Ganzfeld million dollar challange? [Archive]

Rodney

21st January 2009, 05:29 PM

After you read those threads and still have the same question with the need for a definite and official answer, you could ask [email]challenge@randi.org/email]
You suggested the same thing to me last May. So I sent the following e-mail to challenge@randi.org on May 10, 2008:

"I recently initiated the following thread on the Million Dollar
Challenge Forum -- http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3692318#post3692318

"What I argue on that 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.
Therefore, I recommend that something along the lines of the following
be added to the Challenge Rules:

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

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

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

"If you wish, you may respond to these questions on the above thread."

More than eight months later, still no response.

William Smith

21st January 2009, 10:29 PM

You suggested the same thing to me last May. So I sent the following e-mail to challenge@randi.org on May 10, 2008:

"I recently initiated the following thread on the Million Dollar
Challenge Forum -- http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3692318#post3692318

"What I argue on that 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.
Therefore, I recommend that something along the lines of the following
be added to the Challenge Rules:
...
More than eight months later, still no response.

The first thing I would suggest: Send it again. If the matter is really serious to you, send a registered letter.

But the highlighted part of your quote poses a problem: [...]All applicants must agree to the rules set forth herein before any formal agreement can be entered into. Completing this form is mandatory; there are no exceptions to this rule.[...] (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html) (Second paragraph, line 3.)

And: Please scroll down to 2.6, (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-faq.html)

You want a rule to be changed and demand for an odds standard without even making a specific claim.

At the very least, it implies you have not understood the rules. Therefore, I can very well understand why the JREF does not respond to your inquiry.

Rodney

22nd January 2009, 07:47 AM

The first thing I would suggest: Send it again. If the matter is really serious to you, send a registered letter.

But the highlighted part of your quote poses a problem: [...]All applicants must agree to the rules set forth herein before any formal agreement can be entered into. Completing this form is mandatory; there are no exceptions to this rule.[...] (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html) (Second paragraph, line 3.)

And: Please scroll down to 2.6, (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-faq.html)

You want a rule to be changed and demand for an odds standard without even making a specific claim.

At the very least, it implies you have not understood the rules. Therefore, I can very well understand why the JREF does not respond to your inquiry.
I guess even a brief response would be too much of an effort on the JREF's part. Better to create the impression that the fact that no one has passed the preliminary challenge means that there is no such thing as the paranormal.

William Smith

22nd January 2009, 10:21 PM

I guess even a brief response would be too much of an effort on the JREF's part. Better to create the impression that the fact that no one has passed the preliminary challenge means that there is no such thing as the paranormal.

It might seem to you that way.

To me - and likely to a majority of forumites here - it seems that:

1. You made no specific claim
2. You wanted to have the rules changes for you.

That's a double no-no. It seems your actions have disqualified yourself.

Obviously, you could easily solve this problem by making a specific claim, proposing a protocol, applying properly and of course not insisting on a rule change.

pavel_do

23rd January 2009, 06:28 PM

Czarcasm

23rd January 2009, 09:15 PM

:cheerleader4 BRAVO! Couldn't be said better!
:rolleyes:Moderators, if they hand it to you gift-wrapped on a silver platter, do you still have to play nice?

pavel_do

24th January 2009, 04:02 AM

Moderators, if they hand it to you gift-wrapped on a silver platter, do you still have to play nice?

YES, every person has to be respected for what ever his way of thinking and opinion he might have, as long as He/she respect the others and not harming any one. Some time all the argument is as simple as.. People misunderstanding each other and one part trying to he it clear and th other one not bothered to cler it up, thinking the it always right and cant be wrong:)

Uncayimmy

24th January 2009, 01:26 PM

It might seem to you that way.

To me - and likely to a majority of forumites here - it seems that:

1. You made no specific claim
2. You wanted to have the rules changes for you.

That's a double no-no. It seems your actions have disqualified yourself.

Obviously, you could easily solve this problem by making a specific claim, proposing a protocol, applying properly and of course not insisting on a rule change.

I see both sides here. As you point out, the rules and the FAQ make it pretty clear what the answer is to his question/proposal. On the other hand it can be frustrating not to get a direct answer to a written inquiry. But back on the first hand how important is it to answer something you already answered in the FAQ? Then again, it's not very educational to ignore someone, so surely someone could have found 10 minutes to address the question in writing. But who knows how busy they are or if something just slipped through the cracks?

Maybe the question is really a "why" question as in why won't the JREF put acceptable odds in the MDC? I'll take a crack at answering that, but my answer would be why *I* would not do it.

