alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
Besides, if Randi even appeared to be unethical in the testing procedure (as if he had a choice), you can bet that many, many skeptic members of this board would be all over him like xouper on a moderator.
Some Thoughts on Randi and His Challenge
- Thread starter amherst
- Start date
RichardR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2001
- Messages
- 2,274
This is one of your more stupid criticisms.amherst said:
The protocol can only be set up once Randi knows what the claimant is claiming they can do. There cannot be one protocol for dowsers, astrologers, psychics, YB etc; each has to be different. If the protocol was decided before the claimant agreed to it, you would be the first to criticize it. I can hear you now:
"Flaw:
The protocols are decided by Randi before the claimant has even had a chance to explain to Randi what they claim to be able to do. Randi had designed these protocols to exclude people like YB who don't fit in with Randi's boilerplate. This allows Randi to claim that YB did not pass his test when his protocol does not even support testing a claim like that of YB."
You are a hypocrite.
Additionally, there is nothing to stop the claimants from showing the protocol to a parapsychologist before it is finalized. Nothing.
What part of "judging is not required" don't you get.amherst said:
So all science can be subject to fraud. Your answer, presumably, must be to stop all science. That was your answer, right?amherst said:
Except you are missing the bit about having to follow a protocol. Are you really so dense that you still don't see that?amherst said:
The rest of your replies were a list of "Randi could have dones", but nothing detailing an actual test with those actual flaws actually documented. Oh yes, and there is your your claim (unsupported) that Honorton had criticized Randi (20 years ago), which should be enough for anyone. Although you can't quite remember what the problem was although you really really did read it, and you definitely remember he did criticize Randi - honestly.
You still have not answered this:
Since you agree that YB did not follow protocol, why do you think Randi should accept that YB passed this test?
Come on, it's in bold and underlined. You can't have missed it. What's your answer?
RichardR has asked me why it is that (if I agree the yellow bamboo group did not follow the protocol) I think Randi should accept the test of them as valid. My original answer to this question was:
"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."
After thinking more about this though, I now believe that I may have been mistaken on this point. I now believe that Randi may indeed always have the right to dismiss his tests if he feels they didn't follow the correct protocol. I now think that he has never preached anything truly contrary to this (although some of the things he's said have suggested it). If this is true and I have been mistaken, then it strengthens my case even more immensely.
As I have already discussed before, if Randi is able to dismiss tests because he feels they didn't follow the correct protocol, then since he could always find ways for how the protocol wasn't followed (such as fraud), Randi is always going to be able to dismiss "successful" tests. If a claimant "succeeds" at his challenge, Randi will only need to come up with a non paranormal way for how the claimant MIGHT have been able to accomplish this and then confidently proclaim that it was in fact what occurred.
Examples of how prominent skeptics have done this in the past can be found abundantly in the work of C.E.M. Hansel. An example of how fraud can be used as an explanation for success, even under excellent conditions, can be found in his discussion of the Pearce-Pratt experiments. Here is a quick summary of of the experiments taken from Richard Broughton's book Parapsychology the Controversial Science:
"The classic example of these later experiments is the Pearce-Pratt series, which took place between different buildings on Duke's West Campus. Pratt, the agent, was located in what was then the Physics Building. Once a minute he picked up a card from a precut and preshuffled pack. Without turning it up or looking at it, Pratt moved the card facedown on a book. (Since this experiment was meant to test clairvoyance, it was not necessary for Pratt to see the card.) At that very minute Pearce, located with a sycronized watch in the libary one hundred yards away, tried to perceive the card on the book. Without meeting, both men deposited sealed records with Rhine-Pratt of the targets (which he recorded after the run) and Pearce of his calls-and then met to check results. Although Pearce started off with only chance scores, as was typical of him when confronted with a new situation, he quickly resumed his high scoring level and averaged 9.9 hits per run of 25 (where chance predicts 5 hits) over the 300 trials. Pearce was then moved to the medical school, over 250 yards away, and, after the customary adjustment period, continued his high scoring. Ultimately four separate experiments were done with a total of 558 hits out of 1,850 trials (where 370 would be expected by chance). The odds against chance for the series were literally astronomical, 22 billion-to-one."
