Some Thoughts on Randi and His Challenge

[amherst]

Amherst, the video that Yellow Bamboo supplied was no different and no more scientifically obtained than the ones on their own website. It appears very likely that the camerman in each case was the same person.

I'm not sure if it has been trimmed recently, but there was a huge amount of dialogue on this very forum between the YB proponents and the "skeptics" here. The upshot of this was that it was revealed that the pusher of the claim was some fly-by-night huckster out of Miami trying to use YB to garner himself a cool $1M. He was the guy with the el-cheapo video camera. His associate was some Australian drifter-surfer in Bali who was in on the scam also and pretended he was a PC newbie on the web (he wasn't). And although you would think that if they were really serious they would push through with their claim, both these shysters disappeared completely once the "test video" was subject to examination and questions started to be asked. So much for Yellow Bamboo.

So best you let that one go, OK? It's a definite loser.

Since I keep reading comments similar to these, I am now convinced that most of you are failing to understand the point. Let me state here and now that I do NOT believe based on Randi's test (or anything else) that the yellow bamboo group have provided sufficient evidence to back up their claims. The point has never been about the validity of those particular claimants supposed abilities. The point has always been that since Randi is able to dismiss his tests when he feels they are poorly conducted, there is no reason why he wouldn't be able to dismiss them if even in actuality they were correctly designed and conducted.

Lets pretend hypothetically that someone actually possesses paranormal ability. Lets also pretend that he was able to succeed at what both Randi and him have agreed would constitute sufficient demonstration of his abilities. Lets go even further and say that the test had been properly designed and flawlessly conducted. There would be absolutely nothing to prevent Randi from falsely claiming that the test design and supervision of it had been poor. Nothing to prevent him from dismissing it like he did the (truly poor) bamboo test.

Unlike scientists, Randi has no one policing his work and keeping him honest. He decides if the test the claimant takes is the real one or not. If the claimant fails, it is. If he succeeds, it isn't.


amherst

 

[amherst]

This is a gross misrepresentation of what happened.

Firstly, since the yellow bamboo people "threw every sort of obstacle in the way" of agreeing the testing protocol, Randi "informed them that [he] was terminating any further involvement with them" as you would know if you had read this commentary. The test was performed by someone who "decided to go, on his own", not as part of JREF. And the way he was treated shows that the yellow bamboo people did not follow Randi's proposed protocol:
How is it that, reading that description, you came to the conclusion that "the test succeeded"? Any reasonable person would conclude that the test was not performed according to the protocol and therefore could in no way be regarded as successful. So how did you come to your conclusion?

I think my recent response to Zep covers the bulk of your argument. You should also read my response to thaiboxerken which is at the beginning of the thread. Since Randi's statements about his terminating any further involvement with the bamboo people were made AFTER the test in question had taken place, they are worthless. As I explained previously, if Randi really had cut his ties with the group and decided not to test them, he would have stated as much before the test.


amherst

 

[apoger]

Unlike scientists, Randi has no one policing his work and keeping him honest.

You are playing fast and loose with the term "policing".
Nobody "polices" scientists. What does happen is that other scientists review the work of those that present results. This is absolutely no different that what would happen with the JREF. If the JREF tested an applicant and declared that the claimant had a previously undiscovered ability, it would draw the attention of the scientific community, who would then attempt to replicate and explore the potential new phenomenon.

You claim that a claimant could show their ability and yet be denied by the JREF. Sure, this could happen. It's possible for anyone to be dishonest or fraudulent. However all the claimant would need to do is demonstrate their power elsewhere, and Randi would become a laughing stock. Your whole premise relies on the claimant being "real", Randi falsely denying validity, and then the claimant suddenly being unable to show their ability, nor being able to offer any of the evidence gathered during the JREF test.

Since we have yet to see a claimant demonstrate an ability thought to be paranormal, this has not been an issue.

Since nobody has presented evidence that they have an ability that the JREF denied, this has not been an issue.

