• 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.

Beth Clarkson, Complex Protocol

This effect is not impossible or even difficult to test.

If Beth can affect the flame one out of three times above chance, you can test her in an equal probability binary test with 30 trials.

The probability of getting 24 right out of 30 is .0007, less than 1 in a 1000. To hit 24 she needs only the 15 expected chance hits and 9 hits via PK, less than the 1 out of 3 she claims.
 
I think this quote by CurtC is very interesting and relevant:
Dice-setter: I can set dice.
Me: You can? Then why are you here, and not on your mega-yacht?
DS: I don't like to use it that way, plus it doesn't work that way.
Me: Can you roll the numbers you want to roll?
DS: Well, not every time. But I can do it often enough to win overall.
Me: Oh yeah? How often is that?
DS: Well, Bob Johnson calculated that decreasing the odds of rolling a seven from 16.667% down to 15% would negate the house advantage, and actually tip it in your favor.
Me: Well, let's see... (figures a while)... to actually measure that small of a change, you would need to keep track of 320,000 dice rolls, writing down the result of each and then tallying them all up. Of course, if you have not done this, then there is no way for you yourself to know whether you really have this skill. Have you kept these logs?

And that would be the last I heard of that person, or he would claim to just "know" what he can do without measurements. I wonder if I ever got through to any of them. Most of my time there was spent trying to convince people that there is no successful craps "system." No ordering of individually negative-expectation bets can result in an overall positive-expectation game. I had more success with that.
Click to expand...
As I wondered earlier on: how has Beth ever got the impression that she can do this, if the effect is as faint at is seems to be, and it is only detectable by a long-term series of trials and subsequent statistical analysis?
Logically she must have decided she had this ability before she ever saw any evidence for it.

Also (as mentioned by other posters) can we clarify what the claim is? If it is (very limited) telekinesis, then creating an experiment shouldn't be too hard (good suggestions above by other posters).

I think the JREF should try and accomodate the claimant as far as possible, but if Beth is determined that her protocol is the only way to test her very specific candle flame moving ability then I can't see how the JREF is the right organisation to test this.
This needs the type of testing that only a University (or similar organisation) is set up to carry out.

If the JREF ever were inclined to cary out a series of tests as long-term and elaborate as this I feel it would only be for a claimant who sounded like they really might have the claimed ability. This claimant just doesn't.
 
Ashles said:
I think this quote by CurtC is very interesting and relevant:

As I wondered earlier on: how has Beth ever got the impression that she can do this, if the effect is as faint at is seems to be, and it is only detectable by a long-term series of trials and subsequent statistical analysis?
Logically she must have decided she had this ability before she ever saw any evidence for it.

Also (as mentioned by other posters) can we clarify what the claim is? If it is (very limited) telekinesis, then creating an experiment shouldn't be too hard (good suggestions above by other posters).

I think the JREF should try and accomodate the claimant as far as possible, but if Beth is determined that her protocol is the only way to test her very specific candle flame moving ability then I can't see how the JREF is the right organisation to test this.
This needs the type of testing that only a University (or similar organisation) is set up to carry out.

If the JREF ever were inclined to cary out a series of tests as long-term and elaborate as this I feel it would only be for a claimant who sounded like they really might have the claimed ability. This claimant just doesn't.
Click to expand...

Indeed, it sounds like she really wants a test to see whether or not she has a testable ablility in the first place. She seems unsure and might be wanting to use the JREF as her method to see if she has the ablility or not, not to prove her ablility.
 
Originally posted by IXP
This effect is not impossible or even difficult to test.

If Beth can affect the flame one out of three times above chance, you can test her in an equal probability binary test with 30 trials.

The probability of getting 24 right out of 30 is .0007, less than 1 in a 1000. To hit 24 she needs only the 15 expected chance hits and 9 hits via PK, less than the 1 out of 3 she claims.
Click to expand...
The hard part is deciding, in any given trial, whether the flame has been affected. We need to know, with much more confidence than the p-value we're aiming for, what flames do when they're not being psychically affected.

Running a few control trials and saying, "well, it looks sort of Gaussian, so I'll use a t-test," as she appears to have done, is not good enough. A p-value of 0.1 % from such a test is entirely meaningless unless we're much surer than 99.9 % that the assumptions underlying the test are justified.

Or, regarding your suggestion of an equal probability binary test, what are the two possible results, and how can we be sure that they really are equally probable? If they're not, and especially if successive trials are not independent, any p-value we may get goes out the window.

It's not easy to do right, which, presumably, is why she's been getting positive results.
 
69didge put forth my understanding of the problem (together with some statistical comments that I don't mean to claim I understand).

The problem seems to be that sometimes the flame moves randomnly in such a way as to mimic the effect of being moved with psychic power.

That's why I put forth the idea of a thermocouple connected to a computer to monitor flame movement. This way one could automatically detect flame motion with and without telekinetic efforts and easily collect quantified data to monitor the flame motion.

