Just regarding your ability, I think it's one of the most valuable abilities to have in a professional career. I cannot understand why it is not more widely taught. I wish I could do it - for me it would be much more useful than reading minds or knowing who was next about to email me. (Of course I acknowledge that I should indeed find the time to take a course. The courses I have seen are reasonably cheap and short term.)
Randi nonsense
- Thread starter davidsmith73
- Start date
Just regarding your ability, I think it's one of the most valuable abilities to have in a professional career. I cannot understand why it is not more widely taught. I wish I could do it - for me it would be much more useful than reading minds or knowing who was next about to email me. (Of course I acknowledge that I should indeed find the time to take a course. The courses I have seen are reasonably cheap and short term.)
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
One of the greatest things I ever did. I'll tell you right now that the course I took was largely done on a computer and the teacher did little teaching.
I would recommend Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing. It's as good as a course except you have to be self disciplined. If you are not then take the course. That way you go to the class and it is not so easy to quit and go watch TV.
I used Mavis Beacon to learn 10 key. It's great because it has a lot of different games and activities and it can find your weaknesses and change the activities to help those.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
We had to take typing in high school. God knows why. But I can touch-type just very, very slowly.
Topspy
Scholar
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2006
- Messages
- 119
I've just read this entire thread. Wow. Wow! Have you ever bought a car? It must have been a nightmare for the salesman having to expain the terms over and over again. To win the challenge you have to APPLY first, THEN come to agreement on the protocols (and all that I have seen so far have been reasonable.) Those are the rules of the challenge, period. Don't like 'em? Go away.
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
<hijack>
Ok, this is going to sound stupid, but... I thought everyone could touch-type these days.
I mean, with computers and all....
About 13 years ago they brought a student into an office I worked in, to fill in as a temp. They had to explain to her what a typewriter was. That jolted me. But I reckon I've gotten accustomed to it now.
Do take a course. Or better yet, just get yourself a cheap little paperback book. Get one from the 60s, it doesn't matter. The keyboard hasn't changed. You can pick up one for a couple of bucks.
Run through the exercises. I taught myself in a week when I was in high school, on an IBM Selectric (my mom was a stenographer). It's really easy.
</hijack>
This is what I mean.
If someone said to you, "can you touch type", you would say, "yes but slowly". Not, "yes, but only p amount of words and only every second day when the sun isn't shining or the spirits aren't circling". arrgh
These donkeys can either do the paranormal or they can't. Slowly or quickly, they can do it, because they say they can.
To the woo woo'ers. Just prove it for pity's sake and stop the p out of 10 and the p out of 100 etc etc nonesense... That just proves things happen by chance and sometimes in lengthy streaks.
Rubbish.
Sheldrake needs to apply, before JREF has to do anything.
Rubbish.
I'm curious, if indeed Sheldrakes experiment is acceptable, then does Randi believe there is evidence for telepathy there!?
Why don't you ask him?
slingblade
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2005
- Messages
- 23,466
I always thought I couldn't touch-type. I found it so hard to look at the text instead of my fingers; I had to see what I was doing. I've been typing for well over 25 years now, and for the last 11 years I've been on forums or mailing lists, typing my fingers off.
The other day I tried to type a post while looking only at the screen, not my hands. It was so easy; I realized I actually type faster if I look at the screen instead of my hands. Hmmm.
The other day I tried to type a post while looking only at the screen, not my hands. It was so easy; I realized I actually type faster if I look at the screen instead of my hands. Hmmm.
The true reason that Sheldrake & Co do not apply is that they do not feel confident that their tests can achieve reasonable confidence levels with reasonable controls in place.
Why are there never adequate controls in those studies? The recent test shows a complete lack of controls.
Besides, the loss of face that will happen when Sheldrake fails the test for the JREF challenge will be most damaging. And you can rest assured that he thinks he will fail such test, or he would have had those controls in place from the beginning.
Why are there never adequate controls in those studies? The recent test shows a complete lack of controls.
Besides, the loss of face that will happen when Sheldrake fails the test for the JREF challenge will be most damaging. And you can rest assured that he thinks he will fail such test, or he would have had those controls in place from the beginning.
Rasmus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 6,372
I'm curious, if indeed Sheldrakes experiment is acceptable, then does Randi believe there is evidence for telepathy there!?
the experiment as described in the aforementioned link will most certainly not be acceptable as described. It is, in fact, laughable.
How anyone who produces such utter rubbish can even dare to call themselves a scientist is beyond me.
The experiment relies on several non-synchronized and unaccounted for clocks to do the entire time-keeping. That alone would invalidate every alleged finding.
Then, there is no control whatsoever to prevent cheating of the participants. (They might cheat just for the fun of it, or because they might think that being successful might increase their chances of continuous employment for further experiments, etc.)
