challenge procedure questions

[Jackalgirl]

I wanted to add to my previous post:

If the problem, Pro7, is that you think the whole MDC is malarky from the get-go because paranormal abilities don't exist and will never be demonstrated to exist, that certainly is a viable position (as opposed to the position that no one will ever win the MDC because JREF makes it impossible to win). If that's your position, then I apologize heartily for assuming you were taking the latter stance.

If so, though: in some ways, I agree with you. I don't think it's possible to win the Challenge because I don't think that paranormal powers exist. But the comic-book-geek side of me hopes I'm wrong, and is glad the Challenge is around just in case. Plus, the fact that these things may be impossible now does not necessarily mean that they will be impossible later.

Also, given the very large number of people who believe that these powers exist, I think that it's very important that the Challenge is offered. Instead of just dismissing someone out of hand, JREF says "Oh yeah? Well, prove it!" It's an opportunity to learn something about critical thinking, and something about how to set up good, solid tests. Sure, the claimant-of-the-moment may be nuttier than a can of Planter's, but there are a lot of other people watching who can learn something from it (and, in very rare cases, some of our own claimants have actually had their opinions altered -- very rare, of course, because most truly rabid believers won't ever change their beliefs). So I think that there is a great value in the Challenge, in JREF, and in skeptical groups in general, even if it's extremely unlikely that the Challenge itself will ever be won.

 

[Pro7]

I wanted to add to my previous post:

If the problem, Pro7, is that you think the whole MDC is malarky from the get-go because paranormal abilities don't exist and will never be demonstrated to exist, that certainly is a viable position (as opposed to the position that no one will ever win the MDC because JREF makes it impossible to win). If that's your position, then I apologize heartily for assuming you were taking the latter stance.

If so, though: in some ways, I agree with you. I don't think it's possible to win the Challenge because I don't think that paranormal powers exist. But the comic-book-geek side of me hopes I'm wrong, and is glad the Challenge is around just in case. Plus, the fact that these things may be impossible now does not necessarily mean that they will be impossible later.

Also, given the very large number of people who believe that these powers exist, I think that it's very important that the Challenge is offered. Instead of just dismissing someone out of hand, JREF says "Oh yeah? Well, prove it!" It's an opportunity to learn something about critical thinking, and something about how to set up good, solid tests. Sure, the claimant-of-the-moment may be nuttier than a can of Planter's, but there are a lot of other people watching who can learn something from it (and, in very rare cases, some of our own claimants have actually had their opinions altered -- very rare, of course, because most truly rabid believers won't ever change their beliefs). So I think that there is a great value in the Challenge, in JREF, and in skeptical groups in general, even if it's extremely unlikely that the Challenge itself will ever be won.

"paranormal powers" do not exist.

I dont think it. I know it.

 

[Pro7]

Pro7, we've all seen many claims on this board, in various places, that the MDC is unwinnable. You seem to be making this claim.

Could you please specify what leads you to make that claim? You mention that you have a problem with the "mutually agreed-upon protocol". What, in particular, is problematic about it?

Do please check out the Achau Ngyen thread over in the Challenge Apps forum. It's an example of an applicant who actually got to the testing phase. Most tests do fail to get past the protocol negotiation (many fail to even get to that point because the appplicant can't describe his/her ability) -- in other words, JREF and the applicants can't agree on a protocol.

But if you are meaning to imply that JREF and any potential applicant can NEVER agree on a protocol because JREF makes it impossible, please provide me with some specific examples (despite the three mentioned which, in fact, made it past that stage). I have read every thread in the Challenge Apps forum and in no way have I ever gotten the impression that JREF has made protocol design impossible for an applicant. In EVERY case, the applicant simply didn't understand what a properly-controlled, double-blinded test WAS.

So if you can provide some actual, concrete examples of applications that were deliberately torpedoed by JREF in violation of the rules of the Challenge, it would surely help me understand your claim.

Its not a claim.

Its a fact. If you say that in every case, the applicant simply didnt understand what a properly-controlled double blinded test was, then it is true to the fact it is difficult for the applicant to understand that. That is why every "mutually agreed upon protocol" will fail.

 

[Pro7]

As additional statement:

If someone claimed something as "paranormal", that person would know it deep enough or by heart, to explain and answer any questions, no matter how difficult the questions are.

If it cannot be explained or questions goes unanswered, then that paranormal claim is invalid.

