Thanks. That was convenient.
I am making deductions, not assumptions. A website for the MDC already exists, so if he says he is going to make a new one rather than update or redesign the existing one, I think I am making reasonable deductions.
If you read my post carefully, I never said that he won't link back here. I asked you how he might handle discussion. You commented on (to paraphrase) the problems with this discussion forum with the implication that the discussions here are contrary to the goals of the MDC. If he links here for discussion, the "problems" still exist. If he starts a new discussion forum, what's to stop people here from going there? He could implement his own moderation to address the problems of "wading through extraneous information, dodging people who didn't get the DBAD memo, or straying away from the subject." Personally, I would consider it a slap in the face to members here to say that their past input is no longer desired. It also creates an additional burden of resources to find someone to moderate a new forum, which I find rather silly since moderation is already in place here.
As for it "needing" a discussion area, I absolutely believe that it does. I find the discussions in the MDC forum intellectually stimulating and fascinating. Once again, if he doesn't add a discussion forum, this one will still exist unless the JREF decides to remove it (at which point discussions would move to GS&P). The "problems" you describe will still exist. Members will have to monitor an additional site to keep up with MDC applications, which is a less effective means of communication. If he does add a discussion forum, then it presents the problems I described already about dual memberships, dual conversations, and extra moderation.
My biggest beef with the IIG (and StopSylvia for that matter) is that the communication is one-way. I find blog comments at least as interesting if not more interesting than many of the blogs I read. And obviously I find discussion forums valuable. As critical thinkers we shouldn't just accept what we're told. When there are errors and omissions, we should be able to point them out. It's also very valuable to hear dissenting opinions. So, yeh, without a doubt I think discussion is necessary.
You wrote, "The skeptical community gets a great deal of entertainment from challenges and there are some great discussions about statistics and loopholes. But it doesn't make them rethink long-held ideas about the paranormal." (emphasis added)
The use of "but it doesn't" implies that it should, so I asked you, "Do you believe a goal should be to make skeptics rethink long-held ideas about the paranormal?" Do you? In what ways would skeptics rethink their long-held ideas?
I agree that the development of protocols is educational, and it has been. Banachek is proposing a change, and I'm interested in what ways he will improve things. I still believe that its greatest benefit comes from the grass roots level. Many skeptics issue challenges on behalf of the JREF (so to speak). It's a great tool in a discussion with somebody making outrageous claims. It's also a great tool when the JREF publicly challenges someone, and they refuse. We skeptics can point this out to people who are sitting on the fence.
As for DBAD, I like it when Randi calls a spade and spade and issues a baiting challenge. As I quoted in another post about ADE651, Randi said in his public challenge, "It’s a fake, a scam, a swindle, and a blatant fraud." I can't see him saying, "Well, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because the ADE651 failed our test doesn't mean that it doesn't work."
It can. Do you have any evidence that it has? There have only been a handful of tests over the years, and I have no idea what the outreach was. Did anybody really care that a lady couldn't make Jeff Wagg piss on command? Did anybody outside the skeptical community really care about Connie Sonne's card-guessing game?
The MDC itself is actually painfully boring to watch, so I question whether it can be made entertaining to the masses. Mythbusters has come closest to bringing skepticism to the masses, but most of their "myths" are silly and not geared towards the paranormal. And they recognize that blowing up, shooting, and crashing things is a requirement to keep audiences interested.
I think the existence of the challenge and the calls to "put up or shut up" are far more valuable than somebody actually taking a test. If Banachek has a different vision, it would be nice to hear from him directly.
In my opinion there are much better ways to accomplish that same goal than finding a paranormal practitioner dumb/deluded enough to risk public humiliation after a painful protocol negotiation that can last months or even years.
* There was a video clip of some kid "predicting" numbered balls he would choose from a bag. I posted a couple of frames showing how he was peeking inside the bag.
* My chi video with my kids has about 10,000 views, and I got some good comments. I even challenged somebody to use their chi on me.
* Somebody posted here a video of his kids dowsing for gold, only he lied about what was real gold. It was a perfect demonstration of how dowsing really works.
* Randi posted a video from a dowser where he clearly demonstrated that the dowser was moving the stick.
* In Randi's Flim Flam book he showed pictures demonstrating how a woman was using well known sleight of hand tricks in her demonstration.
* The video clip of Mark Edward and VFF in the restaurant was much more interesting than her IIG test. With a little editing, it would provide a lot of bang for the buck and be much more effective in debunking her.
The "problem" with the MDC when it comes to "explaining" that, as you say, the paranormal is easily explainable is that it all the claimants fail. Nothing is actually explained. There's an implication that without being allowed to use known methods the ability fails, but it doesn't explain all the successes the claimant claims.
The best way to accomplish what you describe is to get these people to demonstrate their abilities, then reveal how it was done. In some cases it is easily spotted on video by those familiar with the techniques. Someone like Banachek could duplicate these feats and reveal how they were done. In the best of all worlds, the claimant sticks around to perform the stunt again, only this time a control is added to prevent them from using trickery.
In other cases such as with cold reading Banachek could deduce the same things the psychic deduces. With hot reading Banachek could dissect the questions and answers. I've seen Randi do that, and the effect is dramatic.
By contrast, it took two years for VFF to finally agree to a test. The test itself was over three hours of watching a woman play musical chairs. Nothing at all was explained. It had its benefits, but being entertaining and reaching outside the skeptical community were not among them.
