• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Audio Critic

Oh, for the love of Pete

I would actually like to have no JREF observers present if possible. Wouldn't unmanned video cameras prove to be a satisfactory control against cheating?
Click to expand...

Here we go again with this.

Please, will somebody give Wellfed a knock on the head to wake him up from this recurring bad dream?

KRAMER, the guy who administers this testing for the JREF, has told Mr Anda in plain language:
"Indeed, this has gone on long enough. I'm not in any way required to engage you in this kind of nonsense, so I won't. All I need to hear from you at this point is that you have a protocol ready for us to consider. Enough interpersonal meanderings. I am NOT interested.

For the last time, sir: Present your Protocol, or state your intention to do so within the next few days as you'd previously stated, or your claim will be rejected. Now you have a very clear choice before you: Either direct your full attention to the claim and the claim ONLY NOW and from this point forward, or it's goodbye.

So what does Wellfed do now? He tells us that he is unhappy with the presense of observers.

Yep, that sure is a great way to get the protocol nailed down. I know I'm thrilled to see that statement here.
Fortunately, Wellfed can't see my reply, so this won't get him agitated!
  • From KRAMER: "Also please be advised that you are mistaken if you think that only ONE observer will be present.
    The test will also be videotaped, so at LEAST two JREF volunteers will need to be present."

and this:
  • Point 3 - There will ALWAYS be someone in the room with you. The test will be videotaped. If you cannot overcome such "distractions", withdraw your application immediately.

To which Mr Anda immediately asked (April 16th):
"I was truly hoping to avoid this sort of thing, but I don’t consider it to be a “deal breaker”. We’d have a more valid test without this requirement IME. Let me know what you require. Is it possible to simply have a remote camera(s) in my space?"

and the reply came back:
  • So you can't demonstrate the validity of your claim if someone else in in the room? Then I'd say that according to the Challenge rules you'll be unable to demonstrate your claim. Demonstrations take place before a team of observers. There's no way around this. It is our sincerest wish that you will be able to overcome this anxiety and be tested.

which resulted in this from the Applicant:
"While I’d like to be alone in the listening area I will agree to having an observer present. I have put in a stipulation that no observer be allowed in my line of sight to the audio system. Everything else appears to be agreeable. "

WHOA! said KRAMER --- you aren't going to be seeing your system anyway!

And off into that dark 'blind' alleyway the negotiations proceeded until two days later, on the 18th, yet another protocol was given into evidence on the Challenge Thread.

Whereby the JREF Challenge Facilitator made this simple and none-too-complicated comment:
  • Michael,
    Firstly, as I had previously stated, there will be more the just one JREF associate there. The test will be videotaped.

and just in case Mr Anda didn't understand it the second (or third time), KRAMER went ahead and said it once more:

  • No test can occur without observers. To suggest that it can or should is contrary to the scientific process. Any further suggestion that you want the room in which the test tales place void of any observers will be responded to with silence.

Wow. you would think that was the end of it.

Nope.

KRAMER then had to add this:
Michael, I really do think it's time for us to make a mutual decision about whether or not to proceed. I find myself repeating the same things over and over again as you continue to ask questions I've asked you to refrain from asking, and that is not adding to my level of confidence in a test actually ocCuring. I'm sure your confidence is also rather shaken by all of this.

One of the most disconcerting aspects of this is your continued insistence on having no observers in the room.

I would like for you to state for-the-record right now that you understand and accept the neccesity for observers, and that you will cease all complaints about it. I also need you to agree now and also for-the-record, that you will refrain from asking any further questions about the final test until after the preliminary test has taken place.

All right, Mr Anda gets that.
He Agrees to it.

2) I’ve stated that an observer in the listening room is something I am now prepared to accept.


Which brings us back to the posting made by Wellfed (quoted) above.

(((((( edited to correct formatting )))))))
 
PianoTeacher said:
I would profit from his advice or that of JREF test administrators; I am not sure if DevilsAdvocate IS indeed one; he may be. He writes confidently and lucidly like an experienced person!
Click to expand...
Thank you for the compliment. I certainly am NOT a JREF test administrator. I have no association with JREF other than occasionally posting here.

To give you a flavor of the JREF challenge, consider this: You have a bank account of $1,005,000. You take $5,000 and start a web site and such. You offer the other $1,000,000 to anybody that can demonstrate something paranormal. You're looking for absolute proof of psychics, ghosts, UFOs, alchemy, divination, etc. In other words, something that proves that some weird miracle that people believe in all the time actually is a reality.

So in looking for an extraordinary paranormal miracle, some guy submits an application and says he can hear the difference between CDs treated with and without some weird chip.

Now you have one million dollars. Of your own money. That you can choose to spend however you want. And this guy is basically making a bet with you that he can hear a difference in these CDs. And you are going to bet him one million dollars to nothing that he can't. He stands to lose nothing if he fails. You stand to lose one million dollars of your own money.

Now, think about that. Gambling one million dollars of your own money with no possible return.