What follows is Broughton's summary of Hansel's explanation for this:
"One of parapsychology's better better-known skeptics is the British psychologist Prof. C.E.M Hansel. Although his critical attacks on parapsychology predate the formation of CSICOP, he has been one of CSICOP's fellows from the beginning, and CSICOP's publishing house, Prometheus Press, issued an update of Hansel's 1966 examination of parapsychology under the title ESP and Parapsychology: A Critical Reevaluation. Hansel makes no bones about his basic assumptions: ESP is impossible; therefore investigating an experiment simply means finding out how the trick was done or where the loophole occurred. His strategy is to devise "rational reconstructions" of how a given experiment took place and then suggest how the fraud was perpetuated.
Typical of Hansel's approach was his examination of the famous Pearce-Pratt series of ESP experiments conducted at Duke University in the late thirties, discussed in the preceding chapter. Before Hansel's visit to Duke University some twenty years after the Pearce-Pratt experiments there had never been even the slightest suggestion of fraud in this classically designed card-guessing experiment. Hansel looked over the layout of the two locations that had been used and subsequently claimed that he had found the manner in which Pearce, the subject, had probably cheated. Pearce had obviously left his assigned post in another building, returned to the building where Pratt, the experimenter, was recording the ESP cards by a timed schedule on the desk, and either peaked over two transoms or gained access to the attic and peaked through a trap door in the ceiling. Near the end of the session Pearce would have hustled back to his assigned station and turned in his record sheets in the expected manner. (Of course Pearce would have had to repeat this performance over thirty times without being detected and done this even though Rhine himself was present for many sessions.) It did not concern Hansel that there was never a shred of evidence that any part of this activity took place, nor did it bother him that the layout of the rooms upon which he had based his scenario had been substantially altered since the days of the experiment. Even the discovery of blueprints of the original layout that demonstrated that much of his scenario was simply impossible did not deter Hansel from standing by his accusations in the revised version of his book. From Hansels point of view, evidence is not needed. It is sufficient to demonstrate the merest possibility of fraud to allow one to dismiss an experiment altogether."
Any experiment, no matter how highly secure and competently conducted, is open to the possibility that fraud took place. If anyone ever succeeds at his test, Randi can do what Hansel did. Further, since Randi's experimental designs are (according to a highly competent and respected experimenters observation) not that strong in the first place, Randi's ideas for how the agreed to protocol had been subverted would probably not seem as far-fetched as Hansel's.
amherst
"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."
After thinking more about this though, I now believe that I may have been mistaken on this point. I now believe that Randi may indeed always have the right to dismiss his tests if he feels they didn't follow the correct protocol. I now think that he has never preached anything truly contrary to this (although some of the things he's said have suggested it). If this is true and I have been mistaken, then it strengthens my case even more immensely.
As I have already discussed before, if Randi is able to dismiss tests because he feels they didn't follow the correct protocol, then since he could always find ways for how the protocol wasn't followed (such as fraud), Randi is always going to be able to dismiss "successful" tests. If a claimant "succeeds" at his challenge, Randi will only need to come up with a non paranormal way for how the claimant MIGHT have been able to accomplish this and then confidently proclaim that it was in fact what occurred.
Examples of how prominent skeptics have done this in the past can be found abundantly in the work of C.E.M. Hansel. An example of how fraud can be used as an explanation for success, even under excellent conditions, can be found in his discussion of the Pearce-Pratt experiments. Here is a quick summary of of the experiments taken from Richard Broughton's book Parapsychology the Controversial Science:
"The classic example of these later experiments is the Pearce-Pratt series, which took place between different buildings on Duke's West Campus. Pratt, the agent, was located in what was then the Physics Building. Once a minute he picked up a card from a precut and preshuffled pack. Without turning it up or looking at it, Pratt moved the card facedown on a book. (Since this experiment was meant to test clairvoyance, it was not necessary for Pratt to see the card.) At that very minute Pearce, located with a sycronized watch in the libary one hundred yards away, tried to perceive the card on the book. Without meeting, both men deposited sealed records with Rhine-Pratt of the targets (which he recorded after the run) and Pearce of his calls-and then met to check results. Although Pearce started off with only chance scores, as was typical of him when confronted with a new situation, he quickly resumed his high scoring level and averaged 9.9 hits per run of 25 (where chance predicts 5 hits) over the 300 trials. Pearce was then moved to the medical school, over 250 yards away, and, after the customary adjustment period, continued his high scoring. Ultimately four separate experiments were done with a total of 558 hits out of 1,850 trials (where 370 would be expected by chance). The odds against chance for the series were literally astronomical, 22 billion-to-one."
What follows is Broughton's summary of Hansel's explanation for this:
"One of parapsychology's better better-known skeptics is the British psychologist Prof. C.E.M Hansel. Although his critical attacks on parapsychology predate the formation of CSICOP, he has been one of CSICOP's fellows from the beginning, and CSICOP's publishing house, Prometheus Press, issued an update of Hansel's 1966 examination of parapsychology under the title ESP and Parapsychology: A Critical Reevaluation. Hansel makes no bones about his basic assumptions: ESP is impossible; therefore investigating an experiment simply means finding out how the trick was done or where the loophole occurred. His strategy is to devise "rational reconstructions" of how a given experiment took place and then suggest how the fraud was perpetuated.
Typical of Hansel's approach was his examination of the famous Pearce-Pratt series of ESP experiments conducted at Duke University in the late thirties, discussed in the preceding chapter. Before Hansel's visit to Duke University some twenty years after the Pearce-Pratt experiments there had never been even the slightest suggestion of fraud in this classically designed card-guessing experiment. Hansel looked over the layout of the two locations that had been used and subsequently claimed that he had found the manner in which Pearce, the subject, had probably cheated. Pearce had obviously left his assigned post in another building, returned to the building where Pratt, the experimenter, was recording the ESP cards by a timed schedule on the desk, and either peaked over two transoms or gained access to the attic and peaked through a trap door in the ceiling. Near the end of the session Pearce would have hustled back to his assigned station and turned in his record sheets in the expected manner. (Of course Pearce would have had to repeat this performance over thirty times without being detected and done this even though Rhine himself was present for many sessions.) It did not concern Hansel that there was never a shred of evidence that any part of this activity took place, nor did it bother him that the layout of the rooms upon which he had based his scenario had been substantially altered since the days of the experiment. Even the discovery of blueprints of the original layout that demonstrated that much of his scenario was simply impossible did not deter Hansel from standing by his accusations in the revised version of his book. From Hansels point of view, evidence is not needed. It is sufficient to demonstrate the merest possibility of fraud to allow one to dismiss an experiment altogether."
Any experiment, no matter how highly secure and competently conducted, is open to the possibility that fraud took place. If anyone ever succeeds at his test, Randi can do what Hansel did. Further, since Randi's experimental designs are (according to a highly competent and respected experimenters observation) not that strong in the first place, Randi's ideas for how the agreed to protocol had been subverted would probably not seem as far-fetched as Hansel's.
amherst
RichardR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2001
- Messages
- 2,274
Except that the protocol is agreed in advance. If the protocol is followed and the claimant passes, the claimant wins.amherst said:
Question: Are you saying that Randi altered the protocol for YB after the test? If so, what did he alter about the protocol?
Anyone can claim anything, but if the claimant follows the protocol and is successful then they win the $Million.amherst said:
Who cares? We are talking about what Randi has done. I hope for your sake you didn't have to type all of that in, because if you did the effort was a waste of time.amherst said:
More argument from authority. No actual detail of any actual experiment that is "not that strong".amherst said:
Your arguments get even more lame as this goes on. You now appear to agree that Randi was right to dismiss this test. You now seem to be saying that if he can dismiss tests for legitimate reasons, he is also able to dismiss them for illegitimate reasons, and therefore all tests are flawed. So we should stop doing tests. I don't think I've debated anyone quite this boneheaded before, and I've debated Interesting Ian. (I feel a "what a maroon" cartoon coming on soon.)
princhester
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 13, 2003
- Messages
- 321
Let's cut to the chase and get something out in the open:
Randi might fraudulently deny that any test was passed. He might say it never happened. He might assert there was cheating in some obscure way.
There is no need to go on asserting that over and over, Amherst. We heard you the first time.
You need to DEAL with the responses being put to you:
1/ Have you any actual examples of Randi doing what you assert what you say he might do? If not, all you are doing is asserting (in essence) that because he could be and is (you say) motivated to be a fraud he is one. As could we all.
2/ How do you deal with my assertion that you are committing the "only game in town" fallacy?
3/ [This is a new point] What does Randi do when he's sued for the million? You see, in the Pearce-Pratt example you give above, had it been a Randi test, at the end of the test Randi would have had to hand over the money. And if he didn't, well he would have entered into an enforceable agreement with the applicant, saying that if the test was passed Randi would hand over the money. If Randi claimed there was fraud involved that would be up to Randi to prove. Randi speculating (as Hansel did about the Pearce-Pratt series according to Broughton) as to how there could have been cheating would not help him. He would be sued for the money and lose.
Answers please.
