David Koenig MDC challenge treated unfairly?

[Doubt]

I do think it is a poor one. This very same reason could be applied to all sorts of other tests could it not? The applicant stated quite clearly that the voice would be clear and intelligible and even said the JREF would have the final say as to whether or not the sounds coming from the recording were clear and intelligible or just background noise. This was denied because what one person hears might not be what another person hears. If that is the case then no test using verbalization as a means of determining accuracy could be used.

Suppose an applicant said they could read a persons mind. They set up protocol whereby a third party thinks of a word and the applicant will concentrate on the person and verbalize the word they are thinking of. The applicant gives their answer. Except by Remie's reasoning in regards to his correspondence with Koenig, verbalization, even if in a clear and intelligent manner, is always subjective. Therefore this test is invalid because what the applicant thinks he said might be heard differently by someone else.

Two big problems with your complaint.

First is that the JREF having the final word by itself goes against the spirit of the challenge. The results are to require no judging and be clear to anyone. If the protocol is weak enough that you need to give final say to the JREF, than the protocol has failed to live up to the intent of the challenge.

Second is that merely stating that the voice would be clear and intelligible does not give us any useful definition for what is clear and intelligible. Early on David wanted to have a group of linguists standing around just in case the words heard were not in English. Such a requirement shoots right past the idea of things being clear. You really do need to see what else he has posted here to see what is going on.

In the hypothetical example you provided such problems are solved by having the receiver write down what they heard. A verbal response from the receiver would never make it into a useful protocol simply because of the subjective nature of the response.

 

[Pup]

Suppose an applicant said they could read a persons mind. They set up protocol whereby a third party thinks of a word and the applicant will concentrate on the person and verbalize the word they are thinking of. The applicant gives their answer. Except by Remie's reasoning in regards to his correspondence with Koenig, verbalization, even if in a clear and intelligent manner, is always subjective. Therefore this test is invalid because what the applicant thinks he said might be heard differently by someone else.

The difference, though, is that if the applicant doesn't speak loudly or clearly, one can ask him to repeat until it's understandable. And the correct answer is a single, obvious one, so if the word is "dog," it would be incredible luck if the applicant mumbled a random sound in such a way that everyone thought he said "dog" clearly enough that he didn't need asked to repeat it. The chance of that happening enough times by accident for the applicant to pass the test would be nill.

With no target to aim for except clear and intelligent, it's just too broad. If the entity could speak specific words on demand, like in the mind-reading test, it would be easier to tell if the entity said "dog" or if there was only random static. If the choice is between hearing any word in any language, and random static, it's not so obvious.

 

[The Professor]

What makes you believe his application has been rejected?
The latest official mention of David Koenig's MDC challenge application is here:


In previous cases*, if an applicant fails to maintain contact with the MDC administrator, then the application is closed and the person must wait one year before reapplying. But, according to the latest publicly posted information, Mr. Koenig's application remains active.

* See the "Challenge Applications" subforum.

Yes, I am very actively working on an acceptable protocol.
Shaun, at the JREF is contacting Jeff with some of my concerns. (Yes, there are some problems)
It is my hope that my next email to him will be an acceptable protocol and I am getting some good help in that direction.

 

[steenkh]

I do think it is a poor one. This very same reason could be applied to all sorts of other tests could it not? The applicant stated quite clearly that the voice would be clear and intelligible and even said the JREF would have the final say as to whether or not the sounds coming from the recording were clear and intelligible or just background noise. This was denied because what one person hears might not be what another person hears. If that is the case then no test using verbalization as a means of determining accuracy could be used.

First of all, this claim has not been rejected, so it is strange that you keep stating the opposite.

Several suggestions have been made to help The Professor in this respect, but even if it turns out that it is impossible to devise a protocol that can handle paranormally spoken words, it would not be unfair to reject the claim on this basis, because in that case, the JREF MDC rules would just not able to handle such claims. It would only be an unfair rejection if other applicants had similar protocols accepted.

If the resulting recording was not clear and intelligible the applicant immediately fails.

The JREF rules say that there will be no judge involved. can you please explain who will determine if the voice is clear and intelligible, and how this would not be judging? We can easily imagine a situation where TP will claim that he produced a "clear and intelligible" voice, but the testers would claim that there was no "clear and intelligible voice". Do you think that TP would feel fairly treated when his shot at the million dollars was lost in this way?

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
It's quite easy. If the resulting recording was not clear and intelligible the applicant immediately fails.

Define "clear and intelligible". It's quite easy. Remember that you put a million dollars on the line of said definition.

 

[RoboTimbo]

<snip>
...first time I've ever read a challenge that seemed to be rejected unfairly.

It hasn't been rejected, as noted above. The Professor just can't come up with any kind of intelligible protocol.

The purpose of the MDC is to show proof that some paranormal event is occurring. Koenig offers to record clear and intelligible conversation with an entity which is not a living human being.