Now: What would your protocol be before you gave up one million dollars of your own? How would you feel about flusters about "what if I have gassy tubes" and such?
 
In addition to the possibility of "gassy tubes" and improper room temperature invalidating the test, Piano Teacher failed to point out that the earth could spin off axis and go crashing into the moon, right in the middle of the procedure! That could happen you know. We want to make sure we cover every possible angle.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
In addition to the possibility of "gassy tubes" and improper room temperature invalidating the test, Piano Teacher failed to point out that the earth could spin off axis and go crashing into the moon, right in the middle of the procedure! That could happen you know. We want to make sure we cover every possible angle.
Click to expand...
Yes, but PianoTeacher has made very valid points that an adequate test of hearing the difference from chip (even considering that it works) would most likely fail even under the best circumstances under the protocol. I believe that PianoTeacher would like to see the chip tested under the best posible controls, which if possible would include controls for the earth spining off axis and crashing into the moon to determine the difference when such actions do not occur. In the best possible circumstances, that is exactly what a highly controlled scientific experiment should plan for and have predetermined evalulation of. I certainly won't accuse PianoTeacher of having bad scientific mothods. :)
 
observers?

Where will the JREF observers need to stand as the Earth spins off its axis?
 
To Central Scrutinizer

Central Scrutinizer can certainly be pardoned for his asperity! He posted --

>
In addition to the possibility of "gassy tubes" and improper room temperature invalidating the test, Piano Teacher failed to point out that the earth could spin off axis and go crashing into the moon, right in the middle of the procedure! That could happen you know. We want to make sure we cover every possible angle.
<

You will note that I did not mention anything stupid, paranormal or abnormal. I am concerned only with the requirements of the test. Actually, the ULTIMATE requirement is that we must have continous AC power. Then we also must have a working stereo.

If you would prefer to forgo those things then propose another protocol without AC power and with no stereo.

I am dealing with *real* things. These are absolute requirements of the test.

Now, a hard-nosed attitude is not unwarranted, so I'll overlook the sarcasm. Somebody comes to JREF and says "you guys are all wet and I can PROVE it." It is up to him to supply the means to succeed via his protocol, come what may.

I have NO problem with that. Why, I have no problem of inserting the following language into the protocol; consider this suggestion:

"If AC power fails for a period of time longer than 5 minutes, the test is permanently terminated; under that time, the test may be resumed; and if the stereo system fails irreparably the test is aborted and terminated, and may not be resumed."

Now, if Wellfed agrees to that and JREF agrees to that, we are on track.

I have said nothing about "earth axis runaway spin".

It is sure obvious to me that many of you are very weirdly impractical people who have not "been around". I have; I've used audio equipment, and tube amps, and know that they fail. ***Wellfed*** must allow for that, and take responsibility for that: it is HIS amp. He certainly is not the actual cause of, say, some tractor fifteen miles away from Fargo knocking down a big power line, killing his AC; but he HAS to agree to accept the RESPONSIBILITY of that eventuality, which is real and not a silly thing like "the earth spinning off its axis." Really, fellah! I refuse to be offended by you; I take your response as merely a snide joke.

Wellfed HAS to know what he is up against. He HAS to have a "reliable stereo" but if it DIES, he has to know the RULES about what happens.

If the AC quits, he and JREF should agree on what happens.

Do you have a problem with my proposed sentence?

If so, do you have any corrections you could suggest?

I do NOT think my concerns are unreasonable, impractical, silly, or place either JREF or Wellfed into jeopardy. The language I suggested is "neutral" if it is agreeable to both parties. It establishes a rule that both agree to.

The reason that I did not propose this in an oracular, know-it-all fashion is that I have not read the test protocols used on JREF tests that have gone thru the preliminary stage. I don't know the SOP of the Randi Foundation in this regard.

The reason I mentioned the various things that happen when tube amps die, is because I wished to inform all forum readers about these things that no one considered. I am not asking for inclusion of special complex and judaic laws about GASSY TUBES and other arcana; I merely explain that -- unfortunately -- power amps die.

If JREF test coordinators et al. declare in response, "the language accepted now is final", then I have to say that if I were Wellfed, I'd consider changing to a solid-state amp! Or if I were Wellfed, I might want to change all tubes about a month before the test, after having the whole amp checked for proper operation; it should work fine for a considerable period of time after that.

But we haven't heard from Wellfed; maybe he hasn't had a tube failure (I suppose he must have, or it would not have come up at all.)

There is also the factor of wasting the money and resources of JREF. Interrupted, wrecked tests are not useful at all.

I realize that some people will say "to HELL with his damned tubes; screw it" or other such strong, angry, impatient language. OK. Figure out a way to put that into a succinct statement in the protocol, such as:

"Equipment Failure of any sort invalidates and terminates the test."

Then get Wellfed to agree to that.