In every negotiation, and the MDC process is a negotiation starting with the offer by the JREF, you don't pin yourself down to anything you don't have to. There is no advantage to the JREF defining an accuracy level without also defining everything else around it. Doing so could easily put them in a corner and force them into an unfair protocol.

If the JREF were to take the extraordinary step of defining accuracy along with a protocol to ensure they are not being taken advantage of, it ceases to be an open challenge and becomes at least in part a specific challenge. That's really not the goal.

It would also force a take it or leave it approach. That is the antithesis of the rest of the rules, which demand an open and fair negotiation of both the protocol and the accuracy level. If the JREF were to then allow negotiation of their prescribed protocol, then negotiation about the accuracy must follow in kind.

And that, of course, would bring us right back to where we are now, so why waste the effort?

Rodney

24th January 2009, 05:18 PM

I see both sides here. As you point out, the rules and the FAQ make it pretty clear what the answer is to his question/proposal.
Then please enlighten me, at least as to the second issue: Are all protocols, including time-consuming ones such as Ganzfeld experiments, eligible for the Challenge?

William Smith

24th January 2009, 06:34 PM

Then please enlighten me, at least as to the second issue: Are all protocols, including time-consuming ones such as Ganzfeld experiments, eligible for the Challenge?

Perhaps if you would apply with a specific claim - or at least direct one more polite inquiry the JREFs way - you might get an official (read: valid) answer.

William Smith

24th January 2009, 06:39 PM

I see both sides here. As you point out, the rules and the FAQ make it pretty clear what the answer is to his question/proposal. On the other hand it can be frustrating not to get a direct answer to a written inquiry. But back on the first hand how important is it to answer something you already answered in the FAQ? Then again, it's not very educational to ignore someone, so surely someone could have found 10 minutes to address the question in writing. But who knows how busy they are or if something just slipped through the cracks?

Maybe the question is really a "why" question as in why won't the JREF put acceptable odds in the MDC? I'll take a crack at answering that, but my answer would be why *I* would not do it.

In every negotiation, and the MDC process is a negotiation starting with the offer by the JREF, you don't pin yourself down to anything you don't have to. There is no advantage to the JREF defining an accuracy level without also defining everything else around it. Doing so could easily put them in a corner and force them into an unfair protocol.

If the JREF were to take the extraordinary step of defining accuracy along with a protocol to ensure they are not being taken advantage of, it ceases to be an open challenge and becomes at least in part a specific challenge. That's really not the goal.

It would also force a take it or leave it approach. That is the antithesis of the rest of the rules, which demand an open and fair negotiation of both the protocol and the accuracy level. If the JREF were to then allow negotiation of their prescribed protocol, then negotiation about the accuracy must follow in kind.

And that, of course, would bring us right back to where we are now, so why waste the effort?

It boils down to this - and this has been said dozens of times before in this subforum: Doing what you claim to be able to do requires no odds.

It.
Requires.
You.
To.
Do.
What.
You.
Claim.
To.
Be.
Able.
To.
Do.

William Smith

24th January 2009, 07:05 PM

I guess even a brief response would be too much of an effort on the JREF's part. Better to create the impression that the fact that no one has passed the preliminary challenge means that there is no such thing as the paranormal.

Rodney, do you understand that it is useless for a would-be applicant to ask for a rule to be changed?

Do you understand that wanting a rule to be changed demonstrates a firm - and very likely deliberate - misunderstanding of the Challenge Rules, and hence provokes an inquiry to be ignored?

Rodney

24th January 2009, 07:09 PM

Perhaps if you would apply with a specific claim - or at least direct one more polite inquiry the JREFs way - you might get an official (read: valid) answer.
Why would the second time be more productive than the first? And why can't you or Unca Yimmy answer my very simple question about a Ganzfeld protocol? He claims that "the rules and the FAQ make it pretty clear what the answer is to his question/proposal." Somehow, though, I can't seem to discern this "pretty clear" answer from either the rules or FAQ, which is why I asked the question.

William Smith

24th January 2009, 07:11 PM

Why would the second time be more productive than the first? And why can't you or Unca Yimmy answer my very simple question about a Ganzfeld protocol? He claims that "the rules and the FAQ make it pretty clear what the answer is to his question/proposal." Somehow, though, I can't seem to discern this "pretty clear" answer from either the rules or FAQ, which is why I asked the question.

Only JREF Staff can give official answers.

Rodney

24th January 2009, 07:34 PM

Only JREF Staff can give official answers.
And the fact that they have not more than eight months down the road from my inquiry should tell you something.

andy2001

24th January 2009, 08:18 PM

Would it be possible to at least clarify if the preliminary test odds of say one in a thousand are carried over to the main test or does the main test start from scratch?

