Some Thoughts on Randi and His Challenge

[thaiboxerken]

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.

True, Randi isn't doing science. He is simply challenging people to take his money in a fair test. Oh, and all of his test results are accessible as his organization is non-profit and must, therefore, keep all of their records public access.

You have simply speculated that Randi might cheat or have flaws in his tests......... but you can't come up with any examples, right? Randi is innocent until proven guilty, maybe if you can show that he is cheating we may believe you.

Oh, Randi cannot dismiss tests simply because he believes they are falwed.. he actually has to demonstrate that they are flawed else he can be brought to court. Have any failed applicants shown that Randi dismissed their success wrongly?

 

[princhester]

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?

I cut out one sentence (concerning YB) because I wanted to deal with it separately and I did so at the end of my last post. You must know that, since you responded to it.

Anyhoo, the short point is that the only complaint you can come up with is from a group that you admit didn't follow the protocol and which therefore Randi was quite within his rights to ignore (as you admit).

So you are yet to come up with an example of Randi administering a flawed test, or wrongfully reneging on a valid test.

Your position remains one of unsupported speculation.

I have supported my position not only with a "real life" example but with documentation of Randi's deceit and bias.

Your real life example is an example that you have admitted to be discredited. It's like you admitting Bugs Bunny is a cartoon but nonetheless insisting that he is a real life example of how rabbits can actually talk.

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.

I don't need to think hard about this question because I've already answered it. What you need to do is stop ignoring my answer and DEAL WITH IT.

My answer is that you are committing the "only game in town fallacy".

I am not going to waste my time repeating what that is and why it is a response to your above point until you show some signs of being interested in debate (as opposed to repitition of unsupported assertions and refusal to deal with opposing arguments, which is what you are doing now).

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.

The word fair has nothing to do with it, but if you think it does, then I'll repeat myself with suitable modification: You are just ducking the point. Earlier, you quite clearly alleged that if Randi administered a fair 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 fair test.

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."

You need to do "Law of Contract 101". I did it about 20 years ago as part of my law degree.

Party A to a contract cannot, by unilaterally refusing to undertake Party A's side of the bargain, prevent Party B from obtaining Party B's entitlements under a contract. That would put Party A in breach of contract, entitling Party B to damages equivalent to what they would have earned if the contract had gone ahead.

The application, signed by Randi, states that he will administer a preliminary test, and if that is passed he will administer a formal test, and if that is passed he will give $1m. Randi cannot crash the process by the simply refusing to administer the formal test, if the testee fulfils the first step in the process by passing the preliminary. If Randi did, he would be in breach of the contract and damages of $1m will flow to the testee.

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.

You just need to listen up. Yes, Randi can pull out of the test claiming the protocol wasn't followed. And yes he can probably do that with complete impunity if the protocol actually wasn't followed. That is what occurred in the YB case, and you accept that that was proper.

BUT to suggest that Randi could do this with impunity if the protocol was actually followed is to commit the "only game in town" fallacy.

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.

Let me get something straight. Are you actually saying that if someone doesn't follow the protocol, they should be considered to have passed anyway? If a claimaint says "I can do X under conditions Y" and Randi says "OK, I'll give you the prize if you can do that under those conditions" but then the claimant does X only under conditions W, you think they should be considered to have passed anyway?

Does that actually make sense to you?

 

[Zep]

Two things:

1/ I'm still failing to see why Amherst persists with the YB thing. Having admitted that they didn't follow the protocol and failed to perform as requested was one thing here. Another is that it was revealed through this forum that the "applicants" were some fly-by-night hucksters looking to bilk JREF out of the money using a bit of (what they thought was) clever talk and film-editing. So any further discussion as to who is likely to defraud and who isn't is pretty much moot. This may have been one more reason why Randi decided to leave YB in his dust - they were exposed as fraudsters and not genuine applicants.

