Looking for Skeptics - Continuation (Cassidy's EVP/diamond damage claim)

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Why would these sound files be impossible to produce through any currently understood process, how will this be self evident?

Read my suggested protocol above.

 

[Pup]

and again here



She is clearly claiming spirits alter the diamonds. How the spirits do it would not be the purview of the test. That spirits exist would be a previous assumption that violates the JREF's stated protocol.

I'm reading the JREF FAQ a little differently. Virtually every challenge would include a prior assumption: that something paranormal existed. However, I took it to mean only a prior assumption that was in itself not proven and that would affect the outcome of the test.

In this case, it doesn't matter how the diamond is altered, as long as it's done in a way impossible by normal means, and there's even been a long tradition of JREF representatives saying it doesn't matter how the challenge is done, and in many cases they don't even want to hear the explanation: it's all about the feat itself.

A hypothetical prior assumption, in this particular case, might be something like: I assume that diamonds are harder than hammers, so if I hit a diamond full force with a sledge hammer, only spirits [i.e. something paranormal] could cause a chip at the moment of impact. But one can't assume that sledge hammers don't ordinarily damage diamonds; that would need proven first. [Note this is hypothetical only and has nothing to do with Cassidy's actual claim.]

Of the two examples given in the FAQ, the problem with the mustache-curl one seems to be that the mustache would be an indicator of ghosts present, but unless ghosts are real enough that everyone could agree when they're present, the indicator would mean nothing. The challenger can't expect the JREF to assume that ghosts exist.

A claim that the mustache could indicate the presence of something real in the next room, like a red-headed person, would be a valid claim, I'd think, even if the mustache-owner said ghosts told him when the person entered the room.

The problem with the earthquake one and the "genuine clairvoyant" seems more obvious, though again, I expect that a claim of predicting earthquakes within an accuracy of a few miles, a few hours, and a point or two of magnitude would be a valid claim, even if the person said spirits were feeding him the predictions.

 

[Cassidy]

Are you saying that my suggested protocol is one that could be used to judge your claim, or are you saying that it is not?

If it is as easy as that to win the million, I just wasted £1500 on unnecessary equipment. It would make for a good protocol, either using a metronome or just someone's voice.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

She doesn't want to test the noise. She wants to prove that spirits can break diamonds.

She wants to demonstrate all kinds of things. I have explained which one I think can actually be tested and how it could be tested.

Neither of us speak for JREF however I have quoted from the FAQ on the randi.org page. Under protocols section 2.3

You have. And I have explained how the two examples are not the same.

One of the examples I gave was of a dowser who believed that the reason he could find where water was is that he was guided by God. It wasn't him doing the dowsing, it was God working through him. I know that this is a real example, because it was on a documentary where Randi tested several dowsers in one day.

According to you because this man believed that God was acting through him in order to test his dowsing ability he would first have to prove that God existed. Clearly this is not the case (if it were, then he would already have won the million for providing that proof, not to mention have caused a bit of a stir in the field of theology).

Saying "my sticks cross in the presence of water because of God" is functionally identical to the claim "my sticks cross in the presence of water because of spirits", and the MDC doesn't care about the latter part of either of those claims. These are claims that can be tested with sticks, water, and a few other simple bits of equipment such as containers and inverted buckets. Everything required to test the claim that the sticks cross in the presence of water is known to exist. To be equivalent to the moustache man the claim would have to be "my sticks cross in the presence of God". To test that claim requires sticks and God. So before that claim can be tested, it first needs to be established that God exists.

Similarly, "if I record a steady tone and a percussive beat through the microphone on this computer, the tone will fade out to nothingness while the percussive beat remains unaffected" is a paranormal claim that is testable with equipment that is known to exist. By what mechanism the claimant believes the tone fades out is irrelevant to testing the claim, just as the dowser believing God works through him when he's dowsing is irrelevant to testing whether or not he can actually dowse.

The claim that spirits can break diamonds works on the previous assumption that spirits exist.

It seems pretty black and white to me.

It doesn't matter. The actual claim is that diamonds will break despite there being no natural process through which they could have broken. This can be tested without first establishing that spirits exist.

This contradicts the FAQ on the randi.org website.

link

It doesn't.

It wouldn't make sense for it to. Everybody who takes the challenge believes that they are demonstrating a paranormal ability. How would it make sense for them to have to prove that their paranormal ability existed before they were allowed to test for whether or not their paranormal ability existed?