I don't have a problem, and since HE is expecting to win, he should take the chance, after checking his equipment. If the worst happens, HE KNOWS THE RULES. He takes his medicine. It was designed explicitly into the protocol.

How, in any of what I have added as an amplification, have I obfuscated, or added complexity or impracticality or nonsense to the protocol? I would ask that you answer with directness, no sarcasm, and sincerity. We both do not want "audio charlatans" to win by deception, misdirection, or any means other than playing precisely by the rules agreed on in the protocol. We furthermore want to PREVENT any possibility of that occurring and even allowing a sort of "corrupt false win" of the preliminary test.

People who reply to my like you have, suspect that I am a sort of subvertive double-agent, trying to wreck the test. As I said to Pup, I can't satisfy you HERE with words printed in this browser field, if you propose pathological paranoia about my motivations. I can only repeat that I am being very, very serious; very careful; very cautious; very realistic; very practical; and am trying to be very fair.

I do not want ANYBODY "fooled" or "deceived".

I want the rules to be a known quantity with no room for "whining".

Actually, I had not intended to offer language quite as strict as the two examples proposed above; but after seeing the two responses, I realize that I seem to many people in this forum to be a "weak" skeptical rationalist. So a little strength might be called for.

PianoTeacher
 
PianoTeacher, I tried to put this in perspective. I want you to put $250,000 of your own money on the line that the guy can't meet the challenge. Put up just $250,000. Tell me your protcol.

I don't know how much money you have. Maybe just $25,000. Put $25,000 on the challenge. The guy can't prove paranormal. It's your $25,000. You pay $25,000 if the guy can get 10 of10. You got a problem with his protocol? You think it should be easier for him to get your $25,000. For nothing? And do you think this is paranoraml. Do you think this is worth one million dollars?

If you had to lose $25,000, or even $250,000 would you put up with complaints about possible tube stuff. Now put up onee million dollars. Yep: $1,000,000.00. Of your own money. For proof of an extrodinary paranormal claim. One million of your own dough. And some guy with a claim--not about proof of psychic ability, of mind control, or aliens, or magic--but about hearing very tiny differences in CDs, in his own home, under complete control, says that he has to have provisions for possible tube failures. Would you give one million dollars, or even consider giving one million dollars that requested such vanities?
 
PT

Why don't you give a few moments (of which you seem to have a few spare) to writing an entire protocol? We had one JREF member do one before (Howard) which was submitted by Anda accepted "as is" by Randi, but then the Applicant hedged and waffled.

The sticking point is the use of two chips (or one real chip and a facsimile). Anda wants to see them in action and actually do the 'treating' himself by remote control operation of the transport -- but JREF says that Anda will NOT see his equipment in action.

z-dragon suggested using any old piece of crap CD player for the treatment phase, in the "other room" or anywhere. Mr Anda can watch as everyone opens all 20 CD's, and the JREF T1 would then bring the complete set out to the other room, where the series of treatments will be done on the WalMart $20 player and these CD's marked by Anda's assitant (daughter?) with A through T (1-20) and the appropriate random coin-toss treatment/no treatment status of each disc recorded on camera (the cameraman does not have to watch this secret list being made by Anda's daughter, he can look away from the scene, while the camera records her) and this list is put into a sealed envelope and it is left in full view of the camera in th elistening room --- and these 10 already-treated CD's and 10 new untreated CD's will be brought all at once into the listening area where Anda has his hi-tech system ready. This would allow for a double-blind scenario, where nobody observing in the room now has any knowledge which discs are treated and which are not.

This is the essence of the test that was mentioned for Anda to do on his own, but he hasn't.

I ask you now, please, PianoTeacher, expend a bit of your effusive and extensive prose to writing a sample protocol that gives Anda as many of his "desires" and "necessary addendums" as he has requested, yet also takes into consideration the JREF requirements.

That's what we need more than anything here, not more roundabout fruitless rehash.

I, for one, would hate to see this thread deteriorate into another recipe-resource forum.

I assure you, KRAMER is just that close to giving us another spicy sauce recipe here, and dropping the entire Anda matter into the "Rejected" hopper.


Trust me on this.
 
Issue is already vaguely mentioned in protocol

DevilsAdvocate observes:
>And some guy with a claim--not about proof of psychic ability, of mind control, or aliens, or magic--but about hearing very tiny differences in CDs, in his own home, under complete control, says that he has to have provisions for possible tube failures. Would you give one million dollars, or even consider giving one million dollars that requested such vanities?
<

This issue of tube failures was already in the protocol. It wasn't addressed satisfactorily, in my opinion.

I never proposed it. It was already there, but weakly defined.

I haven't proposed adding it; it is there but needs to be more precisely defined.

I just posted two definite, very strict suggestions, which you will see a couple of posts back.

The "vanity" already exists. It was in the protocol before I joined the forum; don't hold me accountable for it. I merely want to tighten it up a bit.

I do not want to loosen it. I want something practical that both sides must agree to, that makes it very clear to Wellfed that failures have consequences that JREF defines as having specific parameters that may result in TERMINATION of the test.

