challenge history

[Carn]

It does not take an advanced degree.

It takes methods and protocol, which is what you mainly discussed.

That is the beauty of the scientific method, it is available to all,

ANYONE should be able to conduct the test , it does not require any advanced knowledge, just appropriate procedure.

On the general experts are only needed if the precision one wants is very high or if the subject of the study itself is not measurable by simple devices anybody can use.

The desired precision in this case depends upon JREF and Dalton. Dalton claimed that when ice without rock is melted, the remaining block has more than 80% of former mass. As JREF certainly would be satisfied with 60% as well and assuming an intial weight of the cube of 100 g, the precision should be +-20 g with a result of 80g+.

This precision is reachable by anybody with a freezer, a hammer, 10 thin glasses and a standard electrical kitchen balance, as these devices have a precision of +-5g or better.

Procedure:
Fill each glass with 100 g of water and let it freeze.
After freezing brake glass away with hammer(ice is far more stable than thin glass).
Use 6 glasses for training, so that no ice is broken away, use balance to check for.
Take a room without windows, choose two spots for the devices, which are identical except for exact position(e.g. on same table) and measure temperature at both spots, which should not differ.
Prepare device with rock and test device, which is identical, except for rock and put them there.
Out of the 4 remaining ice cubes take the 2 which differ least in mass and choose one randomly for the device with rock.
Wait till you cannot see any ice in the test device, then weigh the ice from the rock device.
If more than 65 g test made, between 55-65g redo test with higher precision(maybe an "expert" is needed), beneath 55 g, bad luck for Dalton.

This is a scientific test, though it has a lousy precision, none higher is needed, as the difference between 80 g of ice and 0 g of ice is fairly big or as someone put it, either it does melt or it does not.
And as we can see anybody could perform it, if he had Daltons device, even Dalton could and should do so.

Now do not complain that this precision is inadequate for something that might be so important, let me tell you something:
In real science it is not unusual that, that first measurements in a new field are succesful, if the difference between theory and experiment is less than a factor of 10.
Then of course work begins and precision has to get better, but a rough measurement at first to test something is very scientific, as it saves a lot of work.
And nobody would keep Dalton from getting real scientists after he passed JREF challenge.
Carn

 

[Ashles]

KRAMER needn't have abandoned the position - exceptions are sometimes made to the JREF rules. In this case KRAMER and the JREF have decided to allow the applicant his choice of scientist, but the point that is being made here over and over is that they didn't need to.

The examples you give of possible complexities in the experiment don't appear to be very complex at all and could be easily thought of predicted and compensated for by anyone with a fairly basic level of scientific methodology.

The problem is that you appear to be looking for small holes in what the JREF does, but any serious claim with real merit will be immune to all these loopholes or any bias by Randi or any of the issues that are used to muddy the water time and time again (whether these issues actually exist or not).

You claim to dislike pseudoscience, but pseudoscience is exactly what will not pass these tests.
Anything actually demonstrable will pass without having to have arguments about preferred scientists, or methodologies or protocols.
We will see the mythical claimant say - "subject this to any and all tests and it shall pass them because my claim is genuine".
We have NEVER seen this happen.

Anyway, in this particular case a claim has been made. The JREF has offered to observe this effect and the client has then requested a high-energy specialist. Whether or not a specific type of scientist is necessary or not (let's settle this once and for all... it's not), it starts ringing so many alarm bells that it is hard to take the applicant seriously.
This procedure has been seen time and time again. If my rock did all these wonderful things I would be pushing ahead with the media in tow. I would want a public test of this rock and I would be prepared to be the flexible one to get it analysed.

But not so with Dalton. As per usual.

Dalton has backed away from his challenge. Are you still trying to argue a position he has abandoned?

 

[CFLarsen]

And once again, we see Larsen's lies. As I pointed out earlier, I am a sceptic, but Larsen twists around.

You may claim to be a skeptic, but your posts tell the opposite.

I don't fawn over Randi the way Larsen does, so I must be a believer who hates skeptics.

I don't particularly "fawn" over anyone.

