A Deadly Flaw in a Test Protocol
- Thread starter Patricio Elicer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- deadly
Beady
Philosopher
Vikram said:
I didn't go ballistic, I took issue with the idea that someone winning the Challenge, or even passing the prelim, would be a bad thing. To reresh your memory, the statement was:
If I didn't have a point, why was this later amended to read
To me, the two quotes are substantially different, and I would be interested to see an explanation of why you apparently feel they are substantially the same. And if they are the same, why was the amendment necessary?
Beady
Philosopher
I have to wonder if you actually read what I wrote. I asked:
To which you answered:
I honestly do not understand what your response has to do with my question.
To which you answered:
I honestly do not understand what your response has to do with my question.
Beady,
If you cast your eyes to the post that begins this thread, you'll realize that Patricio was expressing concern about the fact that someone might win the million dollars not because they actually have any ability but simply because the protocol was flawed. That's what everyone has been referring to on this thread.
Except perhaps you.
For some reason, you seem to have chosen to believe that people here were concerned that some genuine paranormal phenomenon would pass rigorous JREF tests and get the million. That's not what people on this thread were talking about AT ALL. You were the one who completely misinterpreted Patricio's statement and when Patricio tried to word it differently so that you would understand, you called it an 'amendment' and asked for an explanation.
In any case, so that all your doubts should be smoothed out, let me state the following:
1) Someone wins the challenge because of flawed protocol: A very sad day. I wouldn't want such a day to ever come.
2) Someone wins the challenge by passing proper protocol: A very happy day. The door to a whole new field of knowledge will have been opened.
Does that clear out any of your confusion? As far as the true purpose of the test goes, you would have to ask Randi, because it's his test. As for me - as much as I would be delighted if a hitherto-unknown phenomenon were to be revealed to the world, I also find the 'put-up-or-shut-up' potential of the challenge to be invaluable.
If you cast your eyes to the post that begins this thread, you'll realize that Patricio was expressing concern about the fact that someone might win the million dollars not because they actually have any ability but simply because the protocol was flawed. That's what everyone has been referring to on this thread.
Except perhaps you.
For some reason, you seem to have chosen to believe that people here were concerned that some genuine paranormal phenomenon would pass rigorous JREF tests and get the million. That's not what people on this thread were talking about AT ALL. You were the one who completely misinterpreted Patricio's statement and when Patricio tried to word it differently so that you would understand, you called it an 'amendment' and asked for an explanation.
In any case, so that all your doubts should be smoothed out, let me state the following:
1) Someone wins the challenge because of flawed protocol: A very sad day. I wouldn't want such a day to ever come.
2) Someone wins the challenge by passing proper protocol: A very happy day. The door to a whole new field of knowledge will have been opened.
Does that clear out any of your confusion? As far as the true purpose of the test goes, you would have to ask Randi, because it's his test. As for me - as much as I would be delighted if a hitherto-unknown phenomenon were to be revealed to the world, I also find the 'put-up-or-shut-up' potential of the challenge to be invaluable.
Vikram said:
Unless they win by chance.
Unless it is then deemed, because the event occured in the natural and normal world, that the event was really not supernatural and paranormal all along.
Unless people conclude that Randi and/or team getting tricked is more probable than a supernatural or paranormal thing occuring.
Unless people realize that one event occuring doesn't determine anything in science, only replication does.
TheBoyPaj
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 1,640
jzs said:
But that will be picked up by later research.
Doesn't matter. It will still be something new and exciting.
Of course that's more likely. People get tricked every day. People don't have paranormal experiences every day. Anyway, if it's a trick it's not a proper protocol, is it?
No one's saying that we'll instantly understand what happened. Only that a new possibility will have been proposed. Mind you, I have to say that, even if this chip thing does seem to make a CD sound different, I doubt my life will be any better as a result.
A one-in-a-million chance under controlled settings is odds enough to justify serious further investigation.jzs said:
That would be equivalent to the opening of a door into a new field of knowledge.