He states:
He also states that he will allow the JREF to do whatever they feel is necessary to prevent cheating. They can inspect the area as well as him for any devices. They can bring in any audio experts they want to search the area or look for ways of cheating. Whatever the JREF wants.

Despite this the challenge is denied because:

The challenge has not been denied. Stop saying so.

If there is distinct and obvious human language being used to talk and answer questions and this is not being done by a living human being and not by some hidden electronic device how does that not fit the category of supernatural? Whether you want to call it a ghost or entity or not doesn't mean a damn thing. If human language is being recorded and conversed with and it is not from a living person or from an electronic device then there is no natural explanation for its occurrence and is thus supernatural.

Like I said I respect the JREF and have always found their protocol for the challenges to be fair. In this case though it seems to me that either they are being unfair or are providing a very poor explanation as to why this is not considered objective enough.

If someone feels they understand this position, further explanation would be most helpful.

Further explanation: The Professor is being coy about how he is actually going to perform his stunt but the most recent seems to point to the use of some electronic gadgets, one of which scans radio frequencies picking up stray transmissions. He will record those transmissions and claim them as paranormal. Case closed.

Your assumption that the claim has been rejected is incorrect. If you had assumed that The Professor has yet to come up with an objective protocol, you would have been correct.

I will refer you as others have done to the protocol thread. We don't need another Professor thread on moderated status. In fact, we didn't need another Professor thread at all.

 

[The_Animus]

Woops! I suggest becoming familiar with the entire story and situation prior to slinging around arbitrary complaints. Really, it will be difficult for you to be taken seriously when you insist that you aren't interested in knowing the entire set of circumstances.

I explained why that information is irrelevant.

What if the entity is speaking Spanish?
What if the entity is speaking an obscure dialect of Chinese?
What if the entity sounds like they are speaking through a voice disguiser?

Neat?

First of all, this claim has not been rejected, so it is strange that you keep stating the opposite.

I did not continue to state the opposite. In the OP I incorrectly stated the application was denied. I meant the protocol and that has been what I've been talking about since. Further if one is able to read my post with decent comprehension it should be obvious to the reader that my contention is with the reason the protocol was denied. In either case it is irrelevant and I would prefer we focus on the topic at hand.

The JREF rules say that there will be no judge involved. can you please explain who will determine if the voice is clear and intelligible, and how this would not be judging? We can easily imagine a situation where TP will claim that he produced a "clear and intelligible" voice, but the testers would claim that there was no "clear and intelligible voice". Do you think that TP would feel fairly treated when his shot at the million dollars was lost in this way?

I addressed this in a previous post. You could even do as many people as you want. It doesn't have to be 10, it could be 20, 30, or 100 and the people chosen could be agreed upon beforehand by both parties. It could even be agreed upon beforehand that a certain % of the independent listeners have to agree on what was heard in order for it to be considered clear and intelligible. After this the recording could be uploaded online for everyone to listen to.

I have to go to work. I'll come back to this tomorrow.

 

[petre]

I explained why that information is irrelevant.

What if the entity is speaking Spanish?
What if the entity is speaking an obscure dialect of Chinese?
What if the entity sounds like they are speaking through a voice disguiser?

Neat?

The reason behind the question was, "would such be considered clear and intelligible?"

If the entity says, "we have larned to immatute your speech exarctly" would that qualify as clear?

As noted by others, the difference between this and any other protocol that would hinge on the understanding of the spoken word is that in the latter clarification can be requested if any misunderstanding is likely and the language of the participants is known and prepared for.

This protocol has made me wonder what would happen if an applicant took a test to predict the outcome of something, just mumbled when prompted, and then refused to clarify saying "I've given my answer already and it is on record". After the test, the claimant might insist all answers were correct. I would think it likely that the observer would find such answers unacceptable and insist the testee repeat and clarify the answer before proceeding.

Such opportunity is not available for this test. As designed it seems rather likely a testee would simply suggest "Bling-Garble NoOOs" is "similar" to a phrase in some language that makes some sort of sense as an answer.

 

[jojonete]

The applicant stated quite clearly that the voice would be clear and intelligible and even said the JREF would have the final say as to whether or not the sounds coming from the recording were clear and intelligible or just background noise. This was denied because what one person hears might not be what another person hears.

That was not the reason. It was denied because it would give The Professor an out, namely: "the voice was loud and clear, but they didn't want to lose the million so they said it was not clear enough". In other words, the protocol must prevent cheating from either side.

My problem with this is that it's being treated like the applicant is asking to interpret hissing and moaning as actual words when that is not what was put forward by the applicant.

All EVP recordings I've heard so far are only hissing and moaning interpreted as actual words. I think it's fair to (at the very least) consider the possibility that The Professor's EVP recordings could be just hissing and moaning interpreted as actual words.