No, Larsen, I'm an honest sceptic who hates the dishonesty displayed by Randi and yourself. I support honest scepticism. I admire people who take an honest look and say "prove it, I'll believe it when I see it"

Okie dokie. Let's see how you are going to deal with the following.

A cop investigates a crime. He has a prime suspect who is obviously guilty, the cops know beyond doubt that he is the perpetrator, and have overwhelming evidence. But just to help the wheels of justice run smoothly this cop creates additional evidence. He beats up the suspect and deprives him of food water and sleep for several days until the suspect signs the confession. He tells the witnesses details that the ought to have seen, which would be a real help if they included on their statements. He forgets to inform the defence lawyer about a witness that claims he saw the suspect 100 miles away at the time. And so on. You know the sort of thing.

To people like Larsen (by analogy) this cop is a hero, a good guy acting to take down the bad guys. I, by contrast, see this cop as corrupt, dangerous and a discredit to the rest of the force. I have to condemn such actions. Of course, Larsen would claim that means I oppose ALL cops, and shows that I support criminals, or that I must be a criminal myself if I oppose this cop's actions. Larsen will excuse this cop's actions to his dying day, and be utterly unable to see what's wrong with that.

I have never seen any skeptic behave in the way you describe.

To me, Randi is like that corrupt cop planting evidence. Randi will say or do anything to discredit the paranormal. Anything at all. He tells plenty of outright lies. Randi twists people's claims around, distorts what they say, then makes a vitriolic attack on things they never said in the first place. He talks pseudoscientific gibberish to "prove" that the paranormal doesn't work. And the tests he runs are a joke that don't give claimants an honest chance of proving their abilities.

Okie dokie. Let's see evidence of this. In your own words, "Prove it, I'll believe it when I see it".

• Please provide evidence that Randi will say or do anything to discredit the paranormal.
• Please provide evidence that Randi tells "plenty of outright lies".
• Please provide evidence that Randi twists people's claims around and distorts what they say.
• Please provide evidence that Randi has made vitriolic attacks on things people have never said in the first place.
• Please provide evidence that Randi talks pseudoscientific gibberish to prove that the paranormal doesn't work.
• Please provide evidence that Randi runs tests that don't give claimants an honest chance of proving their abilities.

A list for you. A list that will not go away. Your call.

I oppose Randi because I hate dishonesty, and oppose pseudoscience. Larsen excuses dishonesty, as long as it is opposed to the paranormal. That's why he likes Randi and I don't.

We shall see about that, once your evidence is presented.

By the way, Larsen, as for your absurd statement "You know that you don't have a case. Yet, you persist in this silliness" You might like to rethink that. Obviously I DO have a case. KRAMER has now reversed his position. He has decided to re-open the claim, and allow Dalton to be tested by an independent scientist after all. Seems he has decided the requesst wasn't so unreasonable at all. Larsen, my case has been vindicated. Why exactly do you continue to defend a position that KRAMER has now abandonned?

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. When I said "you don't have a case", I meant that you simply took my argument and made it your own. Oh, the irony.

Now, let's see that evidence of yours.

 

[KRAMER]

There have been NO attempts to logically explain things to me.

This is a joke, right? I mean, it can't possibly be serious. PM is pulling our legs, right?

On the other hand, if this statement was offered in all seriousness, it is all we need to convince ourselves that we are wasting our breath with PM.

I, for one, will refrain from all further attempts to reason with him.
If I could, I'd also encourage all others to do similarly.

 

[KRAMER]

PM stated...KRAMER has now reversed his position.

I SO regret having to post again on this issue, but the above statement is absolute baloney. It was the applicant himself who refused to be tested. It happens all the time.

PM continues to spin his yarn until we cease to engage him.

 

[KRAMER]

Kramer, I wrote this before, but apparently it got lost in the crash. According to the JREF protocal you mentioned, this claim would still be considered open...

This claim is indeed still OPEN, and will remain so for the 12 month period following the submission of the application. Following that period, the applicant is free to re-apply.

Perhaps my "Yeah, right, sure" commentary was unnecessary, but my posting of the correspondence was in answer to questions regarding the techniques applicants commonly use to weasle out of being tested. I'm unable to see how that shows that JREF is "unfair". I think it shows something else entirely.