2/ Amherst, just in case you can't read properly: The $1,000,000 prize is a JREF prize, not Randi's personal money. If, all the deities forbid, Mr Randi should drop dead in the street tomorrow, the $1M prize and it's conditions for winning it will remain unchanged. So you can drop any undercurrent notions of Randi somehow clinging to his miserly million.

 

[Dancing David]

Mr/Ms Amhearst:

I have read the Challenge as presented in the web page of the JREF,

and this is about all it has to say about the protocol for the preliminary test

Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. This is the primary and most important of these rules.

This is all that it says about the test, both formal and preliminary.

the applicant and the JREF will agree in advance as to what will constitue a positive or a negative result. In this language it is very apparent that the protocol for the test is discussed and agreed to (time, location and other variables) and that the results thatw ill be considered will be agreed to in advance.

Where does this very clear and straightforward language give anyone any wiggle room at all. From my reading of it, EVEN if the results are fraudulent then the preliminary test will go on to the formal test.

So I don't see the wiggle room for Randi/JREF to get out of a preliminary positive.

 

[amherst]

This seems to be the current state of our discussion:

1. It seems that most of us agree that Randi has the ability to dismiss tests which he feels did not follow proper protocol.

2. It seems that most of us also agree that there will always be a way to show how a claimant didn't follow the proper protocol regardless of whether the test conditions were good or bad.

3. We seem to disagree over whether Randi would dismiss a test simply because a claimant succeeded, although we do agree that he could do this if he wanted to.

- Reasons I have given for why he is likely to do this are:
1. His strong bias against anything paranormal
2. What he would lose should someone actually ever win.
3. He has shown deceit and unfairness in the past
4. Has been done before by skeptics in the past

- Reasons you have given for why he is unlikely to do this
are:
1. It would be obvious to others that Randi was being
unfair and he would be chided by his own community.
2. If a successful claimant was dismissed in this way
he could sue Randi for the million.
?. If there are any others I am missing please add them.

3a. My responses to your first reason are:
1a. The only skeptic who ever seriously chided Hansel
for his dismisal of the Pearce-Pratt test was Hyman,
who has also expressed his opinion that Randi's
challenge is not a valid test of the paranormal.
1b. Other skeptics seem to be fine with Hansel's tactics, he remained a highly esteemed and respected member of CSICOP long after his book(which was published by Prometheus) had detailed his fraud speculations.
1c. Since many tests aren't publicized in the first
place, very few will ever be able to be truly
examined by anyone.
1d. Randi's opinion holds more weight in the public arena than any claimants. If a claimant ever disagrees with Randi's decision that violation of protocol was the cause of the claimant's success, the public would be likely to agree with Randi since he is considered an expert at what he does.



3b. My responses to your second reason are:
2a. Princehster wrote: " Party A to a contract cannot, by unilaterally refusing to undertake Party A's side of the bargain, prevent Party B from obtaining Party B's entitlements under a contract. That would put Party A in breach of contract, entitling Party B to damages equivalent to what they would have earned if the contract had gone ahead."
Since Party B (the claimant) would only be entitled to take Randi's "formal" test if he had passed the "preliminary" test and not be entitled to the actual million dollars yet, Randi could not be made to give Party B the prize money. This would be different if the dispute were about the claimant's success in the "formal" test.
2b. Randi's rules state: "EVERY APPLICANT MUST AGREE UPON WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A CONCLUSION THAT, ON THE OCCASION OF THE FORMAL TEST, HE OR SHE DID OR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CLAIMED ABILITY OR POWER."

The rules further state that:

"No special rules, exceptions, conditions, standards, or favors will be granted, without mutual agreement of those concerned — in advance. Any applicant who refuses to agree to meet the rules as outlined here, will not be considered to have ever been a claimant. Only complete agreement with these rules will allow the "applicant" to become a "claimant." Applicant, by signing, notarizing and returning this form, signifies agreement with all of the above rules"


When signing the contract the applicant agrees that demonstration of their ability must take place within the proper protocol . Since it is up to Randi to decide whether the protocol's rules were followed or not, if he decides they weren't then the claimant's contract becomes void and makes his status of ever being one nonexistent.

