Randi nonsense

[davidsmith73]

It's very simple: As far as I know, no claim has been made for the JREF paranormal challenge.

You mean by Sheldrake? Indeed. So why has Randi stated that he accepts Sheldrakes claim? What claim? That's all I'm asking

Do you intend to make a claim?

No. I don't have claim to make.

 

[Darat]

You mean by Sheldrake? Indeed. So why has Randi stated that he accepts Sheldrakes claim? What claim? That's all I'm asking

...snip..

Sheldrake's claim that he has evidence of a variety of effects that are normally considered paranormal.

 

[Rasmus]

I read the PDF and I cannot for the life of me understand why no application to the JREF has been made yet.

I would simply read my (now unblinded) records, find the 5 or maybe 10 most reliable test candidates and simlpy hire them to be tested by JREF. (at a rate of 10,000$ each should the challenge be won. Peanuts.) I would then claim a success rate of at least 30% (well below what I know I can achieve, and still well above chance.)

A tight test protocol should be easily worked out. (Judging the pdf, I see a problem with relying on different, uncontrolled time-stamps and people dropping out of the experiment. Also, of course, the unfilmed trials allow for easy cheating, and it still seems still trivial to cheat the camera, too.)

 

[davidsmith73]

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.

Based on what precisely? Is my mate John eligible to apply? You don't even know his claim so you can't answer. In my email exchanges with Randi, all I was trying to confirm was what he meant by accepting Sheldrakes claim. I don't understand whats so difficult considering Randi directly referred to two of his papers in the same article. On what precise basis is Sheldrake eligible to apply?

The details must be thrashed out in negotiation between JREF and the applicant.

The details are already there in the form of Sheldrakes experimental protocol (as Davefoc points out too). What is Randi referring to when he says he accepts Sheldrakes claim if not these experiments? I'm just trying to defend my point which is that the JREF probably will not accept replication of the effect sizes and associated probability values of current parapsychological experiments as acceptable challenges (although I stand to be corrected), and this is probably why parapsychologists understandably do not take the challenge.

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.

That's ok if someone from the JREF is present at all experimental trials isn't it?

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.

Again, what does Randi or the JREF think Sheldrake actually claimed? We're getting conflicting views from this thread. Some people think that Sheldrake hasn't claimed anything yet but is free to take the challenge. Some people thinkg he has claimed something. What has he claimed? Because Randi seems to think he has claimed something!

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.

This is my central issue. What is a mutually acceptable protocol according to the JREF? You've read my email exchanges with Randi. I feel i should pursue the matter further with him but I feel I'm not getting very cooperative answers, plus I don't want to appear a nuisance.

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.

Or maybe he knows he would be wasting his time because the JREF might not accept an exact replication of his experiment and set the acceptable effect size and p-value too high. I asked Randi whether he would accept an exact replication. He answered "yes" but with a curious and still undefined qualifier "with a standard rate of succes" tagged on the end. What does a standard rate of success mean?

Again, maybe Randi is unwilling to wade through the publications on Sheldrake's website.

Well, he should have done before making misleading statements about n number being a problem with the experimental results. See the other thread.

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.

I think I will contact Sheldrake

 

[Darat]

...snip...

On what precise basis is Sheldrake eligible to apply?

1) The JREF states that anyone making a paranormal claim can apply (And the evidence shows it is an accurate statement - albeit there are some caveats such as nothing that could be harmful and so on).
2) Sheldrake makes claims of evidence for the paranormal.

Therefore Sheldrake is eligible for the Challenge.

The details are already there in the form of Sheldrakes experimental protocol (as Davefoc points out too). What is Randi referring to when he says he accepts Sheldrakes claim if not these experiments?

He is referring to Sheldrake's claims that he evidence of paranormal effects.

I'm just trying to defend my point which is that the JREF probably will not accept replication of the effect sizes and associated probability values of current parapsychological experiments as acceptable challenges (although I stand to be corrected), and this is probably why parapsychologists understandably do not take the challenge.

