that 50 trials is sufficient - insistence on his part for more guesses just looks like he's now trying play the numbers after being educated on the subject on this Forum. My opinion only after participating on the protocol threads from the outset.

It should be pointed out that Pavel didn't insist on more than 50 trials. Pavel proposed 100 trials, which is what he should have done to give himself a fair chance. Randi then stated that it couldn't be more than 20 trials. Pavel wasn't given the opportunity to suggest 50. I don't know what Startz would have advised, but if Pavel had been given the opportunity to shorten his protocol, I would have advised that 50, while less than ideal, would still be reasonable.

Perhaps binary was misleading. By binary I meant - it happened or didn't. Think levitation. You either leave the ground or don't.

I understood what you meant by binary. I was just referring to those tests (not the ones you labelled as binary, but the ones in which there were multiple trials) where the p-value to get each trial right would be 0.5 (as opposed to Connie Sonne's test where the p-value was 0.10 for each trial).

Linda

 

[Klimax]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73944

Linda

If I didn't hear any explanation (and I read only OP,to not skew my own opinion) I'd say that parts are similar or same enough to think "that is too close" , but parts are sufficently different that it wasn't plagiarism and rules of english does not allow that much difference(from POV of czech language) and then there was problem that a part looks like direct quotation from a wooer,but is not properly marked as such. (Quotation should not be counted as it has to be same or part of same text serving as source)

Plagiate should be much more similar in my view and as such it didn't seem to me.

Anyway it was even only small part of very larger article with usually similarities,so that would be not constitute any wrong doing...

After I got thoughts together I found out that he commented on it,so I found relevant SWIFT and :

PLAGIARISM?
Last week, rushing to get SWIFT together, I downloaded, edited, vetted, stored, juggled, and otherwise handled the huge amount of text that I have to organize in order to produce this page every week. In the process, I inadvertently failed to credit a correspondent, Chris Calvey, with some text that quite well described what I had to say about a certain item. Now, the Forum watchdogs have begun barking at this innocent error.

Last Saturday, I sent this e-mail to Chris:

I admit, I shamelessly took your comments and dropped them in as part of SWIFT, simply because they exactly reflected my observations. I could have changed the wording, but getting SWIFT together each week – amid all the other duties that keep me here at least 60 hours a week – calls for some corner-cutting every now and then. Mea culpa...

It's 9:08 on Saturday morning, I've been here since 7:30 or so, and I'll be here until late today... This is what I do, I do it for as many hours as I can, and I love it, but I err occasionally as I did by stealing your comments so blatantly… If you want to use this on the Forum, or anywhere else, you're of course free to do so. We have few secrets here, except for a couple of jazzy card-tricks...!

Despite my publishing this earnest effort to explain myself, the Forum has been mumbling about plagiarism, the fact that I straightened out the grammar and form of Chris' text and various other sins, but I assure you that I won’t be losing any sleep over it. Gimme a break, folks.

http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-02/020209morebrowne.html#i9

I'd say he could say it bit better...

Anyway as for:

...
The consistent setting of claim standards at a level which would make it unlikely that the claimant would pass, even if they have the ability they claim to have.
Randi's unwillingness to accept an application when a preliminary test performed by a skeptic group returned results with a p-value less than 0.001.
A number of occasions when it seemed that applications were closed prematurely.
I haven't been able to read SWIFT for several years due to the level of derision.

I disagree.
When something paranormal is to be demonstarted it must not be by pure chance otherwise you demonstrated NOTHING.
For premature clsoer,this case(Pavel_do) is not among them for sure.

Derision of idiocy is not a problem especially when it is humorous.I don't view that as a problem.

It is your opinion(and in my opinion, wrong,but not under derision ) and there it should end. (It is off-topic!)

And lastly,Randi was asked for input,so he provided...

 

[fls]

If I didn't hear any explanation (and I read only OP,to not skew my own opinion) I'd say that parts are similar or same enough to think "that is too close" , but parts are sufficently different that it wasn't plagiarism and rules of english does not allow that much difference(from POV of czech language) and then there was problem that a part looks like direct quotation from a wooer,but is not properly marked as such. (Quotation should not be counted as it has to be same or part of same text serving as source)

Plagiate should be much more similar in my view and as such it didn't seem to me.

