I'm listening to the talk by Radin and he just said that the hit-rate for some individuals (creative, open to new experiences, siblings) is 65% (at 25 minutes).
Linda
Ganzfeld million dollar challange?
- Thread starter andy2001
- Start date
- Status
I'm listening to the talk by Radin and he just said that the hit-rate for some individuals (creative, open to new experiences, siblings) is 65% (at 25 minutes).
Linda
wardenclyffe
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Messages
- 2,333
andy2001,
I think fls was suggesting that psi is not generally accepted by scientists. It is generally accepted by scientists who are believers, but not by the scientific community as a whole. The fact that there are outliers who happen to be believers is being acknowledged by fls. That doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the scientific community does not believe in psi. The fact that there are only a few true believers in Ganzfeld or some other form of psi does not prove that psi does not exist. It's hard to prove that negative.
It would be simple to prove it exists, though. Just apply for the MDC, front the millions of dollars that it will take to have a proper test and maybe you'll win a million.
I'd be willing to bet that if you could track down those individuals with the really high hit rates (like 65%), you could probably put together a cheap and easy protocol which should soon have your pockets bulging with cash.
Ward
I think fls was suggesting that psi is not generally accepted by scientists. It is generally accepted by scientists who are believers, but not by the scientific community as a whole. The fact that there are outliers who happen to be believers is being acknowledged by fls. That doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the scientific community does not believe in psi. The fact that there are only a few true believers in Ganzfeld or some other form of psi does not prove that psi does not exist. It's hard to prove that negative.
It would be simple to prove it exists, though. Just apply for the MDC, front the millions of dollars that it will take to have a proper test and maybe you'll win a million.
I'd be willing to bet that if you could track down those individuals with the really high hit rates (like 65%), you could probably put together a cheap and easy protocol which should soon have your pockets bulging with cash.
Ward
Ah, I see what you mean.
I'm thinking of people who don't have an a priori belief, or an a priori inclination to believe. So, information about fMRI that neuroscientists would find persuasive, for example.
Linda
Ray Hyman
"but as a leading Fellow of CSICOP, Ray Hyman, has pointed out, this "prize" cannot be taken seriously from a scientific point of view: "Scientists don't settle issues with a single test, so even if someone does win a big cash prize in a demonstration, this isn't going to convince anyone. Proof in science happens through replication, not through single experiments."
Okay, here's an example of Radin's willingness to be, if not overtly dishonest, at least highly misleading.
Someone just asked Radin why one couldn't win the MDC with the ganzfeld. Radin states that when he calculates what it takes to win the prize, it would take 4 to 8 years of performing the experiment every day. Yet when I made that same calculation I came up with 37 trials. Why are his results so different? Because he chose a p value that exceeds by many orders of magnitude any p value that Randi has requested. And he chose a power value that far exceeds a power value any honest researcher would choose.
Andy2001, presumably you watched this presentation. Were you able to realize that Radin was presenting wildly outrageous numbers at that part of the presentation? If not, how do you know whether or not the rest of what he presented was highly misleading?
Linda
Someone just asked Radin why one couldn't win the MDC with the ganzfeld. Radin states that when he calculates what it takes to win the prize, it would take 4 to 8 years of performing the experiment every day. Yet when I made that same calculation I came up with 37 trials. Why are his results so different? Because he chose a p value that exceeds by many orders of magnitude any p value that Randi has requested. And he chose a power value that far exceeds a power value any honest researcher would choose.
Andy2001, presumably you watched this presentation. Were you able to realize that Radin was presenting wildly outrageous numbers at that part of the presentation? If not, how do you know whether or not the rest of what he presented was highly misleading?
Linda
But Radin stated earlier in his talk that he can identify a group of people that average a 65% hit rate. Why wouldn't he use them?
I don't understand this question.
Linda
At what point in the talk does he state that?
If he said that they can consistently average a 65% hit rate, that's a good question.
andy2001 is raising the issue that I raised nine months ago in my e-mail to the JREF: "In tests where the odds of success can be readily calculated, it is unclear what odds standard must be met."
P.S. You have not answered my question about why small trials cannot be aggregated if the same protocol is used in each of the small trials.
