davefoc
Philosopher
Nicely said Ashles.
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
Re: Re: Re: Randi's comment on this claim & proposed test protocol
If the effect is held to be impossible (finding a yeti on a yeti-hunting expedition) then the probability of it happening would be 0%. Hence, a 1% success rate would be better than chance.Beady said:
Beady
Philosopher
Re: Re: Re: Re: Randi's comment on this claim & proposed test protocol
Well, then, if it is held that Beth can't affect the flame at all, but she does it one out of three tries...
Oh, never miind. It's still a pretty useless ability to have.
Dr Adequate said:
Well, then, if it is held that Beth can't affect the flame at all, but she does it one out of three tries...
Oh, never miind. It's still a pretty useless ability to have.
Re: Re: Randi's comment on this claim & proposed test protocol
Agreed, but this is NOT what she is claiming. She's actually claiming to do a demonstration that would prove nothing.
If she said she could make a flame move south, but then succeeded in moving it north 100 times, it would certainly warrant closer investigation. Contrary to the insistence of the woo-woo's,
JREF would NOT look away from evidence that something paranormal was taking place just because the demonstration didn't precisely match the claim.
If we saw something - ANYTHING - we'd look more deeply.
Startz said:
Agreed, but this is NOT what she is claiming. She's actually claiming to do a demonstration that would prove nothing.
If she said she could make a flame move south, but then succeeded in moving it north 100 times, it would certainly warrant closer investigation. Contrary to the insistence of the woo-woo's,
JREF would NOT look away from evidence that something paranormal was taking place just because the demonstration didn't precisely match the claim.
If we saw something - ANYTHING - we'd look more deeply.
I've tried...
I have tried several times to convince Beth to join the forum, but she has said that she is "not in the mood" to get bashed and called "delusional" by "complete strangers".
She has also admitted that she may indeed be deluded regarding her beliefs. She wants us to help her to decipher truth from fantasy here.
Again, is this really what the Million Dollar Challenge is all about?
Yes, we are an Educational Foundation, but the Challenge was neither designed nor intended to support an individual's delusions, and agreeing to "help" applicants to verify whether or not something paranormal is involved in what they THINK they are seeing, would open some torrential floodgates, and permanently alter the very nature of the Challenge.
It was also not intended to be a free reserach think-tank for anyone who thinks they MIGHT have powers. Quite the contrary.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Stereolab said:
I have tried several times to convince Beth to join the forum, but she has said that she is "not in the mood" to get bashed and called "delusional" by "complete strangers".
She has also admitted that she may indeed be deluded regarding her beliefs. She wants us to help her to decipher truth from fantasy here.
Again, is this really what the Million Dollar Challenge is all about?
Yes, we are an Educational Foundation, but the Challenge was neither designed nor intended to support an individual's delusions, and agreeing to "help" applicants to verify whether or not something paranormal is involved in what they THINK they are seeing, would open some torrential floodgates, and permanently alter the very nature of the Challenge.
It was also not intended to be a free reserach think-tank for anyone who thinks they MIGHT have powers. Quite the contrary.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Startz
Muse
Re: Re: Re: Randi's comment on this claim & proposed test protocol
Let me quote three things Clarkson has said
Seems to me that this statement supports Kramer's point.
Later Clarkson said
Now that seems like a perfectly reasonable and very testable suggestion.
Clarkson also says
But she hasn't actually offered up such a test, now has she?
And winning the JREF prize would not only guarantee a successful career in statistics, given what academic salaries are like it the prize would pretty much cover her salary for a couple of decades at least!
So to a researcher, a reasonable response might be "Ms. Clarkson, you're pursuing a PhD. YOU need to propose a protocol describing a trial, how success will be decided for each trial, and the details of the statistical analysis to be conducted after the data is gathered."
But I'm reminded of something Randi has said many times. Scientists aren't very good at designing this kind of test. We think the world "makes sense" and research is conducted under that assumption. JREF applicants frequently don't make sense of any kind.