As TheBoyPaj said, then it wouldn't be a proper protocol.
What part of "the door to a whole new field of knowledge will be opened" did you not understand?
Beady
Philosopher
Vikram said:
That's how the thread started, but that's not what I was responding to. I was responding to:
IOW, passing the prelim, in and of itself, with no qualifiers applied.
If "just" in this quote does not mean "regardless of how they do it, whether by true ability, mistake or chance," then please explain to me exactly what it does mean.
Alternatively, please explain how you interpret "just" to mean "solely because of flawed protocol."
Looking at the two quotes side-by-side, I don't see that they are different versions of the same statement, unless, of course, it is your contention that "the woos would cry out loud that the paranormal exists" is synonymous with " the woos to cry out loud victory over James Randi."
I ask you directly: Would proof of the existance of "the paranormal" be a victory over James Randi? If it would not, then Patricio's two statements are completely different in meaning and I did not misunderstand the original. If it would, then his two statements really are different wordings of the same statement. If the latter is the case, why is my original question ("So what?") inappropriate? And, as a bonus, what is the answer to, "So what?"
BTW, I am perfectly willing to allow that Patricio simply misspoke the first time around, that the second version was a correction (which I happen to agree with), and that correction makes the subsequent "discussion" moot. I am curious, though, why you are so adamant that he was not making a correction, but rather was speaking more slowly so that I might understand.
Beady,
This is going to be my last attempt to explain this. If you still don't understand, then I will not attempt to explain it any further.
Patricio had (in the context of the prelim protocol not being tight) said "just someone passing the prelim would suffice for the woos to cry out loud victory over James Randi." In response to your "So what?" and your sudden flare-up about Randi's ego, he reworded it as "the woos would cry out loud that the paranormal exists".
You chose to excise the "woos would cry out loud" parts of the sentences and only compare "victory over James Randi" with "the paranormal exists". Another example of you taking things completely out of context. To any rational mind, the existence of the paranormal would not be a victory over James Randi. But it is obvious that the woos, whose delusions are regularly shattered by Randi, would certainly equate the two. For them, even a claim that passes a faulty protocol would be enough for them to cry out that the paranormal exists and that they have been victorious over James Randi.
Hence, it is my contention that "the woos would cry out loud that the paranormal exists" is synonymous with " the woos to cry out loud victory over James Randi."
To selectively excise the sentence and attempt to equate "the paranormal exists" to "victory over James Randi" is just plain silly. That is what you have been doing. So many of your posts on this thread have been plain silly.
As far as my response to your "so what?" goes, I simply tried to clear out your misunderstanding of Patricio's post and explain to you better what Patricio meant. Patricio himself endorsed my explanation. In any case, I have taken issue not at your asking of a question (you are free to ask whatever genuine questions you might wish to), but at your pointless inflammatory remarks about Randi's ego. Further down the page, I also explained to you the general implications of someone passing the challenge.
Is that clear now? If it isn't, then I bid you well.
This is going to be my last attempt to explain this. If you still don't understand, then I will not attempt to explain it any further.
This was the original post by Patricio. It's very very clear that Patricio was concerned that the protocol for the prelim might not be that tight. He follows that up with his concern that since no one has passed the prelim so far, just someone passing it would suffice for the woos to cry out loud victory over James Randi. Any logical mind will realize that the two statements are clearly contextually connected to each other. It's obvious that Patricio is concerned that a less than tight protocol might lead to a state of affairs in which the woos would cry out loud victory over James Randi. It's obvious that Patricio did not suddenly diverge into an analysis of the general implications of someone passing the challenge. There were no qualifiers required. Which basically renders all your further comments unnecessary.Patricio Elicer said:
Patricio had (in the context of the prelim protocol not being tight) said "just someone passing the prelim would suffice for the woos to cry out loud victory over James Randi." In response to your "So what?" and your sudden flare-up about Randi's ego, he reworded it as "the woos would cry out loud that the paranormal exists".