 

[CFLarsen]

PM continues to spin his yarn until we cease to engage him.

No. In my experience, he will go on, elsewhere, and continue to spread his baloney.

All we can do is counter with truth and evidence. We should do it, whenever and wherever baloney happens, even though it can get rather tedious, but a lie repeated is going to turn into a truth over time - unless it is countered, every time.

 

[NoDeity]

The thing is, people come to Randi with a claim that they can dowse for naturally occurring undcerground water.

As opposed to what? Artificially created water? Would a bucket of "naturally occuring" underground water do or does something strange happen to it when it is brought above ground or when it comes in contact with a bucket?

Perhaps the water molecules become misaligned?

 

[JohnF_73]

"Promises promises...."

To put it bluntly. (And to repeat myself)
"To achieve this, we call upon proper academic and scientific expertise to advise us and/or actually conduct the tests."

The AND/OR tells us that there is no promise to have any scientific expert actually conduct the test. Only that the JREF reserves the right to do so.

Repeatedly claiming that this is a promise to call upon proper academic and scientific expertise to conduct the tests is wrong.

 

[Tesserat]

This claim is indeed still OPEN, and will remain so for the 12 month period following the submission of the application. Following that period, the applicant is free to re-apply.

Perhaps my "Yeah, right, sure" commentary was unnecessary, but my posting of the correspondence was in answer to questions regarding the techniques applicants commonly use to weasle out of being tested. I'm unable to see how that shows that JREF is "unfair". I think it shows something else entirely.

I appreciate you answering questions, but you didn't have to pick that example. If you use it as an example of how people weasle out of the challenge, shouldn't you wait until you know that they are actually doing that? At least wait until the time period the guy gave has passed, which in this case, would be the first week in October. Then, if there are more excuses, maybe give that as an update. But to say that they're trying to weasle out without proof shows bias, IMO.

The other point I made in the past that was lost (I was so much more eloquent in the lost post. sigh), was that it doesn't actually encourage people to apply for the prize if they think that their open claim will be ridiculed on the JREF boards.

 

[Ashles]

was that it doesn't actually encourage people to apply for the prize if they think that their open claim will be ridiculed on the JREF boards.

If anyone is put off applying for the challenge because of what complete strangers on a forum board think then their faith in their claim must be absolute zero.

No-one who believes in their claim (or who believes they can fool Randi for that matter) would ever be put off by the prospect of ridicule on the JREF boards.

People need no encouragement from us to apply for the JREF prize.

 

[KRAMER]

...it doesn't actually encourage people to apply for the prize if they think that their open claim will be ridiculed on the JREF boards.

Well, if the million dollars at stake isn't encouragement enough,
I don't know what is. I'd suffer greater embarrassment than what might be suffered in the forum if one million bucks was at stake, and more importantly, if my claim was a valid one. Let them ridicule me all they want, I say, if I am able to prove my extraordinary claim.

We don't twist people's arms and force them to apply. They do so of their own accord. The Challenge application itself (at the very bottom) advises applicants of the potential for embarrassment.

It seems to me that fear of ridicule is a flimsy excuse for ignoring a million dollar prize.

 

[Doubt]

The desired precision in this case depends upon JREF and Dalton. Dalton claimed that when ice without rock is melted, the remaining block has more than 80% of former mass. As JREF certainly would be satisfied with 60% as well and assuming an intial weight of the cube of 100 g, the precision should be +-20 g with a result of 80g+.

Dalton made no claim regarding 80% figure. That was a number I came up with and was open to negotiation.

Dalton’s claim is that his rock stops ice from melting. He did not say that it would never melt before being subjected to the rock or just after. He also stated that some ice would melt from atmospheric conditions. Those ideas are somewhat in conflict but not an outright contradiction.

In one e-mail he mentioned that the ice appeared to go into a state of suspended animation. He did not like that description himself, but it was the best he could provide.
I gave the 80% figure to allow for some melting that his rock may not be able to stop for whatever reason. It also covers problems with measurement errors and handling.