If you don't believe the examples above, let's work with a famous example. Randi challenged Sylvia Browne to take the challenge. Sylvia Browne claimed to speak to the spirits of the dead, and claimed that her abilities were a gift from God. If the way you're reading the FAQs were correct then Randi was breaking his own rules by challenging Browne because she hadn't first proven that spirits and God exist.

 

[Cassidy]

It'll require more than that.



Alright, than you could put the audio in a zip file and attach it to a post made by you.
Zip file limit is 250Kb so you're good to go.

I just tried but it didn't attach. I received the message "This is not an image"

I could make up an email, upload and hand over the password?

ETA: The problem with this is, I could have set it up to make it appear like what I've described.
ETA: But the recordings where Bill Withers only holds his note for 4 seconds instead of 9, can't be set up by any means I know of so far.

 

[Senex]

I thought that too, but it's not to be. However, taking a perfect diamond and causing internal alterations, can be measured. Transferring their activity from PC to PC can be measured too.

What sucks is there's a million dollars in a vault, that the spirits are trying to release and hand to charity. So if you think they suck, at least their intentions don't.

At least we now know the spooks are trying to get Randi's million into the hand's of a charity. It's important that the spooks are on-board with this operation.

You realize, however, taking a perfect diamond and causing internal alterations, can be measured. Transferring their activity from PC to PC can be measured too.

Breaking a diamond in front of a crowd has the WOW factor. Ask the spooks to do that. For charity. Internal alterations leaves open speculation.

Your post has given spirits motivation.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

1. Why not just use bloodstones or something cheaper and easier? This will make the test much less expensive and it will allow you to get a lot more practice in before the test. Applicants almost never practice by doing self-testing before the big test. Then, they show up and there's all the extra pressure and they are nervous and things don't work out. Practice makes perfect, but that would take a lot of diamonds. We don't want to see you end up in the poorhouse, so if there's a cheaper alternative, I urge you to use it and practice, Practice, PRACTICE.

This is also another reason why I've suggested the protocol I have. There will be an initial outlay for a metronome and a tone generator (although both can be bought relatively cheaply), and then as much practice as is needed can be conducted for absolutely zero cost. There will be an additional cost at some point for the hire of a soundproof room, but that should be brief and all practice before that will be cost-free.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Of course it's up to JREF if they want to make an exception.

It's not an exception. Testing what she claims actually happens in the physical world is not dependent on the existence of spirits. Testing the claim that a moustache curls in the presence of spirits is dependent on the existence of spirits.

Try this as a thought experiment. See if you can come up with a protocol to test whether or not a moustache curls in the presence of spirits. You'll need to think about how you'd measure when spirits are near the moustache and when they're not, and how to get the spirits near to the moustache.

Now see if you can come up with a protocol to test whether or not a moustache curls in the presence of hats. You'll need to think about how you'd measure when hats are near the moustache and when they are not, and how to get the hats near to the moustache.

Can you understand why the example given by Randi is dependent on the existence of spirits?

Now see if you can come up with a protocol to test whether or not a diamond cracks despite not undergoing any physical process that could crack it. You'll need to think about how to exclude all possibly physical processes that could crack the diamond.

Can you understand why this test is not dependent on the existence of spirits?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If it is as easy as that to win the million, I just wasted £1500 on unnecessary equipment. It would make for a good protocol, either using a metronome or just someone's voice.

No, you couldn't use someone's voice. Their voice will vary in volume, and people can hesitate, stumble over their words, all kinds of things.

If you introduce humans, you introduce human error, and you start to introduce subjective judgement. A metronome will be the same volume on every tick. A tone generator will stay the same volume until physically turned down or turned off (which is why you turn it on and then everybody steps away before starting to record).

I'm not affiliated with the JREF so I can't say for sure that the protocol would be accepted. There may be minor details that would need to be ironed out, or there could be a huge gaping flaw that I haven't noticed. But yes, in theory, it's that easy to win the million dollars if you can actually do what you claim you can do in your protocol.

 

[Daylightstar]

Why would these sound files be impossible to produce through any currently understood process, how will this be self evident?

Read my suggested protocol above.

This?
I've read it, it doesn't tell me how the result of a sound file she'd produce according to your protocol would be impossible to produce through any currently understood process nor how this would be self evident.