Uncayimmy

25th January 2009, 12:11 AM

It boils down to this - and this has been said dozens of times before in this subforum: Doing what you claim to be able to do requires no odds.

It.
Requires.
You.
To.
Do.
What.
You.
Claim.
To.
Be.
Able.
To.
Do.

I disagree that it's that simple.
Claim: I can predict the outcome of a roll of a die.
Valid? No. Anybody can do that. Most only get it right one of out six times.

Claim: I can predict the outcome of a roll of a die with 90% accuracy.
Valid: Sounds paranormal to me. But how do we define 90%? 10 trials? 25? 100?

Now, you might argue that if I can predict something, why can't I do it 100% of the time. Well, GzuzKryzt, I can't even chew my food without biting my tongue or swallowing "wrong" every now and then. I have been reading for the majority of my 42 years, but just today I put in the "Bedtime Baby Signs" DVD when I intended to put in "Bath Time Baby Signs." I've been playing electric bass for 25 years, but not a gig goes by where I don't have a flub in some song I've played a few hundred times.

There are many ordinary skills that are not 100% reliable. Even Rick Berry missed free throws on a regular basis. So, how can any of the skills I mentioned be validated without some consideration of the odds?

Uncayimmy

25th January 2009, 12:33 AM

Would it be possible to at least clarify if the preliminary test odds of say one in a thousand are carried over to the main test or does the main test start from scratch?

From the Challenge FAQ (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-faq.html):

The protocol itself will not be changed, and neither will any of the documents you and the JREF have agreed upon. The final test may be longer, or require more conclusive results through more sets of the test to ensure that the preliminary test was not a fluke.

Uncayimmy

25th January 2009, 01:13 AM

Why would the second time be more productive than the first?

Funny, you don't seem to have any trouble asking the same questions here more than once. Letters get lost in the mail. Sometimes they get lost in the office. Sometimes people just forget.

And why can't you or Unca Yimmy answer my very simple question about a Ganzfeld protocol?

Do you understand that:

The applicant must first make a paranormal claim? Yes/No

Protocols are negotiated between the JREF and the applicant? Yes/No

You have not stated a claim? Yes/No

Without a claim, there is no protocol? Yes/No

You referred to "a" Ganzfeld protocol which correctly implies that there is no single specific protocol for anyone to even examine? Yes/No

The JREF is under no obligation to respond to a vague inquiry that does not include a specific claim or a specific protocol? Yes/No

I don't represent the JREF? Yes/No

Do you understand why no definitive answer can be forthcoming?

I have a general answer for you. The basic concept of isolating a couple of people and asking the two of them to best judge which out of four images was being "transmitted" is not irreparably flawed, but it's certainly a pain in the ass. The Zener cards are much more practical.

Taking 30 minutes per trial is impractical for a 1:4 guess. It would require an enormous amount of time to arrive at a statistically significant number. Now, if the guess were 1:1000, it might be doable in an afternoon.

Furthermore, the reported best results were getting it right 35% of the time instead of the expected 25%. That small of a difference could easily be explained by a flaw in my methodology/protocol. My ego is not so big that I think I could design any test where I would risk a million dollars that I didn't make some tiny mistake that gave a slight edge to the applicant.

This, I think, is at the heart of your question. It's also why each protocol and accuracy conclusion must be negotiated individually. The more variables in the experiment, the greater the risk of missing something, which in turn leads to a requirements for accuracy that must be safely beyond the boundaries where experimental error could be an explanation.

If you want to discuss Ganzfeld further, take it up in the General Skepticism forum. I'll be glad to engage you there. I think I have pretty much covered in a general, non-official sense why it's probably not a good candidate for a challenge. Of course, Honorton could certainly start an application himself. That would answer the question definitively.

William Smith

25th January 2009, 04:07 AM

...
Claim: I can predict the outcome of a roll of a die with 90% accuracy.
Valid: Sounds paranormal to me. But how do we define 90%? 10 trials? 25? 100?
...

Now we are getting somewhere, since you made a specific claim.

Either 10 or googol rolls of a die: 90% remains 90%, right?

We would set a sample size of rolls big enough to eliminate a false positive and reduce the possibility of pure chance to an acceptable minimum - how about 20 rolls and the need for 18+ to be correct? - and then we'd have a basic outline of a protocol.

fls

25th January 2009, 04:46 AM

Of course, Honorton could certainly start an application himself. That would answer the question definitively.

