Some Thoughts on Randi and His Challenge

[amherst]

Amherst,

I'm a bit confused by some of your argument. You wrote: "First, since there are no previously designed experiments, unlike in real science, there is nothing for anyone to judge or criticize."

And a few lines later, this: "Another thing which should cause worry for potential claimants is the fact that skeptics, which Randi is associated with, are to be the judge and jury of his tests."

Your reasoning here seems contradictory. Am I missing something?

Also, is the Blackmore quote exact? If, so it has too many errors as well.

It is my understanding that Randi designs his test's only after a claimant has agreed to be challenged. For instance, if someone claims to have ESP and applies for the challenge, Randi will not use any previously designed test which has been critiqued and examined by outside commentators. He will instead come up with one specifically for the claimant. Therefore, it is up to only Randi and the claimant to decide if there are any flaws or errors within the design. If the claimant has no scientific training he will probably be unable to detect any flaws which exist.


amherst

PS It's a shame that Randi's errors are not as insignificant as the one in the blackmore quote.

 

[amherst]

I think that YB did not do the preliminary test properly, therefore it does not count. That is the reason for the discrepancies about the test.

Yes there was a test, but the test was not credible. Therefore, no advancement....

This is the problem. 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.


amherst

 

[LTC8K6]

I think you are grasping at straws.

Even in the preliminary test, the results should be self evident, with no judgement required.

If the preliminary test is not done according to the agreed to rules, then no one is going to count it. There is no need for any judgement of any "results" of a test that is invalid.

Where is this preliminary test that was passed and then dismissed by Randi?

I see no way for Randi to simply dismiss a successful preliminary test. Are the folks who took it just going to sit there and say nothing?

They will say they passed, the JREF will say they didn't, and discussion will ensue.

 

[LFTKBS]

Hey, if Yellow Bamboo wants a million dollars, all they have to do is come out to FL and show off their spooky powers.

So . . . why don't they?

 

[Kerberos]

Hyman and Honorton agreed upon the method betweeen them for the autoganzfeld experiments.

Not according to Hyman.

 

[kookbreaker]

There's both formal and informal preliminary tests!?? Hell, how many tests is one required to pass??

I'm amazed at that you are able to pull that nonsense out of geni's quote.

Oh wait, I forget who I am dealing with.

 

[kookbreaker]

Re: Re: Re: Some Thoughts on Randi and His Challenge

How so when no actual professional parapsychologists were taken in?

This is starting to sound like a "No true Scotsman" argument. How many "PP"s were involved in the Maclab?

(hint: very few outside the lab, parapsychologist or not were fooled. There are reasons for this.)

 

[Oregon_Skeptic]

Origianlly posted by Amherst

It is my understanding that Randi designs his test's (sic) only after a claimant has agreed to be challenged. For instance, if someone claims to have ESP and applies for the challenge, Randi will not use any previously designed test which has been critiqued and examined by outside commentators. He will instead come up with one specifically for the claimant. Therefore, it is up to only Randi and the claimant to decide if there are any flaws or errors within the design. If the claimant has no scientific training he will probably be unable to detect any flaws which exist.

Okay, so what does this answer have to do with my earlier question regarding the contradictory statements you made about judging the tests? I don't see the connection. (On a bit of a sidebar concerning the above quote, I thought the claimant gets to approve the protocol. Flaws in the protocol, it seems, would be self-evident to the claimant; all that he or she would have to do is say, "That test won't work for my power, let's change it.")

And you are right that Blackmore's error is minor. (By the way, what is the source for the quote?) But the quote made me question Blackmore's credibility and your own since it seems that neither one of you knows the difference between "to" and "too." When I see something like that, I think, "If something as simple as that is incorrect, then what else might be wrong?"

 

[amherst]

I think you are grasping at straws.

Even in the preliminary test, the results should be self evident, with no judgement required.

If the preliminary test is not done according to the agreed to rules, then no one is going to count it. There is no need for any judgement of any "results" of a test that is invalid.

