Emoto and Dean Radin should win the million dollar?

[Mojo]

Oh, could it be because saying something either verbally or on a blog does not constitute a legal agreement?

I don't know about the USA, but it certainly could in the UK. See Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] 2 QB 484.

It is immaterial in this case though, because the offer made is clearly not what has been claimed.

 

[Vitor Moura]

So why the heck didn't they get it?

Oh, could it be because saying something either verbally or on a blog does not constitute a legal agreement?

I don't know the law in U.S.A., but if what Randi says in his blog is not valid, he is being dishonest in doing so.

And you either know that and just trying to troll or you're an idiot who truly believes that Randi is an idiot that can be easily cheated out of his money and Emoto is an idiot that doesn't bother calling a lawyer and claim his million.

You are so angry! There can be some reasons for a person to refuse a million dollars prize. In fact, a Russian genius refused $1 Million Prize recently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMGvXeYY3xU

I don't know why Emoto or Radin don't claim their million, I will ask Radin about this.

 

[Vitor Moura]

This is the quote from here right ?
http://www.randi.org/jr/052303.html


So first off it was not "James Randi publicly offered Emoto one million dollars if his results can be reproduced in a double-blind study"

It was a general statement and it is followed by "If Dr. Emoto wants to win the prize, let him agree to perform his tests in a double-blind fashion", now where is that agreement between Randi and Emoto, hmm?

As I understand, it is not said that this agreement should be only between Emoto and Randi. So, he - Emoto - could agree to perform his tests in a double-blind fashion with any scientist. That's what he did with Radin.

 

[Stray Cat]

As I understand, it is not said that this agreement should be only between Emoto and Randi. So, he - Emoto - could agree to perform his tests in a double-blind fashion with any scientist. That's what he did with Radin.

Then you understand it incorrectly.

An agreement has to be between two parties.
When people accept the MDC, a protocol is devised to rule out shinanigans.
In the case of a dubious study done by dubious woos and peer reviewed in a dubious publication, none of the usual safeguards have been met nor agreed upon.

 

[fls]

Interesting. Radin knows that what he is saying is untrue, yet he chooses to say it anyway. It has been pointed out to him already that his triple-blind study failed to replicate prior results and that his double-blind study did not reach statistical significance - statements which he agreed with - yet he pretends that these studies were positive. Why isn't he called on this by his peers?

Anyway, Randi hasn't cut them a cheque because it happened exactly as predicted...under double-blind conditions they got fuzzy results which prove nothing.

Linda

 

[fls]

I don't know why Emoto or Radin don't claim their million, I will ask Radin about this.

Because Randi didn't say that he would award the prize for fuzzy results which prove nothing. And Radin must realize this, otherwise why take the fight to the blogosphere where your audience consists of those who won't know better?

Linda

 

[Vitor Moura]

Then you understand it incorrectly.

An agreement has to be between two parties.

Sure. I never questioned that, this is very obvious. What I questioned is that Randi in any moment said that the second party should be him. In fact, Randi already said:

So, it wouldn’t be me doing the test. It would be someone like Chris French or Wiseman, or some other scientist with the proper credentials.

http://www.skeptiko.com/blog/?p=7

When people accept the MDC, a protocol is devised to rule out shinanigans.
In the case of a dubious study done by dubious woos and peer reviewed in a dubious publication, none of the usual safeguards have been met nor agreed upon.

The problem is that Randi didn't mentioned these safeguards in his blog. The only rule that Randi mentioned is that the study should be double blind.

 

[paximperium]

Yawn...has Victor gotten to any point yet?

 

[fuelair]

I don't know the law in U.S.A., but if what Randi says in his blog is not valid, he is being dishonest in doing so.



You are so angry! There can be some reasons for a person to refuse a million dollars prize. In fact, a Russian genius refused $1 Million Prize recently.

.

Not anger - just trouble believing how far idiots will go on this kind of silliness. Emoto and the other slime (and Browne and the Russian) won't apply and do a legitimate test because they can go on and on and on defrauding people/tricking people/bilking people while claiming Randi is a fraud, or the million isn't really there or any other silliness they can get their victims to believe. Take the test and be proved to be frauds? Never happen.