Just how many paranormal claims that JREF have denied in the past, because of the "mutually agreed upon protocol" wasnt correctly established?

What if someone really did have a paranormal claim (which I doubt, by the way, but to give it a fair chance) and yet failed that "mutually agreed upon protocol"..

 

[Jackalgirl]

"paranormal powers" do not exist.

I dont think it. I know it.

Well, unfortunately, there are many people in the world who know that they do. Thus, JREF.

 

[Jackalgirl]

Its not a claim.

Its a fact. If you say that in every case, the applicant simply didnt understand what a properly-controlled double blinded test was, then it is true to the fact it is difficult for the applicant to understand that. That is why every "mutually agreed upon protocol" will fail.

I did not say "in every case, the applicant simply didnt understand what a properly-controlled double blinded test was". I said, "Most tests do fail to get past the protocol negotiation (many fail to even get to that point because the appplicant can't describe his/her ability)". "Most" does not mean "every".

A mutually agreed-upon protocol will succeed if the claimant has the powers he or she claims. It will fail if he or she does not (assuming that the protocol is properly designed). That is the point of the test.

If someone claimed something as "paranormal", that person would know it deep enough or by heart, to explain and answer any questions, no matter how difficult the questions are.

I think I understand what you are saying -- essentially, that truth loves questions -- but I don't agree that someone with an ability can automatically and innately answer any questions about, say, an ability, and that being unable to answer all questions automatically means that they're a fraud. That's the point of exploration, research, and experimentation.

What if someone really did have a paranormal claim (which I doubt, by the way, but to give it a fair chance) and yet failed that "mutually agreed upon protocol"..

You've already been provided with three cases to check out.

If it cannot be explained or questions goes unanswered, then that paranormal claim is invalid.

Not necessarily. It could be that the test was not sufficiently well-defined, and needs to be refined. It could be that the wrong questions were initially being asked. It could be that a possible mechanism was missed in the list of mechanisms to explore. It could be that the claimant lacks the knowledge necessary to properly explain what is going on.

But I do grant you, an unwillingness to entertain questions in the first place is highly suspicious, and we have seen a lot of that here. We've also seen a lot of people who try to throw a smokescreen: the initial assertion is demolished, so there's a bit of hand-waving and suddenly a new assertion is proposed (without any acknowlegement of the first). But it is unscientific to assume that just because, say, Buzz Lightyear does that, that Joe NewClaim is automatically going to do that too.

 

[Pro7]

I did not say "in every case, the applicant simply didnt understand what a properly-controlled double blinded test was". I said, "Most tests do fail to get past the protocol negotiation (many fail to even get to that point because the appplicant can't describe his/her ability)". "Most" does not mean "every".

A mutually agreed-upon protocol will succeed if the claimant has the powers he or she claims. It will fail if he or she does not (assuming that the protocol is properly designed). That is the point of the test.



I think I understand what you are saying -- essentially, that truth loves questions -- but I don't agree that someone with an ability can automatically and innately answer any questions about, say, an ability, and that being unable to answer all questions automatically means that they're a fraud. That's the point of exploration, research, and experimentation.



You've already been provided with three cases to check out.



Not necessarily. It could be that the test was not sufficiently well-defined, and needs to be refined. It could be that the wrong questions were initially being asked. It could be that a possible mechanism was missed in the list of mechanisms to explore. It could be that the claimant lacks the knowledge necessary to properly explain what is going on.

But I do grant you, an unwillingness to entertain questions in the first place is highly suspicious, and we have seen a lot of that here. We've also seen a lot of people who try to throw a smokescreen: the initial assertion is demolished, so there's a bit of hand-waving and suddenly a new assertion is proposed (without any acknowlegement of the first). But it is unscientific to assume that just because, say, Buzz Lightyear does that, that Joe NewClaim is automatically going to do that too.

>>>I have read every thread in the Challenge Apps forum and in no way have I ever gotten the impression that JREF has made protocol design impossible for an applicant. In EVERY case, the applicant simply didn't understand what a properly-controlled, double-blinded test WAS.<<<

The last sentence of that paragraph in post #98 made by you.

and I repeat what I said on the post #103:

>>If you say that in every case, the applicant simply didnt understand what a properly-controlled double blinded test was, then it is true to the fact it is difficult for the applicant to understand that. That is why every "mutually agreed upon protocol" will fail.<<

By the way,

Can you tell me if there is any indication on the applications for the MDC or anywhere else regarding it, that explains any issues on how to resolve "misunderstandings"? or any issues on the "difficulties" of understanding the procedures?