This is not an attempt by me to weaken the protocol but to strengthen an existing weak, poor, and imprecise statement.

PianoTeacher
 
To Gr8wight: my assurances

>Piano Teacher,
I very strongly reccomend you read the challenge rules and challenge rules FAQ that can be found here: http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
< - Gr8wight

I assure you that I had the sense of responsibility to do just that, about two weeks ago before joining the forum; so I've seen this material. I have been reading Randi's website for several years. I appreciate the suggestion and link, though!

What I meant when I commented that I had not read protocols was that I have never read any materials not in the links on the pages you have listed above, that have explicit copies of actual, existing, former test protocols that have been thru the first preliminary stage, if any; or of any protocols that have been complicated, involving equipment that must work during the test. I wanted to see if this has come up before, and how explicitly strict Mr. Randi has been. I see nothing that answers this in the materials on the general FAQs or the Challenge Application.

I am an engineer (retired) and as such am a detail guy; the devil is in those damned details, and I know that we are all aware of it. At a certain point, language starts getting ponderous when trying to craft an agreement or law; sometimes it has to be streamlined and simple though the concepts behind it may be complicated. In trying to mull over in my mind how you'd resolve my concerns by condensing them into ONE brief sentence to improve the (allegedly bad) one about "tube failure" already in the protocol, I wanted to know if EQUIPMENT FACTORS had been ruled for in any specific prior tests.

No answer from anybody about this, so time will tell.

PianoTeacher
 
About webfusion's request made of me

I am flattered to have been given a request from webfusion to help with the protocol; this is the second time someone has suggested that and it is certainly at odds with the attitude of quite a few others. Err, I feel a bit caught between strong wind currents! Earlier I posted a response to the first person who suggested this: a polite "NO" to designing a protocol. It would be a very demanding thing and though I *may* have the ability to snatch bits of time to post my own ideas, or respond to other people, I *am* running a home business.

At any rate, webfusion said:
>
Why don't you give a few moments (of which you seem to have a few spare) to writing an entire protocol? We had one JREF member do one before (Howard) which was submitted by Anda accepted "as is" by Randi, but then the Applicant hedged and waffled.
<

Could I be pointed to a link that has the exact and complete test of the Howard Protocol?

I suspect that "a new protocol from scratch" is not needed but one could adjust an existing ALMOST ACCEPTABLE one, perhaps.

However, I warn you that my impressions of Wellfed's ability to deal concretely with details and precise issues seems to me to be very weak, bordering on incoherency, because he isn't -- I'd assume -- trained in logical thought and setting up systematic processes. I think he has "vamped" and meandered around quite a bit, and I probably only see the very TIP of the iceberg!

I have written elaborate computer programs using Pascal and C. Focuses the mind! (Yeah, you guys: my *code* is bloated, too!)

>
The sticking point is the use of two chips (or one real chip and a facsimile). Anda wants to see them in action and actually do the 'treating' himself by remote control operation of the transport -- but JREF says that Anda will NOT see his equipment in action.
<

I too made some suggestions about the controls for using the chips; they were not acceptable, apparently.

I have absolutely NO CLUE as to why Mr. Randi has an insistence about not *seeing* the CD player. Two disks that are from a commercial run of the same title, with same UPC and disk release number, will have identical track responsiveness and gaps. So I cannot even guess what the concern is here. He must have his reasons. If Mr. Randi simply says "you won't" yet will not give an explanation, one can only accept it, or not take the Challenge, I presume.

This must have something to do with misdirection control. Yet, I dunno....

Perhaps Kramer could fill us in about that.

PianoTeacher
 
My "2 AM Conclusion"

Wellfed, and other friends:

I have been sitting for two hours, ferrying around from Beleth to other contributors and working up a flowchart, in consideration of the objections that many have made to my sense of the logic of this.

I have concluded that while I don't find it easy to disentangle everything that people claim, or that I may be missing the point about it, that nevertheless there is absolutely no way for Wellfed to pass this test, whether or not the alleged phenomenon exists; so it is now, presently, moot.

The Randi Challenge has, in effect, now been lost (unoficially, perhaps) even before it was mutually accepted.

I see no way for Wellfed to move forward. Many persuasive people are not concerned at all about his actual listening skills but infer that whether or not he can or can't hear accurately, he cannot pass. I claim he cannot pass his proposed protocol, whether or not the phenomenon exists, because it is wrong: it can only be done theoretically on paper but not actually by ANY human test subject.

Another way of looking at this is that the biases of the most ardent Dogmatic Skeptical Atheists are strong because there is no possibility that they are wrong, and that there can be no attempt to fool around with thought experiments about other outcomes. There is so much invested here in maintaining the only actual physically possible outcome -- also the one that I expect will happen -- that it is probably not likely that JREF will change the protocol to ABX from the Michael proposal; and since Michael is a subjectivist, he is going to be distrustful of ABX and prefer his "alteration of CDs in one reference player", which dooms him to fail: QED.