Randi might fraudulently deny that any test was passed. He might say it never happened. He might assert there was cheating in some obscure way.
There is no need to go on asserting that over and over, Amherst. We heard you the first time.
You need to DEAL with the responses being put to you:
1/ Have you any actual examples of Randi doing what you assert what you say he might do? If not, all you are doing is asserting (in essence) that because he could be and is (you say) motivated to be a fraud he is one. As could we all.
2/ How do you deal with my assertion that you are committing the "only game in town" fallacy?
3/ [This is a new point] What does Randi do when he's sued for the million? You see, in the Pearce-Pratt example you give above, had it been a Randi test, at the end of the test Randi would have had to hand over the money. And if he didn't, well he would have entered into an enforceable agreement with the applicant, saying that if the test was passed Randi would hand over the money. If Randi claimed there was fraud involved that would be up to Randi to prove. Randi speculating (as Hansel did about the Pearce-Pratt series according to Broughton) as to how there could have been cheating would not help him. He would be sued for the money and lose.
Answers please.
apoger said:
I am sorry, but you are truly beyond all hope. I've now spent over a dozen posts detailing why the Randi challenge is flawed. I even made a list compiling those flaws since some in here seemed unable to remember them and unwilling to go back and look. None of those flaws on the list contained any mention of Honorton's quote. Only a small fraction of all the posts I've made have. Honorton's opinion about Randi was an informed one which deserves to be taken seriously. Randi's experimental expertise was found lacking by a scientist who was more talented than any one else in designing experiments to elicit psi and rule out artifacts. He backed up his assertions about Randi with facts. I have shown why it is not conceivable that he could be lying or deluded about those facts. You have done nothing to show that he was. Honorton's quote is relevant, that's why I have used it. It is not the basis or even needed for my criticism of the Randi Challenge.
amherst
RichardR has quoted me as saying:
"Flaw:
The protocols are decided by Randi before the claimant has even had a chance to explain to Randi what they claim to be able to do. Randi had designed these protocols to exclude people like YB who don't fit in with Randi's boilerplate. This allows Randi to claim that YB did not pass his test when his protocol does not even support testing a claim like that of YB."
Not one word of this is mine. If YOU want to keep any credibility in here RichardR I suggest that you don't invent quotes and then pretend they are mine.
RichardR has also said: "So all science can be subject to fraud. Your answer, presumably, must be to stop all science. That was your answer, right?"
RichardR, your misunderstandings keep getting more and more nonsensical and the disservice you are doing to the viewpoint you represent is becoming very great. I have never stated that "since all science can be subject to fraud, all science must be stopped" or implied anything remotely like that. My stance has always been that even if fraud can be shown to have been a possibility in an experiment the experiment should NOT be dismissed. Skeptics (not me) have done this in the past. Randi's test gives him the opportunity to do it as well. Because Randi is at high risk for unfairly dismissing any test which is successful (unlike real science) I find his challenge highly flawed.
amherst
"Flaw:
The protocols are decided by Randi before the claimant has even had a chance to explain to Randi what they claim to be able to do. Randi had designed these protocols to exclude people like YB who don't fit in with Randi's boilerplate. This allows Randi to claim that YB did not pass his test when his protocol does not even support testing a claim like that of YB."
Not one word of this is mine. If YOU want to keep any credibility in here RichardR I suggest that you don't invent quotes and then pretend they are mine.
RichardR has also said: "So all science can be subject to fraud. Your answer, presumably, must be to stop all science. That was your answer, right?"
RichardR, your misunderstandings keep getting more and more nonsensical and the disservice you are doing to the viewpoint you represent is becoming very great. I have never stated that "since all science can be subject to fraud, all science must be stopped" or implied anything remotely like that. My stance has always been that even if fraud can be shown to have been a possibility in an experiment the experiment should NOT be dismissed. Skeptics (not me) have done this in the past. Randi's test gives him the opportunity to do it as well. Because Randi is at high risk for unfairly dismissing any test which is successful (unlike real science) I find his challenge highly flawed.
amherst
princhester said:
1. Randi has demonstrated his deceit in the past. I have documented some of this in my original post. His challenge gives him the opportunity to be unfair. He has great motive for not allowing anyone to win. The yellow bamboo group constitutes an example of his ability to "always have an out".
2. If you feel that it would ever be truly conceivable that Randi could give a fair test to a claimant who (hypothetically)has paranormal abilities and you have also taken into account Randi's history of deceit, as well as what he would lose if someone won his challenge, then I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts. If you can not show any plausible way this will ever be conceivable, then I am not committing the fallacy.
3. Randi could never be taken to court for his million since the test the person would have succeeded in would only have been a preliminary one.
amherst
princhester
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 13, 2003
- Messages
- 321
amherst said:
This is your "response" to my question: have you any actual examples of Randi doing what you assert he might do? Your answer, I take it, is no. Your stance remains that you think Randi's challenge can be discounted because he might fraudulently deny a successful pass, even though (amongst hundreds of actual applicants) you can't point to a single applicant who complains of this.
Your position remains one of unsupported speculation.
You are just ducking the point. Earlier, you quite clearly alleged that if Randi administered a test and the applicant passed, Randi could "back out" by alleging fraud and walking away with impunity. I then accused you of the "only game in town" fallacy, and now (seemingly) because you cannot answer that charge, you are saying that Randi simply is incapable of adminstering a test.
Nonsense. Find me the part in the binding agreement that all applicants and Randi sign before taking the preliminary that says Randi can pull out if the preliminary is passed if Randi does not wish to continue.
You just don't seem to be able to let YB go. Earlier in this thread you said"
Later, you said:
But now you are saying once again that YB is an example of how Randi "always has an out". You just don't seem able (deep down) to be able to get through to yourself that YB did not follow the frickin' protocol. The only thing they are an example of is how Randi quite rightly as you accept has the right to dismiss the result of tests if the protocol is not followed.
The YB incident does not say anything at all about what Randi might do if a test was passed when the protocol was followed. The fact that you seem unable to resist the temptation to suggest to the contrary, despite your own admissions and acknowledgements that Randi did nothing wrong in relation to YB says much about you but nothing about Randi.
Sorry about all the edits, I just can't seem to get my thoughts straight this evening.
walthrup48
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 1,087
amherst
Most, if not all, of your apparent problems with the paranormal challenge have been answered over the previous 3 pages.
Regarding the two examples you gave as evidence of Randi's lack of expertise at designing experiments -
I'm positive that Randi has admitted that the tests published in his ESP book were naive and flawed. Unfortunately, I don't have the quote readily at hand but I'll try to find it in the near future.
You know as well as I the problems inherent in the criticising of a test based solely on its coverage in a television programme.
I'll repeat:
Randi need not be involved in the challenge, other than to help design the test protocols. The testing may be implemented by an independent third party. The testing may be monitored by a further party.
Most, if not all, of your apparent problems with the paranormal challenge have been answered over the previous 3 pages.
Regarding the two examples you gave as evidence of Randi's lack of expertise at designing experiments -
I'm positive that Randi has admitted that the tests published in his ESP book were naive and flawed. Unfortunately, I don't have the quote readily at hand but I'll try to find it in the near future.
You know as well as I the problems inherent in the criticising of a test based solely on its coverage in a television programme.
I'll repeat:
Randi need not be involved in the challenge, other than to help design the test protocols. The testing may be implemented by an independent third party. The testing may be monitored by a further party.
RichardR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2001
- Messages
- 2,274
I am sorry, but you are truly beyond all hope. Posters here have now spent dozens of posts detailing why your position is flawed. Your paragraph above is nothing but Argument From Authority and Argument From ignorance – two logical fallacies that you have made no attempt to address.amherst said:
I didn't pretend they were yours, moron, I was using a rhetorical device to expose the weakness of your criticism that Randi has no prior protocols.amherst said:
Your whole case has been that Randi could dishonestly claim that a successful test was due to fraud. When I asked you what Randi should do differently, you said he should stop doing tests. You did say that, right? Or are you going back on that?amherst said:
Now, are you going to answer this question (third time of asking):
Are you saying that Randi altered the protocol for YB after the test? If so, what did he alter about the protocol?
Well?
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
This statement above shows amazingly closed minded thinking an an inherent tautology. There are experimental results all the time that are later disproved or not replicated. The fact that Honorton’s analysis or flawed meta-analysis of the data is not a statement that he is a liar or dishonest. this is part of the scientific process, you will note that there was a discussion of the potential for a flawed meta-analysis. That does not men that Honorton was in any way deceitful, it means that his analysis of the date was flawed in methodology.
Are you saying that Bohr called Rutherford a liar or that Einstien called Newton a liar. This seems to be a real misunderstanding of the scientific process.
I quote form the CSICOP again
This does not state that there was any deceit or active misrepresentation of the date at all, just that there was a misinterpretation or the potential for one.
So why is saying that the data may have been mistaken in analysis suddenly become an imbuement of Honorton with deceit?
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
That is a great story about the Rhine experiments and it does show some flaws in the methodology that could have been easily corrected. I would have critiqued the methodology on completely different grounds, because the studdy should have tried to eliminate all possible fraud as part of the design. Which is always a needful thing in any scientific endevour.
And a truely secure (I would say well constructed) experiment will eleimeinate most of the potential for fraud.
The Rhine studies have never been replicated which is thier main problem, they did not find any thing above statistical chance.
But firm methodology helps. In the scenario which Hansel makes a poor critique of there could have been some protocols that would have eliminated the chance for fraud.
1. The use of a double blind in the recording of the result, in that both experiementer should have had another person present at all times to document the accuracy of the times and cards. This would have eleiminated or reduced the chance for fraud, while it is possible that four people could have participated in deceit.
By randomly chosing observers from alarge pool the chance of fraud can be brought to zero.
Mr. Amhearst, this sia huge problem in all of the social sciences, it is not limited to parapsychology, but sloppy methodology will lead to unreplicated results.
This just shows that you do not understand methodology, a protocol is agreed to in advance, it can not be subverted. Either the protocol is followed or it is not. It is simple as that, there is no way to subvert protocol, you can break it or follow it. It is that simple. If the method is properly designed and the protocol is followed then there is a 'valid' result.
A valid result may be proven to be false by later data but a properly designed protocol will not be subverted.
A good protocol for precognition would involve the double blinding of the procedures and the isolation of the subjects. To further minimise the chance for fraud a videotape and time protocol would help as well as the monitoring for electro magnetic transmission.
Believe me if some was able to show any telepathic ability a documented isolation and double bliding and clear signals would make a very good case. The ability to do so could be clearly demonstrated and the evidence would be very valid. Most studies involve a limited double blind and few garuntees of isolation and ambigous signals open to interpretation.
Which is why the Rhine study was better than the Ganzfeld, there is less room for error in the Rhine cards.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Point of order: In science the goal is to eliminate and control for variables that can potentialy influence the outcome, all the time and always. If there is a potential for an uncontrolled effect creating the result then the hypothesis behind the experiment must be modified to contain the effect that was not controlled for or the effect must be controlled for.
Your statement that any research involving the potential for fraud should not be dismissed shows a basic misundertsanding of this point of order.
The hypothesis in parpsychology has inherent in it that fraud was not a possible means for producing any result. Therefore fraud must be controlled for in the experiment or:
Fraud must be added to the hypothesis that psi effects exist.
I think that you misunderstand this, if the potential for fraud exists then there is no reasonable way to conclude that a psi effect exists unless one wants to hypothesize that fraud is part of psi research something I think they don't want to hypothesise.
I am unsure how to deal with Amherst.
Is he a troll?
Is he willfully ignorant?
Is he mentally ill?
He seems genuine in his concern, but completely unable to generate or maintain coherent discussion.
What do we do when faced with unrelenting nonsense? Walking away seems to be the right thing to do, but feels unsatisfying on many levels.
Is he a troll?
Is he willfully ignorant?
Is he mentally ill?
He seems genuine in his concern, but completely unable to generate or maintain coherent discussion.
What do we do when faced with unrelenting nonsense? Walking away seems to be the right thing to do, but feels unsatisfying on many levels.
princhester wrote:
I
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by amherst
1. Randi has demonstrated his deceit in the past. I have documented some of this in my original post. His challenge gives him the opportunity to be unfair. He has great motive for not allowing anyone to win.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is your "response" to my question: have you any actual examples of Randi doing what you assert he might do? Your answer, I take it, is no. Your stance remains that you think Randi's challenge can be discounted because he might fraudulently deny a successful pass, even though (amongst hundreds of actual applicants) you can't point to a single applicant who complains of this."
I write:
-My response contained one more sentence, curious that you cut it out. The yellow bamboo group is an example. They complain of this and if you hadn't edited the rest of my response out you would have no basis for your remarks. Further, the only reason we even knew about them is because Randi made them the subject of some of his commentaries. He doesn't do this for everyone. Who knows how many other people got unfairly dismissed?
princhester wrote:
"Your position remains one of unsupported speculation."
I write:
-I have supported my position not only with a "real life" example but with documentation of Randi's deceit and bias. Are you really trying to tell me that if Randi was faced with someone who succeeded at his test, even though he would have the ability to dismiss it, he's to much of an ethical scientist to ever do this? Is this really your position? If not, then what is your position? You obviously agree with me that Randi does indeed have "outs", what makes you think he wouldn't use them? If you can't come up with any reasons, then why do you continue to believe he administers a fair test of the paranormal? Think hard about that question.
princhester wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. If you feel that it would ever be truly conceivable that Randi could give a fair test to a claimant who (hypothetically)has paranormal abilities and you have also taken into account Randi's history of deceit, as well as what he would lose if someone won his challenge, then I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts. If you can not show any plausible way this will ever be conceivable, then I am not committing the fallacy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You are just ducking the point. Earlier, you quite clearly alleged that if Randi administered a test and the applicant passed, Randi could "back out" by alleging fraud and walking away with impunity. I then accused you of the "only game in town" fallacy, and now (seemingly) because you cannot answer that charge, you are saying that Randi simply is incapable of administering a test."
I write:
-You seem to have not read the word "FAIR" which was placed immediately before the word "test". I said that Randi is incapable of administering a "FAIR test". If you had read that one little word maybe then maybe you wouldn't have made that ridiculous assertion about me. I assume based on your own "ducking" of my question, that you have no answer for it and you agree that I have not committed the fallacy.
princhester wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Randi could never be taken to court for his million since the test the person would have succeeded in would only have been a preliminary one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nonsense. Find me the part in the binding agreement that all applicants and Randi sign before taking the preliminary that says Randi can pull out if the preliminary is passed if Randi does not wish to continue."
I write:
-How would someone be able to sue Randi for his million dollars if they never took the test for the million? They'd have only taken the preliminary test that is administered "....to determine if the applicant is likely to perform as promised during a formal test." To further address your comments, you have agreed yourself that Randi can "pull out" of the test if he feels the protocol wasn't properly followed. It's very hard to see your argument here (like many of your posts) as anything else but a jumbled attempt to save yourself the embarassment of admitting your wrong.
princhester wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The yellow bamboo group constitutes an example of his ability to "always have an out".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You just don't seem to be able to let YB go. Earlier in this thread you said
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do agree that the yellow bamboo claimants did not (in all likely hood) follow the protocol.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Later, you said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RichardR has asked me why it is that (if I agree the yellow bamboo group did not follow the protocol) I think Randi should accept the test of them as valid. My original answer to this question was
[snip]
After thinking more about this though, I now believe that I may have been mistaken on this point. I now believe that Randi may indeed always have the right to dismiss his tests if he feels they didn't follow the correct protocol.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But now you are saying once again that YB is an example of how Randi "always has an out". You just don't seem able (deep down) to be able to get through to yourself that YB did not follow the frickin' protocol. The only thing they are an example of is how Randi quite rightly as you accept has the right to dismiss the result of tests if the protocol is not followed.
The YB incident does not say anything at all about what Randi might do if a test was passed when the protocol was followed. The fact that you seem unable to resist the temptation to suggest to the contrary, despite your own admissions and acknowledgements that Randi did nothing wrong in relation to YB says much about you but nothing about Randi."
I write:
-Just because I now believe that Randi's rules give him the right to dismiss a test if he feels it didn't follow the correct protocol doesn't mean that I now also believe that this is fair or right. I don't believe he should have this "out". What ever gave you the impression that I did? Perhaps your own needing it to be true? It is truly stunning how many incorrect assumptions many of you have made about me. All of them have been so obviously wrong that I find it hard to believe you were not aware of them when you wrote them.
amherst
I
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by amherst
1. Randi has demonstrated his deceit in the past. I have documented some of this in my original post. His challenge gives him the opportunity to be unfair. He has great motive for not allowing anyone to win.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is your "response" to my question: have you any actual examples of Randi doing what you assert he might do? Your answer, I take it, is no. Your stance remains that you think Randi's challenge can be discounted because he might fraudulently deny a successful pass, even though (amongst hundreds of actual applicants) you can't point to a single applicant who complains of this."
I write:
-My response contained one more sentence, curious that you cut it out. The yellow bamboo group is an example. They complain of this and if you hadn't edited the rest of my response out you would have no basis for your remarks. Further, the only reason we even knew about them is because Randi made them the subject of some of his commentaries. He doesn't do this for everyone. Who knows how many other people got unfairly dismissed?
princhester wrote:
"Your position remains one of unsupported speculation."
