For Randi and Friends

[lekiotr]

Thought all here, including Randi, would be interested in reading this account.

Read at:

MONTAGUE KEEN WRITES


http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/ultimatepsychiccon.html

 

[Segnosaur]

Ok, a few notes about this article. I don't know if you posted it because you agree with the posting or if you just wanted us to see it. (I don't have time to point out all the problems, but I'll point out a few.)

That $1million offer

Now for the more serious bit: first, the $1million prize. Loyd Auerbach, a leading USA psychologist and President of the Psychic Entertainers Association exposed some of the deficiencies in this challenge in an article in Fate magazine.

Under Article 7, the applicant surrenders all rights to legal action against the Foundation, or Mr. Randi, no matter what emotional, professional or financial injury he may consider he has sustained. Thus even if Mr. Randi comes to a conclusion different from that reached by his judges and publicly denounces the test, the applicant would have no redress. The Foundation and Mr. Randi own all the data. Mr. Randi can claim that the judges were fooled. The implicit accusation of fraud would leave the challenger devoid of remedy.

Ok, some major problems with that:
- The rules against legal action make sense; if a 'psychic' tries to take the test and fails, they could loose business; why should the JREF suffer just because someone sues because they really can't read minds, and have their falsehood exposed by taking the test? (Even if such lawsuits would fail, it would still cost JREF to defend itself)
- There is talk about "Judges being fooled"; however, the terms of the JREF are extremely clear - Tests are to be set up so that there is nothing to judge. Either the applicant gets the 'right' answer more often than is expected, or they do not.

First, his rules are confined to a single, live applicant. No matter how potent the published evidence, how incontestable the facts or rigorous the precautions against fraud, the number, qualifications or expertise of the witnesses and investigators, the duration, thoroughness and frequency of their tests or (where statistical evaluation is possible) the astronomical odds against a chance explanation: all must be ignored. Mr. Randi thrusts every case into the bin labelled 'anecdotal' (which means not written down), and thereby believes he may safely avoid any invitation to account for them.

- The money is Randi's (or at least collected by him), so its his right to decide any rules that he wants. He has every right to have JREF involved in the observation of the 'paranormal' activity. (And if the event can't be observed when JREF is watching, then you have to wonder why not.)
- The fact that even 'experts' can be wrong (even in their own field) should mean that their ability to be witnesses and investigators does not automatically mean that their testimony should be 'proof' that something supernatural occured.

Likewise, the production of a spanner bent by a force considerably in excess of the capacity of the strongest man, created at the request and in the presence of a group of mechanics gathered round a racing car at a pit stop by Mr. Randi's long-time enemy, Uri Geller, would run foul of the small print, which requires a certificate of a successful preliminary demonstration before troubling Mr. Randi himself.

- If Geller really did bend this spanner with his mind, then he should be able to reproduce the experiment in properly controlled conditions. (Magicians have all sorts of ways to 'fake' the bending of objects, and mechanics are not likely to be experts in detecting 'tricks'.)
- The fact that bending it is beyond the capacity of the strongest man is irrelevant; if it was done by a trick, then it is probably just as easy to bend a wrench as it is to bend a paperclip
- Yes, there is a requirement for a 'preliminary' round before Randi himself gets involved; so what? Given the the total number of applicants, Randi probably wouldn't have the time to personally oversee all tests.

He criticised the fact that the Schwartz findings appeared in neither Nature nor Science, although he must have been aware of the long-standing refusal of these two leading scientific journals to publish anything touching on the paranormal.

Perhaps the reason neither Nature or Science publish anything touching on the paranormal is that the majority of 'paranormal' articles are based on poor science and poor experimental design.

He then reported that one of the gifted mediums, John Edward, could have seen the sitter through a 2" curtain gap, regardless of the facts that the crack was about quarter of an inch, was subsequently sealed from ceiling to floor, and that readings were later done long distance. Mr. Randi declined an invitation to see all the raw footage for himself, while protesting that he would never [be allowed to] see it.

And what would be the point of seeing the 'raw footage'?

Lets face it, unless he (or someone he trusts) actually sees the experiments performed live, there is no guarantee that the 'raw footage' will show everything. The fact that there was a curtain gap (even 1/4 inch is enough to see through by the way) in part of the experiment shows that proper controls may not have been used.

Equally, despite his confident assertions that cold reading can produce results as impressive as any from a platform medium, he declined an offer to prove it by comparing his performance with that of a genuine medium, surely a crucial test.

Nope, not crucial at all. In fact, it adds an extra unnecessary layer of complexity to the process. All that is needed is to compare how well the medium's results compare with random chance alone.

(It should be noted that there are "mentalists" who do get good results, even though they admit that it is a trick.)

Mr. Randi notoriously failed to fulfil his boast to be able to replicate Ted Serios' "thoughtography" tests (as described by his investigator, Dr Jule Eisenbud in The World of Ted Serios, Jonathan Cape, 1968)

Ok, admittedly I'm unfamiliar with the 'thoughtography' tests. However, if it was a test which showed true paranormal results, then it should be simple to replicate by the original experimenters under proper controls. Has it been?

Worse still are the multiple errors of fact, admixed with derision, abuse and misrepresentation, which Mr. Randi makes in his book Flim-Flam (1980) about a number of distinguished scientists, notably Russell Targ, Harold Puthoff and Charles Tart and their roles in the remote viewing experiments with Ingo Swann and the clairvoyant claims of Uri Geller.

Just because a researcher is considered 'distinguished' (and who by chance considered them that way?) does not necessarily mean that such researcher is always going to be correct, either in their experiment design or their analysis of the results.

 

[arcticpenguin]

From the Skeptic's Dictionary entry on thoughtography:

Thoughtography was made popular by psychiatrist Dr. Jule Eisenbud. He wrote a book about a Chicago bellhop name Ted Serios, who claimed he could make images appear on Polaroid film just by thinking of an image. Since the publication of Eisenbud's The World of Ted Serios: 'Thoughtographic' Studies of an Extraordinary Mind (1966), others have claimed to be able to perform this feat. Eisenbud claimed that Serios made his thoughtographs by psychokinesis and that some of them were instigated during out-of-body experiences. Charlie Reynolds and David Eisendrath, both amateur magicians and professional photographers exposed Serios as a fraud after spending a weekend with him and Eisenbud. Serios claimed he needed a little tube in front of the camera lens to help him concentrate, but he was spotted slipping something into the tube. Most likely it was a picture of something that the camera would take an image of, but which Serios would claim came from his mind rather than his hand. Their exposé appeared in the October 1967 issue of Popular Photography. Serios' psychokinetic powers began to fade after the exposure and he has remained virtually unheard from for the past thirty years.

If Zammit is using the Ted Serios to back up his case, I think he must not have much of a case.

 

[lekiotr]

>>>>- If Geller really did bend this spanner with his mind, then he should be able to reproduce the experiment in properly controlled conditions. (Magicians have all sorts of ways to 'fake' the bending of objects, and mechanics are not likely to be experts in detecting 'tricks'.)
- The fact that bending it is beyond the capacity of the strongest man is irrelevant; if it was done by a trick, then it is probably just as easy to bend a wrench as it is to bend a paperclip
- Yes, there is a requirement for a 'preliminary' round before Randi himself gets involved; so what? Given the the total number of applicants, Randi probably wouldn't have the time to personally oversee all tests.

I agree on the last two points. On the first, yes, I agree. But it seems possible that, in the case that he can perform any such feats, that it could be that under pressured circumstances he would fail, as any performer, musician, etc. There is a such thing as perfect in the practice room and then sucking on stage, or during a test at the university, or such.

>>>>>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Pelopre

He then reported that one of the gifted mediums, John Edward, could have seen the sitter through a 2" curtain gap, regardless of the facts that the crack was about quarter of an inch, was subsequently sealed from ceiling to floor, and that readings were later done long distance. Mr. Randi declined an invitation to see all the raw footage for himself, while protesting that he would never [be allowed to] see it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>>>>>And what would be the point of seeing the 'raw footage'?

>>>>>Lets face it, unless he (or someone he trusts) actually sees the experiments performed live, there is no guarantee that the 'raw footage' will show everything. The fact that there was a curtain gap (even 1/4 inch is enough to see through by the way) in part of the experiment shows that proper controls may not have been used.


It seems, though, that they realized their mistake and fixed it. And as far as the footage, only seeing it would give a good sense if everything was shown.



>>>>>Perhaps the reason neither Nature or Science publish anything touching on the paranormal is that the majority of 'paranormal' articles are based on poor science and poor experimental design.

That could be, or not.


>>>>>Nope, not crucial at all. In fact, it adds an extra unnecessary layer of complexity to the process. All that is needed is to compare how well the medium's results compare with random chance alone.

>>>>>(It should be noted that there are "mentalists" who do get good results, even though they admit that it is a trick.)

Agreed. Although, if he does claim it can be done successfuly by a trickster, he should be able to readily support his own claim, I would think.

>>>>Just because a researcher is considered 'distinguished' (and who by chance considered them that way?) does not necessarily mean that such researcher is always going to be correct, either in their experiment design or their analysis of the results.

Agreed.

 

[Segnosaur]

I agree on the last two points. On the first, yes, I agree. But it seems possible that, in the case that he can perform any such feats, that it could be that under pressured circumstances he would fail, as any performer, musician, etc. There is a such thing as perfect in the practice room and then sucking on stage, or during a test at the university, or such.

The thing is, Geller is all too happy to perform in 'high pressure' situations (on TV, in front of audiences, etc. He also claims that he earns a lot of money helping resource companies find oil or minerals.) So, he's happy to show what he can do.

The only difference in the tests that Randi would be performing would be that proper controls would be implemented. I can see how that would be a 'pressure circumstance', if he were only accomplishing things by cheating and had that possibilty removed.

It seems, though, that they realized their mistake and fixed it. And as far as the footage, only seeing it would give a good sense if everything was shown.

