What Happened to Responsibility?

[tkingdoll]

I disagree with Wolfman to a point. I think this is a good way of getting Randi and the JREF back into the public eye* with something younger and funkier than some crusty old psychic, and one of the better ways of getting new people to the JREF.

The 'to a point bit' is where I am uncertain that that the objective* is desirable.

 

[athon]

Perhaps there needs to be a clarification of the JREF's intentions at some point. I've asked a number of times over the years for clear goals and aims and evaluations on success of achieving them, but I get the feeling that the JREF is playing an amateur game at that. It can't afford to.

The overarching aim of the foundation as I see it is to demonstrate to members of the public that they can be fooled into thinking that something is factual when it is either known not to be, or has no supporting evidence. This could include fields currently described as paranormal, pseudoscientific, superstitious or magical.

As such, the cables fall perfectly into this aim.

The second aim is to provide tools for members of the public to identify the methods by which they can be manipulated and fooled by their own minds or by the persuasion of others.

The last aim is to provide the means for members of the public to educate others on these matters.

I'm more or less paraphrasing the ideas embedded in the current JREF goals. However I think we're getting bogged down in the semantics of what 'paranormal' means and missing the grand goal behind the foundation - where people spread concepts that cannot be demonstrated to be true, the JREF will use them as an example for educational purposes.

Athon

 

[sol invictus]

The premise of this thread is incorrect

It's not only a small fraction of the population that's affected by cable nonsense. Monster cables for example are overpriced and advertised with extremely dubious claims about their effects on sound. There's a minor industry of foisting them and similar products off on consumers, and it's not restricted to audio (Monster sells a $250 digital video cable, for example). Salespeople will tell you what a great improvement you'll get from upgrading, etc. etc. The Pears are merely the top of a pyramid of pseudoscience which affects a large fraction of all consumers, and as a particularly egregious example it makes sense to go after them.

I should add that the limits of human hearing are very well established scientifically, going back to the 1930's, and the effects of cables on electrical signals are even better understood. Therefore any claim to be able to hear a difference in cables can be easily evaluated scientifically, and if the claim is false according to the science, it is paranormal and a perfectly appropriate subject for JREF.

 

[Gaspode]

Interesting that this subject should come up just as my JREF membership is up for renewal. I decided some time ago not renew it. Mainly for the reasons Wolfman has stated.

If indeed the JREF is a vehicle for Randi to persue whatever he sees fit then fine. But I won't be supporting it.

 

[Darat]

Gaspode - what's changed your opinion of the JREF?

 

[Gaspode]

My opinion of the JREF hasn't changed ever since I first raised my concerns in this thread back in February. Since then have have been improvements - the website is far improved and there are more frequent news updates. But Randi continues to have a low regard for this forum. And events earlier this year such as the psychic ads and the rule changes (remember the '7th word'?) certainly haven't helped. And now this 'Pear cables' challenge.

However, I will continue to support the Forum as I always have, whether in the form of donations or by volunteering my spare time (e.g. as a 'Tagger'). I value it far more than the foundation.

I've always seen the JREF and the JREF Forum as seperate entities. I realise that may be incorrect; maybe it's because I'm a relative newbie.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

The psychic ads were completely my responsibility. All the blame for those lies with me.

As for the rest, I agree, there is a difference between the JREF and the forum, and that's probably for the best.

My opinion of the JREF hasn't changed ever since I first raised my concerns in this thread back in February. Since then have have been improvements - the website is far improved and there are more frequent news updates. But Randi continues to have a low regard for this forum. And events earlier this year such as the psychic ads and the rule changes (remember the '7th word'?) certainly haven't helped. And now this 'Pear cables' challenge.

However, I will continue to support the Forum as I always have, whether in the form of donations or by volunteering my spare time (e.g. as a 'Tagger'). I value it far more than the foundation.

