"JAK" KEERAN, Astrologer

Hello JAK,

Quite honestly, I've been uncomfortable with this protocol for some time now.

Satisfying YOUR curiosity is not our goal, and it is certainly not what the Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge is all about.

More importantly, if your claim was that human lives are affected by the planets, as one would assume an astrology-related claim would be, that would be Paranormal. However, your claim is based upon the notion that someone can devise a method of making the results of astrological "readings" SEEM to have a statistical significance.

It seems to me that one could argue as to whether or not your claim is a Paranormal one.

Speaking for myself, I don't feel this is within the spirit of the Challenge, and I feel that it's a rather opportunistic perversion of what I was trying to convey during the hysteria surrounding the GSIC/Anda protocol negotiations, which by your own admission is what instigated and inspired you to put forth this claim in the first place. Is this really scientific inquiry, or is it rather shameless opportunism in pursuit of a Million Dollar prize that is offered as a reward for a successful demonstration of Paranormal pehnomenon? I ask myself this question every time I come back to your claim.

I would also question once again what the results of this test would actually prove. Would it prove that anything truly paranormal is at work? Or would it simply prove that the right kind of "test" is quite capable of proving precisely what the test designer is seeking to prove? If that was the case, it would NOT be Paranormal.

My first reaction to your new proposal is that hijacking the JREF forums in the manner you suggest may not be acceptable for a proper Challenge test, and may be improper, as well. It's possible that we cannot accept JREF forum members as participants in a JREF Challenge test. We must consider this further before deciding.

Randi is presently out of town, but I will consult with him on this matter immediately upon his return. He may quite possible negate everything I have stated as my opinion here, so don't fret just yet.

I will get back to you on this early next week.

-Kramer

p.s. Proving the vailidity of Chaos Theory would be great, but it wouldn't be proving that anything Paranormal is at work. Hence, it would not qualify for the JREF Challenge.
 
Last edited:
from JAK

Hi Kramer,

I understand your concerns, and they have great merit. But let me provide a bit more of my perspective …

Let’s say that someone claims ESP and is able to show some ability to predict the future – better than chance. Let’s say that the person meets the JREF criteria and wins the Challenge. Anyone who wins the Challenge, first and foremost, must have a systematic ability. Without that, reproducing the paranormal event would be impossible. (All JREF tests require reproduction of the paranormal claim under controlled and supervised conditions.) Thus, JREF criteria for paranormal events demand that the event fall into the scientific method. Without this reproducibility, the challenger fails. Yet, with success, the challenger proves that the paranormal ability falls under the scientific method and can be explored by others. In other words, what succeeds can fall under the scope of science.

If you think about this for a moment, any challenge success will expand the territory of science – it will “stretch the envelope”, as they say. This is also the intent of mainstream scientific research – to expand the scope and knowledge of science. Whether the JREF recognizes it or not, by offering a prize, it is encouraging people of all walks of life to “stretch the envelope”. It is the most egalitarian of all research foundations. However, instead of funding research BEFORE gains and breakthroughs are made, JREF rewards those who have MADE verifiable breakthroughs and gains.

If I succeed in my challenge, can I say that it is not some paranormal power of the planets which enables my success? Absolutely not! If I succeed, though I will severely doubt the planets as a causative factor, I cannot eliminate it as a possibility. However, I will have done a great service for science in legitimatizing the exploration of astrology. If there is potential for astrological techniques, who else will uncover it? I believe that no one will.

Is my claim a paranormal one? Others believe astrology is part of the paranormal world. I believe that anything that can be subjected to scientific scrutiny (the scientific method) is, ultimately, not paranormal. My challenge, and the spirit of JREF (recognized or not), is to stretch the scientific envelope.

If this is NOT the intent of JREF, then why have the challenge prize? Is the intent of JREF to just bring public ridicule to the “woos” of the world? Is this why Randi is expending resources maintaining a website and a challenge? Or is this all Randi’s personal vehicle to promote his ethics and values? Is Randi that vain?

I do not wish to think the worst of people. If JREF has a value to society, if Randi’s vision has focus and depth, I assume it is in a real desire to rake the fringes of knowledge for any viable and useful “nuggets” of knowledge which can be useful for science and humanity. If I am wrong in Randi’s motives, if Randi is not interested in stretching the reaches of science, then please leave me in blissful ignorance.

If I am right in Randi’s motives, then the JREF Challenge is the most cost efficient means to find the extremely rare “nuggets” of knowledge that mainstream science overlooks due to the extreme expense of researching them. Randi’s method places the research cost on the shoulders of the researchers (the claimants). Only when a true “nugget” of knowledge is found is the researcher rewarded.

If Randi is truly interested in assisting science, my challenge should be allowed. Whether I succeed with the JREF criteria is not important. Losing the challenge but showing a statistically significant viability of astrological principles is the most important challenge. It is to that goal which I am dedicated.

I look forward to your and Randi’s response.