Where there are any forms of controls, they are so ridiculous that I wonder why have even been implemented. Covering a monitor with a towel? What on earth is wrong with just turning the monitor off?
The videotaping, too, is just a cheap charade at best. I can easily change the internal clock of a camera, so whatever it may "burn" onto the tape is utterly irrelevant. The described view of the camera allows for many possible ways of cheating that would not be detected - anything further behind the monitors would be invisible, e.g. (In fact, a participant could just invite all 4 partners into their house and have them e-mail from there. The chosen person would just have to quietly walk past ...)
That doesn't even begin to take into account other possiblities. (Placing a silent mobile phone out of reach that will just light up if called by a specific number could massively increase my chances of getting the right answer - and the sytstem could easily be expanded to give perfect results on camera if anyone would want to.
Let us never forget one thing about people like Sheldrake, Schwartz and Josephson: They are not stupid.
These people know exactly what they are doing.
davefoc
Philosopher
I was a little surprised by this post CFL. Clearly you might be right, but do you mean to discount the possibility that these are people that are true believers in the existence of a paranormal effect that has been experimentally detected? At this point, IMHO, it is reasonable to conclude that some well known performers with alleged paranormal powers are concious frauds. Do you think that it is reasonable to conclude that about these people also? Do you see the possibility of a middle ground where they are believers but maintain some doubts which they deal with by avoiding secure, objective testing?
Last edited:
As admin: Please be very careful I'm sure no one wants to expose the JREF to complaints of libel.
There are no clear boundaries of when people cross the line, as Bob Park describes it, from foolishness to fraud.
Is Sheldrake a true believer? Yes, he is. Does he have faith in his own results? Clearly no. People can draw their own conclusions.
Morrigan
Crone of War
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2006
- Messages
- 8,262
Basically, davidsmith wants Randi to tell him if a 40% rate of success for Sheldrake is good enough to WIN the challenge. Of course, Randi is not a statistician, so perhaps he does not know if 40% is significant or not. Perhaps Randi could answer after his team of statisticians have analyzed the test protocols and concluded that a X% rate of success would be statistically significant. Of course, Randi can only do that AFTER Sheldrake applied, but for some mysterious reason, davidsmith thinks Randi should investigate in this public claim even if there is no application. Perhaps he thinks Sheldrake is so awesome that he thinks the JREF should seek him out, and other potential applicants aren't good enough.
Am I getting the gist of this thread right? I rarely see people as dense as davidsmith, it's a rare occasion.
Maybe not such a good analogy as determining if the solo is played "flawlessly" seems difficult, but you get my meaning.
Obviously though, if I make several attempts and invariably fail at playing the solo, or play it only once without screwing up out of 20 tries, you can be highly skeptical of my guitar playing abilities. But if I fail only 3 times out of 20, then surely it means I can do what I claim.
Am I getting the gist of this thread right? I rarely see people as dense as davidsmith, it's a rare occasion.
I tend to agree, but keep in mind that there are many reasons why you could fail something a few times. Nobody is infaillible. For example; I could claim I can play Randy Roads' solo from the song "Mr. Crowley" flawlessly (most people can't). I have been able to play it successfully, without error, several times. But, today, I don't feel so good. My fingers are perhaps injured from doing manual labour all day, or perhaps I am tired and not concentrated enough, or perhaps I am nervous or stressed out and thus don't play so well today.
Maybe not such a good analogy as determining if the solo is played "flawlessly" seems difficult, but you get my meaning.
Obviously though, if I make several attempts and invariably fail at playing the solo, or play it only once without screwing up out of 20 tries, you can be highly skeptical of my guitar playing abilities. But if I fail only 3 times out of 20, then surely it means I can do what I claim.Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
This may be the first time I have ever seen anybody worry about a complaint of libel for stating that someone is not stupid.
I'd like to see that lawsuit, though. "I'm not being purposefully deceitful, I'm just too dumb to know any better."
davefoc
Philosopher
Morrigan wrote:
That's not quite the way I see it. I think there is a general rule of thumb for the confidence level that an experiment has detected a genuine paranormal effect. For the preliminary test that is 99.9% for the final test the confidence level is 99.9999% I believe.
So I believe a claim by Sheldrake might be something like this:
Some people can determine at least 50% more often than chance would predict who is sending them an email. The person receiving the email can make this prediction without receiving any information through means consistant with known physical laws that would aid them in deducing who is sending them an email.
I propose to prove this with the following protocol:
And here Sheldrake would describe the nature of the test and how many trials he would run to achieve the JREF required 99.9% requirement for the preliminary trial and the 99.9999% confidence level for the final test.
Sheldrake might not like to be required to make a prediction about how far above chance the results from the paranormal effect he is claiming will produce. He probably would just like to run the test and at the end of the test decide whether his success rate coupled with the number of trials have demonstrated a paranormal effect. Randi, of course, avoids this kind of thing entirely because the end of the trial would be guaranteed to end in a pissing contest and perhaps a pissing contest involving lawyers as people try to determine post test what the criteria for success is. I would see this as something like a dart throwing contest in which the participants were allowed to claim what their target was after they had thrown the dart.
I think there are some people who have objected to the requirement for a claim that clearly describes the size of the paranormal effect intended as not being consistent with scientific research. With scientific research you run the test and see what happens. But Randi is not proposing to do research with his test. Randi is challenging an individual that is claiming to have done research to prove the results for that research that he is claiming.
That's not quite the way I see it. I think there is a general rule of thumb for the confidence level that an experiment has detected a genuine paranormal effect. For the preliminary test that is 99.9% for the final test the confidence level is 99.9999% I believe.
So I believe a claim by Sheldrake might be something like this:
Some people can determine at least 50% more often than chance would predict who is sending them an email. The person receiving the email can make this prediction without receiving any information through means consistant with known physical laws that would aid them in deducing who is sending them an email.
I propose to prove this with the following protocol:
And here Sheldrake would describe the nature of the test and how many trials he would run to achieve the JREF required 99.9% requirement for the preliminary trial and the 99.9999% confidence level for the final test.
Sheldrake might not like to be required to make a prediction about how far above chance the results from the paranormal effect he is claiming will produce. He probably would just like to run the test and at the end of the test decide whether his success rate coupled with the number of trials have demonstrated a paranormal effect. Randi, of course, avoids this kind of thing entirely because the end of the trial would be guaranteed to end in a pissing contest and perhaps a pissing contest involving lawyers as people try to determine post test what the criteria for success is. I would see this as something like a dart throwing contest in which the participants were allowed to claim what their target was after they had thrown the dart.
I think there are some people who have objected to the requirement for a claim that clearly describes the size of the paranormal effect intended as not being consistent with scientific research. With scientific research you run the test and see what happens. But Randi is not proposing to do research with his test. Randi is challenging an individual that is claiming to have done research to prove the results for that research that he is claiming.
davidsmith73
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2001
- Messages
- 1,697
I tend to agree, but keep in mind that there are many reasons why you could fail something a few times. Nobody is infaillible. For example; I could claim I can play Randy Roads' solo from the song "Mr. Crowley" flawlessly (most people can't). I have been able to play it successfully, without error, several times. But, today, I don't feel so good. My fingers are perhaps injured from doing manual labour all day, or perhaps I am tired and not concentrated enough, or perhaps I am nervous or stressed out and thus don't play so well today.
Maybe not such a good analogy as determining if the solo is played "flawlessly" seems difficult, but you get my meaning.
Imagine a guitar school that offers a million dollars for someone to demonstrate a flawless Mr Crowley solo just once. If you pass the test you get the million, if you fail you get ridiculed and ostracized from the rest of the guitar playing world. You may have been practicing your solo and observe that you can do it about 1 in every 10 attempts but the guitar school insists on only 3 attempts to get it right. Would you fancy your chances? If not, would you think it fair if the guitar school claimed you are ignoring the test and running away, or would you claim that the school is simply setting too high a standard for you?
Rasmus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 6,372
Since Sheldrake hasn't approached the JREF yet to ask how many right attempts out of how many total they would expect of him for a certain performance, I habve to wonder what it is you were trying to tell us ...
davidsmith73
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2001
- Messages
- 1,697
Now I get it. The JREF challenge is a publicity stunt.
Every time someone fails or gets turned away from the test, the JREF gets good publicity. The fact that you have to apply to the JREF before any indication is given about whether your claim is acceptable means that the JREF has the chance to turn you away after you have commited to the application process. This means that its possible the JREF can assert that the claimant argued over test protocols and insisted on naive interpretations of successful results, even if it were the other way round. So its good publicity for the JREF and bad publicity for the claimant. And to top it off, if the claimant chooses not to apply and risk this double wammy, its bad publicity anyway because its looks like you are running away from the challenge!
Nice.
Every time someone fails or gets turned away from the test, the JREF gets good publicity. The fact that you have to apply to the JREF before any indication is given about whether your claim is acceptable means that the JREF has the chance to turn you away after you have commited to the application process. This means that its possible the JREF can assert that the claimant argued over test protocols and insisted on naive interpretations of successful results, even if it were the other way round. So its good publicity for the JREF and bad publicity for the claimant. And to top it off, if the claimant chooses not to apply and risk this double wammy, its bad publicity anyway because its looks like you are running away from the challenge!
Nice.