You could even have 10 independent people with no knowledge whatsoever about this test be given the tape separately and asked to write down what they hear. If they all write down as hearing the same thing then it's obviously clear and intelligible and not some noise open to interpretation.

This idea has been proposed in the other thread, some people agrees with it and some people disagrees. As far as I know, The Professor never mentioned this idea in any of his posts (either to say he likes it or he dislikes it).

It's quite easy. If the resulting recording was not clear and intelligible the applicant immediately fails.

Please download this 150-KB ZIP file. It contains 6 sound samples. The question is: which of them are "clear and intelligible recordings"? I guess your answer to that question would differ a lot from The Professor's answer to the very same question.
It's very important to have the question "what is considered clear and intelligible?" answered before the test begins. Deciding it after the test would lead to endless discussions.

 

[remirol]

I explained why that information is irrelevant.

Which, of course, you are able to determine by not having read it. Riiiiight. I refer you to my prior paragraph about not being taken seriously; because at this point, I certainly don't.

What if the entity is speaking Spanish?
What if the entity is speaking an obscure dialect of Chinese?
What if the entity sounds like they are speaking through a voice disguiser?

Neat.

Avoidance noted. Please either answer the question or address the general issue illustrated by those example questions, which was:

Can you define clear and intelligible in a manner that is not subjective?

Two out of three of my above examples do not qualify as "clear and intelligible" to me; I can understand no dialects of Chinese, and voice disguisers operate by inherently making a voice unclear. However, someone who was a Chinese native might well understand the second example and consider it perfectly intelligible. How do you expect to resolve such disagreements between listeners? (Answer: you can't, and this is why it's a bad idea; see below).

I addressed this in a previous post. You could even do as many people as you want. It doesn't have to be 10, it could be 20, 30, or 100 *snip*

At this point you are simply repeating yourself without either putting any thought into what you're saying, or reading what people are saying to you. Specifically, you did not answer this:

There are a number of variants of this question, all of which are possible sources of contention over what was actually said. The 8-out-of-10 thing has been brought up before, and the obvious problem is: how do you know the 2 aren't right, and the 8 aren't wrong?

You appear to have missed the entire point of the way the JREF challenge and protocols are structured, which is that the result will be self-evident and require no judgment on anyone's part. Your suggestions require relying on the judgment of X number of people, and thus are inappropriate for this protocol.

 

[Mongrel]

You appear to have missed the entire point of the way the JREF challenge and protocols are structured, which is that the result will be self-evident and require no judgment on anyone's part. Your suggestions require relying on the judgment of X number of people, and thus are inappropriate for this protocol.

The only way I can think of that a mystery voice could give a clear answer on recorded media would be short answers to randomised questions using the NATO alphabet^WP

 

[The Professor]

Animus may be confused since a member here on the JREF Forum is stating on another forum that the Professor has been denied his claim.

If you guys would like to contribute ideas to the protocol PLEASE go to that thread here on the JREF Forum and present those ideas.

I have an open mind as to what would be acceptable in the protocol and I welcome any honest help.

Thanks
Dave

 

[Pogo]

I thought it was almost finished.

 

[The Professor]

I'm always open to improvement.
Sorry you do not see the value in that

 

[not daSkeptic]

I'm always open to improvement.
Sorry you do not see the value in that

At what point will you consider it ready to submit? Give us some completion criteria that we can hold you to. Unless of course you do not wish to actually commit to something.

 

[Pogo]

Perhaps you should post it so valuable improvements may be suggested. Will you be doing that today?

 

[The Professor]

At what point will you consider it ready to submit? Give us some completion criteria that we can hold you to. Unless of course you do not wish to actually commit to something.

Why do you feel you have the right to hold me to anything?

Aren't you just a forum member?

The JREF agrees with very few protocols, so why should I paint myself into a corner as you suggest.

Is it because you enjoy seeing people fail?

Do you like to help them do so?

Since it is almost impossible to get the JREF to agree to a Challenge Protocol, I will take my time, thank you.

I have committed to the Application, The Media Presence, The Academic, and the Claim.

I am now completing the final Protocol section.

Since this thread is about being treated unfairly, I think that Eirik's confession of contacting the Lake Helen Police and telling them that I planned to perform a MAGIC SHOW in a cemetery is evidence of being treated unfairly.

 

[jsfisher]

Since it is almost impossible to get the JREF to agree to a Challenge Protocol, I will take my time, thank you.

I have committed to the Application, The Media Presence, The Academic, and the Claim.

I am now completing the final Protocol section.

Since this thread is about being treated unfairly, I think that Eirik's confession of contacting the Lake Helen Police and telling them that I planned to perform a MAGIC SHOW in a cemetery is evidence of being treated unfairly.

I note great consistency in you ability to hold facts in abeyance.

 

[Pogo]

I have the image of a man futilely trying to explain algebra to a duck. I don't know where that came from, but there it is. Very strange.

 

[RemieV]

RemieV removed

Correction: RemieV excused herself.