 

[exarch]

Rehashing some of the old stuff:

Originally posted by Peter Morris
FACT #1 Randi said "we call upon proper academic and scientific expertise to advise us and/or actually conduct the tests."

The simplest is to just break this down into it's components:

Fact #1 - part 1: we call upon proper academic and scientific expertise to advise us ...

What is "proper academic and scientific expertise" in a case involving the melting of ice?

Right, no need for a high-energy™ physicist here. I'm sure everyone agrees determining if ice has melted, and how much of it, is pretty straightforward

Fact #1 - part 2: ... and/or ...

Believe it or not, but Peter Morris has great difficulty with the concept of logic and logical operators. And/or means:
either the first,
or the last,
or both statements.

Fact #1 - part 3: we call upon proper academic and scientific expertise to ... actually conduct the tests.

Again, what is "proper academic and scientific expertise" in a test involving the melting of ice?

Right, no need for a high-energy™ physicist here either

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Randi fan : Why do we require a scientist to determine if ice has melted?

Peter : You don't. [...]

Oh, I see, so when Dalton asks for a 'high energy'™ physicist, he's just being evasive. What else could it be? Why specifically a 'high energy'™ physicist?

Originally posted by Peter Morris
The point of offering independent testing is that it ensures FAIRNESS.

No matter how simple the test, if it is done by JREF representatives, they might cheat.

Which is exactly why the test has to be scientific, and the protocol for the test has to be agreed upon by both the applicant and the JREF. Once this is done, there is no way to cheat any more, because the tester only has to follow the protocol. The tester could be a scientist, but when the subject matter is weighing ice, I fail to see why anything as exotic as a 'high energy'™ physicist would be necessary. A post office employee could do it, they are used to working with scales (weighing enveloppes), aren't they?
According to Dalton, the difference between his rock and a control setup should be obvious. So let's find out.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Randi promises independent testing to remove any possibility that Randi might cheat.

Since he refuses independent testing in this particular case, the guarantee of fairness is gone.

But Randi is NOT doing the test himself. So he is not refusing independent testing. It is indeed being performed by an independent third party. Randi/JREF/Kramer have even decided to allow Dalton to bring his 'high energy'™ physicist along if he so chooses, although there really is no need for one. Randi really wants to have this person tested, it's clearly Dalton himself who is weaseling out of the challenge here.

 

[Doubt]

Just back from a vacation in New York state. Time to deal with Peter Morris.

No Peter, this does not need a research scientist.

The list of problems I came up with is not a list of things I cannot do. It is a list of things that needed to be worked out and defined. Determining if two ice cubes are similar or not is a matter of definitions.

Had things proceeded further, I would have offered a definition based on the weight and source of the ice. To construct that definition, I would have done a few checks using a scale. However I was not going to invest in or borrow a scale for this test until it became apparent that there was going to be a test. (Triple beam balance scales can be ordered for about $75.00.)

But on to Peter’s assertions:

Actually, its not quite as simple as that. The claim appears to be that it slows down melting, not that it stops melting altogether.

Not true. The stated claim is that the rock stops ice from melting. One e-mail from Dalton stated that the ice appears to enter a state of suspended animation. He also stated that some melting occurs from atmospheric effects. My interpretation is that this happens before the state of suspended animation takes place.

Applicant says, when the ordinary ice cube melts completely, the rock-affected ice cube has only melted 20%.

Not true. Datlon provided no figure for this. The 80% of ice remaining was a proposed number for the protocol and was open to negotiation.

You gotta ensure that the ice cubes are identical at the start of the test, using precisely measured quantities of water, make sure they are exactly the same shape, size and temperature.

This is not the problem you make it out to be. Dalton would have gotten his pick of the two ice cubes selected with the remaining one being the control. I also held out the possibility of multiple trials in case there was a problem with some of the ice. Similar does not mean identical. Similar, for purposed of the preliminary test had yet to be defined.

Then, when you leave the ice cubes to melt, you have to make sure the conditions are identical. Is one cube closer to a light that the other? could affect melting rate. Is one of them in a draft? Does one sit slightly closer to a heat source?