Interestingly, the refusal to apply and test, for intelligent people, is prima facie evidence of an inability to do what is claimed.

 

[Sledge]

If these guys can do what they claim, what's the problem in doing it again for the JREF?

 

[fuelair]

As I understand, it is not said that this agreement should be only between Emoto and Randi. So, he - Emoto - could agree to perform his tests in a double-blind fashion with any scientist. That's what he did with Radin.

You are free to understand/misunderstand anything you wish. That does not have the force of contract or law. But, take a no-prize and thanks for playing (my friendly way of saying, where's Emoto's lawyer? I know, you should) !!!

 

[Stray Cat]

Sure. I never questioned that, this is very obvious. What I questioned is that Randi in any moment said that the second party should be him. In fact, Randi already said:

So, it wouldn’t be me doing the test. It would be someone like Chris French or Wiseman, or some other scientist with the proper credentials.

Well there you go then... Who was the scientist with "the proper credentials" that supervised the test?

http://www.skeptiko.com/blog/?p=7

The problem is that Randi didn't mentioned these safeguards in his blog. The only rule that Randi mentioned is that the study should be double blind.

There is no need to write everything out in long hand every time it is mentioned. The rules and procedures for the MDC are already well publicised.

This is just people whinging and wanting to make something out of nothing in the absence of any evidence to back up their ridiculous claims.

 

[Vitor Moura]

Interesting. Radin knows that what he is saying is untrue, yet he chooses to say it anyway. It has been pointed out to him already that his triple-blind study failed to replicate prior results

This is not true. This is what is said in the article:

Results suggested that crystal images in the intentionally treated condition were rated as aesthetically more beautiful than proximal control crystals (p = 0.03, one-tailed). This outcome replicates the results of an earlier pilot test.

Source: http://www.deanradin.com/papers/emotoIIproof.pdf

and that his double-blind study did not reach statistical significance -

This is not true (again). The double blind study did reach statistical significance.

Comparison of the mean ratings assigned to the images showed that the crystals from the treated water were rated significantly higher for aesthetic appeal than the crystals from the control water (P =
.001, one-tailed), as shown in Table 1 and Figure 1.

Source: DOUBLE-BLIND TEST OF THE EFFECTS OF DISTANT INTENTION ON WATER CRYSTAL FORMATION

statements which he agreed with - yet he pretends that these studies were positive. Why isn't he called on this by his peers?

Again, this is not true. He didn't agree that the results were NOT significant. He said in his blog that the results WERE significant, but weak.

I should emphasize here that all of these effects were small in magnitude and the statistical effects, while significant, were weak. So while this replication provided some support for the hypothesis, I'd say it is intriguing but not overwhelming.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Sure. I never questioned that, this is very obvious. What I questioned is that Randi in any moment said that the second party should be him. In fact, Randi already said:

So, it wouldn’t be me doing the test. It would be someone like Chris French or Wiseman, or some other scientist with the proper credentials.

http://www.skeptiko.com/blog/?p=7

Sigh. The *agreement* on terms must be between the claimant and Randi.

The test may be performed by a third party, agreeable to Randi. Agreeable . . . follow me here . . . as determined by the *agreement* between the claimant and Randi. Which never occurred.

As far as I am concerned, it's put up or shut up time for the claimant. If he's so confident he's tricked his way to the million dollars, then let him go get laughed out of court sue and prove it.

 

[Marduk]

So why the heck didn't they get it?

Oh, could it be because saying something either verbally or on a blog does not constitute a legal agreement?
.

yes it does
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_contract
However, as the second party didn't expressly agree to the terms when delivered there is no contract

so whining about something wether correct or not several years after the offer is irrelevant. This is why I stated earlier that they would have to get Big Bird to prosecute, because no other lawyer would take the case. There is simply no case to answer. This also shows the level of legal advice that the woos have sought i.e. none because apparently they don't know that and of course how seriously everyone should take their claim as they didn't bother to find out

 

[fls]

This is not true. This is what is said in the article:

Results suggested that crystal images in the intentionally treated condition were rated as aesthetically more beautiful than proximal control crystals (p = 0.03, one-tailed). This outcome replicates the results of an earlier pilot test.

