Odds Standard for Preliminary Test

[Rodney]

I've heard several times on these forums about the "1 in one thousand usual MDC standard for a preliminary test." Unfortunately, there is nothing in the rules that mentions any such standard. Rather, there is only:

(1) The vague opening sentence to rule number 3. "We will consult competent statisticians when an evaluation of the experimental design, is required"; and

(2) Rule number 6. "In all cases, applicant will be required to perform a preliminary test either before an appointed representative, if distance and time dictate that need, or in a location where a member or representative of the JREF staff can attend. This preliminary test is to determine if the applicant is likely to perform as promised during a formal test, using the agreed-upon protocol. To date, no applicant has passed the preliminary test, and this has eliminated the need for formal testing in those cases. There is no limit on the number of times an applicant may re-apply, but re-application can take place only after 12 months have elapsed since the completion of the preliminary test."
See http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-application.html

So what, exactly, is required to pass the preliminary test?

[William Smith]

Experience suggests that in most cases, one in 1000 chances are reflected in the protocols.

Since every claim seems to be different, however, the JREF has not set the standard at a certain probability mark. It depends on the claim.

[Cuddles]

I've heard several times on these forums about the "1 in one thousand usual MDC standard for a preliminary test." Unfortunately, there is nothing in the rules that mentions any such standard. Rather, there is only:

As has been explained many times before, it is not possible to have any universal standard because all claims are different. For example, the most recent test involved someone who claimed they could make someone with an empty bladder urinate using the power of their mind? How exactly would you set the odds for this? Obviously it would be paranormal, but the fact is tht you can't say it's 1000:1, or anything else. Either it happens or it doesn't, it is just not possible to work out the odds.

However, the actual odds are utterly irrelevant. The whole point of the tests is that it is not possible for someone to pass if they don't have whatever ability they claim. Since all applicants believe they do have their claimed abilities, the odds should make no difference to them at all. For example, if I claim that I can pick out a red card from a selection of face up cards, I don't care if the odds are 1000:1, 1000000:1 or anything else, because I know I can do it. Similarly, if I claimed to be able to do the same but with the cards face down, if I know I can do it, why would I care about the probability of doing it by random chance? I wouldn't.

In the end, the only people to whom the chance odds are in any way relevant are the JREF, since they have to ensure that a pass really is due to something other than chance.

[Rodney]

Experience suggests that in most cases, one in 1000 chances are reflected in the protocols.
Can you give me an example?

[William Smith]

Can you give me an example?

Sure. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3678551#post3678551)

Compare this to the Rosemary Hunter test. Hard to calculate the odds on the (prob)ability to make someone urinate, right?

[Rodney]

As has been explained many times before, it is not possible to have any universal standard because all claims are different. For example, the most recent test involved someone who claimed they could make someone with an empty bladder urinate using the power of their mind? How exactly would you set the odds for this? Obviously it would be paranormal, but the fact is tht you can't say it's 1000:1, or anything else. Either it happens or it doesn't, it is just not possible to work out the odds.

However, the actual odds are utterly irrelevant. The whole point of the tests is that it is not possible for someone to pass if they don't have whatever ability they claim. Since all applicants believe they do have their claimed abilities, the odds should make no difference to them at all. For example, if I claim that I can pick out a red card from a selection of face up cards, I don't care if the odds are 1000:1, 1000000:1 or anything else, because I know I can do it. Similarly, if I claimed to be able to do the same but with the cards face down, if I know I can do it, why would I care about the probability of doing it by random chance? I wouldn't.

In the end, the only people to whom the chance odds are in any way relevant are the JREF, since they have to ensure that a pass really is due to something other than chance.
I think your answer helps explain why there are so few non-delusional challengers for the prize. The idea that, for example, anyone can ALWAYS paranormally pick out a red card from a selection of face up cards is preposterous on the face of it (so to speak ;)). However, it may be possible for someone to pick out a red card at a significantly above chance rate, even if that rate is only 51-52% over thousands of trials. Would such a person apply for the prize, when there is not even a hint in the official rules of what level (s)he must perform at even to pass the preliminary test, let alone win the million dollars? The point is that, by not specifying an odds standard, serious challenges for the prize are discouraged. As a person involved in Ganzfeld experiments told me, the MDC is "so hedged and the criteria for success so arbitrarily set up and changeable at his [Randi's] whim that nobody will ever be able to pass his test."

[William Smith]

...
As a person involved in Ganzfeld experiments told me, the MDC is "so hedged and the criteria for success so arbitrarily set up and changeable at his [Randi's] whim that nobody will ever be able to pass his test."

Demonstrably false.

I would not expect though said person could be convinced by the facts which are the Challenge Rules.

Ask that person what s/he thinks about the Rosemary Hunter protocol. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3011140#post3011140
Or about the Achau Nguyen protocol. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1029440#post1029440
Or about the Angela Patel protocol. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1048225#post1048225

[Rodney]

Sure. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3678551#post3678551)
Thanks for the link to the Carina Landin thread. I take it that she is going to be retested soon? Suppose she gets 15 right out of 20 this time; that would be 27 right out of 40 in the two tests combined. Would any thought be given to allowing her to do a longer test over a period of time, perhaps encompassing as many as 100 trials?

Compare this to the Rosemary Hunter test. Hard to calculate the odds on the (prob)ability to make someone urinate, right?
Certainly harder, although statistics could be gathered on urination frequency.

[Czarcasm]

Good examples would be claims of telekinetics, teleportation or levitation. How would one figure out the odds of these paranormal claims?

[juryjone]

Perhaps your Ganzfeld buddy will lower himself to apply for the test, and we can find out what kind of criteria are required? As it is, all the applicants for the MDC have stated "I can do such and such to this level of accuracy" - usually 100% accuracy. It's Randi who then suggests that maybe they ought to try for less accuracy, such as the dowsing trials where the subject has to pick the correct container out of ten seven times.

It is obvious that the number of trials is dependent on the claim. It has been stated before on this very thread. Is it really so difficult to understand?

Might I also suggest that you are being disingenuous in asking this question, given the number of threads that have been started on this very subject over the 2+ years you've participated in the forum?

[William Smith]

Good examples would be claims of telekinetics, teleportation or levitation. How would one figure out the odds of these paranormal claims?

Or Prophet Yahweh with his summoning of UFOs.

[Moochie]

Perhaps your Ganzfeld buddy will lower himself to apply for the test, and we can find out what kind of criteria are required? As it is, all the applicants for the MDC have stated "I can do such and such to this level of accuracy" - usually 100% accuracy. It's Randi who then suggests that maybe they ought to try for less accuracy, such as the dowsing trials where the subject has to pick the correct container out of ten seven times.

It is obvious that the number of trials is dependent on the claim. It has been stated before on this very thread. Is it really so difficult to understand?

Might I also suggest that you are being disingenuous in asking this question, given the number of threads that have been started on this very subject over the 2+ years you've participated in the forum?

Perhaps he's waiting for the "right" answer?

M.

[Rodney]

Demonstrably false.

I would not expect though said person could be convinced by the facts which are the Challenge Rules.

Ask that person what s/he thinks about the Rosemary Hunter protocol. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3011140#post3011140
Or about the Achau Nguyen protocol. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1029440#post1029440
Or about the Angela Patel protocol. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1048225#post1048225
I think all of the above protocols were reasonable; still, there remains the glaring deficiency in the official rules that no odds standard is specified, either for the preliminary test or for the formal test that theoretically could result in the prize being awarded. At a minimum, something along the lines of the following should be added to the Challenge Rules:

"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 easily 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=.01 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 easily 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."

[Rodney]

Good examples would be claims of telekinetics, teleportation or levitation. How would one figure out the odds of these paranormal claims?
In those cases, I would think a single demonstration would suffice to pass the preliminary test.

[Rodney]

Perhaps your Ganzfeld buddy will lower himself to apply for the test, and we can find out what kind of criteria are required?
The problem with that is the hassle the person will have to go through to find out, in all probability, that the Randi Foundation considers a Ganzfeld protocol too time-consuming to be tested.

As it is, all the applicants for the MDC have stated "I can do such and such to this level of accuracy" - usually 100% accuracy. It's Randi who then suggests that maybe they ought to try for less accuracy, such as the dowsing trials where the subject has to pick the correct container out of ten seven times.

It is obvious that the number of trials is dependent on the claim. It has been stated before on this very thread. Is it really so difficult to understand?
No, what's difficult to understand is why there is no odds standard in the Challenge Rules.

Might I also suggest that you are being disingenuous in asking this question, given the number of threads that have been started on this very subject over the 2+ years you've participated in the forum?
And yet, after all this time, no progress has been made: There is still no odds standard in the Challenge Rules, despite many posters here claiming that there is a P=.001 standard for the preliminary test.

[Klimax]

I think,that odds are not part of rules,simply because each challenger has his own perception(each claim is bit different) and since this is part of protocol,which is discussed as well in communication with JREF,I doubt it would help any better.

Those who won't apply because "Randi changes the rules of experiment" will then say the rule is arbitrary strict,so nobody will pass...
That is why it is part of negotiation and not written in rules in hard numbers.

Just some of my (Euro) cents.

[juryjone]

Perhaps he's waiting for the "right" answer?

M.

I think you may be right.

I think all of the above protocols were reasonable; still, there remains the glaring deficiency in the official rules that no odds standard is specified, either for the preliminary test or for the formal test that theoretically could result in the prize being awarded. At a minimum, something along the lines of the following should be added to the Challenge Rules:

"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 easily 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=.01 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 easily 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."

Please explain to me how all this language, which is not applicable to anyone who has applied to the challenge thus far, will make the rules clearer and make those who have refused to take the challenge more amenable.

The rules in a nutshell are:
1) Claimant makes claim.
2) JREF works with claimant to develop a controlled test of that claim that both the JREF and the claimant can agree to.

Odds don't enter into it. If someone said that odds of 1:1000 are needed for the preliminary test, that number was yanked out of their nether region, since, as you stated, those are not part of the rules.

My guess (and I stress the word guess) is that the JREF would not enter into a test of a claim that only falls marginally outside the realm of chance. It would require too much testing, for insignificant results.

Each claim is analyzed on its own merits, and no "odds standard" or p-value should be shoehorned into the rules to ensure that there will be more obstacles in the way of claimant and JREF agreeing on a test.

[Rodney]

Please explain to me how all this language, which is not applicable to anyone who has applied to the challenge thus far, will make the rules clearer and make those who have refused to take the challenge more amenable.
It might encourage someone to apply who thinks (s)he may be able to demonstrate the paranormal, but who believes that a short test will be insufficient for that demonstration.

The rules in a nutshell are:
1) Claimant makes claim.
2) JREF works with claimant to develop a controlled test of that claim that both the JREF and the claimant can agree to.

Odds don't enter into it. If someone said that odds of 1:1000 are needed for the preliminary test, that number was yanked out of their nether region, since, as you stated, those are not part of the rules.
Odds don't enter into it??? Again, only a delusional person is going to believe that (s)he can always determine through paranormal means a number that has been written on a piece of paper, the color or suit of a face-down playing card, etc.

My guess (and I stress the word guess) is that the JREF would not enter into a test of a claim that only falls marginally outside the realm of chance.
I'm quite confident that you are correct about the JREF's viewpoint.

It would require too much testing, for insignificant results.
It seems to me that herein lies the problem with the Challenge. If, for example, an applicant could consistently determine with 54% accuracy whether a face-down playing card was red or black, even 100 trials would be woefully insufficient to prove that, because 54 hits in 100 trials could easily be attributable to chance (P=.24). However, if the applicant could continue to perform at that level over about 3500 trials, (s)he would meet a P=.000001 criterion. So, while the Challenge is useful for disproving claims of "paranormal powers that never fail", it does not appear to be useful for disproving alleged powers that operate at a much lower success ratio.

Each claim is analyzed on its own merits, and no "odds standard" or p-value should be shoehorned into the rules to ensure that there will be more obstacles in the way of claimant and JREF agreeing on a test.
An odds standard would simply let applicants know that there is a standard, rather than them understandably thinking that it's a moving target.

[William Smith]

...
No, what's difficult to understand is why there is no odds standard in the Challenge Rules.

And yet, after all this time, no progress has been made: There is still no odds standard in the Challenge Rules, despite many posters here claiming that there is a P=.001 standard for the preliminary test.

There is no standard because there are no standard claims. The claims vary, the protocols vary, hence the odds vary. It's that simple.

As Cuddles already said correctly, the odds do not matter. The demonstration matters: "Do what you claim to be able to do and win a million dollars."

A stipulation of a P=.001 standard for the preliminary test of summoning UFOs or teleportation/psychokinesis would be irrelevant, absurd even, wouldn't it? Peter Hubinsky's claim comes to mind.



I have to admit though, Rodney, I had the same question at the beginning of my lurking in 2003. After reading every post in the Challenge Application subforum, things cleared up for me.

[69dodge]

The idea that, for example, anyone can ALWAYS paranormally pick out a red card from a selection of face up cards is preposterous on the face of it (so to speak ;)). However, it may be possible for someone to pick out a red card at a significantly above chance rate, even if that rate is only 51-52% over thousands of trials.

I think you misunderstood the example. It's easy to pick red cards consistently if the cards are face up.

As a person involved in Ganzfeld experiments told me, the MDC is "so hedged and the criteria for success so arbitrarily set up and changeable at his [Randi's] whim that nobody will ever be able to pass his test."

Even if the paranormal exists, I assume the implication is? Otherwise, of course, it's perfectly reasonable that no one be able to pass.

Many tests have already been conducted, which were agreeable to their participants. So, it is clear that, sometimes at least, Randi does stop changing his criteria long enough for a test to proceed.

In any case, I can't quite figure out what your complaint is. Is it that Randi is not willing to spend an unlimited amount of time on any one applicant? Or, perhaps, that he doesn't give, in the official rules, an indication of how much time he is willing to spend?

[jojonete]

The odds standards shouldn't be in the rules because the rules are binding: applicants must agree to them, sign them and notarize them. All applicants, all rules. As the Challenge FAQ (http://www.randi.org/joom/million-dollar-challenge-faq.html) puts it:2.6 I’d like to change a rule.
No. The Challenge rules are in place for a reason. When you fill out the JREF Challenge application, you are entering into a contract. The JREF doesn’t cut corners or make exceptions. Not even for you.
[...]
2.7 This particular rule shouldn’t apply to me.
It does. Again, the application is a contract.That said, it is true that the results of many tests consist of two lists of numbers to compare, and standard odds for these tests do make sense. I feel the Challenge FAQ (not the rules) is the right place to put this information, always making it clear that p-values are only orientative, and that some tests (e.g. the UFO summoning test) do not require p-values at all.

In fact, Randi said in Swift February 29, 2008 (http://www.randi.org/joom/swift/swift/swift-february-29-2008-2.html):... So, as of now, we will require that applicants beat a one-in-one-hundred chance of success – by dumb luck or co-incidence – for the preliminary test, and then a one-in-one-hundred-thousand chance in the formal test – a point that has not yet been reached in the past ten years of our trying…This paragraph, with a relevant question and very little editing, could be easily included in the Challenge FAQ. With this, p-values would be somehow more "official" and we in the forums would have something to quote from instead of saying "it's been said somewhere that the JREF usually asks for 1-in-1000 odds". :)

[Rodney]

In any case, I can't quite figure out what your complaint is. Is it that Randi is not willing to spend an unlimited amount of time on any one applicant? Or, perhaps, that he doesn't give, in the official rules, an indication of how much time he is willing to spend?
My complaint is that the JREF Challenge Rules discourage most serious applicants from applying. If the JREF wants to specify in those Rules that no more than X hours will be devoted to any application, that would at least clarify that certain protocols, such as the Ganzfeld, are not realistically amenable to being tested by the JREF.

[drkitten]

My complaint is that the JREF Challenge Rules discourage most serious applicants from applying.

Yes, that's certainly the lie that frauds tell their devoted believers.

Your "complaint" has no evidence behind it and no validity.

If the JREF wants to specify in those Rules that no more than X hours will be devoted to any application, that would at least clarify that certain protocols, such as the Ganzfeld, are not realistically amenable to being tested by the JREF.

But they don't want to specify that, because someone might have a legitimately testable but time-consuming test. For example, "I can speed up continental drift," which might require a fifteen-year test protocol, but will not require minute-to-minute attention on the part of Randi & Co. A similar test was accepted a few years back, where a claimant promised to produce unusual weather (I think the actual terms were "snow in Berkeley, California on the Fourth of July" or something like that) if given six months lead time.) The protocol was duly accepted (and duly failed, as proven by the accepted neutral arbiter, the Weather Bureau, who is going to publish weather statements anyway.

The JREF has no interest in publishing any rules that will be in any way subject to negotiation. P-values, time, and so forth, are legitimately the subject of negotiation, and as such must be negotiated instead of dictated by the JREF.

And your p-value complaint is, frankly, silly. Anyone who says that Randi would simply set the bar arbitrarily and unreasonable high is either lying or misinformed. He has never done that to my knowledge; in fact, standard procedures seems to be for him to offer the claimant substantially better odds than s/he claims in the application. For example, if the claimant says she can detect buried gold "without error," he will usually accept eighteen out of twenty or thereabouts.

[shadron]

I don't see why Randi would have a problem setting up a protocol for someone who claimed to be able to make a consistent 51% correlation in a Ganzfeld. What Randi would insist on is that there be enough trials that making a 51% success in a truly random control test would be very small (smallness commensurate with risking $1M), so that scoring 51% would be a significant achievement. That may make the protocol long - but that's what you buy when you want small differences to be significant.

The point of the whole procedure is, like any legal contract, you and Randi come to an agreement on the protocol a priori - nothing more. Obviously, Randi is going to assure himself that the protocol pretty much guarantees that winning randomly will not occur; but similarly you will assure yourself of your capability of being able to win even under the handicap of not being allowed to "luck out". The protocol is the agreement. If you cannot come to a meeting of the minds on the protocol, then one of the two of you, or both, want the odds tipped into their favor - he doesn't want a random happening to win, and you don't want to spend the rest of your life in trial after trial. That will result if you have a small confidence of being able to do what you say you can do. It is the ultimate fair test, if the protocol can be agreed upon.

Randi makes no guarantees that such an agreement can happen - he only pledges a good faith effort on his part, and assumes one on yours.

An analogy of this working is if you and your wife/husband are getting a divorce, and you have to split the common estate. An equitably fair arrangement can always be guaranteed by having one ex-partner define the division, and the other gets to choose which side of the division to take. Simple.

[Rodney]

Yes, that's certainly the lie that frauds tell their devoted believers.
The person who told me that the MDC is "so hedged and the criteria for success so arbitrarily set up and changeable at his [Randi's] whim that nobody will ever be able to pass his test" is a highly respected Ganzfeld researcher.

Your "complaint" has no evidence behind it and no validity.
In your totally objective opinion. ;)

But they don't want to specify that, because someone might have a legitimately testable but time-consuming test. For example, "I can speed up continental drift," which might require a fifteen-year test protocol, but will not require minute-to-minute attention on the part of Randi & Co. A similar test was accepted a few years back, where a claimant promised to produce unusual weather (I think the actual terms were "snow in Berkeley, California on the Fourth of July" or something like that) if given six months lead time.) The protocol was duly accepted (and duly failed, as proven by the accepted neutral arbiter, the Weather Bureau, who is going to publish weather statements anyway.
Obviously, what I was referring to is time spent by the JREF. Are you saying that the JREF would accept a time-consuming Ganzfeld protocol?

The JREF has no interest in publishing any rules that will be in any way subject to negotiation. P-values, time, and so forth, are legitimately the subject of negotiation, and as such must be negotiated instead of dictated by the JREF.
P-values "are legitimately the subject of negotiation"??? So, in one case an applicant achieving P=.00001 might win an applicant the million, and in another case an applicant achieving P=.000001 might not?

And your p-value complaint is, frankly, silly. Anyone who says that Randi would simply set the bar arbitrarily and unreasonable high is either lying or misinformed. He has never done that to my knowledge; in fact, standard procedures seems to be for him to offer the claimant substantially better odds than s/he claims in the application. For example, if the claimant says she can detect buried gold "without error," he will usually accept eighteen out of twenty or thereabouts.
That's sporting of him, but it doesn't answer the question I'm raising regarding the lack of an odds standard in the JREF Challenge Rules.

[Bob Klase]

The person who told me that the MDC is "so hedged and the criteria for success so arbitrarily set up and changeable at his [Randi's] whim that nobody will ever be able to pass his test" is a highly respected Ganzfeld researcher.

But he obviously has not spent much time researching the MDC. The criteria for success is established by agreement between the challenger and JREF. It's not arbitrary and once an agreement is reached it's no more changeable at Randi's whim than it is at the challenger's whim.

One would expect a highly respected researcher to actually do some research before stating conclusions.

[William Smith]

...
That's sporting of him, but it doesn't answer the question I'm raising regarding the lack of an odds standard in the JREF Challenge Rules.

What is so difficult for you to understand about this statement: There is no standard because there are no standard claims. The claims vary, the protocols vary, hence the odds vary. It's that simple.

[Paul2]

It seems there are two types of MDC claims: those that involve odds and for which JREF would set a p-value, and those that don't (make a UFO appear). I think Rodney's point is that, for those claims that do involve a p-value, shouldn't it be established beforehand? Otherwise, it seems arbitrary for each applicant.

"For some claims, the JREF will require a p-value for a successful test. For those claims, applicants must achive results greater than p=X in order to be successful."

Can someone explain why a p-value might be different for applicant A compared to applicant B (assuming both A and B require some p-value level of success)?

[shadron]

It seems there are two types of MDC claims: those that involve odds and for which JREF would set a p-value, and those that don't (make a UFO appear). I think Rodney's point is that, for those claims that do involve a p-value, shouldn't it be established beforehand? Otherwise, it seems arbitrary for each applicant.

"For some claims, the JREF will require a p-value for a successful test. For those claims, applicants must achive results greater than p=X in order to be successful."

Can someone explain why a p-value might be different for applicant A compared to applicant B (assuming both A and B require some p-value level of success)?

Why should it matter? If Randi and the claimant come to an agreement, then, presumably, they do, in fact, agree that the criteria, whatever they are, are definitive as to whether the claim is met or not. Why should it matter that one person claims 100% accuracy and the next claims 75% accuracy, and that both can be accommodated within the rules to each person's, and Randi's, full satisfaction before the testing is carried out?

[shadron]

That's sporting of him, but it doesn't answer the question I'm raising regarding the lack of an odds standard in the JREF Challenge Rules.

In the final analysis, it's the foundation's money and the foundation makes the rules. They are fair rules, because the claimant and Randi agree that the protocol will be a definitive determinant before the test is started. Inability to come to such an agreement is not either's fault. Your point is not an issue, except as a means of casting a lame blame on Randi for failure in negotiations, and as such, just too darned bad.

[drkitten]

The person who told me that the MDC is "so hedged and the criteria for success so arbitrarily set up and changeable at his [Randi's] whim that nobody will ever be able to pass his test" is a highly respected Ganzfeld researcher.

Well, since Ganzfeld researchers are ispo facto frauds, I'm happy to stand by my statement.



Obviously, what I was referring to is time spent by the JREF. Are you saying that the JREF would accept a time-consuming Ganzfeld protocol?

Probably not. The problem in this case isn't the the time so much as the opportunity for cheating (and the time spent by the JREF). If the researcher could propose an iron-clad protocol that was impossible to cheat (and bearing in mind that Randi does not know enough about cryptography to accept most of the standard cryptographic protocols that would commonly be used -- with good reason), there's no reason that he woudn't accept such a protocol.




P-values "are legitimately the subject of negotiation"??? So, in one case an applicant achieving P=.00001 might win an applicant the million, and in another case an applicant achieving P=.000001 might not?

Absolutely. The winning and losing criteria are evaluated on individual bases.



That's sporting of him, but it doesn't answer the question I'm raising regarding the lack of an odds standard in the JREF Challenge Rules.

It does. The answer is, "your question is irrelevant and the one posing it is a fool."

[drkitten]

Can someone explain why a p-value might be different for applicant A compared to applicant B (assuming both A and B require some p-value level of success)?

Because applicant A and applicant B negotiate different protocols with different success criteria, obviously.

Can some explain why a salary might be different for applicant A compared to applicant B (assuming both A and B require some salary)? Why am I paid more than the department secretary, but less than the football coach?

[Rodney]

Because applicant A and applicant B negotiate different protocols with different success criteria, obviously.
If the odds of success can be readily calculated, permitting different applicants to negotiate different success criteria -- as measured by P values -- makes no sense. What the JREF Challenge is supposed to be about is setting the bar high enough that it cannot be hurdled by random chance, but not so high as to make hurdling it unlikely even if an alleged paranormal phenomenon is real. So, it would be illogical, for example, for the JREF to apply a more stringent P value standard to playing card guessing than to number guessing.

Can some explain why a salary might be different for applicant A compared to applicant B (assuming both A and B require some salary)? Why am I paid more than the department secretary, but less than the football coach?
Because that's what market forces dictate. How is your example in any way analogous to using different P value criteria for different Challenge applicants?

[Rodney]

Well, since Ganzfeld researchers are ispo facto frauds, I'm happy to stand by my statement.
Evidence?

[Moochie]

My complaint is that the JREF Challenge Rules discourage most serious applicants from applying. If the JREF wants to specify in those Rules that no more than X hours will be devoted to any application, that would at least clarify that certain protocols, such as the Ganzfeld, are not realistically amenable to being tested by the JREF.

Can you point to a few dozen of these "most serious applicants"? And do "most serious applicants" believe, as you seem to, that "paranormal" ability is so subtle that it requires a statistician to determine its existence?

M.

[William Smith]

Before the mudflinging starts: Rodney, do you now have a better understanding why there are no "standard odds"?

Perhaps an inquiry at challenge@randi.org would clear up any remaining questions. Please ask them to reply in this thread.

[Rodney]

Can you point to a few dozen of these "most serious applicants"?
I believe that most Ganzfeld experimenters would be interested in applying for the Challenge, if they knew they were eligible and were confident that the test would be conducted fairly.

And do "most serious applicants" believe, as you seem to, that "paranormal" ability is so subtle that it requires a statistician to determine its existence? With regard to controlled tests, I think that most do. However, I think that most believe, as I do, that the paranormal often manifests itself spontaneously in a much less subtle fashion.

[Rodney]

Before the mudflinging starts: Rodney, do you now have a better understanding why there are no "standard odds"?
Not with regard to those applications that involve readily calculable odds.

Perhaps an inquiry at challenge@randi.org would clear up any remaining questions. Please ask them to reply in this thread.
Done.

[Speed of Light]

This is from the Carina Landin thread

Hi
There is something that no-one has mentioned.
It has often been said on the forum that for the preliminary test, the probability of succeeding by chance alone, must be smaller than 1 in 1000, and for the final test, 1 in a million.

By my calculations, for this test, the probability of getting 16 or more correct out of 20, purely by chance alone, works out as (approx) 1 in 169.234.

I agree with you Rodney, that there ought to be a set standard to aim at 'officially', so that any applicant knows where they stand.

However, I'm not too sure that this is the reason why there are no 'serious' applicants.

I feel it has more to do with Randi's attitude to 'psychics'.
The whole mood of the JREF is against it.
He is vey impatient with anything paranomal - Not what you'd call open minded. He is really interested only in clear obvious tests and results which are readily apparent to anyone, making better publicity.
I don't believe Randi has the patience for 'subtleties'.
He surrounds himself with similar people, which is probably the reason why, in Golfy's thread, the idea of a polygraph was immediately rejected.
I don't believe they have the patience, unless forced to, to seriously consider the subtleties - They want clear cut rules - immediately understandable by everyone.
Randi is not a statistician - I think he said that in his February 29th monologue - He is more a 'people' person, interested only really in the public aspect of it.

Having said that, I believe that if a serious applicant was determined to enter the challenge, and brave the waters, so to speak, it would not be too difficult to design a protocol.
If they claimed for example 54% success rate in guessing the colour of a randomly chosen card, this could easily be done by a computer simulation, using some sort of random number generator. The whole test could easily be carried out by email, and the 'guesses' made in the applicant's own time.
So if 3500 trials were needed, the applicant would then be free to carry out the test in their own time, perhaps at times when they felt most 'psychic', however long it takes, or even divide it between several 'psychics'. It would be extremely simple for the JREF to set up such a test by email.
Also, now that Randi has mentioned 1 in 100 for the preliminary, we (more or less) know what odds to aim at, now.

[Cuddles]

I think your answer helps explain why there are so few non-delusional challengers for the prize. The idea that, for example, anyone can ALWAYS paranormally pick out a red card from a selection of face up cards is preposterous on the face of it (so to speak ;)). However, it may be possible for someone to pick out a red card at a significantly above chance rate, even if that rate is only 51-52% over thousands of trials. Would such a person apply for the prize, when there is not even a hint in the official rules of what level (s)he must perform at even to pass the preliminary test, let alone win the million dollars? The point is that, by not specifying an odds standard, serious challenges for the prize are discouraged. As a person involved in Ganzfeld experiments told me, the MDC is "so hedged and the criteria for success so arbitrarily set up and changeable at his [Randi's] whim that nobody will ever be able to pass his test."

All of which is utterly irrelevant. It makes no difference at all whether someone claims to be 100% accurate or 51% accurate. If they can do what they claim, it doesn't matter in the slightest what the possibility of them passing by chance is. The only way chance can matter is if they are actually relying on chance and not their claimed ability. I agree that this explains why there are no non-delusional challengers, but not in the way that you seem to think.

[William Smith]

This is from the Carina Landin thread
...

I edited your post because there are too many wrong and unsubstantiated assertions to rebut for me tonight.

Not to my surprise though, you seem to have missed the very next post in the thread you quoted from. It is the one below:

Hi Speed of Light.

The rule is generally that both the preliminary and final tests have odds of 1 to 1000, giving a total chance of 1 to 1,000,000.

We don't know why they gave Landin more favorable odds, but I suspect that it was as much the hassle of getting all those diaries as anything else. Even if Landin can do what she claims she wouldn't be expected to get 100%. For example, she might get an image of a husband who cherished his dead wife's diary for years and label the diary male.

If she could in fact get 80% right then it would take more than 20 diaries to get a good test. If the final test ever happens they'll have to come up with more than 20 diaries. This is all allowed for in the rules.

And then there is this one:

I cannot do these calculations myself, but others have performed them in this thread, notably here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2036874&postcount=46) and here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2036874&postcount=42), and they disagree with you.

[Speed of Light]

All of which is utterly irrelevant..
Seems vey opinionated.
If what others say is All irrelevant, then we are not going to get any meaningful dialogue.
A good illustration of 'lack of undestandiing or interest in subtleties'



It makes no difference at all whether someone claims to be 100% accurate or 51% accurate. If they can do what they claim, it doesn't matter in the slightest what the possibility of them passing by chance is.
Another dogmatic statement, with no hint at understanding what Rodney is trying to say.
This statement also seems to deny the very existence of statistics.

I am aware that many people do not understand, or are put off by statistics, but I don't think there is any need for meaningless dogmatic responses, completely ignoring the statistical arguments which have been made



The only way chance can matter is if they are actually relying on chance and not their claimed ability.

What the hell does that mean??


I agree that this explains why there are no non-delusional challengers, but not in the way that you seem to think.
Is this a riddle?

[drkitten]

Seems vey opinionated.
If what others say is All irrelevant, then we are not going to get any meaningful dialogue.

That's right. The reason for that is that neither you nor Rodney have anythign meaningful to say. A meaningful dialogue is simply not possible under those circumstances.



I am aware that many people do not understand, or are put off by statistics, but I don't think there is any need for meaningless dogmatic responses, completely ignoring the statistical arguments which have been made.

No statistical arguments have been made, and there is therefore nothing there not to ignore. And, no, I'm not one to be put off by statistics; in fact I've taught the subject professionally from time to time. The simple fact is that the p-value is not relevant in circumstances where random chance is not a factor.

As a simple example : suppose you offer to predict the final score of a basketball game. The "chance" of you doing it correctly through random guessing is astronomically small, but if you've already seen the game (and we're watching it together on tape delay), then "chance" is irrelevant. You have special knowledge that in this case allows you to do something that would be arbitrarily difficult under "normal" circumstances.

Similarly, the chance of being dealt a hand of all spades in a bridge game is almost unthinkable -- unless a professional magician is doing the dealing, in which case it's routine.

The "p-value" is thus a test of which is which. If you have the special skill or knowledge you claim to have, then you can do a task that is arbitrarily unlikely. If you do not have, then the chances of your succeeding are arbitrarily small.


In the case of the Randi challenge --- Randi listens to your description of what you can do (and what accuracy you can expect). He will then propose a task that if you can do what you say, will be well within your skill level. The task will also be almost impossible to do "by chance" and he will take appropriate precautions against ordinary cheating-type manipulations.

For example -- I claim to be able to look at a tin of soup (with the label visible) and tell you what the contents of the can are. I claim I can do that with virtually 100% accuracy. (And I can, too; unless the manufacturer made a mistake, which rarely happens.) If Randi accepted the challenge, he might say something like : all right, we will give you a set of twenty soup tinss -- some tomato, and some cream of mushroom -- and you have to successfully pick out the ones that are tomato. I claim that I can do twenty out of twenty, so he will allow me two mistakes and see if I can get 18 out of twenty. Simple claim, simple protocol, simple task.

And do you see how it doesn't matter in this case whether he gives me twenty cans, or fifty, or a hundred? From my point of view, either I can read the labels or I can't. But reading a hundred labels is no more difficult than reading fifty, and if I can't manage a hundred, I can't manage twenty --- or two. The only reason I would care about the p-value is if I plan to guess instead of reading the labels.

Now, for a more "realistic" challenge. I have X-ray vision and I can do the same thing, even when the tins are sealed in an opaque container. The task is almost exactly the same, and the same argument shows that it doesn't matter whether he gives me a hundred or twenty tins. If I really have X-ray vision, I just read the labels through the shoe-box. If I don't have X-ray vision, I can't read the first one, let alone the twenty-first.

The p-value is simply not relevant.

So he would prefer to go with 100 cans, but I might object; it will be a long and boring afternoon, and soup tins aren't free. So I say "how about five", but he doesn't consider that a sufficiently stringent test. Here's where the negotiation comes in. It's my time and money vs. his time, money, and confidence.

[Paul2]

Shadron, it's a question not so much of what the claimant claims, as what the JREF will require in order to agree to an MDC application. It's not just what someone claims, it's also a matter of what the JREF will require. As Rodney said,

If, for example, an applicant could consistently determine with 54% accuracy whether a face-down playing card was red or black, even 100 trials would be woefully insufficient to prove that, because 54 hits in 100 trials could easily be attributable to chance (P=.24). However, if the applicant could continue to perform at that level over about 3500 trials, (s)he would meet a P=.000001 criterion.

So the p-value needs to be sufficient. I don't mean this rhetorically: why can't the sufficient p-value be established before hand? What circumstance would require different p-values for applicants who have an odds-based claim?

[Speed of Light]

This is from the Carina Landin thread


I edited your post because there are too many wrong and unsubstantiated assertions to rebut for me tonight.

Crikey! You definitely know how to make someone feel good!

If everyone simply rebutted everyone else, then we wouldn't get very far, would we?


Not to my surprise though, you seem to have missed the very next post in the thread you quoted from. It is the one below:

Hi Speed of Light.
The rule is generally that both the preliminary and final tests have odds of 1 to 1000, giving a total chance of 1 to 1,000,000.
We don't know why they gave Landin more favorable odds, but I suspect that it was as much the hassle of getting all those diaries as anything else. Even if Landin can do what she claims she wouldn't be expected to get 100%. For example, she might get an image of a husband who cherished his dead wife's diary for years and label the diary male.
If she could in fact get 80% right then it would take more than 20 diaries to get a good test. If the final test ever happens they'll have to come up with more than 20 diaries. This is all allowed for in the rules.


And then there is this one:

I cannot do these calculations myself, but others have performed them in this thread, notably here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2036874&postcount=46) and here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2036874&postcount=42), and they disagree with you.

You seem to be in a rush to prove people wrong -
What about this post, later on?

I also get 1 in 169.234, assuming "by chance" means coin-flipping.
2^20 ways to label the diaries "right" or "wrong" = 1048576
20!/(20! * 0!) ways to get 20 right = 1
20!/(19! * 1!) ways to get 19 right = 20
20!/(18! * 2!) ways to get 18 right = 190
20!/(17! * 3!) ways to get 17 right = 1140
20!/(16! * 4!) ways to get 20 right = 4845
1048576 / (1+20+190+1140+4845) = 169.2
If Carina takes into account the fact that there are at least 5 male and at least 5 female diaries her odds are even better.

ChristineR gets exactly the same value for the probability as I do, using more or less the same method

There is also this post later on, responding to ChristineR

You've got it upside down. It should be (1+20+190+1140+4845) / 1048576 = .0059
Or you can do it like I did in Excel: =1-BINOMDIST(15, 20, 0.5, 1) will give the probability of getting 16 or more correct which also gives .0059
ETA: I did make a computational error in my earlier post. I had the .0059 as the probability of getting 15 or more correct. It's not, it's 16 or more correct and 0.0013 is the probability of getting 17 or more correct [Excel formula 1-BINOMDIST(16, 20, 0.5, 1)]. Since JREF tests typically ask for p-values of .001, I suspect the person who arrived at 16 as the necessary number to succeed may have made the same computation error I did in my earlier post.
True.

Beth gets a probability of 0.0059, using Excel, which is almost exactly the same as we got (1 in 169 approximately)

GzuzKryzt, Why didn't you check the statistical calculations before trying to say they were wrong?

[Speed of Light]

That's right. The reason for that is that neither you nor Rodney have anythign meaningful to say. A meaningful dialogue is simply not possible under those circumstances.


No statistical arguments have been made, and there is therefore nothing there not to ignore. And, no, I'm not one to be put off by statistics; in fact I've taught the subject professionally from time to time. The simple fact is that the p-value is not relevant in circumstances where random chance is not a factor.

As a simple example : suppose you offer to predict the final score of a basketball game. The "chance" of you doing it correctly through random guessing is astronomically small, but if you've already seen the game (and we're watching it together on tape delay), then "chance" is irrelevant. You have special knowledge that in this case allows you to do something that would be arbitrarily difficult under "normal" circumstances.

Similarly, the chance of being dealt a hand of all spades in a bridge game is almost unthinkable -- unless a professional magician is doing the dealing, in which case it's routine.

The "p-value" is thus a test of which is which. If you have the special skill or knowledge you claim to have, then you can do a task that is arbitrarily unlikely. If you do not have, then the chances of your succeeding are arbitrarily small.


In the case of the Randi challenge --- Randi listens to your description of what you can do (and what accuracy you can expect). He will then propose a task that if you can do what you say, will be well within your skill level. The task will also be almost impossible to do "by chance" and he will take appropriate precautions against ordinary cheating-type manipulations.

For example -- I claim to be able to look at a tin of soup (with the label visible) and tell you what the contents of the can are. I claim I can do that with virtually 100% accuracy. (And I can, too; unless the manufacturer made a mistake, which rarely happens.) If Randi accepted the challenge, he might say something like : all right, we will give you a set of twenty soup tinss -- some tomato, and some cream of mushroom -- and you have to successfully pick out the ones that are tomato. I claim that I can do twenty out of twenty, so he will allow me two mistakes and see if I can get 18 out of twenty. Simple claim, simple protocol, simple task.

And do you see how it doesn't matter in this case whether he gives me twenty cans, or fifty, or a hundred? From my point of view, either I can read the labels or I can't. But reading a hundred labels is no more difficult than reading fifty, and if I can't manage a hundred, I can't manage twenty --- or two. The only reason I would care about the p-value is if I plan to guess instead of reading the labels.

Now, for a more "realistic" challenge. I have X-ray vision and I can do the same thing, even when the tins are sealed in an opaque container. The task is almost exactly the same, and the same argument shows that it doesn't matter whether he gives me a hundred or twenty tins. If I really have X-ray vision, I just read the labels through the shoe-box. If I don't have X-ray vision, I can't read the first one, let alone the twenty-first.

The p-value is simply not relevant.

So he would prefer to go with 100 cans, but I might object; it will be a long and boring afternoon, and soup tins aren't free. So I say "how about five", but he doesn't consider that a sufficiently stringent test. Here's where the negotiation comes in. It's my time and money vs. his time, money, and confidence.

The original purpose of this thread, was to discuss a particular type of claim -That in which only slightly above chance effects are claimed, so probability in this case becomes an overiding factor. This is different from most past claims, because the results are not obvious, and must be analysed statistically.
The more a claim is only slightly above chance, the more mathematics must come into it
The calculated probability of succeeding is, in effect, a perfectly accurate measure of the 'Hardness' of the task, whatever the claim - So the application of a set probability standard, would mean that evey applicant who conforms to that standard, will have exactly the same chance of passing by chance alone - Very like imposing weights, in horse racing - to equalise the probabilities. Equalising probabilities is like a handicap system, so that no applicant has an advantage over any other, and the hardness of their tasks are exactly the same for everyone

[Rodney]

The p-value is simply not relevant.
Only to those who, like you, have the simplistic view that the paranormal cannot be real unless it operates in an always on manner. I would suggest that the proper model for the paranormal is human performance. For example, on some days, even the best athlete in the world is way off his game. But, applying your logic, Tiger Woods should never hit a bad shot.

[William Smith]

...
GzuzKryzt, Why didn't you check the statistical calculations before trying to say they were wrong?

I have to admit that I am in over my head with these statistics. I relied on the calculations of Beth.

I apologize if I was wrong, Speed of Light.



Perhaps someone else will come up with a clarification.

[remirol]

Only to those who, like you, have the simplistic view that the paranormal cannot be real unless it operates in an always on manner.

As opposed to your equally simplistic view which suggests that credit should be given for things which cannot be done either reliably or in a manner significantly more common than chance would indicate? I think not.

I would suggest that the proper model for the paranormal is human performance.Wrong. The proper model for the paranormal is what the applicant claims he or she can do.

For example, on some days, even the best athlete in the world is way off his game. But, applying your logic, Tiger Woods should never hit a bad shot.Strawman. Tiger Woods makes no claim that he will hit only good shots.

There is a reason that the claim is hand-tailored to each applicant, and that reason is that the Challenge tests what the claimant says he/she is able to do. If the claimant states that he can perform with 100% accuracy, that is the claimant's business; a protocol will then be negotiated that is well within the claimant's ability ACCORDING TO THE CLAIMANT, and is also sufficiently outside the range where success could be obtained by simple random chance.

While a claim that someone could perform "X" task with 54% accuracy might be worth entertaining, the number of tests required to rule out random chance alone would be large; and at some point the relevance of the task itself might be called into question, as well as the sincerity of the applicant. Bear in mind that nobody has successfully passed even the preliminary test; this indicates that any given claim is likely to be false or delusional, and thus endless patience is _not_ due for extremely time-consuming claims.

Also consider that where appropriate (see the dowsing protocols), each applicant is requested to confirm prior to the preliminary test that their ability is, indeed, "working" that day. If it is not working for some reason, the test could be rescheduled appropriately. Unless I am quite mistaken, nobody has ever backed out of the preliminary test and said "It's not working, something's wrong".

So, if your Ganzfeld researchers think they can beat random chance in some manner, have them formulate a claim for something they can _demonstrate_, and then apply. The same considerations mentioned above will be given to them, and the protocol will be appropriately tailored to be well within their claimed capabilities, while still well beyond the realm of success-via-random-chance.

[69dodge]

The calculated probability of succeeding is, in effect, a perfectly accurate measure of the 'Hardness' of the task, whatever the claim

How hard the task is depends on whether the applicant has paranormal abilities and, if he has, on the precise nature of those abilities. The "calculated probability of succeeding" is calculated on the assumption that he hasn't any. But he believes that he has some. Otherwise he wouldn't apply. So he disagrees that the task's difficulty is accurately measured by that probability.

[Moochie]

As opposed to your equally simplistic view which suggests that credit should be given for things which cannot be done either reliably or in a manner significantly more common than chance would indicate? I think not.

Wrong. The proper model for the paranormal is what the applicant claims he or she can do.

Strawman. Tiger Woods makes no claim that he will hit only good shots.

There is a reason that the claim is hand-tailored to each applicant, and that reason is that the Challenge tests what the claimant says he/she is able to do. If the claimant states that he can perform with 100% accuracy, that is the claimant's business; a protocol will then be negotiated that is well within the claimant's ability ACCORDING TO THE CLAIMANT, and is also sufficiently outside the range where success could be obtained by simple random chance.

While a claim that someone could perform "X" task with 54% accuracy might be worth entertaining, the number of tests required to rule out random chance alone would be large; and at some point the relevance of the task itself might be called into question, as well as the sincerity of the applicant. Bear in mind that nobody has successfully passed even the preliminary test; this indicates that any given claim is likely to be false or delusional, and thus endless patience is _not_ due for extremely time-consuming claims.

Also consider that where appropriate (see the dowsing protocols), each applicant is requested to confirm prior to the preliminary test that their ability is, indeed, "working" that day. If it is not working for some reason, the test could be rescheduled appropriately. Unless I am quite mistaken, nobody has ever backed out of the preliminary test and said "It's not working, something's wrong".

So, if your Ganzfeld researchers think they can beat random chance in some manner, have them formulate a claim for something they can _demonstrate_, and then apply. The same considerations mentioned above will be given to them, and the protocol will be appropriately tailored to be well within their claimed capabilities, while still well beyond the realm of success-via-random-chance.

I have the strangest feeling that someone is having a lend of us here.

The Ganzfeld researchers will never submit themselves to any kind of definitive test because the results would most likely see them lose their funding, and what shred of reputation they still possess.


M.

[Rodney]

I have the strangest feeling that someone is having a lend of us here.

The Ganzfeld researchers will never submit themselves to any kind of definitive test because the results would most likely see them lose their funding, and what shred of reputation they still possess.
M.
Your position would be strengthened if the JREF were to encourage Ganzfeld experimenters to apply for the Challenge, and then no one does.

[Jekyll]

Only to those who, like you, have the simplistic view that the paranormal cannot be real unless it operates in an always on manner. I would suggest that the proper model for the paranormal is human performance. For example, on some days, even the best athlete in the world is way off his game. But, applying your logic, Tiger Woods should never hit a bad shot.
If Tiger Woods was the golfing equivalent of the Ganzfeld, he'd have hit only a couple of good shots, on training days, a long time ago, when no one else was really bothering to watch.

His sponsors would have dropped him because he was so boring, and he wouldn't be allowed to play with the pros. But there'd still be a couple of idiots hyping him up on message boards claiming he was the second coming of Christ.

[Rodney]

If Tiger Woods was the golfing equivalent of the Ganzfeld, he'd have hit only a couple of good shots, on training days, a long time ago, when no one else was really bothering to watch.

His sponsors would have dropped him because he was so boring, and he wouldn't be allowed to play with the pros. But there'd still be a couple of idiots hyping him up on message boards claiming he was the second coming of Christ.
Your analogy is off-point. A golfer who hit more bad shots than good shots might be boring and not allowed to play with the pros, but the relevant question would be: Is his golfing performance better than that of an individual selected at random from the population at large? Ganzfeld experiments will never pass muster as nightclub entertainment, but if over time the results can beat odds of one in a million, they aren't random.

[maatorc]

I've heard several times on these forums about the "1 in one thousand usual MDC standard for a preliminary test." ......So what, exactly, is required to pass the preliminary test?

The longish arguments on statistics are irrelevant.

Those who can prove or demonstrate the psychic or occult will not apply because under the rules of their status they cannot indulge, or mystify, or entertain a stranger, the merely curious, or the skeptical; and especially not for money.

Those who do apply will of course be those who cannot demonstrate the psychic or occult.

It is also highly unlikely that Mr. Randi actually knows or truly believes that psychic or occult events are necessarily fraud or impossible: It is all a sham and word-game.

[Cuddles]

The original purpose of this thread, was to discuss a particular type of claim -That in which only slightly above chance effects are claimed, so probability in this case becomes an overiding factor.

No it wasn't. Try going back and reading the OP again. Then try saying something that's actually relevant.

Only to those who, like you, have the simplistic view that the paranormal cannot be real unless it operates in an always on manner.

No. This is exactly what we have explained, and which you either refuse to understand or simply cannot. The whole point of the challenge is to test what people claim. If they claim to be 100% accurate, that is what is tested. If they claim to be 51% accurate, that is what is tested. The test is designed so that there is a very low chance of them passing by chance, but a very high chance of passing if they can actually do what they claim. Exactly what is meant by "very low" and "very high" is pretty much irrelevant, and the claim itself is completely irrelevant.

However, this whole thread is irrelevant since, as far as I know, no-one has ever applied with a claim of 51% accuracy. In fact, most applicants claim 100% accuracy and have to be persuaded to accept only something like 80% as a success - the JREF actually goes out their way to take into account that 100% accuracy is unlikely, thus demonstrating that your point is, in fact, pointless.

[Speed of Light]

The original purpose of this thread, was to discuss a particular type of claim -That in which only slightly above chance effects are claimed, so probability in this case becomes an overiding factor.

No it wasn't. Try going back and reading the OP again. Then try saying something that's actually relevant.

Crikey! Very nice! You sound like a teacher!

In one of the very early posts, Rodney says -

I think your answer helps explain why there are so few non-delusional challengers for the prize. The idea that, for example, anyone can ALWAYS paranormally pick out a red card from a selection of face up cards is preposterous on the face of it (so to speak ;)). However, it may be possible for someone to pick out a red card at a significantly above chance rate, even if that rate is only 51-52% over thousands of trials. Would such a person apply for the prize, when there is not even a hint in the official rules of what level (s)he must perform at even to pass the preliminary test, let alone win the million dollars? The point is that, by not specifying an odds standard, serious challenges for the prize are discouraged. As a person involved in Ganzfeld experiments told me, the MDC is "so hedged and the criteria for success so arbitrarily set up and changeable at his [Randi's] whim that nobody will ever be able to pass his test."

So, as can be plainly seen, discussion of the odds standard, in relation to discouraging 'slightly above chance' claims. is clearly what this thread is about
'
It would help to say why you think something is irrelevant - To just say 'irrelevant', without giving a reason, comes over as rude - The whole point of dialogue, is to 'respond' to others' points, rather than just dismiss them as irrelevant

Only to those who, like you, have the simplistic view that the paranormal cannot be real unless it operates in an always on manner.

No. This is exactly what we have explained, and which you either refuse to understand or simply cannot.
(Bold added)
Indicates impatience. Being personal doesn't make for good dialogue.


The whole point of the challenge is to test what people claim. If they claim to be 100% accurate, that is what is tested. If they claim to be 51% accurate, that is what is tested. The test is designed so that there is a very low chance of them passing by chance, but a very high chance of passing if they can actually do what they claim. Exactly what is meant by "very low" and "very high" is pretty much irrelevant, and the claim itself is completely irrelevant.
(Bold added)

What is the point of saying eveything is irrelevant, without backing up that. It comes over as terribly opinionated.
The arguments have been carefully put forward, and to just say that everything is irrelevant, without giving the slightest reason, doesn't make for a very productive dialogue.
Giving another side, or disagreeing is alright, but just contradicting for no reason, and telling people that what they say is irrelevant, seems rude


However, this whole thread is irrelevant since, as far as I know, no-one has ever applied with a claim of 51% accuracy.

There you go again, saying things are irrelevant!

The argument given, was that this type of claim is discouraged -
Otherwise they might apply

[remirol]

Ganzfeld experiments will never pass muster as nightclub entertainment, but if over time the results can beat odds of one in a million, they aren't random.

And yet, if they cannot produce results that are significantly distinguishable from those derived from random chance, they are also not relevant.

However, I would certainly encourage the Ganzfeld researchers to apply. Formulate a concept of what they intend to demonstrate, why it will be significantly more than random chance, and then _do it_. The spotlight scrutiny focused on them will prove highly entertaining, I am sure.

[Cuddles]

What is the point of saying eveything is irrelevant, without backing up that.

OK, try again. Go back and actually read my post. See the one you quoted that says "Cuddles" on it? Good, that's the one. Now, you see all the words there that aren't the word "irrelevant"? Excelent. Those would be the ones explaining why the word "irrelevant" is there. Right, now you've managed all that, try actually addressing the points I have made instead of just complaining that you can't understand my posts if you don't read them.

[Rodney]

However, this whole thread is irrelevant since, as far as I know, no-one has ever applied with a claim of 51% accuracy.
You might try re-reading post #6 on this thread, in which I stated that "it may be possible for someone to pick out a red card at a significantly above chance rate, even if that rate is only 51-52% over thousands of trials. Would such a person apply for the prize, when there is not even a hint in the official rules of what level (s)he must perform at even to pass the preliminary test, let alone win the million dollars? The point is that, by not specifying an odds standard, serious challenges for the prize are discouraged."

[Cuddles]

You might try re-reading post #6 on this thread, in which I stated that "it may be possible for someone to pick out a red card at a significantly above chance rate, even if that rate is only 51-52% over thousands of trials. Would such a person apply for the prize, when there is not even a hint in the official rules of what level (s)he must perform at even to pass the preliminary test, let alone win the million dollars? The point is that, by not specifying an odds standard, serious challenges for the prize are discouraged."

There is exactly as much of a hint of what level they must perform as there is for anyone else. Plenty of people have applied, therefore this argument does not work.

In any case, this is really not relevant to the challenge at all. There have been plenty of discussions about this before. The challenge exists simply to counter many silly claims that people make by actually testing them. It does not pretend to be a detailed scientific study, and it does not pretend to cover all possibilities all it does is ask what someone can do and see if they can demonstrate it. Is it possible that some people have an incredibly weak, unreliable psychic ability that can only be seen in lengthy studies? Sure. Does the challenge care about this? No. It is not designed to test that sort of claim. If people want to look for that sort of ability, great. Good luck to them. It's nothing to do with the challenge.

There are plenty of other things the challenge does not test for as well. Cloudbusting, summoning aliens, curing cancer, religion, anything involving possible harm, and so on. Is this really such a big deal? The challenge will test for some things but not for others. Does someone claim something it won't or can't test? Unlucky. Maybe they can find somewhere else to test it.

[petre]

You might try re-reading post #6 on this thread, in which I stated that "it may be possible for someone to pick out a red card at a significantly above chance rate, even if that rate is only 51-52% over thousands of trials. Would such a person apply for the prize, when there is not even a hint in the official rules of what level (s)he must perform at even to pass the preliminary test, let alone win the million dollars? The point is that, by not specifying an odds standard, serious challenges for the prize are discouraged."

What about a duration standard? What about a distance standard? Elevation? Temperature? There are many metrics that the JREF would wish to limit (I doubt they would trouble themselves to find observers that could travel near the top of Mt. Everest if a claimant believes their ability won't work any closer to sea-level).

What if a applicant wishes to apply with a protocol but the odds are 1:999? If a 1:1000 standard were listed, people may shy away if their working protocol falls short (even though I'm fairly sure JREF would find 1:999 just fine). It would seem likely an explicit standard would drive away more claimants than an assumed one.

[Jekyll]

Your analogy is off-point. A golfer who hit more bad shots than good shots might be boring and not allowed to play with the pros, but the relevant question would be: Is his golfing performance better than that of an individual selected at random from the population at large? Ganzfeld experiments will never pass muster as nightclub entertainment, but if over time the results can beat odds of one in a million, they aren't random.

You know, if the ganzfield researchers actually did this, if they demonstrated that they could reliably tell the difference between an influenced and an uninfluenced machine (suitably double blinded of course) people would have a lot less issues with their research.

Instead they focus on mining the data to find anomalies, never the same one twice, and then say, "The chance of this anomaly occurring is 1 in a billion."

Which is about what you expect them to be able to find, when they have a billion different anomalies to search for.

Because of this, they've lost their sponsors (PEAR closed down), they're not allowed to play with the pros (can't get published in reputable journals)

[Rodney]

The challenge exists simply to counter many silly claims that people make by actually testing them. It does not pretend to be a detailed scientific study, and it does not pretend to cover all possibilities all it does is ask what someone can do and see if they can demonstrate it. Is it possible that some people have an incredibly weak, unreliable psychic ability that can only be seen in lengthy studies? Sure. Does the challenge care about this? No. It is not designed to test that sort of claim. If people want to look for that sort of ability, great. Good luck to them. It's nothing to do with the challenge.
That's not what the home page on the Challenge states: "At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event." (emphasis added) See http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-info.html However, if you are correct, I recommend that the JREF clarify that the Challenge is restricted to "silly claims" of the paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.

[Rodney]

You know, if the ganzfield researchers actually did this, if they demonstrated that they could reliably tell the difference between an influenced and an uninfluenced machine (suitably double blinded of course) people would have a lot less issues with their research.

Instead they focus on mining the data to find anomalies, never the same one twice, and then say, "The chance of this anomaly occurring is 1 in a billion."

Which is about what you expect them to be able to find, when they have a billion different anomalies to search for.

Because of this, they've lost their sponsors (PEAR closed down), they're not allowed to play with the pros (can't get published in reputable journals)
You're confusing mind-machine interaction studies, which is what PEAR did, with Ganzfeld studies, in which someone who is in a state of mild sensory deprivation attempts to mentally send a target image to a recipient. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment

[Moochie]

If you fiddle with the stats long enough, you can get them to show just about whatever you want, especially with so-called meta-analyses, which is why they're not held in very high esteem.


M.

[Jekyll]

You're confusing mind-machine interaction studies, which is what PEAR did, with Ganzfeld studies, in which someone who is in a state of mild sensory deprivation attempts to mentally send a target image to a recipient. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment

Oh yes, you're right ;). Thanks.

[Thabiguy]

You might try re-reading post #6 on this thread, in which I stated that "it may be possible for someone to pick out a red card at a significantly above chance rate, even if that rate is only 51-52% over thousands of trials. Would such a person apply for the prize, when there is not even a hint in the official rules of what level (s)he must perform at even to pass the preliminary test, let alone win the million dollars? The point is that, by not specifying an odds standard, serious challenges for the prize are discouraged."

Even though I'm a little late to the discussion, I feel I must respond to this. Although the essence has already been explained by Cuddles and others, I believe that there is one very specific misunderstanding in your post, and I would like to address that.

There are two distinct chances at play here: 1. The chance at which the alleged paranormal ability works. For example, a person might predict the outcome of a coin toss with 100% success rate, or 80% success rate, or, if she really only has a very hazy vision of the future, with 51% success rate. 2. The chance of the person passing the preliminary (or real) test without having the ability that she claims to have. In other words, the probability of a false positive. I put those words in bold because it is important to understand that that is precisely what it is: a false positive. It's not the odds of succeeding in the preliminary test; it's the odds of the test failing and incorrectly crediting a "muggle" with the claimed paranormal ability.

And you are mixing those two chances. Perhaps you are under the impression that the criterion of demonstrating a paranormal ability is achieving something with the odds of 1:1000, or 1:1,000,000, or some other small chance. But that is not the case. That is not called paranormal, that is called luck. If beating a chance of 1:1,000,000 was all that was necessary to "demonstrate a paranormal ability", then why, there would be 6,600 eligible winners of the MDC out there - and none of the winners would need any paranormal ability whatsoever.

Would such a person apply for the prize, when there is not even a hint in the official rules of what level (s)he must perform at even to pass the preliminary test, let alone win the million dollars?

That's because there is no prescribed level she must perform at. You are again confusing the claimed success rate, and the probability that she passes the test without having the alleged ability. There is no limit whatsoever about the former. You can make any sort of claim. For example: "I can predict the outcome of a coin toss with 85% success rate." Or "I can match a person to their astrological sign with a success rate of 1:10." Or "In coin tossing, I achieve success rate 50.01% over thousands of trials." There is no "minimum success rate" as you seem to be hinting, and certainly none in any way derived from the numbers 1:1000 or 1:1,000,000.

First, the claimant makes a claim about their abilities. Then, a test is designed that they will be able to pass easily if they can do what they claim, and unlikely to pass if they cannot do it. Just how unlikely they will be to pass in that case has nothing to do with the claimed success rate! The claim is made based on what the person knows or believes she can do. They are to make this assessment on their own and come up with a success rate they are confident they can manage.

It has been said before, but it's worth being said again: The Million Dollar Challenge is not a contest. It is not a research project. It is not a means of screening the population for paranormal talents. It is a challenge to those who claim they have paranormal abilities, to demonstrate them and win $1,000,000.

You seem to be under the impression that the MDC is a test tool. That if you think you may have paranormal abilities, but are not sure, you can come forth, and be tested, and JREF will tell you, "congratulations, you are psychic" or "sorry, not psychic enough". If it worked like that, sure, there would be a point in a "prescribed success rate".

But it doesn't work like that. If you are not sure about your paranormal abilities, you should not apply. This challenge is to those who already did all necessary experiments and now claim that they have paranormal abilities. That's why it is not concerned with establishing your success rate - it leaves that to you. You are just supposed to announce it, and then prove it. And the exact probability of a false positive makes this neither easier nor more difficult for you. It is, indeed, quite irrelevant.

The point is that, by not specifying an odds standard, serious challenges for the prize are discouraged."

That makes no sense, and I'll explain why. Having a serious claim for the prize means being very certain that you have a particular paranormal ability, and very willing to demonstrate it. If you're not very certain that you have a paranormal ability, or not very willing to demonstrate it, you don't have a serious claim. It's that simple.

Now why would a person who is very confident of their paranormal ability, and very willing to demonstrate it, be discouraged by not knowing the probability of a false positive? That makes absolutely no sense. The probability of a false positive is irrelevant to any serious claimant. It's only relevant to JREF, with respect to the number of applicants and other factors.

There is another aspect of your remark: it is true that some claims are not testable. And some of them are not testable because testing them would take too many trials. So you might be saying that by not specifying the required odds, some might not know whether their claim will be deemed testable or not.

This makes no sense for two reasons: 1. The main factor determining the the required number of trails is the claim, not the maximum allowable odds of a false positive. If you claim you can predict the outcome of a coin toss with 100% success rate, it takes only 10 tosses to get to 1:1000, and only 20 tosses to get to 1:1,000,000. If you claim a 55% success rate, it will take some 1000 tosses to get to 1:1000, and some 2300 to get to 1:1,000,000. Making the test a thousand times more difficult to win by sheer luck doesn't even make an order of difference in the number of trials here. - Thus, whether testing the claim would take too many trials or not depends far more on the claim itself than on the exact risk of a false positive that JREF is willing to take. If the claimed ability is too weak to be testable, an "odds standard" won't really make a difference.

2. It makes no sense that any serious claimants would be discouraged by this. If they are hesitating to apply because they don't know whether or not their claim would be deemed testable - although all it would take to find out is ask - then they can hardly be called serious claimants. If you're not willing to communicate with JREF, it's indeed better that you don't apply.

[Rodney]

It has been said before, but it's worth being said again: The Million Dollar Challenge is not a contest. It is not a research project. It is not a means of screening the population for paranormal talents. It is a challenge to those who claim they have paranormal abilities, to demonstrate them and win $1,000,000.
Sadly, the more time passes, the more I agree with you: The MDC does not seem to be about investigating whether there is such a thing as the paranormal, but simply discrediting delusional people.

[William Smith]

Sadly, the more time passes, the more I agree with you: The MDC does not seem to be about investigating whether there is such a thing as the paranormal, but simply discrediting delusional people.

I fixed it for ya:

Sadly, the more time passes, the more I agree with you: The MDC does not seem to be about investigating whether there is such a thing as the paranormal, but simply educating people.

[Cuddles]

Sadly, the more time passes, the more I agree with you: The MDC does not seem to be about investigating whether there is such a thing as the paranormal, but simply discrediting delusional people.

Finally you begin to understand. This has been explained many, many times - no-one has ever claimed the challenge is about investigating the paranormal. It is a challenge, not an academic institute. The whole point is that Randi does not believe any paranormal abilities exist, and he is willing to offer a lot of money to anyone who can prove otherwise. He is not saying "I don't believe, so come here to test your ideas and see if you can find some evidence to the contrary.", he is saying "I don't believe, so if you have any evidence to the contrary come and show it to me.". There's a big difference there.

[Rodney]

Finally you begin to understand. This has been explained many, many times - no-one has ever claimed the challenge is about investigating the paranormal. It is a challenge, not an academic institute. The whole point is that Randi does not believe any paranormal abilities exist, and he is willing to offer a lot of money to anyone who can prove otherwise. He is not saying "I don't believe, so come here to test your ideas and see if you can find some evidence to the contrary.", he is saying "I don't believe, so if you have any evidence to the contrary come and show it to me.". There's a big difference there.
So Randi does not want serious challengers, such as Ganzfeld experimenters?

[Cuddles]

So Randi does not want serious challengers, such as Ganzfeld experimenters?

And now you've lost the understanding again. Of course Randi wants serious challengers. The key word there being challengers. The million dollar is a challenge, not an offer for speculative research. Challenge. Not investigation, challenge. If someone thinks they have an ability and can prove it in a simple test, Randi is interested. If someone thinks there just may be something in general claims of psychic abilities and wants to carry out long studies into whether there is something there or not, Randi is not interested.

I really don't know why you bother to carry on this nonsense about "serious" challengers. The fact is, the sort of things you are talking about are nothing to do with the challenge, so anyone proposing to apply for the challenge with them could not possibly be serious. Actually, that's not entirely true. I do know why you go on about serious challengers. It's because you can't admit that the reason nobody has passed the challenge is because nobody has magic powers, and so you pretend, like so many others, that it is really because the people who do have magic powers won't apply.

[Rodney]

And now you've lost the understanding again. Of course Randi wants serious challengers. The key word there being challengers. The million dollar is a challenge, not an offer for speculative research. Challenge. Not investigation, challenge. If someone thinks they have an ability and can prove it in a simple test, Randi is interested. If someone thinks there just may be something in general claims of psychic abilities and wants to carry out long studies into whether there is something there or not, Randi is not interested.

I really don't know why you bother to carry on this nonsense about "serious" challengers. The fact is, the sort of things you are talking about are nothing to do with the challenge, so anyone proposing to apply for the challenge with them could not possibly be serious.
You might try reading the Wikipedia article on Ganzfeld experiments -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment

Excerpt: "Between 1974 and 2004, 88 ganzfeld experiments were done, reporting 1,008 hits in 3,145 tests. In 1982, Charles Honorton presented a paper at the annual convention of the Parapsychological Association which summarized the results of the ganzfeld experiments up to that date, and concluded that they represented sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of psi. Ray Hyman, a skeptical psychologist, disagreed. The two men later independently analyzed the same studies, and both presented meta-analyses of them in 1985. Honorton thought that the data at that time indicated the existence of psi, and Hyman did not . . . In a 1995 paper discussing some of the challenges, deficiencies and achievements of modern laboratory parapsychology Ray Hyman said . . . 'I want to state that I believe that the SAIC experiments as well as the contemporary ganzfeld experiments display methodological and statistical sophistication well above previous parapsychological research. Despite better controls and careful use of statistical inference, the investigators seem to be getting significant results that do not appear to derive from the more obvious flaws of previous research.'"

So, even noted skeptic Ray Hyman is open to the possibility that the Ganzfeld experiments are producing significant results. Why don't you want to see a Ganzfeld challenger for the million dollars?

Actually, that's not entirely true. I do know why you go on about serious challengers. It's because you can't admit that the reason nobody has passed the challenge is because nobody has magic powers, and so you pretend, like so many others, that it is really because the people who do have magic powers won't apply.
What I have argued on this thread is that: (a) In tests where the odds of success can be readily calculated, it is unclear what odds standard must be met; and (b) It is unclear whether time-consuming protocols, such as Ganzfeld experiments, are eligible for the Challenge. So, why doesn't the JREF address these two areas by adding some clarifying language to the MDC rules?

[William Smith]

...
What I have argued on this thread is that: (a) In tests where the odds of success can be readily calculated, it is unclear what odds standard must be met; and (b) It is unclear whether time-consuming protocols, such as Ganzfeld experiments, are eligible for the Challenge. So, why doesn't the JREF address these two areas by adding some clarifying language to the MDC rules?

(a): This has been explained repeatedly.

(b): All it takes is a simple inquiry at challenge@randi.org - having made sure that one meets all necessary qualifications. (I assume the costs and manpower involved would be considered two big hurdles.)

I encourage you to submit both those questions to the JREF. Feel free to post the answer(s) here.



But why bother with the JREF Challenge at all? If one has a "paranormal" ability, why not go for bigger fish? (http://nobelprize.org/)

[Rodney]

(a): This has been explained repeatedly.

(b): All it takes is a simple inquiry at challenge@randi.org - having made sure that one meets all necessary qualifications. (I assume the costs and manpower involved would be considered two big hurdles.)

I encourage you to submit both those questions to the JREF. Feel free to post the answer(s) here.
As I indicated in post #38 on this thread, I did e-mail the JREF. So far, no response.

But why bother with the JREF Challenge at all? If one has a "paranormal" ability, why not go for bigger fish? (http://nobelprize.org/)
All in the fullness of time.

[William Smith]

As I indicated in post #38 on this thread, I did e-mail the JREF. So far, no response.
...

All in the fullness of time.



Or simply ask again using your private e-mail account.

[Moochie]

All in the fullness of time.


Not in your or my lifetime.

And how many people accept that the meta-analyses you referred to actually show the results claimed?


M.

[Rodney]

Not in your or my lifetime.
But someday? I sense progress. ;)

And how many people accept that the meta-analyses you referred to actually show the results claimed?
I think virtually everyone accepts that fact that there were 1,008 hits in 3,145 trials. The dispute center on whether psi was responsible. Again, though, why don't you want to see a Ganzfeld challenge for the million dollars when even Ray Hyman is open to the possibility that Ganzfeld experiments are producing significant (due to psi) results?

[Moochie]

But someday? I sense progress. ;)


I think virtually everyone accepts that fact that there were 1,008 hits in 3,145 trials. The dispute center on whether psi was responsible. Again, though, why don't you want to see a Ganzfeld challenge for the million dollars when even Ray Hyman is open to the possibility that Ganzfeld experiments are producing significant (due to psi) results?

Actually, I'm neutral on the matter. If these people wish to apply for the Challenge, let them. I'm sure most of us here would love to see some actual evidence.

As for the meta-analyses referred to, I'm highly suspicious of the results claimed, because I know how easy it is to screw up the stats in such analyses. So, my position is that I do not accept these "results." As far as I am concerned, there is no evidence. It will take a legion of Ray Hymans to sway me from that; i.e., results produced through properly conducted experiments that can be replicated so there is no doubt that we are seeing something -- just the way real science works.


M.

[DevilsAdvocate]

I’m pretty sure Randi has addressed this in the past. If I recall correctly, he said there would not be any standard odds set in the Challenges rules because it is up to the applicant to describe their ability and how they will demonstrate the ability.

As Thabiguy said, this is a challenge. You claim you can do something paranormal. Randi challenges you to do what you say you can do. Then you have to prove it to win the million. If the result could occur by chance alone, the rate of success is determined along with the protocol. The number of trials and number of “hits” required will depend on the claim and the protocol. JREF may have to look at probability, significance, standard deviations, and confidence to determine what would be considered sufficiently unlikely so as to be considered “paranormal” and not just lucky.

If I recall correctly, Randi claimed he never said there is a fixed 1 in 1000 odds, and at one point someone on these forums traced that number back to a really old interview or TV or radio show where Randi tossed that number out as an example of what might be considered sufficient to pass a test and people just picked up on that number, then someone concluded that because the applicant would have to pass both the preliminary and final test the odds would be 1000 * 1000 = 1000000 for the final. Randi has repeated said that the success rate must be stated by the applicant as part of the claim and the final measure of success must be determined with the protocol.

If you look at the challenge applications, I think you will find that the final odds that are accepted are usually well under 1:1000, and usually hit around two standard deviations from the norm. I haven’t seen any instance in the challenge negotiations where JREF required outlandish odds. In my opinion, the odds accepted are usually too low to really be “paranormal”.

As far as long term tests like a Ganzfield test, in theory I don’t think JREF would have any problems, but in practice there are a number of difficulties. JREF relies on various organizations (like local skeptic groups) to conduct the tests and it may be difficult to find an organization that would be willing to put in the time. Of course the applicant would have to cover any costs. It may be possible if the applicant could come up with a good protocol.

[fls]

The Challenge is about showing us something amazing. So the protocol starts with a description of those circumstances where we are likely to see something amazing. Isn't that the problem with the ganzfeld? Nobody knows what circumstances will lead to an amazing result because even though they repeat it over and over again, it only shows up as amazing once in a while?

Linda

[fls]

I think virtually everyone accepts that fact that there were 1,008 hits in 3,145 trials. The dispute center on whether psi was responsible.

But there weren't only 3145 trials. And it's also unclear what number of hits should be expected in the absence of anomalous cognition for the given experiments.

Again, though, why don't you want to see a Ganzfeld challenge for the million dollars when even Ray Hyman is open to the possibility that Ganzfeld experiments are producing significant (due to psi) results?

Is he?

Linda

[Rodney]

The Challenge is about showing us something amazing. So the protocol starts with a description of those circumstances where we are likely to see something amazing. Isn't that the problem with the ganzfeld? Nobody knows what circumstances will lead to an amazing result because even though they repeat it over and over again, it only shows up as amazing once in a while?

Linda
It's perfectly understandable that, if Ganzfeld experiments average hit rates of 30-32% over the long-term (where hit rates of 25% would be expected), there will be experiments of only 20-100 trials where the hit rates will be 25% or less. This is no difference than a much better than average baseball hitter, whose lifetime batting average is in the .300-.320 range, but who experiences many runs of 20-100 at-bats where his batting average is .250 or less. That's why a large number of trials would be necessary for a Ganzfeld MDC protocol.

[Rodney]

But there weren't only 3145 trials.
Evidence?

And it's also unclear what number of hits should be expected in the absence of anomalous cognition for the given experiments.
Are you saying that a standard Ganzfeld protocol (expected hit rate of 25%) is different in this respect than another protocol with that same expected hit rate? Or simply that there have to be a large number of trials to establish anomalous cognition in Ganzfeld experiments?

Is he?
He seemed to be in 1995. Has his position changed?

[fls]

It's perfectly understandable that, if Ganzfeld experiments average hit rates of 30-32% over the long-term (where hit rates of 25% would be expected), there will be experiments of only 20-100 trials where the hit rates will be 25% or less. This is no difference than a much better than average baseball hitter, whose lifetime batting average is in the .300-.320 range, but who experiences many runs of 20-100 at-bats where his batting average is .250 or less. That's why a large number of trials would be necessary for a Ganzfeld MDC protocol.

I think that's the problem. The Challenge is set up to look at obviously amazing events, because psychics and other purveyors of the paranormal base their claims on obviously amazing events. The ganzfeld studies aren't obviously amazing - highly unexpected results are few and far between, and the overall average wouldn't be noticeably amazing until you've observed almost a thousand trials (who has the patience to stand on the street corner that long :)). If you confine yourself to considering situations that actually represent the types of claims that people make for the paranormal (rather than for parapsychology research), then most of your concerns over the odds of the Challenge would evaporate.

Linda

[fls]

Evidence?

The existence of unpublished ganzfeld studies has been mentioned numerous times - including by those people you trust (i.e. believers).

Are you saying that a standard Ganzfeld protocol (expected hit rate of 25%) is different in this respect than another protocol with that same expected hit rate? Or simply that there have to be a large number of trials to establish anomalous cognition in Ganzfeld experiments?

I'm saying that the expected hit rate of 25% is theoretical rather than empirical, and in this situation it makes sense to actually measure the expected hit rate, rather than guess at what it would be. It's like pretending that the expected result from coin tosses is 50% heads and drawing conclusions based on deviations from this expectation.

Plus some biases in experimental design that alter even the theoretical expectations (such as drawing without replacement).

He seemed to be in 1995. Has his position changed?

What are you basing this idea on?

Linda

[Rodney]

I think that's the problem. The Challenge is set up to look at obviously amazing events, because psychics and other purveyors of the paranormal base their claims on obviously amazing events. The ganzfeld studies aren't obviously amazing - highly unexpected results are few and far between, and the overall average wouldn't be noticeably amazing until you've observed almost a thousand trials (who has the patience to stand on the street corner that long :)).
Do you agree with me that the JREF should clarify whether a Ganzfeld protocol is eligible for the million dollar prize?

If you confine yourself to considering situations that actually represent the types of claims that people make for the paranormal (rather than for parapsychology research), then most of your concerns over the odds of the Challenge would evaporate.
Yes, but then the MDC devolves into little more than delusional challengers making unsupportable claims -- in most cases, if the challengers had simply bothered to take a couple of hours to test their claims with friends or relatives, they wouldn't have bothered to apply.

[fls]

Do you agree with me that the JREF should clarify whether a Ganzfeld protocol is eligible for the million dollar prize?

What does it matter? Since when does Randi care what we think?

Yes, but then the MDC devolves into little more than delusional challengers making unsupportable claims -- in most cases, if the challengers had simply bothered to take a couple of hours to test their claims with friends or relatives, they wouldn't have bothered to apply.

Well, duh. That's what it already is, isn't it?

Linda

[Rodney]

The existence of unpublished ganzfeld studies has been mentioned numerous times - including by those people you trust (i.e. believers).
According to Dean Radin: "If we insisted that there had to be a selective reporting problem, even though there's no evidence of one, then a conservative estimate of the number of studies needed to nullify the observed results is 2002." See Entangled Minds, Paraview Pocket Books (2006), at 121.

I'm saying that the expected hit rate of 25% is theoretical rather than empirical, and in this situation it makes sense to actually measure the expected hit rate, rather than guess at what it would be. It's like pretending that the expected result from coin tosses is 50% heads and drawing conclusions based on deviations from this expectation.

Plus some biases in experimental design that alter even the theoretical expectations (such as drawing without replacement).
If the experiment is designed properly, as even Hyman seems to concede has been true of the more recent Ganzfeld experiments, these are non-issues.

What are you basing this idea on?
As I noted in post #74: "In a 1995 paper discussing some of the challenges, deficiencies and achievements of modern laboratory parapsychology Ray Hyman said . . . 'I want to state that I believe that the SAIC experiments as well as the contemporary ganzfeld experiments display methodological and statistical sophistication well above previous parapsychological research. Despite better controls and careful use of statistical inference, the investigators seem to be getting significant results that do not appear to derive from the more obvious flaws of previous research.'"

[Rodney]

What does it matter? Since when does Randi care what we think?
A telling observation. ;)

Well, duh. That's what it already is, isn't it?

Linda
An even more telling observation. :)

[fls]

According to Dean Radin: "If we insisted that there had to be a selective reporting problem, even though there's no evidence of one, then a conservative estimate of the number of studies needed to nullify the observed results is 2002." See Entangled Minds, Paraview Pocket Books (2006), at 121.

That's a comment about whether unpublished studies are more likely to be negative, not about unpublished studies, per se. As an aside, his estimate is based on studies with chance results, rather than selected results.

If the experiment is designed properly, as even Hyman seems to concede has been true of the more recent Ganzfeld experiments, these are non-issues.

Or at least the issue becomes moot.

As I noted in post #74: "In a 1995 paper discussing some of the challenges, deficiencies and achievements of modern laboratory parapsychology Ray Hyman said . . . 'I want to state that I believe that the SAIC experiments as well as the contemporary ganzfeld experiments display methodological and statistical sophistication well above previous parapsychological research. Despite better controls and careful use of statistical inference, the investigators seem to be getting significant results that do not appear to derive from the more obvious flaws of previous research.'"

I think you are over-interpreting his remarks.

Linda

[William Smith]

Do you agree with me that the JREF should clarify whether a Ganzfeld protocol is eligible for the million dollar prize?
...

When a specific Ganzfeld protocol is submitted to the JREF we will have the answer to that, won't we?

[Rodney]

When a specific Ganzfeld protocol is submitted to the JREF we will have the answer to that, won't we?
As I've already explained, that isn't likely to happen unless the rules are clarified. By the way, it's been 15 days since I sent an e-mail to challenge@randi.org, requesting such a clarification. Still no response.

[thaiboxerken]

Do you really think you can trick the JREF into changing it's rules so that your buddies can cheat?

[Rodney]

Do you really think you can trick the JREF into changing it's rules so that your buddies can cheat?
See my response on the other thread -- http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3742205&postcount=198

[thaiboxerken]

The question still stands. Why do you think the JREF should change the rules to allow cheating and shoddy protocols?

[Rasmus]

As I've already explained, that isn't likely to happen unless the rules are clarified.

Funny.

If I thought I had a paranormal ability that would give me a slight edge over random chance, I'd simply sit down and work out a fair and secure protocol myself.

I would then submit it to the JREF.

See, it wouldn't be a lot of work, and either they'd say "no" or I'd get a fair chance to make an easy million bucks.

I would spend some time to work out how my ability would change my ability to play poker and I might alternatively come to the conclusion that it might be better to keep my mouth shut and move to Vegas. In neither case, however, would you find me arguing here about why the rules don't specify any odds...

Again: If I can do something paranormal it doesn't matter how good I am so long as I know how good I am! I can predict a fair coin with 51% accuracy? That could be easily tested. I'll apply and find out if the JREF considers this worthwhile and how many coin flips it would take to satisfy them. So what if it's a million coin flips? At 1$ per flip, that's a pretty decent deal!

[tsig]

See my response on the other thread -- http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3742205&postcount=198

The question was asked here and should be answered here.

It was Yes/No.

[drkitten]

As I've already explained, that isn't likely to happen unless the rules are clarified.

Not Randi's problem, not mine.

By the way, it's been 15 days since I sent an e-mail to challenge@randi.org, requesting such a clarification. Still no response.

Allow me to provide a response on their behalf, then.

Apply, or go away.

[Rodney]

Allow me to provide a response on their behalf, then.

Apply, or go away.
That's an interesting response, considering that we previously had this exchange:

Me: "Are you saying that the JREF would accept a time-consuming Ganzfeld protocol?"

You: "Probably not. The problem in this case isn't the the time so much as the opportunity for cheating (and the time spent by the JREF). If the researcher could propose an iron-clad protocol that was impossible to cheat (and bearing in mind that Randi does not know enough about cryptography to accept most of the standard cryptographic protocols that would commonly be used -- with good reason), there's no reason that he woudn't accept such a protocol." See http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3692057&postcount=31

So, what you seem to be saying is that a Ganzfeld proponent should file an application detailing how its protocol will be fraud-proof and hope that the JREF will condescend to accept it, knowing that no matter how much time the proponent expends on preparing the application, the JREF will probably refuse to accept it on the grounds that the protocol is not "iron-clad" enough to prevent cheating.

[thaiboxerken]

No, Rod, that's not what he's saying at all. Why are you such a dishonest person?

He's simply saying "apply or go away."

[Pope130]

Rodney,
In every case the applicant prepares a protocol in hopes the it will be accepted. No one is guaranteed acceptance. Yet many proposals have been made, negotiated and approved. Why are (or should) Ganzfeld experimenters (be) treated differently?

Robert Klaus

[pavel_do]

Hello to everyone,
First of all would like to THANK Rodney, Speed of light, Rasmus and the others for posting there questions and trying to make it as FAIR as possible not simply sayng that the rule.. cause it come to the 2 rules:
Rule number one - Randi always right,
Rule number 2 - if Randi not right, see rule number one… full stop.

Will tell you about my experience as the person who applying with the claim.
I read all the tread and discussions, I am sorry if I am not quoting some words of yours and simply reply in general…

Re to the odds, no the rules not stating the 1.000 odds to be bitten, but in the same time from the JREF answer on my question about odds was “The statistical significance involved in a Preliminary Challenge Test must be 1 in 1,000.” That from the email that I received from JREF.

So lets see my claim, I can say what photograph in the sealed envelope just by holding it in my hands.. Ok.. great.. WHAT if I can perform it with the accuracy 70%... you would say fair enough apply with the accuracy… OK great but what is the point of the applying if JREF says it must be 1 to 1000 odds…
We all (smart people and the one who ready to open there mind a bit..) understand that you cant actually judge person from 1 test or trial if he could not perform something.
Let say a singer with a unique voice can perform gratly at home with friends and family and people who like it etc.. but when it come to the point that he has to perfor it infrotm of people who let say no realy kin of addmitign any talent and not willing to be late say fair to possibility of it demonstration.. The singer would not be able to perfom due to the stress, pressure all the conditions etc.. would that mean he is fake? NO.. that would not.. So why the same thing can not be taken to condsidiration by JREF..?? as emotional state important in every aspect of life and we all know that. Ok some one said..

“The Million Dollar Challenge is not a contest. It is not a research project. It is not a means of screening the population for paranormal talents. It is a challenge to those who claim they have paranormal abilities, to demonstrate them and win $1,000,000.”
But in the same time it make everyone FAKE and not really giving chance to prove it wrong in a sense if I come and will not be able to perform it in 1 or 2 runs for JREF for what ever reasons: stress, weather, bad mood, pressure, condition etc.. that will make me automatically FAKE for the JREF and JREF will make sure everyone will know that I am failed.. isn’t it? And what we have? All skeptics have one argument there is JREF 1.000.000 no one took it than it is not real.. GREAT
That makes skeptic a cynic two in one…
So, when some one says.. if you can do that, it should not matter to you how many odds are 100 or 100.000.000 .. that right but is evryone can play piano and thouse who can do they play with same score and same way... and what is metter is.. Do they all play the same way, always great at any time and any conditions wether it is emotional or enveromental...

I guess it would be more fair to say..
Come, tell us what you can do, how and at what conditions, then Do it, show us. Bare in mind, if you cheating we will find it out and will repeat it the same way you done it.. if you still claim it was real, we will tell you where and how we think you cheated and if you agree to eliminate this possible ways you used and will still be able to perform it than you are a real case… That would be fair isn’t it??
In JREF case it is different story... as an example, at first I was thinking and planning to apply with the telepathy test, where my friend would look at the picture and would send it to me by thought, there would be no talking or any way of a contacts or me getting any clues. My eyes would be covered with the mask to eliminate visual disturbance and possibility to see any signs from any one, my ears would be covered with ear plugs to eliminate possible sound disturbance and any sound clues.. what ever… I need just be calm and seat on the table opposite my friend…
The answer from JREF was “I have run your query by other JREF representatives, and they agree that it would not be possible to conduct the test with your friend in the same room as you.”

Do any body knows exactly what is telepathy or clairvoyance etc? Maybe it is kind of waives (electromagnetic from the brain) that let says can work fro 2 meter up to kilometers depend on personal abilities.. What if this kind of telepathy work from maximum 2 meters from each other…it can not be claimed any more cause it too easy?? cause it is officially proved that it can be done with no limit's of distance and conditions like people can be in different rooms etc..?? I don’t think so…

The reason to eliminate cheating.. why are you there then?? TO make sure it is not faked.. My eyes covered my ears covered, not physical contact whatsoever with my friend just setting opposite each other.
So I had to drop the claim and change it in a way when I can perform it on my own. ( still want that friend to be present during testing as a support I need ar least some one who believe s in me as when whole room is against you that is affecting the results whether we want it or not a specially lets just think that if person psychic and a bit more sensitive then a average person. Then it is possible to pick up this negativity.. Like when you try to read a book and memorize lines.. and there is a noise HAVY METAL ROCK sound.. I guess it will effect your performing isn’t it?:)

Ok… even then we’ll drop it… No one care about your feelings… fair enough but if it is possible cause of not being able to perform anything paranormal.. than it should be taken to consideration.
As I said before I am applying now with the claim where I can perform in on my own, yesterday I got finally academic witnessing to be able to submit my claim (according the new rule) though it wasn’t that easy to find academics for that as most of them simply not taking you serious.
Still managed to get it, thank God.
So all I have to do now is to write my claim and the accuracy. Still thinking what accuracy I can reasonably claim taking to consideration that it is different make it at home when I do 9-10 out of 10 and under stress and all that conditions the results can be not that good. Let say I will claim I can perform it with the accuracy 70% or by beating minimum 1 to 150 odds. Will it be accepted by JREF? Don’t know for now we’ll see soon. Just one thing If it is not paranormal let say to guess 7-8 cards out of 10 for example. That is more than the odds by chance, and if it is not considered paranormal-unusual, why then it can’t be performed by any one? JREF and the other would say it can be a chance… Fair enough show it your self… as you can say about chance to everything, like people winning lottery when there chances is 1 to many millions and some of them winning 2-3 times.. Chance… there is always chance…of wining or losing BUT you cant say by one trial that it is not real if person failed, because let face it.. Some one said, if the odds less than 1 to 1.000 it will take more time to show the result.. Any one in a rush? Why don’t you make 1 hour test during let say 5 days and the last day you make conclusion based on the result if it is worth making any more tests as it seem like there is a chance of something unusual or it is normal chances and there is no any phenomena it it.. I guess it would be fair… One more thing, no one passed so far even first test… Hopefully I will do that I am reasonable with my abilities and not too stupid to think and claim I can always perform it 90-100%.. so let say we have a test with 10 pairs of 2 different photos, I know what pairs is.. so one of 2 photos handled to me and I have to say what it is ( in sealed envelope) just by holding it in my hands.. so the chance for that is 50/50 ok let say I performed 9 that beat allot of odds isn’t it.. So.. let say I made 10 of 10 beaten 1.000 odds.. do you think JREF will admit straight a way I passed the test..?? I doubt it.. I am sure I will be asked to make lets say 2 more runs.. and if I cant show same results second and 3d run.. let say I am tired, stressed etc.. Does it make my first result just chance? For that reason again it would be more fair for 2 parties to make final decision up on a few runs.. Said so, it is fair to say.. if there would be 1 run and I failed it I would say I need 2-3 more runs, maybe first didn’t worked out cause it didn’t too much stress etc.. So it would be fair? And unfair if after 1st test JREF would say…FAILED full stop… same as I would not be fair if I pass 10 out of 10 from 1st test and JREF would ask me to make 2 more trials and I would say NO I done it whether it chance or my gift I done it.. so It would be fair for both sides to make the finally decision up on the results of a few trials. I am sorry If I am a bit confusing in putting my thought to the lines, as the English is not my native language. Still I guess my point is clear.
So I will try to claim obviously not 1 to 1000 odds and let say 3-5 runs of the trial not 1. and I will claim that upon the 3-5 runs I would be able to perform X odds cause let say If I can get 1 time 7 photos right second time 8 and lets say third only 5. I guess upon all of it there would be significant of beating odds of more then a chances… and if you open your mind for it you can see it.. and of course if you not willing to do it at all.. even if I make all tri times 7 right and not 1 time 9 or 10 you will say.. FAILED and if I say.. if it is not supernatural or unusual…DO IT, repeat it, show it.. and I know what the answer r will be.. I AM NOT CLAIMING TO BE ABLE TO DO IT… great answer
Good luck to us all!:)
Regards
Pavel

[Paul2]

Let say a singer with a unique voice can perform gratly at home with friends and family and people who like it etc.. but when it come to the point that he has to perfor it infrotm of people who let say no realy kin of addmitign any talent and not willing to be late say fair to possibility of it demonstration.. The singer would not be able to perfom due to the stress, pressure all the conditions etc.. would that mean he is fake? NO.. that would not.. So why the same thing can not be taken to condsidiration by JREF..?? as emotional state important in every aspect of life and we all know that. There's no way to tell in this scenario whether the person can actually do what they say or not. In this scenario. the person could be claiming to do something for all sorts of reasons and not actually do it, or they could actually do it and not be able to demonstrate it. And without the type of controls that the JREF would insist upon, there's no way to tell the difference. *That's* the problem. Sure, maybe the person can do it and just can't demonstrate it under controlled conditions for some reason. And maybe I'm the Queen of England, too. In both cases, why bother discussing it, because we'll never know the truth. It's a meaningless question because there's no way to resolve the question. So we move on to things we can discover.

It's like saying "I can do something, but I can never show you." Who would care? Why would we care?

[Rodney]

Rodney,
In every case the applicant prepares a protocol in hopes the it will be accepted. No one is guaranteed acceptance. Yet many proposals have been made, negotiated and approved. Why are (or should) Ganzfeld experimenters (be) treated differently?

Robert Klaus
Because most proposals are not that complex and involve limited JREF time. For example, if someone claims to be able to read face-down playing cards, it's easy to devise a protocol to test that claim and the test will take only an hour or so. But devising a protocol for a Ganzfeld experiment is complicated, and the test will take weeks, if not months.

[Pope130]

Because most proposals are not that complex and involve limited JREF time. For example, if someone claims to be able to read face-down playing cards, it's easy to devise a protocol to test that claim and the test will take only an hour or so. But devising a protocol for a Ganzfeld experiment is complicated, and the test will take weeks, if not months.

I'm not following your response here. Why is that a reason to not apply?

[Rodney]

I'm not following your response here. Why is that a reason to not apply?
Because preparing the application and negotiating with the JREF will be time-consuming and, in all likelihood, futile, for a Ganzfeld applicant. Such an applicant need the assurance that (s)he will not just be wasting time. Again, as I noted in post # 6 on this thread, a person involved in Ganzfeld experiments told me that the MDC is "so hedged and the criteria for success so arbitrarily set up and changeable at his [Randi's] whim that nobody will ever be able to pass his test."

[Rasmus]

Because preparing the application and negotiating with the JREF will be time-consuming and, in all likelihood, futile, for a Ganzfeld applicant.

If the applicant knows what they can do, under which conditions they can do it and what their success level is, it should be dead simple to write an initial protocol.

A waste of time? Gee, why not just refer to those 10 or 15 minutes as an investment for the one million dollars instead?

Such an applicant need the assurance that (s)he will not just be wasting time.

Such an applicant had the times to go through the experiments to determine that they had a small paranormal ability, yet they don't have the time to basically write down what they actually can do for a million dollars?

Do you have any idea how foolish you sound?

Again, as I noted in post # 6 on this thread, a person involved in Ganzfeld experiments told me that the MDC is "so hedged and the criteria for success so arbitrarily set up and changeable at his [Randi's] whim that nobody will ever be able to pass his test."

Did they apply? Did they submit a protocol? Or were they just talking out of their rear ends?

Once again: If you actually do have a paranormal ability you can easily (!) win the challenge.

Of course, the claim you quote has nothing to do with what kind of claims are permissible, or how complicated it would be to apply. In fact, it is a claim made about all applications/claimed abilities and nothing to do with the small margin you are talking about.

[tsig]

Because most proposals are not that complex and involve limited JREF time. For example, if someone claims to be able to read face-down playing cards, it's easy to devise a protocol to test that claim and the test will take only an hour or so. But devising a protocol for a Ganzfeld experiment is complicated, and the test will take weeks, if not months.

Then i suggest you get right to it. Every minute you waste here is costing you money.

[tsig]

That's an interesting response, considering that we previously had this exchange:

Me: "Are you saying that the JREF would accept a time-consuming Ganzfeld protocol?"

You: "Probably not. The problem in this case isn't the the time so much as the opportunity for cheating (and the time spent by the JREF). If the researcher could propose an iron-clad protocol that was impossible to cheat (and bearing in mind that Randi does not know enough about cryptography to accept most of the standard cryptographic protocols that would commonly be used -- with good reason), there's no reason that he woudn't accept such a protocol." See http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3692057&postcount=31

So, what you seem to be saying is that a Ganzfeld proponent should file an application detailing how its protocol will be fraud-proof and hope that the JREF will condescend to accept it, knowing that no matter how much time the proponent expends on preparing the application, the JREF will probably refuse to accept it on the grounds that the protocol is not "iron-clad" enough to prevent cheating.

You're claiming "sour grapes" without even eating them.

[thaiboxerken]

Those evil JREF people will turn down my application, I just know it!

[tsig]

Those evil JREF people will turn down my application, I just know it!

Is it the fear of rejection or the fear of being outed?

[Rodney]

If A waste of time? Gee, why not just refer to those 10 or 15 minutes as an investment for the one million dollars instead?
If you think the time involved would be 10-15 minutes, you're completely out of touch with reality.

[pavel_do]

If you think the time involved would be 10-15 minutes, you're completely out of touch with reality.

It took me a year to assemble all that necessary to be able to apply for the challenge, such as to get affidavit from 2 academics, media coverage and the Application that was notarized together with the claim. So only after 1 year and 1 month I am ready to send my application.

Though if that would be with Old rules, that would take maximum a day.. as there was no need for the affidavits and media presence, all you had to do is notarize your application and not to forget to send it to JERF:)

[thaiboxerken]

Ganzfield studies already have a media presence and would not need affidavits. All they would have to do is apply. Of course, I am not holding my breath for Rodney's buddies to actually take time to apply, as they've already decided that the JREF won't accept their test EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVEN'T TRIED.

I think it's because they know that they won't be allowed to cheat and that the JREF won't change the rules to allow them to cheat. Instead, Rodney does what most advocates of the paranormal do, whine about the JREF challenge in order to try to discredit it. Rather than prove their assertions, people like Rodney would rather attack the critics.

[pavel_do]

Ganzfield studies already have a media presence and would not need affidavits. All they would have to do is apply. Of course, I am not holding my breath for Rodney's buddies to actually take time to apply, as they've already decided that the JREF won't accept their test EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVEN'T TRIED.

I think it's because they know that they won't be allowed to cheat and that the JREF won't change the rules to allow them to cheat. Instead, Rodney does what most advocates of the paranormal do, whine about the JREF challenge in order to try to discredit it. Rather than prove their assertions, people like Rodney would rather attack the critics.

But lets be fair.. the JREF challenge rules is not 100% perfect and they not so to say very friendly and open to admit some facts... Though it is not the reason not to apply:) :kyle:

[thaiboxerken]

I see nothing wrong with the challenge rules. It accomplishes the goal of keeping people from cheating.

[pavel_do]

I see nothing wrong with the challenge rules. It accomplishes the goal of keeping people from cheating.

I guess it would be more fair to say..
Come, tell us what you can do, how and at what conditions, then Do it, show us. Bare in mind, if you cheating we will find it out and will repeat it the same way you done it.. if you still claim it was real, we will tell you where and how we think you cheated and if you agree to eliminate this possible ways you used and will still be able to perform it than you are a real case… That would be fair isn’t it??

[thaiboxerken]

Pavel, you've just paraphrased the JREF challenge. The rules are outlined very specifically to take out any wiggle room, as there are a few dollars at stake.

[pavel_do]

It should cover all possible sides.. but still make it possible to do.
I am finding it difficult but still taking it as possible as other wise would not waist my time… life aint easy =)

[Rodney]

It took me a year to assemble all that necessary to be able to apply for the challenge, such as to get affidavit from 2 academics, media coverage and the Application that was notarized together with the claim. So only after 1 year and 1 month I am ready to send my application.

Though if that would be with Old rules, that would take maximum a day.. as there was no need for the affidavits and media presence, all you had to do is notarize your application and not to forget to send it to JERF:)
Good luck on your application, pavel, and let us know how much time you spend in total. I can assure you that it will be far less time than a Ganzfeld applicant would spend.

[thaiboxerken]

You simply can't assure that without actually having a Ganzfeld applicant apply. Until then, you're simply making stuff up and it stinks.

[Rasmus]

If you think the time involved would be 10-15 minutes, you're completely out of touch with reality.

What? For an ability that has allegedly been proven scientifically? How long could that take? What do you think would be required?

Dear JREF,

I hereby apply for your Million Dollar Challenge.

I have sat in a number of experiments that have proven to my satisfaction that I can receive telepathic messages with 22% accuracy using a trusted "sender" and a standard set of 5 ESP cards to chose what should be transmitted.

For this to work, we need to be in separate rooms, no further apart than 25m, and in conditions commonly present in Ganzfield-Experiments (white noise via headphones, red light, a comfy chair and eye-covers all of which we could provide at your request)

I claim that in a series of 1000 transmissions (at ca. 1min each) I will be able to correctly identify no less than 220 cards.

If you think that ca. 17 hours per set of 1000 trials is acceptable I would love to hear back from you in this matter.

Sincerly,

Kermit the Frog

There. it's *that* simple. Unless, of course, you do not actually have any idea what it is you can do or how good you are.

[Rodney]

What? For an ability that has allegedly been proven scientifically?

I think you may have inadvertently stumbled into the truth. The evidence is, in fact, quite strong that the prior Ganzfeld experiments as a composite have demonstrated psi. So, perhaps the JREF does not have a lot of incentive to test a fair Ganzfeld protocol?

There. it's *that* simple. Unless, of course, you do not actually have any idea what it is you can do or how good you are.
It's not simple at all because: (1) Based on past Ganzfeld experiments, it would take 1,000-2,000 trials to conclusively demonstrate that psi was taking place; and (2) Agreement would have to be reached on what constitutes a fair, rigorous protocol.

[thaiboxerken]

You can get your Ganzbuddies to actually submit an application. Until then, all of your whining is baseless and rather childish.

[Pope130]

I think you may have inadvertently stumbled into the truth. The evidence is, in fact, quite strong that the prior Ganzfeld experiments as a composite have demonstrated psi. So, perhaps the JREF does not have a lot of incentive to test a fair Ganzfeld protocol?


The incentive would be an application from a challenger. Why don't the Ganzfelders apply?

[Rasmus]

I think you may have inadvertently stumbled into the truth. The evidence is, in fact, quite strong that the prior Ganzfeld experiments as a composite have demonstrated psi. So, perhaps the JREF does not have a lot of incentive to test a fair Ganzfeld protocol?

So, perhaps it would help if someone actually bothered to apply with one of those experiments and we'd know?

It's not simple at all because: (1) Based on past Ganzfeld experiments, it would take 1,000-2,000 trials to conclusively demonstrate that psi was taking place; and (2) Agreement would have to be reached on what constitutes a fair, rigorous protocol.

A letter like the one I drafted could easily be written in well under 15 minutes, assuming the applicant actually had a clue what it was they could do.

Then the JREF could

- conditionally accept the application and ask for a more thorough protocol, possibly pointing out that running the experiment would be quite costly if no volunteers could be found to do it for free.
- reject the application, e.g. due to the long hours it would take to run the experiment.

But initially you could get away with as little as 15 minutes. If you were to invest an hour or two (just contrast that to your endless whining here on the forums! You could have easily used that time to draft a protocol!) you could go a lot further.

And I can't repeat this often enough: This is about a million dollars! That is much, much, much more money that most people will ever see in their lifetimes! And yet, you are unwilling to put in little time to get it. You are complaining about possibly wasting a few hours.

You are utterly, utterly irrational in this. If I had such an ability, I would gladly spend weeks and months on working out an agreement with the JREF: Because it would be well worth it! And if the JREF should decline I would go after any other paranormal challenge I could find!

Yet here you are, posting on a web forum. WHY IS THAT?

Her you are, assuming with no good evidence that an application would be rejected, instead of using the same time to actually write an application, or get someone el,se to do it. WHY IS THAT?

[fls]

I think you may have inadvertently stumbled into the truth. The evidence is, in fact, quite strong that the prior Ganzfeld experiments as a composite have demonstrated psi. So, perhaps the JREF does not have a lot of incentive to test a fair Ganzfeld protocol?

It's not simple at all because: (1) Based on past Ganzfeld experiments, it would take 1,000-2,000 trials to conclusively demonstrate that psi was taking place; and (2) Agreement would have to be reached on what constitutes a fair, rigorous protocol.

Those two conditions are just what a ganzfeld experiment needs in order to persuade anyone except believers that there is something of interest. If that hasn't already happened outside of the confines of the MDC, then how can the evidence be strong? If you have some researchers who are willing to perform 1000-2000 trials based on a fair, rigorous protocol if the JREF would accept it, why won't they do it for the sake of the advancement of parapsychology? Critics have been crying out for that for years.

Linda

[Rodney]

Those two conditions are just what a ganzfeld experiment needs in order to persuade anyone except believers that there is something of interest. If that hasn't already happened outside of the confines of the MDC, then how can the evidence be strong? If you have some researchers who are willing to perform 1000-2000 trials based on a fair, rigorous protocol if the JREF would accept it, why won't they do it for the sake of the advancement of parapsychology? Critics have been crying out for that for years.

Linda
Are you arguing that recent Ganzfeld experiments have not been rigorous enough? If so, what would you change to improve them?

[fls]

Are you arguing that recent Ganzfeld experiments have not been rigorous enough? If so, what would you change to improve them?

I'm willing to consider the protocol that Hyman and Honorton agreed on to be rigorous enough as far as the experiment goes, although there is still the problem of the experimenter effect. The main issue is that the studies have been too small.

Linda

[Rodney]

[From thread titled "Information on Protocol for Pavel Ziborov Applicant"] Oh, Rodney, we've all had this discussion before. Fifteen or twenty times, if I recall correctly. The JREF is not serious about the paranormal. They are serious about challenging those people who make claims about the paranormal to demonstrate their abilities. That's all we're asking Pavel, or any other applicant, to do. Demonstrate the exact ability you claim to have. If Pavel claims to be able to correctly identify 30 of 40 photographs, then 29 does not meet his own conditions.
The point is that Pavel wanted a longer test, but the JREF constrained him to only 40 trials.

Of course, until Pavel undertakes his test, your position on this is moot. What happens if he only gets 26 correct? Or 25? Or 19? Where do you draw the line? Or do you not recognise why it is necessary to draw a line?

Do you?
My point on this thread is that there may well be people who can perform at a significantly above chance level in a controlled experiment, but not perform in spectacular fashion. The JREF is requiring that Pavel obtain a 75% hit rate, but he may be generally capable of only a 55-60% rate.

[Startz]

The point is that Pavel wanted a longer test, but the JREF constrained him to only 40 trials.


My point on this thread is that there may well be people who can perform at a significantly above chance level in a controlled experiment, but not perform in spectacular fashion. The JREF is requiring that Pavel obtain a 75% hit rate, but he may be generally capable of only a 55-60% rate.

Without taking a position on the general point, I'd like to remind everyone that JREF has not set a hard and fast requirement that there be 40 trials. JREF hasn't decided what's an acceptable protocol, which is still in the negotiation stage. The 40 trials resulted from Pavel's desire to be cooperative in order to move the negotiations along.

[Cuddles]

The JREF is requiring that Pavel obtain a 75% hit rate, but he may be generally capable of only a 55-60% rate.

Nope. The JREF is requiring that Pavel be tested on what he says he can do. If he claims a 75% hit rate, that is what gets tested. Your opinion on whether he should claim something else is irrelevant. If Pavel thinks he can only get 60% then he needs to tell the JREF that and make sure that is what is tested.

[William Smith]

...
The JREF is requiring that Pavel obtain a 75% hit rate, but he may be generally capable of only a 55-60% rate.

Please point to the source where you seemed to derive this from.

[Gr8wight]

The point is that Pavel wanted a longer test, but the JREF constrained him to only 40 trials.


My point on this thread is that there may well be people who can perform at a significantly above chance level in a controlled experiment, but not perform in spectacular fashion. The JREF is requiring that Pavel obtain a 75% hit rate, but he may be generally capable of only a 55-60% rate.

Liar. Pavel is claiming he is capable of performing at a 75% success level. If he does not believe he can achieve a 75% success level, he should not agree to the testing protocol. His call, not Randi's.

Also, answer my question. Do you understand why it is necessary to draw a line?

[pavel_do]

Liar. Pavel is claiming he is capable of performing at a 75% success level. If he does not believe he can achieve a 75% success level, he should not agree to the testing protocol. His call, not Randi's.

Also, answer my question. Do you understand why it is necessary to draw a line?

it is not as simple as it seems.. You see, I proposed before other tests with less % than 75 of success..(still above the chance). The proposed test would cover 1.000 odds that is needed, tests that I would be comfortable with and that would really give me enough time and “chance” to show my ability..… just that I take more time for test , more pairs of photos to be used.. and the JREF not really fancy of that.. so I had to go out my way to come to something that not 100% good enough and comfortable like the others proposed tests.

[William Smith]

it is not as simple as it seems.. You see, I proposed before other tests with less % than 75 of success..(still above the chance). The proposed test would cover 1.000 odds that is needed, tests that I would be comfortable with and that would really give me enough time and “chance” to show my ability..… just that I take more time for test , more pairs of photos to be used.. and the JREF not really fancy of that.. so I had to go out my way to come to something that not 100% good enough and comfortable like the others proposed tests.

If you do not feel comfortable with the protocol, Pavel, you should say so.

Either the JREF and you will find another way to design an acceptable protocol or simply no test will happen.



Perhaps the MDC is not the ideal way to provide evidence for your claimed ability. But it seems an ideal way for a self-proclaimed clairvoyant to net himself $1,000,000, right? And let's not forget about the attention.

[steenkh]

It seems that Pavel actually does not think he can perform at the level required with the protocol that is now being agreed upon, but in order to get a workable protocol that will not take days of effort (for which it is difficult to find volunteer testers), he has settled on chance that he will perform at that level on that day.

[William Smith]

It seems that Pavel actually does not think he can perform at the level required with the protocol that is now being agreed upon, but in order to get a workable protocol that will not take days of effort (for which it is difficult to find volunteer testers), he has settled on chance that he will perform at that level on that day.

Is this statement accurate, Pavel?

[pavel_do]

Is this statement accurate, Pavel?

He is right, though I think I will be able to perform 30 out of 40, will do my best for that. If I was sure I cant do that I would say I am not going for it… I was the one who asked for 40 pairs.. At least..
But the conditions is not as good for me as the other tests that would give me enough time, less stress in order to perform positive results.
I know some one will say now.. you see.. he prepared already an excuse in case he fails..
THERE WILL BE NO EXCUSES… no one forced me to apply and take test.. It is my own decision..
Just that I want test to happen.. And if I will not step out of my way and test conditions that would make me really comfortable etc.. that the test will never happen.. cause it take too many hours.. cause I have advantage, cause it is too many photos etc.. CAUSE IT IS POSSIBLE FOR ME TO PASS IT WITH THOSE CONDITONS..
I stepped way to far just to move some how the negotiations and make test possible..
I would be more comfortable with 2-3 trials ( let say by 30 pairs in each) where achieving positive results in any would mean I passed it by covering any way 1.000 odds that needed to pass preliminary test.. I am sure during all 2-3 trial I would perform evident results that I am real deal and able to see and perform what I am claiming to! Having 2-3 trials also reduce a stress level that is the main issue for me in order to be as calm as I can during a test… Every one would feel calmer and more comfortable knowing that he can perform 2-3 trial.. But not 1.. I have explained that many times.
Same with more pairs.. that is still covers 1.000 that is way far from getting by a chance and I see no problem in having a few hour test with allot of pairs that I am the one who pays for any way..
Etc.. many reasons that I have explained before many times that is just ignored, and I am in front of the fact that it will be not allowed full stop.
Like passing it make them to give me the money! that is just a preliminary test as we all know.
Just that passing it will mean that is possible to pass the second one and get the money.

I will be honest with you. If the JREF will not let me to have results revealed immediately after each pair is named, I am not taking this test. Cause that would mean I have agreed to everything that will make test almost impossible to pass and I have to rely in chance to pass it..
Ill just drop it, and will be looking for other ways of testing ( maybe JREF offer something reasonable too). There is a time.. my claim valid for 1 year if I am not mistaken.
I really want test to happen and doing my best to make it possible. Cause I know I will be able to show that such things is real and can exist and has to be studied etc.. There is a fake psychics.. but that dose not mean there is no real ones!

[Rodney]

Nope. The JREF is requiring that Pavel be tested on what he says he can do. If he claims a 75% hit rate, that is what gets tested. Your opinion on whether he should claim something else is irrelevant. If Pavel thinks he can only get 60% then he needs to tell the JREF that and make sure that is what is tested.
Where did he say he can do 75%? That high percentage clearly stems from the JREF's desire to limit the number of trials. I understand that, but it would seem that the JREF does not want to test someone who claims (s)he can perform at only slightly above a chance rate over many hundreds or even thousands of trials, even if that performance were significant at the P=.001 level.

[Gr8wight]

Pavel, have you performed this test - as per the protocol you are agreeing to with the JREF - at home, and succeeded? Have you proved to yourself that you can correctly identify 30 of 40 pairs of pictures? Not, 'do you believe you can do it,' but have you actually done it yet?

[Gr8wight]

Where did he say he can do 75%? That high percentage clearly stems from the JREF's desire to limit the number of trials. I understand that, but it would seem that the JREF does not want to test someone who claims (s)he can perform at only slightly above a chance rate over many hundreds or even thousands of trials, even if that performance were significant at the P=.001 level.

By agreeing to the protocol, he is stating that he can do 75%. If he cannot do it, he would be foolish to agree to it.

Also, I see you have - as usual - completely ignored the question I put to you.

[pavel_do]

Pavel, have you performed this test - as per the protocol you are agreeing to with the JREF - at home, and succeeded? Have you proved to yourself that you can correctly identify 30 of 40 pairs of pictures? Not, 'do you believe you can do it,' but have you actually done it yet?

Nothing was agreed so far. 30 out of 40 was just another proposition.. and JREF have not replied anything about it yet...
Yes I did try it at home, and a few time I made 28-29 and 30. I practice in usual way.. But as soon as we agree to something more or less, I will make sure I have tried it many times and succeeded.

[steenkh]

Nothing was agreed so far. 30 out of 40 was just another proposition.. and JREF have not replied anything about it yet...
Yes I did try it at home, and a few time I made 28-29 and 30. I practice in usual way.. But as soon as we agree to something more or less, I will make sure I have tried it many times and succeeded.
Am I right in thinking that only achieving 28-30 hits "a few times" sounds suspiciously close to chance? What is your average success rate out of 40 trials?

[pavel_do]

Am I right in thinking that only achieving 28-30 hits "a few times" sounds suspiciously close to chance? What is your average success rate out of 40 trials?

everage is 28.

[steenkh]

With that success rate you should perhaps go for a slightly increased number of trials that might better accommodate your actual success rate.m

[petre]

With that success rate you should perhaps go for a slightly increased number of trials that might better accommodate your actual success rate.m

Agreed. If you're not hittng 30 out of 40 at least half of the time I'd try to take a little time to hone your ability some more. I made a suggestion in the other thread about using distinct classes of items (zenner cards, large color swatches, numerical digits, etc) in each trial so that the results of one are less likely to get confused with the others. There may be other ways to improve your success rate as well (I know you've been self-testing a lot already!)

I can understand the frustration in teasing out an imperfect ability, and the desire to get started on a shot at the challenge. I'm sure there's also a sense of time pressure from folks on this board and the JREF that are eager to see you tested (I do not know how much time JREF would allow you to hone your ability now that you've already applied, but perhaps they would be willing to allow you to put it on hold a month or two yet while you try alternative proceedures to satisfy all parties).

Please remember that at first you are going to encounter your preliminary test only. You are going to have to succeed a SECOND time at the same level of performance in the final test. As exciting as it would be for you to be the first applicant ever to pass the preliminary, I'm sure it would be far more satisfying to defeat the challenge and take home the offered prize. Number your recent trials (the sets of 40) and take a look at how often you've gotten 30 out of 40 (or better) on an odd-numbered trial followed by a passing performance on the following even-numbered performance (for accurate percentage chance, do not count any even-numbered successes followed by odd-numbered ones). This is roughly your estimated chance at success with this protocol. If this has not happened more than once in all of your testing, I would be rather doubtful of your success with the current state of the protocol.

[Rodney]

By agreeing to the protocol, he is stating that he can do 75%. If he cannot do it, he would be foolish to agree to it.
Since Pavel claims his average is 28 hits out of 40, he seems to be hoping that either he can hone his skills or that he will have some luck in the test.

Also, I see you have - as usual - completely ignored the question I put to you.
As far as drawing the line on the number of hits that would suggest that retesting is in order, I would certainly think that beating odds of 1 in 100 would qualify and, arguably, beating odds of 1 in 20 would qualify, as the latter is the general scientific standard for accepting or rejecting a hypothesis.

[Gr8wight]

As far as drawing the line on the number of hits that would suggest that retesting is in order, I would certainly think that beating odds of 1 in 100 would qualify and, arguably, beating odds of 1 in 20 would qualify, as the latter is the general scientific standard for accepting or rejecting a hypothesis.

That was not an answer to the question I asked you. An appropriate answer would be either "yes" or "no." What you have done is continue to express your opinion while still completely ignoring the question. The question is (and I will be more specific here if it will help you to understand what I am asking): in the context of the JREF One Million Dollar Challenge, as described here (http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/40/32/), do you understand why it is necessary to draw a line? To say, "this much is a success, and any amount less than that is a failure?" Do you understand?

[Rodney]

That was not an answer to the question I asked you. An appropriate answer would be either "yes" or "no." What you have done is continue to express your opinion while still completely ignoring the question. The question is (and I will be more specific here if it will help you to understand what I am asking): in the context of the JREF One Million Dollar Challenge, as described here (http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/40/32/), do you understand why it is necessary to draw a line? To say, "this much is a success, and any amount less than that is a failure?" Do you understand?
It depends whether the JREF is interested in having a fair test for the paranormal or is simply trying to discredit anyone who claims a paranormal ability. Rule 1 governing the MDC states:

"I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 [One Million Dollars/US] to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions."

If Pavel could average even 55% hits under satisfactory observing conditions over a sufficiently long test, such that the odds against doing that by chance were one in a billion, would that not demonstrate a paranormal ability? But the protocol established for the preliminary test requires Pavel to achieve a 75% hit rate. So, even his claimed average hit rate of 70% would be insufficient to pass the preliminary test. Does it seem reasonable to you to say that if Pavel achieves that hit rate over 40 trials he has failed and should not be retested for a year?

So, the bottom line is that your perspective that "this much is a success, and any amount less than that is a failure" is a convenient way to dismiss those who may well have a paranormal ability but cannot achieve a spectacular result in a short test.

[steenkh]

As far as drawing the line on the number of hits that would suggest that retesting is in order, I would certainly think that beating odds of 1 in 100 would qualify and, arguably, beating odds of 1 in 20 would qualify, as the latter is the general scientific standard for accepting or rejecting a hypothesis.
Do you really think anybody would offer up a million dollars to someone who could beat 1 in 20 odds?

Anyway, the MDC is not about investigating the paranormal but of challenging people to perform as they already claim they can do. It should be easy to prove with odds of 1 in a million that they can do as they claim. I claim that I can ride a bicycle, and I could prove it extremely easy that I can in fact do this. The claimants seem to have quite some difficulty proving that they can do what they claim.

[Rodney]

Do you really think anybody would offer up a million dollars to someone who could beat 1 in 20 odds?
No, and if you read my post more carefully, you will see that what I was suggesting was continuing the preliminary test to someone who beat such odds. For example, let's suppose Pavel gets 26 out of 40 (65% hit rate vs. the expected 50%) in his preliminary test. The odds of doing that by chance are about 1 in 25. So why not retest him to see if he can repeat that result? If that were done and he performed only at a chance level, that would be the end of the testing. However, if he did repeat it, he would now have achieved 52 hits in 80 trials, which would happen by chance only about 1 in 200 times. So why not continue to test him? Again, if he performed only at a chance level, that would be the end of the testing. However, if he repeated that result again, he would now have achieved 78 hits in 120 trials, which would happen by chance only about 1 in 1,500 times. So finally, he would have beaten odds of better than 1 in 1000 and passed the preliminary testing. However, that would still not win him any money, but only qualify him for the final testing.

Anyway, the MDC is not about investigating the paranormal but of challenging people to perform as they already claim they can do. It should be easy to prove with odds of 1 in a million that they can do as they claim. I claim that I can ride a bicycle, and I could prove it extremely easy that I can in fact do this. The claimants seem to have quite some difficulty proving that they can do what they claim.
If demonstrating a paranormal ability were as simple as riding a bicycle, even Randi would now be convinced that there is such a thing as the paranormal.

[pavel_do]

No, and if you read my post more carefully, you will see that what I was suggesting was continuing the preliminary test to someone who beat such odds. For example, let's suppose Pavel gets 26 out of 40 (65% hit rate vs. the expected 50%) in his preliminary test. The odds of doing that by chance are about 1 in 25. So why not retest him to see if he can repeat that result? If that were done and he performed only at a chance level, that would be the end of the testing. However, if he did repeat it, he would now have achieved 52 hits in 80 trials, which would happen by chance only about 1 in 200 times. So why not continue to test him? Again, if he performed only at a chance level, that would be the end of the testing. However, if he repeated that result again, he would now have achieved 78 hits in 120 trials, which would happen by chance only about 1 in 1,500 times. So finally, he would have beaten odds of better than 1 in 1000 and passed the preliminary testing. However, that would still not win him any money, but only qualify him for the final testing.


If demonstrating a paranormal ability were as simple as riding a bicycle, even Randi would now be convinced that there is such a thing as the paranormal.

I will agree with you. But the main problem with JREF is not event he rules and odds that id demanded ( 1.000 to 1 is too much in my oppinoun for just apriliminary test..) a specially when you not really given enough time and opportunity to show your ability in proper TESTS not TEST.. Any ways.. as I wrote in one of my posts before, Ok..JREF do there job by debunking fakes and offering this prize money etc.. But by not really giving proper chance to show the ability and demands let say a bit over reasonable. It put a shade so to say on all the paranormal.. Like who ever is skeptics they all 99.9% say.. It is all fraud and fakes…Look…there is JREF offers MILLION. And no one got it.. no one bothered to really see that JREF is a challenge and has nothing to do with people who reaserch and trying to find the truth so to say.. But most of people has such impression..
I can show stable results with test with pair where MINNIMUM I will show 65% accuracy that is more than chance it self.. so in order to beat 1.000 odds to one I need to get 65 right out of 100.. But for JREF that not really good.. as they conceders it is too complicated too many pair and photos etc.. and I sort of might have a chance to get it by chance 65 out of 100 and than it would mean I passed preliminary test.. And when I say.. Ok.. I am ready for 2-3 trial by 100 pairs to show that I am real deal and that is not just stupid chance.. That is not accepted either… and when U hear skeptics they all as one say.. There is JREF no one got the prize so isn’t it obvious it is not exist..
From the other hand.. to allow some one pass 1st preliminary test.. would mean that person can pass the second and will draw all the attention of the public to him self that could sort of “force” them to be more reasonable with test conditions… as some of them not really reasonable and contradicts the idea..
And let put it this way too.. imagine some one passed it and money will be paid.. what JREF will be do next?? Lecturing that everyone fakes and frauds and get donations for that? Or they convert to a foundations who finally will be interested in RESEARCHING and perform proper test to establish ability of some individuals.. if that the case and I am the one who pass the challenge I am willing to donate some money to JREF.:)

[William Smith]

I will agree with you. But the main problem with JREF is not event he rules and odds that id demanded ( 1.000 to 1 is too much in my oppinoun for just apriliminary test..) a specially when you not really given enough time and opportunity to show your ability in proper TESTS not TEST.. Any ways.. as I wrote in one of my posts before, Ok..JREF do there job by debunking fakes and offering this prize money etc.. But by not really giving proper chance to show the ability and demands let say a bit over reasonable. It put a shade so to say on all the paranormal.. Like who ever is skeptics they all 99.9% say.. It is all fraud and fakes…Look…there is JREF offers MILLION. And no one got it.. no one bothered to really see that JREF is a challenge and has nothing to do with people who reaserch and trying to find the truth so to say.. But most of people has such impression..
I can show stable results with test with pair where MINNIMUM I will show 65% accuracy that is more than chance it self.. so in order to beat 1.000 odds to one I need to get 65 right out of 100.. But for JREF that not really good.. as they conceders it is too complicated too many pair and photos etc.. and I sort of might have a chance to get it by chance 65 out of 100 and than it would mean I passed preliminary test.. And when I say.. Ok.. I am ready for 2-3 trial by 100 pairs to show that I am real deal and that is not just stupid chance.. That is not accepted either… and when U hear skeptics they all as one say.. There is JREF no one got the prize so isn’t it obvious it is not exist..
From the other hand.. to allow some one pass 1st preliminary test.. would mean that person can pass the second and will draw all the attention of the public to him self that could sort of “force” them to be more reasonable with test conditions… as some of them not really reasonable and contradicts the idea..
And let put it this way too.. imagine some one passed it and money will be paid.. what JREF will be do next?? Lecturing that everyone fakes and frauds and get donations for that? Or they convert to a foundations who finally will be interested in RESEARCHING and perform proper test to establish ability of some individuals.. if that the case and I am the one who pass the challenge I am willing to donate some money to JREF.:)

Or you will perform along the probabilities suggested by chance, you will offer excuses and blame everyone but yourself. Hold on, you have already done the latter two.

Pavel, if you do not feel comfortable with the test conditions, simply do not do the test. Find a private sponsor who is willing to endure your demands and will pay for a test you envision. If you use strict controls and proper blinding, you will increase chances that people will take you seriously.

And for the n-th time: Why would odds matter to someone who has a genuine paranormal (i.e. currently inexplicable by science) ability?

[Rodney]

And for the n-th time: Why would odds matter to someone who has a genuine paranormal (i.e. currently inexplicable by science) ability?
It is truly mind-boggling that you and so many others here cannot seem to comprehend this fundamental point. Pavel is not claiming that he has X-ray vision and can read the unopened envelopes' contents as easily as he can read the contents after the envelopes have been opened -- he is simply claiming that he has the ability to discern the envelopes' contents at a significantly higher than chance rate. Is there some secret part of the MDC that states that a paranormal ability does not exist unless it can operate with 100% accuracy? By your logic, if aspirin cannot prevent 100% of heart attacks, there is no point in taking it to prevent heart attacks.

[William Smith]

It is truly mind-boggling that you and so many others here cannot seem to comprehend this fundamental point. Pavel is not claiming that he has X-ray vision and can read the unopened envelopes' contents as easily as he can read the contents after the envelopes have been opened -- he is simply claiming that he has the ability to discern the envelopes' contents at a significantly higher than chance rate. Is there some secret part of the MDC that states that a paranormal ability does not exist unless it can operate with 100% accuracy? By your logic, if aspirin cannot prevent 100% of heart attacks, there is no point in taking it to prevent heart attacks.

Your aspirin anylogy seems flawed. Nevermind.

In all brevity - since we have very differing viewpoints and a discussion seems pointless - the "odd(s) discussion" will only be brought up by people like Pavel: People who seem to (for one part) modeling their claims around the required minimum odds of the MDC success criteria.

I understand the pragmatic part of that, obviously.

[steenkh]

If demonstrating a paranormal ability were as simple as riding a bicycle, even Randi would now be convinced that there is such a thing as the paranormal.
Every day there are people claiming that they can do paranormal things. Every day. A lot of them are living of their abilities. It seems strange that these abilities that work every day can not be demonstrated as effectively as riding a bicycle. These people are the primary targets for the JREF challenge: Perform as you claim you can perform, and you will get a million dollars.

Now, some paranormal performers cannot perform their abilities as easy as riding a bicycle probably because there are no abilities to demonstrate. However, if these abilities are real, all that is necessary is to determine at what level they can be performed, and it can be tested at this level with the same certainty as if it was about riding a bicycle: 1:1,000,000 chance of a false positive.

Please refer to the thoughtful post by Thabiguy earlier in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3706752&postcount=68):
There are two distinct chances at play here: 1. The chance at which the alleged paranormal ability works. For example, a person might predict the outcome of a coin toss with 100% success rate, or 80% success rate, or, if she really only has a very hazy vision of the future, with 51% success rate. 2. The chance of the person passing the preliminary (or real) test without having the ability that she claims to have. In other words, the probability of a false positive. I put those words in bold because it is important to understand that that is precisely what it is: a false positive. It's not the odds of succeeding in the preliminary test; it's the odds of the test failing and incorrectly crediting a "muggle" with the claimed paranormal ability.

[pavel_do]

Originally Posted by Thabiguy
There are two distinct chances at play here: 1. The chance at which the alleged paranormal ability works. For example, a person might predict the outcome of a coin toss with 100% success rate, or 80% success rate, or, if she really only has a very hazy vision of the future, with 51% success rate. 2. The chance of the person passing the preliminary (or real) test without having the ability that she claims to have. In other words, the probability of a false positive. I put those words in bold because it is important to understand that that is precisely what it is: a false positive. It's not the odds of succeeding in the preliminary test; it's the odds of the test failing and incorrectly crediting a "muggle" with the claimed paranormal ability.
__________________

thoughtful post by Thabiguy earlier in this thread[/URL]:


Exactly for that reason, 1 passed test can not show that person did not achieved it by luck.. same as if he fails, it does not mean he did not failed it by chance.. You need to have 2-3 test and if you repeat results.. that will be obvious that either you do have the ability or that just was a luck.. Just as Rodney have written in his post..

[pavel_do]

I know it is out of topic.. but still would like to post it..
There is a web site offering a phone readings to there clients.. and there is a top pay “psychic” that charges 20$ per MINUTE… I am shocked.. Nevertheless.. here is one of the comments.. from the client.. that made me laugh:) so I would like to share it with you.

“He started by saying things were really good for me & he was going to tell me why they were. He repeated that statement 3 times and then it sounded like he turned on the water and stepped into the shower--while still trying to talk to me. When I told him I could no longer hear him he said he would speak louder. Louder wasn't the problem--he sounded all garbled like he was drowning. Total waste of $$$$. If you don't have the time to do a proper reading don't be available for calls.”

[steenkh]

Exactly for that reason, 1 passed test can not show that person did not achieved it by luck.. same as if he fails, it does not mean he did not failed it by chance.. You need to have 2-3 test and if you repeat results.. that will be obvious that either you do have the ability or that just was a luck.. Just as Rodney have written in his post..
No, that is not correct. The success levels for the tests are designed to prove with very great certainty that you will not pass through sheer luck. You and Rodney's demand for successive tests just raises the chance of a false positive, which is, of course to your advantage.

If you have doubts about your ability to achieve 30 out of 40, you should have made that clear from the beginning. It is not up to the JREF to specify what you can do or not do. Their concern is to be sure that what you can do is not achieved by sheer luck, and it would be counterproductive to lower the odds or give you extra chances.

anyway, as the rules state, you can be retested in a year, which means that you actually do have a second chance. Unfortunately, the MDC is going to be withdrawn, so you will probably only manage a single retest.

[Moochie]

No, and if you read my post more carefully, you will see that what I was suggesting was continuing the preliminary test to someone who beat such odds. For example, let's suppose Pavel gets 26 out of 40 (65% hit rate vs. the expected 50%) in his preliminary test. The odds of doing that by chance are about 1 in 25. So why not retest him to see if he can repeat that result? If that were done and he performed only at a chance level, that would be the end of the testing. However, if he did repeat it, he would now have achieved 52 hits in 80 trials, which would happen by chance only about 1 in 200 times. So why not continue to test him? Again, if he performed only at a chance level, that would be the end of the testing. However, if he repeated that result again, he would now have achieved 78 hits in 120 trials, which would happen by chance only about 1 in 1,500 times. So finally, he would have beaten odds of better than 1 in 1000 and passed the preliminary testing. However, that would still not win him any money, but only qualify him for the final testing.


If demonstrating a paranormal ability were as simple as riding a bicycle, even Randi would now be convinced that there is such a thing as the paranormal.


Really think you're jumping the gun here, Rodney. Pavel hasn't achieved 26 out of 40, let alone anything better. When he has achieved this (if he achieves this) perhaps then would be the right time for special pleading.


M.

[Moochie]

Your aspirin anylogy seems flawed. Nevermind.

In all brevity - since we have very differing viewpoints and a discussion seems pointless - the "odd(s) discussion" will only be brought up by people like Pavel: People who seem to (for one part) modeling their claims around the required minimum odds of the MDC success criteria.

I understand the pragmatic part of that, obviously.


As do I. It's a crap-shoot.


M.

[Startz]

1. The idea of having to do two tests isn't exactly new. That's what JREF does. If one passes the preliminary, then one has to do it again to show it wasn't luck. (And I imagine for JREF to get another chance to look for cheating.)

2. The probability of passing the proposed 30 out of 40 test by random chance (false positive) is about 1 in 1,000. The chance that someone who has a 65 percent success rate will pass the test is only about 12 percent. The false negative rate would be 88 percent. (Mind you, that would depend on whether paranormal activities obey the usual rules of statistics.) To have a lower rate for the false negative would require longer testing or a different design.

3. It just isn't true that the applicant states an ability and JREF tests it under controlled conditions. There really is a negotiation. For example, Pavel made an initial proposal that was perfectly appropriate statistically. JREF declined to conduct a test according to his suggestions because they felt the protocol was too complicated. I'm willing to accept JREF's judgment because they know a lot more about this stuff than I do. More to the point, Pavel has also been willing to accept JREF's judgment in order to move the whole thing forward. Pavel has always said that because his power is imperfect he needs a somewhat longer test than JREF is willing to accommodate.

I realize that there have been many who have made ridiculous proposals and then whined when JREF wouldn't go along. But that's not what's happened with Pavel.

[steenkh]

3. It just isn't true that the applicant states an ability and JREF tests it under controlled conditions. There really is a negotiation. For example, Pavel made an initial proposal that was perfectly appropriate statistically. JREF declined to conduct a test according to his suggestions because they felt the protocol was too complicated.
As part of the negotiation, the claimant must stick to his guns if he knows his abilities. The reason why the JREF is dead against complicated protocols is that the more complicated, the more out of control they get.

For some reason which is less clear to me, the JREF is also struggling to keep down costs, even though it is clearly stated that all such costs would have to be paid by the claimant. They could theoretically accept long-winded protocols, even if this meant prolonged rental of facilities, payment of testers and security people to ensure that no one tampers with the test results or test object outside testing hours. But they do not.

[drkitten]

For some reason which is less clear to me, the JREF is also struggling to keep down costs, even though it is clearly stated that all such costs would have to be paid by the claimant.

The reason for this is that, even with costs being borne by the claimant, resources are still in short supply. Randi's time is limited to approximately 168 hours per week, and even less if you grant that he likes to sleep and eat. Most of the various tests are actually run and staffed by volunteer labor, who are paid in Randi's goodwill, and many of the participants are experts who are themselves busy.

Speaking only for myself, for example --- I would be happy to take an unpaid day out of my schedule to participate in a Challenge examination if my specialist skills would be useful. (I routinely do that for other scientific events such as science fairs.) I would be less happy taking a week (I have classes to teach, but I could probably arrange something if necessary). Taking a month would be right out. Even a paid month would be unacceptable; my students have to come first.

So, again speaking only for myself -- you can have six or eight hours in a good cause for free, but forty hours would cost you several thousand dollars, and two hundred hours is probably unavailable at any price you could afford to pay.

[petre]

No, and if you read my post more carefully, you will see that what I was suggesting was continuing the preliminary test to someone who beat such odds. For example, let's suppose Pavel gets 26 out of 40 (65% hit rate vs. the expected 50%) in his preliminary test. The odds of doing that by chance are about 1 in 25. So why not retest him to see if he can repeat that result? If that were done and he performed only at a chance level, that would be the end of the testing. However, if he did repeat it, he would now have achieved 52 hits in 80 trials, which would happen by chance only about 1 in 200 times. So why not continue to test him? Again, if he performed only at a chance level, that would be the end of the testing. However, if he repeated that result again, he would now have achieved 78 hits in 120 trials, which would happen by chance only about 1 in 1,500 times. So finally, he would have beaten odds of better than 1 in 1000 and passed the preliminary testing. However, that would still not win him any money, but only qualify him for the final testing.


If demonstrating a paranormal ability were as simple as riding a bicycle, even Randi would now be convinced that there is such a thing as the paranormal.

If the applicant only gets 26 out of 40 correct on the preliminary test, then why did the applicant claim the ability to get more correct in the protocol? Is the applicant not familiar enough with their own ability to make solid claims? The JREF challenge isn't for researching an ability, it is for testing one which the applicant should be comforable enough to define boundaries for.

Do you disagree that an applicant that cannot perform as they claim has not researched their ability enough before applying for the challenge?

[Rodney]

If the applicant only gets 26 out of 40 correct on the preliminary test, then why did the applicant claim the ability to get more correct in the protocol? Is the applicant not familiar enough with their own ability to make solid claims? The JREF challenge isn't for researching an ability, it is for testing one which the applicant should be comforable enough to define boundaries for.

Do you disagree that an applicant that cannot perform as they claim has not researched their ability enough before applying for the challenge?
Did you read Post #147 on this thread? There, Pavel states that he has averaged 28 hits per 40 trials, which equals only a 70% hit rate -- not the 75% hit rate that the JREF has specified in its protocol. When considering the pressure of the test, I think specifying a protocol involving a somewhat lesser hit rate than the claimed average makes sense. In any event, what could possibly be the justification for specifying a higher hit rate, other than the benefit to the JREF of a short test that the applicant is likely to fail?

[steenkh]

The reason for this is that, even with costs being borne by the claimant, resources are still in short supply. Randi's time is limited to approximately 168 hours per week, and even less if you grant that he likes to sleep and eat. Most of the various tests are actually run and staffed by volunteer labor, who are paid in Randi's goodwill, and many of the participants are experts who are themselves busy.
Of course, but experts can still be hired, and if a test can only be done by properly paid experts, this should be made clear to the claimant, and if s/he cannot carry the costs, the claim has to be rejected because of this. It seems wrong to force the claimant to rely on chance in order to keep down costs.

On the other hand, as we very well know it, these claimants are probably all deluded as to their abilities, and it also seems wrong to make them spend all their savings in the chase of a million dollars that they are unable to win.

[William Smith]

Of course, but experts can still be hired, and if a test can only be done by properly paid experts, this should be made clear to the claimant, and if s/he cannot carry the costs, the claim has to be rejected because of this. It seems wrong to force the claimant to rely on chance in order to keep down costs.

On the other hand, as we very well know it, these claimants are probably all deluded as to their abilities, and it also seems wrong to make them spend all their savings in the chase of a million dollars that they are unable to win.

Well said, steenkh.



And let's not forget that the JREF Challenge provides only one of the infinite ways to provide evidence for a so-called paranormal ability.

[petre]

Did you read Post #147 on this thread? There, Pavel states that he has averaged 28 hits per 40 trials, which equals only a 70% hit rate -- not the 75% hit rate that the JREF has specified in its protocol. When considering the pressure of the test, I think specifying a protocol involving a somewhat lesser hit rate than the claimed average makes sense. In any event, what could possibly be the justification for specifying a higher hit rate, other than the benefit to the JREF of a short test that the applicant is likely to fail?

Well I hope you'd agree that if an applicant claimed an ability that was successfuly 50.00001% of the time, when 50% is expected by chance, and each trial takes 10 years it is not practical to test such an ability to any degree of accuracy witin even several hundred lifetimes.

There are possible real paranormal abilites that simply cannot be tested in a reasonable time frame. The JREF has chosen a period of 1 day (something around 8 hours) for their threshold of 'reasonable'. If you are able to suggest a test that will allow a 70% hit rate and can be completed within the timeframe suggested, it may be of assistance in that protocol discussion. If there exists no way for the ability to be tested within that time, then it is simply not within the scope of the challenge.

[Moochie]

Well said, steenkh.



And let's not forget that the JREF Challenge provides only one of the infinite ways to provide evidence for a so-called paranormal ability.


Yes. As many have stated here before, claimants are at complete liberty to exhibit their "ability/ies" under proper observing conditions wherever and as often as they please. In fact, it would be damned helpful if they did, but they never do, do they?

I don't apologize for my skepticism regarding the present claimant -- all he's provided is some claim that he has been "tested" somewhere. Surely, given his claimed ability, he'd have a piano-roll of testimonials from accredited sources by now. Let him replicate his claimed successes before the scientific community a few times. At present all I see is a none-too-clever attempt to beat the odds.


M.

[Moochie]

Well I hope you'd agree that if an applicant claimed an ability that was successfuly 50.00001% of the time, when 50% is expected by chance, and each trial takes 10 years it is not practical to test such an ability to any degree of accuracy witin even several hundred lifetimes.

There are possible real paranormal abilites that simply cannot be tested in a reasonable time frame. The JREF has chosen a period of 1 day (something around 8 hours) for their threshold of 'reasonable'. If you are able to suggest a test that will allow a 70% hit rate and can be completed within the timeframe suggested, it may be of assistance in that protocol discussion. If there exists no way for the ability to be tested within that time, then it is simply not within the scope of the challenge.

Really? Care to submit some evidence of this? No one's stopping claimants, or anyone else for that matter, from being tested under proper observing conditions (ie, where all opportunity to cheat is eliminated), yet none of the claimants attempting the MDC have done so. The miscreants (Browne, Edward, et al) who make megabucks out of diddling the deluded simply don't care about the MDC -- their income is many multiples of a million.


M.

[Startz]

snip
I don't apologize for my skepticism regarding the present claimant -- all he's provided is some claim that he has been "tested" somewhere.

M.snip

If I'm reading correctly that by "present claimant" you mean Pavel, note that he has provided an affidavit that his claims have been witnessed by two academics and that affidavit has been found acceptable by JREF.

[Moochie]

snipsnip

If I'm reading correctly that by "present claimant" you mean Pavel, note that he has provided an affidavit that his claims have been witnessed by two academics and that affidavit has been found acceptable by JREF.


"Two academics" is too broad a brush for my liking. I know several "academics" who reckon there's "something" to astrology. You now, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We never, ever, get such evidence. What's preventing "Pavel," et al from producing such evidence?


M.

[Startz]

"Two academics" is too broad a brush for my liking. I know several "academics" who reckon there's "something" to astrology. You now, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We never, ever, get such evidence. What's preventing "Pavel," et al from producing such evidence?


M.

Here's what RemieV posted in the official Challenge Application section.
For an academic witness, he provided an affidavit from the University of North Carolina Psychology Department with detailed information on a test they ran of his abilities.

I'm hoping that we'll soon get high quality evidence in the form of a JREF approved test.

[Moochie]

Here's what RemieV posted in the official Challenge Application section.


I'm hoping that we'll soon get high quality evidence in the form of a JREF approved test.


Well, we all know the "academics" who were totally convinced of Uri Geller's shenanigans. I don't expect these academics to be worth the paper their qualifications are written on. In fact, I think it would be a good idea to check their bona fides, if this hasn't already been done.

In any case, none of the claimant's "credentials" ought to be accepted without thorough scrutiny. The claimant's bona fides must be transparent, IMO.

I don't know why it must be repeated, but apparently it does: All aspects of the transactions between claimant and issuers of the MDC must, perforce, be 100% transparent. There simply can be no room for doubt on the part of either party if the proceedings are to have any credibility in the wider community.

Pavel would inestimably aid his claim if he had bothered to seek and establish a consistent record of successfully demonstrating his "ability." That he has not done so speaks volumes.

Hence, I smell a rather redolent rat. I am happy to be proven wrong.


M.

[steenkh]

In any case, none of the claimant's "credentials" ought to be accepted without thorough scrutiny. The claimant's bona fides must be transparent, IMO.
You seem to argue that the MDC which was designed to challenge supernatural claims, should not actually accept any claimants unless they have already proven beyond doubt that they would be able to win the challenge?

As far as I know, the "two academics and a journalist"-hurdle was set up in order to keep the mentally ill away, not in order to actually provide evidence for the paranormal.

[drkitten]

As far as I know, the "two academics and a journalist"-hurdle was set up in order to keep the mentally ill away, not in order to actually provide evidence for the paranormal.

Yeah.

Another way of looking at it is that if you're so messed up that you can't convince two academics and a journalist of your abilities (given how gullible academics and journalists are known to be), the JREF is not the place for you.

The problem is (and you can check the records on-line) that most of the claimants WERE sufficiently messed up that it seemed that the JREF was running an outpatient clinic, not an educational foundation.

[drkitten]

No one's stopping claimants, or anyone else for that matter, from being tested under proper observing conditions (ie, where all opportunity to cheat is eliminated), yet none of the claimants attempting the MDC have done so.

This is, not to put too fine a point on it, a stupid comment.

You're asking that claimants attempting the MDC should have passed the MDC already. Part of the issue is that "proper observing conditions (ie. where all opportunity to cheat is eliminated)" is one of the specialist skills that Randi and company provide. One of the things he has said (repeatedly) is that scientists should consult magicians when studying the paranormal. Well, Randi is a highly skilled magician and available more or less for free --- why should I pay money for a prior consultation with a less skilled magician who doesn't specialize in detecting cheating?

Setting up "proper observing conditions" is hard work. Why should the claimants have to do all that hard work by themselves, without benefit of Randi's knowledge and expertise, in order to avail themselves of it later?

Oh, and a possible paranormal ability that can't be easily tested within a day? "I can make plants grow faster/taller/bushier." (Which is a genuine claim that people have made.) At a minimum, this will require several weeks of work and observation; if the plants in question are redwood trees, it could take several hundred years. Pyramid power --- "if you store razor blades in this, they will stay sharp for longer" --- is another classic woo claim that would be be hard to test; an unused razor blade will stay sharp for months or years, depending upon the climate. Sure, it would be paranormal if one stayed sharp for two years while the other only stayed sharp for six months ---- but you're not going to notice a difference after a day or a week.

If the JREF uses a day as their threshold, even simple claims like "drinking this magic water will make you resistant to disease" are untestable.

[drkitten]

Of course, but experts can still be hired, and if a test can only be done by properly paid experts, this should be made clear to the claimant, and if s/he cannot carry the costs, the claim has to be rejected because of this. It seems wrong to force the claimant to rely on chance in order to keep down costs.

And that's part of the challenge negotiations, isn't it?

Part of the issue is precisely that claimants may not know what the "requirements" for testing are, and part of the "Educational" part of JREF is teaching them about proper scientific investigation, including the role of experts. The JREF, in a very strong sense, is doing the claimants a favor by keeping a Rolodex full of experts who are willing to work for free to help test claims.

Heck, the JREF is doing them a favor simply by vetting the experts to keep them from pouring money into consulting Doctor Marvel the Snake Oil Salesman with a mail-order Ph.D.

Having said this, though,.... we still have the negotiations part of the negotiations. If the JREF will not run a test longer than 8 hours (which is not an unreasonable general policy), and the claimant cannot establish his claim within 8 hours, then there is a genuine impasse and the test should not be run. But is that really a best outcome? Or is a better outcome for the claimant to voluntarily accept a (free) test that he may or may not be able to pass?

[Moochie]

Yeah.

Another way of looking at it is that if you're so messed up that you can't convince two academics and a journalist of your abilities (given how gullible academics and journalists are known to be), the JREF is not the place for you.

The problem is (and you can check the records on-line) that most of the claimants WERE sufficiently messed up that it seemed that the JREF was running an outpatient clinic, not an educational foundation.


Well, yeah. :D


M.

[Moochie]

This is, not to put too fine a point on it, a stupid comment.

Gee, thanks.

You're asking that claimants attempting the MDC should have passed the MDC already. Part of the issue is that "proper observing conditions (ie. where all opportunity to cheat is eliminated)" is one of the specialist skills that Randi and company provide. One of the things he has said (repeatedly) is that scientists should consult magicians when studying the paranormal. Well, Randi is a highly skilled magician and available more or less for free --- why should I pay money for a prior consultation with a less skilled magician who doesn't specialize in detecting cheating?OK, maybe I chose my words unwisely. What I would think is that people who have convinced themselves they have paranormal abilities would be shouting it from the rooftops; ie, we surely would have heard something by now. It wouldn't have to be tests done to a scientific certainty, but tests conducted publicly with some media present. The revised rule about "media presence" goes some way toward this, but not far enough, in my opinion.

Setting up "proper observing conditions" is hard work. Why should the claimants have to do all that hard work by themselves, without benefit of Randi's knowledge and expertise, in order to avail themselves of it later?If there was anything to their claims, they would have capitalized on them by now, I would think, and not necessarily in a monetary sense.

Oh, and a possible paranormal ability that can't be easily tested within a day? "I can make plants grow faster/taller/bushier." (Which is a genuine claim that people have made.) At a minimum, this will require several weeks of work and observation; if the plants in question are redwood trees, it could take several hundred years. Pyramid power --- "if you store razor blades in this, they will stay sharp for longer" --- is another classic woo claim that would be be hard to test; an unused razor blade will stay sharp for months or years, depending upon the climate. Sure, it would be paranormal if one stayed sharp for two years while the other only stayed sharp for six months ---- but you're not going to notice a difference after a day or a week.

If the JREF uses a day as their threshold, even simple claims like "drinking this magic water will make you resistant to disease" are untestable.Now you appear to be shilling for woodom. Good luck.


M.

[steenkh]

And that's part of the challenge negotiations, isn't it?
My point was that it does not seem to be part of challenge negotiations.

With Pavel we have a claimant who seems to be serious about testing himself, and who claims a success rate significant better than chance - but who is forced to accept a test where he can only succeed if he is even better than his usual performance. I am not saying that it is wrong of the JREF to insist on a shorter and cheaper test, but the possibility of making a longer, expensive test has not been part of the negotiations, as far as we know.

[Rodney]

My point was that it does not seem to be part of challenge negotiations.

With Pavel we have a claimant who seems to be serious about testing himself, and who claims a success rate significant better than chance - but who is forced to accept a test where he can only succeed if he is even better than his usual performance. I am not saying that it is wrong of the JREF to insist on a shorter and cheaper test, but the possibility of making a longer, expensive test has not been part of the negotiations, as far as we know.
Again, a way around this dilemma is to permit a continuation of the preliminary test when the results are well above chance, but insufficient to pass that test after just 40 trials. If Pavel has no ability to do what he claims, his number of hits should be no higher than 24 out of 40. If he does better than that, either he has the claimed ability or he got lucky. The notion that, even if he gets 29 correct, "he failed the preliminary test" is illogical, when that number of hits would be better than his claimed average.

[Garrette]

Again, a way around this dilemma is to permit a continuation of the preliminary test when the results are well above chance, but insufficient to pass that test after just 40 trials. If Pavel has no ability to do what he claims, his number of hits should be no higher than 24 out of 40. If he does better than that, either he has the claimed ability or he got lucky. The notion that, even if he gets 29 correct, "he failed the preliminary test" is illogical, when that number of hits would be better than his claimed average.Non-statistician that I am, this makes more sense than your previous posts on the topic. Tell me if I am correctly re-stating it:

Claimant has X hours to do Y.

A% or greater success means immediate passing of the preliminary test

B% or greater (but less than A%) means the test has not been passed but will continue for Z more hours, after which the two tests are combined to determine success or failure with no possibility of another extension.

Less than B% means failure of the preliminary test.


Though this may make some statistical sense, it does not address the problem of extended tests. The experts, volunteers, et all must be prepared to stay longer than the original X hours which is the same thing as requiring them to do so.

[Cuddles]

Though this may make some statistical sense, it does not address the problem of extended tests. The experts, volunteers, et all must be prepared to stay longer than the original X hours which is the same thing as requiring them to do so.

It also doesn't address the problem that it's nothing to do with the challenge. The challenge is very simple. Applicant states they can do x. Applicant either does x or fails to do x. End of story. As Rodney consistently resfuses to acknowledge, the JREF is not a scientific research institute. Someone failing to do what they claim but still getting results that some people find interesting could well be a valid topic for study. And the failed applicant, and anyone else who feels like it, are free to go and do so. However, the JREF will not do so, and has no responsibility to do so.

[Garrette]

It also doesn't address the problem that it's nothing to do with the challenge. The challenge is very simple. Applicant states they can do x. Applicant either does x or fails to do x. End of story. As Rodney consistently resfuses to acknowledge, the JREF is not a scientific research institute. Someone failing to do what they claim but still getting results that some people find interesting could well be a valid topic for study. And the failed applicant, and anyone else who feels like it, are free to go and do so. However, the JREF will not do so, and has no responsibility to do so.I agree with you, but I was addressing it as if the intent were to offer a solution to the problem of too-lengthy testing as opposed to the intent being one to turn the MDC into something it is not.

I run into this a fair amount, not only here but in real life and on other forums.

[Pope130]

I can find nowhere that Pavel is being forced to accept a test. A protocol has been suggested based on his claimed abilities. If he finds it unacceptable he should propose a different protocol or changes to the existing one that would work.
If he feels the need for a longer test, say one that would take two days to complete, he should propose that. Then see what JREF says. Over in the Homeoproofer thread they are discussing a protocol that will take weeks or months to complete.
It is for the challenger to make the claim. State what he can do and how it will be tested, what constitutes a success or failure. Claiming that the JREF is forcing a failure is just pre-positioning an excuse for failure.

[Startz]

It also doesn't address the problem that it's nothing to do with the challenge. The challenge is very simple. Applicant states they can do x. Applicant either does x or fails to do x.

I can find nowhere that Pavel is being forced to accept a test. A protocol has been suggested based on his claimed abilities. If he finds it unacceptable he should propose a different protocol or changes to the existing one that would work.


With all due respect, perhaps there is some misunderstanding here about how the Challenge actually operates. Both JREF and the applicant have to agree to the terms of the protocol. It is not just whatever the applicant states.

Pavel originally offered a different protocol, which JREF declined. While the test itself requires "no judgement," this isn't true of the protocol design. Pavel has agreed to changes in order to move the process along. Reasonable people can disagree over whether JREF's or Pavel's position is better.

Mind you, JREF has not yet offered an opinion on the current protocol. I would hope they would permit a somewhat longer test in order to afford Pavel a better opportunity to demonstrate he can do what he has claimed he can do.

[Rodney]

Non-statistician that I am, this makes more sense than your previous posts on the topic. Tell me if I am correctly re-stating it:

Claimant has X hours to do Y.

A% or greater success means immediate passing of the preliminary test

B% or greater (but less than A%) means the test has not been passed but will continue for Z more hours, after which the two tests are combined to determine success or failure with no possibility of another extension.

Less than B% means failure of the preliminary test.
Correct, except that there could be another extension if the results are even further above chance than they were after the first test, but still insufficient to pass the preliminary test.

Though this may make some statistical sense, it does not address the problem of extended tests. The experts, volunteers, et all must be prepared to stay longer than the original X hours which is the same thing as requiring them to do so.
I'm not necessarily suggesting that the preliminary test be continued at that moment, but rather at least well in advance of the usual one-year period for taking another preliminary test. That's particularly important in view of the fact that the MDC is scheduled to end in March 2010. Let's suppose that in September 2008 Pavel "fails" the test with only 29 hits, and then has to wait until September 2009 for the re-test. Suppose he "fails" again with 29 hits. Does the JREF say: "Sorry, you can't take another preliminary test, but please join us in March 2010 for our celebration of the fact that we never had to cough up the million bucks"?

[Pope130]

Pavel has agreed to changes in order to move the process along.

My point was that (at this point) this is a negotiation. Pavel is now complaining that he agreed to a test he believes he can not pass. He has not been forced into this agreement. He should make a counter proposal. Perhaps there is a point where the protocol will be acceptable to JREF, and Pavel feels he can pass.

[petre]

Correct, except that there could be another extension if the results are even further above chance than they were after the first test, but still insufficient to pass the preliminary test.


I'm not necessarily suggesting that the preliminary test be continued at that moment, but rather at least well in advance of the usual one-year period for taking another preliminary test. That's particularly important in view of the fact that the MDC is scheduled to end in March 2010. Let's suppose that in September 2008 Pavel "fails" the test with only 29 hits, and then has to wait until September 2009 for the re-test. Suppose he "fails" again with 29 hits. Does the JREF say: "Sorry, you can't take another preliminary test, but please join us in March 2010 for our celebration of the fact that we never had to cough up the million bucks"?

First just a quick shout to Moochie for the earlier question, when I said "there exist possible paranormal...blah blah blah...that could not be tested in a reasonable time frame", it may have been better phrased "one could describe something clearly paranormal that could not be tested in a reasonable time frame". In other words, just because a claim indicates something clearly paranormal doesn't mean it is automatically eligable for the challenge.

Second, to answer Rodney's question, I see no rule at all against an applicant asking for a multiple-trial test where a certain threshold performance would not be considered a pass of the preliminary, and yet would make the applicant eligable for a retest at some near-future time. I imagine the JREF is likely to be reluctant to set up multiple trial dates, since it would tend to indicate an ability so minor or so unpracticed that it is difficult to even discern it from natural fluctuations in probability. I expect the JREF would work with the applicant to find if there were any way to better test the ability within a shorter time frame.

[dbw]

Say a claimant says he has an (admittedly weak) ability to make a fair coin unfair... specifically, he claims he can meditate over a coin, without touching it, for five minutes, and that from then on, that coin will flip heads 50.0001% of the time. For the sake of argument, assume this guy really can do what he says. This is clearly a paranormal ability, but I submit that there's no way to test it in a reasonable amount of time. Thus the JREF would deem it untestable, though this is not strictly true.

...I think this is what petre was getting at. If not, it's still a valid point. :) And it's not really that farfetched... remember the woman who said she could influence a candle's flame "intermittently"? I think she was deceiving herself, but unfortunately we'll never know for sure as it would have taken forever to test.

[steenkh]

Again, a way around this dilemma is to permit a continuation of the preliminary test when the results are well above chance, but insufficient to pass that test after just 40 trials. If Pavel has no ability to do what he claims, his number of hits should be no higher than 24 out of 40. If he does better than that, either he has the claimed ability or he got lucky. The notion that, even if he gets 29 correct, "he failed the preliminary test" is illogical, when that number of hits would be better than his claimed average.
He claims he can do 30, and then 30 is the number that he needs to do, not 29. This is a challenge for the claimants to do as they claim they can do, not a scientific test to establish if the paranormal exists.

If a re-test was acceptable when achieving near-misses, the challenge protocol would have to be reworked to be much more complicated, if the same low level of false positives is to be maintained. What about Pavel simply claiming what he can actually do, consistently, rather than accepting odds he most likely cannot achieve?

Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that Pavel had not worked out the odds before he started, but is only now testing his ability and finding that he cannot consistently do what he has agreed to. Tough. But then I would suggest that he uses the next year to prepare for the last testing before the challenge closes down.

[fls]

Non-statistician that I am, this makes more sense than your previous posts on the topic. Tell me if I am correctly re-stating it:

Claimant has X hours to do Y.

A% or greater success means immediate passing of the preliminary test

B% or greater (but less than A%) means the test has not been passed but will continue for Z more hours, after which the two tests are combined to determine success or failure with no possibility of another extension.

Less than B% means failure of the preliminary test.

Though this may make some statistical sense...

It doesn't. What you have just described is 'early stopping', a well-known* way of introducing bias and increasing the possibility of obtaining a positive result.

Linda

*To be defined to my advantage at a later date.

[Garrette]

It doesn't. What you have just described is 'early stopping', a well-known* way of introducing bias and increasing the possibility of obtaining a positive result.

Linda

*To be defined to my advantage at a later date.But, but, but....

I'm an intelligent layman! I HAVE to be right!

[Garrette]

Correct, except that there could be another extension if the results are even further above chance than they were after the first test, but still insufficient to pass the preliminary test.


I'm not necessarily suggesting that the preliminary test be continued at that moment, but rather at least well in advance of the usual one-year period for taking another preliminary test. That's particularly important in view of the fact that the MDC is scheduled to end in March 2010. Let's suppose that in September 2008 Pavel "fails" the test with only 29 hits, and then has to wait until September 2009 for the re-test. Suppose he "fails" again with 29 hits. Does the JREF say: "Sorry, you can't take another preliminary test, but please join us in March 2010 for our celebration of the fact that we never had to cough up the million bucks"?See Linda's response above. Based on that, I retract my comment about it making statistical sense.

[Garrette]

With all due respect, perhaps there is some misunderstanding here about how the Challenge actually operates. Both JREF and the applicant have to agree to the terms of the protocol. It is not just whatever the applicant states.

Pavel originally offered a different protocol, which JREF declined. While the test itself requires "no judgement," this isn't true of the protocol design. Pavel has agreed to changes in order to move the process along. Reasonable people can disagree over whether JREF's or Pavel's position is better.

Mind you, JREF has not yet offered an opinion on the current protocol. I would hope they would permit a somewhat longer test in order to afford Pavel a better opportunity to demonstrate he can do what he has claimed he can do.I don't think Cuddles et al are doing what you say here.

One must distinguish between the claim and the protocol to test that claim. The claim is what the applicant, and only the applicant, can state. The protocol is what requires negotiation and agreement.

[Startz]

I don't think Cuddles et al are doing what you say here.

One must distinguish between the claim and the protocol to test that claim. The claim is what the applicant, and only the applicant, can state. The protocol is what requires negotiation and agreement.

Perhaps I misunderstood.

My understanding of Pavel's claim is the ability to do claravoyance, albeit imperfectly. The issues about number of successes, number of trials, etc. are about the protocol.

[Rodney]

See Linda's response above. Based on that, I retract my comment about it making statistical sense.
I think Linda is misunderstanding what I'm proposing. If Pavel were to obtain 29 hits in the initial 40 trials, that would be 72.5% hits, which is better than his claimed average hit rate of 70%. Would it make sense to say that he "failed" the test simply because he did not beat odds of better than 1000 to 1? So, under that circumstance (or one where he obtained 28 hits or even, arguably, 26-27 hits), I am proposing that another 40 trials be conducted in the near future. I am not proposing that Pavel be allowed to stop after only another 10 trials if at that point he has beaten odds of better than 1000 to 1, so early stopping is not an issue.

[fls]

I think Linda is misunderstanding what I'm proposing. If Pavel were to obtain 29 hits in the initial 40 trials, that would be 72.5% hits, which is better than his claimed average hit rate of 70%. Would it make sense to say that he "failed" the test simply because he did not beat odds of better than 1000 to 1? So, under that circumstance (or one where he obtained 28 hits or even, arguably, 26-27 hits), I am proposing that another 40 trials be conducted in the near future. I am not proposing that Pavel be allowed to stop after only another 10 trials if at that point he has beaten odds of better than 1000 to 1, so early stopping is not an issue.

The initial 40 trials is the early stopping. Your intention is to perform 80 trials. However, you intend to stop early if you get a positive result* after 40 trials.

Linda

*beat the 1000 to 1 odds.

[drkitten]

It doesn't. What you have just described is 'early stopping', a well-known* way of introducing bias and increasing the possibility of obtaining a positive result.

Except that "increasing the possibility of obtaining a positive result" is not necessarily a bad thing, nor does it necessarily increase bias.

You simply have to emend the statistics properly.

If I have a task with a one in 2000 chance of success, then trying it twice in succession will give me approximately one chance in 1000 of getting at least one success. If I have a task with a one in ten thousand chance of success, doing it ten times will give me about 1:1000 of getting at least one success. Allowing the claimant to stop at the halfway point if he hits the 2000:1 mark isn't that unreasonable.

(Of course, this analysis assumes independence in the trials since it makes the math easier)

[Rodney]

The initial 40 trials is the early stopping. Your intention is to perform 80 trials. However, you intend to stop early if you get a positive result* after 40 trials.

Linda

*beat the 1000 to 1 odds.
No, it's the JREF that seems to want only 40 trials. If I had my way, Pavel, would be given at least 100 trials. I'm simply trying to accommodate the JREF's concern about its expenditure of time.

[fls]

Except that "increasing the possibility of obtaining a positive result" is not necessarily a bad thing, nor does it necessarily increase bias.

I should have been more specific. I meant "increasing the possibility of obtaining a positive result when one should not be obtained" (i.e. the definition of bias) which is what we are talking about when we refer to chance.

You simply have to emend the statistics properly.

If I have a task with a one in 2000 chance of success, then trying it twice in succession will give me approximately one chance in 1000 of getting at least one success. If I have a task with a one in ten thousand chance of success, doing it ten times will give me about 1:1000 of getting at least one success. Allowing the claimant to stop at the halfway point if he hits the 2000:1 mark isn't that unreasonable.

(Of course, this analysis assumes independence in the trials since it makes the math easier)

Rather than attempting to find a reasonable way to patch up the hole, my hope is that one understands that it is simpler to avoid making the hole in the first place.

Linda

[fls]

No, it's the JREF that seems to want only 40 trials. If I had my way, Pavel, would be given at least 100 trials. I'm simply trying to accommodate the JREF's concern about its expenditure of time.

It is not relevant who prescribed the trials or what the total number is. I'm just pointing out that your proposed accomodation introduces an error.

Linda

[Rodney]

It is not relevant who prescribed the trials or what the total number is. I'm just pointing out that your proposed accomodation introduces an error.
What I'm saying is that, if the JREF does not want to generally commit to more than 40 trials, the least it should do is extend the preliminary test if Pavel performs at his claimed performance level. Considering that he has to beat odds of 1,000 to 1 to pass the preliminary test, it is extremely unlikely that he would be able to do that by luck irrespective of the number of trials. If you disagree, give me an example where someone could beat those odds by early stopping.

[Thabiguy]

What I'm saying is that, if the JREF does not want to generally commit to more than 40 trials, the least it should do is extend the preliminary test if Pavel performs at his claimed performance level. Considering that he has to beat odds of 1,000 to 1 to pass the preliminary test, it is extremely unlikely that he would be able to do that by luck irrespective of the number of trials. If you disagree, give me an example where someone could beat those odds by early stopping.

What you have proposed is just a way to increase (nearly double, in fact) the odds of false positive.

The originally suggested protocol: Applicant passes if the odds of the results are about a thousand to one, say, 30 or more out of 40.
Your suggested protocol: Applicant passes if they get 30 or more out of 40. If applicant gets 26 or more, then they are given 40 more attempts. If the odds of the results are then about a thousand to one (that would be, say, 54 or more out of 80), the applicant passes.

The probability of succeeding by chance alone in the originally suggested protocol: about 1 in 900.
The probability of succeeding by chance alone in your suggested protocol: about 1 in 537.

Do you see what you have done there?

[remirol]

What you have proposed is just a way to increase (nearly double, in fact) the odds of false positive.

The originally suggested protocol: Applicant passes if the odds of the results are about a thousand to one, say, 30 or more out of 40.
Your suggested protocol: Applicant passes if they get 30 or more out of 40. If applicant gets 26 or more, then they are given 40 more attempts. If the odds of the results are then about a thousand to one (that would be, say, 54 or more out of 80), the applicant passes.

The probability of succeeding by chance alone in the originally suggested protocol: about 1 in 900.
The probability of succeeding by chance alone in your suggested protocol: about 1 in 537.

Do you see what you have done there?

Also consider the other aspect of early-stopping, and likely where it gets its name from:

Applicant gets 32 out of 40. This is considered a 'pass'. However, if applicant had continued, consider that they might have only gotten 10 out of the next 40 correct, for a total of 42 out of 80 -- a 'fail', but the applicant does not have the chance to do this; the early stop guarantees the pass, even though the applicant might have failed.

This scenario (and the above-quoted) is why Linda is pointing out that you actually _intend_ to do 80 tests with your protocol, and also why the number of tests should never be modified after the testing has begun. Either you're going to do 40, or you're going to do 80, and that's the end of it.

Put another way, the following possibilities could occur in an 80-trial scenario. We will consider the word 'pass' to be achieving 30 out of 40, or 75%.

1) Applicant passes the first 40, and passes the second 40. Result: PASS
2) Applicant passes the first 40, and fails the second 40 by enough to drop the percentage below 75%. Result: FAIL
3) Applicant passes the first 40, and fails the second 40, but not by enough to drop the percentage below 75%: Result: PASS
4) Applicant fails the first 40, and fails the second 40. Result: FAIL
5) Applicant fails the first 40, and passes the second 40 by enough to raise the percentage above 75%. Result: PASS
6) Applicant fails the first 40, and passes the second 40, but not by enough to raise the percentage above 75%. Result: FAIL

You will note that there are three 'pass' scenarios, and three 'fail' scenarios in there; an even distribution for chance alone. What your 'early stop' protocol does is change #2 from a "FAIL" to a "PASS" -- a very bad flaw, as now the test is highly skewed towards passing by chance alone.

[Myriad]

But you could do it this way:

55 out of 80 two-envelope trials has a <.001 chance (.00053).

But 28 out of 40 does not (.0083).

So if his claimed success rate is around 69-70% and his claim is accurate, he will succeed in beating 1 in 1000 odds in an 80-trial protocol but not in a 40-trial protocol.

Require that the claimant succeeds at the p <.05 level after 40 trials (that would be 26 or more, p = .040) in order to continue with the latter 40 trials. There is no "win" in the first round regardless of the score, only passing a sufficient threshold to be eligible to complete the test.

That way, the early stopping only increases the chance of failure in a protocol that otherwise gives him a greater chance of success if he has the claimed ability. Say he scored only 25 hits in the first 40. By agreeing to this procedure (and getting the benefit of passing with a relatively low success rate), he'd be giving up the chance to attempt to "come back in the stretch" by scoring 30 out of 40 in the latter 40 trials.

Suppose his actual success rate is .75 which is independent for each trial. With 40 rounds he still has a .416 chance of failing (29 or fewer hits) in a protocol requiring him to score 30 out of 40. With a straight 80 round protocol, he would have only a .08 chance of failing (54 or fewer). With the compromise two-stage protocol he has a .054 chance of failing (25 or fewer) in the first stage and an additional .052 chance (this one is a rather complex calculation) of failing in the second stage. The two-stage version has a slightly higher chance of a false negative outcome than the straight 80 trials because cases where he scored very poorly in the first 40 but came back very strong in the latter 40 would be ruled out as successes. But that's still a much lower chance of a false negative than the protocol with only 40 trials.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Rodney]

What you have proposed is just a way to increase (nearly double, in fact) the odds of false positive.

The originally suggested protocol: Applicant passes if the odds of the results are about a thousand to one, say, 30 or more out of 40.
Your suggested protocol: Applicant passes if they get 30 or more out of 40. If applicant gets 26 or more, then they are given 40 more attempts. If the odds of the results are then about a thousand to one (that would be, say, 54 or more out of 80), the applicant passes.

The probability of succeeding by chance alone in the originally suggested protocol: about 1 in 900.
The probability of succeeding by chance alone in your suggested protocol: about 1 in 537.

Do you see what you have done there?
Yes, but it's a minor difference. The way the preliminary test is tentatively designed for Pavel, the odds are he will fail even if he has a paranormal ability. Is that the design you want?

[remirol]

But you could do it this way:
(details snipped)

The two-stage version has a slightly higher chance of a false negative outcome than the straight 80 trials because cases where he scored very poorly in the first 40 but came back very strong in the latter 40 would be ruled out as successes. But that's still a much lower chance of a false negative than the protocol with only 40 trials.


What you've demonstrated is very basic, though -- it's well known that as the number of trials increases, the chances of both a false positive -and- false negative decrease. The problem here is that in a two-stage version, you're still going to potentially do 80 trials, and since you need to prepare for that possibility, you may as well just do 80 trials outright, rather than working up some elaborate formula which (even you have admitted) is less accurate than just doing 80 trials.

[remirol]

Yes, but it's a minor difference.

I'm sorry, the difference between 1 in 900 and 1 in 537 is _not_ minor; not even close. It is, in fact, approaching double the chance of success.

The way the preliminary test is tentatively designed for Pavel, the odds are he will fail even if he has a paranormal ability.

So your contention is that Pavel has a greater than 50% chance of failure in the test as designed if he has his claimed paranormal ability? Remember, that's what "odds are" means -- either he passes or he fails, and for your statement to be true, he would have to have a better than 50% chance of failure of the test even though he has the ability. If this is your contention, please show your math in detail.

Is that the design you want?

As has been repeated over and over to you, this is not a scientific study to determine whether the paranormal exists; this is a challenge. Either you know what you can do, and you can demonstrate that you can do it, or you fail.

If Pavel knows he can only perform consistently at a rate of 28 out of 40, then he should not accept terms that require him to perform at a rate of 30 out of 40. In the end, though, this is not about how many of 'X' Pavel can do -- each challenge is primarily designed to rule out the possibility of performing claim "X" by random chance alone.

[Rodney]

I'm sorry, the difference between 1 in 900 and 1 in 537 is _not_ minor; not even close. It is, in fact, approaching double the chance of success.
It depends whether you're talking about relative or absolute odds. In relative terms, I have a vastly greater chance of being eaten by a shark than being struck by an asteroid, but that doesn't stop me from swimming in the ocean. Why? Because the absolute odds of being eaten by a shark are miniscule.

So your contention is that Pavel has a greater than 50% chance of failure in the test as designed if he has his claimed paranormal ability? Remember, that's what "odds are" means -- either he passes or he fails, and for your statement to be true, he would have to have a better than 50% chance of failure of the test even though he has the ability. If this is your contention, please show your math in detail.
If Pavel is correct that he averages 70% hits, the math couldn't be easier: In 40 trials he would be expected to average 28 hits, and his odds of getting 30 or more -- according to the binomial distribution -- would be 31%.

As has been repeated over and over to you, this is not a scientific study to determine whether the paranormal exists; this is a challenge. Either you know what you can do, and you can demonstrate that you can do it, or you fail.

If Pavel knows he can only perform consistently at a rate of 28 out of 40, then he should not accept terms that require him to perform at a rate of 30 out of 40.
And what happens if the JREF refuses to accept a protocol that allows him to average only 70%?

In the end, though, this is not about how many of 'X' Pavel can do -- each challenge is primarily designed to rule out the possibility of performing claim "X" by random chance alone.
I guess it would be quite a blow to the JREF if someone passed the preliminary test -- several folks here would probably have to be put on suicide watch. ;)

[Elvis666]

I guess it would be quite a blow to the JREF if someone passed the preliminary test -- several folks here would probably have to be put on suicide watch.

We wouldn't lose anyone to suicide, but we might to surprise,:D

[steenkh]

If someone passed the preliminary test, I would consider it a lucky hit. I have no idea how many claimants the JREF have tested over the years, but it is probably rather far from a thousand. However, the chance that somebody would pass through a lucky hit is not that impossible. Having once rolled two zeros twice with 10-sided dice in a game where it really mattered, I know the feeling of having used up a lifetime of luck, if such was possible. And just like with the preliminary test, nobody believed that everything was quite allright.

If the claimant would move on and take the prize money also, I would be a believer!