A possible protocol now might be just as simple as running the experiment over something like ten sessions half with telekinetic efforts and half with out. The challenge would then be for the testee to determine which tests involved telekinetic effort and which didn't based on the computer data. One could then set the success criteria at a certain number correct to achieve the reliability of the test result that was desired.
 
Re: psychokinesis = telekinesis

webfusion said:

Hey KRAMER, can you ask Ms Clarkson to move aside these flames ? (see photo)
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should try first, just to see if it's even possible.
 
Ashles said:

If the JREF ever were inclined to cary out a series of tests as long-term and elaborate as this I feel it would only be for a claimant who sounded like they really might have the claimed ability. This claimant just doesn't.
Click to expand...

This assessment seems to nail it on the head.

Beth has basically come right out and said that she "needs JREF's help in determining if this effect is real or not".

Is this really what JREF is supposed to be doing?

I think she can figure this out on her own by conducting the test on her own. But will she accept the results?
 
69dodge said:
The hard part is deciding, in any given trial, whether the flame has been affected. We need to know, with much more confidence than the p-value we're aiming for, what flames do when they're not being psychically affected.

Running a few control trials and saying, "well, it looks sort of Gaussian, so I'll use a t-test," as she appears to have done, is not good enough. A p-value of 0.1 % from such a test is entirely meaningless unless we're much surer than 99.9 % that the assumptions underlying the test are justified.

Or, regarding your suggestion of an equal probability binary test, what are the two possible results, and how can we be sure that they really are equally probable? If they're not, and especially if successive trials are not independent, any p-value we may get goes out the window.

It's not easy to do right, which, presumably, is why she's been getting positive results.
Click to expand...

69Dodge,

Her protocol involves determining where a drop of wax first falls from a ring of wax that is placed centered above the candle.

To make it an equal probabily binary test, all you have to do pick a target direction at random, then divide the ring into two equal parts with the target at the center of one. If the drop falls from that half of the ring it is a success, if it falls from the other half it is failure. Ambiguous "on the line" results should be discarded. With the target directions randomized, this will give equal probabilities even if there is a bias toward some partiticular direction in the experimental setup.

As far a making the trials independent, using a new candle and wax ring for each trial should do. Use a new glass also if you think non-uniform heating or soot deposits might affect it.

If she can perform better than p<0.001, this should be considered sucessful for the preliminary test. For the million, I believe the p value has to be reduced to 1 in a million, which would take a lot more trials, but I wouldn't worry about the need to do this, since she is highly likely to fail the prelimary as everyone else has.
 
As a long time JREF board fan, here are a couple of comments on the Beth Clarkson application that I think might be helpful. Some of these points have already been made by others, but perhaps saying them another way will be helpful.

First, when Clarkson says "level of confidence" she's using a standard term of art from statistics. "Level of confidence" refers to the chance that a statistical test gives the right answer. It doesn't have anything to do with anyone's emotional state. Clarkson is using the term in the correct scientific sense, although she certainly isn't explaining it well.

Second, it makes sense to perform repeated tests to detect a weak - but real - power. Suppose I claimed that I could make a fair coin land heads but that my power only worked 1/3 of the time. If my claim were valid and we tossed the coin 12 times we'd expect 4 heads from the times I succeeded in exerting control, plus 4 heads and 4 tails from random chance from the tosses where my control failed. So if my claim is true, we expect 8 heads as compared to a fair coin with only 6 heads.

If I succeeded in getting 8 or more heads out of 12 would JREF be willing to say I'd passed the preliminary challenge? Of course not, because even a fair coin will give 8 or more heads quite often. One would insist on many more than 12 throws.

Suppose I said my power worked all the time. Would 12 throws be sufficient? Probably yes, because the chance of getting 12 heads from a fair coin is 1 in 4096, which meets the standards for a preliminary challenge.

So a weak power does require more trials, just as Clarkson says. A weak effect would be just as "paranormal" as a strong effect. It's just requires much more data to prove. This, of course, is the applicant's problem, not JREF's.

Dick Startz
 
So a weak power does require more trials, just as Clarkson says. A weak effect would be just as "paranormal" as a strong effect. It's just requires much more data to prove.
Click to expand...
I think we are all agreed that if anyone is to test Beth in the way she desires many tests would be required.

I feel the biggest concern though is that this is a claimant who does not appear to even be sure that she has the ability she is talking about.

There is no logical way she can suddenly have discovered she has this ability as, by her own claim, it requires repeated trials and statistical analysis of the data to confirm it either way.

I.e. one day she just decided she had this ability, without ever having actually observed it in action.

Her subsequent tests may have been highly subjective, and it is obvious she wants to believe she has this ability. Her 'associates'/'partners' seem to be encouraging her (wish we knew more about them).

To take your coin example -
Even if I actually had this mild ability,would I ever notice it? We toss coins rarely and if I happened to get 8 heads out of 12 tosses I would never think twice about it.
I would have to be tossing coins all the time (for some strange reason) to even notice I had this ability. That's if I even noticed in the first place. (I honestly believe if I had the ability to guarantee heads one time in three I would still never notice I had this ability)
And this example talks about something whuch has very clear known odds - 2 possible options. Heads or tails.
A candle flame, on the other hand, is an extremely random thing.
How could anyone ever possibly detect they had this ability?