Since nobody has presented evidence that the JREF rigged a test, this has not been an issue. Keep in mind that these tests have witnesses and are recorded. If there was tampering, the claimant could run to the media, who are always hungry to expose public figures.

It seems your concern is that the JREF might commit fraud, though you have no evidence that it does or has. What you have is idle speculation. I'm sorry but that won't get you far in these forums.

 

[RichardR]

Since I keep reading comments similar to these, I am now convinced that most of you are failing to understand the point. Let me state here and now that I do NOT believe based on Randi's test (or anything else) that the yellow bamboo group have provided sufficient evidence to back up their claims. The point has never been about the validity of those particular claimants supposed abilities. The point has always been that since Randi is able to dismiss his tests when he feels they are poorly conducted, there is no reason why he wouldn't be able to dismiss them if even in actuality they were correctly designed and conducted.

I'm sorry, but it is you who is failing to see the point.

The point is NOT that Randi is able to dismiss his tests when he feels they are poorly conducted. The point is that Randi is able to dismiss tests that did not follow the protocol that was specified in advance. Of course Randi could dismiss any test for any reason, but no one has yet demonstrated he has done so for any dishonest reason. And if he did dismiss a claim dishonestly, he would quickly be exposed.

Lets pretend hypothetically that someone actually possesses paranormal ability. Lets also pretend that he was able to succeed at what both Randi and him have agreed would constitute sufficient demonstration of his abilities. Lets go even further and say that the test had been properly designed and flawlessly conducted. There would be absolutely nothing to prevent Randi from falsely claiming that the test design and supervision of it had been poor. Nothing to prevent him from dismissing it like he did the (truly poor) bamboo test.

The difference is that the hypothetical test you just described was "properly designed and flawlessly conducted". The YB test was clearly not – as defined by the protocols declared IN ADVANCE of the actual test. What is it about this you don't get?

Unlike scientists, Randi has no one policing his work and keeping him honest. He decides if the test the claimant takes is the real one or not. If the claimant fails, it is. If he succeeds, it isn't.

Except that no one has succeeded, so your comments are pure speculation.

Since Randi's statements about his terminating any further involvement with the bamboo people were made AFTER the test in question had taken place, they are worthless.

Not according to Randi's commentary:

This went on until I'd finally had enough, and informed them that I was terminating any further involvement with them.

On August 11th, 2003, a Mr. Joko Tri Lestari, on the island of Java, wrote me volunteering to go to Bali and go through the Yellow Bamboo rigmarole that they'd put forth. I told him that though he appeared to have the right qualifications, and that I would normally accept him to do the preliminary test, I'd officially severed my connections with them. But, I told Joko, he was quite free to go there and see what happened, if they'd let him do so.

He decided to go, on his own, not believing that there was any danger involved, though he said he'd be careful to take along his own food and drink, as a precaution.

(My emphasis)

Do you have a problem with the chronological order laid out by Randi? If so, why?

You are making something out of nothing. Of course there has to be a protocol to prevent someone winning by cheating. What would you have Randi do if someone avoids the protocol? What exactly are you saying Randi should do differently?

 

[Zep]

Since I keep reading comments similar to these, I am now convinced that most of you are failing to understand the point. Let me state here and now that I do NOT believe based on Randi's test (or anything else) that the yellow bamboo group have provided sufficient evidence to back up their claims. The point has never been about the validity of those particular claimants supposed abilities. The point has always been that since Randi is able to dismiss his tests when he feels they are poorly conducted, there is no reason why he wouldn't be able to dismiss them if even in actuality they were correctly designed and conducted.

Lets pretend hypothetically that someone actually possesses paranormal ability. Lets also pretend that he was able to succeed at what both Randi and him have agreed would constitute sufficient demonstration of his abilities. Lets go even further and say that the test had been properly designed and flawlessly conducted. There would be absolutely nothing to prevent Randi from falsely claiming that the test design and supervision of it had been poor. Nothing to prevent him from dismissing it like he did the (truly poor) bamboo test.