The fact that there was such a mistake to begin with makes me suspicious... what other 'mistakes' might the researchers have made that went unfound? (That's why some of these paranormal experiments should have a professional magician involved, to find and eliminate all possible ways of cheating.)

I'm not sure what you're saying about the footage... Are you agreeing with me (that seeing the raw footage would be a waste of time)?

Agreed. Although, if he does claim it can be done successfuly by a trickster, he should be able to readily support his own claim, I would think.

Randy has been involved in paranormal 'tricks' before. I'm not familiar with all elements of his career (he may have actually done cold reading himself in the past).

However somethings I am familiar with: (as seen on TV):
- demonstrated 'remote viewing' (recreating a picture that was sealed in an envelope)
- Made a magnetic compass 'jump' (the same way Gellar does)
- Managed to 'fool' news networks in Australia by creating 'Carlos' (a performance artist who had people convinced that he was channeling the spirit of a deceased person, among other things)

 

[lekiotr]

>>>>>The thing is, Geller is all too happy to perform in 'high pressure' situations (on TV, in front of audiences, etc. He also claims that he earns a lot of money helping resource companies find oil or minerals.) So, he's happy to show what he can do.

>>>>>The only difference in the tests that Randi would be performing would be that proper controls would be implemented. I can see how that would be a 'pressure circumstance', if he were only accomplishing things by cheating and had that possibilty removed.

Perhaps you're right. Although, I feel that a supportive audience vs. a doubting one would matter to a sensitive person. In the way that a football team may perform better in home games than in away games. Human effort is involved, not hard, non-thinking physical force that can repeat and repeat under controlled conditions. Therefore, it seems appropriate that the human and his relations to the conditions he is placed under should be taken into account, and seriously.

>>>>>The fact that there was such a mistake to begin with makes me suspicious... what other 'mistakes' might the researchers have made that went unfound? (That's why some of these paranormal experiments should have a professional magician involved, to find and eliminate all possible ways of cheating.)

I can see why you would be suspicious. And you're right, other mistakes could have possibly, possibly being the key word, have been made. But that they realized, and fixed, the problem, at least shows their intention not to cheat - and that they made an error is human (to be a little too cliche)

>>>>>I'm not sure what you're saying about the footage... Are you agreeing with me (that seeing the raw footage would be a waste of time)?

I disagree here. I don't think it would be a waste of time, as what they claim it shows would be significant, to at least peruse the footage, even slightly, to see if it is complete ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, or at least worth looking into more seriously. If Randi is as good at finding fraud as he claims to be, or is, then it shouldn't have taken him that much time to view the video (and one of his most common and loved target, at that) and find the fault either in the video work or the experiment. And if he couldn't, then he would know it was at least worth looking into more seriously, and then would know if it is worth more of his time, rather than just assuming.


>>>>>Randy has been involved in paranormal 'tricks' before. I'm not familiar with all elements of his career (he may have actually done cold reading himself in the past).

>>>>>However somethings I am familiar with: (as seen on TV):
- demonstrated 'remote viewing' (recreating a picture that was sealed in an envelope)
- Made a magnetic compass 'jump' (the same way Gellar does)
- Managed to 'fool' news networks in Australia by creating 'Carlos' (a performance artist who had people convinced that he was channeling the spirit of a deceased person, among other things)

Well, here I suppose I have the same problem as you. If his performance was really so ineffective that it brought the audience to believe more in the afterlife, I start to doubt how many other times it has been thus, and how much editing could have taken the reigns.

 

[Segnosaur]

Perhaps you're right. Although, I feel that a supportive audience vs. a doubting one would matter to a sensitive person. In the way that a football team may perform better in home games than in away games. Human effort is involved, not hard, non-thinking physical force that can repeat and repeat under controlled conditions. Therefore, it seems appropriate that the human and his relations to the conditions he is placed under should be taken into account, and seriously.

Who says there has to be an 'audience'? Tests can be done with no or few people in the room. It can also be done with 'supporters' around, as long as controls can be implemented to prevent interference. (I remember a description when Randi tested a Russian girl who could read while blindfolded, both her mother and lawyer were in the room.)

I can see why you would be suspicious. And you're right, other mistakes could have possibly, possibly being the key word, have been made. But that they realized, and fixed, the problem, at least shows their intention not to cheat - and that they made an error is human (to be a little too cliche)

Correction... they realized and fixed the problem that they knew about. Who knows what they may have missed?

That's why Randi (or another competent magician) should be involved in experimental design; although errors do occur, you are less likely to get errors from people who know what those errors may be.

As for 'their intention not to cheat'... who's are you talking about? The researchers may be honest (most are, but there are some who are not), however, the people being tested (such as John Edward) have every reason to want to cheat (given the assumption that he is cold-reading), since a failure will harm his reputation.

I disagree here. I don't think it would be a waste of time, as what they claim it shows would be significant, to at least peruse the footage, even slightly, to see if it is complete ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, or at least worth looking into more seriously. If Randi is as good at finding fraud as he claims to be, or is, then it shouldn't have taken him that much time to view the video (and one of his most common and loved target, at that) and find the fault either in the video work or the experiment.

Remember, the 'raw video' won't capture everything. For all we know, the person being tested could have been given all the answers right before the cameras were turned on. Given that magician tricks can replicate "paranormal" activity with ease, he's not likely to get anything useful out of it.

So, what are the options?
- If he sees the video, and publicly says "I see a problem here..." there is no guarantee that anyone will listen. Hey, look at how the pro-paranormal side is complaining over his complains about the test designs
- If he sees the video and says "I didn't see any evidence of cheating" Then people will assume he things the results were valid (even if he can see how it the results could be replicated by a smart magician)
- If he sees the video and declines to comment, the pro-paranormal side will likely take his silence as 'proof' that he was wrong.

So, there's no real upside to be gathered by watching the video, and several down-sides.

Well, here I suppose I have the same problem as you. If his performance was really so ineffective that it brought the audience to believe more in the afterlife, I start to doubt how many other times it has been thus, and how much editing could have taken the reigns.

Who's performance are you talking about? My prevous post was talking about Randi and his collegues replicating 'paranormal' abilities; but your response sounds like you are talking about John Edward.

 

[lekiotr]

>>>>>Who says there has to be an 'audience'? Tests can be done with no or few people in the room. It can also be done with 'supporters' around, as long as controls can be implemented to prevent interference. (I remember a description when Randi tested a Russian girl who could read while blindfolded, both her mother and lawyer were in the room.)

Ok, perhaps not audience in the sense of observing directly, in the room, the action taking place, but those present and part of the testing process, whether there or not. If a practicing pianist has trouble performing in front of difficult critics, whether they are watching the performance in the room, out of it, behind a curtain, or will listen to a non-edited tape, they might all contribute to his ability to perform well or not well.

>>>>>Correction... they realized and fixed the problem that they knew about. Who knows what they may have missed?

I thought the qualifier was implied. As for this, who does know, you're right. Only those involved, I suppose, for sure, or someone who could have been involved, like a magician, as you say. Although I think that their noticing the problem and fixing it makes it reasonable to think that they were interested in preventing cheating (which is the wording I should have used the first time), and so would be aware of any other problems that might occur.

>>>>>That's why Randi (or another competent magician) should be involved in experimental design; although errors do occur, you are less likely to get errors from people who know what those errors may be.

I agree here. Magicians did get to see the raw footage, more on that in a bit.

>>>>>As for 'their intention not to cheat'... who's are you talking about? The researchers may be honest (most are, but there are some who are not), however, the people being tested (such as John Edward) have every reason to want to cheat (given the assumption that he is cold-reading), since a failure will harm his reputation.

Read as above, I should have said intention to prevent cheating.

>>>>>Remember, the 'raw video' won't capture everything. For all we know, the person being tested could have been given all the answers right before the cameras were turned on. Given that magician tricks can replicate "paranormal" activity with ease, he's not likely to get anything useful out of it.

Raw Video is really the best thing we have to show live events, without actually being there ourselves. Agreed, they should have had a magician there for the actual event, and not just the tape for them to view. And as far as anything as obviously fraudulent (sp?) as giving the answers before the taping or any similiar blatant flaws, I think it is reasonable to assume those at the test would report anything that large. And if 'paranormal' activity does exist, then tricksters are not replicating it with ease, but the semblane of it.

>>>>>So, what are the options?
- If he sees the video, and publicly says "I see a problem here..." there is no guarantee that anyone will listen. Hey, look at how the pro-paranormal side is complaining over his complains about the test designs

This could apply to any of his endeavors to expose fraud, though, couldn't it? He always sees a problem here and there with different claims, and there is never a guarantee that anyone will listen.

>>>>>- If he sees the video and says "I didn't see any evidence of cheating" Then people will assume he things the results were valid (even if he can see how it the results could be replicated by a smart magician)

People might assume this, yes.


>>>>>- If he sees the video and declines to comment, the pro-paranormal side will likely take his silence as 'proof' that he was wrong.

Well, these last two are problems with the 'paranormal side' that are always there with what he does.

I disagree with the first statement as being a bad result. In any case, if these three things were all bad results, why would he do his line of work at all? Because these three answers seem to encompass his only options, short of agreeing, with any paranormal occurence he goes after.

>>>>>So, there's no real upside to be gathered by watching the video, and several down-sides.

See above.

>>>>>Originally posted by Pelopre

>>>>>Well, here I suppose I have the same problem as you. If his performance was really so ineffective that it brought the audience to believe more in the afterlife, I start to doubt how many other times it has been thus, and how much editing could have taken the reigns.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



>>>>>Who's performance are you talking about? My prevous post was talking about Randi and his collegues replicating 'paranormal' abilities; but your response sounds like you are talking about John Edward.

Randi's performance. According to the cited article, Randi's performance was so bad during the shoot, that it actually pushed more of the audience to believe in the afterlife. So the statement you quoted of me applies to Randi.

 

[lekiotr]

Also, Stegno, on the first point read this abstract:

http://www.rhine.org/journal/jpab0301.shtml

EXPERIMENTER EFFECTS WITH A REMOTE FACILITATION OF ATTENTION FOCUSING TASK: A STUDY WITH MULTIPLE BELIEVER AND DISBELIEVER EXPERIMENTERS

 

[arcticpenguin]

Also, Stegno, on the first point read this abstract:

http://www.rhine.org/journal/jpab0301.shtml

EXPERIMENTER EFFECTS WITH A REMOTE FACILITATION OF ATTENTION FOCUSING TASK: A STUDY WITH MULTIPLE BELIEVER AND DISBELIEVER EXPERIMENTERS

That is just an abstract. Is there a full publication somewhere including a description of methodology?

The "helpee" focuses attention on a candle and presses a button whenever he or she feels distracted.

I see; so when you are distracted you are supposed to remember to push a button?

 

[lekiotr]

Not on the web that I could find. Although probably in the back issue of the publication.

>>>>>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "helpee" focuses attention on a candle and presses a button whenever he or she feels distracted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>>>>>I see; so when you are distracted you are supposed to remember to push a button?

Yes.

 

[Segnosaur]

Ok, perhaps not audience in the sense of observing directly, in the room, the action taking place, but those present and part of the testing process, whether there or not. If a practicing pianist has trouble performing in front of difficult critics, whether they are watching the performance in the room, out of it, behind a curtain, or will listen to a non-edited tape, they might all contribute to his ability to perform well or not well.

A 'paranormal' power which disappears when someone may have to deal with critics is no power at all.

I thought the qualifier was implied. As for this, who does know, you're right. Only those involved, I suppose, for sure, or someone who could have been involved, like a magician, as you say. Although I think that their noticing the problem and fixing it makes it reasonable to think that they were interested in preventing cheating (which is the wording I should have used the first time), and so would be aware of any other problems that might occur.

Not at all. There are probably dozens of ways problems could occur, or data could be faked. Finding one does not necessarily give you insight into other possible areas of trickery.

I agree here. Magicians did get to see the raw footage, more on that in a bit.

Those other magicians do not have the same reputation or goals that Randi does.

Raw Video is really the best thing we have to show live events, without actually being there ourselves. Agreed, they should have had a magician there for the actual event, and not just the tape for them to view. And as far as anything as obviously fraudulent (sp?) as giving the answers before the taping or any similiar blatant flaws, I think it is reasonable to assume those at the test would report anything that large. And if 'paranormal' activity does exist, then tricksters are not replicating it with ease, but the semblane of it.

But as I said, raw video fails so poorly that although it is the 'closest thing to being there', it still is relatively worthless in judging an event. It doesn't matter if the raw video is better than edited video, or transcripts, or summaries, it still falls far far short than actually being there.

I disagree with the first statement as being a bad result. In any case, if these three things were all bad results, why would he do his line of work at all?

Because he occasionally does have some success in exposing frauds and educating the public in critical thinking.

Randi's performance. According to the cited article, Randi's performance was so bad during the shoot, that it actually pushed more of the audience to believe in the afterlife. So the statement you quoted of me applies to Randi.

The original article was basically a very biased second-hand account of the proceedings. Can I prove Randi failed? No, but I haven't seen the tape (edited or not).

Of course, even if Randi did fail at cold reading, so what? I probably couldn't cold-read either, but I can recognize when others can. And there have been others that have very successfully cold-read people.

 

[Segnosaur]

Also, Stegno, on the first point read this abstract:

http://www.rhine.org/journal/jpab0301.shtml

EXPERIMENTER EFFECTS WITH A REMOTE FACILITATION OF ATTENTION FOCUSING TASK: A STUDY WITH MULTIPLE BELIEVER AND DISBELIEVER EXPERIMENTERS

First of all, the web site you linked to is not one I would consider a reliable scientific source.

Secondly, all I have seen is an abstract, and there is not enough data there to really come to any conclusions. They used phrases like "significantly fewer" and "higher scores", but without seeing the full article its impossible to say if proper statistical analysis was used. (The fact that only 36 trials were used makes me suspicious; normally many more trials would be required to do a proper statistical analysis.) We also don't know what type of controls were used, whether the experiment was double-blind, etc.

 

[arcticpenguin]

>>>>>I see; so when you are distracted you are supposed to remember to push a button?

Yes.

This brings motivation into play. Who is going to be more motivated, someone who believes in their ESP powers or someone who thinks the whole thing is a waste of time?

 

[lekiotr]

Stegno:


>>>>>>A 'paranormal' power which disappears when someone may have to deal with critics is no power at all.

Not true. Just because a phenomena has restrictions on it doesn't make it invalid. I can lift a 5 pund box, I can't lift a 500 pound box, doesn't mean I can't lift a box.

>>>>>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>Originally posted by Pelopre

>>>>>I thought the qualifier was implied. As for this, who does know, you're right. Only those involved, I suppose, for sure, or someone who could have been involved, like a magician, as you say. Although I think that their noticing the problem and fixing it makes it reasonable to think that they were interested in preventing cheating (which is the wording I should have used the first time), and so would be aware of any other problems that might occur.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>>>>>Not at all. There are probably dozens of ways problems could occur, or data could be faked. Finding one does not necessarily give you insight into other possible areas of trickery.

