Randi nonsense

[Almo]

In my opinion, parapsychologists like Sheldrake are basically dishonest in their beliefs. Others like the dowsers and many psychics honestly believe in their abilities and are perfectly willing to be tested by Randi. They have no problem agreeing to Randi's conditions and controls so I believe it is because they honestly believe they have paranormal abilities. They alays fail the tests, which shows they're deluded, but at least they honestly believe in themselves. However, the parapsychologists don't have guts like the dowsers do. Instead of responding to the challenge, they come up with all sorts of b.s. as to why the test isn't fair, or why Randi himself is dishonest. Their statements about him are based on their own speculation, not direct evidence. If they really want to prove the challenge is bogus, they should take the challenge and document all of Randi's misconduct.

Big round of applause for the dowsers, who at least believe in what they claim to do. Big boo to all the hoser charlatans who know they can't do what they claim.

 

[davidsmith73]

Speculating. You are criticizing JREF from pure speculation. That is the trouble, alright.

I don't mind speculating on this. Speculation is what you do when you have insufficient information. If the JREF objects then maybe we could see some kind of commitment as to which psi experiments and stats would be acceptable for the challenge.

That depends entirely on the claim. If you want to see the details, they are available at JREF. But it isn't as if we are denied the information.

Where could I get these details? Is there a page on the web site?

It's hardly Randi's fault if parapsychologists refuse to take the Challenge, is it? Remember, the standards are lower than in the scientific world: Of course, the test itself is scientific, but there is no requirement for peer-review or replication by independent scientists. All they got to do, is do it once.

But they don't.

Do it once? An exact replication of one of their experiments? For example, would the JREF accept a standard ganzfeld experiment that got a significant hit rate of 35%?

Tell us what he said.

It's curious, in my email exchange, I can't seem to get Randi to confirm the details of what he means when the JREF will accept Sheldrakes claim. Here's the full exchange so far:


Dear Mr Randi,

I having been reading with interest your comments on Rupert Sheldrake in your SWIFT weekly article on sept 8th of this year. I was wondering whether you could asnwer this question regarding your statement that you would accept Sheldrakes claim about telephone and email telepathy.

Does this mean that you and the JREF members would accept an exact replication of Sheldrakes experiment, with a result in line with Sheldrakes, as a successful test?

What level of statistical significance would you accept for this challenge application?

Thankyou

Yes, and a standard rate of success, nothing more. Sheldrake knows this, but ignores it. He has to…

I don’t understand why you’d ask this question. Doesn’t our web page clearly state this?

James Randi.

Thankyou for your reply,

What do you mean by standard rate of success?

Well, if they do 5 trials, the expected percentage of success will be larger than if they do 500 trials. It’s called “statistics.” That’s for them to decide.

James Randi.

Thanks again for your reply. I appreciate your taking the time to answer my questions.

Of course, the number of trials performed will affect the probability value of the results.

Sheldrakes experiment ran just over 500 trials. I was just trying to clarify the JREF position with regards to the statistical details of a potential replication of Sheldrakes experiment. This is why I asked whether an "exact" replication would be acceptable to the JREF.

I'm sorry, but I'm still a little unsure of your position in this respect. As I'm sure you're aware, a hit rate could be only marginally above chance level and still be statistically significant. For an experiment like Sheldrakes, would the JREF accept any hit rate above chance, if it were statistically significant, as a success?

To answer your previous question, from the web site it is a little unclear what it meant when you accept Sheldrakes claim for the millions dollars.

Thanks

We accept EVERYONE’S CLAIM! Why would Sheldrake be any different? Did I ever indicate this?

We have very sketchy details about his protocol, however, if it is adequate, if it meets proper standards as recognized in science, it is acceptable.

Sheldrake is only one of a hundred or so persons who are currently eligible for the JREF prize – but they will not apply! Why?


James Randi.



What do you make of all this?

Randi's version. Think you might do a bit of research, before you speculate?

So what's in it?

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't mind speculating on this. Speculation is what you do when you have insufficient information. If the JREF objects then maybe we could see some kind of commitment as to which psi experiments and stats would be acceptable for the challenge.

