Should the Randi Challenge be trusted ?

[Mercutio]

It doesn't matter, as long as you believe that it's paranormal you'll find it far more impressive than something you know to be a trick.

This works even if it is not a trick! All it takes is ignorance of the real method used.

I am much more impressed by my car's performance when I think it is magic, rather than the internal combustion engine, at work.

I am much more impressed by my television's performance when I think it is little elves, rather than phosphors in a cathode ray tube.

I am much more impressed by my computer's performance when I think it is magic, rather than...well, in truth, to me it may as well be magic.

 

[Hellbound]

On the contrary, if someone really had the ability to peer inside my mind and tell what I was thinking, then watching them do it would cease to be impressive or entertaining. The fact that they could do it would be impressive, of course. But as a form of entertainment (which seems to be what you're addressing), watching them repeatedly demonstrate it would become as boring and pointless as watching someone tell how many fingers I was holding up by using their remarkable power of vision, or move a ten-pound block with only the strength of their arm, or distinguish tea from bourbon with nothing but their incredible skills of smell and taste.

Just to carry on in this thread, assume that psi exists and is proven beyond doubt. I'd be more impressed with the fakers than the known Psionics. Think about it...it's not really that impressive to see a huge, 300-lb. mass of muscle weightlifter to dead lift 600 lbs. That's in fact, almost a yawn. But then, you have a 100-lb. man say he can do the same thing? I'd pay to see that.

The only reason it's impressive now is because it's new/different/non-mainstream. However, the factthat someone can do the exact same thing without needing psi powers is, to me, much more impressive. All the psi has to do is look in a mind. The cold-reader has to reconstruct everything from subtle hints and clues, and does just as well or better than a person that can read minds.

That's f***ing impressive.

It's like the 100lb. weakling lifting the 600 lbs AND the mucle-bound weightlifter.

 

[Ipecac]

Here's the thing. How would such x-ray vision actually work?

You see, as I understand it, x-ray machines work by shooting x-rays through an item onto a sensitive plate which records the x-rays. Things like bones block the x-rays and so they are registered on the plate.

If you could emit x-rays from your eyes, you still wouldn't be able to see inside someone without placing a film plate behind them and then developing the plate. (This is why the x-ray sights on the rail guns in "Eraser" are so ridiculous.)

The technology that would be more akin to the descriptions given by these charlatans would be ultrasound vision. If I understand correctly, ultrasound technology uses soundwaves that go out, hit things, and bounce back, much like radar. Yet no one ever has ultrasound vision, probably because of unfamiliarity with the technology. Everyone understands that x-rays see through things. After all, Superman had it!

 

[Upchurch]

Here's the thing. How would such x-ray vision actually work?

Well, yeah, it could be the way you described, but I think there are those who would be just as satisfied with something like:

"It's accomplished through quantum tunnelling. If an electron can get to the other side of an atom without going through it, then a photon can get to the otherside of a blindfold."


Note the use of power words like "quantum" and misapplied analogies

 

[jambo372]

He (or whoever was testing) could eg. a telekinetic is tested.
They add extra weight onto the objects to be moved without the subject knowing.

 

[Psiload]

He (or whoever was testing) could eg. a telekinetic is tested.
They add extra weight onto the objects to be moved without the subject knowing.

Telekinetic test? Who, in this day and age, is claiming telekinetic powers? I thought that stuff went out back in the 70's with bell bottoms. What's the point in dreaming up ways to cheat a telekinetic? That's like coming up with recipes for Loch Ness Monster gumbo, or Bigfoot burgers...

what's the point?

 

[The Mighty Thor]

He (or whoever was testing) could eg. a telekinetic is tested.
They add extra weight onto the objects to be moved without the subject knowing.

And the subject would not want to check this and expose the testers as cheats? The subject or his referee would be able to check the weight using scales that have been accurately calibrated and verified by both sides.

You are really clutching at straws to imagine the JREF would cheat. The JREF is as interested as any in finding that "one white crow". If they found it, they wouldn't need to paint it black. They would want to show it to the world.

Have you actually read and understood the Challenge Rules?

 

[Mojo]

He (or whoever was testing) could eg. a telekinetic is tested.
They add extra weight onto the objects to be moved without the subject knowing.

Or if the subject claimed to be able to tell which of a number of sealed film canisters on a table was filled with water, they could paint rubber cement on the bottom of the canisters.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Telekinetic test? Who, in this day and age, is claiming telekinetic powers? I thought that stuff went out back in the 70's with bell bottoms. What's the point in dreaming up ways to cheat a telekinetic? That's like coming up with recipes for Loch Ness Monster gumbo, or Bigfoot burgers...

what's the point?

jambo372 thinks he may have emerging powers.

He hasn't applied for the Challenge because, despite all his scratching here, he can't figure out how to cheat on a Telekinetic test. All the usual cheating methods have been exposed somewhere on these forums. He'd need to invent a new trick and hope it isn't detected. Not likely, IMO.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50603

 

[Open Mind]

With regard to the CSMMH reply (seems to be organization setup to debunk complimentary medicine?) How very neutral for such a test .......

Accusations: The investigators raised the bar so that Natasha would fail. The odds of Natasha getting four or more correct matches out of seven was 1 in 50 (or 2 percent). Those are odds that are statistically significant and widely regarded in science as passing.

Answer: Those odds are not considered statistically significant for testing extremely unlikely events. As Prof. Hyman points out, "We used accepted conventions that even parapsychologists recognize. The idea is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. For at least 75 years the convention has been that paranormal claims have to be tested at the .01 [probability] level or even smaller. Indeed, the convention is typically the .001 level. Using this convention, the criterion we set up in advance, used the more lenient criterion of .01 rather than .001. She would have had to get at least 5 correct matches to have surpassed the .01 level. "

I think that is an outrageous excuse from CSMMH / CSICOP! This was a preliminary trial to see if her claim merited further scientific research ... she achieves odds of 1 in 50 and they claim 'failure' ...... this is not just bad science, it's close minded dogmatism

 

[Jeff Corey]

With regard to the CSMMH reply (seems to be organization setup to debunk complimentary medicine?) How very neutral for such a test .......



I think that is an outrageous excuse from CSMMH / CSICOP! This was a preliminary trial to see if her claim merited further scientific research ... she achieves odds of 1 in 50 and they claim 'failure' ...... this is not just bad science, it's close minded dogmatism

Thanks for the rolleyes, but in what way is this bad science? Are you able to discern the difference?
Show us the evidence that it is bad science or I shall whop you over the head with a lutefisk.

 

[gnome]

He (or whoever was testing) could eg. a telekinetic is tested.
They add extra weight onto the objects to be moved without the subject knowing.

If the "telekinetic" was concerned this might happen, he could ask that the object be placed upon a scale... or that he be allowded to lift it with his hands before using his powers.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

With regard to the CSMMH reply (seems to be organization setup to debunk complimentary medicine?) How very neutral for such a test .......

I think that is an outrageous excuse from CSMMH / CSICOP! This was a preliminary trial to see if her claim merited further scientific research ... she achieves odds of 1 in 50 and they claim 'failure' ...... this is not just bad science, it's close minded dogmatism

Why did the Russians accept the test standard in the first place, then? Remember Natasha was given much more information than she would have had in her "normal" readings. Such a comparitively "easy" test should have yielded !00% success accoding to her claims. She and her mother HAVE claimed that she has 100% success in diagnoses, have they not? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[Dragonrock]

With regard to the CSMMH reply (seems to be organization setup to debunk complimentary medicine?) How very neutral for such a test .......



I think that is an outrageous excuse from CSMMH / CSICOP! This was a preliminary trial to see if her claim merited further scientific research ... she achieves odds of 1 in 50 and they claim 'failure' ...... this is not just bad science, it's close minded dogmatism

This is what's known as "moving the goal posts." She can't do what she claimed, so you change the rules to make her successful. We don't know if there were unconscious clues given by the subjects so we set firm expectations before hand. If a doctor and a conjourer were given the same test I suspect that they would achieve symilar results though for different reasons.

 

[Temporal Renegade]

Whenever I hear something like this, I flashback to the 'Larry King / Sylvia Browne' debacle. She agreed to take the test, then proceeded to tell Randi that he had to alter the rules, otherwise she wouldn't agree to it. She delibrately tried to get him to throw his hands up in frustration and give up, whereas she could claim that he wasn't really serious about testing her.

However, he kept agreeing to her requests, even placing the prize in escrow (which she thought would really screw him up), just to get her to take the test.

And, she still said 'No'.


Now, who's fault is that?