The JREF does not serve as some kind of organisation which you can go to if you feel you might have a paranormal ability, but you're not sure, and you want someone to test you to find out and tell you if you do or not.
 
Startz said:

Second, it makes sense to perform repeated tests to detect a weak - but real - power. Suppose I claimed that I could make a fair coin land heads but that my power only worked 1/3 of the time. If my claim were valid and we tossed the coin 12 times we'd expect 4 heads from the times I succeeded in exerting control, plus 4 heads and 4 tails from random chance from the tosses where my control failed. So if my claim is true, we expect 8 heads as compared to a fair coin with only 6 heads.

If I succeeded in getting 8 or more heads out of 12 would JREF be willing to say I'd passed the preliminary challenge? Of course not, because even a fair coin will give 8 or more heads quite often. One would insist on many more than 12 throws.
Click to expand...

You are correct. I need to revise my previous estimate because I was counting on getting half of all trials by chance in additon to the PK ones. The correct calculation is to subtract the PK affected trials from the trials first (as you did) and then add half the remaining ones.

The new requirements to prove you have the power to affect an equal probability binary outcome 1/3 of the time is:

62 correct of 93 trials to get a confidence level of 1 in a 1000 (suitable for preliminary test)

138 correct of 207 trials to get a confidence level of 1 in 1,000,000 (suitable for prize)
 
Randi's comment on this claim & proposed test protocol

I've had RAndi look at many of the most recent comments supporting the possibility of testing this claim, and he comments as follows:

===========================================

Understood, but if someone is claiming to get results less than chance would call for, she has NO ability!

Should we test her for having a huge failure rate?

James Randi.
 
Re: Randi's comment on this claim & proposed test protocol

KRAMER said:
I've had RAndi look at many of the most recent comments supporting the possibility of testing this claim, and he comments as follows:

===========================================

Understood, but if someone is claiming to get results less than chance would call for, she has NO ability!

Should we test her for having a huge failure rate?

James Randi.
Click to expand...

One question of course is when JREF should spend time trying to untangle an applicant's not very clear claim. I'll just defer to Randi and Kramer's experience on this.

But there are two other questions.

I took Clarkson's claim to be that she could move a candle by more than chance would suggest, just that she couldn't do it all the time. If someone could make a coin land heads 2/3rds of the time, it would be an astounding achievement.

The second issue is should "we" test her for having a huge failure rate. Let me respectfully disagree with Randi. Suppose Clarkson claimed to be able to throw more heads than would be dictated by chance and then proceeded to throw 100 tails in a row. That would be just as much evidence that she has a paranormal power, even though it would be the opposite of the power she claimed.

Of course since Clarkson is trained in statistics, she ought to be able to design a proper experiment herself. (And if she does that one might hope that the result would be that she'd realize that she has no powers at all.)
 
Re: Re: Randi's comment on this claim & proposed test protocol

Startz said:
But there are two other questions.
Click to expand...

There's actually a third other question. Perhaps I'm stirring the pot, here, but still...

This is highly theoretical, but suppose that someone manages once in every "n" trials to do something that, heretofore, has always been considered completely impossible. A 1% success rate is certainly worse than chance would dictate, but wouldn't doing it at all be worth something?
 
Understood, but if someone is claiming to get results less than chance would call for, she has NO ability!

Should we test her for having a huge failure rate?

James Randi.
Click to expand...
Whilst I don't in any way think this will turn out to be a useful way for the JREF to spend it's time and energy in investigating, what Beth is actually claiming is certainly higher than chance.

I don't think Randi has read everything to do with the claim and if he has he must understand that claiming less than 1/2 success rate does not mean less than chance as explained by many posters above.

I think it is fairly clear that I, personally, do not think this claim has any grounds whatsoever, but to reject it because Beth is claiming less than chance is incorrect. She isn't.

By all means reject it because of the uneccessary over-complexity of the test, or the ridiculous length of time it would take to test, or on the grounds that she has apparently not even demonstrated this ability to herself, or even the fact that she may not be in the soundest psychological state to take the test (worried as she is about personal issues).

But please don't reject her because she is claiming less than 1/2 chance rate, because that would be unfair in this particular instance. And statistically incorrect as far as I read it.

KRAMER, surely you can see that she isn't claiming less than chance rate - please pass that on to Randi as it is a silly reason to reject the claim.
 
We'd better fire all the major league baseball players, then, cause almost to a man they aren't batting at a 1 in 3 success rate. Who knew they were doing worse than chance?
 
Apples and oranges, Roger.
For starters, in baseball, the pitcher is deliberately trying to prevent the batter from hitting the ball; do you think the flame is consciously trying to resist being pushed around by Beth Clarkson?
 
Any chance of getting Beth Clarkson on this forum? I have a couple of questions I'd really like to ask her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom