Perhaps you could try looking up the definition of "hypothetical". You may find it enlightening.
Ganzfeld million dollar challange?
- Thread starter andy2001
- Start date
- Status
Perhaps you could try looking up the definition of "hypothetical". You may find it enlightening.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
That is not the standard here, where did Hyman address this, and how did the protocols change?
Wow! I've been out for the weekend and I find two new full pages in the thread.
Summary of this post: if an application were filled with the proposal implied in this thread, I'd expect the JREF to reject it as untestable.
Here's why (i.e. here's my "raw data" for anyone to examine
):
So, we have the sender, the receiver and all the observers "tied" to the experiment for 4.5 hours a day, every day for 11 months. Lots of concerns:
Then, I have a conversation with myself:
Summary of this post: if an application were filled with the proposal implied in this thread, I'd expect the JREF to reject it as untestable.
Here's why (i.e. here's my "raw data" for anyone to examine
):On my part, I'm assuming 6 trials per day with 15-minute breaks every 2 trials (total 4.5 hours). For 2000 trials, a whole 11 months would be needed (including Sundays, etc.).
So, we have the sender, the receiver and all the observers "tied" to the experiment for 4.5 hours a day, every day for 11 months. Lots of concerns:
- I'd reject any involvement (either as sender, receiver or observer) with such an experiment unless I were very well paid and really needed the money. Do you know how boring this can be?
- I'd expect everyone's performance (i.e. the sender's, receiver's and observers' performance) significantly decrease over time just out of sheer boredom. Grab a pen and copy the text of this post into a sheet of paper (it'll surely take less than 4.5 hours). Do the same for 10 days in a row. Compare your handwriting the first day with the last one. You know what I mean, don't you?
- In a two-hour test, it's not unusual to have difficulties finding a time and place in which everyone involved can be at the same time with everything ready. I don't think it would be possible to keep all the people involved "tied" for 4.5 hours each and every day for 11 months.
- Even if everyone agreed to be "tied" as required, unexpected things are going to happen: someday, someone will get sick, be 15 minutes late, have a very urgent call during the test, their car will break on the road to the test, etc. For observers, this can be softened having "replacement" observers go every day "just in case" someone fails to show up for any reason; however the sender and receiver would be "irreplaceable".
- Who would keep the record sheets for the tests? How to ensure no tampering?
Then, I have a conversation with myself:
Me: If the claim is untestable, how did Gandfeld experimenters test it?
Myself: They didn't. No one has ever attempted an experiment like the one proposed here.
Me: Why do they claim they can do it, if they've never actually tried it?
Myself: Hey! ask them!
Myself: They didn't. No one has ever attempted an experiment like the one proposed here.
Me: Why do they claim they can do it, if they've never actually tried it?
Myself: Hey! ask them!
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
I think the procedure can be done in about an hours time.
The number of trails would be up to the person submitting the challenge application.
A smart applicant would find a sender and receiver who were way above the expected rate and just use them in the preliminary and the challenge.
The number of trails would be up to the person submitting the challenge application.
A smart applicant would find a sender and receiver who were way above the expected rate and just use them in the preliminary and the challenge.
But why should that be? Doesn't the JREF know whether a 1000+ hour protocol would be acceptable?
Czarcasm
Groovy Groovy Guru
1. It would depend on the exact claim now, wouldn't it? And besides...
2. They are far too busy trying to work with the real claimants to waste their time with pretend ones. When someone puts in a real claim, they will deal with it, period.
If you want to play "gotcha" with the rules, please go elsewhere.
Jackalgirl
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,801
It depends on the protocol. Are you talking about all 1000 hours in one go? Are you breaking it up into 30-minute periods? One-hour periods? Two-hour periods? How much actual time (including setup, breakdown, rest, and administrative time), involving how many people, are you talking about? What are the logistical requirements of the protocol?
See jojonete's excellent post, also. This is why a vague hypothetical statement such as yours can only be met with "maybe, it depends on the claim and the protocol".
Last edited:
So why doesn't the JREF simply respond to my e-mail of last May by saying that?
Try re-reading my e-mail, which is reproduced in post #5 on this thread. If you don't have the time to do that, read the below excerpt from that e-mail about the arduous choice faced by the JREF. They have to choose either (2) or (2A):
"(2) All protocols, including time-consuming ones such as Ganzfeld experiments, are eligible for the Challenge; or
"(2a) Some time-consuming protocols, such as Ganzfeld experiments, are not eligible for the Challenge due to the impact on JREF resources."
They don't even have to type anything -- they just have to copy either (2) of (2A) and paste it into this thread.
remirol
Senior Wrangler
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2006
- Messages
- 8,089
See Czarcasm's post. They are waiting for you or these researchers to apply.
Jackalgirl
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,801
Except that you assume that Ganzfield experiments would automatically be of the type that are not eligible for the Challenge due to impact of JREF resources if choice 2A were selected. You have left out:
"Some time-consuming protocols may be eligible for the Challenge depending on the nature of their time and logistical requirements, their impact on JREF resources, and the capability of involved persons to maintain the integrity of the test and its documentation over the proposed span of time".
I do not think that you will ever see JREF saying "all protocols...are eligible" or "some protocols...are eligigle" because the JREF has made it quite clear that claims are handled on a claim-by-claim basis. What flies for one claimant may not fly for another, depending on the claim and the claimant's protocol requirements (and JREF's own requirements for the protocol).
I believe that this is important. It allows JREF the flexibility to handle claims on a claim-by-claim basis. The minute they start "if-thenning", they begin to lose that flexibility. So your experimenters, or you, or anyone else interested in submitting a Ganzfield claim should simply submit one. An actual claim, that is. The JREF may or may not respond favorably, depending on the nature of the claim and the structure of the proposed protocol.
That's just my guess, of course. I do not speak for the JREF.
Last edited:
Paul2
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 8,553
To put perhaps too fine a point on what Jackalgirl said, it is inherent in the nature of the Challenge that every contingency and detail cannot be accounted for beforehand because of the complexity of how every aspect of a claim may interact with each other. That is the fundamental reason why each claim is judged on a case by case basis.
For an official answer please contact the JREF.
Gr8wight
red-shirted crewman
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,661
Rodney, the JREF doesn't have to do anything, especially respond to the hypothetical question you repeatedly ask here, like a somewhat obstinate 5-year-old. The JREF especially doesn't have to say or do anything to lend credence to something as specious as "Ganzfeld."
As you have been told a great many times, only the JREF speaks for the JREF. What about that do you not understand?
M.
While I admit I'd be much happier had the JREF given some answer, I see at least two reasons for them to not give the answer you suggest.
First:
Your e-mail (as quoted in post 5) does not provide the information I used, namely:
- 600 hits are required out of 2000 trials.
- There will be 6 trials per day.
- Each trial requires 40 minutes.
- The receiver requires a 15-minute break every 2 trials.
- The total time for the experiment will be about 11 months, including Sundays, etc.
Only when you answered that question with specific numbers could I decide the claim is untestable.
Second:
The "untestable" verdict comes from the problems I mentioned in my previous post. The first JREF answer (if the e-mail contained the information above) should be to ask how those problems will be solved, and not declaring first-hand they can't be solved. If the applicant can't solve them, then the claim would be declared untestable.
Of course and as always, I don't speak for JREF. This is what I would expect to happen if someone applied for the MDC with the proposed claim.
Of course and as always, I don't speak for JREF. This is what I would expect to happen if someone applied for the MDC with the proposed claim.
And, well, I still wonder: if Ganzfeld experimenters have never tried an experiment similar to this one, what would make them think they can succeed?
I did -- in an e-mail of May 10, 2008 titled "Clarifying the Challenge."
Because, according to Radin, the composite results of more than 3,000 Ganzfeld trials show better than a 30% hit rate, when 25% would be expected by chance. This is highly statistically significant.
Oops! Didn't notice how off-topic my comment was until I saw the reply.
Sorry, won't go that way again in this forum.
- Status