I've always seen the JREF and the JREF Forum as seperate entities. I realise that may be incorrect; maybe it's because I'm a relative newbie.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Have ot totatlly disagree - teh JREF and Randi seem to use the term paranormal like I've always used it and understood it to be use e.g. something outside of sciecne / against the laws of science and so on.

Could you write down a list of these laws of science? I'm not sure I've seen all of them like you have.

 

[Michael Redman]

Have ot totatlly disagree - teh JREF and Randi seem to use the term paranormal like I've always used it and understood it to be use e.g. something outside of sciecne / against the laws of science and so on.

So you're claiming that if someone makes a claim about having invented a new technology, but you believe the technology is inconsistent with your understanding of the science involved, the claim is paranormal? I don't think that is the way the term has always been used . . .

I'm perfectly happy to see Randi go after these crooks. I'm a little concerned about the manner, however. I'll assume the Foundation's legal advisors are OK with the MDC money being committed in this way. However, I still think that it may appear to others that this is not an appropriate target for the MDC, and raise questions about the Foundation's commitment to its stated purposes, and the ability of anyone to direct the resources of the Foundation in a manner of their own personal choosing. The Foundation is not Jame Randi It is a separate legal entity. The appearance that the Foundation is a personal possession of one man (no matter how righteous that man is) could potentially scare off donors, and provide a target for enemies.

These are legitimate concerns, and this isn't the first time that those who care about Randi, the Foundation, and the cause in general, have felt compelled to raise such concerns. Acting defensive and counter-attacking those who raise such concerns not only hurts the base (good people have left over it in the past), it may also be blinding you to legitimate concerns that opponents will be able to exploit in the future.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I have sympathy with the opinions of Athon and Wolfman on this issue.
My opinion- and no more than that- is that speaker cables are not something JREF need be involved with.
Because the paranormal is silly, it does not follow that anything silly is paranormal.

I do not know which NGO Wolfman refers to as his. The fact it has decisions by committee implies a large enough staff to have at least one committee and I wonder if he may have a misapprehension about the size of JREF.
JREF IS James Randi. If there is a lack of "damping" or consistency in policy it may be purely because the organisation essentially consists of one man, with the support of a handful of staff, whose focus of interest (and of annoyance) may well vary from week to week, unlike that of a five or seven person sub-committee of a thirty person group.

I doubt Jeff can sway Randi if JR's mind is made up. (I suspect Linda could, because a mature and sensible woman can influence most men, however stubborn-and I've seen her in action-but Linda is (I understand), slowly withdrawing from JREF with a view to enjoying her husband's retirement (and more power to them both). )

If JR takes a position against extreme lunatic audio nonsense, that's it. No committee stage, no staff veto; - advice there is , I don't doubt, even consultation, but both the strength and the shortcoming of a small (indeed one man) decision making group, is that it can change direction fast precisely because it's a one man show.
Occasionally, it may jump in a direction that seems wrong to some observers.
That's far from a cult. There are very few uncritical Randi fans at JREF and unless I misjudge the man entirely, he seeks none.
But he does seek support from critical thinkers, which means he will be criticised by his own supporters.
At the last TAM, Kiless made a strong case for quantified accountability in sceptical education. How do we know if we are achieving anything? I feel JREF is poor here.
It may achieve much, but it's hard, even for members, to know what.

I do not expect JR to ask his supporters' opinion before he takes action. I do feel it reasonable to expect explanations after the fact and an objective assessment of what has been achieved if anything. (Failure is an option. It's only failure to try that would upset me.)

 

[jojonete]

This question has been asked several times before, even some of them in this same thread; but I've never seen a clear answer and really would like to have one. The question has to do with quotes like this:

...snip...

the cable challenge (which actually IS paranormal)

...snip...

Now, to Jeff Wagg and anyone else who says the cable challenge is paranormal:
Imagine someone takes the challenge on the Pear cables and wins the million. You personally witnessed the test and you just know the test subject can actually hear differences between cables. No cheating possible at all.

When going to sleep that day, would you honestly think you've witnessed 'a paranormal event'?

• If yes: OK, fine with me, only wanted it stated explicitly as I would answer 'no' and it's hard for me to imagine a sincere 'yes'.
• If no: shouldn't you correct the quote above?

 

[Darat]

So you're claiming that if someone makes a claim about having invented a new technology, but you believe the technology is inconsistent with your understanding of the science involved, the claim is paranormal? I don't think that is the way the term has always been used . . .

...snip...

All I am claiming is that the definition of paranormal is usually taken to mean something like this (using Encarta as I have it running on my PC):

...snip..

impossible to explain scientifically: unable to be explained or understood in terms of scientific knowledge

...snip...

That is just what the word means - perhaps you're confusing it with supernatural? Whilst the two can, for some phenomena, be used interchangeably given the fact that the JREF uses both words in its "About the JREF" section ("....Its aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas ... ") I think it is reasonable to conclude that the JREF is using the word paranormal with the definition I quote above.

And the reason why this is important (beyond the semantic argument ) is that one of the OP's premises was that investigating and issuing a challenge regarding the cables was not what the JREF was about. That premise however is simply wrong since the JREF clearly states that one of its goal is to inform people about paranormal ideas and the claims made by these cable manufacturers is a paranormal claim.

 

[Darat]

This question has been asked several times before, even some of them in this same thread; but I've never seen a clear answer and really would like to have one. The question has to do with quotes like this:



Now, to Jeff Wagg and anyone else who says the cable challenge is paranormal:
Imagine someone takes the challenge on the Pear cables and wins the million. You personally witnessed the test and you just know the test subject can actually hear differences between cables. No cheating possible at all.

When going to sleep that day, would you honestly think you've witnessed 'a paranormal event'?

• If yes: OK, fine with me, only wanted it stated explicitly as I would answer 'no' and it's hard for me to imagine a sincere 'yes'.
• If no: shouldn't you correct the quote above?

Yes in the sense that if it's not an artifact of the test than what will have been demonstrated is some new phenomenon and one that that cannot be explained by what we currently know. It would be the start of an exploration of a new area of our our understanding of the world.

Personally I would be less surprised than if the new phenomenon was something like telepathy as with the cables we are dealing with something that we know we don't know everything about (electricity, materials and so on) rather than something that has never even been proved to exist in the first place!

 

[Michael Redman]

That is just what the word means - perhaps you're confusing it with supernatural?

Perhaps you can refrain from insulting me and actually explain why this is paranormal.

Is it not Pear's claim is that they have built better audio cables by applying known scientific and engineering principles?

 

[Ysidro]

I agree with "Wolfman". This tedious hi-fi cables saga is irrelevant and
uninteresting to almost everyone. Surely if the distributors of these things
are committing advertising fraud then it's more an issue for consumer
protection organisations rather than James Randi and his "million dollars
paranormal challenge" stunt.

I disagree completely. As Jeff stated, this little saga has brought more attention to JREF and it's mission. It has also brought attention to the high-end cable scams.

THis isn't necessarily a matter of outright fraud in the legal sense. Most of these folks are very careful in the way they make their claims. They're still wrong however.

And they'll be proven wrong.

 

[Ysidro]

Perhaps you can refrain from insulting me and actually explain why this is paranormal.

Is it not Pear's claim is that they have built better audio cables by applying known scientific and engineering principles?

Is it now homeopath's claims that they work on known scientific principles? What about crystal and pyramid woos? How about dowsers?

Lots of folks claim what they do is not paranormal. That doesn't mean they aren't.

 

[Ysidro]

One more thing while I'm being Posty McPoster. I can not understand why some folks are so against this challenge. Oh, I understand the reason's given but they're just not making sense to me.

What's so different between Pear Cables and Uri Geller? Both claim to do things that are not capable under the known laws of science. Or even frontier science!

How are they not both paranormal? Is it because one doesn't use the word "quantum" yet?

 

[sthomson]

Perhaps you can refrain from insulting me and actually explain why this is paranormal.

Is it not Pear's claim is that they have built better audio cables by applying known scientific and engineering principles?

Perpetual motion machines are also built by applying known scientific and engineering principles.

 

[JimBenArm]

Just to toss my 2 cents in:
I see nothing wrong with this challenge. One poster said that it was harmless, but I disagree with that view. Even though they can afford it, this basically is saying fraud is okay if it's aimed at the wealthy. Fraud is wrong no matter who the target is, and that's what is being perpetrated here. This needs to be exposed, and I think this is a great vehicle for doing so.

 

[Michael Redman]

What's so different between Pear Cables and Uri Geller? Both claim to do things that are not capable under the known laws of science. Or even frontier science!

Transmitting a higher quality audio signal is not possible under the known laws of science?

 

[Jeff Wagg]

Now, to Jeff Wagg and anyone else who says the cable challenge is paranormal:
Imagine someone takes the challenge on the Pear cables and wins the million. You personally witnessed the test and you just know the test subject can actually hear differences between cables. No cheating possible at all.

When going to sleep that day, would you honestly think you've witnessed 'a paranormal event'?

• If yes: OK, fine with me, only wanted it stated explicitly as I would answer 'no' and it's hard for me to imagine a sincere 'yes'.
• If no: shouldn't you correct the quote above?

If the test were properly designed and cheating had been ruled out, of course I would. A properly designed test would rule out any known explanations. If the applicant passed, a new phenomenon would have been documented and substantiated.

It's not as sexy as ESP or dowsing, but it's the same in the end. Have you actually read what their claiming about these cables?

 

[Jeff Wagg]

Perpetual motion machines are also built by applying known scientific and engineering principles.

If someone's built one by ANY principles, I have a check for them...

 

[robinson]

It is possible to have a better signal, but nobody can hear it.

 

[Ysidro]

Transmitting a higher quality audio signal is not possible under the known laws of science?

Woosh, over your head.

Transmitting a higher quality audio signal? Sure.

Transmitting a higher quality audio signal that is within the range of human perception? Not to the level these folks claim.

Of course, if you want to believe you'll believe. I can't stop you. But the MDC can certainly help the fence sitters and the unintentionally ignorant learn better.

 

[Darat]

Perhaps you can refrain from insulting me and actually explain why this is paranormal.

I'm sorry but I don't see where I have insulted you however my apologies if you think I have done - none was intended.

Is it not Pear's claim is that they have built better audio cables by applying known scientific and engineering principles?

Because those "known scientific and engineering principles" actually state that the claims they make are not possible given the known scientific and engineering principles.

I don't want to derail this thread any further with this especially as the claims are discussed in several of the threads discussing the actual (now none?) challenge.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

As far as I've heard, those cables aren't "better built" but built with a lot of nonsense incorporated which is claimed to make them work better.

Anyway, here's the thing. When I started reading about the foundation and everything, I actually understood it to mean it went after pretty much any silly pseudoscientific claim, not just the dangerous ones, basically because the thinking involved in believing the non-dangerous stuff leads to dangerous ones. I was under the impression that pretty much anyone who donated to this was more or less aware that he'd go after stuff like phony cables and dowsing as well as fake healers and ghost whisperers.

 

[Michael Redman]

Transmitting a higher quality audio signal? Sure.

Transmitting a higher quality audio signal that is within the range of human perception? Not to the level these folks claim.

So it sounds to me as though they are simply misrepresenting facts. I don't see this as a paranormal claim.

Of course, if you want to believe you'll believe. I can't stop you.

I obviously don't believe.

 

[tkingdoll]

It's not as sexy as ESP or dowsing, but it's the same in the end. Have you actually read what their claiming about these cables?

I think it's MORE sexy. I know a lot of skeptics who are concerned only with fringe paranormal claims like psychics or dowsing, and I think the majority of the under 40s in the USA and UK don't give a hoot about ye olde witchcrafte. At least this is trendy. As I've said elsewhere, P&T's show is aimed at the frat boy market. There's clearly a lot of interest in debunking in that demographic.

 

[Michael Redman]

I'm sorry but I don't see where I have insulted you however my apologies if you think I have done - none was intended.

You stated that I may have been confused about relatively simple terms. However, I was probably being ungenerous. I don't believe you were trying to insult me.

Because those "known scientific and engineering principles" actually state that the claims they make are not possible given the known scientific and engineering principles.

Not possible, or simply not true? I believe we're talking about being wrong, not being outside the realm of normalcy.

By some of the reasoning found in this thread, any fraudulent claim could be called paranormal if the claimant is not actually able to do what is claimed, because if the claimant were successful, that would prove a paranormal event had occurred. But, of course, this reasoning is silly.

My point is simply that this does not look to me like a paranormal claim (and I'm obviously not the only one) and I therefore wonder if it is appropriate to use the MDC under the guise of challenging a paranormal claim.

 

[sthomson]

If someone's built one by ANY principles, I have a check for them...

Well, to be fair, I never said they were applied correctly...

 

[Darat]

I think it's MORE sexy. I know a lot of skeptics who are concerned only with fringe paranormal claims like psychics or dowsing, and I think the majority of the under 40s in the USA and UK don't give a hoot about ye olde witchcrafte. At least this is trendy. As I've said elsewhere, P&T's show is aimed at the frat boy market. There's clearly a lot of interest in debunking in that demographic.

Which is why I think someone like Charlie Brooker can do a lot more than say a Sherman in helping promote "the cause" of skepticism or rather critical thinking with his approach - to certain groups, it's different strokes for different folks.

If the JREF only concentrated on things that go bump in the night I think it would be a much poorer organisation and less likely to achieve its stated goals - its catholic approach is a strength in my opinion, not a weakness.

 

[Soapy Sam]

But Darat- if someone can tell the difference between music sent down twisted pair and the same music sent down supercable, what would this prove except that he has exceptional hearing?
Indeed , it might be that he has lousy hearing, which for some reason still lets him discriminate the two.
(ETA- He might be stone deaf and yet be able to distinguish the two by feeling vibration through his gut.)

After 30 years in a noisy business, my hearing is measurably damaged. (Probably) as a result, I find MP3 files preferable to WAV files, though most audio engineers assure me the latter are higher quality. This is not a paranormal ability: It's a chance effect of wear and tear on a biological system. How can we be sure some similar damage might not enable someone to distinguish between cables for the "wrong" reason- ie one unclaimed by the sellers? Would that be paranormal?
Not to my mind.

 

[Ysidro]

So it sounds to me as though they are simply misrepresenting facts. I don't see this as a paranormal claim.

I think we have different beliefs on the meaning of the word "paranormal" then. That's ok. Disagreement happens and we're all the better for it.

But at least I agree with Randi.

That's a joke! Laugh!

 

[Gaspode]

I think it's MORE sexy. I know a lot of skeptics who are concerned only with fringe paranormal claims like psychics or dowsing, and I think the majority of the under 40s in the USA and UK don't give a hoot about ye olde witchcrafte. At least this is trendy. As I've said elsewhere, P&T's show is aimed at the frat boy market. There's clearly a lot of interest in debunking in that demographic.

Are $7000 cables trendy? Alternative therapies such as homeopathy are far better known than obscure hifi accessories - and have the potential to harm far more than your bank balance.

These cables may be fraudulent but they're only borderline paranormal. They should not be shorehorned into the MDC.

 

[tkingdoll]

Are $7000 cables trendy? Alternative therapies such as homeopathy are far better known than obscure hifi accessories - and have the potential to harm far more than your bank balance.

These cables may be fraudulent but they're only borderline paranormal. They should not be shorehorned into the MDC.

I think it's the focus on fringe paranormal claims that is the problem. Most of the population don't take those claims seriously to start with, because they are not relevant to the majority of people and are kinda laughable.

I agree about alternative medicine, that is by far the most important topic for skeptics, IMHO. It's literally a matter of life and death. But dowsing? Psychics? That stuff is crusty. If Randi wants to be popular*, he needs to be cool. Audio cables are an easy win and a new audience.

*as I said in my earlier post, I remain skeptical that this is a desirable objective, but that's not what this thread is about

 

[athon]

As far as I've heard, those cables aren't "better built" but built with a lot of nonsense incorporated which is claimed to make them work better.

Anyway, here's the thing. When I started reading about the foundation and everything, I actually understood it to mean it went after pretty much any silly pseudoscientific claim, not just the dangerous ones, basically because the thinking involved in believing the non-dangerous stuff leads to dangerous ones. I was under the impression that pretty much anyone who donated to this was more or less aware that he'd go after stuff like phony cables and dowsing as well as fake healers and ghost whisperers.

That was my point as well. As I said before, the JREF needs to make perfectly clear what its mission is, because arguements over such terms as 'paranormal' are becoming more common (and won't disappear any time soon). Most people who feel there is something to their delusion will view it with a pseudoscientific mind; to them, there already is some form of scientific explanation and therefore doesn't suit their perception of what is paranormal.

Athon

 

[Michael Redman]

That's a joke! Laugh!

I can't. I just wiped out my checking account buying a really nice zero point energy amplifier, and quantum phased speaker towers, and now I can't afford the cables to hook them together!

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

This is where I start to disagree with you. The JREF and Randi have always gone after the "consumer" style pseudoscience whether that be audio cables, magnets to make your wine taste better, identifying a record by it's groves (which if I recall correctly is an example that predates the JREF), or "magic water".

I think the big difference here is that all or almost all of the consumer products that JREF and Randi have gone after before are products that don’t do squat. Things like:

chips to improve a compact disk
magnets to improve wine
magic health bracelets
stickers to improve cell phones
homeopathic water cures
etc.

These are things that are supposed to do something, but actually do nothing.

Expensive cables, on the other hand, actually function as cables. So they actually do something. It is just a question of quality. And furthermore, there seems to be a consensus that some cables are in fact better, or at least different, than others. It seems Pear cables are at least different from other cables. Consumers need to decide which cables they want and what price they are willing to pay for the different types of cables available.

The other products that JREF and Randi have gone after have been bad products. Is the Pear cable challenge a challenge over a bad product, or a challenge over bad pricing and marketing?

Is this a matter more for Consumer Reports than JREF? Are all bogus claims really paranormal claims?

If soap detergent Brand A advertises that they get clothes cleaner than Brand X, but both detergents contain the same active ingredients, should JREF call out Brand A as making “paranormal” claims? What if Brand A says their clothes smell fresher than Brand X but they have the same scent ingredients. Would JREF challenge that anyone who can tell the difference in scent must have a paranormal ability?


Where is the line drawn between challenging the existence of the paranormal and challenging bogus marketing claims?

 

[robinson]

Excellent question.

 

[Locknar]

I agree with "Wolfman". This tedious hi-fi cables saga is irrelevant and
uninteresting to almost everyone. Surely if the distributors of these things
are committing advertising fraud then it's more an issue for consumer
protection organisations rather than James Randi and his "million dollars
paranormal challenge" stunt.

I dunno...I'd have to disagree.

I like the idea of Randi (et all) going after the "wacks"/frauds out there, regardless of "if they hurt people" or not.

There are the “Face of Mars” folks, the “Moon landing was fake”, “Flat Earth”, “Bigfooters”, etc.; do any of these people’s beliefs actually hurt anyone? I’ve never seen a news report of folks dying, or loosing their homes, because they think the moon landing was a fake. When was the last time a town of Bigfooters burned down the "non-believers" home?

I’d argue the “Golden Ear” issue is exactly the stuff Randi (et all) should be interested in. Why…because you have someone claiming superhuman/paranormal in that they can hear things well beyond human range.

Would I spend a lot of resources proving Mr “Golden Ear” wrong…no, but if I could set up a little-to-no-cost test heck why not.