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
By the way,

Can you tell me if there is any indication on the applications for the MDC or anywhere else regarding it, that explains any issues on how to resolve "misunderstandings"? or any issues on the "difficulties" of understanding the procedures?

The rules do not state it clearly, but every applicant could simply ask; as common sense suggests. "Misunderstandings" are usually resolved in "negotiations".

I again refer you to the Achau Nguyen, the Angela Patel, even the Carina Landin and for good measure, the Prophet Yahweh thread. They provide good examples of protocol negotiations.

Pro7, if your mind is already made up about the existence of paranormal, occult or supernatural powers, why exactly do you participate in a discussion on this subforum?

 

[Pro7]

The rules do not state it clearly, but every applicant could simply ask; as common sense suggests. "Misunderstandings" are usually resolved in "negotiations".

I again refer you to the Achau Nguyen, the Angela Patel, even the Carina Landin and for good measure, the Prophet Yahweh thread. They provide good examples of protocol negotiations.

Pro7, if your mind is already made up about the existence of paranormal, occult or supernatural powers, why exactly do you participate in a discussion on this subforum?

Because I think that the MDC itself may be paranormal...

why?

because noone can really understand it!

 

[Pro7]

In reality,

The applicants could have feared asking questions, because they think the MDC testers would put them down, etc etc..

I have seen what happened on here. Someone comes up with a challenge and it gets into a serious discussion with skeptics who would "put the person down"... with such negative intent.

Its another reason why MDC would fail.

One proposal I have is, that the claimant should not share the issue with the forum, but only to keep it limited to themselves to share with JREF MDC testers alone. This will help reduce that such fear of asking questions.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

In reality,

The applicants could have feared asking questions, because they think the MDC testers would put them down, etc etc..

Conjecture.

I have seen what happened on here. Someone comes up with a challenge and it gets into a serious discussion with skeptics who would "put the person down"... with such negative intent.

Its another reason why MDC would fail.

Can you come up with a specific example, please?

 

[Pro7]

The rules do not state it clearly, but every applicant could simply ask; as common sense suggests. "Misunderstandings" are usually resolved in "negotiations".

I again refer you to the Achau Nguyen, the Angela Patel, even the Carina Landin and for good measure, the Prophet Yahweh thread. They provide good examples of protocol negotiations.

Pro7, if your mind is already made up about the existence of paranormal, occult or supernatural powers, why exactly do you participate in a discussion on this subforum?

You said "The rules do not state it clearly".. now doesnt that tell you something?

Do I have to go to the bank to withdraw 200 dollars over the limit, not knowing the fees the bank will charge me for the overdraft?

Same principle. In a contractual view , which the MDC is considered as a "contract", the definition of a preliminary would include all information how to gain a clear perception of the view itself, which includes a help issue on how to understand what it is all about.

If you say its common sense, then I am sorely afraid that there is alot of people out there with nada, zip, none common sense to even ask questions after being humiliated by skeptics on the forum.

 

[Pro7]

Otherwords,

If NO written "Help Issue" comes along with the MDC...

Why take it?

 

[Pro7]

Conjecture.



Can you come up with a specific example, please?

Its not conjecture.

Its a fact.

Ask JREF yourself why they are having problems with MDC. They needed to change the rules on MDC because they know that they cannot find anything true about paranormal and the time is running out.

 

[Psiload]

I dont have closed eyes and a closed mind. All there is, is only what there is. Paranormality cannot ever be proven because it doesnt exist. Those who try to prove that paranormality is real, are either deluded, insane, or just completely wacko, not ruling out that they could also be con artists.

Ok.. this is the end of this discussion. I wont go further.

Peace.

The MDC is open to pseudoscientific claims as well.

Such as... hmmm, let's see... ummm, say... perpetual motion/over-unity devices.

Any reason why these types of claims cannot be proven?

 

[Pro7]

You got anything like that?

Go for the challenge! You'll see what Im talking about when you go through it. Im not going to explain anymore on here, I think I had enough.

I just hope people understand what Im talking about though, since I have encountered so many misstatements or responses which arent focused on the questions itself. Otherwords "Disregarded" as usually.

Best of luck to all of those who take the MDC.