You chose to excise the "woos would cry out loud" parts of the sentences and only compare "victory over James Randi" with "the paranormal exists". Another example of you taking things completely out of context. To any rational mind, the existence of the paranormal would not be a victory over James Randi. But it is obvious that the woos, whose delusions are regularly shattered by Randi, would certainly equate the two. For them, even a claim that passes a faulty protocol would be enough for them to cry out that the paranormal exists and that they have been victorious over James Randi.
Hence, it is my contention that "the woos would cry out loud that the paranormal exists" is synonymous with " the woos to cry out loud victory over James Randi."
To selectively excise the sentence and attempt to equate "the paranormal exists" to "victory over James Randi" is just plain silly. That is what you have been doing. So many of your posts on this thread have been plain silly.
As far as my response to your "so what?" goes, I simply tried to clear out your misunderstanding of Patricio's post and explain to you better what Patricio meant. Patricio himself endorsed my explanation. In any case, I have taken issue not at your asking of a question (you are free to ask whatever genuine questions you might wish to), but at your pointless inflammatory remarks about Randi's ego. Further down the page, I also explained to you the general implications of someone passing the challenge.
Is that clear now? If it isn't, then I bid you well.
Patricio Elicer
Obsessed with Reality
Beady,
I'm sorry I've caused such a confusion for not wording my thoughts correctly. I entirely agreed with you when you first objected my infamous remark, that's why I later reworded it into what I really meant to say.
I for one, would be the happiest person if someone was to genuinely pass the challenge on a paranormal claim. It would revolutionize our present understanding of nature, it would change our lives in unforseeable ways, etc. Also it would make our world more exciting than it is today, because it would be proof that we are not trapped by the laws of nature as we know them.
You see, I'm not concerned that someone passes the test per se. If the woos cry out loud victory over James Randi on a genuinely paranormal claim, I'd be happy. And I'm sure Randi would as well. He would have the honor to be the first researcher ever to have tangible proof that the paranormal exists. But what I'd hate, as Vikram put it, is that the woos cry victory over James Randi due to a faulty protocol.
I'm sorry I've caused such a confusion for not wording my thoughts correctly. I entirely agreed with you when you first objected my infamous remark, that's why I later reworded it into what I really meant to say.
I for one, would be the happiest person if someone was to genuinely pass the challenge on a paranormal claim. It would revolutionize our present understanding of nature, it would change our lives in unforseeable ways, etc. Also it would make our world more exciting than it is today, because it would be proof that we are not trapped by the laws of nature as we know them.
You see, I'm not concerned that someone passes the test per se. If the woos cry out loud victory over James Randi on a genuinely paranormal claim, I'd be happy. And I'm sure Randi would as well. He would have the honor to be the first researcher ever to have tangible proof that the paranormal exists. But what I'd hate, as Vikram put it, is that the woos cry victory over James Randi due to a faulty protocol.
Patricio Elicer
Obsessed with Reality
In my estimation a preliminary test was conducted under loosely conditions, which led the claimants to proclaim that they had won the prize (these news spread over the internet).Vikram said:
In the event that you missed the case originally, I'll provide you the links to the Commentaries with Randi's descriptions of the whole "affair". There's a thread in the "Challenge" section also, that I've been unable to locate, where the matter is discussed at lenght.
The worst aspect IMO, is that Randi appointed a stranger to conduct the test. He didn't know that person, except for a few e-mail exchanges or phone conversations. The man could've perfectly been in collusion with the claimant, but Randi argued that his "intuition" told him that the man was an honest person. A strange remark by Randi.
Second, it appears that the guy was not given a written and detailed protocol as a clear guideline on how the test was to be conducted. I infere this, because of Randi saying "I told him this", "I told him that".
September 19, 2003 Commentary
September 26, 2003 Commentary
October 3, 2003 Commentary
October 10, 2003 Commentary
[Edited for spelling]
If a paranormal claim passes a proper JREF challenge protocol (and the odds of passing it by chance are less than one in a million) then I bet a lot of scientists would consider it worth their time and effort to investigate it further by replicating the results and expanding upon the tests. That would probably lead to the phenomenon being recognized as natural and normal. We will all be able to celebrate then because a new and wonderful world of knowledge will have been revealed to us.jzs said:
Now of course, I'm not going to hold my breath until a valid claim comes along. To the best of my knowledge, I'm not an anaerobic creature.
I've heard Randi say on two separate occasions that if the challenge was won the money is paid out, whether it was won by means of a “perinormal†ability, a paranormal ability or plain old fashioned skilled trickery.
Beady
Philosopher
Vikram said:
Thank you.
I wonder how you can say such things and look yourself in the mirror. For how many messages did I quote the passages in their entirety? I summarized only in the most recent one in order to ask a question, and now you are accusing me of purposely editing throughout the exchange. Those parts I cited in my last post *were* the changes made, so why compare the unchanged parts? Talk about taking things out of context!
Whose misunderstanding? Let's see what Patricio, himself, has to say about it (a message or two after yours):
Patricio agreed with my "misunderstanding"? And you say that proves my error?
You are using a definition of logic with which I have been heretofore unfamiliar.
Beady
Philosopher
Patricio Elicer said:
Thank you! I actually figured it was simply a misstatement, and was trying to engage you over it, the same way Vikram, himself, engaged you over the "deadly" part. I got sidetracked by Vikram's rather pointless objections to my own post. Anyway, it sounds like you might have fallen victim to one major problem that writing on the web shares with oral communication: little or no chance to review and edit.
Other than that, we are in total agreement. My bit about Randi's ego was said in objection to the statement, it was not a diatribe against Randi or the Challenge. I think part of what caused my reaction was my memory of the FAQ's original casting of the Challenge as a hostile process, with simultaneous protestations of fairness.
As I said, we're in total agreement. I think where we might differ is that I'm a little more open than most to the possibility that something we consider paranormal might, in actuality, be merely unknown. I'm out of my depth, here, but I liken it to how Newtonian physics were once, literally, considered the Laws Of The Universe, but we now know that there's a theoretical realm where they begin to break down.
I'm probably saying it badly. I guess what it amounts to is that I believe that, if we don't know, then all it means is that we don't know, not that it's not possible. Please remember, however, that when I say things like this that I mean it all within the context of my sig line:
Oh yes! I do recall reading this. And I also recall wondering why Randi doesn't demand that all preliminary tests be performed in Florida as well. After all, if the claimant were to pass even the prelim, he/she would get $10,000 on the spot, which by itself would be enough to cover many times over any expenses that the claimant might have had to bear for the travel.Patricio Elicer said:
That would of course lead to a lot of people complaining that the challenge is inaccessible to them because they are unable to fly to Florida, but I think that's quite a weak argument - if you're sure you're going to win a million, then a thousand in plane fare shouldn't really be enough to dissuade you. And performing the test in Florida under the direct supervision of either Randi or someone directly authorized by Randi would definitely eliminate the possibility that someone in cahoots with the claimant might volunteer to test him/her.
A more valid criticism of the demand that the preliminary test be performed in Florida is that a number of foreigners are often rejected when they apply for US visitor visas. That problem could be solved by having the claimant tested by the nearest official skeptic organization in their own or another country.
In any case, I suppose this is Randi's call. It IS his million after all.
Vikram said:
This is exactly what we do, whenever we're getting close to hammering down a protocol, which happens rarely.
Chip Denman of the DC Area Skeptics is the man we consult on all such matters. I talked to him once last year, and then the applicant vanished.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Actually it's not.Vikram said:
After all, if the claimant were to pass even the prelim, he/she would get $10,000 on the spot,...
Is this new? I don't see it in the FAQ or rules..
In any case, I suppose this is Randi's call. It IS his million after all.