• 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

It's just because my diagram's rubbish isn't it?:(

But seriously, nobody expects or even wants you to provide any personal information that you aren't totally comfortable with so if there are other reasons that you don't wish to change abilities then that's obviously totally your right.

I was only asking because as it stands it may be an over elaborate test for the JREF prize.

But we will certainly try to help you with your experiment for your own interest. Maybe you could try contacting a sceptical group in your own area and seeing if any of them have any ideas, or are willing to devote some time and equipment to the study.
Or a university might be interested.
But it is obviously important to have impartial (or actively sceptical) observers as there is going to have to be an element of judgement involved in the test, no matter how small.
 
Ashles said:
But it is obviously important to have impartial (or actively sceptical) observers as there is going to have to be an element of judgement involved in the test, no matter how small.
Click to expand...
I think we have to eliminate it altogether. Having sceptical observers wouldn't help accuracy --- there's a reason why the sheep-and-goats effect is called "the sheep-and-goats effect" and not "the sheep effect".
 
Beth --- welcome to the forums, we got fun and games. Do have a look about on the other JREF forums, there's a lot of smart, funny people round here. Oh, and a guy called Interesting Ian...

About the candle flame --- I never tire of referring people to the story of N-rays. Everyone should be taught this at school. Have a little read of the article. (There's quite a lot of other stuff to be found on the web about this, if you google.) These were very smart people, they were professional scientists, and in some cases distinguished scientists whose other contributions to science were important and valuable --- who were using their own judgement to see if a screen in a darkened room was getting slightly darker or slightly brighter (the only way of detecting N-rays).. They saw what they expected to see. (It's a myth that scientists are trained to be "objective observers". It would be great if you could, but no-one knows how.) There was no real effect --- it was entirely subjective. N-rays don't exist. Being sceptical about stuff, I suspect that something of the kind may be going on here, but obviously only a rigorous test will find out.
 
What I meant was if you are testing yourself then on some of the drops you might start thinking "Oh that was near the line, we'll call that a hit" whereas what you really need is others judging who will stick to the rules.

I know this sounds sort of obvious, but it seems like Beth might be testing herself or possibly having some rather uncritical judges and that, as you so Adequately say, needs to be eliminated.
 
Ashles said:
What I meant was if you are testing yourself then on some of the drops you might start thinking "Oh that was near the line, we'll call that a hit" whereas what you really need is others judging who will stick to the rules.
Click to expand...
Well that would be nice. But as I said, it's called the sheep-and-goats effect. Sceptics are equally prone to errors of judgement in trials like these --- just in the opposite direction. Everyone's prone to this. Half the scientific method is there just to make up for the fact that you can't trust scientists to see what's there or to say what they see. Well, that goes for sceptics too --- scepticism doesn't come along with some magic power of being objective, just with a realisation that judgement is subjective and that you need to control for this. So you need someone judging who makes up their mind how the drop of wax fell who doesn't know in what direction Beth was trying to influence the flame (which means that that person should not be present at the test).
 
Wouldn't candle flames tend to be more chaotic, due to variation in the composition of the candles?


Wouldn't it seem reasonable to ask yourself " Why should this effect have more influence over a candle flame than the flame of an alcohol lamp? " ; which will burn more steadily than a candle..
 
Thanks

I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who's been participating in this thread, donating their time and thought to helping me improve my experiments. You've given me some excellent ideas and a lot of things to consider. I won't be able to implement all the ideas, but I'll be giving a lot of thought to what I've learned here as I make my choices about the design of my next set of experiments.

If I continue to have interesting results, I'll post there here. I anticipate that it will take several weeks to several months of testing to generate adequate results. If I don't post anything, you can presume that the improved experimental techniques led to the expected results.

Beth Clarkson
 
Your welcome Beth. Good luck with your experimentation.

But if the results do come back negative please don't let your 'teacher' make out it was somehow your fault, or telling you that you have to start trying a new ability instead - you could waste years going down that road, and it never seems to lead anywhere productive.

Try and be as sceptical of this teacher as you would be of anything else that was claimed but there was no evidence for.


Of course if you have positive results then I'm sure we'll be hearing from you again. :)

It'd be great to hear from you either way.

All the best.
 
B.S said:
I can't imagine a more useless ability.
Click to expand...