I hope Kramer and Randi would encourage Clarkson to submit a seriously testable application rather than just reject what she's said so far. But it's not JREF's responsibility.
Let me make a small, serious, offer to help out. I would be happy to contact Ms. Clarkson's dissertation supervisor, explain the question at hand, and ask if (s)he would help Clarkson design an appropriate protocol. Obviously, I would only do this with Clarkson's very explicit permission.
KRAMER said:
Let me quote three things Clarkson has said
Seems to me that this statement supports Kramer's point.
Later Clarkson said
Now that seems like a perfectly reasonable and very testable suggestion.
Clarkson also says
But she hasn't actually offered up such a test, now has she?
And winning the JREF prize would not only guarantee a successful career in statistics, given what academic salaries are like it the prize would pretty much cover her salary for a couple of decades at least!
So to a researcher, a reasonable response might be "Ms. Clarkson, you're pursuing a PhD. YOU need to propose a protocol describing a trial, how success will be decided for each trial, and the details of the statistical analysis to be conducted after the data is gathered."
But I'm reminded of something Randi has said many times. Scientists aren't very good at designing this kind of test. We think the world "makes sense" and research is conducted under that assumption. JREF applicants frequently don't make sense of any kind.
I hope Kramer and Randi would encourage Clarkson to submit a seriously testable application rather than just reject what she's said so far. But it's not JREF's responsibility.
Let me make a small, serious, offer to help out. I would be happy to contact Ms. Clarkson's dissertation supervisor, explain the question at hand, and ask if (s)he would help Clarkson design an appropriate protocol. Obviously, I would only do this with Clarkson's very explicit permission.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Randi's comment on this claim & proposed test protocol
I'd wager my left foot that Beth wouldn't want ANYONE from her place of employment to know what she is up to here.
More from Randi:
"If I said I could tell you whether a randomly selected playing card would come up red or black only one out of 3 times,
would that be a paranormal claim?"
I do believe that the answer would be a solid and resounding NO.
That said, Startz, I've forwarded your previous posting to Randi, in its entirety, for comment. I will post it upon receipt.
Startz said:
I'd wager my left foot that Beth wouldn't want ANYONE from her place of employment to know what she is up to here.
More from Randi:
"If I said I could tell you whether a randomly selected playing card would come up red or black only one out of 3 times,
would that be a paranormal claim?"
I do believe that the answer would be a solid and resounding NO.
That said, Startz, I've forwarded your previous posting to Randi, in its entirety, for comment. I will post it upon receipt.
I don't understand why Randi is being like this. He should know perfectly well that this is not a comparable example.
If it was shown that 1 in every 3 times Beth could make a flame hit a target point on a ring that would be clear evidence of paranormal ability. There isn't really any doubt or debate about that.
This random 1 in 2 probablity representing all chance events has come out of nowhere and is flat out incorrect.
If Randi wants to liken it to cards ask him if a person could predict the exact card from a deck 1 in every 3 times, would that be above chance?
Obviously it would. So once again I am unclear why he does not understand that what Beth is claiming (regardless of the reality or likelihood of the claim to be real) is definitely above chance.
Startz
Muse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Randi's comment on this claim & proposed test protocol
Kramer,
No argument at all about this particular applicant.
I think a couple of us have a disagreement with you and Randi about some principles of statistical testing. I hope the sense comes through that this is friendly input from admirers of your work.
Maybe you could ask Randi to do the following: Take a deck of cards (two decks would be better), call red or black for each card before turning it over and keep track of the number of times he's right. I bet Randi can't manage to get it right only one-third of the time! If he does enough cards, even trying to fail, he'll get about half of them right.
(Okay, okay. Randi probably can draw 53 aces from a deck of 52 cards. So if he wants to give this a try he has to pretend to be unAmazing for a bit.)
KRAMER said:
Kramer,
No argument at all about this particular applicant.
I think a couple of us have a disagreement with you and Randi about some principles of statistical testing. I hope the sense comes through that this is friendly input from admirers of your work.
Maybe you could ask Randi to do the following: Take a deck of cards (two decks would be better), call red or black for each card before turning it over and keep track of the number of times he's right. I bet Randi can't manage to get it right only one-third of the time! If he does enough cards, even trying to fail, he'll get about half of them right.
(Okay, okay. Randi probably can draw 53 aces from a deck of 52 cards. So if he wants to give this a try he has to pretend to be unAmazing for a bit.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Randi's comment on this claim & proposed test protocol
OF COURSE, OF COURSE, OF COURSE. I can tell the difference between you and Peter Morris - trust me.
I'm forwarding many of these comments on Beth Clarkson to Randi for his input, as he is much too busy to visit the forum.
For such an utterly useless claim, it's certainly spawned some of the most intriguing debate I've seen here in the forum.
I wonder how it will all come turn out. For now, Beth's latest email has suggested that she will contact us again when she can perform with a higher rate of success, which could mean never.
Startz said:
OF COURSE, OF COURSE, OF COURSE. I can tell the difference between you and Peter Morris - trust me.
I'm forwarding many of these comments on Beth Clarkson to Randi for his input, as he is much too busy to visit the forum.
For such an utterly useless claim, it's certainly spawned some of the most intriguing debate I've seen here in the forum.
I wonder how it will all come turn out. For now, Beth's latest email has suggested that she will contact us again when she can perform with a higher rate of success, which could mean never.
I think the problem here is whether or not the flame will move by itself anyway, and if so, at what probability.
Beth appears to be assuming about 0%.
If the candle is contained to avoid wind currents, I would expect it to be pretty low. In this case, a succes rate of 1/3 is pretty good.
Howver, if the flame will randomly flop about at a probabilty of .5, then she's not doing anything special.
It shouldn't be too difficult to set up a test which lowers the random element a lot. Assuming the TK works through glass or whatever, which she appears to claim it does.
Beth appears to be assuming about 0%.
If the candle is contained to avoid wind currents, I would expect it to be pretty low. In this case, a succes rate of 1/3 is pretty good.
Howver, if the flame will randomly flop about at a probabilty of .5, then she's not doing anything special.
It shouldn't be too difficult to set up a test which lowers the random element a lot. Assuming the TK works through glass or whatever, which she appears to claim it does.
Smike, I love the avatar.
KRAMER, I do think the claim should be rejected simply on the grounds of how small the claimed effect is and how complicated and long-term the analysis would be.
I think most of the concern expressed here is merely to do with how certain people on this and other sites view any rejection of an applicant.
Very few people would have issue with Randi rejecting this claimant for several different reasons (as outlined several times before by myself and other posters).
But the reason should not be because of Randi misunderstanding the statistical analysis of her claim.
And don't worry, we don't think you are thinking of us as Peter Morris types.
KRAMER, I do think the claim should be rejected simply on the grounds of how small the claimed effect is and how complicated and long-term the analysis would be.
I think most of the concern expressed here is merely to do with how certain people on this and other sites view any rejection of an applicant.
Very few people would have issue with Randi rejecting this claimant for several different reasons (as outlined several times before by myself and other posters).
But the reason should not be because of Randi misunderstanding the statistical analysis of her claim.
And don't worry, we don't think you are thinking of us as Peter Morris types.
Beady
Philosopher
Ashles said:
Is that in the rules? If not, how do you propose to avoid a justifiable charge of arbitrariness?
It wouldn't be an arbitrary change. The test is set up to produce a clear and unequivocal result, firstly, in a preliminary challenge, then in the main test.
Beth's protocol, firstly produces no clear result. Complex statistical analysis to determine if an effect exists is not part of the JREF challenge or methodology.
Secondly, Beth's protocol requires long term testing. This is not how the JREF test is set up. It requires a clear demonstration in a single test or series of tests. It would just not be practical to perform the JREF tests in this way.
The rules state that both parties have to be happy with the testing. If the JREF is not happy with the protocol it is under no obligation to agree to the testing. It can deny the claimant if it is unhappy with the testing for any reason.
If the believers wish to see this as unsatisfactory that's really too bad. Anyone should be able see this whole claim looks highly suspect anyway.
Beth's protocol, firstly produces no clear result. Complex statistical analysis to determine if an effect exists is not part of the JREF challenge or methodology.
Secondly, Beth's protocol requires long term testing. This is not how the JREF test is set up. It requires a clear demonstration in a single test or series of tests. It would just not be practical to perform the JREF tests in this way.
The rules state that both parties have to be happy with the testing. If the JREF is not happy with the protocol it is under no obligation to agree to the testing. It can deny the claimant if it is unhappy with the testing for any reason.
If the believers wish to see this as unsatisfactory that's really too bad. Anyone should be able see this whole claim looks highly suspect anyway.
roger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 22, 2002
- Messages
- 11,466
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Randi's comment on this claim & proposed test protocol
And then the effect, extremely subtle if by some miracle does exist, requires significant maths to prove. You couldn't keep us away from this topic with a stick
.
And there is the frustrating feeling of this being a real claim. Not that it's real as in the ability is real, but that this isn't somebody who should be in medical care. It would be great to see the test run, and assuming she failed, to see the reaction. Does she recant like the person mentioned in the recent commentary, or does she go on searching? Anyway, how much more interesting than the applications where the applicant can't even describe what they are going to do, yet alone devise a way to test it.
Of course with the test how it is, there's no way JREF can pursue it. Oh well.
Well, it's a fascinating case, and complicated. An educated, smart, apparently normal person, who for some reason is investing a lot of effort, and perhaps risking her academic career, for a 'skill' she has yet to adequately demonstrate to herself. Yet she claims 1/3 success. Why do so many people think they know something without actually knowing it? It's a fascinating question.KRAMER said:
And then the effect, extremely subtle if by some miracle does exist, requires significant maths to prove. You couldn't keep us away from this topic with a stick
.And there is the frustrating feeling of this being a real claim. Not that it's real as in the ability is real, but that this isn't somebody who should be in medical care. It would be great to see the test run, and assuming she failed, to see the reaction. Does she recant like the person mentioned in the recent commentary, or does she go on searching? Anyway, how much more interesting than the applications where the applicant can't even describe what they are going to do, yet alone devise a way to test it.
Of course with the test how it is, there's no way JREF can pursue it. Oh well.
If you wanted to have paranormal powers but had never seen any evidence that you actually had them, would would be the most faint, hard to detect thing you could think of?
I find it hard to think of anything fainter than the ability to slightly deflect a candle flame one in three times.
You know, just the sort of ability you stumble across by chance.
I find it hard to think of anything fainter than the ability to slightly deflect a candle flame one in three times.
You know, just the sort of ability you stumble across by chance.
Beady
Philosopher
Ashles said:
Don't you mean "outrageous chance"?
Think about it. How did she first "discover" she might have this ability? I don't know about anyone else here, but I keep a couple of emergency candles in the car and the house, but can't remember the last time I lit one. How often does Beth encounter burning candles, in places where there is so little movement that the flame is perfectly still? What led Beth to set up a laboratory experiment? Was she on a date, in a restaurant, dining by candlelight? Was her companion so boring that she found the candle so interesting she couldn't take her eyes off it? Was the restaurant's business so dead that night that no one, including Beth and her companion, moved around enough to cause air currents, thus enabling the flame to remain perfectly steady?
Or did she just wake up one morning and wonder if she had a strong enough TK ability to move a candle flame, and was curious enough to set up a lab experiment?
IXP
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,395
Beady said:
Actually, if you read all the correspondance on this, it seems likely that her friend and partner suggested that she had this ability to affect physical objects with her mind and set up the candle movement demonstration. I think it is quite possible that there is a trick here that the friend is quite aware of and is using to convince a skeptical Beth of this paranormal ability. Beth might then be responding by seeking another opinion in the form of JREF. Pure speculation, but I think it fits the known facts well.