[Moderated]Hypothetical Million Dollar Winner

[Gravy]

It is too trivial for the JREF to even consider paying $1M.

False. The JREF has done such tests of challengers for the million dollars. Review the challenge applications and results.

It is extremely doubtful a rate of success better than chance. will attract any serious scientific attention. This sort of stuff and its statistical variations have been going on for decades.

The presumption by the JREF that such an event would be a major world-wide item is seriously missplaced: It will be something of a yawn.

You are talking about minor statistical variations, which is not what the MDC is about. The test protocols require a rate of success greatly better than chance, which would be of interest to scientists and laymen. Again, please review the applications and protocols before opining about this.

 

[steenkh]

That a scientist is willing to work on some aspect of Randi’s adversarial tests, does not validate the overall procedure; the tests still do not conform to the scientific process generally acknowledged by the larger scientific community.

There is no procedure to be validated: the MDC is not and has never been a scientific study. It is a wager that nobody who claims to be capable of paranormal powers will actually be able to demonstrate those powers.

Also, you will need to put out a call for the “real scientists” you claim are here at the forum (who must be equally trained in the area of human testing), so I can have a reasonable (non-layperson’s) discourse with them about this. So let us pit these scientists against my clinically-experienced “imagination”. Throw down the gauntlet now and we’ll see which of your clinical scientists comes running, and what they have to say on this matter to refute me.

You can make your call yourself. I find it ridiculous.

One can’t have it both ways. As long as Randi implores scientists for aspects of his tests, his tests are partially scientific in nature, which is not good enough; fails to meet the criteria for all-inclusive scientific protocol within the true context of scientific human clinical testing.

Randi is not performing scientific human clinical testing: there are no scientific criteria to be met.

You are effectively claiming that if somebody wins the million dollars with all the publicity inherent in the event, this will be completely ignored by the scientific community (not just the likes of yourself), and no scientist will try to confirm the existence of the winning paranormal powers using proper scientific testing methods?

That’s what makes any claim acquired in this way, highly questionable as objective.

What claim?

Try this: point me to a test of his where the use of one or more scientists are noted.

"JAK" KEERAN, Astrologer

Choose one that you think was set up in a way that conforms to the highest objective standards - up to par with classical scientific standards in context of testing human subjects (now you have two assignments).

No, because I do not see the point: Why should I find a challenge test that lives up to some standard that has nothing to do with the challenge?

… Also, understand, “more research is needed” is sine qua non. It is another way of saying the findings need to be verified.

I know: but this is the most positive result that is ever gained from research into the paranormal.

 

[petre]

I gave you a longish answer which was moved.
Briefly, only one actually participating in psi-esp can experientially know, and it cannot be otherwise proven.

I don't suppose you'd consider "if you believe in psi-esp, it's all in your head" an acceptable alternative wording?

 

[Michael C]

Thanks petre, you put it in a nutshell.

For maatorc: could you give a concrete example of a psi-esp experience which is only knowable to the person experiencing it, but cannot otherwise be proven?

 

[ProbeX]

There is no procedure to be validated: the MDC is not and has never been a scientific study. It is a wager that nobody who claims to be capable of paranormal powers will actually be able to demonstrate those powers.

You’re merely restating my point: the Challenge fails to live up to the most superior form of evidence gathering and testing: classical scientific methodology. Anything short of that is questionable at best. And you are correct that it is about wagering/gambling. Gosh it’s so unprofessional and bias it’s ridiculous.

You can make your call yourself. I find it ridiculous [in reference to a challenge for you to locate any scientific clinician on this site who has human testing experience and is willing to refute my argument/s]

But alas, no need for either of us to give a shout out. Bringing up the question was a shout out in and of itself. As you can see, we are met with crickets. But anyone credentialed is still encouraged to speak up.

Randi is not performing scientific human clinical testing: there are no scientific criteria to be met.

Well of course he isn’t. What he’s doing can’t live up to the high standards of disciplined, professional scientific standards of collecting evidence. So the fact that he implores scientists only here and there, or in an untrained manner, limits the credibility of his testing outcomes.

You are effectively claiming that if somebody wins the million dollars with all the publicity inherent in the event, this will be completely ignored by the scientific community (not just the likes of yourself), and no scientist will try to confirm the existence of the winning paranormal powers using proper scientific testing methods?