Why speculate, when you can go directly to the source first? Did it ever occur to you to do your homework, before you speculated here?

Where could I get these details? Is there a page on the web site?

All records are available at JREF in Florida. You can find details on some applicants, if you go to the "Million Dollar Challenge" forum here, and search for threads started by KRAMER.

Do it once? An exact replication of one of their experiments? For example, would the JREF accept a standard ganzfeld experiment that got a significant hit rate of 35%?

Read the terms of the Challenge.

It's curious, in my email exchange, I can't seem to get Randi to confirm the details of what he means when the JREF will accept Sheldrakes claim. Here's the full exchange so far:

...

What do you make of all this?

That Randi has answered all of your questions. What is the problem?

So what's in it?

Jeebus, man: Go to the source. Ask Randi.

Are you going to participate in the thread or not?

 

[drkitten]

Do it once? An exact replication of one of their experiments? For example, would the JREF accept a standard ganzfeld experiment that got a significant hit rate of 35%?

Over how many trials? Obviously, a hit rate of 35% means different things depending upon the length of the experiment.

There's not enough information in your question to permit a definitive answer, any more than if you asked "how much paint does it take to cover a wall 20 meters long?"

The other fact, of course, is that Randi himself is not a statistical expert (one of his strengths is that he designs test protocols such that he need not be; when necessary, he has statisticians crunch the numbers for him.) So he may literally not understand what phrases like "p-value" or "statistical significance" mean.

It's curious, in my email exchange, I can't seem to get Randi to confirm the details of what he means when the JREF will accept Sheldrakes claim. Here's the full exchange so far:

Gee, you don't have the details of Sheldrake's claim,... but you want Randi to give a detailed answer about acceptance. Just how high was that wall again?



As Randi wrote:

[We accept EVERYONE’S CLAIM! Why would Sheldrake be any different? Did I ever indicate this?

We have very sketchy details about his protocol, however, if it is adequate, if it meets proper standards as recognized in science, it is acceptable.

Let me quote : "We have very sketchy details about his protocol." Obviously, if he doesn't know the details of the protocol, he can't give you detailed answers. What he can give you is a high order general answer: If Sheldrake's protocol meets "proper standards" (and he's got a bevy of experts to check that -- he doesn't need to and won't do it himself), then it's acceptable for the Challenge.

There's also no reason for Randi to familiarize himself more closely with Sheldrake's proposal. Since Sheldrake will not apply, it doesn't matter.

What do you make of all this?

What I make of it is that you're asking ill-posed questions and expecting detailed answers.

How much paint will it take to cover a wall 20 meters long? I can't tell you this until you tell me how high the wall is. If you can't tell me how high the wall is, I might be able to measure the wall myself -- but only if you tell me which wall it is. I need to know what kind of paint you want to use, and how many coats you want to put on it.

What kind of answer do you expect?

 

[bjb]

A person deeply emotionally immersed in the organized skeptical movement, such as yourself?, might read something sinister or telling in their refusal.

Wonderful! I've recieved a personal insult from T'ai Chi! I've always been a fence sitter, wondering if people weren't unnecessarily hard on T'ai Chi. But according to T'ai Chi, I am a skeptic for emotional reasons, a classic demonstration of attribution bias. I have to say it is a particularly ironic accusation, to call someone 'emotional' for trying to be rational.

It is also inaccurate to claim that I am part of 'the organized skeptical movement'. How can that be true when I am not even a JREF member? Besides, if anyone runs a search on my posts, you'll see that I won't hesitate to criticize James Randi. For example, I did not like his article of the 'rechargable flashlight' patent, mostly because the patent was actually for a rechargable computer-controlled stroboscope!

Going back to the parapsychologists, I do read something telling, not in their refusal, but in the reasons for the refusal. To repeat, Sheldrake claims that he won't take Randi's challenge because Randi gets to set the conditions, but the fact is, this hasn't stopped hundreds of others from taking the challenge. I believe this is a dishonest reason for refusing the challenge.

In fairness though, I should have added that parapsychologists like Gary Schwartz are different from Sheldrake in that they choose to completely ignore the challenge. This way, Schwartz avoids being dishonest and doesn't need to make excuses or tell lies about the challenge. Of course, he still needs to get published in a real scientific journal if he wants to be 'scientific' but that hasn't happened yet.

