[Moderated]Hypothetical Million Dollar Winner

[sthomson]

maatorc: I have described several tests for "psi-esp" that I feel would be acceptable to Randi as potential winners of the MDC. Please explain why you feel these do not constitute a test for "psi-esp". I'll describe one again below.

Test 1: Claimant is placed in a closed, windowless room with a sheet of paper numbered 1 to 20 with a pen. Volunteer is placed in a closed, windowless room with a sheet of paper and a pen. Observers with synchronised watches are in each room. Once a minute (or longer or shorter, depending on the claimant), the volunteer picks one card from a shuffled deck and records whether that card is red or black. On the same interval, the claimant records what he or she views as the color of the card. This test is repeated a set number of times until enough tests are completed to meet the required p value.

These exact tests were performed multiple times in the 1970s by many researchers and, barring situations where cheating or testing bias occurred, I cannot find any significant results.

 

[ProbeX]

Suppose you choose 100 images, Maatorc sends them to me (from a suburb away) via psi-esp, and I sketch them accurately with a 100% hit rate. Assume all known means of non-psi-esp communication have been ruled out (I am in a sealed room in a Faraday cage).

So we document all this meticulously, we get the million, and then in your world scientists just say "What a silly experiment! Randi was present, and he stood to lose his prize money if you won! Thus that is not a viable test!".

As I said, I know some scientists and I think your view is plain crazy.

Let’s say I’m not just a skeptic, but a famous skeptic. Let’s say you are a hypothetical self-proclaimed psychic (believer), and I set up the test above and claim that you sent me 100 images and the result was a 100% hit rate. Let’s say I claim and document my subject's behavior in a space that was screened against EM (and by the way, one couldn’t assume the a sealed room including a Faraday Cage qualifies as an envirronm. that guards against “all known means” of non-psi communication. Overlooking even this shows a lack of objectivity of approach to testing.

What, specifically, do you mean by meticulous documentation? Who would be the one documenting all this, and what would the method look like? Would there be a camera in this enclosed room, or how would the subject be monitored? Would the subject being tested in performance be in his or her adversary's lab at the time? You'd need to answer these questions for me to begin to get a better sense for how you would find the experiment, as you present it, viable.

Forgiving the problem of an adversary involved in testing (which can't be forgiven), ... even if a self-proclaimed skeptic like Randi stated he witnessed, then documented, a 100% success in the study as you state it, it would hold very little weight in the world of science and human testing. It's possible an aging famous skeptic pulled a publicity stunt; was in collusion with my “subjects” and it was all a lie - a famous magician’s (professional liar’s) decision to cook up dramatic results. Even (seemingly) to his own detriment. Unless Randi is your bed partner (horrible thought) and even then, results allegedly gathered without the oversight of unbiased third party/s is not to be trusted - especially where gambling is involved, both financially and due to strong opinions for or against the focus of the tests. Randi fanaticism (faith) shouldn't be chosen over good sense. Can you have one of your scientist friends (the one or more involved in human performance testing), comment on this?

As for credentials: regardless of what my credentials are, this is an argument based on facts and ideas. As for crickets: this is not a paranormal or hair styling forum, where scientists are likely to be scarce if present at all), plus this forum does has a science forum. So the crickets present are more damning to your argument.

 

[ProbeX]

In this thread much has been made of 'scientists', 'people who know scientists', etc, and who is qualified to judge a procedure and the associated claims.

But this is not the point. We all know, sadly, that many people who undoubtedly have a claim to the name of 'scientist' have published some highly 'unscientific' work -- and walked away, counting the cash.

The real point is, does the experiment conform to the scientific method. This is something that any reasonable person can decide, if the information about the test/tests methods are available.

Yes, I agree there are people who claim shoddy science as the real thing. Happens all too frequently. But I’m speaking to scientific human testing methodology as used correctly.

No, actually it’s deceivingly difficult to declare an experiment well-conformed to scientific method without having an intermediate to advanced knowledge and/or direct experience with it.

 

[ProbeX]

Steenkh,

Will respond to what you said next.

 

[maatorc]

maatorc: I have described several tests for "psi-esp" that I feel would be acceptable to Randi as potential winners of the MDC. Please explain why you feel these do not constitute a test for "psi-esp". I'll describe one again below.
Test 1: Claimant is placed in a closed, windowless room with a sheet of paper numbered 1 to 20 with a pen. Volunteer is placed in a closed, windowless room with a sheet of paper and a pen. Observers with synchronised watches are in each room. Once a minute (or longer or shorter, depending on the claimant), the volunteer picks one card from a shuffled deck and records whether that card is red or black. On the same interval, the claimant records what he or she views as the color of the card. This test is repeated a set number of times until enough tests are completed to meet the required p value.
These exact tests were performed multiple times in the 1970s by many researchers and, barring situations where cheating or testing bias occurred, I cannot find any significant results.

Yes, the example you give would be a test for psi-esp, but not actually a test of psi-esp.
The procedure is not actually testing the mental process of psi-esp, but is a recording of external evidence for or against it.
A psi-esp event is a mental experience of the practitioner, participant, or recipient. Most people claiming such experiences or abilities are unable to prove it, and to date observational tests cannot decide it.
If it is possible for someone to psychically communicate with you, and you are conscious, say visually or audibly, you cannot prove it happens.
Similarly, if you experience an event, say visually or audibly, beyond your normal material sensory range, such as remote viewing, you cannot prove you had this experience.
This problem is a two-way street: Anyone who does not experience psychic events, such as communications or remote viewing, cannot prove they cannot occur.
The two cognitive spheres accessible to us are incommensurable.
This is the fundamental and unavoidable limitation placed on phenomenal attempts to decide noumenal realities.