There ARE probably dozens of ways problems could occur, or data COULD be faked. You don't think it is reasonable that these people had good enough intentions to try and prevent the trickery, and that due to these intentions they followed through and looked for flaws, and found them, and fixed them?

>>>>>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>Originally posted by Pelopre

>>>>>I agree here. Magicians did get to see the raw footage, more on that in a bit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>>>>>Those other magicians do not have the same reputation or goals that Randi does.

Who were they, and how did their reputation or goals differ from Randi's?

>>>>>But as I said, raw video fails so poorly that although it is the 'closest thing to being there', it still is relatively worthless in judging an event. It doesn't matter if the raw video is better than edited video, or transcripts, or summaries, it still falls far far short than actually being there.

So, have you been to Germany, France, India, Iraq, etc.? If not, how do you know they really exist, not being there? Could those sources have been fakes, yes. Does it mean they were, no. Do you think it reasonable to distrust such sources as history books, photo's, video from these places. Do you know they exist? Or does your skepticism only apply to certain things in which you don't believe?

>>>>>Because he occasionally does have some success in exposing frauds and educating the public in critical thinking.

So why doesn't he apply it to this situation, again, with one of his largest targets, seeing as the three points you brought up apply equally to all of his work?

>>>>>The original article was basically a very biased second-hand account of the proceedings. Can I prove Randi failed? No, but I haven't seen the tape (edited or not).

"I had been pressed to attend the studio in order to help provide that evidence, as a counterbalance to whatever James Randi might be presenting or arguing. The filming lasted three hours+ . The show is to be edited down to one and a half hours, less commercial breaks."

Seems like a first hand account to me. (?)



>>>>>Of course, even if Randi did fail at cold reading, so what? I probably couldn't cold-read either, but I can recognize when others can. And there have been others that have very successfully cold-read people.

Right, and similarly, if he succeeded, so what? That only shows cold reading can be done, it doesn't show that all mediums use it. But seeing as he uses this as a major attack on mediums, shouldn't he know what he's doing?

_____________________________________________

>>>>>First of all, the web site you linked to is not one I would consider a reliable scientific source.

On what grounds?

>>>>>Secondly, all I have seen is an abstract, and there is not enough data there to really come to any conclusions. They used phrases like "significantly fewer" and "higher scores", but without seeing the full article its impossible to say if proper statistical analysis was used. (The fact that only 36 trials were used makes me suspicious; normally many more trials would be required to do a proper statistical analysis.) We also don't know what type of controls were used, whether the experiment was double-blind, etc.

If you did see it, would it even matter, as you were not there? They COULD have faked the whole thing, you know. (?) Do you require this in depth research for all that you claim is fact? Even history, etc.?

 

[lekiotr]

>>>>>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Pelopre

>>>>>I see; so when you are distracted you are supposed to remember to push a button?

>>>>.Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>>>>>This brings motivation into play. Who is going to be more motivated, someone who believes in their ESP powers or someone who thinks the whole thing is a waste of time?

It brings motivation into play, how?

 

[Ed]

Stegno:


>>>>>>A 'paranormal' power which disappears when someone may have to deal with critics is no power at all.

Not true. Just because a phenomena has restrictions on it doesn't make it invalid. I can lift a 5 pund box, I can't lift a 500 pound box, doesn't mean I can't lift a box.

Yes, but you CAN lift a box. In the case you mention we are talking about quantification. The problem with the paranormal is that there is no clear, repeatable, unambiguous effect in the first place. Consider, for example, the contortions that the believers in John Edward go through to explain various manifistations of his "powers". In any event, under controlled circumstances, "negativity" is a non-issue. What is an isue, however, is the absence of credulity that, I suspect, accounts for so much of the paranormal.

Regarding a "gap" in the curtains in Schwartz's experiments. He is a fraud and a "gap" is the least of the problems with his research, though it is a telling one.

 

[Segnosaur]

>>>>>>A 'paranormal' power which disappears when someone may have to deal with critics is no power at all.

Not true. Just because a phenomena has restrictions on it doesn't make it invalid. I can lift a 5 pund box, I can't lift a 500 pound box, doesn't mean I can't lift a box.

The weight of the box is irrelevant. If you can't even lift a 5 ounce box when others are watching, then there is no reason to believe that you can lift a 5 pound or 500 pound box.

Would you believe me if I said I could fly just by flapping my arms? What if I could do so only when nobody was watching or video taping me? Would you still believe it?

>>>>>Not at all. There are probably dozens of ways problems could occur, or data could be faked. Finding one does not necessarily give you insight into other possible areas of trickery.

There ARE probably dozens of ways problems could occur, or data COULD be faked. You don't think it is reasonable that these people had good enough intentions to try and prevent the trickery, and that due to these intentions they followed through and looked for flaws, and found them, and fixed them?