Conclusion:

1.My position is that since Randi has the ability and the motive to dismiss tests if they succeed, he will, no matter what. I believe I have demonstrated that this would not be difficult for him to do and that his challenge is unwinnable because of it.

2.Your position as I understand it, is that though Randi has the ability and motive to dismiss successful tests, he won't because it would be difficult. In this post I have addressed your assumptions about this and believe I have shown them to be incorrect.

Please respond, and state your position clearly. This is mine.

amherst

 

[thaiboxerken]

1. It seems that most of us agree that Randi has the ability to dismiss tests which he feels did not follow proper protocol.

No, he has the ability to dismiss tests that do not follow proper protocol. He has to explain what protocol's were violated in order to dismiss the test. In other words, he can't just use it as an "out" as you seem to imply he often does.

2. It seems that most of us also agree that there will always be a way to show how a claimant didn't follow the proper protocol regardless of whether the test conditions were good or bad.

False, who agreed with you on this? Protocols are either followed, or not followed. If protocols are followed, one cannot show that they were not followed, unless one blatantly lies about it.

3. We seem to disagree over whether Randi would dismiss a test simply because a claimant succeeded, although we do agree that he could do this if he wanted to.

Who agreed with you on this? I certainly don't agree. I have no reason to believe that Randi would do such a thing, and there is no evidence to show that he has.

- Reasons I have given for why he is likely to do this are:
1. His strong bias against anything paranormal
2. What he would lose should someone actually ever win.
3. He has shown deceit and unfairness in the past
4. Has been done before by skeptics in the past

1. Randi's bias is one based on reality. If shown actual paranormal ability, I think he would gladly support research into the particular paranormal phenomena.

2. What would he gain, though? He would be helping to establish a paranorman phenomena as a real thing to the world. He'd lose a million dollars, but he would probably make it back up with more donations than ever before. Think of the donations that would come in from believers alone? You really don't take time to think of the reality of what beating his test would be, do you?

3. Only as a magician, and he tells you that he's cheating.

4. I doubt it.


1c. Since many tests aren't publicized in the first
place, very few will ever be able to be truly
examined by anyone.

The records are accessible to the public. Feel free to visit the JREF and examine them.

1d. Randi's opinion holds more weight in the public arena than any claimants. If a claimant ever disagrees with Randi's decision that violation of protocol was the cause of the claimant's success, the public would be likely to agree with Randi since he is considered an expert at what he does.

Randi also gives good reasons as to why and how a protocol is violated. Yes, he's and expert, but the skeptics that support his efforts are not blind sheep following a leader. Randi's opinions hold more weight because he's good at catching cheaters.


Conclusion:

1.My position is that since Randi has the ability and the motive to dismiss tests if they succeed, he will, no matter what. I believe I have demonstrated that this would not be difficult for him to do and that his challenge is unwinnable because of it.

You have demonstrated nothing. Randi hides nothing from the testers and testees, or the public. Randi has allowed lawyers of testees present to tests.

2.Your position as I understand it, is that though Randi has the ability and motive to dismiss successful tests, he won't because it would be difficult. In this post I have addressed your assumptions about this and believe I have shown them to be incorrect.

Strawman. Randi does not have motive to dismiss successful tests that follow protocol.



Conclusion: You are a person that really hates Randi and the Evil Skeptics movement and you'll do anything to try and convince people that Randi and skeptics are all dishonest. When one has no evidence of the paranormal, attack the ones asking for evidence, right?

 

[Zep]

Amherst, you must have wax in your ears and dark glasses on. Not more than a few posts above your latest diatribe there are clear points completely refuting your "agreed" items. You can go on and on about what you THINK we "agree" on but it just isn't so. We DO NOT AGREE with your assertions about Randi's possible desire to fail all and every paranormal prelim test. That's simply your own completely unfounded assertions.

And you seem to have some bee in your bonnet about the money Randi would lose. GET IT STRAIGHT! Randi would lose no money at all because IT ISN'T HIS TO LOSE! It belongs to JREF and is held in trust for JREF. He is simply the "administrator" if you wish.