Listen more carefully: I acknowledged at the onset that some scientists won’t and have not “completely ignored him“. What I’ve said is that the scientific community en masse will not take his procedures/outcomes seriously. As you pointed out, one piece of evidence for this is that his work will not be published in any esteemed journals, for example. There is a larger problem than his alleged findings turning heads … he is met with the problem of many clinicians not trusting how he arrived at his results. Unfortunately, due to Randi's lack of disciplined scientific training, he might have made sundry mistakes in collecting or evaluating his alleged findings.

There were all kinds of problems with the Jak Keeran set up (and w other proposed tests of his). It is sloppy to invite a layperson to propose objective testing conditions, and equally sloppy to invite oneself or representee's from one’s biased camp to amen it. Again, scientists and clinicians - totally unaffiliated with the JREF or the test subject - (called independent 3rd parties) should be implored from A to Z. No clinicians associated with Randi should be collecting or touching any materials belonging to the "adversarial" test subject. You have know idea how laughable this is in the clinical field. I must have overlooked the scientists you were pointing to in this case example … whom exactly?

I asked you to choose a test you think was set up in a way that conforms to the highest objective standards - up to par with classical scientific standards in context of testing human subjects. You refused, but that’s OK. It would have taken a lot of fruitless effort.

I know: but this is the most positive result that is ever gained from research into the paranormal.

Come again? What are you calling "the most positive result" … and why?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Did you miss my post, ProbeX?

I've known a few scientists and read a fair bit about scientific methodology, and nothing I have ever encountered leads me to believe any decent scientist will ignore a clear-cut conclusion just because it was measured with a degree of imprecision.

I suspect you've seen scientists reject studies where the lack of precision was large enough relative to the measured effect to make the study worthless, and mistakenly generalised to the cargo cult conclusion that fine precision is necessary for it's own sake before a scientists will take a result seriously.

That's just incorrect.

 

[maatorc]

I don't suppose you'd consider "if you believe in psi-esp, it's all in your head" an acceptable alternative wording?

Everything you sense at all levels is 'in your head'.
Mentality is everything: You do not and cannot know anything else.

 

[maatorc]

.......For maatorc: could you give a concrete example of a psi-esp experience which is only knowable to the person experiencing it, but cannot otherwise be proven?

If someone sends you a visual or sound message you cannot prove it to a third party who did not participate in it.

 

[RemieV]

If someone sends you a visual or sound message you cannot prove it to a third party who did not participate in it.

Yes, you can, if the image or sound was decided upon and written down beforehand and shared between the sender and a third party, but not with the receiver.

 

[jeffq]

Psi-esp is noumenal reality.
Normal physical consciousness is phenomenal reality.
The reason material science and the JREF MDC cannot measure psi-esp is the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena.

Sophistic gobbledegook! From Merriam-Websters Online:

noumenon: a posited object or event as it appears in itself independent of perception by the senses

Just how does something "appear" independent of senses? "Noumenon" sounds to me like another word for the Platonic "form", which is a theoretical or idealistic construct. It exists only in the imagination, and has no impact on the real world. Paranormalists insist that "psi" phenonmenon have an impact on the real world; otherwise, nobody would care about their pretty ideas. Using "noumenal" to explain "paranormal" is merely a pre-technology version of abusing terms like "quantum vibrations" to confuse people (especially the fools that are tricked into parroting these non-explanations). A sure way to detect these con-jobs is when people spout rarely used terms like "noumenal" and "incommensurability", betting that their audience's eyes will glaze over in confusion and just nod their heads, unwilling to admit they don't know what's being said.

There are no scientific trials capable of detecting psi-esp.

There are no scientific trials capable of "detecting" the "appleness" of an apple, either, as this is a mental construct that has no existence in the real world outside of the electrochemical connections that store and reinforce our mental concepts. (And if we ever learn to decode those connections, even this would become scientifically testable.)

However, as long as paranormalists claim that something is being done with this "noumenon" (e.g., "I read minds", "I predict the future", "I see objects that are miles away behind locked doors"), scientific tests can be designed and executed to test these claims. Anything else is just imagination, no more meaningful than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And those who refuse to define something to test, preferring to ramble on about imaginary concepts, are just running away from the harsh light of reality, regardless of what obscure adjectives they preface it with.