People with their heads out of... the water, simply see it as the parapsychologists, one the whole, might be more interested in persuing the standard channels of science, not a challenge from an organization in the skeptical movement, with someone known to be hostile to such investigation.

There are three problems with this statement. First, you are assuming parapsychologists are interested in pursuing real science. This can be shown to be untrue because parapsychologists routinely ignore the basic scientific standards. This thread reviews many of the scientifically invalid procedures of Sheldrakes tests, but one of the largest errors was including his co-author's as a test subject! It is very difficult to take Sheldrake seriously when his experients are so obviously biased.

Next, you suggest tht parapsychologists are more interested in pursuing real science than responding to Randi's challenge. This is false because we already have Sheldrake has already stated why he won't take the challenge. He claims the challenge is somehow unfair but he never says it is because he has 'real science' to attend to. T'ai Chi is the one reading into other people's statements and pulling ideas out of ... the water.

Finally, T'ai Chi seems to believe that allowing a 'hostile' investigation is somehow inappropriate, but every real scientist should be familiar with being challenged. No one gets their advanced degree with going through a merciless review by several very skeptical professors. In any case, a proper scientific test would be designed to be immune to experimenter's bias (either for or against the test). This is why double blind experiments are normally used. The experimenters shouldn't know the 'correct' response for a given test, this way, their bias can't influence the outcome of the test. Sheldrake's tests display no effort at making the test results 'blind' either to the test subject or the test conductor. As such, his experiments are not nearly as scientific as they should be, especially in the case of Pam Smart, who was his co-author as well as a test subject.

 

[davidsmith73]

One problem I have with Sheldrake and the other parapsychologists is that they tell their stories as if no one has ever been tested by James Randi. The fact is the many hundreds of people who have taken Randi's challenge have agreed to his conditions, so why are the parapsychologists like Sheldrake so unwilling to be tested? Instead, they hide behind statistics and imaginary test protocols that they say are unacceptable. How do they know Randi's test is unfair when they won't even bother to apply?

What I would like to know is whether the JREF would accept an exact replication of Sheldrakes experimental protocol including the same number of trials as the original experiment, and what statistical significance and hit rate would the JREF accept as a success.

Randi says Sheldrakes protocol is sketchy. There may be problems, but I don't think you can claim there is lack of detail. You can decide for yourself from the methods section:

http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/telepathy/pdf/email_telepathy.pdf

Randi says pretty much the same thing when he points out that he can't get any parapsychologists to apply for the challenge. But davesmith73 declares Randi's statements to be 'snide rhetoric'. That is untrue because Randi is making a statement of fact. Parapsychologists won't take his challenge...

It would make more sense if the JREF would make an offer to a parapsychologist stating precisely which experiment they would like to see replicated and what level of effect size and significance would be acceptable. It looks like from my email exchanges with Randi that this hasn't been done in the case of Sheldrake, because I can't get any indication of figures from him. All I see is statements like "we accept the claim". What claim? That "there is evidence for telepathy"? A parapsychologist might well have stated something like this in some form or another, but "accepting this claim" for the challenge is not the same thing as accepting the validity of the parapsychologists experimental protocol and results!

The JREF can easily get access to parapsychological research methods. Why isn't the JREF's position more transparent?

 

[davidsmith73]

Why speculate, when you can go directly to the source first? Did it ever occur to you to do your homework, before you speculated here?

I thought no parapsychologists have applied for the challenge? So what would I get from the source exactly?

All records are available at JREF in Florida. You can find details on some applicants, if you go to the "Million Dollar Challenge" forum here, and search for threads started by KRAMER.

From any professional parapsychologists? Just to save me from wasting my time.

Read the terms of the Challenge.

I already did that. Can't see anything there that answers my question.

That Randi has answered all of your questions. What is the problem?

I need to know what he means by a standard rate of success, I need to know what level of statistical significance would be accepted for a replication of Sheldrakes experiment, I need to know whether the JREF would accept any hit rate above chance if it were statistically significant as a success, and I need to know what the "proper standards as recognized in science" means. I have got no clear answers to these questions from Randi, as yet.