Where is this preliminary test that was passed and then dismissed by Randi?

I see no way for Randi to simply dismiss a successful preliminary test. Are the folks who took it just going to sit there and say nothing?

They will say they passed, the JREF will say they didn't, and discussion will ensue.

Again, 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. Even though (as you agreed in your previous post) it was.


amherst

 

[apoger]

Again, the problem here is that no result is ever going to be self evident to Randi.

Since Randi has agreed to many tests in the past, and those tests had agreed upon criteria, it is self-evident that there are results that he will accept.

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.

Randi never states that the paranormal does not exist, but says IF it exists, can someone provide evidence for it.

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.

No. They also agreed that it would be a light tap, and agreed to provide a proper recording. The demostration provided was hardly a light tap and the recording can only be called obscure if we are being generous.

Furthermore this was not an official preliminary test, as has been explained to you.

If he practiced what he preached, he would be forced to "formally" test these people.

They are free to apply and come in for a test anytime. What's stopping them?

all he had to do was distort things a bit and claim that what took place was not his test.

Do you have any evidence that it was? If the claimants could provide paperwork showing that this was a formal test then this would change everything. Since they provide nothing but claims, they have nothing but a blurry video showing a trial that was not done to specifications.

I suspect that if this had been an official preliminary test, Randi would be obligated to do a formal test. As this was just a trial to see if a prelim should be done, and considering the results, I feel Randi is justified in dismissing this case.

I'm sorry Amherst, but this was a clear case of nonsense. If you are going to pick at Randi's testing please choose a different tack. You won't get far championing the case of Yellow Bamboo.

 

[LTC8K6]

Stop making sideways accusations, Amherst.

If you have some evidence against Randi regarding preliminary tests, let's have it out in the open.

Stop tapdancing around the outside of whatever it is you are trying to say.

 

[amherst]

Okay, so what does this answer have to do with my earlier question regarding the contradictory statements you made about judging the tests? I don't see the connection. (On a bit of a sidebar concerning the above quote, I thought the claimant gets to approve the protocol. Flaws in the protocol, it seems, would be self-evident to the claimant; all that he or she would have to do is say, "That test won't work for my power, let's change it.")

And you are right that Blackmore's error is minor. (By the way, what is the source for the quote?) But the quote made me question Blackmore's credibility and your own since it seems that neither one of you knows the difference between "to" and "too." When I see something like that, I think, "If something as simple as that is incorrect, then what else might be wrong?"

Based on your sidebar, I think I now understand why you falsely think that my two statements are contradictory. When I wrote: "...since there are no previously designed experiments, unlike in real science, there is nothing for anyone to judge or criticize." I should have (for your benefit only) expanded the word "anyone" into "anyone other than the claimant". Since immediately after that sentence I stated: "Any design flaws, which could be detrimental to paranormal effects, would most likely be unnoticed by a claimant with no scientific background." I thought that my position was clear enough. Since you seem to be confused about this, let me ask you something.

If I had been suggesting that claimants don't see the test designs in advance, surely having a scientific background wouldn't matter when it came to detecting flaws, now would it? Unless you, for some absurd reason, think that I'm suggesting that claimants who have scientific backgrounds are all astoundingly clairvoyant, I see little reason for your misunderstanding. The paragraph clearly stated that by Randi's rules, he and the claimant are the only one's who have to know the design of the test before it takes place. This keeps competent unbiased scientists from critiquing the experiments. If the claimant has no scientific training, his critique is likely to be quite poor. Nothing above contradicted my statement that Randi's tests are judged and jurored by his skeptical partners.
My small quote about them was only meant to suggest that during tests, claimants should be wary, since most skeptics associated with Rand have as much interest in seeing them fail as he does. Clear enough?