Or perhaps you aren't prepared to read here, to absorb information and think. Perhaps you would rather not think?

OK, if you are so gash-darned sure that Randi will eliminate any and all "successful" prelim testing, why don't you go round up someone who really can do something paranormal and is prepared to be tested (don't worry, there are thousands who say they are genuine), and make a formal challenge for the JREF prize. And as you go along, please diarise here each and every piece of correspondence and activity as it happens, so we can all be shown Randi being selective and capricious. Go on! Go right ahead - the ball is in your court.

 

[Interesting Ian]

This seems to be the current state of our discussion:

1. It seems that most of us agree that Randi has the ability to dismiss tests which he feels did not follow proper protocol.

2. It seems that most of us also agree that there will always be a way to show how a claimant didn't follow the proper protocol regardless of whether the test conditions were good or bad.

3. We seem to disagree over whether Randi would dismiss a test simply because a claimant succeeded, although we do agree that he could do this if he wanted to.

- Reasons I have given for why he is likely to do this are:
1. His strong bias against anything paranormal
2. What he would lose should someone actually ever win.
3. He has shown deceit and unfairness in the past
4. Has been done before by skeptics in the past

- Reasons you have given for why he is unlikely to do this
are:
1. It would be obvious to others that Randi was being
unfair and he would be chided by his own community.
2. If a successful claimant was dismissed in this way
he could sue Randi for the million.
?. If there are any others I am missing please add them.

3a. My responses to your first reason are:
1a. The only skeptic who ever seriously chided Hansel
for his dismisal of the Pearce-Pratt test was Hyman,
who has also expressed his opinion that Randi's
challenge is not a valid test of the paranormal.
1b. Other skeptics seem to be fine with Hansel's tactics, he remained a highly esteemed and respected member of CSICOP long after his book(which was published by Prometheus) had detailed his fraud speculations.
1c. Since many tests aren't publicized in the first
place, very few will ever be able to be truly
examined by anyone.
1d. Randi's opinion holds more weight in the public arena than any claimants. If a claimant ever disagrees with Randi's decision that violation of protocol was the cause of the claimant's success, the public would be likely to agree with Randi since he is considered an expert at what he does.



3b. My responses to your second reason are:
2a. Princehster wrote: " Party A to a contract cannot, by unilaterally refusing to undertake Party A's side of the bargain, prevent Party B from obtaining Party B's entitlements under a contract. That would put Party A in breach of contract, entitling Party B to damages equivalent to what they would have earned if the contract had gone ahead."
Since Party B (the claimant) would only be entitled to take Randi's "formal" test if he had passed the "preliminary" test and not be entitled to the actual million dollars yet, Randi could not be made to give Party B the prize money. This would be different if the dispute were about the claimant's success in the "formal" test.
2b. Randi's rules state: "EVERY APPLICANT MUST AGREE UPON WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A CONCLUSION THAT, ON THE OCCASION OF THE FORMAL TEST, HE OR SHE DID OR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CLAIMED ABILITY OR POWER."

The rules further state that:

"No special rules, exceptions, conditions, standards, or favors will be granted, without mutual agreement of those concerned — in advance. Any applicant who refuses to agree to meet the rules as outlined here, will not be considered to have ever been a claimant. Only complete agreement with these rules will allow the "applicant" to become a "claimant." Applicant, by signing, notarizing and returning this form, signifies agreement with all of the above rules"


When signing the contract the applicant agrees that demonstration of their ability must take place within the proper protocol . Since it is up to Randi to decide whether the protocol's rules were followed or not, if he decides they weren't then the claimant's contract becomes void and makes his status of ever being one nonexistent.

Conclusion:

1.My position is that since Randi has the ability and the motive to dismiss tests if they succeed, he will, no matter what. I believe I have demonstrated that this would not be difficult for him to do and that his challenge is unwinnable because of it.

2.Your position as I understand it, is that though Randi has the ability and motive to dismiss successful tests, he won't because it would be difficult. In this post I have addressed your assumptions about this and believe I have shown them to be incorrect.

Please respond, and state your position clearly. This is mine.

amherst

A truly excellent post amherst!

 

[Zep]

Oh Ian, you silly sausage! Have you also not noticed that no-one agrees with Amherst about his major points either?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Oh Ian, you silly sausage! Have you also not noticed that no-one agrees with Amherst about his major points either?

Well, Ian does. Amherst and Ian both use the same fallacies. It's only natural that they would agree. They both hate skeptics and Randi.. they are both dishonest, and they are both extremely smart (to themselves). There is no productive discussion to be had with either one of them, as they both know that they are infallible.

In short, they have made up their minds about reality, and no amount of reason, evidence or logic will change their position.

 

[princhester]

thaiboxerken has already done a demolition job on most of Amherst's last, but I might make a few comments.

1. It seems that most of us agree that Randi has the ability to dismiss tests which he feels did not follow proper protocol.

Yes, but to understand the implications of this, you need to understand why, in practical terms, Randi can dismiss such tests. Randi can do this because if the protocol is not followed (1) the testee is not going to be able to sue him demanding that the prize be paid in accordance with the agreement and (2) popular support is going to be behind him, because if the protocol is not followed, no one but an idiot is going to think the worse of Randi for dismissing the test.

2. It seems that most of us also agree that there will always be a way to show how a claimant didn't follow the proper protocol regardless of whether the test conditions were good or bad.

Not agreed at all. Above, I agreed that Randi might dismiss any test, in the same way he might announce that black is white or that the moon is made of green cheese. But if he does so, then the conditions will be the opposite to as above, and JREF will get successfully sued and Randi will lose all credibility.

Reasons you have given for why he is unlikely to do this
are:
1. It would be obvious to others that Randi was being
unfair and he would be chided by his own community[Princhester comment: not just his own community, the whole sentient world].
2. If a successful claimant was dismissed in this way
he could sue Randi for the million.

3a. My responses to your first reason are:
1a. The only skeptic who ever seriously chided Hansel
for his dismisal of the Pearce-Pratt test was Hyman,
who has also expressed his opinion that Randi's
challenge is not a valid test of the paranormal.
1b. Other skeptics seem to be fine with Hansel's tactics, he remained a highly esteemed and respected member of CSICOP long after his book(which was published by Prometheus) had detailed his fraud speculations.
1c. Since many tests aren't publicized in the first
place, very few will ever be able to be truly
examined by anyone.
1d. Randi's opinion holds more weight in the public arena than any claimants. If a claimant ever disagrees with Randi's decision that violation of protocol was the cause of the claimant's success, the public would be likely to agree with Randi since he is considered an expert at what he does.

You need to deal with the totality of my comments about the "only game in town" fallacy, which is what you are repeating here. It is not just a question of skeptics. In fact, what you are doing here is extending the fallacy to include not just Randi but other skeptics. You are studiously ignoring the rest of the world. You are studiously ignoring my first question in this thread, regarding what YB would have been able to do if they had a properly documented example of them passing the preliminary test.

When signing the contract the applicant agrees that demonstration of their ability must take place within the proper protocol . Since it is up to Randi to decide whether the protocol's rules were followed or not, if he decides they weren't then the claimant's contract becomes void and makes his status of ever being one nonexistent.

Your second sentence is nonsense. You are just desperately grabbing at fantasy here. Nowhere does any part of the agreement say that it is up to Randi to decide whether the protocol was followed.

The fact remains that if Randi illegitimately dismissed a passed test that had followed the protocol, JREF would be sued for the prize. You can't get around this point.

There is one point with which I disagree with Thaiboxerken. He says:

Randi does not have motive to dismiss successful tests that follow protocol.

Ken, Randi has a lot of ego behind his position that paranormal claims are illegitimate. I don't think one can tenably argue that he has no motive to dismiss successful tests. However, having said that, that is quite different to saying that Randi's motivation is sufficient for him to actually fraudulently do what he has some motivation to do. Nor is it to say that he does not have even greater motiviation to participate in the publicising of the worldwide phenomenon that a successful demonstration of the paranormal would involve.

Further, and even more importantly, Randi has gone to great lengths to set up matters so that his ego, and his motivations, and whatever else have no bearing on whether the prize is given away or not.

It is Randi and not the applicant who insists on an enforceable written contract, on simple clear pre-agreed statements of exactly what is to be done, what will constitute a pass and what will be a fail, on independant observers etc.

In other words, Randi sets himself up quite deliberately for a fall if someone can demonstrate a paranormal ability. IF someone does so, they will get the prize or Randi will be sued and/or lose all credibility, completely regardless of Randi's motivations and desires.

 

[Interesting Ian]

amherst
2. It seems that most of us also agree that there will always be a way to show how a claimant didn't follow the proper protocol regardless of whether the test conditions were good or bad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
prin
Not agreed at all. Above, I agreed that Randi might dismiss any test, in the same way he might announce that black is white or that the moon is made of green cheese. But if he does so, then the conditions will be the opposite to as above, and JREF will get successfully sued and Randi will lose all credibility.

Like what happened to Hansel? Did he lose all credibility?

 

[princhester]

1/ Hansel was not running the test he was just critiquing it.

2/ Hansel has nowhere near the public profile that Randi has and therefore not nearly so tempting a target for detractors if Randi does something silly

3/ Hansel hadn't signed a legally enforceable contract saying he'd pay a million dollars if the test was passed. So there was no opportunity to give him a million dollars worth of courtroom grief and bad publicity for getting it wrong (if that's what he did).

4/ The tests Hansel critiqued were poorly documented and have never been replicated. Earlier in this thread I said (as an example) what if YB had set up the test their 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 if they could replicate their ability? If Randi dismissed what they did in some offhand way, he'd be swamped by the wave of publicity produced by an actual demonstration of paranormal ability.

 

[LTC8K6]

Amherst, it is clear from your posts that there is little chance of Randi getting away with such cheating. You are clearly watching, as are many others, very closely.

Just who are these people who are going to let Randi dismiss them after they have passed a test that both they and the JREF have agreed to? Who is going to lay down and take such treatment? Where are these people?

Wouldn't the psychics know ahead of time that Randi was going to cheat them out of their chance?

 

[Dancing David]

Amhearst:
It seems odd that you don't respond to polite posts but only certain posts of your choosing, you totaly ignored the post discussing Honorton after just being wildly speculative.

2. It seems that most of us also agree that there will always be a way to show how a claimant didn't follow the proper protocol regardless of whether the test conditions were good or bad.

1. No one else but you has made this statement and I very strongly disagree with it. No one lese has agreed with you in the least on this specific point.

2. There will no be a way to show that the claimant did not follow the protocol that they agreed to in adavnce unless they don't follow the protocol. This is standard science, you do not establish a method unless you follow the method.

3. You keep asserting that Randi will generate protocol rules post hoc, which is an assertion that you can not maintain. But it is an accusation that you have made repeatedly. What basis do you have for saying that Randi will change the protocol after agreeing to it?

4. I maintain that if the testing claimanant and participate in the test and they follow the protocols then they follow the protocols. How on earth can Randi deny a test claimant the prize if they follow the protocols?
If they follow the protocols and they have a positive result then they have a positive result. Period, end of discussion and the money is haded over.

5. Why do you assume that Randi is decietful, should we assume that applicants are deceitful?


6. How can the protocol be changed post hoc as you maintain, I think you are the one assuming that following a protocol negates psi effect.

 

[Dancing David]

From Amearst's original post:

It is also relevant here to note that Randi has no prior protocols set up for testing the claimants.

It is interesting to note here that the protocols are established with each claimant at the time the test is designed.

There is a protocol agreed to in adavnce by the claimant and the Jref, are you being deceitful Amherast?