Are you going to participate in the thread or not?

patience.

 

[Loss Leader]

The "amazing" Randi has yet to take on Zammit, claiming you can't prove a negative. What a crock! There most certainly is evidence to dispute, but he knows he can't win so thus the empty rhetoric.

Victor Zammit has not applied for the JREF challenge, although he has been advised to on many occassions. When he does, his claims will be tested.

 

[davidsmith73]

Over how many trials? Obviously, a hit rate of 35% means different things depending upon the length of the experiment.

There's not enough information in your question to permit a definitive answer, any more than if you asked "how much paint does it take to cover a wall 20 meters long?"

Firstly there is plenty of information about how many trails have been performed for ganzfeld experiments. You just have to look in the methods section. Secondly, Its the JREF who is throwing the gauntlet down. Therefore its up to the JREF to state what it is they want to see done. It is the JREF who is saying "we accept the claims of the parapsychologists", so they must say precisely they mean by this. You have the test procedures in detail already in the form of psi experimental protocol. Joe Bloggs performs a ganzeld experiment, gets results and says there is evidence of ESP. Along comes Randi and shouts, "we at the JREF accept your claim that ESP exists"! They must surely mean the actual experiment and results. Otherwise, what is Joe meant to do? Come to the JREF with some experiment he hasn't performed yet and he doesn't know what the results will be?

Gee, you don't have the details of Sheldrake's claim,...

He makes his papers freely available on his website. Remember, Sheldrake has made no specific claim to the JREF, yet the Randi says he "accepts his claim". What does this mean? I can't seem to get a clear answer.

but you want Randi to give a detailed answer about acceptance.

Of course I do! Randi said he has accepted Sheldrakes claim! No answer and we don't know why Sheldrake will not take the challenge! this is my whole point.

[quote
As Randi wrote:


Let me quote : "We have very sketchy details about his protocol." Obviously, if he doesn't know the details of the protocol, he can't give you detailed answers. [/quote]

Free available papers. What other protocol is he talking about?

What he can give you is a high order general answer:

In other words, answers that evade orginal point that Josephson was making.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The "amazing" Randi has yet to take on Zammit, claiming you can't prove a negative. What a crock! There most certainly is evidence to dispute, but he knows he can't win so thus the empty rhetoric.

Oh, please. How do you suggest I go about disproving all the purported evidence for the afterlife, when it accumulates faster than I could possibly work at it?

~~ Paul

 

[Rasmus]

In other words, answers that evade orginal point that Josephson was making.

It's very simple: As far as I know, no claim has been made for the JREF paranormal challenge. So there is nothing to debate here. Do you intend to make a claim?

 

[anor277]

Firstly there is plenty of information about how many trails have been performed for ganzfeld experiments. You just have to look in the methods section. Secondly, Its the JREF who is throwing the gauntlet down. Therefore its up to the JREF to state what it is they want to see done. It is the JREF who is saying "we accept the claims of the parapsychologists", so they must say precisely they mean by this.

Obviously, I speak for neither Randi nor Sheldrake, but it seems fairly clear that should Randi state, "we (the JREF) accept your claim", he means that a potential applicant is eligible to apply. The details must be thrashed out in negotiation between JREF and the applicant. As to publications of parapsychological experiments, I think there is a section in the application rules where it states that the JREF will only accept real time demonstrations of a paranormal ability.

Of course someone like Sheldrake might doubt Randi's good faith; he is perfectly free to do so.

......... Along comes Randi and shouts, "we at the JREF accept your claim that ESP exists"! They must surely mean the actual experiment and results. Otherwise, what is Joe meant to do? Come to the JREF with some experiment he hasn't performed yet and he doesn't know what the results will be?

I don't think Randi has ever shouted that. He might accept that an applicant believes that ESP exists, and would accept such an applicant under the challenge rules. Certainly he would not ask an applicant to come to the JREF and perform an experiment for the first time. In the correspondence I have read here between potential applicants and the JREF, the JREF encourages the applicant to perform their experiment beforehand, to try to falsify their data.

He makes his papers freely available on his website. Remember, Sheldrake has made no specific claim to the JREF, yet the Randi says he "accepts his claim". What does this mean? I can't seem to get a clear answer.