I write:
-I have supported my position not only with a "real life" example but with documentation of Randi's deceit and bias. Are you really trying to tell me that if Randi was faced with someone who succeeded at his test, even though he would have the ability to dismiss it, he's to much of an ethical scientist to ever do this? Is this really your position? If not, then what is your position? You obviously agree with me that Randi does indeed have "outs", what makes you think he wouldn't use them? If you can't come up with any reasons, then why do you continue to believe he administers a fair test of the paranormal? Think hard about that question.
princhester wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. If you feel that it would ever be truly conceivable that Randi could give a fair test to a claimant who (hypothetically)has paranormal abilities and you have also taken into account Randi's history of deceit, as well as what he would lose if someone won his challenge, then I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts. If you can not show any plausible way this will ever be conceivable, then I am not committing the fallacy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You are just ducking the point. Earlier, you quite clearly alleged that if Randi administered a test and the applicant passed, Randi could "back out" by alleging fraud and walking away with impunity. I then accused you of the "only game in town" fallacy, and now (seemingly) because you cannot answer that charge, you are saying that Randi simply is incapable of administering a test."
I write:
-You seem to have not read the word "FAIR" which was placed immediately before the word "test". I said that Randi is incapable of administering a "FAIR test". If you had read that one little word maybe then maybe you wouldn't have made that ridiculous assertion about me. I assume based on your own "ducking" of my question, that you have no answer for it and you agree that I have not committed the fallacy.
princhester wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Randi could never be taken to court for his million since the test the person would have succeeded in would only have been a preliminary one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nonsense. Find me the part in the binding agreement that all applicants and Randi sign before taking the preliminary that says Randi can pull out if the preliminary is passed if Randi does not wish to continue."
I write:
-How would someone be able to sue Randi for his million dollars if they never took the test for the million? They'd have only taken the preliminary test that is administered "....to determine if the applicant is likely to perform as promised during a formal test." To further address your comments, you have agreed yourself that Randi can "pull out" of the test if he feels the protocol wasn't properly followed. It's very hard to see your argument here (like many of your posts) as anything else but a jumbled attempt to save yourself the embarassment of admitting your wrong.
princhester wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The yellow bamboo group constitutes an example of his ability to "always have an out".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You just don't seem to be able to let YB go. Earlier in this thread you said
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do agree that the yellow bamboo claimants did not (in all likely hood) follow the protocol.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Later, you said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RichardR has asked me why it is that (if I agree the yellow bamboo group did not follow the protocol) I think Randi should accept the test of them as valid. My original answer to this question was
[snip]
After thinking more about this though, I now believe that I may have been mistaken on this point. I now believe that Randi may indeed always have the right to dismiss his tests if he feels they didn't follow the correct protocol.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But now you are saying once again that YB is an example of how Randi "always has an out". You just don't seem able (deep down) to be able to get through to yourself that YB did not follow the frickin' protocol. The only thing they are an example of is how Randi quite rightly as you accept has the right to dismiss the result of tests if the protocol is not followed.
The YB incident does not say anything at all about what Randi might do if a test was passed when the protocol was followed. The fact that you seem unable to resist the temptation to suggest to the contrary, despite your own admissions and acknowledgements that Randi did nothing wrong in relation to YB says much about you but nothing about Randi."
I write:
-Just because I now believe that Randi's rules give him the right to dismiss a test if he feels it didn't follow the correct protocol doesn't mean that I now also believe that this is fair or right. I don't believe he should have this "out". What ever gave you the impression that I did? Perhaps your own needing it to be true? It is truly stunning how many incorrect assumptions many of you have made about me. All of them have been so obviously wrong that I find it hard to believe you were not aware of them when you wrote them.
amherst
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,526
Weird..... you say that the Yellow Bamboo group (most likely) didn't follow set protocols but were unfairly dismissed at the same time.
You have no valid basis for your assertion that Randi is unfairly dismissing this, or any other group.
Maybe you should go to another board where someone may actually agree with your unsane conclusions.
You have no valid basis for your assertion that Randi is unfairly dismissing this, or any other group.
Maybe you should go to another board where someone may actually agree with your unsane conclusions.
thaiboxerken said:
What is weird or unsane about them? Randi's test is not science. He doesn't publish his work in peer reviewed journals. He has nothing to keep him honest, unlike he would if he were a real scientist. Because he can dismiss tests whether they are flawed in actuality(like the bamboo test) or whether it's just because he believes they are flawed if someone suceededs, this makes his test an invalid one. No matter what took place.
amherst