Anyway it was even only small part of very larger article with usually similarities,so that would be not constitute any wrong doing...

Exactly. The degree of plagiarism was relatively minor and it didn't seem to bother most people (those who found it somewhat disturbing were professionals/academicians for the most part), so if he had simply told the truth about his intentions, it probably would have been dropped. Instead he offers up an excuse which cannot be true, which then leaves me in the uncomfortable position of wondering why the hell he would do that?

After I got thoughts together I found out that he commented on it,so I found relevant SWIFT and :

http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-02/020209morebrowne.html#i9

I'd say he could say it bit better...

I found it hard to discover any redeeming value to his ridicule, only potential harm. Other than habit, I again had to wonder why the hell he would do that?

Anyway as for:

I disagree.
When something paranormal is to be demonstarted it must not be by pure chance otherwise you demonstrated NOTHING.

Nothing in that list states that I am suggesting that the paranormal is to be demonstrated by pure chance. I don't know what it was that you misunderstood, but you misunderstood something.

For premature clsoer,this case(Pavel_do) is not among them for sure.

Then I would add another complaint to the list to reflect Pavel's case...

Randi sometimes keeps protocol negotiations open for months or years when he has no intention of agreeing to a reasonable test from the beginning.

Derision of idiocy is not a problem especially when it is humorous.I don't view that as a problem.

I see.

It is your opinion(and in my opinion, wrong,but not under derision ) and there it should end. (It is off-topic!)

And lastly,Randi was asked for input,so he provided...

I don't understand what you are referring to with that last statement.

Linda

 

[Klimax]

Exactly. The degree of plagiarism was relatively minor and it didn't seem to bother most people (those who found it somewhat disturbing were professionals/academicians for the most part), so if he had simply told the truth about his intentions, it probably would have been dropped. Instead he offers up an excuse which cannot be true, which then leaves me in the uncomfortable position of wondering why the hell he would do that?

I sort of understood him as I got myself bit closer to same problem.(not a published thing,but as part of studying)

I found it hard to discover any redeeming value to his ridicule, only potential harm. Other than habit, I again had to wonder why the hell he would do that?

Don't know and not that much care. (I know about him so long as I am here)

Nothing in that list states that I am suggesting that the paranormal is to be demonstrated by pure chance. I don't know what it was that you misunderstood, but you misunderstood something.

It was about chance and why he requires 0,001. If there is significant probability that claim can be done through luck,then you still don't know. (You missunderstood my point...)

See,if test is designed with 0.1 then claimant can get even without paranormal ability a million dolars. That is why Randi set the conditions as they are. (So if he altered MDC as you would like,somebody will get million,yet doesn't have anything paranormal about it and there is not so much to do to workaround this any other way)

Then I would add another complaint to the list to reflect Pavel's case...

Randi sometimes keeps protocol negotiations open for months or years when he has no intention of agreeing to a reasonable test from the beginning.

Had he clear knowledge of what he can do and no significant change to it or various protocols over time,then he would be right now already tested ,but as he was changing protocol,because he discovered that ability is more and more limited and less and less useable,then it was no wonder that it ended this way.

He got a year to improve ability,to prepare proper good protocol,which won't require days to complete. He shall use it and meanwhile eventually contact other groups wiht challanges to test it. (IIRC there is group whose test can skip preliminary test of MDC)

And lastly IIRC Pavel wasn't the only claimant.

I see.



I don't understand what you are referring to with that last statement.

Linda

That was about protocol. He was asked among others for input on last protocol sent by Pavel. And even if not asked,he has to sign it(agree with it as the second party of contract)

 

[fls]

I sort of understood him as I got myself bit closer to same problem.(not a published thing,but as part of studying)

I see.

Don't know and not that much care. (I know about him so long as I am here)

I see.

Then I guess I should add that my opinion will only be relevant to those people who don't like being lied to and who don't think it is useful to ridicule others for no reason. If those behaviours don't bother you, then you won't find anything of concern in Randi's behaviour.

It was about chance and why he requires 0,001. If there is significant probability that claim can be done through luck,then you still don't know. (You missunderstood my point...)

See,if test is designed with 0.1 then claimant can get even without paranormal ability a million dolars. That is why Randi set the conditions as they are. (So if he altered MDC as you would like,somebody will get million,yet doesn't have anything paranormal about it and there is not so much to do to workaround this any other way)

My suggestions to alter the MDC would not change the probability that a claimant can win due to chance. In fact, it would actually decrease the chance that a claimant's win would be due to chance, considerably. I don't know where you got 0.1 from. If you tell me where you got the idea that these changes would make it easier for a claimant to win on luck, then I'd be happy to clarify it for you (warning: it involves math ).

Had he clear knowledge of what he can do and no significant change to it or various protocols over time,then he would be right now already tested ,but as he was changing protocol,because he discovered that ability is more and more limited and less and less useable,then it was no wonder that it ended this way.

Why is it any wonder that it ended this way? He was able to provide Randi with a workable protocol based on what Randi says upfront about the MDC. The problem wasn't that Pavel couldn't work within the confines of the purported Challenge rules - his protocol followed the letter of the Challenge rules. The problem was that Randi used a different set of rules to judge whether or not he would accept the protocol. If Randi had shared this different set of rules upfront, instead of applying them only after Pavel and Startz and everyone else had put considerable effort into preparing a protocol, we would have known early in the process that the way Pavel chose to demonstrate his claim (binary choices) would be inadequate to pass the Challenge. If Randi had shared, at the beginning, that Pavel would be expected to confine the number of trials to a certain number or time period, then Pavel could have worked on a way of demonstrating his claim within those restrictions. As it was, he worked on a way to operate within the purported restrictions instead of the sooper-secret restrictions and ended up getting blind-sided.

He got a year to improve ability,to prepare proper good protocol,which won't require days to complete.

But he already did that. The protocol he submitted doesn't take days. It takes hours - a maximum of 8, but probably less.

He shall use it and meanwhile eventually contact other groups wiht challanges to test it. (IIRC there is group whose test can skip preliminary test of MDC)

And lastly IIRC Pavel wasn't the only claimant.

That was about protocol. He was asked among others for input on last protocol sent by Pavel. And even if not asked,he has to sign it(agree with it as the second party of contract)

I see what you mean. The problem isn't that Randi was giving input. The problem was that because Randi has the final say, his suggestions become an ultimatum.

Linda

 

[Klimax]

Then I guess I should add that my opinion will only be relevant to those people who don't like being lied to and who don't think it is useful to ridicule others for no reason. If those behaviours don't bother you, then you won't find anything of concern in Randi's behaviour.

I reread posts on the last page (50 posts per page) and I nowhere saw your accusation of mr. Randi lying ,no rationale and nothing to back up.So I never commented on subject of lying. If you think about that affair with forum posts in SWIFT then it was not lie. (If it was more back in the thread I missed it again..)

My suggestions to alter the MDC would not change the probability that a claimant can win due to chance. In fact, it would actually decrease the chance that a claimant's win would be due to chance, considerably. I don't know where you got 0.1 from. If you tell me where you got the idea that these changes would make it easier for a claimant to win on luck, then I'd be happy to clarify it for you (warning: it involves math ).

First what is your proposal then? Because you need to make sure that chance doesn't play any role.(And if power is that unreliable than there is nothing to test and is of no use)
Second:0,1 was more "example". And math is not a problem.

Why is it any wonder that it ended this way? He was able to provide Randi with a workable protocol based on what Randi says upfront about the MDC. The problem wasn't that Pavel couldn't work within the confines of the purported Challenge rules - his protocol followed the letter of the Challenge rules. The problem was that Randi used a different set of rules to judge whether or not he would accept the protocol. If Randi had shared this different set of rules upfront, instead of applying them only after Pavel and Startz and everyone else had put considerable effort into preparing a protocol, we would have known early in the process that the way Pavel chose to demonstrate his claim (binary choices) would be inadequate to pass the Challenge. If Randi had shared, at the beginning, that Pavel would be expected to confine the number of trials to a certain number or time period, then Pavel could have worked on a way of demonstrating his claim within those restrictions. As it was, he worked on a way to operate within the purported restrictions instead of the sooper-secret restrictions and ended up getting blind-sided.