Their intentions are not the issue; their abilities are.

If someone asked me to observe an experiment to see if tricks were used, I could not. Why? Because I'm unfamiliar with the types of tricks that could be used. I may find 'obvious' problems, but I realize there are more ways that the researchers can be fooled that I've never thought of. Its the same with other paranormal experiments... Researchers are not experts in trickery.

>>>>>Those other magicians do not have the same reputation or goals that Randi does.

Who were they, and how did their reputation or goals differ from Randi's?

I have no idea who these other magicians are... You're the one who claims 'other magicians saw the footage'.

As for their reputation and goals... I am unaware of any other magician who is as involved with debunking the paranormal as Randi is. A magician without such goals either wouldn't care one way or the other about being associated with 'paranormal tricks', or may actually seek them out for publicity. (*cough* david Blaine *cough*)

>>>>>But as I said, raw video fails so poorly that although it is the 'closest thing to being there', it still is relatively worthless in judging an event. It doesn't matter if the raw video is better than edited video, or transcripts, or summaries, it still falls far far short than actually being there.

So, have you been to Germany, France, India, Iraq, etc.? If not, how do you know they really exist, not being there? Could those sources have been fakes, yes. Does it mean they were, no. Do you think it reasonable to distrust such sources as history books, photo's, video from these places. Do you know they exist? Or does your skepticism only apply to certain things in which you don't believe?

I am skeptical of claims of the paranormal because I realize that such 'powers' can be reproduced by a magician by skill alone. I am skeptical of the 'tests' for paranormal powers because they are always done on a small scale.

I am not skeptical about the existance of Germany and France because I realize that the total amount of effort involved to 'fake' their existance would be difficult, in that millions of people would have to be 'in' on the trick.

With a 'paranormal' test, you'd only need one person to be in on the trick.

So why doesn't he apply it to this situation, again, with one of his largest targets, seeing as the three points you brought up apply equally to all of his work?

Randi's challenge is open to everyone. All the 'big name' psychics have avoided him. He even challenged Sylvia Browne directly on Larry King Live, and after she said she'd do it, she went back on her word. (You did notice the clock on the main page, didn't you?)

>>>>>The original article was basically a very biased second-hand account of the proceedings. Can I prove Randi failed? No, but I haven't seen the tape (edited or not).

"I had been pressed to attend the studio in order to help provide that evidence, as a counterbalance to whatever James Randi might be presenting or arguing. The filming lasted three hours+ . The show is to be edited down to one and a half hours, less commercial breaks."

Seems like a first hand account to me. (?)

As I said, I (meaning me, myself, the person typing this right now) did not see the tape. I'm not going to make an opinion about how good Randi is or isn't based on a second hand account. (And that's exactly what that is to me... a second hand account, since, as I said before, I didn't see it myself.)

>>>>>Of course, even if Randi did fail at cold reading, so what? I probably couldn't cold-read either, but I can recognize when others can. And there have been others that have very successfully cold-read people.

Right, and similarly, if he succeeded, so what? That only shows cold reading can be done, it doesn't show that all mediums use it. But seeing as he uses this as a major attack on mediums, shouldn't he know what he's doing?

Hey, its very possible that mediums really are able to read minds, or contact the dead. But if they are, they're doing it the hard way. The whole point of the JREF million dollar challenge is to try to show that yes, indeed these people are doing more than cold reading.

As for him "knowing what he's doing", who cares? Others can cold read to results just as good as a "medium". I myself probably could not cold read, but I know how its done, and could probably analze a transcript of a reading to point out how its done.

>>>>>First of all, the web site you linked to is not one I would consider a reliable scientific source.

On what grounds?

First of all, its a web site, not a full journal (with independent peer-review).

Secondly, it doesn't have the reputation that a journal like 'Science' does. (And yes, I am aware that good science can also come from minor journals. However, the fact that none of the experiments shown there have been reproduced in main stream journals is suspicous.)

Thirdly, they 'claim' that psychic power has been proven, and they are trying to determine the mechanism. (I forget the exact wording, as their web site seems to have disappeared for the moment....) I stringly disagree with that statement. Psychic power has not been proven, or Randi would not have his million, and there'd actually be articles published in the main stream press.

>>>>>Secondly, all I have seen is an abstract, and there is not enough data there to really come to any conclusions.

If you did see it, would it even matter, as you were not there? They COULD have faked the whole thing, you know. (?) Do you require this in depth research for all that you claim is fact? Even history, etc.?

You're right, they could have published the complete articles and it might not have proved anything. But there is a very good chance that I would have been able to point to major problems with their experiments.

 

[lekiotr]

The weight of the box is irrelevant. If you can't even lift a 5 ounce box when others are watching, then there is no reason to believe that you can lift a 5 pound or 500 pound box.

Would you believe me if I said I could fly just by flapping my arms? What if I could do so only when nobody was watching or video taping me? Would you still believe it?

Point taken, Agreed.

Their intentions are not the issue; their abilities are.

If someone asked me to observe an experiment to see if tricks were used, I could not. Why? Because I'm unfamiliar with the types of tricks that could be used. I may find 'obvious' problems, but I realize there are more ways that the researchers can be fooled that I've never thought of. Its the same with other paranormal experiments... Researchers are not experts in trickery.

Ageed here, too.

I have no idea who these other magicians are... You're the one who claims 'other magicians saw the footage'.

As for their reputation and goals... I am unaware of any other magician who is as involved with debunking the paranormal as Randi is. A magician without such goals either wouldn't care one way or the other about being associated with 'paranormal tricks', or may actually seek them out for publicity. (*cough* david Blaine *cough*)

Agreed on reputation. Having a goal to 'debunk' has no bearing on the magician's ability to see where tricks could have been used.

I am skeptical of claims of the paranormal because I realize that such 'powers' can be reproduced by a magician by skill alone. I am skeptical of the 'tests' for paranormal powers because they are always done on a small scale.

ok.

I am not skeptical about the existance of Germany and France because I realize that the total amount of effort involved to 'fake' their existance would be difficult, in that millions of people would have to be 'in' on the trick.

With a 'paranormal' test, you'd only need one person to be in on the trick.

Ok. Point taken. But, what about sciences that utilize rare technology that is not available to a large group of people, and therefore the amount of people needed to fake it wouldn't be many? Perhaps cloning or nanotech, altough I am admittedly largely unfamiliar with these fields. Do you apply the sames rigorous standards here?

Randi's challenge is open to everyone. All the 'big name' psychics have avoided him. He even challenged Sylvia Browne directly on Larry King Live, and after she said she'd do it, she went back on her word. (You did notice the clock on the main page, didn't you?)

I did see it.

As I said, I (meaning me, myself, the person typing this right now) did not see the tape. I'm not going to make an opinion about how good Randi is or isn't based on a second hand account. (And that's exactly what that is to me... a second hand account, since, as I said before, I didn't see it myself.)

But that's not what you said:

Stegno:>>>>>The original article was basically a very biased second-hand account of the proceedings. Can I prove Randi failed? No, but I haven't seen the tape (edited or not).

Actually, the original article was a first hand account of the events. A first-hand account is an account of someone who was there, which keen was. If you made an opinion based off of Keen's article, yes, you're account would be second hand, but his is not.

Hey, its very possible that mediums really are able to read minds, or contact the dead. But if they are, they're doing it the hard way. The whole point of the JREF million dollar challenge is to try to show that yes, indeed these people are doing more than cold reading.

As for him "knowing what he's doing", who cares? Others can cold read to results just as good as a "medium". I myself probably could not cold read, but I know how its done, and could probably analze a transcript of a reading to point out how its done.

Well, I'll let this one lie here, because I know less than you about cold reading, although I have seen it done fairly successfuly by others, too. But, why I cared: If Randi thinks that the success of cold reading points towards the possibility of fraud in mediums, he should either be able to demonstrate it successfuly himself, or find someone who can, and not waste everyones time ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, especially on a broadcast show. But that's just me opining.

[/B]

First of all, its a web site, not a full journal (with independent peer-review).

Secondly, it doesn't have the reputation that a journal like 'Science' does. (And yes, I am aware that good science can also come from minor journals. However, the fact that none of the experiments shown there have been reproduced in main stream journals is suspicous.)

Thirdly, they 'claim' that psychic power has been proven, and they are trying to determine the mechanism. (I forget the exact wording, as their web site seems to have disappeared for the moment....) I stringly disagree with that statement. Psychic power has not been proven, or Randi would not have his million, and there'd actually be articles published in the main stream press.

[/B]

First - But there IS a full journal behind the site. Just like any other journal, they don't post the hard copy on the site.

Second - Reputation does not effect the veracity of anything.

Third - Randi having his million is not proof that the phenomena have not been proven to exist. Is this why you disagree with the journal about their claims? How can you strongly disagree with their claims if you don't even look at their proposed evidence? Is strongly disagreeing about the existence of a claim a reasonable reason not to look at any proposed evidence of that claim? I seriously don't think so. That doesn't seem like searching for factual truth to me.

You're right, they could have published the complete articles and it might not have proved anything. But there is a very good chance that I would have been able to point to major problems with their eperiments.

But they HAVE published them, just not online.

 

[lekiotr]

Yes, but you CAN lift a box. In the case you mention we are talking about quantification. The problem with the paranormal is that there is no clear, repeatable, unambiguous effect in the first place.

You can't prove that, it's a negative claim. Also circular reasoning minus the qualifiers:

Consider, for example, the contortions that the believers in John Edward go through to explain various manifistations of his "powers". In any event, under controlled circumstances, "negativity" is a non-issue. What is an isue, however, is the absence of credulity that, I suspect, accounts for so much of the paranormal.

/

Are you saying negativity would have to be non-existant in the procedure in order for it to be truly controlled?

Regarding a "gap" in the curtains in Schwartz's experiments. He is a fraud and a "gap" is the least of the problems with his research, though it is a telling one.

On what grounds is he a fraud? What evidence do you have? Have you reviewed the research first hand?