 

[Michael C]

Yes, the example you give would be a test for psi-esp, but not actually a test of psi-esp.

That's exactly what the MDC is there for: to test for psi-esp or other things considered to be paranormal. That's all.

 

[maatorc]

That's exactly what the MDC is there for: to test for psi-esp or other things considered to be paranormal. That's all.

That has been going on for decades.
It is old hat.
The methods used then are essentially those employed by the JREF now.
Nothing has changed.
Psi-esp cannot be phenomenally proved or disproved.
There cannot technically be a successful claimant.
What then is the point of the MDC?

 

[steenkh]

That has been going on for decades.
It is old hat.
The methods used then are essentially those employed by the JREF now.
Nothing has changed.

That took a long time for you to figure out!

Psi-esp cannot be phenomenally proved or disproved.

If the psi-esp practitioner can communicate to others what he/she is experiencing, this can be tested against reality or another communicated psi-esp experience. You may call it an indirect proof, but many proofs are indirect, but still valid.

There cannot technically be a successful claimant.

For what? Surely you are not speaking about the MDC, because it is abundantly clear if the claimant for the MDC can perform as he claims or not. After all, his claim must be formulated so that it is testable.

What then is the point of the MDC?

You have already been told many times before: it is to test if the claimants can perform as they claim they can. What eligible claim can you imagine that cannot be tested?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Maatorc, this has been explained to you repeatedly.

Testing for psi-esp would be ample to win the million.

 

[Raptor Witness]

The rules are limitations for frauds. There is no need for "rules," if you can demonstrate power which takes the breath away, literally. I predict that Mr. Randi will find what he is looking for, and be left in the wake of the wave generated.

 

[sthomson]

The rules are limitations for frauds. There is no need for "rules," if you can demonstrate power which takes the breath away, literally. I predict that Mr. Randi will find what he is looking for, and be left in the wake of the wave generated.

Really? When? I mean, Randi's been doing this for a long time ... more than 30 years ... and he's not a young man any more ... so whomever has these powers that "takes the breath away, literally", they better hurry up ... or are you making some quip about death?

Gah, I hate all this cryptic mumbo jumbo.

 

[petre]

Yes, the example you give would be a test for psi-esp, but not actually a test of psi-esp.

So your main bone of contention is that the wording of the challenge is that "...evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event" should be "...evidence for any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event"?

 

[maatorc]

So your main bone of contention is that the wording of the challenge is that "...evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event" should be "...evidence for any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event"?

The phenomenal methods of the MDC will never provide proof 'of' psi-esp.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Maatorc, this has been explained to you repeatedly.

Testing for psi-esp would be ample to win the million.

 

[petre]

The phenomenal methods of the MDC will never provide proof 'of' psi-esp.

Perhaps a different parsing would relieve you of your concern. It is possible that one may read the challenge of the JREF and believe it says something like:

- If you believe in ghosts, and provide evidence of ghosts, we will pay you $1 million.
- If you believe in dowsing, and provide evidence of dowsing, we will pay you $1 million.
- If you believe in psi-esp, and provide evidence of psi-esp, we will pay you $1 million.
- etc.

This is not a correct interpretation. A more accurate reading is:
- Whatever you believe is unimportant to the challenge. Provide evidence of anything paranormal (you need not identify what it is) and we will pay you $1 million.

An applicant would NEVER need to provide evidence (much less proof) 'of' psi-esp to win the challenge. A successful test would give evidence only that 'something paranormal' had occurred, nothing more. They are not designed to illuminate any further than that.

 

[maatorc]

Perhaps a different parsing would relieve you of your concern. It is possible that one may read the challenge of the JREF and believe it says something like:
- If you believe in ghosts, and provide evidence of ghosts, we will pay you $1 million.
- If you believe in dowsing, and provide evidence of dowsing, we will pay you $1 million.
- If you believe in psi-esp, and provide evidence of psi-esp, we will pay you $1 million.- etc.
This is not a correct interpretation. A more accurate reading is:
- Whatever you believe is unimportant to the challenge. Provide evidence of anything paranormal (you need not identify what it is) and we will pay you $1 million.
An applicant would NEVER need to provide evidence (much less proof) 'of' psi-esp to win the challenge. A successful test would give evidence only that 'something paranormal' had occurred, nothing more. They are not designed to illuminate any further than that.

How would the MDC 'know' that the demonstration is

JREF:...evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event?...

 

[petre]

How would the MDC 'know' that the demonstration is Quote:
JREF:...evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event?...

Process of elimination. It is the purpose of the protocol to rule-out anything that doesn't fall into one of those categories. If no protocol can be imagined that will rule-out all non-paranormal events, then it is 'untestable'.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

How would the MDC 'know' that the demonstration is

It's the JREF's money, they can award it for whatever they like.

They would like to award it to you, if you can provide any evidence of or for psi-esp.

 

[maatorc]

Process of elimination. It is the purpose of the protocol to rule-out anything that doesn't fall into one of those categories. If no protocol can be imagined that will rule-out all non-paranormal events, then it is 'untestable'.

But the protocols and categories are MDC arbitrary without any proof or ability to prove they are what they are presumed to be.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

But the protocols and categories are MDC arbitrary without any proof or ability to prove they are what they are presumed to be.

Who cares?

You can still win the million with any demonstration "of" or "for" psi-esp.