There is a sort of inexorable magnetic pull existing between the "cause" of the Skeptical Atheists, who have taken the only possible and rational position, and their desire to approve of Michael's messy and horrible protocol, which is impossible to pass.

But, actually, in a flowchart (completely assuming that "ten out of ten is achievable") the only chance for Michael to pass the test is that he is CORRECT both all of the time, without error, AND that the effect actuallly exists. Neither condition is actually possible. But that is just about the protocol that everybody wants to approve; only a couple of us have difficulties with it, because we actually wanted to use a WORKABLE protocol, i. e. ABX.

Since "ten out of ten" is actually just as impossible, in the real world, by Michael's absurd protocol, as the probability of "GSIC Effect" being real, we have two impossibilities.

I allowed for the latter from the start, since that was my bias, too. But it was only after I put all on a chart and factored in all the variables and obstacles that I decided to stop considering another protocol; in effect "I give in".

Since the test is now nullified in toto, it must be abandoned.

It cannot be refined, as it is now.

The entire architecture of the test leads only to failure.

Michael may try, and JREF will indeed spend money and resources, and human-hours of labor, to go through the motions; but there is no other predictable outcome.

I hereby remove myself from the discussion. I am no longer interested in it, because it must be ENTIRELY redesigned. Since I won't do it, and there is not much evidence that others want to, I can't see a way out of the "set piece".

This is not to object to JREF nor the testers, nor James Randi and his position, nor the complaints of the ardent Skeptics. Of course they are actually right; I always thought so. I thought, for a while, that we might be doing something useful. The only utility in this is a very strange one: we use a sort of "unrecognized blunder" to cause a predetermined result. That would seem to be a waste of my time; I won't speak for others.

I cannot see the purpose of trying further to persuade Wellfed as he is not showing much awareness of these problems, though he's indicated that he has read some of my observations; but he hasn't come to grips with any of MY difficulties, and has some peculiar preferences that he finds it extremely hard to relieve himself of, fixations that *I* for one find counterproductive to his cause unless there is some reason he thinks they will help him. I suppose that could merely be his mistake; or there is another motivation I can't see.

Before I posted my Lutheresque outline of numbered points and objections, I had only hinted at my discomfiture. Having gone back, looked at the flowchart, and re-read most of the significant posts, I can certainly begin to have an appreciation for those of you who considered "audio issues irrelevant". They are; because the protocol is fatally flawed. A protocol that COULD reveal fine audio distinctions would, unfortunately, test for audio qualities while this current one won't.

Now, in order for me to propose another one (and I very seriously doubt that there is any enthusiasm here for that, while I realize also that I would *instantly* find myself in the hornet's nest!) I would have to consult with a number of experts that I don't think that I could impose on with complete impunity, on my terms. Not having done that, I'd put together another bad one.

I have been trying to dig myself out of this hole for the last hour, and cannot see how to do it. I chuckle, remembering the old WW2 joke: the Germans said, "the situation is serious but not hopeless" while the Austrians said, "the situation is hopeless but not serious"!

Apologies for trying a lot of peoples' patience with my thought experiments and perhaps presumptuous efforts to try to explore the neurophysical, and electronic, components of the test gestalt; it was all really quite a futility.

Best wishes to all,
PianoTeacher
 
Re: My "2 AM Conclusion"

PianoTeacher said:
Wellfed, and other friends:

I have been sitting for two hours, ferrying around from Beleth to other contributors and working up a flowchart, in consideration of the objections that many have made to my sense of the logic of this.
Click to expand...

Be interesting to see it – will you be posting it?

PianoTeacher said:

I have concluded that while I don't find it easy to disentangle everything that people claim, or that I may be missing the point about it, that nevertheless there is absolutely no way for Wellfed to pass this test, whether or not the alleged phenomenon exists; so it is now, presently, moot.

The Randi Challenge has, in effect, now been lost (unoficially, perhaps) even before it was mutually accepted.

I see no way for Wellfed to move forward. Many persuasive people are not concerned at all about his actual listening skills but infer that whether or not he can or can't hear accurately, he cannot pass. I claim he cannot pass his proposed protocol, whether or not the phenomenon exists, because it is wrong: it can only be done theoretically on paper but not actually by ANY human test subject.

…snip…
Click to expand...

Only if Wellfed cannot in fact hear a difference. However without verification I am agnostic on the matter.

Randi and the JREF are well aware of what is at the heart of your argument. Therefore as part of all the preliminary tests (that I have read about) the applicant must first of all prove they can do what they say they can do under the test conditions, but “unblinded”. For example typically with dowsing the initial test is done with the applicant being able to see (or otherwise know) where the substance being dowsed for is located. The applicant then verifies that under the test conditions they can do what they say they can do. Only then is the “blinding” introduced.

I would suspect with this particular claim the people conducting the test will play several CDs that Wellfed will already know whether they have been treated or not and have him confirm that, under the test conditions, he can detect a difference. Only then will the actual preliminary test occur.

Therefore this all falls back to whether Wellfed can tell treated from non-treated without prior knowledge.

(Edited for words.)
 
Some questions for Wellfed:

1) Why do you feel that you personally need to perform the GSIC treatment? All available literature on the GSIC indicates it can be employed by anyone, using any audio system, with significant improvements when using high-quality CDs and DVDs. If this is the case, there is no need for you to handle - nor even to see - the GSIC chip at all, at any time before, during, or after the test. If you are concerned about the validity of the test - if, for example, you are worried that JREF will 'cheat' - then you can see the chip being used on half the discs (preferrably unmarked discs) with the other half of the discs being completely identical to the treated discs, and can even see them being marked.

At that point, however, neither the person treating the disc, nor you, should be allowed to touch or even see the discs for the remainder of the test. Why? Because you might see the mark and recognize a treated disc as such - and this will alleviate fears that the treater is also somehow cheating.

2) Why do you not want the observer present during the test? This is meant to be a scientific study, so at least two observers is vital to the validity of this test - nothing else, at all, will do. If having strangers present affects your ability to hear, once again, the chip is worthless... or you are NOT the best person to perform this test.

3) Why should you have any control, whatsoever, over the stereo system aside from ownership issues? All that need be done is the use of 'play', 'stop', and 'eject' buttons. Compare disc A and disc B, mark which is treated; C and D, mark; E and F, mark... and so on. No toying with amps and equalizers and CD sprays, etc... if you can't tell a difference when all variables are maintained equally, then the chip don't work.

There's a lot of waffling in your protocol. I am impressed that you are being so persistant, but it is becoming clear that you're starting to regret making such an outrageous claim to those who will insist on proper demonstration of your paranormal powers.

P.T. - The details of my life are inconsequential... :D
 
link to this

Could I be pointed to a link that has the exact and complete test of the Howard Protocol?
Click to expand...

PT, no problem, here's the entire Challenge thread as it pertains to all the protocols, although as you have just declined to write a protocol yourself (politely refused, but declined nonetheless) it seems to be a moot thing for you to read the 'Audio Critic' Challenge Thread at this point.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53824

By the way, in case anyone was curious, I have found an actual image of a 'moot' which is such a rare beast they are not often found just roaming around:

seal_10.gif
 
Re: To Gr8wight: my assurances

PianoTeacher said:
>Piano Teacher,
I very strongly reccomend you read the challenge rules and challenge rules FAQ that can be found here: http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
< - Gr8wight

I assure you that I had the sense of responsibility to do just that, about two weeks ago before joining the forum; so I've seen this material. I have been reading Randi's website for several years. I appreciate the suggestion and link, though!

What I meant when I commented that I had not read protocols was that I have never read any materials not in the links on the pages you have listed above, that have explicit copies of actual, existing, former test protocols that have been thru the first preliminary stage, if any; or of any protocols that have been complicated, involving equipment that must work during the test. I wanted to see if this has come up before, and how explicitly strict Mr. Randi has been. I see nothing that answers this in the materials on the general FAQs or the Challenge Application.

I am an engineer (retired) and as such am a detail guy; the devil is in those damned details, and I know that we are all aware of it. At a certain point, language starts getting ponderous when trying to craft an agreement or law; sometimes it has to be streamlined and simple though the concepts behind it may be complicated. In trying to mull over in my mind how you'd resolve my concerns by condensing them into ONE brief sentence to improve the (allegedly bad) one about "tube failure" already in the protocol, I wanted to know if EQUIPMENT FACTORS had been ruled for in any specific prior tests.

No answer from anybody about this, so time will tell.

PianoTeacher
Click to expand...


Piano Teacher,

You said:
There is also the factor of wasting the money and resources of JREF.
Click to expand...
This led me to believe that you had not read the challenge rules and challenge FAQ. Perhaps you read them, but only superficially, and did not come away with a full understanding. I suggest you read them again. Carefully.
 
Re: My "2 AM Conclusion"

PianoTeacher said:


...................


The Randi Challenge has, in effect, now been lost (unoficially, perhaps) even before it was mutually accepted.

I see no way for Wellfed to move forward. Many persuasive people are not concerned at all about his actual listening skills but infer that whether or not he can or can't hear accurately, he cannot pass. I claim he cannot pass his proposed protocol, whether or not the phenomenon exists, because it is wrong: it can only be done theoretically on paper but not actually by ANY human test subject.



...............................


Best wishes to all,
PianoTeacher
Click to expand...
I hearby nominate PianoTeacher for the April " Obfuscation Award '..


What on earth are you carrying on about?


Our challenger claims the device changes the sound of CD's, and that he can hear the change. Nothing could be more black and white. Nothing could be easier to test.


If, why and how the device works couldn't be more irrelevant with regard to the JREF challenge.
 