Unlike scientists, Randi has no one policing his work and keeping him honest. He decides if the test the claimant takes is the real one or not. If the claimant fails, it is. If he succeeds, it isn't.


amherst

I have not failed to understand you at all. It was simply that you trotted out the YB claim as an example to support your position. The facts of that matter were that your example of YB as a case-in-point relied on their claims of being tested by Randi and/or JREF as being true. But they weren't true, so your reliance on them as an example is thus misplaced.

Consequently, apoger has fairly neatly summed up your situation - you are merely speculating without actual facts to work with.

Can I suggest you browse back through the archives of the commentaries on this website. In there you will find various tales of people who have come in Randi in his Florida office and undergone initial testing with him. You will discover that Randi has been courteous and accomodating to these people, gone out of his way to be fair in the testing, let them be involved in the setup, explained the processes that would be used and the scoring, run baselines, etc, etc. And yet when these people fail to perform to their own expectations they start to blame Randi.

And Randi is hardly alone in this. Years ago on the other side of the world from Randi the Australian Skeptics did testing on dowsers (with a $100,000 prize). They were shown the setup, how it worked, allowed run non-blind tests, allowed to find all the "anomalies" that lay in the test area, allowed take as long as they liked, etc, etc. And the testing was done in public by university professors, not Skeptics. Result: nothing, and yet STILL the dowsers blamed the Skeptics for it "going wrong".

Summary: You need to clearly separate the bleats of the self-deluded from the personalities involved. If it wasn't Randi doing the testing, it would just be someone else they would try to blame, but never themselves.

 

[princhester]

Since I keep reading comments similar to these, I am now convinced that most of you are failing to understand the point. Let me state here and now that I do NOT believe based on Randi's test (or anything else) that the yellow bamboo group have provided sufficient evidence to back up their claims. The point has never been about the validity of those particular claimants supposed abilities. The point has always been that since Randi is able to dismiss his tests when he feels they are poorly conducted, there is no reason why he wouldn't be able to dismiss them if even in actuality they were correctly designed and conducted.

Lets pretend hypothetically that someone actually possesses paranormal ability. Lets also pretend that he was able to succeed at what both Randi and him have agreed would constitute sufficient demonstration of his abilities. Lets go even further and say that the test had been properly designed and flawlessly conducted. There would be absolutely nothing to prevent Randi from falsely claiming that the test design and supervision of it had been poor. Nothing to prevent him from dismissing it like he did the (truly poor) bamboo test.

Unlike scientists, Randi has no one policing his work and keeping him honest. He decides if the test the claimant takes is the real one or not. If the claimant fails, it is. If he succeeds, it isn't.


amherst

Short summary: anyone can behave fraudulently. Randi might. Therefore, his work is worth nothing.

Amherst might be a sock puppet for Evil McEvil, the well known troll and fraudster. Therefore I will ignore your posts.

 

[amherst]

I'm sorry, but it is you who is failing to see the point.

The point is NOT that Randi is able to dismiss his tests when he feels they are poorly conducted. The point is that Randi is able to dismiss tests that did not follow the protocol that was specified in advance. Of course Randi could dismiss any test for any reason, but no one has yet demonstrated he has done so for any dishonest reason. And if he did dismiss a claim dishonestly, he would quickly be exposed.

The difference is that the hypothetical test you just described was "properly designed and flawlessly conducted". The YB test was clearly not – as defined by the protocols declared IN ADVANCE of the actual test. What is it about this you don't get?

Except that no one has succeeded, so your comments are pure speculation.

Not according to Randi's commentary:

(My emphasis)

Do you have a problem with the chronological order laid out by Randi? If so, why?

You are making something out of nothing. Of course there has to be a protocol to prevent someone winning by cheating. What would you have Randi do if someone avoids the protocol? What exactly are you saying Randi should do differently?

These comments Ray Hyman made in a 1984 Nova program are pertinent to the points I am trying to make:

"Hansel has a tendency to believe that if any experiment can be shown to be susceptible to fraud, then that immediately means it no longer can be used as evidence for psi. I do sympathize with the parapsychologists who rebut this by saying, well, that can be true of any experiment in the world, because there's always some way you can think of how fraud could have gotten into the experiment. You cannot make a perfectly 100 percent fraud-proof experiment. This would apply to all science."