Further, in my previous post to you I wrote: "PS It's a shame that Randi's errors are not as insignificant as the one in the Blackmore quote."
It is apparent that you disagree with me on this. Seemingly, this is not because you find Randi's errors insignificant. It seems that you( despite your dubious admittance about the error in the Blackmore quote being minor) have some peculiar need to place great importance upon grammatical flaws, regardless of whether they are inconsequential to any points. Need I remind you that this is a message board and not a scientific journal? If this is the main concern you have with my posts, then I suggest you not read them.


amherst

PS: The Blackmore review can be found in the 1996 Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 61 270-272

 

[Zep]

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

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

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

 

[Oregon_Skeptic]

amherst,

Maybe I'm reading into your response, but from the attitude of your post I think I struck a sore point with you. I'll provide a fuller response later as it is a bit late for me now.

PGW

 

[Capt.Nemo]

I must say I find this thread most interesting. For several reasons. First among these would be that I have yet to see critique as well written as that of amherst's. The second reason would be that, to me, he would seem to have a valid point.

The preliminary test, intended to separate the wheat from the chaff, does seem to provide Randi (and the Foundation) with a possible 'out'. Not in every case, to be sure, but perhaps just, if 'used' correctly, when actually needed. While the formal testing of the then named 'claimant' is to be done, in accordance with the rules, by neutral third parties, the preliminary testing is usually done by Randi himself or an appointed representative. This does, to some extent, validate amherst's concern that the protocol, or any subsequent judging/evaluating, may be biased.

The Yellow Bamboo (YB) incident, however, is, in my opinion, not a good example of this. The proposed protocol was in nearly all aspects ignored in favor of an attempt that was nearly impossible to evaluate. (Poor lighting, obscuring crowd, etc, etc...) Had they taken pains to follow the suggested protocol, the need for evaluation/judging would have been much less, if not entirely negated. The failure to adhere to the protocol would seem to indicate, at least, some small part foul play.

I also agree with amherst's opinion of the importance or value of the 'virginity' of the test/challenge. (And, hence, the inclination to bias, even if subconsciously.) As long as it can be honestly stated that the challenge, or even the preliminary test, has never been met or 'broken' it carries much more 'weight' in any kind of sceptic/believer argument. Once 'broken' it will lose part of this value. Even if the million was not won, people in either 'camp' might be more inclined to think that 'there's something to it, after all', which would definitely be contrary to the mission of the JREF.

Jus' a few thoughts on the matter. My train of thought has now been derailed by work at least once too often for me to continue. I'll jus' shut up, relax, kill a few virii and watch where this leads to.

cheers
/Nemo

 

[Oleron]

I see Amherst's point in being suspicious over the YB testing procedure. He asserts, if I understand correctly, that the preliminary testing provides a convenient 'out' if a group/individual passes the test.
If I was in the position of the JREF I would know that trying to use an 'out' like this is risky. I might get away with it once or twice but then even skeptical supporters would start to smell a rat. So therefore I'm going to 'save' it for when I'm really in a fix.

YB were a group of con artists with an eye to the main chance, I think even Amherst will concede that. Nobody takes them seriously. Maybe JREF made a mistake by caling the test 'unofficial' or whatever - they should have just declared the test a pass and proceeded straight to the formal testing procedure. At this point YB would have either run a mile or failed spectacularly. Whay I'm saying is JREF, at no point, felt threatened enough to use the 'out' even if that is the sort of thing they might do. Even if they are dishonest, which I see no evidence for, they are not stupid.

 

[princhester]

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.

[snip]

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.

No that wasn't the agreement at all. The agreement involved walking up and tapping with a small stick. That did not occur. It's that simple. Why do you find this so hard to understand?

In fact, the YB thing provides a perfect basis for a thought experiment as to why your position is wrong.

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?

You speculate that Randi always "has an out" but if he was confronted with this, his two options would have been a formal test or public ridicule.

Why do you feel the need to (seemingly) lie to yourself to avoid the obvious, namely that YB tried to bluster through with a farcically poor imitation of a test and (quite rightly) got thrown out on their ear?

 

[Dancing David]

I never claimed or tried to imply in my post, that my above point would be relevant if Randi had some actual qualms with the ganzfeld methodology. If he did have some real testable concerns then it would be the job of the parapsychologist applying for his challenge to allay them. What I actually said was that if Randi couldn't come up with any problems with the methodology and knew that he would be at a loss to explain the very possible positive results, he could simple dismiss the proposed ganzfeld test for reasons he wouldn't have to specify. This is not science.


Amherst

Dear Amherts,
that is just silly. We would all be thrilled in there was an actuak effect found! And especialy if it rose above the level of statistical chance. You totaly misunderstand the challenge.

What I actually said was that if Randi couldn't come up with any problems with the methodology and knew that he would be at a loss to explain the very possible positive results, he could simple dismiss the proposed ganzfeld test for reasons he wouldn't have to specify.

So randi would have pre-knowledge that the test would produce a positive result? How now brown cow?

He can deny the test because it has sloppy methodlogy, that is sceinec. Sloppy methodology is not just about bashing that which one does not like. It is about sloppy methodology.

Care to back up your outrageous claims? There is a lot of history on how the challenge is administered.

Most of us would be thrilled to see a truely 'abnormal' result in a contolled and tight methodology.

Positively thrilled to pieces!

 

[Dancing David]

This is really funny, gee folks randi would deny the greatest scientific discovery of modern history just to continue being a sceptic.

(My ass is now on the floor and my sides are sore)

Science is based upon the methodology of experimentation, if anyone is denied by Randi they can go to any reputable scientist and prove thier claim. Then they can be famous and make Randi look like a fool.

There is no evidence, there is human eperience of the human mind and that is all that there is , when there is proof of the 'paranormal', I will be thrilled, as will most scientists.

The problem is there is no evidence , what is presented is a bunch of sloppy methods and conjectures.

Show me the proof!

 

[RichardR]

Although there is no judging of whether or not something occurred or didn't, there is a judging (if the claimant succeeds) over whether the phenomenon was fraudulently produced or not. In the yellow bamboo commentary, Randi made it clear that in his judgement the effect was fraudulently produced, probably by a stun gun. Because Randi has judged the effect to be fraudulent, even though the test succeeded, Randi will not let the bamboo people advance to the "formal" testing phase. This obviously goes against the "if you do what we agree upon you pass" criteria. Ofcourse the test has been judged. Why shouldn't I assume that every test which succeedes will be? If Randi played by his rules, then the bamboo people would be the first ever accepted for the formal test, Since Randi doesn't have to play by any rules, I doubt that his skeptical colleagues who run the tests will either.

This is a gross misrepresentation of what happened.

Firstly, since the yellow bamboo people "threw every sort of obstacle in the way" of agreeing the testing protocol, Randi "informed them that [he] was terminating any further involvement with them" as you would know if you had read this commentary. The test was performed by someone who "decided to go, on his own", not as part of JREF. And the way he was treated shows that the yellow bamboo people did not follow Randi's proposed protocol:

First, no continuous videotape record was made, as I'd clearly required. Without that, there is only evidence that Mr. Tri fell down, but no indication of how or why. Second, Joko did not walk up to Serengen and "gently tap him with a piece of bamboo," as I'd specified, and YB had agreed to, but charged at him full tilt, with a huge bamboo pole — which he'd supplied himself, he told me. There were people close enough to touch Joko as he ran forward, in fact there was quite a crowd involved. The demo took place when it was very dark, giving much different conditions for viewing than there would have been at ten in the morning, as YB had previously agreed to do. So, essentially, there is no evidence of anything supernatural available here. Most damning of all: the report that Joko Tri gave me regarding what he experienced, is congruent with another modus, one that is not at all new, strange, nor unusual. I'm gathering data on this right now, and I'll report on it. This modus was offered by several readers with experience in the subject.

How is it that, reading that description, you came to the conclusion that "the test succeeded"? Any reasonable person would conclude that the test was not performed according to the protocol and therefore could in no way be regarded as successful. So how did you come to your conclusion?