Again I do not speak for Randi, but the clear answer does appear to be that Sheldrake is free to apply. He (S.) would have to approach the JREF with a mutually acceptable protocol. If he doesn't want to do that, well, it's a free country.

Of course I do! Randi said he has accepted Sheldrakes claim! No answer and we don't know why Sheldrake will not take the challenge! this is my whole point.

The cynical answer would be that Sheldrake is not confident of his data. Again, as above, maybe Sheldrake does not accept that the challenge is in good faith.

As Randi wrote:


Let me quote : "We have very sketchy details about his protocol." Obviously, if he doesn't know the details of the protocol, he can't give you detailed answers.

Free available papers. What other protocol is he talking about?



In other words, answers that evade orginal point that Josephson was making.

Again, maybe Randi is unwilling to wade through the publications on Sheldrake's website. Maybe he is unwilling to second guess Sheldrake, or doesn't understand the significance of Sheldrake's experiments. Instead of approaching Randi for clarification, perhaps you should contact Sheldrake. If he has a corpus of experiments that suggest paranormal phenomena, he would gain no greater legitimacy for his data than by winning Randi's prize.

 

[Piggy]

The details are already there for psi experiments in the form of the method section of their papers. In the case of Randi's statement that he would accept Sheldrakes "claim" for the challenge, either the JREF accept an exact replication of his experiment, stats and all, or the criteria for success is changed.

This is just getting silly.

What you're saying is that Randi should accept whatever standards the experimenters think up for themselves.

If that's the case, then I'll construct an experiment wherein a glass of water is placed under one of two boxes, and I determine which box holds the water by dowsing. I will set my success rate at 50%.

Hello, million bucks!!!

 

[RandFan]

This is just getting silly.

What you're saying is that Randi should accept whatever standards the experimenters think up for themselves.

If that's the case, then I'll construct an experiment wherein a glass of water is placed under one of two boxes, and I determine which box holds the water by dowsing. I will set my success rate at 50%.

Hello, million bucks!!!

Thank you.

 

[davefoc]

I guess I should have read what this thread was about more carefully. I thought it was about difficult to detect subtle but still statistically significant effects. I happen to agree that JREF tends to be a little uncomfortable with this kind of thing. The tests are long and unless the applicant can devise a clear description of his claim and a clear description of the protocol, I think JREF is unlikely to be putting the effort into testing this kind of thing.

But then I read davidsmith73's link to the sheldrake paper.

Wow:

This study investigated possible telepathic communication in connection with e-mails. On each trial, there were four potential e-mailers, one of whom was selected at random by the experimenter. One minute before a prearranged time at which the e-mail was to be sent, the participant guessed who would send it. 50 participants (29 women and 21 men) were recruited through an employment web site. Of 552 trials, 235 (43%) guesses were hits, significantly above the chance expectation of 25%. Further tests with 5 participants (4 women, 1 man, ages 16 to 29) were videotaped continuously. On the filmed trials, the 64 hits of 137 (47%) were significantly above chance.

This is not a claim of some subtle effect. This is a knock your socks off claim. This is highly testable with a minimum of effort. The mathematics seem straightforward to come up with how many trials are required to get to a 99.9% confidence level that effect produces a result of at least 50% above chance.

My sense of it is that JREF would accept this kind of challenge almost immediately. It easily lends itself to being tested so as to produce non-ambiguous results, there are no significant injury risks associated with the claim, the claim doesn't involve large resources or special equipment, and if the claim was presented by a well known parapsychologist that would be icing on the cake.

Now I don't understand what your issue is davidsmith73. It doesn't have to be sheldrake making the claim, you could make the claim. Somebody here can do a little math to tell you how many trials you need to run. You could do some self testing to determine how far above chance your results are and then you just need to apply, layout your protocol, negotiate over security protocols and then collect the million.

 

[Loss Leader]

Seriously, man, if you think there is something to the Sheldrake experiments, make the claim. Then you can hash out the protocol with JREF. If they won't cooperate, you can yell about how they keep moving the goalposts. But, of course, they will agree to a real test. And you will fail. And having failed is far worse for you than having complained and never having tried.

 

[blutoski]

Seriously, man, if you think there is something to the Sheldrake experiments, make the claim. Then you can hash out the protocol with JREF. If they won't cooperate, you can yell about how they keep moving the goalposts. But, of course, they will agree to a real test. And you will fail. And having failed is far worse for you than having complained and never having tried.

I'm reminded of an old proverb... Skeptics' symbol is a candle. We're making the attempt and lighting the candle.

Others are satisfied with cursing against the darkness.

 

[CFLarsen]

I thought no parapsychologists have applied for the challenge? So what would I get from the source exactly?

....no more speculation?

From any professional parapsychologists? Just to save me from wasting my time.

I doubt it. But you can check for yourself.

I already did that. Can't see anything there that answers my question.

Yes, it does: Do it once.

I need to know what he means by a standard rate of success, I need to know what level of statistical significance would be accepted for a replication of Sheldrakes experiment, I need to know whether the JREF would accept any hit rate above chance if it were statistically significant as a success, and I need to know what the "proper standards as recognized in science" means. I have got no clear answers to these questions from Randi, as yet.

Yes, you did, but you refuse to understand them. When Sheldrake applies, the conditions are worked out between the two parties. This involves statistics, depending on the claim.

But the ball is in Sheldrake's court. There is no reason for JREF to do anything, until he applies. The Challenge is out there, Randi has said he will test Sheldrake.

Do you understand this?

patience.

How long will it take? A day? A week? A month? A year? Never?

Seriously, man, if you think there is something to the Sheldrake experiments, make the claim. Then you can hash out the protocol with JREF. If they won't cooperate, you can yell about how they keep moving the goalposts. But, of course, they will agree to a real test. And you will fail. And having failed is far worse for you than having complained and never having tried.

Bingo!

 

[RandFan]

Seriously, man, if you think there is something to the Sheldrake experiments, make the claim. Then you can hash out the protocol with JREF. If they won't cooperate, you can yell about how they keep moving the goalposts. But, of course, they will agree to a real test. And you will fail. And having failed is far worse for you than having complained and never having tried.

That's it in a nutshell. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Make the effort to apply for and take the challenge. It's just that simple.

 

[Darat]

What I would like to know is whether the JREF would accept an exact replication of Sheldrakes experimental protocol including the same number of trials as the original experiment, and what statistical significance and hit rate would the JREF accept as a success.

And Randi has said yes with the caveat that it would have to acceptable "scientific standards".

Randi says Sheldrakes protocol is sketchy. There may be problems, but I don't think you can claim there is lack of detail. You can decide for yourself from the methods section:

http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/telepathy/pdf/email_telepathy.pdf

Consider what you are asking of Randi.

You are asking Randi to spend a considerable time to research Sheldrake's experiment, use the JREF resources, get advice from experts and so on to all to provide an answer to your question. I think that is entirely unreasonable especially since there is no requirement for that type of research to answer the general question. Randi has made it clear that if Sheldrake ever applies to the JREF then his claim will be accepted and the JREF will undertake the required work.

It would make more sense if the JREF would make an offer to a parapsychologist stating precisely which experiment they would like to see replicated and what level of effect size and significance would be acceptable.

Perhaps you have misunderstood the Challenge? It is up to the applicant to say what it is that they are claiming - not the JREF.

It looks like from my email exchanges with Randi that this hasn't been done in the case of Sheldrake, because I can't get any indication of figures from him. All I see is statements like "we accept the claim". What claim? That "there is evidence for telepathy"? A parapsychologist might well have stated something like this in some form or another, but "accepting this claim" for the challenge is not the same thing as accepting the validity of the parapsychologists experimental protocol and results!

What Randi has said is that from what he knows of Sheldrake's claims they are eligible for the JREF Challenge. (For example proof of telepathy.)

The JREF can easily get access to parapsychological research methods. Why isn't the JREF's position more transparent?

It is transparent.

Randi has told you quite clearly that in principle the type of claim Sheldrake makes is eligible for the JREF Challenge, and if Sheldrake applies the JREF will work with him to come up with an acceptable protocol for the Challenge.

The ball is in Sheldrake's court.