 

[amherst]

Dancing David has written:

"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"

"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."

"It seems odd that you don't respond to polite posts but only certain posts of your choosing, you totaly ignored the post discussing Honorton after just being wildly speculative."


Dancing David,
I believe that you might be a bit confused about the ganzfeld situation. It seems that almost all of your information about the experiments has come from small CSICOP blurbs and not from reading any of the actual articles themselves. Please specifically explain how you think it is that Honorton's meta-analysis of the ganzfeld experiments was flawed. I must recommend that if you haven't already, you read the original Psychological Bulletin article which can be found here:

http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/does_psi_exist.html

As well as Bem's response to Hyman here:

http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/response_to_hyman.html


It also seems that you might think Wiseman and Milton's more recent meta-analysis has disconfirmed the original ganzfeld results. If you haven't already, I must suggest you read this:

http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/updating_the_ganzfeld_data.htm


After reading those papers, if you still see problems with the ganzfeld experiments then please tell me what you think those problems are and we can discuss them.



amherst

 

[amherst]

I wrote:
2. It seems that most of us also agree that there will always be a way to show how a claimant didn't follow the proper protocol regardless of whether the test conditions were good or bad.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dancing David wrote:
1. "No one else but you has made this statement and I very strongly disagree with it. No one lese has agreed with you in the least on this specific point."

My response:
I am sorry that you don't agree with Hyman or any other scientist about this Dancing David, but there will always be a way to show how fraud got into an experiment, even if it didn't. There will always be a way to show how protocol wasn't followed, even if it really was. I have already given an example of this by showing how C.E.M. Hansel dismissed the Pearce-Pratt card test.

Dancing David wrote:
2. "There will no be a way to show that the claimant did not follow the protocol that they agreed to in adavnce unless they don't follow the protocol. This is standard science, you do not establish a method unless you follow the method."

My response:
See above.

Dancing David wrote:
3. "You keep asserting that Randi will generate protocol rules post hoc, which is an assertion that you can not maintain. But it is an accusation that you have made repeatedly. What basis do you have for saying that Randi will change the protocol after agreeing to it?"

My response:
I have never said that Randi will change the protocol once it has been agreed upon. What I have said is that he will always be able to find a way that the claimant did not follow the protocol (such as fraud) and therefore be able to dismiss any successful test.

Dancing David wrote:
4. "I maintain that if the testing claimanant and participate in the test and they follow the protocols then they follow the protocols. How on earth can Randi deny a test claimant the prize if they follow the protocols?
If they follow the protocols and they have a positive result then they have a positive result. Period, end of discussion and the money is haded over."

My response:
See above.

Dancing David wrote:
5. "Why do you assume that Randi is decietful, should we assume that applicants are deceitful?"

My response:
See my original post for examples of Randi's deceit.

Dancing David wrote:
6. "How can the protocol be changed post hoc as you maintain, I think you are the one assuming that following a protocol negates psi effect."

My response:
See my third response.


amherst

 

[princhester]

Sure, Hansel dismissed the Pearce-Pratt thing on grounds you say were invalid. So what? His dismissal was (as you say) dismissed itself. Nothing turned on what Hansel said. He was not the last word. He could have said that Pearce-Pratt were aliens and that the moon was made of green cheese. Would that have made it so?

You continue to imbue Randi with some sort of superpower, where he can just with a dismissive wave of his hand "vanish" someone who follows the agreed protocol and passes a test.

You continue to ignore the public and legal consequences that would follow if Randi did that.

I'm sure Randi would love to live in the universe in which you say he lives: in which for example when he owes someone money he can just say "no I don't" and the debt vanishes.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I wrote:
2. It seems that most of us also agree that there will always be a way to show how a claimant didn't follow the proper protocol regardless of whether the test conditions were good or bad.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dancing David wrote:
1. "No one else but you has made this statement and I very strongly disagree with it. No one lese has agreed with you in the least on this specific point."

I've got you on ignore David, but I agree with Amherst here.