I think this answers time:

As long as it is monitored by sharp reliable people, I see no reason why the amount of trials or pictures should be relevant. The time involved should be the limiting factor as concentration will diminish over time. I say figure out the statistical probabilities and the larger numbers will help ensure that there will be less of a chance that a lucky run (so to speak) would occur. Limit the time to say, four hours. I don't understand why this isn't a slam dunk for Randi to do unless??????

Doing 100 trials in four hours seems out of reach. It would likely force Pavel to make hasty decisions - the exact thing he likes to avoid.

Do a simple calculation of 10 sets with 10 trials each:

Guessing plus changing of the photos = 4 min. per trial

10 trials = 40 minutes per set.

10 sets = 400 minutes

Include 30 minutes minimum break time for Pavel and the volunteer staff and you are already looking at the limit - and that only if everything goes according to plan.

I may also add that four minutes per trial seems already rushed. I'd rather set the limit at ten minutes and count every trial running longer than ten minutes a fail; assuming Pavel would agree to that.

If Pavel would be faster, great. But I would plan for the test dragging on as described. And those plans always assume no ones screws up.

Alas, unfortunately we will see no test.

And that is unfortunately not directly part of rules.But I have noticed that in many protocols or discussion of them,it was checked for time required.
So in this way JREF was consistent.
So I don't see where Randi put different set of rules.
(Binary was reached after several different protcols IIRC)

But he already did that. The protocol he submitted doesn't take days. It takes hours - a maximum of 8, but probably less.

See above.

I see what you mean. The problem isn't that Randi was giving input. The problem was that because Randi has the final say, his suggestions become an ultimatum.

Linda

Since acording to very optimistic calculation it would take too much time,even if Pavel would have perfect ability with little time needed for each set of photos.

But if he wants to prove that it was premature,there is a group with challenge which can be used instead of preliminary. Should he try that,we can see if they will be more successfull in getting his ability tested.

 

[fls]

I reread posts on the last page (50 posts per page) and I nowhere saw your accusation of mr. Randi lying ,no rationale and nothing to back up.So I never commented on subject of lying. If you think about that affair with forum posts in SWIFT then it was not lie. (If it was more back in the thread I missed it again..)

You were responding to my statement that what Randi said could not be true. One of reasons that someone would say something that isn't true is because they are lying, especially if their statement was made deliberately. I don't know if Randi was lying, but I thought it was fairly obvious (I'm sorry that it wasn't) that we wouldn't have been concerned if we thought it could be simply an honest mistake.

These posts are particularly useful for outlining the concerns:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2338358#post2338358
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2344120#post2344120
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2344516#post2344516

First what is your proposal then? Because you need to make sure that chance doesn't play any role.(And if power is that unreliable than there is nothing to test and is of no use)

I suggested that the number of trials take into consideration the number needed to give someone a reasonable chance of passing if they had the ability, in addition to the number of trials needed to demonstrate that the ability would be unlikely if it were due to chance.

Second:0,1 was more "example". And math is not a problem.

It was a very odd example then. Nobody would suggest that the standard for passing be one in ten. Why even bring up something that silly?

I think this answers time:

And that is unfortunately not directly part of rules.But I have noticed that in many protocols or discussion of them,it was checked for time required.
So in this way JREF was consistent.
So I don't see where Randi put different set of rules.
(Binary was reached after several different protcols IIRC)

See above.

If four hours is okay, but eight hours is not, then why not simply say that beforehand. If this is going to be a make or break requirement, then Randi needs to be upfront about it. Because reasonable people (Startz and myself), interpreted "under proper observing conditions" as including a test which may take up to eight hours, but probably less. If that requirement were known beforehand, then the suggestions for the kinds of tests that Pavel should try would have been different.

Since acording to very optimistic calculation it would take too much time,even if Pavel would have perfect ability with little time needed for each set of photos.

But if he wants to prove that it was premature,there is a group with challenge which can be used instead of preliminary. Should he try that,we can see if they will be more successfull in getting his ability tested.

I see. It doesn't matter whether or not Randi acts in good faith, because if he doesn't, others might.

Linda

 

[Klimax]

You were responding to my statement that what Randi said could not be true. One of reasons that someone would say something that isn't true is because they are lying, especially if their statement was made deliberately. I don't know if Randi was lying, but I thought it was fairly obvious (I'm sorry that it wasn't) that we wouldn't have been concerned if we thought it could be simply an honest mistake.