JAK
 
Sparring with JAK

Hello JAK,

OK. Let's try to stick to the subject, which is finding a way to test your claim. We will not discuss the great majority of the points you are trying to bring into the process, which include (but are not limited to) Randi's motives or alleged "vanities", the point/intent of the Challenge, your definition of the scientific method, your various musings on what the JREF Challenge is all about, etc.

These matters have nothing to do with issues at hand, and I will not waste your time and ours by responding to the numerous misconceptions you voiced in your most recent email. We will devote our efforts solely to the matter at hand; your protocol. We invite you to join us in focusing on that, and that alone.

Firstly and most importantly, no test involving members of the JREF forum can be acceptable.

Obviously, the factor that brought this process to a screeching halt was your requirement for the precise time of birth. If the precise time of birth were not a requirement, this proposed test could well be conducted in a single hour by standing outside a supermarket and recording the birth date from subjects' driver's licenses.

Another factor that concerns us is this; how will you insure that those who are asked to fill out your questionnaire are answering honestly when asked if they have any knowledge or interest in astrology (at which point the subject would then know with a fair degree of certainty that the questionnaire does indeed have something to do with astrology)? The subjects can have no knowledge of what the test is all about. How do you propose to guarantee a double-blind test?

Both Randi and I are perfectly willing to test your claim, but there is enormous apprehension here over whether or not a claim of this nature can be "tested" via a questionnaire. We are NOT rejecting your claim, nor are we refusing to test it. We are simply insisting that the test be conducted properly, so that the results can be deemed valid. We assume that insuring the validity of the results by designing a proper protocol is of interest to you.

Am I incorrect in that assumption? Please advise.

We look forward to your reply, but, in the meantime, we leave you in blissful ignorance, as per your request.

-Kramer, JREF
 
Round 14

Hi Kramer,

Let me respond to your pertinent points:

KRAMER: "Firstly and most importantly, no test involving members of the JREF forum can be acceptable.”

JAK: Understood.

KRAMER: "Obviously, the factor that brought this process to a screeching halt was your requirement for the precise time of birth.”

JAK: I do not consider this negotiable. Without a birth time, the test cannot proceed (at least, not with me).

KRAMER: “How will you insure that those who are asked to fill out your questionairre are answering honestly when asked if they have any knowledge or interest in astrology (at which point the subject would then know with a fair degree of certainty that the questionairre does indeed have something to do with astrology)? The subjects can have no knowledge of what the test is all about. How do you propose to guarantee a double-blind test?”

JAK: A true double-blind test will deny both the participants and the person administering the test from knowing what is being given or for what purpose. I’m not convinced that the test, as defined, carries such a formal structure at this point. If that is your requirement, then the test will become more cumbersome than it already is. To your point, all questions of honesty are subjective. Even within a double-blind study, the honesty of the respondent lies in question. I do not believe that this flaw can be eradicated – double-blind study or not.

KRAMER: "We are simply insisting that the test be conducted properly, so that the results can be deemed valid.”

JAK: “Deemed valid” requires a “criteria of truth” by which to measure validity. I have not seen anything, to date, from the JREF stipulating such rules. Further, the only criteria of truth I believe valid is Negative Pragmatism (William Ernest Hocking, Harvard U.). However, I am open to using any other criteria you consider valid (pragmatism, coherence, rigorous consistency, etc.). In the end, the JREF appears to have more concern with the “validity” issue than I. (I am already willing to proceed.) As a result, I need the JREF to provide more information regarding validity. May I suggest that you tap one of your learned resources for assistance? I will gladly work with someone with a strong background in logic and the scientific method – especially someone with knowledge of double-blind studies. Also, since a questionnaire is involved, someone in the field of psychology or sociology may be preferred. These sciences often give questionnaires in performing their research.

KRAMER: "We assume that insuring the validity of the results by designing a proper protocol is of interest to you… Am I incorrect in that assumption?”

JAK: Absolutely.

KRAMER: "We look forward to your reply, but in the meantime, we leave you in blissful ignorance, as requested."

JAK: Thank you.

=======================================================

Hello JAK,

OK, the first thing to overcome (before we can proceed with fine-tuning the actual protocol) is the birth-time dilemma.

It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide all the necessary materials for the the test. Once you have procured a means of securing the data you require, please let us know immediately, and we will pick up where we left off.

I look forward to hearing from you at the earliest possible convenience.

-Kramer, JREF

p.s. Did you mean to say "NO" instead of "Absolutely"? Just curious.

p.p.s. please refer to your dictionary for the definition of the word "VALID", as that is the definition we use.
 
Last edited:
Round #14.001

Hi Kramer,

I will take responsibility for gathering birth-time information. I will provide necessary materials for the test. I will provide a strategy for procuring participants.

However, if I actually contact/solicit participants, I will taint the objectivity of the test. If this is to be a “double-blind” test, then I should have no direct contact with the participants. Further, to ensure that I do not research the participants, I should have no knowledge of who the participants are.

- JAK

p.s. By saying “absolutely, I meant to say, “Yes – you are correct. Insuring the validity of the results by designing a proper protocol is of interest to me.”

