Bias in Challenge Protocol?

[GzuzKryzt]

I would say Randi must do research on "paranormal" stuff, if for no other reason, than to be able to deal with claims.

randi@randi.org

Let us know how that worked out, robinson.

 

[Cuddles]

I would say Randi must do research on "paranormal" stuff, if for no other reason, than to be able to deal with claims.

But that's the whole point. This has been explained to you many times. It simply doesn't matter what the claim is, how it is supposed to or who is investigating it. All that matters is that you have a double-blind trial with a clear result. If someone claims to find water with a stick, anyone can test that regardless of how much they have researched it. All you need to do is have a few buckets with water hidden under one. If they can find it then they can do what they say. No research is needed at any point.

 

[robinson]

Double blind studies that show a clear result can be contested. In fact, it happens more than you might think. The more money involved in an issue, the greater is the debate over the science behind something.

I'm sure Randi is well informed about stuff, because he has to be. With a million dollars on the table, you have to know your material, in order to debunk it.

 

[Peter Morris]

You have referred to the methods being "fraudulent"... fraud is a very specific accusation, and always implies deception in the terms of a contract or agreement. Can you identify any specific example where Randi or JREF have been at all deceptive in executing a challenge application.

Sure easy.

www.proverandiwrong.net

Randi told a false story about how he challenged dowsers to "find a dry spot" and the dowsers refused to be tested. He has been telling this story repeatedly for 25 years. It keeps on coming up

So, I submitted a formal application for the challenge, following all the rules to the letter. The application form properly filled in, accompanied by a notarised affidavit. A two paragraph description of what I can do, and all the other things he wants as well. I gave a description of what would constitute a success and what would be a failure. I gave a detailed description of the protocol. Essentially the same protocol that Randi himself had proposed.

You know what? He has refused to even discuss it. He will not even speak about it. I am trying to negotiate a test with him, my letters aren't answered. They are simply ignored.He will not discuss performing the very test that he proposed.

Now, he makes several hundred thousand dollars per year telling people these false tales. He won't actually back them up when it comes to it.

That's your example of fraud right there.

If someone is slick enough to Fool Randi and his posse then they probably deserve the million dollars. Why wouldn't a brilliant person scheme up a way to try to fool them just to win the $1,000,000 then go out in the Media and explain how it was done after the money was cashed and make a fool out of them?

How about if someone spotted that Randi was lying and cheating and decided to turn his own lies against him. Given that I say that I know that Randi is lying, and that on this occasion he has shot himself in the foot. On this ocasion the lies he tells actually work in my favour. Would that deserve the prize? Let it work; For 'tis the sport to have the engineer hoist with his own Peter.

You are wrong, it is that simple. Randi very specifically does not claim to be quantitatively testing anything. As Robinson says, it is a challenge. He says "I don't believe you can do what you say, prove that you can". That is it. He does not try to measure psi, he simply asks people to prove that they can do something.

Exactly, and that is exactly the root of my application. He has stated that he doesn't believe me, and has issued a challenge. I accept the challenge that he has issued. That's it. It's not testing anything, its just answering a specific challenge set by Randi.

Even if someone passes the challenge it will not be evidence for psi, it will simply show that someone actually could do what they claimed, no matter what the mechanism.

Exactly. And I state from the outset that demonstrating my ability won't show psi powers. I have never claimed to have them. It's just a matter of meeting the challenge that Randi set.

Randi is debunking, plain and simple. No research is involved at any point. Until someone passes the challenge there is not even anything for Randi to be researching, so claiming that he is is just silly.

Trouble is, some of the things he "debunks" are perfectly normal phenomena that are easily provable. He claims to have "debunked" the existence of underground rivers, and dry spots. Thus making them legitimate subjects for the prize.

 

[Gr8wight]

Sure easy.

www.proverandiwrong.net

Randi told a false story about how he challenged dowsers to "find a dry spot" and the dowsers refused to be tested. He has been telling this story repeatedly for 25 years. It keeps on coming up

So, I submitted a formal application for the challenge, following all the rules to the letter. The application form properly filled in, accompanied by a notarised affidavit. A two paragraph description of what I can do, and all the other things he wants as well. I gave a description of what would constitute a success and what would be a failure. I gave a detailed description of the protocol. Essentially the same protocol that Randi himself had proposed.

You know what? He has refused to even discuss it. He will not even speak about it. I am trying to negotiate a test with him, my letters aren't answered. They are simply ignored.He will not discuss performing the very test that he proposed.

Now, he makes several hundred thousand dollars per year telling people these false tales. He won't actually back them up when it comes to it.

That's your example of fraud right there.




How about if someone spotted that Randi was lying and cheating and decided to turn his own lies against him. Given that I say that I know that Randi is lying, and that on this occasion he has shot himself in the foot. On this ocasion the lies he tells actually work in my favour. Would that deserve the prize? Let it work; For 'tis the sport to have the engineer hoist with his own Peter.



Exactly, and that is exactly the root of my application. He has stated that he doesn't believe me, and has issued a challenge. I accept the challenge that he has issued. That's it. It's not testing anything, its just answering a specific challenge set by Randi.



Exactly. And I state from the outset that demonstrating my ability won't show psi powers. I have never claimed to have them. It's just a matter of meeting the challenge that Randi set.



Trouble is, some of the things he "debunks" are perfectly normal phenomena that are easily provable. He claims to have "debunked" the existence of underground rivers, and dry spots. Thus making them legitimate subjects for the prize.

Are you here spreading lies again, Peter?

 

[Peter Morris]

No, I'm here FIGHTING lies again.

Please try to follow the point. Randi's tales are often untrue. That makes him a liar and a fraud, and every sceptic ought to oppose him.

And you have never found any lies in my posts.

 

[Gr8wight]

No, I'm here FIGHTING lies again.

Please try to follow the point. Randi's tales are often untrue. That makes him a liar and a fraud, and every sceptic ought to oppose him.

And you have never found any lies in my posts.

I'm sorry, let me rephrase that. Peter, are you here telling partial truths, slightly distorted truths, and truths containing omissions of data again? I notice that your wording of how you proposed your challenge application has changed from finding underground rivers to finding dry spots. And you conveniently omit the part where Randi won't let you dictate the terms of his challenge, now matter how much you whine. Try dealing honestly with people, and they'll deal honestly with you.

 

[Doubt]

I'm sorry, let me rephrase that. Peter, are you here telling partial truths, slightly distorted truths, and truths containing omissions of data again? I notice that your wording of how you proposed your challenge application has changed from finding underground rivers to finding dry spots. And you conveniently omit the part where Randi won't let you dictate the terms of his challenge, now matter how much you whine. Try dealing honestly with people, and they'll deal honestly with you.

Well, if he is only telling partial truths, then he has improved:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=835277#post835277

Of course, this will end the way every appearance of Peter does. Lots of bluster from him while simultaneously ignoring that his claims about Randi are wrong when the evidence is pointed out to him followed by a sudden disappearance.

That will be followed by another appearance that ignores that he has made a fool of himself again but completes the cycle.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Randi told a false story about how he challenged dowsers to "find a dry spot" and the dowsers refused to be tested. He has been telling this story repeatedly for 25 years. It keeps on coming up
...snip...

Lie 1, remember Peter Morris not all challenges are the Challenge....

So, I submitted a formal application for the challenge, following all the rules to the letter. The application form properly filled in, accompanied by a notarised affidavit. A two paragraph description of what I can do, and all the other things he wants as well. I gave a description of what would constitute a success and what would be a failure. I gave a detailed description of the protocol. Essentially the same protocol that Randi himself had proposed.

Evidence?

You know what? He has refused to even discuss it. He will not even speak about it. I am trying to negotiate a test with him, my letters aren't answered. They are simply ignored.He will not discuss performing the very test that he proposed.

Evidence?

Now, he makes several hundred thousand dollars per year ...... snip...

Evidence?

How about if someone spotted that Randi was lying and cheating and decided to turn his own lies against him. Given that I say that I know that Randi is lying, and that on this occasion he has shot himself in the foot. On this ocasion the lies he tells actually work in my favour. Would that deserve the prize? Let it work; For 'tis the sport to have the engineer hoist with his own Peter.

Repeat of Lie 1.

Exactly, and that is exactly the root of my application. He has stated that he doesn't believe me, and has issued a challenge. I accept the challenge that he has issued. That's it. It's not testing anything, its just answering a specific challenge set by Randi.

If your communications to Randi have been as full or lies and half-truths as your posts on this Forum have been for years then I'm sure that Randi will hold the same opinion of you as I do i.e. that you are a lying crackpot.

Exactly. And I state from the outset that demonstrating my ability won't show psi powers. I have never claimed to have them. It's just a matter of meeting the challenge that Randi set.

Repeat of Lie 1.

Trouble is, some of the things he "debunks" are perfectly normal phenomena that are easily provable. He claims to have "debunked" the existence of underground rivers, and dry spots. Thus making them legitimate subjects for the prize.

You're telling lies again.

 

[Darat]

Well, if he is only telling partial truths, then he has improved:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=835277#post835277

Of course, this will end the way every appearance of Peter does. Lots of bluster from him while simultaneously ignoring that his claims about Randi are wrong when the evidence is pointed out to him followed by a sudden disappearance.

That will be followed by another appearance that ignores that he has made a fool of himself again but completes the cycle.

Damn if only you'd applied for the challenge before 1st April you would have been a million dollars richer by the end of the week!

Or perhaps not - after all your prediction is more of the sort "the apple will fall when I let go of it".

 

[Peter Morris]

I'm sorry, let me rephrase that. Peter, are you here telling partial truths, slightly distorted truths, and truths containing omissions of data again?

No, I'm here telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, as always.

Unlike you. You have told two direct lies, which I will now expose.

I notice that your wording of how you proposed your challenge application has changed from finding underground rivers to finding dry spots.

You are lying. My application was and always has been BOTH of those. No change.

Go see my application on my website.

And you conveniently omit the part where Randi won't let you dictate the terms of his challenge, now matter how much you whine.

You are lying. I have never attempted to dictate the terms. I have followed the exact terms as specified by Randi in his own words.

Try dealing honestly with people, and they'll deal honestly with you.

I have always been honest. How about some honesty from you?

 

[Peter Morris]

Of course, this will end the way every appearance of Peter does. Lots of bluster from him while simultaneously ignoring that his claims about Randi are wrong when the evidence is pointed out to him followed by a sudden disappearance.

Actually, what always happens is that I point out facts and truth about Randi, get a load of abuse from his worshipers, eventually get tired and leave.

You have never pointed out evidence of me being wrong. What you have done is invent opinions for me, attack your own strawmen, and claim victory in the teeth of the evidence.

I have no doubt that you are going to tell lie after lie after lie through the remainder of this thread. It's what you always do.

 

[Peter Morris]

Lie 1, remember Peter Morris not all challenges are the Challenge....

Ah, yes, here we see Darat's classic lack of logic. He can see that Randi's words are untrue, as everyone can, and he decides to blame me for Randi's lies.

Evidence?

More classic Darat. Evidence has been given over and over. Darat just keeps claiming not to have seen it. No matter how many times it's shown, Darat will never admit it exists.

None so blind, eh.

Evidence given in detail on my website. www.proverandiwrong.net

If your communications to Randi have been as full or lies and half-truths as your posts on this Forum have been for years then I'm sure that Randi will hold the same opinion of you as I do i.e. that you are a lying crackpot.

My posts are 100% truthful. The fact that you blame me for lies that Randi told is down to your obsessive and unhealthy worship of the man.

 

[Peter Morris]

And now a quiz.

Please answer the following questions. It's easy. It's even multiple choice.

Go on, Darat, I DARE you to answer these. I bet you won't, though.

You too, Gr8White, Doubt, et al. Any supporter of Randi is challenged to actually answer these questions.

First of all, I'll provide I couple of links to statements allegedly made by Randi :

http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/randi01.htm
I challenge all the dowsers in a similar way. Since 94 percent of the Earth's surface has water within drillable distance my challenge is to find a dry spot! They don't want to do it. Why? Because they only have a six percent chance of success.

http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/divining.htm
Having a string of successful wells to which one can point, proves nothing. A better test would be to ask the dowser whether he can find a DRY spot within 100 metres of a well he has dowsed. With more than 90% of the world’s land mass above reachable supplies of water, this should be quite difficult.

And now the questions:

Q1) Do you think that Randi really said these things attributed to him:
a) Yes, this is his own words, accurately reported.
b) No, someone made them up, he never said them.



Q2) Randi says that there is water available under 94% of the Earth's surface. Has he given accurate information ?
a) Yes, the information is accurate.
b) No, it's extremely obvious that the information that Randi gave is wrong.
c) The information that Randi gave is wrong, but only someone very clever would spot it.



Q3) Randi says that a "better test" would be to "find a DRY spot." Do you think that Randi's test proposal makes sense?
a) Yes, it is a sensible way to test paranormal powers.
b) No, Randi's test proposal is a stupid way to test paranormal powers.



Q4) Randi claims that he has issued the challenge to dowsers and "they don't want to." Is he telling the truth? Has this event ever actually taken place, or is he making up a false story?
a) This is a truthful account of a challenge he issued.
b) This is an obvious lie that an idiot would spot a mile off.
c) This is a subtle lie that only someone very clever would spot.
b) Randi really believes he has done this, but the belief is a delusion.



q5) If a prominent skeptic is caught lying and giving false information, what should be done about it?
a) He should be treated exactly the same as any other fraud.
b) He should be condemned even more severely than other frauds.
c) His fellow skeptics should turn a blind eye and allow him to continue.

 

[petre]

And now a quiz.

Please answer the following questions. It's easy. It's even multiple choice.

Go on, Darat, I DARE you to answer these. I bet you won't, though.

You too, Gr8White, Doubt, et al. Any supporter of Randi is challenged to actually answer these questions.

First of all, I'll provide I couple of links to statements allegedly made by Randi :




And now the questions:

Q1) Do you think that Randi really said these things attributed to him:
a) Yes, this is his own words, accurately reported.
b) No, someone made them up, he never said them.



Q2) Randi says that there is water available under 94% of the Earth's surface. Has he given accurate information ?
a) Yes, the information is accurate.
b) No, it's extremely obvious that the information that Randi gave is wrong.
c) The information that Randi gave is wrong, but only someone very clever would spot it.



Q3) Randi says that a "better test" would be to "find a DRY spot." Do you think that Randi's test proposal makes sense?
a) Yes, it is a sensible way to test paranormal powers.
b) No, Randi's test proposal is a stupid way to test paranormal powers.



Q4) Randi claims that he has issued the challenge to dowsers and "they don't want to." Is he telling the truth? Has this event ever actually taken place, or is he making up a false story?
a) This is a truthful account of a challenge he issued.
b) This is an obvious lie that an idiot would spot a mile off.
c) This is a subtle lie that only someone very clever would spot.
b) Randi really believes he has done this, but the belief is a delusion.



q5) If a prominent skeptic is caught lying and giving false information, what should be done about it?
a) He should be treated exactly the same as any other fraud.
b) He should be condemned even more severely than other frauds.
b) His fellow skeptics should turn a blind eye and allow him to continue.

I'll reply c, d, c, d, c.

 

[Peter Morris]

Yeah, as predicted, too scared.

Now, how about actually answering the questions for real?

[sound of crickets]

 

[GreedyAlgorithm]

Yeah, as predicted, too scared.

Now, how about actually answering the questions for real?

[sound of crickets]

Sure, here you go.

Q1) Do you think that Randi really said these things attributed to him:
a) Yes, this is his own words, accurately reported.

I have no idea if that's true, but I'll assume it is, because if it isn't no one needs to listen to you anyway.


Q2) Randi says that there is water available under 94% of the Earth's surface. Has he given accurate information ?
a) Yes, the information is accurate.

I had no idea, so I did a Google search for 'water earth'. The first website, http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/mearth.html, while I did not see any figure given for the exact percentage of surface area of the Earth under which groundwater can be found, continually said things like "No matter where on Earth you are standing, chances are that, at some depth, the ground below you is saturated with water." The site appears legit, but who knows... give me evidence otherwise?


Q3) Randi says that a "better test" would be to "find a DRY spot." Do you think that Randi's test proposal makes sense?
b) No, Randi's test proposal is a stupid way to test paranormal powers.

I don't think Randi made a MDC Proposal, so be careful, but since dowsers claim to find water, that's what they should be tested on (normal protocol negotiations notwithstanding).


Q4) Randi claims that he has issued the challenge to dowsers and "they don't want to." Is he telling the truth? Has this event ever actually taken place, or is he making up a false story?
a) This is a truthful account of a challenge he issued.

He has issued the challenge, sure. The "they don't want to" is inferred from their apparent inability to agree on and test a protocol acceptable to both parties. This inference is not deductive logic, but nothing in real life actually is.


q5) If a prominent skeptic is caught lying and giving false information, what should be done about it?
a) He should be treated exactly the same as any other fraud.

Clearly.

 

[Tricky]

And now the questions:

Q1) Do you think that Randi really said these things attributed to him:
a) Yes, this is his own words, accurately reported.
b) No, someone made them up, he never said them.

The citations look legitimate, so I'd say A

Q2) Randi says that there is water available under 94% of the Earth's surface. Has he given accurate information?
a) Yes, the information is accurate.
b) No, it's extremely obvious that the information that Randi gave is wrong.
c) The information that Randi gave is wrong, but only someone very clever would spot it.

I don't have the exact numbers at hand, but the numbers Randi gives are probably quite close to being right. The vast majority of the earth's surface has some sort of aquifer in it within drillable distance. Heck, around 75% of the earth's surface is under water. Now whether or not Randi was just talking about "continents" or not, I couldn't tell you. There are all sorts of questions you can ask, like what does 'drillable distance' mean. It depends on how badly you need water to determine how deep you are willing to drill. Costs go up exponentially as the wells get deeper.

But there are really only two major kinds of areas where no water is found withing conceivably drillable distances. One would be large deserts (and not all deserts even so) and another would be areas where the impermiable rocks are at the surface, places like where the craton is exposed. These are fairly rare too, and again, not all such places would be devoid of water.

All in all, though, I'd say that Randi is accurate enough for such discussions, so I'll say A.

Q3) Randi says that a "better test" would be to "find a DRY spot." Do you think that Randi's test proposal makes sense?
a) Yes, it is a sensible way to test paranormal powers.
b) No, Randi's test proposal is a stupid way to test paranormal powers.

I'm guessing that in the interview, Randi was making a bit of a joke. Certainly finding a dry spot would be difficult, but it would also be ridiculously expensive. In order to find out if it were correct, one would have to drill until either water were found or the drilling technology was unable to go deeper. But if we were to make this a hypothetical test, yes it would be harder to find a dry area than a wet one. As for your question, Randi did not literally propose this as a test so your question is misleading. But continuing on the "hypothetical" scenario, if you had unlimited expenses to conduct such a test, yes it would take fewer tries to get a statistically significant result. If you were looking for a needle in a haystack, you would not dowse for hay, so again, I'll give a conditional A.

By the way, you are aware that almost all subsurface water is found in layers, not in streams, right?

Q4) Randi claims that he has issued the challenge to dowsers and "they don't want to." Is he telling the truth? Has this event ever actually taken place, or is he making up a false story?
a) This is a truthful account of a challenge he issued.
b) This is an obvious lie that an idiot would spot a mile off.
c) This is a subtle lie that only someone very clever would spot.
d) Randi really believes he has done this, but the belief is a delusion.

I don't know if Randi has ever issued this exact challenge in this wording, however, dowsing for "dry" would definitely qualify as a paranormal talent, so in essence, Randi has issued this challenge because his challange is for any paranormal talent. I don't doubt he has said this to dowsers from time to time, but I'm not going to chase down specific examples. Suffice it to say that if he said that in an accurate article, then he is making that challenge right there, so again, I'll say A.

q5) If a prominent skeptic is caught lying and giving false information, what should be done about it?
a) He should be treated exactly the same as any other fraud.
b) He should be condemned even more severely than other frauds.
c) His fellow skeptics should turn a blind eye and allow him to continue.

Giving false information is only lying if it is intentional. It is not a lie if you are simply paraphrasing something you said on some other occasion. I think I am safe in saying that nobody has maintained 100% honesty for their entire life. I certainly haven't ("Honey, do these pants make me look fat?") . I'm guessing you don't make that claim either. What is important is the importance and the intention of the lie. I don't think, in regard to this matter, that Randi has lied in any significant way. But if someone, skeptic or paranormal believer, is caught deliberately cheating, yes they should be exposed for that (A). You haven't made any sort of convincing case that Randi has done such a thing. You have simply asked a series of misleading questions to make it appear that Randi has lied.

Tell me, have you ever worked for a partisan poll-taking service? I ask because you're pretty good at asking the kinds of questions where you are fishing for certain answers.

Your crickets seem to have gone quiet.

 

[GreedyAlgorithm]

Your crickets seem to have gone quiet.

His crickets have been quiet the whole time. Crickets don't get worked up over 32 minutes. They are pretty patient!

 

[Gr8wight]

And now a quiz.

Please answer the following questions. It's easy. It's even multiple choice.

Go on, Darat, I DARE you to answer these. I bet you won't, though.

You too, Gr8White, Doubt, et al. Any supporter of Randi is challenged to actually answer these questions.

OK, fine. since you have directly named me, I will indulge you.

Q1) Do you think that Randi really said these things attributed to him:
a) Yes, this is his own words, accurately reported.
b) No, someone made them up, he never said them.

c) I have absolutely no idea if those quotes have been accurately attributed to Randi.

Q2) Randi says that there is water available under 94% of the Earth's surface. Has he given accurate information ?
a) Yes, the information is accurate.
b) No, it's extremely obvious that the information that Randi gave is wrong.
c) The information that Randi gave is wrong, but only someone very clever would spot it.

d) Again, I do not know that Randi ever said that. I don't deny he did, I just don't know. Assuming it is an authentic quote, my answer is the same as the first. I don't know if it is an accurate statement or not.

Q3) Randi says that a "better test" would be to "find a DRY spot." Do you think that Randi's test proposal makes sense?
a) Yes, it is a sensible way to test paranormal powers.
b) No, Randi's test proposal is a stupid way to test paranormal powers.

I think if you are honest, and quote the entire statement you attribute to him:

A better test would be to ask the dowser whether he can find a DRY spot within 100 metres of a well he has dowsed.

then yes, I do think it is a sensible proposal of a test of a person who claims the ability to dowse for water. They claim that their services will make the well drilling endeavour more likely to be successful. After making a recommendation of where to dig, they should make a recommendation of where not to dig. If water is found at their recommended site, and not at the other site, their credibility would be greatly enhanced in my eyes.

Q4) Randi claims that he has issued the challenge to dowsers and "they don't want to." Is he telling the truth? Has this event ever actually taken place, or is he making up a false story?
a) This is a truthful account of a challenge he issued.
b) This is an obvious lie that an idiot would spot a mile off.
c) This is a subtle lie that only someone very clever would spot.
b) Randi really believes he has done this, but the belief is a delusion.

Again, I must go with an answer that is not one of your options, neither a, b, c, or b. I'll choose 'f' for this one, but the answer is the same as above. I do not know if this is a true story, or not.

q5) If a prominent skeptic is caught lying and giving false information, what should be done about it?
a) He should be treated exactly the same as any other fraud.
b) He should be condemned even more severely than other frauds.
c) His fellow skeptics should turn a blind eye and allow him to continue.

Clearly, the naswer here is a) he should be treated the same as any other fraud. When you have provided some evidence of such an event taking place, let me know.

Oh, and if you could, maybe you could explain the significance of your little quiz. What are you trying to demonstrate with it?