The claim is that the rock stops ice from melting. If it does so there should be plenty of ice left after the control ice is gone. 80% appears reasonable.

Then you have to carefully measure what remains of the other cube. Is it 90% left? 75%? 60%? Make sure you measure it exactly.

I started using triple beam balance scales in Junior High science classes. I believe I can operate them just as well as somebody with a PHD.

 

[Peter Morris]

Rehashing some of the old stuff:

Believe it or not, but Peter Morris has great difficulty with the concept of logic and logical operators. And/or means:
either the first,
or the last,
or both statements.

Actually, with an MSc in Database Systems, I think I know a few things about logical operators.

You appear to think that neither is a valid interpretation of and /or.

Randi did not fulfil the first OR the last. Neither.

Yet you seem to think that he has fullfilled his either/ or promise.

 

[JohnF_73]

To put it bluntly. (And to repeat myself)
"To achieve this, we call upon proper academic and scientific expertise to advise us and/or actually conduct the tests."

The AND/OR tells us that there is no promise to have any scientific expert actually conduct the test. Only that the JREF reserves the right to do so.

Repeatedly claiming that this is a promise to call upon proper academic and scientific expertise to conduct the tests is wrong.

 

[JohnF_73]

You appear to think that neither is a valid interpretation of and /or.

Amazing. We have a poster who says explicitly that it means
either the first, or the last, or both statements.

And yet you can leap, lemming-like, to the conclusion that somehow the poster also believes it means NEITHER. Despite the fact that that conclusion is somehow absent from his exhaustive list of possibilities.

I'm agog. I don't think your perceptual reality touches ours at any two continous points. I really don't.

 

[exarch]

I'll clarify my earlier statement:

Nowhere does it say that Randi will have any test designed and performed by scientists, no matter how hard you twist that statement, you just can't make it say that.

Secondly, a big keyword seems to be "expertise". Nowhere did Randi say he would have scientists do everything, or just the test design, or administering the test, all he needs is their "expertise", i.e., their intellectual input. They could bloody well do all that over the phone or through e-mail.

Now combining the knowledge from these two statements, it should be clear that Randi means that if the subject matter requires it, he will ask a qualified scientist to design a test for him, or at least have them look over a test he (or someone else) may have designed to check if it's any good. He may also ask a scientist to be present during the test, or even have them administer it, although said scientist should not be there to evaluate test results anyhow, since those results should be self evident (as stated in the challenge rules). Anyway, I think the scientists posting on this board, giving their input on the testing protocol, actually fulfills part one of Randi's statement, and as such, there is no more room to wiggle with this.

And going back to the start of the whole discussion, the test is meant to check if ice is melting. Puhleeze
You don't even need a scientist, nor their expertise, nor even their presence for that, just someone who knows the difference between liquid and solid water. Since Dalton's claim is that his rock won't melt at all, it should be pretty evident whether there's still ice left by the time the control setup has completely melted.

Dalton is SO OBVIOUSLY stalling, and you are the only one who is, for some reason, unable to see that.

 

[Peter Morris]

Okie dokie. Let's see evidence of this. In your own words, "Prove it, I'll believe it when I see it".

• Please provide evidence that Randi will say or do anything to discredit the paranormal.
• Please provide evidence that Randi tells "plenty of outright lies".
• Please provide evidence that Randi twists people's claims around and distorts what they say.
• Please provide evidence that Randi has made vitriolic attacks on things people have never said in the first place.
• Please provide evidence that Randi talks pseudoscientific gibberish to prove that the paranormal doesn't work.
• Please provide evidence that Randi runs tests that don't give claimants an honest chance of proving their abilities.

A list for you. A list that will not go away. Your call.

Easy enough. Of course, you will simply deny that I have posted this. Your little trick of say it often enough and it becomes true. Here's a little quote from Randi that amply illustrates all that's wrong with him.

