Is Randi's challenge scientific?

[T'ai Chi]

Things are rarely black and white. Recognizing that fact would, I figure, be second nature to someone with statistical training. Yet you seem to be saying that there are only two reasonable positions: (1) completely trust all experiments, or (2) completely distrust an experiment unless a magician was present.

I didn't say that at all, nor do I think that.

In some experiments, it is a big factor; in others, a negligible one.

Right, and so should we get magicians in any experiment where it is a big factor?

Do you trust every experiment, or none, which was not supervised by a magician?

Now who is saying there are only two possibilities...

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by jzs
I didn't say that at all, nor do I think that.

Great. Then what are we arguing about?

Right, and so should we get magicians in any experiment where it is a big factor?

Naturally.

Now who is saying there are only two possibilities...

I mentioned a third possibility in the very next sentence...

 

[EvilYeti]

Perhaps what I'm wondering most of all is, what exactly is it that would make a test scientific? Just because a test uses specific scientific requirements, like double blinding, doesn't make it scientific. How much does it take, in order to refer to a test as scientific?

I would have to say the challenge is not scientific, or at the very least, it is not known whether it is or not. This is due to the fact that Randi does not publish the precise details of his methodology, nor does he submit them for peer review. So we have no way of knowing whether his team adhere's to the scientific method or not.

In my opinion, the challenge is more of a publicity tool than anything else. It's also convienient when confronted with woo's in person, more than once I've simply stated, "Hey, go get the million bucks and then I'll believe you". This is surprisingly effective.

However, one should question whether the challenge itself has any real utility in uncovering legitimate paranormal ability. In my opinion, it doesn't.

Think about it, if someone had extensive psychic/paranormal powers, there would be no need to even bother with the challenge. It would be trivial to prove. And really, a million bucks would mean little to them.

However, if someone had a real, but extremely subtle ability, I doubt the JREF would have the resources to detect it. They do not have the background, funding or technical resources to conduct anything but the most basic of experiments.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Because of this different, Randi and "science" handle ambiguous results differently, and even the analysis procedure is a little bit different (a scientist would gather data first, then run the stats to figure out if the data meant anything. Your proposal above reverses that order).

Gathering data before calculating stats is called "data mining". Legitimate statistical calculations must be done before seeing the data. Not that data mining doesn't have a place: it can suggest avenues of further research. But to test a hypothesis, you must decide what will "mean anything" before you know whether the data qualifies.

The one she repeats the most is that since there are different standards in each case it's fraud and manipulation. I have explained over and over that it is necessary, because applicants have unique requirements, and yet she repeats it with the very same conviction as before.

The real explanation is that it is the APPLICANTS that have different standards. If someone goes to Randi and says "I want to have a trial in which the standards are exactly the same as in this other trial", Randi will agree to it. How does Randi's flexibility show that it's fraud? If he were really interesting in defrauding people, wouldn't the best thing be to choose one type of fraud and stick with it? What possible advantage would there be in having to come with a NEW type of fraud each time?

Out-and-out frauds have the profit motive, but the "average Joe" of a psychic is not like that. He tries to believe something that, deep down, he KNOWS isn't true. They are constantly in denial.

Oh, come on. That's like Christians saying that deep down, everyone knows that God exists. Some people honestly believe that they are psychic.

Is that really that hard to face? Isn't it a bit on the same order of finally coming to accept that you cannot fly by flapping your arms?

Look, I realize that the preliminary trials have not gone well, but I hardly think that all possibilities have been exhausted. I'm sure that it's just that I'm not flapping my arms the right way.

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Is Randi's challenge scientific?

Think about it, if someone had extensive psychic/paranormal powers, there would be no need to even bother with the challenge. It would be trivial to prove. And really, a million bucks would mean little to them.

The naivete of this statement astonishes me. Glance at any newspaper and read the headlines about the various corporate executive multimillionaires being investigated, indicted, and sent to prison for various illegal acts involving enhancing their personal wealth. I don't think most people ever get to the point where "a million buck would mean little to them" -- the people who aren't obsessive about money never get to be that wealthy, and the people who get to be that wealthy, almost by definition, are sufficiently acquisitive that they're always looking for more.

If it were really as trivial as you sugggest to win the challenge, then someone would simply have done it. No bother, no risk of jail time, just show that you can move objects with your mind and then collect your check.

 

[CapelDodger]

The challenge certainly appears scientific enough to the professional woos to scare them off. Which is where it wins. I think it's brilliant. The types who do take it on - overwhelmingly dowsers, I gather, and mostly harmless amateurs - really do believe, and very few will be shifted from that.

The great thing about the $million is that it gets you past the switchboard. The word "Challenge" is excellent too, the media lap that up, they all remember the stuff about "conflict" in creative-writing class. And the follow-up - "That's the Amazing Randi" - is to die for. Serious respect to The Man.