 

[Pro7]

RAH RAH RAH!

PARANORMAL DOESNT EXIST!

RAH RAH RAH!

MEOW!

buh bye.

 

[Psiload]

You got anything like that?

Go for the challenge! You'll see what Im talking about when you go through it. Im not going to explain anymore on here, I think I had enough.

I just hope people understand what Im talking about though, since I have encountered so many misstatements or responses which arent focused on the questions itself. Otherwords "Disregarded" as usually.

Best of luck to all of those who take the MDC.

Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away away.

When danger reared it's ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.

Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.

Bravely taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.

Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Robin!

 

[Jackalgirl]

>>>I have read every thread in the Challenge Apps forum and in no way have I ever gotten the impression that JREF has made protocol design impossible for an applicant. In EVERY case, the applicant simply didn't understand what a properly-controlled, double-blinded test WAS.<<<

The last sentence of that paragraph in post #98 made by you.

Urp! You're quite correct, and I stand corrected. I'm sorry, what I meant to say was that in every case in which the protocol design process failed, every case was a result of the applicant not understanding what...etc.

I'm very sorry for that misunderstanding; such was not my intention. I should also point out that there are a couple of cases where the applicant become abusive or threatening and his/her case is dropped because of that.

Again, there are at least three tests that actually got to the preliminary -- I hold up Achau Nguyen's test as a stellar example, because of how well it proceeded (although he failed his preliminary). That is how the test should go, IMHO, and it's an example of why we can't assume that every applicant is going to fail the protocol design phase.

Can you tell me if there is any indication on the applications for the MDC or anywhere else regarding it, that explains any issues on how to resolve "misunderstandings"? or any issues on the "difficulties" of understanding the procedures?

No. And there shouldn't be. There are not, for example, indications on applications for loans or contracts that cover what will happen if the applicant has "difficulties of understanding the procedures", because it is incumbent upon the applicant to understand the contract or application before he/she signs it. The Application is a contract. If people don't understand it, it is their responsibility to find someone qualified who can explain it to them.

 

[Pro7]

Urp! You're quite correct, and I stand corrected. I'm sorry, what I meant to say was that in every case in which the protocol design process failed, every case was a result of the applicant not understanding what...etc.

I'm very sorry for that misunderstanding; such was not my intention. I should also point out that there are a couple of cases where the applicant become abusive or threatening and his/her case is dropped because of that.

Again, there are at least three tests that actually got to the preliminary -- I hold up Achau Nguyen's test as a stellar example, because of how well it proceeded (although he failed his preliminary). That is how the test should go, IMHO, and it's an example of why we can't assume that every applicant is going to fail the protocol design phase.



No. And there shouldn't be. There are not, for example, indications on applications for loans or contracts that cover what will happen if the applicant has "difficulties of understanding the procedures", because it is incumbent upon the applicant to understand the contract or application before he/she signs it. The Application is a contract. If people don't understand it, it is their responsibility to find someone qualified who can explain it to them.

>>>The Application is a contract. If people don't understand it, it is their responsibility to find someone qualified who can explain it to them<<<

Under federal and state laws of contracting, the supposed "contractor" must provide a means to determine such any misunderstandings or to assist -guide the person to the correct conclusion.

However, that could mean a issuance of negotiations. That would then complete the supposed "contractor"'s responsibility and release the supposed "contractor" from any liability.

But one problem in this issue, is the direct evidence of such negotiations. As we all know, that electronic communications do not hold up well in a court of a law if it cannot be proven to be factual.

Like for example..

I can threaten someone on a messenger service on the internet. That person complains to the cops. The police takes records and statements.

The person who filed statement printed out the conversation as "evidence" of such threat.

The original conversation statement would then be investigated and the person who committed the crime was arrested for such offense.

In a trial, the person completely denies the threat and states that all "printed" information was altered and wasnt intended to be spoken or written that way.

The judge and jury will look at that and the judge will completely throw it out of court because no further "evidence" supported that claim. Which would then force the judge to dismiss the criminal case entirely. The person goes scot free.

This is a similiar principle regarding the MDC. Dont take it in any way wrong, but I see it that way and it is entirely in my opinion on this behalf.

This is why a proposal on my behalf was given on here, that the MDC challenge should at least have a "self help" only regarded to understanding, information dialog inprinted. This will ensure the success of the MDC entirely and avoid any potential occurences in the future.