Diogenes, hold up your lantern a bit higher! A rough informal speculative protocol

Diogenes has done a *superb* job of succinctly summarizing ONE way of looking at this particular challenge to JREF:
>
Our challenger claims the device changes the sound of CD's, and that he can hear the change. Nothing could be more black and white. Nothing could be easier to test.

If, why and how the device works couldn't be more irrelevant with regard to the JREF challenge.
<

In Diogenes' way of looking at it, we are testing a couple of "concepts". The statements in quotes show how they may conflict at the most basic logical level; and how a "simple" process, sort of a syllogism, can resolve this dichotomy. QED.

Diogenes' view of what I've called, to come up with a phrase I could use without employing more than three words to describe the whole megilla, the "gestalt of the test", is elegant, and has been essentially irremediably reduced.

Practically every person who objects to what I've been trying to do, or express, as I feel my way around, has a similar view of this "gestalt". I will name Diogenes' four-sentence quote, above, "the kernel."

I believe, however, that the accuracy of the kernel can be falsified. I have had extremely profound doubts that the "kernel" is true and totally logically consistent, internally.

The strongest of my objections to it is the assertion that:
>
Nothing could be more black and white. Nothing could be easier to test.
<

I do find, from my career and professional experience doing similar testing with human subjects, that "Nothing could be easier to test" is false. I have done a poor and clumsy job of showing my reasons, and have burdened reductionists with too much explanation; but I tend to retain confidence that what I've learned about human neural and cognitive variations and systematic errors, is actually true; therefore "Nothing could be easier to test" is not a valid assertion, and should be changed to "Testing this is complex and challenging, and requires effort to effectively reduce".

That informed opinion and conclusion of mine is rejected by all my critics.

We could, of course, do "a JREF Challenge" to see if I could prove my point of view. I have the wisdom to avoid that, because by using the same alleged flawed logic to construct a test procedure -- the logical flow of Diogenes' kernel, which contains at least one false premise leading to at least one false conclusion -- the test would be moot and I'd lose.

If I tried to suggest a protocol that enhanced the chance for me to succeed, it would not be "elegantly simple" per Diogenes' kernel. However, it might be necessary (given known neurophysical understanding) to construct a protocol that is more complex than what Diogenes envisions INCORRECTLY as irremediably "simple": because by following Diogenes' precepts we might be doing what Einstein warned against, to wit: "Make everything as simple as possible but not simpler than it should be."

-----

Another way of saying all of this -- and bear with me for a moment as I have never reduced this to the most elegant and succinct algorithm before! -- is that I do have some grip on what an acceptable protocol to test a claimant like Michael, and an "audio perception claim", would be, though I've not formalized it.

Such a protocol would require:

--------

1. Rules of fairness agreed to by both parties in the contest;

2. Practical and formal, simple-as-possible declarations of what happens next during unexpected equipment breakdown, so that the claimant understands that he is completely responsible for HIS equipment and environment, encompassing accidents;

3. A "method" of focusing and resolving each step of the test and gathering each data point.

(Wellfed's existing method is HORRIBLE. I would prefer extremely well controlled. simple and strict A-B testing of precisely repeated, bounded examples, without any action of Wellfed. In the case of Wellfed's challenge, I would eliminate the following of his desires: he could not have the remote control; he could not adjust the volume except ONCE at the start of the test; and -- indeed -- if there was a chance for a kind of "Clever Hans" effect, he might not be permitted to see the equipment. And he would not be permitted to noodle around and listen for a while, period of time wavering all over the place, until he is contentedly sure of himself.

I should think that examples would be played, entirely out of his control; he'd listen and be allowed a stipulated number of chances to repeat, and then he would be required to declare his decision...that data point being taken, we'd go on to the next and the next.

The part of Wellfed's protocol related to examining each pair is uttery absurd and ridiculous and as far as I know, has probaby never been permitted in any form of controlled audio test of ANY significance. It IS, however, the "normal" way one does uncontrolled listening in a sound dealer's showroom.)

I haven't codified what my "method" would be, because I am not exactly up to speed, scientifically, on the best way known at present. I can find that out. The best and most practical and definitively elegant way we have today is *probably* ABX but I am not qualified AT THIS MOMENT to assert that with absolute confidence; it needs just a bit of study. My admitting that I don't know, is not "waffling"; it is just admitting my ignorance on a critical point. I am capable of making a judgment when I have acquired a bit more information of what has been learned in scientifically controlled audio testing between about 1980, and now.

4. Furthermore, I do not accept "ten out of ten tries" as the construct for data collection. It is impractical and indeed, impossible to do in this context.

I am also ignorant of what to propose as an alternative.

I would suspect that there IS a finite range of percentage of true positives, 90% or slightly less, that would suffice. Maybe it might be "80 to 90%". Perhaps it is "90%".

But for the purposes of the Randi Challenge, we have to reduce this to specifics.

What I would need to determine, is if best scientific processes of such testing known NOW, have established a reasonable number of pairs to be tested, and a reasonable percentage of true positives.