But your comments regarding Sheldrake and the JREF don't aren't evidence of your claim. It's been shown that Sheldrake's reasons for not applying for the Challenge is not because of the above.

That's ok if someone from the JREF is present at all experimental trials isn't it?

No idea you would need to ask Randi however given such Challenges as the BBC sponsored homeopathic application it would seem as long as the JREF is convinced the protocols don't allow for cheating they do not require to have observation of all "trials"?

Again, what does Randi or the JREF think Sheldrake actually claimed? We're getting conflicting views from this thread. Some people think that Sheldrake hasn't claimed anything yet but is free to take the challenge. Some people thinkg he has claimed something. What has he claimed? Because Randi seems to think he has claimed something!

He has claimed evidence for paranormal effects.

This is my central issue. What is a mutually acceptable protocol according to the JREF?

This is an impossible to answer question - since it depends on the claim an applicant makes. I believe Randi has been quoted as saying that they look for something like odds of 1 in thousands of a successfully outcome by chance for the preliminary test - perhaps someone can confirm this?

You've read my email exchanges with Randi. I feel i should pursue the matter further with him but I feel I'm not getting very cooperative answers, plus I don't want to appear a nuisance.

Have you considered your questions could be at fault - i.e. you are expecting specific answers to non-specific questions?

Or maybe he knows he would be wasting his time because the JREF might not accept an exact replication of his experiment and set the acceptable effect size and p-value too high. I asked Randi whether he would accept an exact replication. He answered "yes" but with a curious and still undefined qualifier "with a standard rate of succes" tagged on the end. What does a standard rate of success mean?

It would appear to mean the "1 in 1000" odds I mentioned earlier - but again you are asking Randi to do a huge amount of work to be answer your question and for what purpose - to answer one email question? Your criticism would be valid if Sheldrake applied for the Challenge and Randi then didn't do the work to provide a precise answer until then you are merely criticising Randi for not being willing to do a shed load of work to answer a question about a hypothetical challenge.

...snip...

I think I will contact Sheldrake

Should be interesting.

 

[Rasmus]

Based on what precisely? Is my mate John eligible to apply?

Is your mate John a human being of legal age? Then the answer will be "yes".

You don't even know his claim so you can't answer. In my email exchanges with Randi, all I was trying to confirm was what he meant by accepting Sheldrakes claim. I don't understand whats so difficult considering Randi directly referred to two of his papers in the same article. On what precise basis is Sheldrake eligible to apply?

I don't see your problem.

Sheldrake claims that he has tested a number of applicants that could predict specific future events with anything around 40%-50% accuracy where chance alone would yield 25%.

What other claim could we possibly be talking about indeed?

So what else could Randi possibly mean other than that this is a claim worth testing?

The details are already there in the form of Sheldrakes experimental protocol (as Davefoc points out too). What is Randi referring to when he says he accepts Sheldrakes claim if not these experiments?

A claim is not an experiment. Much less in relation to the challenge.

I'm just trying to defend my point which is that the JREF probably will not accept replication of the effect sizes and associated probability values of current parapsychological experiments as acceptable challenges (although I stand to be corrected), and this is probably why parapsychologists understandably do not take the challenge.

Sheldrake claims a friggin 40% sucess rate at an expected rate of no more than 25% percent. Why on earth do you seem to be suggesting that there would be a problem?

Suppose you could play the roulette with that kind of edge at predicting odd and even results!

That's ok if someone from the JREF is present at all experimental trials isn't it?

As I indicated above, I find the controls described in the experiments are lacking. An observer would certainly help, but I see that other safeguards might be neccesary.

Again, what does Randi or the JREF think Sheldrake actually claimed?

Everything I can see is "There exists a number of people that can predict who is e-mailing them with a higher than chance success rate - subject to certain conditions."

We're getting conflicting views from this thread.

It seems to be only you who has that problem.

Some people think that Sheldrake hasn't claimed anything yet but is free to take the challenge. Some people thinkg he has claimed something. What has he claimed? Because Randi seems to think he has claimed something!

It is entirely possible that the word "claim" is used with different implied meanings throughout this thread. I can imagine that sometimes it refers to Sheldrake making a factual statement about his perceived reality, whereas at other times the word might refer to an actual application of Sheldrake to the JREF $1 Million Paranormal Challenge.

This is my central issue. What is a mutually acceptable protocol according to the JREF?

Please quit being so obtuse!

Oh, and do read the Challenge rules!

You've read my email exchanges with Randi. I feel i should pursue the matter further with him but I feel I'm not getting very cooperative answers, plus I don't want to appear a nuisance.

There is nothing there that would require any kind of cooperation unless you, Sheldrake or anyone else makes a claim for the JREF $1 Million paranormal Challenge.

there is just no point in higgling over p values, edges and specifications as long as nobody stands up and declares what precisely it is they can do. Nobody has done that, though, as of now, regarding the JREF challenge.

Or maybe he knows he would be wasting his time because the JREF might not accept an exact replication of his experiment and set the acceptable effect size and p-value too high.

[Rule 8]

I asked Randi whether he would accept an exact replication. He answered "yes" but with a curious and still undefined qualifier "with a standard rate of succes" tagged on the end. What does a standard rate of success mean?

Rest assured that a 40% success rate with an expected chance of just 25% will do just fine!

I think I will contact Sheldrake

You do that.

Please let us know what kind of lame excuses he comes up with!

 

[Piggy]

Again, what does Randi or the JREF think Sheldrake actually claimed? We're getting conflicting views from this thread. Some people think that Sheldrake hasn't claimed anything yet but is free to take the challenge. Some people thinkg he has claimed something. What has he claimed? Because Randi seems to think he has claimed something!

I think the confusion arises from using the term "claim" to refer to a couple of different events.

Sheldrake claims that his experiments show evidence of a certain flavor of telepathic communication. This has nothing to do with the challenge.

If someone asks, "Hey, would that kind of thing qualify for Randi's challenge?", the answer is yes.

However, any previous experiments which appear to support the claim of telepathy are not part of the challenge. The challenge is to reproduce the results using a protocol which controls for possible error or trickery.

This is the same principle used in legitimate science. If a test yields interesting results, others try to replicate them, and peers review the tests to see if anything might have been wonky the first time round.

However, Sheldrake has not submitted any sort of specific claim with regard to the challenge. A claim made in application for the $1M must be specific -- "I can do exactly this".

So, to use my dowsing example, let's say that I do some experiments on my farm and invite the neighbors over to watch and then publish the results on my Web site, and I claim that these experiments show that dowsing is effective. That's my public claim about dowsing. It has nothing to do with the challenge.

Then let's say that one of those neighbors says, "Piggy, there's some old kook down in Florida who'll pay you a million bucks if you can do that again."

Sounds good to me, so I contact JREF. I say "I can show that dowsing is effective".

They say, "Great! Now, what is it exactly that you say you can do?"

That's where we get to the second type of claim. It's not enough for me to say "I can show that dowsing's effective -- didn't you hear me?" Because that's not a claim to do anything in particular. For all they know, I could be a lunatic who believes that dancing the fandango proves that dowsing works.

And it's not enough for me to say "I can do what I did". How do they know that "what I did" actually demonstrates anything? What if my experiment was uncontrolled, and my dog was roaming around, and he tailed behind my neighbors as they hid the water, and then I came out and discovered the water while my dog was sniffing around box #4 (where they hid it) and while my neighbors exchanged glances and twitched as I went from box to box?

I have to say something like "I'll go to your facility and let you hide a glass of water under any one of 10 boxes while I'm not looking, and then I'll take my dowsing rod and without moving or touching anything else, I'll tell you which box it's under. I'll pick the right one 8 times out of 10."

That's a testable claim which could win the $1M by supporting my general claim that dowsing works.

 

[davidsmith73]

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!!!

You do not understand my points. I am trying to establish what standards the JREF accept for psi experiments to be successful for the challenge. There are dozens of examples of parapsychological experimental protocol together with trial numbers and statistics. There's no need for any parapsychologist who claims he has evidence of telepathy to re-design an experiment. Unless the JREF does not accept the current protocols and stats. And that's what I'm trying to establish to defend my position and my critique of Randi's comments against Josephson.

 

[CFLarsen]

You do not understand my points. I am trying to establish what standards the JREF accept for psi experiments to be successful for the challenge. There are dozens of examples of parapsychological experimental protocol together with trial numbers and statistics. There's no need for any parapsychologist who claims he has evidence of telepathy to re-design an experiment. Unless the JREF does not accept the current protocols and stats. And that's what I'm trying to establish to defend my position and my critique of Randi's comments against Josephson.

When. Sheldrake. Applies. He. And. JREF. Will. Work. That. out.

What. Part. Of. This. Don't. You. Understand?

 

[Piggy]

You do not understand my points. I am trying to establish what standards the JREF accept for psi experiments to be successful for the challenge. There are dozens of examples of parapsychological experimental protocol together with trial numbers and statistics. There's no need for any parapsychologist who claims he has evidence of telepathy to re-design an experiment. Unless the JREF does not accept the current protocols and stats. And that's what I'm trying to establish to defend my position and my critique of Randi's comments against Josephson.

As a matter of fact, I do understand your points.

To be successful, you have to demonstrate a significantly better than random chance result. But of course, no numbers can be determined without knowing exactly what the test will consist of.

Is random chance for the experiment 1/10, 1/3, 1/2?

If there is an existing protocol that can be reproduced as-is, and which is rigorous, fine.

What's the problem?

 

[CFLarsen]

What's the problem?

davidsmith73 can't understand that the ball is in Sheldrake's court.

 

[davidsmith73]

apologies to those I haven't relpied to yet. This thread moves too fast for me.

When. Sheldrake. Applies. He. And. JREF. Will. Work. That. out.

What. Part. Of. This. Don't. You. Understand?

I understand what you're saying all right. I just think its unnecessary.

There is nothing to work out. Sheldrake already has the experimental protocol. I would like to see Randi state cleary whether this protocol is acceptable (including trial number) and what effect size and p-value would be acceptable for such a protocol as evidence for a paranormal effect.

Its that simple. Then you can start accusing the parapsychologists of ignoring the challenge. Because, as it stands, there effectively is no challenge! Neither party are willing to commit!

 

[davidsmith73]

As a matter of fact, I do understand your points.

To be successful, you have to demonstrate a significantly better than random chance result. But of course, no numbers can be determined without knowing exactly what the test will consist of.

Sheldrakes paper is freely available on his website, complete with a pretty detailed protocol.

 

[Rasmus]

There are dozens of examples of parapsychological experimental protocol together with trial numbers and statistics.

So?

Any of these people tried to get Randi's money yet?

There's no need for any parapsychologist who claims he has evidence of telepathy to re-design an experiment. Unless the JREF does not accept the current protocols and stats.

Even I can find several major flaws in the design of the experiment by Sheldrake that has been linked to a few posts up in the thread.

And that's what I'm trying to establish to defend my position and my critique of Randi's comments against Josephson.

Funny. I would have established these things first and then considered criticising. It is pretty bad style to do the criticising first and then check if it's even justified. Please try to not get too angry at us or the JREF if we fail to validate or justify your prior criticism.

 

[davidsmith73]

davidsmith73 can't understand that the ball is in Sheldrake's court.

Its in both courts. Randi has said that he accepts Sheldrakes claim. The only claim sheldrake has made is to draw conclusions from his experiment. Therefore it is the experiment which must be the basis of the claim. Since his experimental method and stats are freely available, it would seem fairly straighforward to get a clear answer from Randi concerning its validity, but I dont think I have.

 

[Piggy]

There is nothing to work out. Sheldrake already has the experimental protocol. I would like to see Randi state cleary whether this protocol is acceptable (including trial number) and what effect size and p-value would be acceptable for such a protocol as evidence for a paranormal effect.

Why do you want to hound Randi? Submit the protocol and be done with it. Then you'll find out what JREF thinks about it. There's no need to go bugging Randi about it.

You're like a student approaching a professor and asking if he can submit a paper on the importance of books in Shakespeare's Hamlet. The prof says, sure.

"So that'll pass?", the student asks.

"Well, I don't know," says the prof, "I'll have to grade it. But the topic's fine."

"I've already written it," the student says. "Will you look at it first, tell me if it would pass?"

At this point, the student shouldn't be surprised when the prof tells him that he should either submit the paper, or schedule a meeting and bring an outline and discuss it further.

But in any case, Randi's not the person to approach. If you want JREF to consider the existing protocol, then follow the procedure and submit it.

Because, as it stands, there effectively is no challenge! Neither party are willing to commit!

Bingo!

That's what we've been trying to tell you!

Until and unless someone submits a protocol for consideration, there ain't no challenge, and there's nothing to commit to.

Finally you understand.

 

[davidsmith73]

So?

So it should be easy for the JREF to establish precisely which exact replication of a psi experiment would be eligible for the challenge.

Any of these people tried to get Randi's money yet?

I don't know. I asked Claus if he knew but I didn't get an answer.

Even I can find several major flaws in the design of the experiment by Sheldrake that has been linked to a few posts up in the thread.

Fair enough. However, if this is also the position of the JREF and Sheldrake thinks that his protocol is fine, then we already have a motivation for Sheldrake not to take the challenge. There's also the issue of satisfactory results (ie effect sizes and p-values), rather than protocol, that have to be agreed upon. It would be most helpful if Randi or the JREF could issue a statement with regards to any exact replications of experiments they feel are acceptable as successful challenges.

Funny. I would have established these things first and then considered criticising. It is pretty bad style to do the criticising first and then check if it's even justified. Please try to not get too angry at us or the JREF if we fail to validate or justify your prior criticism.

Well, true. But I made an educated guess and it looks like I'm right. Hey ho.

 

[Piggy]

Its in both courts. Randi has said that he accepts Sheldrakes claim. The only claim sheldrake has made is to draw conclusions from his experiment. Therefore it is the experiment which must be the basis of the claim. Since his experimental method and stats are freely available, it would seem fairly straighforward to get a clear answer from Randi concerning its validity, but I dont think I have.

Previous experiments are irrelevant to the challenge. And there is no point in bugging Randi, asking him to go check things out for you. That's not his job. If you'd like to apply, using Sheldrake's protocol, then do it. At that point, people who do have that job will review the protocol.

 

[Piggy]

So it should be easy for the JREF to establish precisely which exact replication of a psi experiment would be eligible for the challenge.

The JREF doesn't do that. Why would they? If no one is applying, it would be a waste of their time. When someone applies, they propose a protocol, and at that point they do exactly what you're saying -- they, in cooperation with the applicant, establish precisely the conditions of the challenge. If the initial protocol is sound, then it's an easy job.

 

[davidsmith73]

Until and unless someone submits a protocol for consideration, there ain't no challenge, and there's nothing to commit to.

Which is why no parapsychologist will apply! The JREF makes it known that their stance is that there is currently no evidence for ESP and the like. Why would a parapsychologist apply for a challenge where he suspects the standard of results will be too high for his experiment to succeed?

A solution would be if the JREF makes it clear which exact replications of current psi experiments they would accept.