 

[maatorc]

Sophistic gobbledegook! From Merriam-Websters Online:
Just how does something "appear" independent of senses? "Noumenon" sounds to me like another word for the Platonic "form", which is a theoretical or idealistic construct. It exists only in the imagination, and has no impact on the real world. Paranormalists insist that "psi" phenonmenon have an impact on the real world; otherwise, nobody would care about their pretty ideas. Using "noumenal" to explain "paranormal" is merely a pre-technology version of abusing terms like "quantum vibrations" to confuse people (especially the fools that are tricked into parroting these non-explanations). A sure way to detect these con-jobs is when people spout rarely used terms like "noumenal" and "incommensurability", betting that their audience's eyes will glaze over in confusion and just nod their heads, unwilling to admit they don't know what's being said.
There are no scientific trials capable of "detecting" the "appleness" of an apple, either, as this is a mental construct that has no existence in the real world outside of the electrochemical connections that store and reinforce our mental concepts. (And if we ever learn to decode those connections, even this would become scientifically testable.)
However, as long as paranormalists claim that something is being done with this "noumenon" (e.g., "I read minds", "I predict the future", "I see objects that are miles away behind locked doors"), scientific tests can be designed and executed to test these claims. Anything else is just imagination, no more meaningful than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And those who refuse to define something to test, preferring to ramble on about imaginary concepts, are just running away from the harsh light of reality, regardless of what obscure adjectives they preface it with.

It might seem deep and meaningful to you but it is Sophistic gobbledegook!, and no more meaningful than your Flying Spaghetti Monster.

But a little more on this in my own time.

 

[Michael C]

If someone sends you a visual or sound message you cannot prove it to a third party who did not participate in it.

Of course you can. We do this all the time. Our lives would be in total messes if we couldn't count on spoken communication.

Imagine the following test:

- Person A sits in a room.
- Person B sits in an adjacent room.
- We (the team of experimenters) write down a message on a piece of paper and hand it to person A.
- Person A reads the message and shouts it out so that person B can hear it
- Person B writes down what he/she thinks the message is.
- We can now look at what person B has written and compare it with the original message.

If the two messages are identical, this shows that "shouting" has worked as a way of passing a sound message. If we repeat the experiment 100 times, with 100 successes, we can confidently say that we have proved that "shouting" works in this situation.

Now we change the experiment very slightly:

- Person A sits in a room.
- Person B sits in an adjacent room.
- We write down a message on a piece of paper and hand it to person A.
- Person A reads the message and sends it to person B via psi-esp.
- Person B writes down what he/she thinks the message is.
- We can now look at what person B has written and compare it with the original message.

If the two messages were identical, this would show that psi-esp had worked as a way of passing a message. If we repeated the experiment 100 times, with 100 successes, we could confidently say that we had proved that psi-esp worked in this situation.

This is the sort of test that Randi proposes. He works out the details together with the claimant, so that both sides are satisfied that the conditions are fair. If the test really showed a success, he'd fork out the prize.

 

[maatorc]

..............
Now we change the experiment very slightly:
- Person A sits in a room.
- Person B sits in an adjacent room.
- We write down a message on a piece of paper and hand it to person A.
- Person A reads the message and sends it to person B via psi-esp.
- Person B writes down what he/she thinks the message is.
- We can now look at what person B has written and compare it with the original message.
If the two messages were identical, this would show that psi-esp had worked as a way of passing a message. If we repeated the experiment 100 times, with 100 successes, we could confidently say that we had proved that psi-esp worked in this situation.
This is the sort of test that Randi proposes. He works out the details together with the claimant, so that both sides are satisfied that the conditions are fair. If the test really showed a success, he'd fork out the prize.

It does strongly infer but not prove psi-esp.

 

[Michael C]

It does strongly infer but not prove psi-esp.

Precisely. We can argue that nothing is provable in the strict sense of the term. We can devise tests that, if they succeed, give very strong evidence of something, be it quantum phenomena, psi-esp or whatever. All the tests that Randi has already done are of this type. In the protocol both parties agree on what result would give sufficiently strong evidence. If the result of the test is at least as good as this pre-agreed value, Randi pays the million.

 

[Jekyll]

It does strongly infer but not prove psi-esp.

Just as me shouting round the corner that I'm coming in allow people to infer but not prove that I can talk.

Psi-esp is not in a privileged position, if it exists it would be no harder to infer than anything else.

 

[jeffq]

If someone sends you a visual or sound message you cannot prove it to a third party who did not participate in it.

... and concerning the results of Michael C's tests:

It does strongly infer but not prove psi-esp.