If you agree with Hyman, and unless you think Randi's experiments are the one exception to this rule, then there is always going to be some reason he could come up with for why a claimant didn't follow his protocol. Even if his test had been well designed and conducted, he would always still have this "out". If you and others are still naive enough to believe that he wouldn't use it, then I must kindly suggest you go back and read my posts dealing with Randi's bias.

I also want to point out that since Randi is not a scientist (and any criticisms of his tests are irrelevant to them being able to be conducted) he has the ability to always design poor experiments. That way, if a claimant is successful, it will never mean anything (just like it doesn't in the yellow bamboo case). Yet, if a claimant fails his poorly designed test, Randi is under no obligation to point out its flaws and can proclaim that yet another "crackpot" has failed his challenge. Since scientists who have reviewed Randi's experiments have found numerous design flaws and errors, this seems to be one of his tactics(though it could just be his own incompetence). I refer you back to my quote of Charles Honorton which is in my original post.

Finally, you asked if I have a problem with the chronological order that Randi made his statements in. In two separate posts I have answered affirmatively to this. I have also already explained why I have this problem. Since Randi made his statements about deciding not to test the bamboo group only AFTER the test had taken place, it is quite possible (and in my view probable) that he is lying. My assumption is greatly strengthened by a couple of FACTS. It seems very odd that prior to the test, Randi makes no mention of having changed his mind about testing the group. In every commentary after the one made on July 4th (where he said that the yellow bamboo group had agreed upon a protocol for a test and that he was now just looking for someone to conduct it) he never said anything about changing his mind. Why did he omit to mention this very important piece of information until AFTER the test had taken place? I think it is obvious that it is because Randi never did make any decision not to test the group. Randi has plenty of motive for lying about this. If my assumptions are correct then, if Randi doesn't lie, the bamboo group would of had to become (by Randi's rules) the first ever claimants to move on to the "formal" test. I'm sure that any thought of this ever happening is (to say the least) abhorrent to Randi.


amherst

 

[apoger]

Regurgitating the same tripe again doesn't make it any more compelling.


I repeat:

"It seems your concern is that the JREF might commit fraud, though you have no evidence that it does or has. What you have is idle speculation."

 

[Dancing David]

Amhearst,
These are interesting point but I think that they are invalidated by the fact that any one with aparanormal powers could go and demostrate them any where with an ability to convince any number of scpetics any number of times.

Randi has stated that if the test is accepted and the trial is run, he will give a million dollars to anyone who meets the ctriteria established in the trial.

I think that Randi would be boo-ed heartily if he ever iddi such a foolish thing.

I would smash my JREF coffee cup if such a thing happened.

The problem is in the parapsychology and other such stuf.. they have no effect to test. If they did than any number of scientists around the world could test it's validity.

Maybe I misunderstand your gripe. But if someone passes the preliminary trial, then the official test is set up, are you saying that Randi runs the prelininary test to screen actual 'psoitives', why aren't these people then going to MIT and Fermilabs?

I also want to point out that since Randi is not a scientist (and any criticisms of his tests are irrelevant to them being able to be conducted) he has the ability to always design poor experiments. That way, if a claimant is successful, it will never mean anything (just like it doesn't in the yellow bamboo case). Yet, if a claimant fails his poorly designed test, Randi is under no obligation to point out its flaws and can proclaim that yet another "crackpot" has failed his challenge. Since scientists who have reviewed Randi's experiments have found numerous design flaws and errors, this seems to be one of his tactics(though it could just be his own incompetence). I refer you back to my quote of Charles Honorton which is in my original post.

I also want to point out that since Randi is not a scientist (and any criticisms of his tests are irrelevant to them being able to be conducted) he has the ability to always design poor experiments.

You seem to misunderstand science, anyone any where can conduct a scientific experiement, they do not have to be a credentialed 'scientist'.
Second, randi does not pull the scientific method out of a hat, he uses standard methodology.
Maybe it is the parapsychologist who design poor experiments.

Since scientists who have reviewed Randi's experiments have found numerous design flaws and errors, this seems to be one of his tactics(though it could just be his own incompetence).

Mighty bold words, care to quote any reaserch where it says this, and just so you know quoting a woo who quotes another woo is not proof that randi designs poor experiements.

I specificaly want to know where in the Challenges randi has used a poor ort sloppy methodology. Please?

I do not doubt your sincereity, but upon the VB, one must back up such claims with more than one quote. I would be interested to see any papers or web sites that claim randi has used poor test design, time to show your hand Amhearst.

 

[Dancing David]

The yellow bamboo was not a preliminary test, there was no official representative of the JREF, there were many fak claims but your have been duped dear Amhearst and your credibility is waning.

Where is the official test for yellow bamboo? Do you think that you can just spread the same lie over and over. Randi did not sanction the alleged preliminary test, he did not endorse the alleged preliminary test. He did not initiate the preliminary test.Your claims are about as credible as the ressurection of jesus.

There were pages and pages about this last year. this is an old lie and was never any thing more than a lie. Why haven't Yellow bamboo gone to MIT or Fermilabs. Or even the david letterman show, because they are frauds and liars, that is why.

 

[RichardR]

If you agree with Hyman, and unless you think Randi's experiments are the one exception to this rule, then there is always going to be some reason he could come up with for why a claimant didn't follow his protocol. Even if his test had been well designed and conducted, he would always still have this "out".

So I ask you again, what should Randi do that he isn't doing.

If you and others are still naive enough to believe that he wouldn't use it, then I must kindly suggest you go back and read my posts dealing with Randi's bias.

And if you are still naïve enough to believe he would get away with this you need to go back and read the other posts on this thread.

I also want to point out that since Randi is not a scientist (and any criticisms of his tests are irrelevant to them being able to be conducted) he has the ability to always design poor experiments. That way, if a claimant is successful, it will never mean anything (just like it doesn't in the yellow bamboo case).

Randi not being a scientist has nothing to do with why the YB "test" means nothing. The YB "test" means nothing because the protocolspecified in advance was not followed.

Do you agree that the protocol specified in advance was not followed? If you disagree, why do you disagree?

Yet, if a claimant fails his poorly designed test, Randi is under no obligation to point out its flaws and can proclaim that yet another "crackpot" has failed his challenge. Since scientists who have reviewed Randi's experiments have found numerous design flaws and errors, this seems to be one of his tactics(though it could just be his own incompetence). I refer you back to my quote of Charles Honorton which is in my original post.

Which scientists and which reviews, and where can we read about them? Which poorly designed Randi tests and which flaws in those tests are you referring to?

Finally, you asked if I have a problem with the chronological order that Randi made his statements in. In two separate posts I have answered affirmatively to this. I have also already explained why I have this problem. Since Randi made his statements about deciding not to test the bamboo group only AFTER the test had taken place, it is quite possible (and in my view probable) that he is lying. My assumption is greatly strengthened by a couple of FACTS. It seems very odd that prior to the test, Randi makes no mention of having changed his mind about testing the group. In every commentary after the one made on July 4th (where he said that the yellow bamboo group had agreed upon a protocol for a test and that he was now just looking for someone to conduct it) he never said anything about changing his mind. Why did he omit to mention this very important piece of information until AFTER the test had taken place? I think it is obvious that it is because Randi never did make any decision not to test the group. Randi has plenty of motive for lying about this.

I see you're showing your true colors now. From your original seemingly reasonable comments, your case is now that Randi is a liar. And you have no evidence of this, just evidence of omission (he didn't report it before). Do you have any evidence that Randi lied, or that he was really still in communication with YB? If so, present it here. If not you should withdraw your acusation.

If my assumptions are correct then, if Randi doesn't lie, the bamboo group would of had to become (by Randi's rules) the first ever claimants to move on to the "formal" test.

Except that the "test" was performed in violation of the protocol proposed by Randi. The fact that you continue to ignore this point demonstrates your own dishonesty and your true agenda for posting here.

 

[Zep]

Gentlefolk all on this thread and Amherst in particular,

I'm getting the definite whiff that Amherst is trying to stick with the Yellow Bamboo story and "Randi cheated" claims, despite the clear explanations of its shortcomings and patent silliness, because he(/she?) is involved in some way with that group and is trying to ressurect their claim.

Amherst - if you feel that Yellow Bamboo were unfairly treated by JREF and that Randi has cheated them in some way, please say so here straight out and don't beat about the bushes.

Is that your point in posting here?

 

[RichardR]

I'm getting the definite whiff that Amherst is trying to stick with the Yellow Bamboo story and "Randi cheated" claims, despite the clear explanations of its shortcomings and patent silliness, because he(/she?) is involved in some way with that group and is trying to ressurect their claim.

You think?

 

[thaiboxerken]

In Randi's 7/04/03 commentary he wrote: "Volunteers needed! After months of back-and-forth, the "Yellow Bamboo" martial arts group has finally agreed to a protocol for a preliminary test re the JREF million-dollar prize. We're now looking for someone in their area to supervise that test. It would take place in Indonesia.........Anyone available?"

So they've agreed on a protocol for the preliminary test and now he's looking for a skeptic in the area to conduct it.

In Randi's 08/03/03 commentary he writes: "Surprise, surprise! A man who visited Bali to test the "Yellow Bamboo" group, who make supernatural claims that they can knock down an attacker just by shouting, has reported to me that he actually fell to the ground during the test! As soon as I get around to looking into this further, I'll give you a full report. This might actually be something….! "

So Randi found a volunter to conduct the preliminary test and the claimants succeeded in doing what was agreed upon that they should do.

Now AFTER the successful test had taken place, Randi's commentary of /10/03/03 says: "On August 11th, 2003, a Mr. Joko Tri Lestari, on the island of Java, wrote me volunteering to go to Bali and go through the Yellow Bamboo rigmarole that they'd put forth. I told him that though he appeared to have the right qualifications, and that I would normally accept him to do the preliminary test, I'd officially severed my connections with them. But, I told Joko, he was quite free to go there and see what happened, if they'd let him do so."

So even though he never bothered to mentioned this before the test took place, he now claims (obviously because the test was successful) that it wasn't a real test, and that he had severed his ties with the claimants before it had happened. Now if in fact he had severed his connections with the group, he would have stated as much before the test had taken place. Undoubtedly the yellow bamboo people were under the impression that they were taking Randi's test, but since they succeeded, all Randi had to do was dismiss it and claim it wasn't the real one. This is sure to be the fate of anyone who succeeds at Randi's "challenge".


amherst

 

[thaiboxerken]

"Undoubtedly the yellow bamboo people were under the impression that they were taking Randi's test, but since they succeeded, all Randi had to do was dismiss it and claim it wasn't the real one. This is sure to be the fate of anyone who succeeds at Randi's "challenge"."

It's plainly obvious that this "test" is very, very sloppy and done under very poor conditions. I doubt that Randi would design a test with protocols that call for dark settings, crappy tape quality, people around that could help cheat and having a guy actually try to hurt the testee. You, sir, are a LIAR. This "test" is obviously not Randi's preliminary test.

 

[Zep]

You think?

UH HUH!



Obvious from the get-go, but I was just seeing if I could get Amherst to admit it and say it out loud to us all, and to see if s/he will even attempt the first hurdle in lodging a genuine challenge.

However it looks like s/he has slunk away already, tail between legs and won't be back. We'll see!

 

[RichardR]

UH HUH!



Obvious from the get-go, but I was just seeing if I could get Amherst to admit it and say it out loud to us all, and to see if s/he will even attempt the first hurdle in lodging a genuine challenge.

However it looks like s/he has slunk away already, tail between legs and won't be back. We'll see!

Well, if he comes back, I have a list of unanswered questions for him.

 

[Zep]

Well, if he comes back, I have a list of unanswered questions for him.

I'll sweep the plate clean so you can step right up and swing!

 

[Patricio Elicer]

The point has always been that since Randi is able to dismiss his tests when he feels they are poorly conducted, there is no reason why he wouldn't be able to dismiss them if even in actuality they were correctly designed and conducted.

If this is your point, then it is a big nonsense. If Randi were to falsely dismiss a test and its results, he could be very easily exposed as a dishonest person. How? ... There are tens or perhaps hundreds of independant skeptical organizations around the world the claimant could show his/her "powers" to.

Let's take the Yellow Bamboo example once more. I will quote what princhester said earlier in this thread

Imagine if YB had set up the test in broad daylight, had taped it with a good quality video from a few angles, hadn't had several other people running forward close to the tester, and the tester had just walked calmly up and tried to tap the Master with a small stick but had been knocked down without being touched. What would Randi's excuse have been?

Can you think of a reasonable and acceptable (not esoteric) excuse as a way out of this?

 

[amherst]

Dancing David wrote:
"Mighty bold words, care to quote any reaserch where it says this, and just so you know quoting a woo who quotes another woo is not proof that randi designs poor experiements.

I specificaly want to know where in the Challenges randi has used a poor ort sloppy methodology. Please?"


In Charles Honorton's quote concerning Randi's incompetence as an experimenter, he gave two references to back up his assertions:

Morris, R.L (1992) Reply to Randi. The Psi Researcher, No 5, 16-18

Rao, K.R. (1984). Review of Test your ESP potential: a complete kit with instructions, scorecards, and apparatus by James Randi. Journal of Parapsychology, 48, 356-358.

Since I do not presently have possession of either of these two pieces, I regret that I can not yet tell you what specific flaws were found and therefore I can not yet convince you that any existed. My only purpose in using the Honorton quote has been to note that Randi's experiments have been found lacking by a scientist whose experimental expertise was highly respected by skeptics as well as by prominent scientists not connected with his field. What follows are some examples:

Daryl Bem, a psychologist from Cornell University who has also held positions at Harvard and Stanford, wrote in a 1993 commemorative issue of the Journal of Parapsychology that:

"Although I was already familiar with the ganzfeld procedure, it was Chuck's detailed data based response to Hyman's critique that persuaded me to relinquish a large measure of my previous skepticism and to seriously entertain the possibility that the psi effect was genuine. Chuck's rhetorical skills were considerable, but it was his ability to get the data to speak for themselves that carried the argument so forcibly."

Ray Hyman himself has commented:

"Honorton's experiments have produced intriguing results. If independent laboratories can produce similar results with the same relationships and with the same attention to rigorous methodology, then parapsychology may have indeed have finally captured its elusive quarry." (1991, p.392)

Harvard psychologist Robert Rosenthal and his co-author Monica Harris, in their National Research Council Report (commissioned by the army to evaluate psi experiments)wrote that:

The situation for the ganzfeld domain is reasonably clear. We feel it would be implausible to entertain the null [hypothesis] given the combined [probability] from these 28 studies....When the accuracy rate expected under the null [hypothesis] is 1/4, we estimate the obtained accuracy rate to be about 1/3.

In the Skeptical Inquirer,Vol. 17, Spring 1993, 306-308. Susan Blackmore had this to say about Honorton's work:

"Over the next few years Honorton and his team at Princeton worked with their system and in 1990 published the results of 11 experiments with 241 volunteer subjects and 355 ganzfeld sessions (Honorton et al. 1990). I can only imagine the amount of time and work involved in this from my own experience with a simple ganzfeld experiment with just 20 trials. The results of these automated studies were staggeringly significant. My own impression from reading the paper many times was that the experiments were very well designed and the results certainly not due to chance. If they were due to something other than psi it was not obvious what it was. In other words, these experiments stood out from all the mass of failed, barely significant, or obviously flawed studies."

Honorton's experimental designs and competence earned the high respect of many prominent individuals who, if anything, were inclined to be highly skeptical of his work. Because of this, I do not feel his comments about Randi can be easily dismissed.


amherst