Merged The challenge is coming to an end.

[Rodney]

Introduces ambiguity and a goal of simply cheating the odds instead of proving a phenomena.

So if someone can beat odds of 1 in a billion (1 in a thousand in the preliminary test, followed by 1 in a million in the final test) in a controlled study, that's not good enough to win the million dollars?

All protocols = protocols that allow for cheating. If all protocols are eligible, then those protocols that are shoddy or outright stupid will be allowed as well.

I'm obviously talking about fair protocols and am simply requesting clarification as to whether time-consuming protocols, such as Ganzfeld experiments, are eligible for the million dollar prize. Why can't the JREF answer this simple question?

 

[steenkh]

I'm obviously talking about fair protocols and am simply requesting clarification as to whether time-consuming protocols, such as Ganzfeld experiments, are eligible for the million dollar prize. Why can't the JREF answer this simple question?

As far as I have understood, these protocols have never been ruled out, but they have never been tested through an application. I am not sure if there would be a problem with time-consumption other than the cost, which the claimant is going to pay anyway, but there has been a tradition that the testers are working unpaid.

 

[Cuddles]

I'm obviously talking about fair protocols and am simply requesting clarification as to whether time-consuming protocols, such as Ganzfeld experiments, are eligible for the million dollar prize. Why can't the JREF answer this simple question?

Because no-one has ever tried to apply with one. Until someone does so, the JREF simply doesn't care. This really isn't difficult to understand.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think Rodney figured out a way to cheat the test. That's to get the testers to allow you to cheat. He thinks it'll work, but I don't know of any skeptic that would fall for his silly tactic.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So if someone can beat odds of 1 in a billion (1 in a thousand in the preliminary test, followed by 1 in a million in the final test) in a controlled study, that's not good enough to win the million dollars?

I guess that would depend on the agreed-upon protocol, wouldn't it? The results would have to be self-evident and not the product of number-magic and mathematical manipulation.

I'm obviously talking about fair protocols and am simply requesting clarification as to whether time-consuming protocols, such as Ganzfeld experiments, are eligible for the million dollar prize. Why can't the JREF answer this simple question?

Why can't you get those people to simply apply to find out?

 

[davefoc]

Why can't you get those people to simply apply to find out?

As a casual reader of test descriptions and test protocol discussions over the years my sense of it is that JREF wasn't too enthused about very long, boring tests designed to tease out a tiny positive result so I suspect it is possible to find something resembling rejection of Ganzfield type experiments in the data base of test discussion protocols. (Note I'm making a weak claim and don't intend to back it up with evidence, please feel free to mock me for this).

If there was a paranormal effect out there it is very well masked and it might well be that the only way to detect it was with some very tedious testing. If JREF was a research agency designed to find a paranormal effect I think that is where they might focus their efforts.

But that is not what JREF sees as their function. They might be willing to be involved with a Ganzfield type test if somebody else footed the bill and their only role was to evaluate and approve protocols and to verify compliance. I don't think a credible researcher has ever come forward with such a proposal though and given what I see as the lack of definitive results with Ganzfield experiments done to date and the boring nature of the experiments I am not surprised that JREF isn't too enthused about pursuing this area.

 

[petre]

As a casual reader of test descriptions and test protocol discussions over the years my sense of it is that JREF wasn't too enthused about very long, boring tests designed to tease out a tiny positive result so I suspect it is possible to find something resembling rejection of Ganzfield type experiments in the data base of test discussion protocols. (Note I'm making a weak claim and don't intend to back it up with evidence, please feel free to mock me for this).

If there was a paranormal effect out there it is very well masked and it might well be that the only way to detect it was with some very tedious testing. If JREF was a research agency designed to find a paranormal effect I think that is where they might focus their efforts.

But that is not what JREF sees as their function. They might be willing to be involved with a Ganzfield type test if somebody else footed the bill and their only role was to evaluate and approve protocols and to verify compliance. I don't think a credible researcher has ever come forward with such a proposal though and given what I see as the lack of definitive results with Ganzfield experiments done to date and the boring nature of the experiments I am not surprised that JREF isn't too enthused about pursuing this area.

I was unable to find it in a quick search, but there was a test protocol submitted once where an applicant claimed the ability to control the direction a flame would hang off a candle with greater-than-expected frequency.

More recently, there was a protocol negotiation on astrology where the applicant was unable to accept a field of choices larger than 2 at a time, which caused any meaningful test to be prohibitively long.

Just two examples I can think of that relate to small effects falling outside the scope of the challenge.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Part of the challenge rules is that the applicant pays for the costs of testing, so all the Ganzfield people need is money. But even before this, they need to actually apply for the test.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Here are the modifications to the Challenge Rules that I recommended in my e-mail:

"(1) An applicant must pass a preliminary test, in which the general
criterion for success will be that the applicant must perform at
significantly above the chance level. In tests where the odds of
success can be readily calculated -- such as numbers guessing -- the
applicant must perform at least at the P=.001 level; that is, the odds
must be only one in one thousand that the applicant could have
achieved that performance level by random chance. (However, if the
applicant achieves a lesser, but above chance, performance level in a
limited number of tests -- for example, if the applicant performs at
the P=.05 level in 20 trials -- the preliminary test may be extended
on a different day or days to include more trials.) If the applicant
passes the preliminary test, a final test will be administered, in
which the performance level must meet a significantly more stringent
criterion for the million dollar prize to be awarded. In tests where
the odds of success can be readily calculated, the applicant must
perform at least at the P=.000001 level; that is, for the prize to be
awarded, the odds must be only one in one million that the applicant
could have achieved that performance level by random chance.

"(2) All protocols, including time-consuming ones such as Ganzfeld
experiments, are eligible for the Challenge; or

"(2a) Some time-consuming protocols, such as Ganzfeld experiments, are
not eligible for the Challenge due to the impact on JREF resources."

Please explain how these modifications would be ambiguous or permit cheating.

You should not expect the rules to be changed. At all.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think the rules should be changed to allow me to cheat because I could really use a million dollars.

 

[dbw]

Challenge ending?

I read that the MDC is ending in 2010. How come? Are there any plans to continue it with other funds? I'd be willing to offer $1000 (I don't have $10000).

 

[GzuzKryzt]

According to the JREF the Challenge served its purpose, ties up too many resources and the prize money could be better used elsewhere (e.g. education).

 

[GzuzKryzt]

SWIFT January 04, 2008.