No, it doesn't infer, it implies. A collection of events may have implications, but an observer must be involved or observational tool be used to generate inferences from this collection. A sounder and and more intellectually honest response would have been "I infer that psi-esp exists from the test results." But that's beside the point.

Come on, folks. This person is just jerking our chains. Anyone who relies on an argument that 100 successes of 100 trials is only implication, but believes that personal testimony cannot be refuted, is either irretrievably delusional, too emotionally invested in the fantasy ever to see reason, or simply having fun at the expense of rational beings. Any rational person would be compelled to investigate and establish an explanation for something that happens 100 times out of 100, whether it is the putative phenomemon or an undiscovered methodological error. There are many reasonable, appropriate ways to challenge a 100-for-100 test, but merely dismissing it as suggestive is transparently disingenuous.

Finally...

It might seem deep and meaningful to you but it is Sophistic gobbledegook!, and no more meaningful than your Flying Spaghetti Monster.

But a little more on this in my own time.

Yes, of course. First, simply deny the meaning without providing a rationale. Then, go back to the well of meaningless or deliberately confused juxtapositions of philosophical and pseudoscientific terminology to compose another eye-glazing missive. If you do this often enough, the other side will tire of picking apart the illogic, and you can declare victory by endurance, in classic medieval fashion. If they continue to riposte with rationality at every turn, you can be proud that you are "carrying on the fight" for paranormality. Either way, you need never admit that the Emperor has no clothes.

I can only feel sad that so many people find this kind of diversion worthwhile. How much more could the human race accomplish if we could just get past our craving for these fantasies? You'd think that the Million Dollar Prize would help squeeze the irrationality out of us, but humans are so endlessly inventive in finding ways to avoid good ideas.

 

[steenkh]

You’re merely restating my point: the Challenge fails to live up to the most superior form of evidence gathering and testing: classical scientific methodology. Anything short of that is questionable at best. And you are correct that it is about wagering/gambling. Gosh it’s so unprofessional and bias it’s ridiculous.

You have lost me here: We agree that the test has another purpose than scientific research, but yet you assert that for some reason the test should use the standards of scientific research. Why? And the tests strike me as being very professional in their purpose to give an unequivocal answer to the question whether the claimants can perform as they claim or not. Can you explain why they are unprofessional and biased?

But alas, no need for either of us to give a shout out. Bringing up the question was a shout out in and of itself. As you can see, we are met with crickets. But anyone credentialed is still encouraged to speak up.

The best way to get credentialed scientists to speak up would be to make new thread for the purpose. I told you to do that yourself, and then you can judge if the call is met crickets.

Well of course he isn’t. What he’s doing can’t live up to the high standards of disciplined, professional scientific standards of collecting evidence. So the fact that he implores scientists only here and there, or in an untrained manner, limits the credibility of his testing outcomes.

Randi is a professional in deception and countering deception. As such, he is considerably better trained than most credentialed researchers. This knowledge is employed in order to resolve a wager that is worth one million dollar. Can you please explain in what way this is being conducted unprofessionally, and in which cases you believe more professional scientific standards would have resulted in a different result?

Listen more carefully: I acknowledged at the onset that some scientists won’t and have not “completely ignored him“. What I’ve said is that the scientific community en masse will not take his procedures/outcomes seriously.

And I said that those scientists who did come out of their ivory tower would produce the necessary evidence that can be accepted by the scientific community as such. This is positive a side effect of a successful outcome of the MDC. The MDC has not been created to produce scientific results in itself.

As you pointed out, one piece of evidence for this is that his work will not be published in any esteemed journals, for example. There is a larger problem than his alleged findings turning heads … he is met with the problem of many clinicians not trusting how he arrived at his results.

Why is that a problem? He is not producing results for anybody: he is just putting up a wager that people who claim paranormal powers cannot do what they claim.

Unfortunately, due to Randi's lack of disciplined scientific training, he might have made sundry mistakes in collecting or evaluating his alleged findings.

What findings?

There were all kinds of problems with the Jak Keeran set up (and w other proposed tests of his). It is sloppy to invite a layperson to propose objective testing conditions,

Who are you thinking of? Jak himself?

and equally sloppy to invite oneself or representee's from one’s biased camp to amen it.

This is not scientific test, or perhaps you have not really got this point yet?

You have know idea how laughable this is in the clinical field. I must have overlooked the scientists you were pointing to in this case example … whom exactly?

From post 16 in the thread:
"Professor James Alcock, PhD, C.Psych.
Department of Psychology
Glendon College, York University
Toronto"

Come again? What are you calling "the most positive result" … and why?

From numerous papers on parapsychology and homoeopathy. I call it the most positive result, because it is the most positive result.

 

[babbits]

Hi, hello, here's my first post:

I think some of you guys are making this unnecessarily complex.

Suppose you are a reporter called to a press meeting. at 4:00 p.m. where I tell you I uniquely have a secret power and can detect messages sent by a spirit being in a parallel universe. To prove this, I announce that even as we speak, a previously-undetected meteor is approaching Mars. I ask you to 'mark my words', and the time at which they were uttered. Since spirits, except the carbohydrate types, are not detectable by direct or extended sense perception, I think we could agree that such an ability on my part, if it existed, would be 'paranormal'.

The 11-o'clock news announces a scientific observation made the previous night was sent to astronomers, peers of the observer, along with the usual request to confirm the observation.

There are at least two possible explanations of my prodigious feat of prognostication:

1. Para-normal, or 'unscientific', meaning nothing in science so far can explain my perception

2. Normal, or 'scientific'. I could have been in contact with one of the astronomers, or tapped into their transmissions, and called the press before the astronomers made their public announcement.

Without further information, logically speaking, either, or neither, or both explanations could be true.

But on the principle of parsimony, it is more likely that no paranormal talent is at work. You can explain my knowledge a number of ways, without resorting to extra-scientific means.

What debunkers (like the Great Randi) have done in the past is show a normal cause for an event for which a paranormal cause had been claimed.

All the million-dollar challenge says, as I see it, is: If I can create the event

in conditions that would prevent me from having a normal source for my knowledge
and
if I don't make a bunch of false predictions, but I do make at least one true predictions
I get the million bucks.

N'est-ce pas?

 

[maatorc]

... and concerning the results of Michael C's tests:
No, it doesn't infer, it implies. A collection of events may have implications, but an observer must be involved or observational tool be used to generate inferences from this collection. A sounder and and more intellectually honest response would have been "I infer that psi-esp exists from the test results." But that's beside the point. Come on, folks. This person is just jerking our chains. Anyone who relies on an argument that 100 successes of 100 trials is only implication, but believes that personal testimony cannot be refuted, is either irretrievably delusional, too emotionally invested in the fantasy ever to see reason, or simply having fun at the expense of rational beings. Any rational person would be compelled to investigate and establish an explanation for something that happens 100 times out of 100, whether it is the putative phenomemon or an undiscovered methodological error. There are many reasonable, appropriate ways to challenge a 100-for-100 test, but merely dismissing it as suggestive is transparently disingenuous.Finally...Yes, of course. First, simply deny the meaning without providing a rationale. Then, go back to the well of meaningless or deliberately confused juxtapositions of philosophical and pseudoscientific terminology to compose another eye-glazing missive. If you do this often enough, the other side will tire of picking apart the illogic, and you can declare victory by endurance, in classic medieval fashion. If they continue to riposte with rationality at every turn, you can be proud that you are "carrying on the fight" for paranormality. Either way, you need never admit that the Emperor has no clothes.I can only feel sad that so many people find this kind of diversion worthwhile. How much more could the human race accomplish if we could just get past our craving for these fantasies? You'd think that the Million Dollar Prize would help squeeze the irrationality out of us, but humans are so endlessly inventive in finding ways to avoid good ideas.

Come on, folks. This person is just jerking your chains: He knows what I mean but is just trying to confuse you with his pretentious superficial academic style so that you will not dare challenge him.

My use of the terms phenomena and noumena does not conflict with classical literary usage and in fact are quite straight forward and relatively simple, and the concepts are not obscure and contradictory as he would have you all believe. He is good at doing what he says others do.

 

[jeffq]

Come on, folks. This person is just jerking your chains: He knows what I mean but is just trying to confuse you with his pretentious superficial academic style so that you will not dare challenge him.

Ah, now it's "I know you are, but what am I?" responses. I've made my point — that any description of paranormality of interest in this world involves an effect that can be measured, no matter how you try to explain it away. Your continued attempts to confuse the issue can only provide the hollow satisfaction of having the last word, regardless of its merit. But if this is so important to you, be my guest.

By the way, everyone, please forgive my error above. I meant the "Million Dollar Challenge", not the "Million Dollar Prize". I'm afraid that the effort involved in writing in my "pretentious superficial academic style" drained too much blood from my feeble brain.