Gr8wight
red-shirted crewman
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,661
The same point as I made before. We seem to be discussing apples and oranges here. The Million Dollar Challenge is not looking to be "taken seriously from a scientific point of view." The Million Dollar Challenge is not a scientific study. The Million Dollar Challenge is not trying to find out whether or not PSI (or any other alleged paranormal ability) exists.
If you would like to see more work done on Ganzfeld type studies, approach a university. The JREF is not interested.
The Million Dollar Challenge is no more and no less than exactly what its name implies. It is a challenge to those who make claims of paranormal abilities to demonstrate those claims. Nothing more. You and Rodney are engaging in one very long Strawman argument. You are criticising the JREF Million Dollar Challenge for not being something it has never claimed to be.
wardenclyffe
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Messages
- 2,333
I'm pretty new around here. I was confused. I thought these guys wanted to win a million bucks. I didn't realize they wanted the MDC to prove something scientific.
I'd like "The Price Is Right" to prove something scientific, but that's not what it's designed for. Neither is the MDC.
Ward
I'd like "The Price Is Right" to prove something scientific, but that's not what it's designed for. Neither is the MDC.
Ward
Limbo
Jedi Consular
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2008
- Messages
- 3,077
Randi & JREF,
Approach a noted music and/or art school, and administer personality tests to the student body and faculty. Select the people with the most psi-conducive personality traits and who report previous psi experiences and form them into a tight-knit ganzfeld group. Train them to meditate (individually and as a group) for a few months, and then administer ganzfeld trials for as long as it takes to achieve whatever statistical significance is deemed necessary. If properly psi-conducive subjects are selected (not too tough to do) then the necessary numbers are inevitable. Keep the subjects from getting bored with the trials somehow. Keep it fresh and exciting. Use a control group of psi-inhibitory people, if deemed necessary.
Piece of cake.
Once that is done, award the million dollar$ to your$elf for beating your own challenge and tell the world you did parapsychologists jobs for them.
Approach a noted music and/or art school, and administer personality tests to the student body and faculty. Select the people with the most psi-conducive personality traits and who report previous psi experiences and form them into a tight-knit ganzfeld group. Train them to meditate (individually and as a group) for a few months, and then administer ganzfeld trials for as long as it takes to achieve whatever statistical significance is deemed necessary. If properly psi-conducive subjects are selected (not too tough to do) then the necessary numbers are inevitable. Keep the subjects from getting bored with the trials somehow. Keep it fresh and exciting. Use a control group of psi-inhibitory people, if deemed necessary.
Piece of cake.
Once that is done, award the million dollar$ to your$elf for beating your own challenge and tell the world you did parapsychologists jobs for them.
Last edited:
The protocols are often not uniform. Different populations are tested. Outcomes are measured differently.
In particular, the ganzfeld studies have significant heterogeneity when subject to tests, which tells us that they aren't uniform.
Please note that the protocol can be exactly the same and still lead to problems (this was explained in the link I provided earlier), so uniformity does not necessarily avoid the problem.
This is an example:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1882525
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7968073?dopt=Abstract
Linda
At 25 minutes.
It's pretty clear that it's not 100,000,000 to one, though. I thought someone had listed the range of odds standards that had been used in tests to date and it was something around 500 to one to 1000 to one. It gives you a ball-park idea, anyway.
Oops, I missed that.
Linda
I suspect he's referring to small group analysis - dividing people into groups based on characteristics and looking at their success rates.
I think that looking at the values used on prior tests would give you an idea. Somebody here made a list, but I don't remember where or when. I'll see if I can find it later.
Linda
Short answer: It depends on the claim.
How would one come up with a P value for Rosemary Hunter's claim? (Zing.)
Almost as short answer: Odds of succeeding by chance should be around 1 in 1000 for each test. Although I am not 100% sure, perhaps other forumites will weigh in.
Definitive answer: challenge@randi.org
Rasmus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 6,372
I predict the answer will run along the lines of "apply or go away". And rightly so.
For the millionth time: If they could do what they claim they could do, it simply wouldn't matter to them.
Here is what I was thinking of:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3993129#post3993129
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3993390#post3993390
It seems to run from one in a hundred to one in a million.
If I were applying, I'd start with one in a hundred.
Linda
- Status