[Thabiguy]

I guess it would be quite a blow to the JREF if someone passed the preliminary test -- several folks here would probably have to be put on suicide watch.

I see you have trouble distinguishing between the words "probably" and "in my fantasies".

Randi's Personal FAQ states that "... a couple hundred have completed and failed the preliminaries." Assuming an average chance of a false positive in the preliminaries on the order of 1 in a thousand, someone having passed a preliminary test by now would be, statistically, utterly unremarkable.

[remirol]

It depends whether you're talking about relative or absolute odds. In relative terms, I have a vastly greater chance of being eaten by a shark than being struck by an asteroid, but that doesn't stop me from swimming in the ocean. Why? Because the absolute odds of being eaten by a shark are miniscule.

This is a false analogy, red herring, and evasion; the odds of being eaten by a shark are far, far lower than 1 in 900. Neither 1 in 900 nor 1 in 500 are particularly miniscule in the first place, and this does not change the fact that your proposed protocol gives the applicant a far greater chance of succeeding by luck alone.

If Pavel is correct that he averages 70% hits, the math couldn't be easier: In 40 trials he would be expected to average 28 hits, and his odds of getting 30 or more -- according to the binomial distribution -- would be 31%.

Then you can show that math in _detail_, right, not just handwaving some numbers out of nowhere? Perhaps you could pretend that I'm only facile in basic algebra.

And what happens if the JREF refuses to accept a protocol that allows him to average only 70%?

And what happens if Pavel wrongly accepts a protocol that requires him to perform above his capacity? This is a negotiation. Both parties are expected to act in their own best interest. If an impasse is reached, _then_ this question is appropriate for discussion, and not until then.

I guess it would be quite a blow to the JREF if someone passed the preliminary test -- several folks here would probably have to be put on suicide watch. ;)

Earth to Rodney -- most of us would be delighted if anyone even passed the _preliminary_ test. It would indicate that we might, indeed, be dealing with something real... and if nothing else, it would indicate that someone has found a new way to trick people that we hadn't thought of.

[Startz]

Originally Posted by Rodney
If Pavel is correct that he averages 70% hits, the math couldn't be easier: In 40 trials he would be expected to average 28 hits, and his odds of getting 30 or more -- according to the binomial distribution -- would be 31%.



Then you can show that math in _detail_, right, not just handwaving some numbers out of nowhere? Perhaps you could pretend that I'm only facile in basic algebra.


And what happens if Pavel wrongly accepts a protocol that requires him to perform above his capacity? This is a negotiation. Both parties are expected to act in their own best interest. If an impasse is reached, _then_ this question is appropriate for discussion, and not until then.


On the specific technical issue here, Rodney is right. Honestly, I don't remember the details of the math either. But here is a Matlab program that gives the result.

pp=betainc(.3,40-(30-1),30,'upper')
pp =
0.3087

You raise an interesting point about both sides negotiating "in their own best interest." Presumably, JREF's interest is in conducting a fair test. Primarily, they want to be sure the applicant neither cheats nor wins by luck. Past that, I hope JREF would do what it can to help an applicant demonstrate any paranormal skills he has.

[remirol]

On the specific technical issue here, Rodney is right. Honestly, I don't remember the details of the math either. But here is a Matlab program that gives the result.

pp=betainc(.3,40-(30-1),30,'upper')
pp =
0.3087

I have no experience with Matlab, and as such, I'm interested in the details of the math involved. The figure could well be correct, sure, but for things like this, it's best to nail everything down solidly.

You raise an interesting point about both sides negotiating "in their own best interest." Presumably, JREF's interest is in conducting a fair test.

An _unbiased_ test of _what the claimant claims to be able to do_, yes. If the claimant can only perform consistently at 28 out of 40, it is not in the claimant's best interest to accept protocols specifying 30 out of 40.

Primarily, they want to be sure the applicant neither cheats nor wins by luck.

Correct. The primary goal of the protocol design is to rule out, beyond a reasonable statistical doubt, that the applicant has successfully performed their claim by random chance alone. A secondary (call it "primary-A", really) goal of that design is to ensure that the applicant cannot 'cheat', and in fact can only succeed at the test if they do, in fact, possess the claimed ability.

Past that, I hope JREF would do what it can to help an applicant demonstrate any paranormal skills he has.

No. This is a challenge. Either the applicant can do what he says, or he cannot. The JREF should be considered an adversarial party who is only willing to accept hard results.

[drkitten]

Past that, I hope JREF would do what it can to help an applicant demonstrate any paranormal skills he has.

Why? Would you expect the JREF to cover the expenses that the applicant incurs, for example? If not, why not -- that's certainly something the JREF could do "to help an application demonstrate any paranormal skills." But that's not in the JREF's interest, nor will they do that.

If you consider it reasonable for it to conserve its financial resources, then you understand why it also wants to conserve its (much more valuable) time resources....

[IXP]

You raise an interesting point about both sides negotiating "in their own best interest." Presumably, JREF's interest is in conducting a fair test. Primarily, they want to be sure the applicant neither cheats nor wins by luck. Past that, I hope JREF would do what it can to help an applicant demonstrate any paranormal skills he has.
Indeed, this is very interesting point. We always focus on the probability of passing the test without having the stated ability, but never on the probability of passing if the claimant has the ability as stated. From the info on this thread, it looks like Pavel has less than a 1 in 3 chance of passing the proposed protocol even is he has the ability he has stated. If I were the claimant, I would not accept this. If JREF would not allow a test where I was more likely to pass, I would have a legitimate complaint. Nowhere in the rules does it state that the test must be completed in a given time. Here we have a claimant who can be tested in a reasonable amout of time, and yet the JREF seems to want to limit him to a test that he is not likely pass even it he performs the 70% accuracy that he claims.

I hate to say it, but I am beginning to see Rodney's point! Previously he as talked about tests (i.e. Ganzfeld or RNG) what would take an unreasonable amount of time to test, but now we have an example where the time is not unreasonable and the claimant is not being offered a fair test. Hopefully, the negotiations will continue until this is remedied.

IXP

[petre]

Yes, but it's a minor difference. The way the preliminary test is tentatively designed for Pavel, the odds are he will fail even if he has a paranormal ability. Is that the design you want?

It is unfortunate that Pavel's described ability is barely discernable from random chance. One hopes that he will work to find a way to demonstrate it conclusively in a reasonable timeframe. I try to support him in this every chance I get.

So far you've suggested adding the possiblity of an extra test on an additional day if Pavel is close on the first test. If an extra day of testing is available, one could simply increase the number of trials to both allow for Pavel's estimated margin of success and still maintain the total by-chance success chance at the desired 1:1000. This could even be done with a little easier per-day work than the current proposed test.

Since the results of each trial will be known at the completion of each, it is possible that after the first day Pavel's performance will be so poor that even perfect performance on the second day will prove insufficient to pass the preliminary test. The number of trials completed in the first day could be kept the same (remember I had suggested it could be reduced because of the extra day) to increase the chance of such culling if chance-only performance is expected.

This would give exactly the functionality you were looking for (retest given if performance is close) without changing the general format of the test. In the current format it would be something like 29 out of 40 means success, 28 out of 40 means he comes back another day to try for 1 out of 3, 27 out of 40 means on the extra day he'll need to get 2 out of 3, and 26 out of 40 means he still gets to come back for the extra test but will have to perform 3 out of 3 that day. I'll admit that I didn't spend the time to calculate out the odds, but I think that's pretty close to numbers that would work. Obviously you could increase the portion of trials performed on the second day, but that will increase the odds of requireing it.

All this requires only that JREF is willing to extend their general testing time guideline from 1 testing day to 2. Therefore your suggestion boils down to, "I think it is reasonable that some tests may require two days instead of limiting all of them to 1 day." I suppose we can add in "I think 1 in 537 is every bit as reasonable a threshold for chance performance as 1 in 1000." I have my doubts the JREF would agree with you on either point, but there you are.

[fls]

Indeed, this is very interesting point. We always focus on the probability of passing the test without having the stated ability, but never on the probability of passing if the claimant has the ability as stated.

I have discussed this on numerous occasions.

I hate to say it, but I am beginning to see Rodney's point!

This point has always been relevant to challenge discussions.

Previously he as talked about tests (i.e. Ganzfeld or RNG) what would take an unreasonable amount of time to test, but now we have an example where the time is not unreasonable and the claimant is not being offered a fair test. Hopefully, the negotiations will continue until this is remedied.

IXP

Damn. Does this mean I actually have to read through the challenge thread?

Linda

[EHocking]

...Here we have a claimant who can be tested in a reasonable amout of time, and yet the JREF seems to want to limit him to a test that he is not likely pass even it he performs the 70% accuracy that he claims.

I hate to say it, but I am beginning to see Rodney's point! Previously he as talked about tests (i.e. Ganzfeld or RNG) what would take an unreasonable amount of time to test, but now we have an example where the time is not unreasonable and the claimant is not being offered a fair test. Hopefully, the negotiations will continue until this is remedied.

IXPA fair test is one thing, but demonstrating a phenomenon greater than random chance is another.

Pavel claims 70% success.
From the http://www.automeasure.com/chance.html tables I quoted above, if he were to pick 1 card from 3 correctly, 70% percent of the time from 10 picks (trials), this is still in the bounds of random chance at 1:100 odds.

So the test is fair, and he achieves what he says he can, but he has NOT demonstrated that such a skill is anything remarkable.

I think this is what is bogging down here. I've followed Pavel's attempts at working a protocol. It is obvious he doesn't have a good grip on probability. That is not a criticism of him at all. In fact it is quite common. He has then tried in good faith to adapt to demands of a more "impressive" demonstration which, I agree, he should not have gone down because it now has emerged that he is trying to demonstrate something that he doesn't claim to be able to do.

But that's the point of the Challenge.

To demonstrate that your talent produces results significantly greater that random chance.

The fact is that his skill can not do this, and he has acknowledged that in a number of semi-blind trials he has attempted during discussions in other threads with him.

There is little point in putting together a protocol that merely demonstrates an ability to guess at the level of random chance.
It is to demonstrate a paranormal ability, not a normal one.

[Rodney]

I have no experience with Matlab, and as such, I'm interested in the details of the math involved. The figure could well be correct, sure, but for things like this, it's best to nail everything down solidly.

See http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/binomialX.html. Method 1 there is applicable, so the formula for determining exactly 30 hits in 40 trials with a P of .7 is: 40!/(30! * 10!) * .7^30 * .3^10. That works out to be about 11%, but then you have to add to it the probability of obtaining exactly 31 hits, 32 hits, etc., which brings the total to about 31%. Fortunately, the above website makes it easy by allowing you to type in the values and obtaining the answer for 30 or more hits. Just type 40 under "n", 30 under "k", and 0.7 under "p". Then click on "calculate" and you will see the result displayed below under "P: 30 or more out of 40" for "Method 1. exact binomial calculation."

[remirol]

See http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/binomialX.html. Method 1 there is applicable, so the formula for determining exactly 30 hits in 40 trials with a P of .7 is: 40!/(30! * 10!) * .7^30 * .3^10. That works out to be about 11%, but then you have to add to it the probability of obtaining exactly 31 hits, 32 hits, etc., which brings the total to about 31%. Fortunately, the above website makes it easy by allowing you to type in the values and obtaining the answer for 30 or more hits. Just type 40 under "n", 30 under "k", and 0.7 under "p". Then click on "calculate" and you will see the result displayed below under "P: 30 or more out of 40" for "Method 1. exact binomial calculation."

Rodney, I'm asking _you_ to explain it, and ideally in layman's terms, not citing arcane mathematics, nor using an alternate automated tool.

Put another way, Pavel claims he can consistently (ie, 100%) perform at 28 out of 40. Why should the chances of him having a good day and picking 30 or more out of 40 suddenly drop to 30%? He only has to get two more right, and given that the baseline is 100% at 28, ... see where I'm coming from?

Also, you appear to have neglected all the salient points to the topic of interest, and are instead focusing a great deal of effort on something which, even if you _are_ correct, is dismissed with the phrase "Pavel should not accept protocols which require him to perform beyond his claimed capabilities", and even the JREF will tell Pavel that -- they are not interested in testing someone and having that person have a prepared position ready to fall back to when they fail. They wish it to be as clear as possible that "You claimed X, you actually can only do Y, you fail, no excuses."

Do you have any thoughts on the rest of the points raised?

[steenkh]

I hate to say it, but I am beginning to see Rodney's point!
I certainly do not! If Pavel signs the protocol that he can do 30 out of 40, then 30 is the number he claims, not 29, and everything below 30 is a failure.

As we can see from Patricia Putt's protocol (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3969282&postcount=5), the claimant will be required to sign a statement like this one:
I, the undersigned, agree to all terms and conditions listed in this document outlining the protocol for my preliminary test in the James Randi Educational Foundation’s One Million Dollar Challenge. I agree that the protocol outline describes a fair test of my claimed ability.
Pavel will presumably have to sign the same clause, so he should be very careful in stating exactly what he thinks he can do. Rodney's idea that the test criteria should be lowered successively until Pavel succeeds by luck is totally unfair!

[IXP]

A fair test is one thing, but demonstrating a phenomenon greater than random chance is another.

Pavel claims 70% success.
From the http://www.automeasure.com/chance.html tables I quoted above, if he were to pick 1 card from 3 correctly, 70% percent of the time from 10 picks (trials), this is still in the bounds of random chance at 1:100 odds.

So the test is fair, and he achieves what he says he can, but he has NOT demonstrated that such a skill is anything remarkable.

I think this is what is bogging down here. I've followed Pavel's attempts at working a protocol. It is obvious he doesn't have a good grip on probability. That is not a criticism of him at all. In fact it is quite common. He has then tried in good faith to adapt to demands of a more "impressive" demonstration which, I agree, he should not have gone down because it now has emerged that he is trying to demonstrate something that he doesn't claim to be able to do.

But that's the point of the Challenge.

To demonstrate that your talent produces results significantly greater that random chance.

The fact is that his skill can not do this, and he has acknowledged that in a number of semi-blind trials he has attempted during discussions in other threads with him.

There is little point in putting together a protocol that merely demonstrates an ability to guess at the level of random chance.
It is to demonstrate a paranormal ability, not a normal one.
See the bolded part. This is just plain false. If Pavel can get it correct 70% of the time, then a test with sufficient trials can both give him a fair chance of succeeding (assuming he has the ability) and a sufficiently low probabilty of succeeding without having the ability.

For example, A set of 100 trials with success defined by 66 or more correct would give us:

0.83714 chance of succeeding if he can identify the picture 70% of the time.
0.00089 chance of succeeding if can only identify the picture 50% of the time.

IXP

[IXP]

I hate to say it, but I am beginning to see Rodney's point! Previously he as talked about tests (i.e. Ganzfeld or RNG) what would take an unreasonable amount of time to test, but now we have an example where the time is not unreasonable and the claimant is not being offered a fair test. Hopefully, the negotiations will continue until this is remedied.
IXP
I take back this part of my post. I looked back through the negotiation thread, and it is Pavel who suggested the test that required more than his claimed ability! I thought it was JREF.

Pavel: You should consider your chances of passing at your 70% accuracy figure when deciding on a protocol, not just the JREF's 1000:1 criterion. You can calculate these on the binomial calculator already linked.

IXP

[Thabiguy]

This would give exactly the functionality you were looking for (retest given if performance is close) without changing the general format of the test. In the current format it would be something like 29 out of 40 means success, 28 out of 40 means he comes back another day to try for 1 out of 3, 27 out of 40 means on the extra day he'll need to get 2 out of 3, and 26 out of 40 means he still gets to come back for the extra test but will have to perform 3 out of 3 that day. I'll admit that I didn't spend the time to calculate out the odds, but I think that's pretty close to numbers that would work.

The probability of passing the test that you have just described, by random chance, is about 1 in 63.

[petre]

The probability of passing the test that you have just described, by random chance, is about 1 in 63.

A lot closer to 1 in 64 now that I take a moment, but that was still quite a bit further off than I'd hoped. This test does have to extend rather far to meet both criteria it seems. Has to go all the way to 46 out of 66 to achieve 1:1000 odds at 70% performance. With only fitting 40 tests in a day, no way to ensure total success by the end of the first day I'm affraid.

Still doable in two days though, so I can at least validate my point that if an extra day is deemed reasonable it is possible to satisfy the requirements of Pavel's success claim and the JREF demand of performance-over-chance.

[tsig]

I see you have trouble distinguishing between the words "probably" and "in my fantasies".

Randi's Personal FAQ states that "... a couple hundred have completed and failed the preliminaries." Assuming an average chance of a false positive in the preliminaries on the order of 1 in a thousand, someone having passed a preliminary test by now would be, statistically, utterly unremarkable.

I have an idea of how to get the million. We get a 10,000 people to take the test using the exact same procedure. One of the ten left standing might have a shot.

[tsig]

Why? Would you expect the JREF to cover the expenses that the applicant incurs, for example? If not, why not -- that's certainly something the JREF could do "to help an application demonstrate any paranormal skills." But that's not in the JREF's interest, nor will they do that.

If you consider it reasonable for it to conserve its financial resources, then you understand why it also wants to conserve its (much more valuable) time

resources....

If JREF covered expenses then my claim can only be demonstrated with a $10,000 bankroll at the Dunes. I prefer the luxury suite for the night.

[Startz]

Much of the discussion in this thread could apply to many challenges, but some is specific to Pavel's protocol. In that regard it may be worth remembering that Pavel submitted a protocol that:

1) Met the 1 in 1,000 standard.
2) Checked through many cards, reducing the probability of a false negative.
3) Could be conducted in one session in one afternoon.

JREF rejected it.

[steenkh]

Much of the discussion in this thread could apply to many challenges, but some is specific to Pavel's protocol. In that regard it may be worth remembering that Pavel submitted a protocol that:

1) Met the 1 in 1,000 standard.
2) Checked through many cards, reducing the probability of a false negative.
3) Could be conducted in one session in one afternoon.

JREF rejected it.
Which protocol was that, and what was the reason for the rejection?

[Thabiguy]

A lot closer to 1 in 64 now that I take a moment...

Well, not that it would really matter, but are you sure? I recalculated it again and got the same result again, 1 in 63.41255...etc. I mean, maybe it's me who's making a mistake somewhere, and in that case I'd rather find out.

I have an idea of how to get the million. We get a 10,000 people to take the test using the exact same procedure. One of the ten left standing might have a shot.

This form of cheating (just trying your luck) has always been available. When JREF is free to adjust their odds requirements according to the number of applicants, the risk is reasonably mitigated. With Rodney's propositions such as "you should set a fixed odds standard" and "you could as well make it 1 in 537, the difference is minor", your scenario could be theoretically carried out, and you would have a 1 in 29 chance of getting the million.

Of course, now that there are less than a thousand days left in the challenge, the point is mostly moot.

[EHocking]

See the bolded part. This is just plain false. If Pavel can get it correct 70% of the time, then a test with sufficient trials can both give him a fair chance of succeeding (assuming he has the ability) and a sufficiently low probabilty of succeeding without having the ability.

For example, A set of 100 trials with success defined by 66 or more correct would give us:

0.83714 chance of succeeding if he can identify the picture 70% of the time.
0.00089 chance of succeeding if can only identify the picture 50% of the time.

IXPI agree - my statement was referring only to the case that I quoted - 10 trials, chosing 1 from 3 test objects at a time. Indeed it would only require 30 trials at odds of 1:1000 for him to win with a 70% success rate.

The problem is, that he says he can't consistently reach a 70% success rate. So even his 70% success rate isn't.

[Rodney]

Rodney, I'm asking _you_ to explain it, and ideally in layman's terms, not citing arcane mathematics, nor using an alternate automated tool.

Put another way, Pavel claims he can consistently (ie, 100%) perform at 28 out of 40. Why should the chances of him having a good day and picking 30 or more out of 40 suddenly drop to 30%? He only has to get two more right, and given that the baseline is 100% at 28, ... see where I'm coming from?
What you're missing is that, if Pavel averages 70% hits, he has only a 58% (not a 100%) chance of getting 28 or more hits in 40 trials. So, even if 28 was the passing grade, Pavel still might well fail, but at least he would have a better than even chance of passing. However, with a 70% average hit rate, the odds of getting 29 or more hits is 44% and the odds of getting 30 or more hits is 31%, which makes his chances of passing less than even.

Also, you appear to have neglected all the salient points to the topic of interest, and are instead focusing a great deal of effort on something which, even if you _are_ correct, is dismissed with the phrase "Pavel should not accept protocols which require him to perform beyond his claimed capabilities", and even the JREF will tell Pavel that -- they are not interested in testing someone and having that person have a prepared position ready to fall back to when they fail. They wish it to be as clear as possible that "You claimed X, you actually can only do Y, you fail, no excuses."

Do you have any thoughts on the rest of the points raised?
The fundamental point that most here are missing is that the preliminary test should not be so rigid as to eliminate applicants who actually do have a paranormal ability.

[Rodney]

With Rodney's propositions such as "you should set a fixed odds standard" and "you could as well make it 1 in 537, the difference is minor", your scenario could be theoretically carried out, and you would have a 1 in 29 chance of getting the million.
How did you arrive at the 1 in 29 chance?

[petre]

Well, not that it would really matter, but are you sure? I recalculated it again and got the same result again, 1 in 63.41255...etc. I mean, maybe it's me who's making a mistake somewhere, and in that case I'd rather find out.


Nope, I get your number when I do it now. I might have grabbed the estimated value rather than the exact value by mistake.

Either way I was still way off :) I always forget how harshly small changes rip odds around on coinflips.

[petre]

The fundamental point that most here are missing is that the preliminary test should not be so rigid as to eliminate applicants who actually do have a paranormal ability.

Does this mean you are opposed to any time constraint at all, or that you feel a single day of testing is too limiting? The JREF normally depends on volunteers to carry out the actual tests, and requesting weeks or months of their time would make it difficult to find willing parties.

[Thabiguy]

How did you arrive at the 1 in 29 chance?

This would be assuming that the final test uses the same protocol as the preliminary, which was mentioned by someone as the current plan (twice 1:1,000 for a combined 1:1,000,000). Succeeding twice in a row in something with a chance of 1 in 537, given 10,000 attempts, has odds of about 1 in 29.

Should the final test use a different protocol, the chance of course cannot be calculated without specifying that protocol.

[Rodney]

Does this mean you are opposed to any time constraint at all, or that you feel a single day of testing is too limiting? The JREF normally depends on volunteers to carry out the actual tests, and requesting weeks or months of their time would make it difficult to find willing parties.
I think most testing can be carried out in a single day, but contingencies should be specified. For example, if Pavel were to obtain 26-29 hits in the initial 40 trials, I think the testing should be continued either that same day or in the near future. Bear in mind that the odds of obtaining between 26-29 hits by luck is only about 4%. So, if Pavel really doesn't have a paranormal ability, the volunteers won't likely have to put in any overtime.

[Rodney]

This would be assuming that the final test uses the same protocol as the preliminary, which was mentioned by someone as the current plan (twice 1:1,000 for a combined 1:1,000,000). Succeeding twice in a row in something with a chance of 1 in 537, given 10,000 attempts, has odds of about 1 in 29.

Should the final test use a different protocol, the chance of course cannot be calculated without specifying that protocol.
Even I don't think the million dollar should be given away that easily. I was under the impression that the odds standard for the final test would be much higher -- on the order of 1 in a million.

[Moochie]

<snip>

The fundamental point that most here are missing is that the preliminary test should not be so rigid as to eliminate applicants who actually do have a paranormal ability.

But how would you know the ability was "paranormal" and not chance? Why can't Pavel (or any claimant) publicly perform what you're suggesting before taking up the JREF's time? Don't you think he would be raking in the dosh if he actually had the claimed ability?

As remirol has alread pointed out:

... this is not a scientific study to determine whether the paranormal exists; this is a challenge. Either you know what you can do, and you can demonstrate that you can do it, or you fail.
M.

[Garrette]

The fundamental point that most here are missing is that the preliminary test should not be so rigid as to eliminate applicants who actually do have a paranormal ability.To restate what others have repeatedly pointed out: The fundamental point that you are missing is that the JREF MDC is not designed to ferret out paranormal ability wherever it might exist, nor is it intended as a resource for individuals who think they might have a paranormal ability but who aren't sure or haven't refined it yet to conduct further research into their own ability. It is a challenge to demonstrate what you claim to be able to do. A prerequisite is that you actually know what you claim to be able to do.

[pavel_do]

But how would you know the ability was "paranormal" and not chance? Why can't Pavel (or any claimant) publicly perform what you're suggesting before taking up the JREF's time?


M.

I have to brake my silence here...:)
Where and when?:) I am ready..:) If any one interested please let me know:).

[Rodney]

But how would you know the ability was "paranormal" and not chance? Why can't Pavel (or any claimant) publicly perform what you're suggesting before taking up the JREF's time? Don't you think he would be raking in the dosh if he actually had the claimed ability?
Not necessarily. If, indeed, Pavel can perform at a 70% hit rate where 50% would be expected by chance, that wouldn't be much of a nightclub act.