========================================================

Hello Again JAK,

You misunderstand me. We cannot have you personally gather the information. That is obvious. You cannot have contact with the test participants. What you must do is provide an acceptable method of gathering the data, at which point we will try to enlist the aid of another investigator, who will then put all these elements together and devise a method of conducting a proper test.
 
Hi Kramer,

My reference dictionary is The Random House Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged – copyright by Random House, Inc. 1966).

Valid, valid, let’s see … ah yes, page 1578:

“valid adj.

1. sound, just, well founded: a valid reason; a valid objection.

2. producing the desired result; effective: a valid antidote for gloom; a valid procedure.

3. having force, weight, or cogency; authoritative.

4. legally sound … sustainable in law …

5. Logic. (of an argument) containing premises which imply the conclusion.

6. Archaic. robust; well; healthy.”

#1 & #6 appear ambiguous. Most faulty logic can be traced to the fallacy of ambiguity. I suggest we discard these two.

#2 seems inappropriate. If this is a true test of discovery, neither of us will have a desired result. If we do harbor such thoughts, I suspect that the JREF expects a failed test while I expect a somewhat successful one. Thus, there is no consistent “desired result.”

#4 is not applicable. There certainly is no legal precedent for this (even in natural law).

#5 refers to rigorous consistency – a fabulous criteria of truth. Unfortunately, this is an empirical test – not a syllogism. So, this one does not apply.

IMO, that leaves only #3, of which “cogency” looks good. “Force” and “weight” – even “authoritative” – are ambiguous, but “cogency” has merit.

Cogency, cogent, let’s see … ah yes, page 286:

“cogent adj.

1. convincing or believable by virtue of forcible, clear, incisive presentation; telling.

2. to the point; relevant; pertinent.”

#1, as before, appears ambiguous. Even scientists argue, so being convincing or believable – even using the scientific method – remains questionable. Certainly, whether or not I get 10 out of 12 correct will be clear and convincing numerically, but that says nothing about the controls of the test.

#2, similarly, does not provide controls on the test. It only indicates that the controls, or other aspects, are pertinent to the test.

The dictionary does not seem to be providing anything regarding the “controls” of the test. Yet, it is the controls that make the test convincing or believable. (But I will defer to your dictionary should it be more comprehensive.) Obviously, there are such controls because you stated one: “Firstly and most importantly, no test involving members of the JREF forum can be acceptable.” This is a clearly defined control. If I could read the minds of the JREF, I would have submitted that claim first. But as it is, I need guidance from the JREF regarding what controls are required. If the scientific method and a “double-blind” study are among them, then I will create a protocol suitable to those. (I believe the current protocol can be adapted to more stringently fit these requirements.) Again, may I suggest that you rely upon an authority you trust, with a strong background in logic and the scientific method – especially someone with knowledge of double-blind studies, to oversee this process.

As a foundation, I suggest that you stipulate a protocol of “a double-blind study using the scientific method and not involving members of the JREF forum.” (Mind you, this is not without some ambiguity, but it is far more structured, rigid, and, more importantly, measurable.)

JAK

As an aside, it appears that you are searching for something definitive and “ironclad” – a clear “yes” or “no” structure without ambiguity. Unfortunately, as science digs deeper into nature, the results are murkier. (And the paranormal is definitely on the fringe.) May I suggest that you research the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle – a “cloudy” area of physics, ambiguity at the foundation of the hardest of the known sciences. Quantum mechanics and string theory would be other areas highlighting ambiguity within physics as well as the arguing scientists. These may help you better understand the limits of science and its tools as well as dealing with “the fringe”. Finally, I strongly suggest that you research Negative Pragmatism – the only viable criteria of truth, IMO.

==========================================================

Dear JAK,

From this point forward, anything you send to me that does not directly address the problems we are trying to resolve in the testing of your claim will be immediately discarded.

We will not waste our time debating semantics with you.
 
File Closed

Dear JAK,

I've just met with Randi on the subject of your claim, and he has read your rambling, pointless diatribe on your interpretations on the meaning of the word VALID. This is not the first email from you in which your goal seemed to have nothing to do with what we have repeatedly asked you to focus on. We are now convinced that we are wasting our time with you, and with your claim.

JAK, we're closing your file. You are not working in good faith toward the eventual testing of your claim. In fact, you don't even HAVE a paranormal claim. You have a theory. The JREF is not your free research facility. We are not interested in theories, hypothesis, or field experiments in sociology. The Challenge rules make that clear.

If at some point you have an actual, clear-cut paranormal phenomenon that you have successfully tested on your own, and you think you can resist the temptation to engage in pointless debates on matters irrelevant to the Challenge, please feel free to re-apply, at which time we will judge the merits and potential VALIDITY of your claim and your new application, without prejudice, and then decide whether or not to accept it.

Please also try to refrain from making any threats against us regarding this decision, as that will surely impact your eligibility in submitting a new Challenge application, which remains at the sole discretion of the JREF.

Yours,

Kramer, JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.
 
Last edited:
Neither myself nor Randi (nor the JREF) received any response from JAK regarding the rejection of his claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom