Bias in Challenge Protocol?

[Peter Morris]

I gave three valid reasons in my previous post

No, you did not. All the complaints you make can be answered very simply.

Randi issued the challenge. I've accepted the challenge that he set under his own terms.

The thing is, Randi isn't a particularly smart person. He doesn't have the slightest idea how to run a proper test.

There is a great deal wrong with the challenge that he set. A hell of a lot in fact. You have listed several of the things Randi got wrong. And plenty of other problems have been listed. But all of them are the fault of Randi.

I have followed Randi's rules to the letter. The problem is that they are stupid rules. Every one of your objections is not with my application. It is with Randi for issuing the challenge in the first place.

It's a dumb challenge. Randi was foolish to issue it. But he did, and I've accepted it.

 

[Jackalgirl]

Sorry, Peter, but I give up. You're answering all of my points by simply restating the points I'm rebutting.

I could go through your message and point out all of the ways that you're wrong, and how they boil down to the same thing I've been saying all along: that you're taking individual sentences out of context and treating them as if they are individual, independent statements. But I've been saying that all along, and your only answer is "you're wrong". So there's no more point in discussing it.

It's very frustrating, because it's not debate: it's like trying to talk to a simple string doll with only two answers.

Good luck with that.

 

[Peter Morris]

You're answering all of my points by simply restating the points I'm rebutting.

No I am not. I am showing that your "rebuttals" have no substance to them.

For a start, you repeatedly demanded that I show the existence of an underground river that isn't in a cave. I have repeatedly pointed out that I NEVER claimed that any such thing exists.


Tricky invented this opinion for me. You keep asking me to justify that opinion. I keep pointing out that Tricky is a liar.


As for the rest, it comes to one simple fact, which YOU are refusing to address. It's simply this: James Randi is not very smart and doesn't know how to run a test.

He has set the rules for his test. I have applied following his rules. I can win the challenge, not because I have paranormal powers, but due to serious logical flaws in Randi's rules.


I dare you to try and answer that.

 

[Peter Morris]

I could go through your message and point out all of the ways that you're wrong,

Go ahead and try.

and how they boil down to the same thing I've been saying all along: that you're taking individual sentences out of context and treating them as if they are individual, independent statements.

Show me just ONE example of how I did that. Just ONE.

Can you do that?

But I've been saying that all along, and your only answer is "you're wrong". So there's no more point in discussing it.

I have given you long and detailed answers to all of your points.

 

[Czarcasm]

Mr. Morris, read the application protocols, fill out an application as set forth by the protocols, and wait for a response.

 

[Tricky]

Tricky invented this opinion for me. You keep asking me to justify that opinion. I keep pointing out that Tricky is a liar.

Well, this is an interesting development. I'm curious to know what lies you have identified.

 

[Peter Morris]

Outlined above.

But it comes to this: you invented an opinion for me that I don't hold. You pretend that I'm making claims that I'm not making. And then you describe at great length what's wrong with this opinion, pretending that the opinion is mine, ignoring my repeated statements to the contrary.

 

[robinson]

That is called a strawman. You invent something easy to debunk, then argue about that, avoiding the real issues. If you repeat the strawman often enough, people get confused, and think it is the real issue. Then people start fighting over the strawman, and the entire conversation becomes bogged down and confusing.

Or something like that.

 

[Klaymore]

Mr. Morris, read the application protocols, fill out an application as set forth by the protocols, and wait for a response.

Try putting the whole thing in bold, Czar... I really think that you almost got through to PM with that last one, and just a few more boldface words might have made him see the light.

I bet if you put the whole sentence in bold, PM would read it, see it, and go "Hey, wait a second... maybe I should just read the application protocols, fill out an application as set forth by the protocols, and wait for a response."

And then I bet that his application would be accepted, since it would be so well written and not repetitive or combatitive or filled with accusations that Randi is "a big fat lier I proved it shut up you butthole everyone sucks but me," since he would read the application protocols and follow them to the letter, because of your (all boldface, please) instructions...

And then he would negotiate in good faith to come up with a reasonable, scientifically-sound and mutually-acceptable protocol (once again, because of the [all] boldface instructions)...

And a few weeks later, since the protocols had been hammered out so quickly and amicably, and with the media and James Randi present, PM would take his challenge. The Beatles (including John Lennon) would be there, and as PM got out of his limo (Winona Ryder just behind him, wiping her mouth conspicuously and lustfully as the flashbulbs popped) they would launch into "Come Together." But kind of a classy, fun version... self-depricating but not cheesy...

And then--the millions of onlookers silent and reverent--PM would do whatever it is that he says he can do. And he would do it quickly and without a lot of bs about whether the test protocols are ok, or whatever. And he would WIN!!!!

And Randi would stand there in stunned silence. Jackalgirl too... her lower lip quivering at the knowledge--nay, the undeniable, unfaceable TRUTH--that she was just a stupid stupid stoop, and that she would never be worthy to so much as lick PM's sweet, sweet balm from Winona Ryder's perfect, pouting lips...

And then a clown would come out (not a spooky one... a cool one). And the clown would be leading a pony. And on the back of the pony would be a monkey wearing a tiny Western Union deliveryman uniform. And in the monkeys tiny, white-gloved hands would be two things: 1) A sign saying WAY TO GO PETER MORRIS, and 2) $1,000,000 in small bills.

And the monkey would--solemnly and with a smart tip of his cap--hand the money to PM. Then the monkey would JUMP off of the pony, and start having sex with Randi's head, while the reporters took picures of Randi getting head[rule8]'d by a monkey, and Winona Ryder laughed, and all of the people who ever made fun of PM and thought Randi was cool laughed too, because now they knew what cool really was...

And at the final chord of "Come together... right now... over me!" the monkey would... right on Randi's big, stupid, lying head.

Won't you please help make it happen, Czar... please?

 

[Tricky]

Outlined above.

But it comes to this: you invented an opinion for me that I don't hold. You pretend that I'm making claims that I'm not making. And then you describe at great length what's wrong with this opinion, pretending that the opinion is mine, ignoring my repeated statements to the contrary.

I'm trying to analyze what you have said. Among the things you have said and said frequently, is that the Randi challenge need not be a paranormal test, yet the rules clearly state that it is, and this has been pointed out to you with links and quotes numerous times. You have contually insisted on a protocol that is in direct contradiction to the rules of the challenge, as has been pointed out to you with links and quotes numerous times. Still you have the chutzpah to call me a liar. I think that is very telling, don't you.

 

[Czarcasm]

Try putting the whole thing in bold, Czar... I really think that you almost got through to PM with that last one, and just a few more boldface words might have made him see the light.

I bet if you put the whole sentence in bold, PM would read it, see it, and go "Hey, wait a second... maybe I should just read the application protocols, fill out an application as set forth by the protocols, and wait for a response."

And then I bet that his application would be accepted, since it would be so well written and not repetitive or combatitive or filled with accusations that Randi is "a big fat lier I proved it shut up you butthole everyone sucks but me," since he would read the application protocols and follow them to the letter, because of your (all boldface, please) instructions...

And then he would negotiate in good faith to come up with a reasonable, scientifically-sound and mutually-acceptable protocol (once again, because of the [all] boldface instructions)...

And a few weeks later, since the protocols had been hammered out so quickly and amicably, and with the media and James Randi present, PM would take his challenge. The Beatles (including John Lennon) would be there, and as PM got out of his limo (Winona Ryder just behind him, wiping her mouth conspicuously and lustfully as the flashbulbs popped) they would launch into "Come Together." But kind of a classy, fun version... self-depricating but not cheesy...

And then--the millions of onlookers silent and reverent--PM would do whatever it is that he says he can do. And he would do it quickly and without a lot of bs about whether the test protocols are ok, or whatever. And he would WIN!!!!

And Randi would stand there in stunned silence. Jackalgirl too... her lower lip quivering at the knowledge--nay, the undeniable, unfaceable TRUTH--that she was just a stupid stupid stoop, and that she would never be worthy to so much as lick PM's sweet, sweet balm from Winona Ryder's perfect, pouting lips...

And then a clown would come out (not a spooky one... a cool one). And the clown would be leading a pony. And on the back of the pony would be a monkey wearing a tiny Western Union deliveryman uniform. And in the monkeys tiny, white-gloved hands would be two things: 1) A sign saying WAY TO GO PETER MORRIS, and 2) $1,000,000 in small bills.

And the monkey would--solemnly and with a smart tip of his cap--hand the money to PM. Then the monkey would JUMP off of the pony, and start having sex with Randi's head, while the reporters took picures of Randi getting head[rule8]'d by a monkey, and Winona Ryder laughed, and all of the people who ever made fun of PM and thought Randi was cool laughed too, because now they knew what cool really was...

And at the final chord of "Come together... right now... over me!" the monkey would... right on Randi's big, stupid, lying head.

Won't you please help make it happen, Czar... please?

I fully realize that nothing I say is going to get through to him, just like nothing anyone else says will ever get through to him. I do it because it's the only response he deserves any more, and it tells him what he needs to do to take the Challenge. I do find it amusing, though, to watch others try to convince him using logic and reason. PM actually thinks that he has "tricked" the system as if it were some complicated computer game and he has found the cheat codes. He thinks, "The rules set forth say thus, but if I redefine this word and that phrase, squint my eyes so that things look the way I want, then shout angrily really fast, I can confuse everyone and get away with the Million Dollar Prize before anyone realizes what happened!"
By the way, if your scenario actually happened, I think it would be worth two million dollars.

 

[Jackalgirl]

Jackalgirl too... her lower lip quivering at the knowledge--nay, the undeniable, unfaceable TRUTH--that she was just a stupid stupid stoop, and that she would never be worthy to so much as lick PM's sweet, sweet balm from Winona Ryder's perfect, pouting lips...

Oh, god. I think I just threw up in my mouth. Quick -- lobotomy! Please! ; )

 

[Klaymore]

Oh, god. I think I just threw up in my mouth. Quick -- lobotomy! Please! ; )

Lol, kind of makes you wish you could go back in time and tell the old you to not read the thread, right?

 

[robinson]

Back on topic, or something ..

But doesn't the fact that Randi is risking the loss of his appointed organizational funds (and possibly, his reputation), place him in a position of non-neutrality and bias in scientifically or objectively determining what or who (de facto) is or isn't paranormal?

I think the answer is obvious at this point.

 

[steenkh]

The point here is that Randi is leaving it to parties that do not have a million dollars at stake, and that Randi never attends the tests himself except for those tests where he is specifically invited. The investigating party are of course skeptics, and as such are trusted by Randi, and this could lead to bias, but hte claimant is free to specify his own controls.

It is also interesting to see the comments of actual claimants who say that their test was not performed in an adversarial manner, and nobody have complained that they were under pressure by the testers. But of course any test puts people under pressure.

 

[ProbeX]

Whoa … haven’t been at this site for a looong time. Didn’t realize this thing had continued lol. Robinson, hopefully you’re still around …

ProbeX, you may have a point in that the mere presence of a person can throw someone off their game, especially someone who is in an adversarial role, examples from real abilities come to mind.

But the very idea of the challenge, as well as the rules, is to find a way to show that something can be done so that no judging is required. Anyone present, as well as any observer of the recordings of the event, can tell what has happened. This is why two tests are done, because if anyone could show in the first one an ability or event that is considered paranormal, they can do it again.

A self-proclaimed “adversary” is judgmental by nature. An adversary must be, because he is invested in an outcome that is diametrically opposed to the opponent‘s belief system.

In the “mutual” set up of the experimental design, Randi, as an adversary, sets the stage for the opponent by saying to him: Yes, you can choose your technicians (who will run the experiments), but your chosen technicians must come from my predetermined pool of technicians.

That’s akin to him saying: Sure, you get to choose whatever tool of testing you want, but you must choose from my limited tool box (pool of technicians) to perform the operation. One shouldn’t be expected to have blind faith in choosing from a self-proclaimed adversary’s tool box. In scientific testing (the most rigorously form of objective testing universally accepted), this is an absolute faux pas. There is no way around this. Period.

 

[ProbeX]

Establishing a protocol for the challenge is probably the most important part, and since it is in writing, there can't be any fight over what was claimed, and what the results were.

I contend that what is agreed upon on paper is not the most important aspect of the test. Even if it appears airtight, that does not guarantee it conforms to equitable standards, taking into account the human behavior involved in the testing. It would be one thing if this were the testing of phenomena only. But as soon as you throw human performance into the mix, it no longer can be considered esteemed “science” (even if run by allegedly legitimate scientists). Rather, it becomes - in great part - a social science (an oxymoron of sorts). Adversarial attitudes interfere with this type of testing. So let’s not pretend we are dealing w anything that lives up to strict objective standards.

I have encouraged others to do this simple exercise, concerning the challenge. Come up with a better way to do it, and present that, before you criticize the existing method.

One does not have to earn the right to point out flaws. Certainly it is up to whomever created a faulty testing model, to correct it himself, or abandon it.
But I have already spelled out, in detail, what I feel would have to happen for the test to hold more validity. I’ve stated the conditions which might be changed throughout this thread. Not sure why they continue to get overlooked.

If you are sure you are not lying to yourself, find someone you know who is a reasonable, scientific sort and talk to him about your ability. Ask him to be as unfriendly and skeptical as possible. Then, demonstrate your proposed claim to him.

If one could prove an ability via the classic rigor of scientific methodology, then s/he would have no reason to enter into an adversarial testing arena with a mere magician and his clinicians. If such phenomena could be proven in a lab, it would behoove those involved to immediately have his or her findings peer reviewed by other scientists (not Randi the adversarial magician), then have the test/s published in legitimate scientific journals.

This would likely render notoriety and monetary gain well beyond a relatively petty $1,000,000 prize. If I were interested in testing an alleged psi ability, it’d be worth my time to stick with a team of scientists who are “reasonable”, as you say, with no stakes in either debunking or proving the existence of psi.

The MDC is a tool for many things, but exposing obvious frauds is the first and foremost. That is how it started. Put up, or shut up. You say you can do it, lets work out how that can be shown, so that it is obvious you can.

I wholeheartedly agree that the goal is foremost, exposing frauds. I see no problem with this; just the opposite in fact. But I feel the Challenge is inferior as it regards anything other than exposing frauds.

 

[Oualawouzou]

Actually, you are more than welcome to propose your own "technicians". They simply must be approve by the JREF. Just like you have to approve "technicians" proposed by the JREF. That's the whole point: finding people who are agreed upong by both parties.

 

[Tricky]

A self-proclaimed “adversary” is judgmental by nature. An adversary must be, because he is invested in an outcome that is diametrically opposed to the opponent‘s belief system.

A person who is supportive is also "invested" in the outcome. How do you propose to find observers who are perfectly neutral?

In the “mutual” set up of the experimental design, Randi, as an adversary, sets the stage for the opponent by saying to him: Yes, you can choose your technicians (who will run the experiments), but your chosen technicians must come from my predetermined pool of technicians.

I believe this is incorrect. The stage is set together. The technicians need not come from any pool, but must be mutually agreed upon. As I interpret the rules you are free to suggest observers/technicians of your own.

That’s akin to him saying: Sure, you get to choose whatever tool of testing you want, but you must choose from my limited tool box (pool of technicians) to perform the operation. One shouldn’t be expected to have blind faith in choosing from a self-proclaimed adversary’s tool box. In scientific testing (the most rigorously form of objective testing universally accepted), this is an absolute faux pas. There is no way around this. Period.

In scientific testing, the procedure is written out so that it can be reproduced by others. If it isn't reproducible, then the scientists may try to get together to understand why. Usually, scientific investigation is not a combative situation. The object is to discover the truth, not to "win".

But as Randi has said countless times before, the Million Dollar Challenge is not a scientific investigation. It is a demonstration under controlled conditions.

 

[robinson]

Before you apply for the MDC, it is strongly suggested to demonstrate your power, ability, or event to people you trust, people who care about you, and to tell your Doctor and get a check up. These simple, logical suggestions seem to be overlooked or ignored. If you can't demonstrate to people on your side, Professional people, but not adversarial, if you can't do it then, you have no chance with Randi or other skeptics.

While the focus is often on Randi and the MDC, the real challenge is long before that point. If you can devise a test that stands up to logic and critical observation, if you can repeat an event before trained people who care about you, THEN you are ready to face the harsh testing of the JREF.

It is adversarial because that is the nature of debunking. While it seems unfair to be at the mercy of Randi and his conditions, the real test is coming up with a method of showing anyone what can be done, and repeating it.

If this hurdle is overcome, then the tough task of facing a hostile Judge and Jury is not quite the same thing.

IMO as always.