I do know that "100% true positives out of ten tries" -- what Wellfed expects to achieve -- is actually UNACHIEVABLE. This is convenient for those who simply want him to fail the test immediately so that we can go on to another claimant. If all agree, including Wellfed, that this is correct,-- then test away! But it is not, in my informed judgment, a good test since it employs a bad protocol that has only one possible outcome irrespective of Michael's skills and irrespective of the state of the CDs under test.

Michael wants only ten pairs, and wants to listen for long periods of time to the music to accumulate confidence.

His process is essentially sloppy and unrepeatable, from pair to pair, and from preliminary to final test.

This is one of the worst aspects of his blunders in crafting a protocol.

I suspect that there probably should be MORE pairs, but short discrete and rigidly fixed playback times: i. e., twenty seconds of each CD in each pair, of repeated identical musical passages. It could be, however, that we should have FAR LESS than ten pairs: maybe four or five. I am ignorant of that point and after consulting the experts, can resolve this and declare my judgment with confidence.

Furthermore, Michael wants to WAIT for a very long and also non-standardized period of time while CDs are changed on ONE player. Lousy!! Utterly ridiculous. His brain loses all its focus and whatever "hold" he has on his discernment of details evaporates; when the second CD of each pair is finally resumed, his brain (in effect) has to start from scratch. Michael is OBVIOUSLY aware of this, which is why he wants LONG extended, asymmetrically variable periods of time to listen to each CD in each pair. He THINKS that he can refocus and re-create his mental picture of "the differences" that way; but he is simply wrong.

I suspect at this point that two, possibly three, alternations of 20-second excerpts of repeated identical musical passages, immediately alternated, would be a valid way of doing the test with ANY realistic chance of a human test subject being able to quantify "differences".

I don't know that to "a scientific certainty" and with the confidence that I'd bet a million bucks on it; this is the third major point where "I am ignorant" and need more information to come up with a definitive judgment. (I might add to allay the fears of cynics that since I am about 95% sure, it might not take me more than a two to three weeks of study and consultations AT MOST for me to become 100% sure that I could make a definitive judgment. I know one university neurophysiologist and have access to UC/Santa Cruz' science library and know exactly where certain papers are that I'd need to consult.)

------

The section above, points 1 through 4, consists of my current best-guess for proposing a speculative description of a protocol that I could get behind and feel proud and confident to propose.

There are two major areas where my ignorance of current practices prevents a definitive rule-definition TODAY.

To reduce my uncertainty about these two points, I would expect to spend about a week in the science libraries at UC/Santa Cruz. I would also have to consult with one or more neurophysicists at a specific university: people I have come to accept as being well-informed practitioners of practical tests involving human or animal test subjects. These are not psychologists, by the way; they are "hard scientists" who use controlled protocols and Baconian methods; they aren't conducting "focus groups".

I have rejected the requests to design a new protocol (Objections from cynics are shouted on high, "Waffler! Weasler! Fiddler!) because I am actually too good and too responsible as an amateur scientist to believe that I have allowed for all possibilities; and am constrained by the fact that we have students coming here six days a week for lessons and I cannot go to the university library for several days in a row right now. Helping to resolve the Wellfed claim is not worth it to me, financially.

So, I allow for the cynicism and the poking of fun at me. It's a given. No matter how much fun you make, however, it does not overcome the fact that I'd mess up our business for one to maybe as much as three weeks, minimally. And during the rest of the negotiations, and the time of the actual test, I can imagine losing thousands of dollars of income.

It costs me next to nothing to spend a few hours to post here, because the time is snatched away from spare moments.

I may be "retired from engineering" now, but I am running a currently functioning business.

A significant number of you will not be satisfied, at face value, with anything that I say because you expect anything printed here by me to be fodder for an instant A-B truth test, and you are skeptical of all statements that I make. Some of you find it a delightful intellectual exercise to try to reduce things to sophistries. I am well aware of this since I have, over the years, made at least 8,000 posts to two advanced hobbyist newsgroups for astronomers and musicians. Many participants are logicians and test anything posted -- unfortunately their tests are almost always incomplete, since by definition the only "data" are unverifiable declarative statements made in an almost total vacuum. This leads to the construction of false syllogisms.

But my own personal motivation for contributing to this investigation was not merely to craft a few debating points or formulate a few syllogisms.

My perceptions of the responsibilities I would be required to undertake, fundamentally differs from the context of
Diogenes' kernel.

Once again: apologies for my verbosity as I continue to have trouble in refining these complexities to the *irreducibly minimal number of words*. Many of you prefer or even require that; but I lack the time, detachment, and skilll to do it to YOUR satisfaction, while covering ALL my desired ground. I *can* do it -- as I've done it in creating computer programs -- but it demands more focus that I have time to devote to the task; it's easier for me to present a kind of narrative, using more than the minimal number of words than a sort of haikuesque syllogism.

Best,
PianoTeacher
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom