Some Thoughts on Randi and His Challenge

[RichardR]

Questions for Amherst

Below are some questions Amherst has been asked in this thread. Some are from me, some are from other posters.

Reasonable questions arising out of the discussion, that are avoided, show intellectual dishonesty, and show the weakness in a poster’s position. Additionally, answers that are given, especially if not complete, can reveal the weakness in a poster's position and his bias. We have examples of both from Amherst. Both categories of answer / non-answer are instructive. We are now at the point with this poster that there is little point in continuing if he continues to be evasive and avoids questions. Time to put up or shut up, Amherst.

Here are the questions, along with any answers, or pseudo “answers” given by amherst, and with any analysis I might have of those answers. I may update this list with new questions etc. when and if necessary.

Amherst, you need to answer these questions if you want to recover any remnant of credibility here. Or admit that you are just a shrill for YB. Which do you want to do?

(1) What should Randi do that he isn't doing. (Or, what is he doing that he should stop doing.)

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

(3) 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?

Amherst's answer:

In Charles Honorton's quote concerning Randi's incompetence as an experimenter, he gave two references to back up his assertions:
(snip)
Since I am not presently in possession of either of these two pieces, I regret that I can not yet tell you what specific flaws were found

My reply:

Firstly this is just one scientist (the others you quote were talking about Honorton, not Randi). Secondly, you are not able to tell us what the supposed flaws were, or give any context at all, so your answer is worthless. We have no insight into the credibility of Honorton's criticisms. This is just an attempt at Argument from Authority which is a logical fallacy. You may be able to get away with logical fallacies in the other places you go to shrill for YB but it won't impress anyone here. So suppose you just tell us what flaws there are in Randi's testing procedure, eh Amherst?

(4)Do you have any evidence that Randi lied, and that he was really still in communication with YB?

(5) 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?

(6) Do you feel that Yellow Bamboo were unfairly treated by JREF and that Randi has cheated them in some way? If so, how? And is this your point in posting here?

So go on Amherst, answer the questions. I will be out the rest of the day so you have plenty of time.

If I missed any, I apologize.

 

[Dancing David]

Dear Amhearst ,
I would like to thank you for your patience and politeness in responding to my post.

But the Ganzfeld effect is ausualy only found when there is grave experiemental error and sloppy methodology. Perhaps the studies you cite are not the ones I read about, but the methodology is poor at best and rife with experiemental error.

I will note that you have cited secondary sources and not the primary data and research. So while this rhetoric may sway you, as it sways many, it does not convince me of anything.

If you wish to cite the data concerning the specific trials then we can discuss it's vailidity.

But the statistical argument is poorly stated and basicaly meaningless, if in each of those studies the individual results did not rise above the level statistical chance then there is no way to say that taken together that they show some multiplied effect. So there is not a billion in one chance, that is rhetoric and has no meaning at all.

And as for someone being a respected scientists who debunks Randi, you are quoteing a quote. You have no real evidence that the person quoted is in any way respectable and not a total fraud themselves.
.

What I will say is that randi is a some what cantankerous person , and if he were to be fruadulent then he would be boo-ed as hard here as anywhere.

You have a nice idea, but nice ideas are poetry and literature, they are nit science.

Thanks for your reply and patience in the face of the sceptic's doubt.
Sincerely
David

 

[amherst]

(1) "What should Randi do that he isn't doing. (Or, what is he doing that he should stop doing.)"

Based on my own observations, I believe that Randi should desist from promoting his challenge as a valid test of the paranormal. I believe that intrinsic flaws which can not be remedied, have biased and destroyed all but a superficial facade of objectivity. I have extensively discussed these flaws in my previous posts.

Further, I also agree with this point Ray Hyman made in an interview with Michael Shermer:

"Another thing that bothers me is the idea of a financial challenge to psychics. Scientists don’t settle issues with a single test, so even if someone does win a big cash prize in a demonstration, this isn’t going to convince anyone. Proof in science happens through replication, not through single experiments."


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

I do agree that the yellow bamboo claimants did not (in all likely hood) follow the protocol.


(3) "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?"

Amherst's answer:

In Charles Honorton's quote concerning Randi's incompetence as an experimenter, he gave two references to back up his assertions:
(snip)
Since I am not presently in possession of either of these two pieces, I regret that I can not yet tell you what specific flaws were found

"My reply:

Firstly this is just one scientist (the others you quote were talking about Honorton, not Randi). Secondly, you are not able to tell us what the supposed flaws were, or give any context at all, so your answer is worthless. We have no insight into the credibility of Honorton's criticisms. This is just an attempt at Argument from Authority which is a logical fallacy. You may be able to get away with logical fallacies in the other places you go to shrill for YB but it won't impress anyone here. So suppose you just tell us what flaws there are in Randi's testing procedure, eh Amherst?"

The contexts in which Randi's (probable) flaws took place in, were with his tests of psychics on television and in his book for conducting ESP experiments. Unless you believe Honorton is lying or deluded, his points about Randi are persuasive, if not (without seeing the actual documents he refrenced) convincing. Since Honorton cited the sources for his assertions, it seems very unlikely he is lying. If he had intentionally distorted or somehow misconstrued the conclusions of the papers, he would have been quickly found out by others who had read the papers he referenced. His credibility would have been greatly damaged. He would have been aware of this.

The other option is that he could have honestly misunderstood the papers analyses, or been deluded by their faulty claims. If you still believe this is a real possibility after reading the comments from Bem, Hyman, Rosenthal, and Blackmore, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

As for flaws in Randi's million dollar challenge testing procedure, I refer you back to my original post for my discussion of them and then suggest you read all my posts again. I have already repeated myself enough. If you have a specific problem with something you believe I have mistakenly called a flaw then please notify me and if I haven't addressed it before, I will answer you.



(4)"Do you have any evidence that Randi lied, and that he was really still in communication with YB?"


The evidence is circumstantial but highly suggestive that Randi never changed his mind about testing the yellow bamboo claimants. I have discussed this in detail elsewhere and will try to make it as clear as I can in my answer to the last question.

(5) "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?"

Randi would have a variety of options. One of them would be to do what I am claiming he probably did when the claimants succeeded under poor test conditions. He could dismiss it after it had taken place and falsely claim that he had decided not to test the group.

Since if you agree with Hyman or any scientist worth his weight,
fraud is always an (if only slight) possibility in every test. Another option Randi could take would be to come up with ways for which fraud could have possibly occurred and then claim that those frauds did occur, even if he had no truly compelling proof of this. Since a fraudulently won test would not have followed the protocol agreed upon by Randi, I think Randi would be able to assert that it wasn't a real preliminary test and feel justified in dismissing it.

(6) "Do you feel that Yellow Bamboo were unfairly treated by JREF and that Randi has cheated them in some way? If so, how? And is this your point in posting here?"

I have little sympathy for these people. Yet, I believe it probable that the test they took was unfairly dismissed. This is only because I find a couple of things very peculiar. The first being that Randi never mentioned anything about changing his mind and deciding not to test the claimants before the actual test in question took place. I have yet to hear any of you speculate on why he would omit from stating this very important fact in any of his pre test commentaries. The second thing I find odd is that the yellow bamboo people seem to have been under the impression that they were taking Randi's test. Why, if Randi had severed ties with these people, did he even consider letting this tester he had become associated with, Mr. Joko Tri Lestari, go and test this group at all? Surely Randi would have known that if he had told the claimants he wasn't going to test them and then had allowed someone he had become associated with to go just for the heck of it, this would either have confused the group and/or given them an opportunity to lie about Randi's test. Randi surely knew that if the group was able to dupe Mr. Lestari, they would begin making loud claims that they had won Randi's challenge. Randi is an expert on how people get taken advantage of, I fail to believe he would let himself get set up like this.

I believe it probable, based on what I currently know about the yellow bamboo situation, that there was an actual test. I believe it probable that Randi never backed out. I also believe he only began making his claim that he had refused to test them, because they in fact succeeded at his poorly designed and conducted test.

In closing, let me state once again that I do not believe that the yellow bamboo people are genuine. I find your speculations that I am somehow associated with them rather odd and suspicious. It seems that those of you who are trying to insinuate this are doing it so you won't have to think about my posts any longer. If you succeed in convincing yourselves that I am a fraudulent yellow bamboo peddler, anytime one of my points is raised you will be able to confidently dismiss it without thinking since you'll believe it originated from someone who is only trying to deceive you. I came in here to refine my beliefs about this subject, nothing more. I have no ulterior motives, though it seems that some of you may.


amherst

 

[apoger]

Unless you believe Honorton is lying or deluded, his points about Randi are persuasive, if not (without seeing the actual documents he refrenced) convincing.

So you are willing to offer belief (indeed, sustained argument!) without seeing the evidence? This pretty much defines you as credulous. How are we to take you seriously if the very foundation of the argument you are making is something you haven't bothered reading?

I have already repeated myself enough.

You certainly have.

 

[thaiboxerken]

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

I do agree that the yellow bamboo claimants did not (in all likely hood) follow the protocol.

So your big bitch here is summed up as the following:

If a test does not follow the agreed protocols, Randi won't accept it as a valid test.






WOW. You are stupid.

 

[walthrup48]

amherst

Looking solely at your first post, your argument that the James Randi Educational Foundation's One Million Dollar Challenge is "flawed and biased" seem to rest mainly on the following reasons:

1) Randi's attitudes, interests and past actions show him to be a threat to the fairness of any test.

2) Randi's expertise in designing scientific testing is questionable

3) The judging of the test outcome will be by fellow skeptics, who have a vested interest in seeing the applicant fail.


*Randi repeatedly states that the JREF is willing to let mutually agreed, independent third parties carry out the tests. The role of the JREF (and consequently, Randi's involvement) will be limited to helping to design the test protocols.

“The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place.” http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

*Any or all of the stages of the challenge can be monitored by third parties.

"Remember, all my protocol is scrupulously monitored, by any persons required by the subject...." http://www.randi.org/jr/062802.html

*On whether he has the proper expertise to design tests, Randi states "I use top-notch scientists and other experts to advise me." http://www.randi.org/jr/070502.html

As has already been pointed out, "“All tests must be designed in such a way that the results are self-evident, and no judging process is required.” http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html

"No tests take place until complete agreement has been reached between the applicant and the JREF, and we are both bound by that agreement.” http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869979076#post1869979076

The remainder appears to be a number of speculative 'what ifs', your imaginings of what Randi may or may not do in certain situations.

"I am all too familiar with this tendency of my detractors to construct my philosophy and future actions for me, based solely upon their imaginations."
Source: http://www.randi.org/jr/03-27-2000.html

Your claim that Randi could repeatedly refuse a proposed test protocol then state the applicant refused the test is a double-edged sword. The applicant, wishing to cast suspicions on the challenge, could refuse Randi's protocol proposals (or draw the process out for so long that the JREF gives up) then claim Randi refused to test them. (Ummmm, I'm getting the letters b, e, n, t, and h.)

 

[RichardR]

Thank you for taking the time to reply. Although your replies do prompt a few additional questions.

Based on my own observations, I believe that Randi should desist from promoting his challenge as a valid test of the paranormal. I believe that intrinsic flaws which can not be remedied, have biased and destroyed all but a superficial facade of objectivity. I have extensively discussed these flaws in my previous posts.

You don't have any solution except "stop doing tests". In other words, you don't know what he could do better, and so your approach is to give up. Fortunately, other people continue to search for answers by developing better techniques each time. That's how knowledge progresses – not by giving up.

Btw, you have not demonstrated any flaws in Randi's tests. You have quoted some people, with no context, who criticize Randi. None criticizing actual trials for the $1M as far as I can tell. But in any case, you have not demonstrated one flaw in any Randi test.

Further, I also agree with this point Ray Hyman made in an interview with Michael Shermer:

"Another thing that bothers me is the idea of a financial challenge to psychics. Scientists don’t settle issues with a single test, so even if someone does win a big cash prize in a demonstration, this isn’t going to convince anyone. Proof in science happens through replication, not through single experiments."

Agreed, but then no one has ever said that one test would prove anything. Randi has never said it did either.

I do agree that the yellow bamboo claimants did not (in all likely hood) follow the protocol.

I'll take that as a "they did not follow the protocol" (your "in all likely hood" equivocation, notwithstanding).

The protocol is designed to prevent anyone winning by cheating. Hence the need for the test to be performed in daylight, with distance between the challenger and the crowd, and the whole thing filmed, etc. Since you agree they did not follow protocol, why do you think Randi should accept that YB passed this test?

I would really like to know what your answer is to that.

The contexts in which Randi's (probable) flaws took place in, were with his tests of psychics on television and in his book for conducting ESP experiments. Unless you believe Honorton is lying or deluded, his points about Randi are persuasive, if not (without seeing the actual documents he refrenced) convincing. Since Honorton cited the sources for his assertions, it seems very unlikely he is lying. If he had intentionally distorted or somehow misconstrued the conclusions of the papers, he would have been quickly found out by others who had read the papers he referenced. His credibility would have been greatly damaged. He would have been aware of this.

The other option is that he could have honestly misunderstood the papers analyses, or been deluded by their faulty claims. If you still believe this is a real possibility after reading the comments from Bem, Hyman, Rosenthal, and Blackmore, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

Do you know the meaning of argument from authority? You know it is a logical fallacy, right?

If you ever think of an actual example of a flaw in a Randi test, please post it here. Until you do, your reasoning is fallacious and your conclusions invalid.

As for flaws in Randi's million dollar challenge testing procedure, I refer you back to my original post for my discussion of them and then suggest you read all my posts again. I have already repeated myself enough. If you have a specific problem with something you believe I have mistakenly called a flaw then please notify me and if I haven't addressed it before, I will answer you.

Please point me to where you detailed a flaw in an actual Randi $1M test.

(4)"Do you have any evidence that Randi lied, and that he was really still in communication with YB?"

The evidence is circumstantial but highly suggestive that Randi never changed his mind about testing the yellow bamboo claimants. I have discussed this in detail elsewhere and will try to make it as clear as I can in my answer to the last question.

Translation: you have no evidence he lied, it is just your opinion based on your prejudice.

(5) "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?"

Randi would have a variety of options. One of them would be to do what I am claiming he probably did when the claimants succeeded under poor test conditions. He could dismiss it after it had taken place and falsely claim that he had decided not to test the group.

Since if you agree with Hyman or any scientist worth his weight, fraud is always an (if only slight) possibility in every test. Another option Randi could take would be to come up with ways for which fraud could have possibly occurred and then claim that those frauds did occur, even if he had no truly compelling proof of this. Since a fraudulently won test would not have followed the protocol agreed upon by Randi, I think Randi would be able to assert that it wasn't a real preliminary test and feel justified in dismissing it.

If the test had been successful under the conditions specified he would not be able to get away with this. Your answer is pure speculation and, again, shows your bias and closed-minded prejudice against Randi.

(6) "Do you feel that Yellow Bamboo were unfairly treated by JREF and that Randi has cheated them in some way? If so, how? And is this your point in posting here?"

I have little sympathy for these people. Yet, I believe it probable that the test they took was unfairly dismissed.

Why is it unfair that Randi dismissed the test, when they did not follow the protocol specified in advance?

This is only because I find a couple of things very peculiar. The first being that Randi never mentioned anything about changing his mind and deciding not to test the claimants before the actual test in question took place. I have yet to hear any of you speculate on why he would omit from stating this very important fact in any of his pre test commentaries.

I don't know why. But JREF get hundreds of people calling in about the test, and the most difficult thing seems to be to get them to say clearly what they can do and to agree a reasonable testing protocol. I believe he declines to test quite a few kooks when these things can't be agreed, and he doesn't always list these either. So what?

The second thing I find odd is that the yellow bamboo people seem to have been under the impression that they were taking Randi's test.

What I find odd is that you would find their claim that they had taken the test, to be odd. Of course, they are going to say whatever makes them look the best. You feel sure the YB people are honest in this but that Randi is lying. You are pretty transparent.

Why, if Randi had severed ties with these people, did he even consider letting this tester he had become associated with, Mr. Joko Tri Lestari, go and test this group at all?

For once, I agree with you that Randi shouldn't have allowed it, simply because in doing so he allowed enough wiggle room for people like you to claim foul play. If you were truly unbiased, you would not see this as a devious act by Randi but as a mistake in having anything to do with the test when the YB people were clearly going to be able to do whatever they wanted.

I believe it probable, based on what I currently know about the yellow bamboo situation, that there was an actual test. I believe it probable that Randi never backed out. I also believe he only began making his claim that he had refused to test them, because they in fact succeeded at his poorly designed and conducted test.

The test was well designed. The problem was they did not follow the design. As they did not follow the design, it can in no way be considered successful.

Thanks for your input. But you have backed the wrong horse in this race. The YB people are obvious frauds, and you are using their fraudulent claims to try to make Randi wrong. You need to take a step back and look at who has the phoney claim and who has pointed out exactly where that claim is false.

All you have is some criticisms of Randi (although you don't know what they actually are), although not of the actual test. Because of this you think he should just stop doing the tests. You agree that YB did not follow the protocol but you think Randi should accept the result as a pass anyway. Oh, and you think (without evidence) that Randi lied. It's pretty lame. Meanwhile, anyone with real powers would be sure to win the $1Million.

 

[Dancing David]

I found the following on Honrton and the ganzfeld effect, seems like a piss poor metanalysis to me, what an abused phrase almost as bad as quantum entanglement.

From CSICOP

This pessimistic state of affairs appeared to change, however, in 1994, when Cornell University psychologist Daryl Bem, in conjunction with the late University of Edinburgh parapsychologist Charles Honorton, published a remarkable article in "http://www.apa.org/journals/bul.html", one of psychology's two most prestigious review journals. Bem and Honorton reported on a series of eleven studies using the "Ganzfeld" (a German word meaning "whole field") paradigm, a method that originated in the 1930s.

With the aid of a statistical technique termed meta-analysis, which permits researchers to quantitatively pool results across a number of studies, Bem and Honorton reported what appeared to be strong, if not convincing, evidence for ESP. The subjects in their meta-analysis obtained overall target "hit" rates of approximately 35 percent, where chance performance would be only 25 percent.

Although some critics, like Ray Hyman, found statistical anomalies in the Bem and Honorton data set suggesting the possible existence of subtle but damaging experimental artifacts (see Hyman, R., Skeptical Inquirer, March/April 1996; and Hyman, R., Psychological Bulletin, 1994), Bem and Honorton's meta-analysis was regarded by many as offering the most compelling laboratory evidence to date for the existence of ESP.

This is essentially where things stood until a few months ago, when Julie Milton of the University of Edinburgh and Richard Wiseman of the University of Hertfordshire published an updated meta-analysis of thirty recent Ganzfeld studies not reviewed by Bem and Honorton. Milton and Wiseman's findings, which were published recently ("Does Psi Exist? Lack of Replication of an Anomalous Process at Information Transfer," Psychological Bulletin 125(4): 387-391), stand in stark contrast to those of Bem and Honorton and raise serious questions concerning the replicability of the Ganzfeld findings. Specifically, Milton and Wiseman reported a mean effect size across all thirty studies of .013, which corresponds to essentially chance performance and can most charitably be described as negligible.

It seems likely that Milton and Wiseman's meta-analysis will not be the final word on the Ganzfeld technique, and the question of whether this technique will prove to be the replicable paradigm long sought by parapsychologists or merely another tantalizing will-o'-the-wisp is far from conclusively resolved.

 

[RichardR]

Amherst - another thought:

I find it pretty funny that you complain that Randi has two tests (a preliminary test and, if successful, a final test), while simultaneously stating that the test is suspicious because:

"Scientists don’t settle issues with a single test… Proof in science happens through replication, not through single experiments."

So, which do you want?

Of course one test doesn't prove anything – all sorts of errors (frauds) can be present. I imagine that is one of the reasons for the prelim test.

 

[princhester]

I do agree that the yellow bamboo claimants did not (in all likely hood) follow the protocol.

Yet, I believe it probable that the test they took was unfairly dismissed.

I also believe he only began making his claim that he had refused to test them, because they in fact succeeded at his poorly designed and conducted test.

[my emphasis]

Cognitive dissonance much?

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?

Randi would have a variety of options. One of them would be to do what I am claiming he probably did when the claimants succeeded under poor test conditions. He could dismiss it after it had taken place and falsely claim that he had decided not to test the group.

Since if you agree with Hyman or any scientist worth his weight,
fraud is always an (if only slight) possibility in every test. Another option Randi could take would be to come up with ways for which fraud could have possibly occurred and then claim that those frauds did occur, even if he had no truly compelling proof of this. Since a fraudulently won test would not have followed the protocol agreed upon by Randi, I think Randi would be able to assert that it wasn't a real preliminary test and feel justified in dismissing it.

You do not consider the extended consequences of Randi doing this, in the circumstances that I outline (even though they have been pointed out to you over and over).

Let's take your hypothesis and extend it: so Randi calls fraud, or says he never agreed to a test. What next? YB have clear daylight video shot from several angles of a strange and interesting phenomenon. They put it up on a website. They post about it here. They approach news organisations. They drag Randi's name through the mud, saying they agreed to a test with him, they passed the test (and have proof of it) but Randi reneged. They do it again for CBS and David Letterman. They do it again for some other scientist or researcher under controlled conditions. The Australian Skeptics offer their prize. The Indian Skeptics likewise.

Anyone who could actually do something paranormal would have the world at their feet. They would become a worldwide phenomenon, and Randi would look a total dick.

You are committing what I refer to as the "only game in town" fallacy. You imbue Randi with a status that he simply does not have: he is not the only person interested in or able to test or publicize or pass judgment upon claims of paranormal phenomena.

You (and others like you) imbue Randi with this status so that you can excuse or explain away the failure of anyone to actually
prove any paranormal ability by saying that Randi is a fraud, a liar, an unqualified person. You get the opposition to the paranormal down to a singularity (Randi) so that you can attack the singularity.

You do this so that you can ignore the fact that there are actually a whole world of people out there who would be interested in a convincing display of the paranormal, and who would (if so convinced) make Randi an irrelevancy were he to attempt to cover up or ignore or call fraudulent a person with actual ability.

 

[RichardR]

You are committing what I refer to as the "only game in town" fallacy. You imbue Randi with a status that he simply does not have: he is not the only person interested in or able to test or publicize or pass judgment upon claims of paranormal phenomena.

LOL - I like that.

I am compiling a list of logical fallacies in addition to the ones normally quoted, and would like to include this one (with suitable accreditation) when I post them. Assuming you don't mind, that is.

 

[princhester]

Sure.

 

[amherst]

So you are willing to offer belief (indeed, sustained argument!) without seeing the evidence? This pretty much defines you as credulous. How are we to take you seriously if the very foundation of the argument you are making is something you haven't bothered reading?.

It's apparent that you feel Honorton was either lying or deluded. I have already given my reasons for why I think this is highly unlikely. Why not, instead of simply calling me credulous, don't you give me your reasons for why you think I am incorrect and then explain to me how you think Honorton could have been making misstatements?


amherst

 

[amherst]

RichardR wrote:

"Btw, you have not demonstrated any flaws in Randi's tests. You have quoted some people, with no context, who criticize Randi. None criticizing actual trials for the $1M as far as I can tell. But in any case, you have not demonstrated one flaw in any Randi test."

"If you ever think of an actual example of a flaw in a Randi test, please post it here. Until you do, your reasoning is fallacious and your conclusions invalid."

"Please point me to where you detailed a flaw in an actual Randi $1M test."



Since you seem hilariously unable to remember my posts and unwilling to go back and look at them, this will be a collection of the major flaws I've noted in Randi's challenge. Like I said before, if you think I am mistaken in saying there is a flaw when there isn't one, tell me the specific problem you have and I will give you an answer.

Flaw:

Although the purpose of this preliminary test may seem legitimate to some, it enables Randi to have incredible control over each situation. If he is ever confronted by someone who succeeds in the preliminary test, there seems to be no reason why he can't just dismiss it because it wasn't the "formal" test and give various reasons for why the claimant must be preliminarily tested again (the recent yellow bamboo case is something which is sure to meet this fate). Then after a long wait, if Randi isn't completely confident he knows how the claimant succeeded, he can simply use his skilled rhetoric to distort and deride the person involved, keeping him from ever taking another preliminary test let alone a "formal" one. It seems that Randi has crafted a very secure safety net for himself, and any serious claimant should have cause for concern.


Flaw:

It is also relevant here to note that Randi has no prior protocols set up for testing the claimants. This works for his favor in a couple of ways. First, since there are no previously designed experiments, unlike in real science, there is nothing for anyone to judge or criticize. Any design flaws, which could be detrimental to paranormal effects, would most likely be unnoticed by a claimant with no scientific background. If parapsychologists were allowed to criticize and help design Randi's experiments, just like skeptics are encouraged to do for parapsychology, the challenge would be much more valid.

Flaw:

Another way the lack of prior protocols works in Randi's favor is that it gives him the ability to avoid running any experiment who's results he might not be able to explain. For instance, lets say a parapsychologist decides he's tired of Randi and is going to apply for the challenge. Lets also say that he wants to run a long series of ganzfeld experiments. What if Randi isn't completely confident that he can find flaws in the experiment which will account for the possible positive results? Since both the claimant and Randi have to agree on the protocol, Randi can simply say he doesn't agree with the proposed test(the rules don't say he has to have a good reason for dismissing it). Now if the parapsychologist cries foul, there's nothing he can do about it, and Randi can go deride and smear him because he refused the challenge.

Flaw:

Randi is the one who decides if his tests are done properly or not. He is the one who passes judgement on whether they are credible. If anyone ever succeeds, he can simply dismiss it and say the test wasn't done properly. Even if many disagree with him and can validly back up their points(which for the record, i doubt the yellow bamboo people can), it won't matter. It is up to Randi.

also connected:

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.

highly relevant:

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.



Flaw:

....the problem here is that no result is ever going to be self evident to Randi. He has built his life and work upon the premise that the paranormal not only doesn't exist, but that the majority of it's proponents are crackpots. This obvious bias has been raised against him before by people wishing to discredit his challenge. As it was in his 07/05/02 commentary, his answer has always been that : "We don't give a damn how something happened, only whether it did happen, under careful observation. As for "whether . . . the remote image was correctly reproduced," there is absolutely no doubt about that, since a participant would be given a list of targets, and be required to choose which one was the intended one. That doesn't call for argument or a decision; it's either right or it's wrong. It's "yes" or "no."

Since what Randi is saying may still be unclear to you, let me try to clarify it. If Randi designs a test and an applicant agrees to it, Randi says that all the applicant is required to do is succeed. Success is defined in different ways based on the claim being made. In the case of the yellow bamboo claimants, it was agreed that if the group was able to make Randi's tester fall down, then that would constitute a success. As with real science, it is up to the experiments designer, not the person being tested, to ensure that any potential artifacts (including any possibilities of fraud) are eliminated before the test is conducted. This is of course done to rule out any type of spurious result.

Randi has stated many times that all a claimant has to do is succeed. The yellow bamboo group accomplished this. It is not their fault that Randi allowed such a poor test to be conducted. If they have fraudulently succeeded, it is Randi's fault. If he practiced what he preached, he would be forced to "formally" test these people. Since Randi's bias surely prevented him from even contemplating this, and since he is not a scientist having his work policed by others, all he had to do was distort things a bit and claim that what took place was not his test.

Flaw:

....during tests, claimants should be weary, since most skeptics associated with Rand have as much interest in seeing them fail as he does.

Flaw:

Randi would have a variety of options. One of them would be to do what I am claiming he probably did when the claimants succeeded under poor test conditions. He could dismiss it after it had taken place and falsely claim that he had decided not to test the group.

Since if you agree with Hyman or any scientist worth his weight,
fraud is always an (if only slight) possibility in every test. Another option Randi could take would be to come up with ways for which fraud could have possibly occurred and then claim that those frauds did occur, even if he had no truly compelling proof of this. Since a fraudulently won test would not have followed the protocol agreed upon by Randi, I think Randi would be able to assert that it wasn't a real preliminary test and feel justified in dismissing it.



amherst

 

[geni]

Flaw:

Although the purpose of this preliminary test may seem legitimate to some, it enables Randi to have incredible control over each situation. If he is ever confronted by someone who succeeds in the preliminary test, there seems to be no reason why he can't just dismiss it because it wasn't the "formal" test and give various reasons for why the claimant must be preliminarily tested again (the recent yellow bamboo case is something which is sure to meet this fate). Then after a long wait, if Randi isn't completely confident he knows how the claimant succeeded, he can simply use his skilled rhetoric to distort and deride the person involved, keeping him from ever taking another preliminary test let alone a "formal" one. It seems that Randi has crafted a very secure safety net for himself, and any serious claimant should have cause for concern.

Show me one case where this has happened come on just one.

Flaw:

It is also relevant here to note that Randi has no prior protocols set up for testing the claimants. This works for his favor in a couple of ways. First, since there are no previously designed experiments, unlike in real science, there is nothing for anyone to judge or criticize. Any design flaws, which could be detrimental to paranormal effects, would most likely be unnoticed by a claimant with no scientific background. If parapsychologists were allowed to criticize and help design Randi's experiments, just like skeptics are encouraged to do for parapsychology, the challenge would be much more valid.

there is nothing to stop the claimant getting a parapsychologists to help them design the protocol. Just as there is nothing to stop them getting anyone else's help.

Flaw:

Another way the lack of prior protocols works in Randi's favor is that it gives him the ability to avoid running any experiment who's results he might not be able to explain. For instance, lets say a parapsychologist decides he's tired of Randi and is going to apply for the challenge. Lets also say that he wants to run a long series of ganzfeld experiments. What if Randi isn't completely confident that he can find flaws in the experiment which will account for the possible positive results? Since both the claimant and Randi have to agree on the protocol, Randi can simply say he doesn't agree with the proposed test(the rules don't say he has to have a good reason for dismissing it). Now if the parapsychologist cries foul, there's nothing he can do about it, and Randi can go deride and smear him because he refused the challenge.

Show me one case where this has happen come on. Randi would be destroyed if he tried that and you know it.

Flaw:

Randi is the one who decides if his tests are done properly or not. He is the one who passes judgement on whether they are credible. If anyone ever succeeds, he can simply dismiss it and say the test wasn't done properly. Even if many disagree with him and can validly back up their points(which for the record, i doubt the yellow bamboo people can), it won't matter. It is up to Randi.

You don't know much about how to run this kind of test do you. I have desighned tests which whould leave Randi with nowhere to go without completely destroying his reputation. Considering the number of enimies he has you would have thought that there would be no shortage of people who would find this sufficinet motivation.

also connected:

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.

I've covered this above you are just repeating Randi has too much power over and over. Well if you don't like randi it's not like there are not plently of other people who could test you. Anyway there is nothing to stop you sueing the pants off him if he tried this.

highly relevant:

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."

I'm perpared to say that I could if I had to desighn a fraud proof test of homeopathy.

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.

Show one case where he has done this otherwise stop wasteing my time and bring me someone with some real powers.

Flaw:

....the problem here is that no result is ever going to be self evident to Randi. He has built his life and work upon the premise that the paranormal not only doesn't exist, but that the majority of it's proponents are crackpots. This obvious bias has been raised against him before by people wishing to discredit his challenge. As it was in his 07/05/02 commentary, his answer has always been that : "We don't give a damn how something happened, only whether it did happen, under careful observation. As for "whether . . . the remote image was correctly reproduced," there is absolutely no doubt about that, since a participant would be given a list of targets, and be required to choose which one was the intended one. That doesn't call for argument or a decision; it's either right or it's wrong. It's "yes" or "no."

Since what Randi is saying may still be unclear to you, let me try to clarify it. If Randi designs a test and an applicant agrees to it, Randi says that all the applicant is required to do is succeed. Success is defined in different ways based on the claim being made. In the case of the yellow bamboo claimants, it was agreed that if the group was able to make Randi's tester fall down, then that would constitute a success. As with real science, it is up to the experiments designer, not the person being tested, to ensure that any potential artifacts (including any possibilities of fraud) are eliminated before the test is conducted. This is of course done to rule out any type of spurious result.

Nope. If I am testing a person's claim that they have unatualy low levels of ethanol in their blood it is up to them to tell me that they have been consuming methanol (which would totaly screw up one of the tests I would use)

Randi has stated many times that all a claimant has to do is succeed. The yellow bamboo group accomplished this. It is not their fault that Randi allowed such a poor test to be conducted. If they have fraudulently succeeded, it is Randi's fault. If he practiced what he preached, he would be forced to "formally" test these people. Since Randi's bias surely prevented him from even contemplating this, and since he is not a scientist having his work policed by others, all he had to do was distort things a bit and claim that what took place was not his test.

So Randi is responcible for every test ever conducted on any group? No you say then your above logic is flawed try again. There is nothing to stop YB applying to take the prilminery test and doing it properly.

Flaw:

....during tests, claimants should be weary, since most skeptics associated with Rand have as much interest in seeing them fail as he does.

And during tests sceptics should be weary since people will lie and cheat to try and pass the test. I can design plently of test that no one on either side could manipulate.

Flaw:

Randi would have a variety of options. One of them would be to do what I am claiming he probably did when the claimants succeeded under poor test conditions. He could dismiss it after it had taken place and falsely claim that he had decided not to test the group.

There are plently of people on this forum who could pass under poor test conditions without trying. Sure if YB want to be tested the test is going to have to be done very carefuly to prevent fraud but the same would be true if a profetion magician wanted to be tested.

Since if you agree with Hyman or any scientist worth his weight,
fraud is always an (if only slight) possibility in every test. Another option Randi could take would be to come up with ways for which fraud could have possibly occurred and then claim that those frauds did occur, even if he had no truly compelling proof of this. Since a fraudulently won test would not have followed the protocol agreed upon by Randi, I think Randi would be able to assert that it wasn't a real preliminary test and feel justified in dismissing it.

Next time you decide to insult a lot of very good scientists I would think before I you do. It is quite posible to produce a test that prevents fraud. An example:

Two sets of pills are made up. One is soem homeopathic remedy at 40C and one is made up of the stock packing matterial. These pills are randomly divied into two sets. One of which is sent to a university anaerlytical deparment to see if they can tell them apart. The other is sent to a gruop of homeopaths to see if they can tell them apart. If the Uni analytical departmrnt can't tell tham apart and the homeopaths can then the homeopaths pass. I've missed out some of the stats and the blinding procedure but they are a given and not that hard to do in a way which prevents fraud.



amherst [/B][/QUOTE]

 

[RichardR]

It's apparent that you feel Honorton was either lying or deluded. I have already given my reasons for why I think this is highly unlikely. Why not, instead of simply calling me credulous, don't you give me your reasons for why you think I am incorrect and then explain to me how you think Honorton could have been making misstatements?

You are making the claim, that means you have to back that claim up.

You are trying to shift the burden of proof back to apoger – ie, unless apoger can show why Honorton is wrong, then Honorton is right by default. But this is fallacious reasoning (again). You are making the claim which means that you must show that Honorton is right. And since you don't know what Honorton's beef is, you are unable to do that.

You need to research and understand your own position before you try to debate it with others.

As to your reply to me, I'll remind you my question was:

"Please point me to where you detailed a flaw in an actual Randi $1M test."

Your reply consists of a list of "could have dones", but nothing detailing an actual test with those actual flaws actually documented.

That is, apart from your unsubstantiated claimed flaws in the YB test. And while on that subject, I'll repeat the question I really wanted answering (that you ignored), which was:

Since you agree that YB did not follow protocol, why do you think Randi should accept that YB passed this test?

I really would like that explained.

 

[apoger]

Wasn't it Charles Honorton that said:

"James Randi is the most honorable and upstanding human that I have ever met."

Didn't he also say:

"The Ganzfeld studies were a waste of time. Thank goodness James Randi came along and set us all straight!"


I offer two references for these quotes. They can be found at:

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.



{By the standards set by Amherst, this argument from authority, and reference to secondary sources that I haven't read, are both perfectly valid arguments}

 

[amherst]

Wasn't it Charles Honorton that said:

"James Randi is the most honorable and upstanding human that I have ever met."

Didn't he also say:

"The Ganzfeld studies were a waste of time. Thank goodness James Randi came along and set us all straight!"


I offer two references for these quotes. They can be found at:

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.



{By the standards set by Amherst, this argument from authority, and reference to secondary sources that I haven't read, are both perfectly valid arguments}

First off, your analogy is greatly flawed and incorrect. I have read the Honorton essay where he asserts Randi's competence as an experimenter is not apparent. I know for certain that he actually said this. I am not getting his quotes from any secondary source I haven't read, unlike your comparison.

The actual secondary sources are the papers he used to back up his assertions. Because I have not read these I have stated:

"Since Honorton cited the sources for his assertions, it seems very unlikely he is lying. If he had intentionally distorted or somehow misconstrued the conclusions of the papers, he would have been quickly found out by others who had read the papers he referenced. His credibility would have been greatly damaged. He would have been aware of this."

If you disagree with my reasoning on this then please specifically tell me why you think it is faulty. If you don't believe my reasoning is wrong, then (specifically) what problems do you have with the Honorton quote?

 

[apoger]

If you disagree with my reasoning

Once again, I stand by my earlier assessment of:

"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."


For the sake of clarity, perhaps we can attempt define what you are actully trying to say with all this?

In simple and clear terms, what claim are you making and what evidence are you offering?

It seems to me that your claim is: Charles Honorton said that he felt that Randi's methodology was flawed concerning one experiment. Thus I feel that it's now absolutely impossible to trust the JREF challenge.

Is appears that your evidence is: I read somewhere that Charles Honorton said so.

Is this your argument? If not, what is it?

 

[Patricio Elicer]

You do not consider the extended consequences of Randi doing this, in the circumstances that I outline (even though they have been pointed out to you over and over).

Let's take your hypothesis and extend it: so Randi calls fraud, or says he never agreed to a test. What next? YB have clear daylight video shot from several angles of a strange and interesting phenomenon. They put it up on a website. They post about it here. They approach news organisations. They drag Randi's name through the mud, saying they agreed to a test with him, they passed the test (and have proof of it) but Randi reneged. They do it again for CBS and David Letterman. They do it again for some other scientist or researcher under controlled conditions. The Australian Skeptics offer their prize. The Indian Skeptics likewise.

Anyone who could actually do something paranormal would have the world at their feet. They would become a worldwide phenomenon, and Randi would look a total dick.

You are committing what I refer to as the "only game in town" fallacy. You imbue Randi with a status that he simply does not have: he is not the only person interested in or able to test or publicize or pass judgment upon claims of paranormal phenomena.

You (and others like you) imbue Randi with this status so that you can excuse or explain away the failure of anyone to actually
prove any paranormal ability by saying that Randi is a fraud, a liar, an unqualified person. You get the opposition to the paranormal down to a singularity (Randi) so that you can attack the singularity.

You do this so that you can ignore the fact that there are actually a whole world of people out there who would be interested in a convincing display of the paranormal, and who would (if so convinced) make Randi an irrelevancy were he to attempt to cover up or ignore or call fraudulent a person with actual ability.

Excellent!. Worthwhile quoting it