These posts are particularly useful for outlining the concerns:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2338358#post2338358
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2344120#post2344120
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2344516#post2344516

Interesting posts selected from long thread. I take it you agree with them and they wrote what you think as well. OK. Deffer to the rest from "opposing group". Mistakes can be mistaken for a lie and a strange explanation and/or apology can be considered as not an honest response. There is so far no mindreader or other things detailing it. (I think we should end this derail...)

I suggested that the number of trials take into consideration the number needed to give someone a reasonable chance of passing if they had the ability, in addition to the number of trials needed to demonstrate that the ability would be unlikely if it were due to chance.

So long as time needed is not a problem,it is already done AFAIU...

If four hours is okay, but eight hours is not, then why not simply say that beforehand. If this is going to be a make or break requirement, then Randi needs to be upfront about it. Because reasonable people (Startz and myself), interpreted "under proper observing conditions" as including a test which may take up to eight hours, but probably less. If that requirement were known beforehand, then the suggestions for the kinds of tests that Pavel should try would have been different.

I suspect that when rules and FAQ was written,that they didn't realise that sometimes they'll get protocol requiring such a lot of time and yet not enough of them,so they didn't update either.

I see. It doesn't matter whether or not Randi acts in good faith, because if he doesn't, others might.

That will be revealed by future actions... (so sort of agree.)

 

[GzuzKryzt]

It's been three and a half weeks since Pavel said he sent the letter to the JREF. I asked RemieV and Jeff for an update.

 

[pavel_do]

It's been three and a half weeks since Pavel said he sent the letter to the JREF. I asked RemieV and Jeff for an update.

All I got so far was reply from Randi on September 8th (as I sent letter to him personally in addition to the one I sent to Alison.)

" Do not write to me. Alison handles these matters."

That all so far... From the other hand, before JREF took a few months for reply I dont think I can axpect any reply till next year..
(to be honest I don't think JREF-RANDI will be enthusiastic to reply at all...)

 

[crashman]

Pavil should get a lawer

The intelligent people here should end this thread and move on. It's obvious the Million dollar challenge has far to many disclaimers to make it worth the hassle. If Pavel can do what he says, he needs an agent who can make it happen with somebody more credible then even the great Randi. While I respect what he's done, he is not the final word in stone regarding these matters. Maybe a rogue group of people who have been here for years and have the respect of the members could arrange a test. If this test is passed to a degree that would erase any reasonable doubt a lawsuit would be in order. That is the test in civil matters and does not even require a unanimous jury. If Pavel feels wronged, let him serve Randi and get on with it.

 

[gnome]

Which disclaimer is so insurmountable?

 

[Cuddles]

It's obvious the Million dollar challenge has far to many disclaimers to make it worth the hassle.

Such as?

Maybe a rogue group of people who have been here for years and have the respect of the members could arrange a test.

Why would it need to be a "rogue" group? What does that even mean, given the huge differences in opinions posters have here? More to the point, why would anyone actually want to? While many of us have criticised the JREF here, there seem to be very few people that think there is any chance of Pavel even taking a test, let alone passing one.

If this test is passed to a degree that would erase any reasonable doubt a lawsuit would be in order. That is the test in civil matters and does not even require a unanimous jury. If Pavel feels wronged, let him serve Randi and get on with it.

What exactly do you think Pavel could sue Randi for? The JREF has no obligation to test anyone, and there was no contract in this case. Even if you assume Pavel really can do whatever it is he claims (if he ever manages to state it clearly in the first place), he has no grounds whatsoever to sue anyone.

 

[Rodney]

. . .there seem to be very few people that think there is any chance of Pavel even taking a test . . .

At least not one given by the JREF.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

At least not one given by the JREF.

Possible. It is on Pavel to find another suitable organization to do proper testing.

The only MDC applicant I found to have done proper testing - documented and designed - outside the MDC is Russell Shipp with the North Texas Skeptics.

Hence it seems unlikely I will see Pavel do something similar.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

It's been three and a half weeks since Pavel said he sent the letter to the JREF. I asked RemieV and Jeff for an update.

I repeated my request for said update.

 

[IXP]

I repeated my request for said update.

The word of the Amazing is final. There will be no update.