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:Vy8gOXjwlXEJ:thedesertdowsers.tripod.com/sun.html

One of the more common claims by dowsers, he said, is that they can locate rivers of water underground.
"There are no streams of water flowing underground," he said. "There are large deposits of water that may seep through sandstone and move at the rate of 200 feet per year. There is no naturally flowing water underground except in caves. These people have delusions about underground rivers."
Randi said the basic premise of dowsing is a strong, subconscious, psychological phenomenon called an "ideomotor effect."
He explained that the effect is "an involuntary body movement evoked by an idea or thought process." Dowsers believe so strongly in what they do, Randi said, that they are actually moving their dowsing instruments themselves.
"They are doing it themselves and don't know it," he said. "We have film showing they actually do twist their wrists, but they don't believe it. They don't see the movement."

So, To answer your list :

• Randi's pseudoscintific gibberish?
  
  Two examples
  [1] "There are no streams of water flowing underground,"
  
  Actually, underground streams are a reality. Just google for "underground river" and you'll find thousands of examples. See, for example, the diagram here Note that an underground stream is clearly shown.
  
  In non-Karst country there are structures called paleochannels which are rivers (originally surface features) that have become burried by thousands of years of geological activity. They still exist as water flowing along narrow channels a few dozen metres below ground level.
  
  [2] "There is no naturally flowing water underground except in caves. " I'm sure that will come as a great surprise to geologists. They think that water flows underground according to Darcey's Law.
  
  
  
• Randi saying and doing anything to discredit the paranormal
  
  Well, he tells people how "deluded" dowsers are to believe in underground rivers. He tells everyone that underground rivers don't exist, so dowsers must "have delusions" to believe in them. This is the act of a man more interested in attacking dowsers any damn way he can, and not caring about accuracy in his statements.
  
  
  
• Randi twists people's claims around and distorts what they say
  
  Look at his remarks about the "ideomotor effect" the claim that "They are doing it themselves and don't know it," he said. "We have film showing they actually do twist their wrists, but they don't believe it. They don't see the movement."
  
  This is an example of a claim that Randi makes a lot. According to Randi, the dowsers think there is some kind of mysterious force tugging on the dowsing rod.
  
  Actually, dowsers don't think anything of the sort. They state directly that it is their own wrist making the movement. They say that the rod or the pendulum magnifies the wrist movement, making it easier to see.

  http://www.wyrdsmiths.com/index.php?fid=dwk02intro
  All dowsing work consists of identifying when the context of some small muscular twitch can be recognised as usefully meaning something -- such as finding the location of an underground pipe or a cable .... Because this movement is small and subtle, most dowsers use some kind of instrument, a mechanical amplifier such as a simple lever, to make the movement more obvious.
  
  http://home.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_2.html
  Dowsing is the art of finding underground water by extra-sensory perception. Sometimes tools are used. The traditional one is a forked hazel stick. When held in the correct way this will twitch in response to small muscle movements in the back and shoulders.
  
  http://www.indigogroup.co.uk/edge/dowsing.htm
  He summarises this section with the statement: 'The dowsing or water-diving reflex - the twitch of the arm muscles that indicates a field-change - is only one of the human responses ....

  
  
  
• Randi's vitriolic attacks on things people have never said in the first place.
  
  The claim made by dowsers : water causes my arm to twitch, and I hold the rod to magnify the twitch.
  
  Randi's twisted version of the claim made by dowsers : There is some mysterious unknown force acting upon the rod which moves of its own accord.
  
  Then having invented this, which dowsers never said in the first place, he pours out the vitriol. See here for just one typical example.
  
  See his claim that the dowsers "persist in their delusion" and that they are "self deceived" to claim the rod moves by itself.
  
  The simple fact is, they never claimed that in the first place.
  
  
  
• Outright lies by Randi.
  
  See above. these include his claims that:
  
  - underground streams don't exist
  - water doesn't flow underground
  - dowsers think the rod moves by itself
  
  I'm certain he knows the falsehood of such statements, but he keeps churning them out anyway
  
  
  
• Randi runs tests that don't give claimants an honest chance of proving their abilities.
  
  Too long to go into here in any depth. But as an example, when Randi has repeatedly demonstrated himself to be totally dishonest, he insists that claimants take tests devised and run by himself, or by his own cronies, and refuses testing designed and carried out by independent third parties.