That's funny because the comic book _Rising Stars_ has a character with exactly that ability -- she can only affect very small objects in a very small way from a distance. She ends up becoming an assassin for her government; she would "pinch" the vein that goes to the target's brain, and the target would soon die. No murder weapon, it appears to be a natural death, and she's far away from the target.

I guess it's not the size, but how you use it...
 
Well, thats definitely an interesting ability. I can think of other things that could be pinched from a distance ... but maybe thats not a good idea.

Seriously though, My intent was to point out that if this minor ability takes this much time and work to even just barely see a tiny result, what would it take to move an object that just weighed a pound? I couldn't imagine the work that would require. We would die of old age before we could train any really useful ability, and might as well spend our time doing something worthwhile. (Like writing comics).
 
Well, well... I had a look at the protocol,and I must say, I am thoroughly IMPRESSED by what Ms. Clarkson offered.
After reading it carefully , I understood that the protocol is not trying to allow chance to come into play. It is trying to completely ELIMINATE it!!
Yes! If the test is executed according to the protocol suggested by Ms. Clarkson, and if she succeeds, the probability that it is a fluke is close to ZERO, nada, nil!!!

Mr. Kramer, there seems to be some confusion on what she said. She has indicated she is able to 'influence the flame', one in three times. This does not indicate her success rate.

Let me try to explain. Now suppose I believe that I have some 'powers' which can 'influnce' the spinning of the coin, and make it fall on the ground with HEADS facing upwards, ALWAYS.

Suppose I devise a test where in I spin a coin SIX times. Because I can 'influence' the spinning of the coin, I believe the coin should fall 'heads' facing upwards all the time. I spin the coin TWICE, three times.

Try 1 :

Heads and Tails.

In this mini-test its one Heads and one Tails i.e. 50-50, and not 100% Heads, so I concur that I could not 'influence' the coin.

Try 2 :

Heads and Tails

Again, it is WITH chance, so I concur my powers did not work again.

Try 3 :

Heads and Heads.

This time its Heads both times (100%), so from my perspective I was able to 'influence' the coin, into BREAKING the laws of chance. But I was able to do so just ONE in three tries. Objectively though, the 'hit rate' was higher than chance, at 66%. However, this could well be a 'fluke', and I could get a hit-rate of 33% next time.

However, assuming I do the test a HUNDRED times. And I find that ALL hundred times, the strike-rate is ALWAYS 66%. Is it still chance? Assuming I do it for a THOUSAND times, and it is ALWAYS 66% ALL the thousand times, is it still chance? NO it is not. But yet, according to me, I am able to influence the coin just ONE in three times.

Is it still chance, if my strike rate is ALWAYS (and I mean ALWAYS) more than 50%? May be not much more, may be JUST above chance, but still, ALWAYS more? No it is not.

Similarly, Ms. Clarkson claims that she claims JUST above chance (actually higher : between 66% and 75%?), but ALWAYS does so.
And in order to prove for SURE that she ALWAYS does so, she has to repeat the test MANY times.

To Ms. Clarkson, how could you reduce the number of tests?
Hmm its tough to say, but you try to beat the chance of a fluke by nearly 99.999%, and I'd say that is too high. I am sure the JREF folk would settle for a much lower number (Even 95% maybe? :o)

Also, as she suggested, if ONE or TWO more volunteers could participate, there would be more statisitcs to compare, and it would happen quicker.
Even in the absence of volunteers. Just use similar apparatus. Three identical glass tumblers, three indenctical candles, and identical wax rings, and set them all up in the same way, but let her apply her 'powers' on just ONE of the three tumblers. Then compare the statisitics across the the the three tumblers, and compare how 'unique' the statistics of her tumblers are, to the point of identifying whether they are nearly impossible.
 
Randi's Viewpoint...

I have to say that I'm with Randi on this. The suggested protocols are WAY too complex for such a simple claim.

The claim is that she can influence the movement of a candle flame. Simple claim, simply tested.

Here is Randi's response:

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

The use of wax rings is unrealistic. I suggest a video, in which she is given commands to make the flame move in a specific direction, all decided by random means. The instructions go on the audio track.

Independent persons then view the tape without the audio, and decide where and when she was instructed to move the flame.

-JAMES RANDI
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom