KRAMER said:
"Sez You?"
That's a fine accusation.
It's not a matter of SEZ ME.
It's a matter of SEZ THE CASE FILES.
You can come to JREF anytime you like blah blah blah Our doors are wide open, and they shall remain so. We welcome all inquirers. waffle waffle
Yeah sure. You are unwilling or unable to put the case files online yourself, there's always some excuse. So you tell me that I must either accept your word for it, or fly to Florida to check it for myself. You wanna pay my ticket? Then I'll be happy to come and see. Of course, you could always put the archives on line, but we all know that's never gonna happen.
Be that as it may, it's not a case of arguing facts, it's a case of your interpretation versus another. YOU may think your boss Randi is being reasonable, others might not.
example follows.
"If they can dowse, they can dowse. If their rock melts ice, it melts ice. Yet again and again they are unwilling to use certain protocols."
This sizes it up perfectly. I remind you, also, that by signing the application and sending it to JREF, the applicant agrees to abide by the Challenge rules and submit their claim to scientific scrutiny.
Yes, that is a perfect example. The thing is, people come to Randi with a claim that they can dowse for naturally occurring undcerground water. Randi thinks that if they can dowse at all, they should be able to dowse under whatever conditions Randi imposes. Randi thinks, if he can find underground water he ought to be able to find damp soil in a plastic box, and that's the protocol he offers.
Only this morning I received the following statement from our ALIENROCKWHEREDIDITCOMEFROM.com applicant (after many long weeks of protocol negotiations) as his means of escaping the test and backing out of the Challenge:
"I will not allow a non scientist or a scientist with no experience in high energy radiation to conduct experiments on my gemstone."
Randi calls this The Escape Portal. I have learned that most applicants have one prepared and ready to go, should they find themselves unable to persuade us to test their claim using less-than-acceptable standards.
If you could be a fly on the wall here this morning, you'd have seen me storm into Randi's office with a copy of the email from Mr. AlienRock, loudly protesting the man's refusal to be tested, his massive file under my arm..."Look at what this man put us through in these last few weeks, and look at the manner in which he backed out of testing!"
I was livid.
Well, here we have a perfect example of the problem with Randi. There seems to be no real dispute to the facts here. You and him have both posted essentially the same story. He wanted to be tested by a qualified scientist, you refused, he dropped out of the test. You think he was unfair, he thinks you were unfair.
But, Kramer, I think he has a point.
Perhaps you should read a few of Randi's comments about the challenge. He gets really angry when anyone questions him, and repeatedly says things like:
http://www.randi.org/jr/03-27-2000.html
We do say that we stay within scientific boundaries when designing the protocol and implementing any tests. To achieve this, we call upon proper academic and scientific expertise to advise us and/or actually conduct the tests.
http://www.randi.org/jr/08-10-01.html
This "whether he can be trusted" angle, however, we can eliminate here and now, in as few as 100 words: since my tests are designed and approved independently from me, and are, and must be, accepted without reservation by the applicant, after which the tests are carried out by an independent party, I remove myself entirely from any part of the process that would call for me to be "trusted."
http://www.randi.org/jr/08-31-01.html
I will do no testing of the product myself, simply because that same claim of prejudice could be invoked, and it would seem possible that I would not be an impartial judge of the product. Our tests are always done by independent, capable, qualified, third parties.
Kramer, I'll make this very simple for you:
1) Randi emphasises the fairness of his tests with the promise that his tests are designred independently, and carried out by independent, capable, qualified, third parties.
2) A guy has applied for the challenge, wanting a test that is designred independently, and carried out by independent, capable, qualified, third parties.
3) Randi has offered a test designed with Randi's input and refuses to involve independent, capable, qualified, third parties in the test.
4) Applicant says he can't accept the test unless Randi keeps his promise and hires independent, capable, qualified, third parties to conduct the test.
5) Randi won't budge a milimetre and has no intention of keeping his word.
6) Applicant drops out.
7) Kramer gets livid at applicant, while excusing Randi.
See, Kramer, this is where the difference of opinion lies. You see this as an example of an applicant dropping out because he was unwilling to be tested scientifically. He says that he wanted a scientific test, but you refused to give it to him.
Maybe you're getting livid at the wrong person. Maybe you should get angry at Randi whose behaviour has blocked the test. Maybe you should ask Randi why he broke his promise, and violated his own protocol.
If I took up your offer to examine the files, I have no doubt I'd find several hundred cases similar to this. And I'm also sure that you would excuse and rationalize each and every one.