Source: http://www.deanradin.com/papers/emotoIIproof.pdf

The earlier test did not use proximal control crystals, but rather distant control crystals. As Radin states in the comments section in the blog referenced earlier, "...the average aesthetic rating for the distant controls was about the same as the "treated" crystals..."

This is not true (again). The double blind study did reach statistical significance.

Comparison of the mean ratings assigned to the images showed that the crystals from the treated water were rated significantly higher for aesthetic appeal than the crystals from the control water (P =
.001, one-tailed), as shown in Table 1 and Figure 1.

Source: DOUBLE-BLIND TEST OF THE EFFECTS OF DISTANT INTENTION ON WATER CRYSTAL FORMATION

You're right. This study suffered from analysis issues, but it was the analysis issues on the triple-blind study which Radin agreed to. The main problem with the double-blind study was simply that the water was treated differently which would easily account for the differences observed.

Again, this is not true. He didn't agree that the results were NOT significant. He said in his blog that the results WERE significant, but weak.

I should emphasize here that all of these effects were small in magnitude and the statistical effects, while significant, were weak. So while this replication provided some support for the hypothesis, I'd say it is intriguing but not overwhelming.

In a comment which Radin must have read, because he responded to it, it is stated:

"The scientific community is also used to using more rigorous standards with respect to significance testing - using two-tailed tests and making corrections when testing multiple comparisons. Exposing this study to either of those standards (let alone both) would leave the results non-significant."

Linda

 

[Dancing David]

As I understand, it is not said that this agreement should be only between Emoto and Randi. So, he - Emoto - could agree to perform his tests in a double-blind fashion with any scientist. That's what he did with Radin.

That is really stretching, where does Randi say 'any double-blinded' test?

You have added something that is totally not in the statement, but for the million dollars that Randi holds it would be implicit that the agreement is between Randi and Emoto.


Much less that Randi would agree with the term 'double blinding'.

 

[sadhatter]

Vic , are you the guy who asks for the free smile when you go into mcdonalds?

Did you think red bull really made you sprout wings from your back?

Do you think Jones soda really makes soda using brain juice from illithids?

Do you expect gobstoppers to truly be everlasting?

If not then use the same reasoning you used when making the decision on these products. The mdc rules are clearly stated on the website and cherry picking a couple of sentences from james does not suddenly negate those clearly written rules. Use a touch of common sense when making judgments like these and your life will be a lot less frustrating.

 

[tsig]

This is not true. This is what is said in the article:

Results suggested that crystal images in the intentionally treated condition were rated as aesthetically more beautiful than proximal control crystals (p = 0.03, one-tailed). This outcome replicates the results of an earlier pilot test.

Source: http://www.deanradin.com/papers/emotoIIproof.pdf



This is not true (again). The double blind study did reach statistical significance.

Comparison of the mean ratings assigned to the images showed that the crystals from the treated water were rated significantly higher for aesthetic appeal than the crystals from the control water (P =
.001, one-tailed), as shown in Table 1 and Figure 1.

Source: DOUBLE-BLIND TEST OF THE EFFECTS OF DISTANT INTENTION ON WATER CRYSTAL FORMATION



Again, this is not true. He didn't agree that the results were NOT significant. He said in his blog that the results WERE significant, but weak.

I should emphasize here that all of these effects were small in magnitude and the statistical effects, while significant, were weak. So while this replication provided some support for the hypothesis, I'd say it is intriguing but not overwhelming.

So some crystals were prettier than others and so Randi owes you a million?

 

[Theophage]

Published in the peer-reviewed journal "Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing", is it?

Looking at their website, Dean Radin, PhD is one of the co-editors in chief. Gee, I wonder how that article got published...