It appears that you expect me to consider a waveform representation on screen as such, but it isn't. The waveform simply represents the audio itself, nothing else.

 

[Daylightstar]

I just tried but it didn't attach. I received the message "This is not an image"

I could make up an email, upload and hand over the password?

ETA: The problem with this is, I could have set it up to make it appear like what I've described.
ETA: But the recordings where Bill Withers only holds his note for 4 seconds instead of 9, can't be set up by any means I know of so far.

Here's me uploading a zipped mp3 file, It's a recording of part of your youtube clip from here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10639820&postcount=85

Works like a charm.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

This?
I've read it, it doesn't tell me how the result of a sound file she'd produce according to your protocol would be impossible to produce through any currently understood process nor how this would be self evident.

It would be impossible to produce through any currently understood process because it's a recording of two separate unchanging sounds though one microphone, yet on the recording but not in real life one and only one of the sounds fades out to nothing while the other remains at the same volume.

If the sound the tone generator is producing doesn't change in any way, including position, and the sound the metronome doesn't change in any way, including position, and the microphone doesn't change position, then the microphone should record both sounds equally. If one changes and the other doesn't, then something very strange is going on.

If you can offer an explanation as to how you think one could change on the recording without the other doing so, then please offer it up and I'll see if the protocol can be modified to eliminate your explanation.

As for how it would be self-evident, it would be agreed upon beforehand how much of a drop in amplitude of the tone would be considered a pass and how much variance is allowed in the amplitude of the ticks. These are things which are quantified and can be assessed empirically.

It appears that you expect me to consider a waveform representation on screen as such, but it isn't. The waveform simply represents the audio itself, nothing else.

It is the audio that is the basis for the claim. If you wouldn't examine the audio file to assess the audio, then what would you examine? Again, perhaps you can help refine the protocol if you can explain in more detail what you believe the problem with measuring the waveform to be.

 

[Daylightstar]

... There may be minor details that would need to be ironed out, or there could be a huge gaping flaw that I haven't noticed. ...

You haven't noticed the lack of controls?

 

[Daylightstar]

...
If the sound the tone generator is producing doesn't change in any way, including position, and the sound the metronome doesn't change in any way, including position, and the microphone doesn't change position, then the microphone should record both sounds equally. If one changes and the other doesn't, then something very strange is going on.
...

Unless the microphone or the recorder hardware malfunctions. Have you considered controlling for such occurrences?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You haven't noticed the lack of controls?

What controls would you suggest?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Unless the microphone or the recorder hardware malfunctions. Have you considered controlling for such occurrences?

What type of a malfunction do you imagine could cause such an effect? In more than 20 years as a sound engineer I've never heard of such a thing, but if you know of some possibility that I don't, then please share.

If there's a specific frequency that the microphone can't pick up, then it wouldn't pick it up, rather than fading it out. And different tones on each of the tests would certainly rule that out, as would using white or pink noise.

 

[Daylightstar]

What type of a malfunction do you imagine could cause such an effect? In more than 20 years as a sound engineer I've never heard of such a thing, but if you know of some possibility that I don't, then please share.

If there's a specific frequency that the microphone can't pick up, then it wouldn't pick it up, rather than fading it out. And different tones on each of the tests would certainly rule that out, as would using white or pink noise.

Difficult to say. It however surprises me that you, as a sound engineer, would not consider hardware related controls, simply because you haven't heard of anything producing a fading effect.

 

[Susheel]

Lose contacts gradually deteriorating because of heat build up? Not a sound anything. My idea of repairs is to kick it.

No, not really, I can solder lose wires and get fans and table lamps to work. Not much more.

 

[Daylightstar]

Lose contacts gradually deteriorating because of heat build up? Not a sound anything. My idea of repairs is to kick it.

No, not really, I can solder lose wires and get fans and table lamps to work. Not much more.

I can understand where he is coming from with the two separate sounds entering the same microphone one would expect them to be equally affected, if any affect is present, of course.
I would at least expect to have the recording hardware tested for consistency and have this stated and verified. This would need to be stated in the protocol.

 

[Cassidy]

Difficult to say. It however surprises me that you, as a sound engineer, would not consider hardware related controls, simply because you haven't heard of anything producing a fading effect.

The tone does actually disappear rather than fade out (It stops dead after a few seconds) The ticking remains loud and clear (Just tested it out again) A technical malfunction would likely impair both noises?