I think that if Honorton could start an application himself, that would certainly satisfy the Million Dollar Challenge. ;)
He's dead.

Linda

Uncayimmy

25th January 2009, 01:14 PM

I think that if Honorton could start an application himself, that would certainly satisfy the Million Dollar Challenge. ;)
He's dead.

Linda

How would that work? I should send the JREF a letter asking them how the dead can apply for the MDC. Seems to me that just the act of applying should be enough to win.

rjh01

25th January 2009, 05:39 PM

I can imagine the correspondence.
Applicant - I wish to apply for the MDC. Claim I am dead. Here is my death certificate. Here is evidence that I am the person named on the death certificate.
JREF - To what accuracy do you claim to be dead? How we do test for you still being dead?

Uncayimmy

25th January 2009, 07:10 PM

Now we are getting somewhere, since you made a specific claim.

Either 10 or googol rolls of a die: 90% remains 90%, right?

Since I have no idea what you mean by "getting somewhere" I have to answer no, 90% does not remain 90%. It fluctuates. Take 10 rolls. There's no guarantee that I am going to miss one, thus my 90% accuracy may appear as 100%. Likewise, I may miss two in the first 10, making my accuracy 80% after 10.

Along those same lines, a 90% accuracy rate will be represented by different values depending upon when you start counting and when you take a peek. Suppose out of 100 trials I missed the first five and last five. Do the math as to what my 90% accuracy rate would look like after each roll.

We would set a sample size of rolls big enough to eliminate a false positive and reduce the possibility of pure chance to an acceptable minimum - how about 20 rolls and the need for 18+ to be correct? - and then we'd have a basic outline of a protocol.

I don't want to play semantics, but that's not really a protocol. The protocol is all the steps involved in rolling the die, getting my answer, and seeing if I'm right. It's something else entirely to determine what level of accuracy is considered success and what level of *confidence* is required in that value.

The MDC FAQ says that more trials may be required in the final test if someone passes the preliminary test.

If you told me where you were heading, perhaps I could give better answers. Right now I have no idea what you're driving at.

Rodney

25th January 2009, 07:33 PM

If you want to discuss Ganzfeld further, take it up in the General Skepticism forum. I'll be glad to engage you there. I think I have pretty much covered in a general, non-official sense why it's probably not a good candidate for a challenge.
So why doesn't the JREF simply rule out Ganzfeld challenges?

Of course, Honorton could certainly start an application himself. That would answer the question definitively.
I can't disagree there. ;)

Uncayimmy

25th January 2009, 08:13 PM

So why doesn't the JREF simply rule out Ganzfeld challenges?

I'm not the JREF. Are you asking me to speculate? If so, I'd say it's for the same reasons that specifics about any type of challenge are not given in advance: There's no reason to.

Or maybe it's because Ganzfeld is not worthy of special treatment considering how poorly designed it was.

William Smith

25th January 2009, 10:25 PM

Since I have no idea what you mean by "getting somewhere" I have to answer no, 90% does not remain 90%. It fluctuates. ...

Ah, fluc-tu-ates.

You said 90% accuracy. Now is it 90% accuracy or not?

Uncayimmy

25th January 2009, 10:52 PM

Ah, fluc-tu-ates.

You said 90% accuracy. Now is it 90% accuracy or not?

You tell me. Here's a hypothetical run of 20 trials with a running percentage:

Trial Correct Accuracy
1 1 100%
2 0 50.0%
3 0 33.3%
4 1 50.0%
5 1 60.0%
6 1 66.7%
7 1 71.4%
8 1 75.0%
9 1 77.8%
10 1 80.0%
11 1 81.8%
12 1 83.3%
13 1 84.6%
14 1 85.7%
15 1 86.7%
16 1 87.5%
17 1 88.2%
18 1 88.9%
19 1 89.5%
20 1 90.0%

It looks like to me that my 90% accuracy rate was not revealed until the 20th trial. Thus, my statement that a 90% accuracy rate will exhibit fluctuations depending on when you look is accurate. Given enough trials (1,000, for example) it will be very close to 90% and remain there. Take any subset of the 1,000 trials and you will very likely see a number other than 90%. The smaller the subset, the greater the chances of seeing a number other than 90%.

I am not about to give you a lesson in statistics. I don't even know if you need one because I have no idea what point you're trying make other than trying to refute mine. My point is simple: There are many claims, paranormal and ordinary, that require statistical analysis.

If you have a point, please state it.

Cuddles

26th January 2009, 06:35 AM

Then please enlighten me, at least as to the second issue: Are all protocols, including time-consuming ones such as Ganzfeld experiments, eligible for the Challenge?

As already pointed out, the rules and FAQ are very clear on this - no. Several kinds of claim are refused out of hand. Anything potentially causing harm to anyone, for example. In addition, certain claims like cloud-busting will not even be considered (although some that are now excluded may have been looked at in the past).

I really don't understand why you keep asking this as if it's a difficult question that people are deliberately avoiding. No, not all claims will be considered elligible for the challenge. The only way to find out is either to refer to the rules and FAQ or, if your claim is not included there, apply for the challenge and find out.

However, as I've noted before, it seems very unlikely that the JREF would accept a Ganzfeld experiment for the MDC. The main reason, other than the length of time, is that there's a big difference between a challenge and doing research. Take homeopathy, for example. You could claim to be able to tell the difference between two apparently identical solutions or to demonstrate in a randomised controlled trial of thousands of patients that one works better than the other at curing cancer. The JREF will be interested in the former, but not the latter. It's the same for any paranormal claims. Claim to be able to read minds, lift objects with your mind or whatever and they'll be happy to test you. Claim to be able to conduct a study over several years that may show some anomalous results at the end and they really won't care, at least as far as the challenge is concerned.

Of course, as always only the JREF can give an absolute answer. However, since they're not in the habit of giving absolute answers to hypotheticals, I wouldn't worry about it until someone actually tries applying.

Rodney

26th January 2009, 07:58 AM

Of course, as always only the JREF can give an absolute answer. However, since they're not in the habit of giving absolute answers to hypotheticals, I wouldn't worry about it until someone actually tries applying.
Bear in mind that this thread was initiated by andy2001 asking: "Could Ganzfeld be used for the Randi challenge?" To which GzuzKryzt responded that, if andy2001 want a "definite and official answer", he could ask challenge@randi.org.

You now seem to be conceding that, if andy2001 does ask the JREF his question, he is not going to receive a response, any more than I did.

William Smith

26th January 2009, 09:05 AM

You tell me.
...

Is this a Monty Python skit?

I made my point, UncaYimmy. The applicant has to state what he can do.

Since the OP is only a hypothetical scenario, I couldn't care less. Perhaps it would help you if you browsed the Challenge Application subforum. There are many similar claims and hence many similar JREF proposals.

Bindamel

26th January 2009, 11:02 AM

I disagree that it's that simple.
Claim: I can predict the outcome of a roll of a die.
Valid? No. Anybody can do that. Most only get it right one of out six times.

Claim: I can predict the outcome of a roll of a die with 90% accuracy.
Valid: Sounds paranormal to me. But how do we define 90%? 10 trials? 25? 100?

You tell me. Here's a hypothetical run of 20 trials with a running percentage:

Trial Correct Accuracy
1 1 100%
2 0 50.0%
3 0 33.3%
4 1 50.0%
5 1 60.0%
6 1 66.7%
7 1 71.4%
8 1 75.0%
9 1 77.8%
10 1 80.0%
11 1 81.8%
12 1 83.3%
13 1 84.6%
14 1 85.7%
15 1 86.7%
16 1 87.5%
17 1 88.2%
18 1 88.9%
19 1 89.5%
20 1 90.0%

It looks like to me that my 90% accuracy rate was not revealed until the 20th trial. Thus, my statement that a 90% accuracy rate will exhibit fluctuations depending on when you look is accurate. Given enough trials (1,000, for example) it will be very close to 90% and remain there. Take any subset of the 1,000 trials and you will very likely see a number other than 90%. The smaller the subset, the greater the chances of seeing a number other than 90%.

Now this is probably more a result of a poor choice of example than anything, but I thought I'd clarify this.

My understanding is that the JREF's intent in setting successes/trials is to come up with a protocol where the likelihood of succeeding by chance in the preliminary trial is about 1/1000. For dice rolls, which carry a 1/6 individual probability, 1/1000 is 10 out of 20 trials, not 18.

A challenge applicant should be concerned with reducing the likelihood that he will fail purely by chance, given his ability. Increasing the sample size, while maintaing the 1/1000 chance success rate, decreases the likelihood that the claimant will fail by chance. In this particular case, if the claim is 90%, the odds of him failing 11 times out of 20 is less than one in a million.

At this point, we fall back into an argument that's been made here before, and seems to be at the root of all this discussion: if you're paranormal ability varies only slightly from chance (or requires a complex set of conditions), should JREF be required to spend their time and effort to test you? Given that it's their challenge, no (I do not, of course, presume to speak for them).

At that point, you should instead be asking yourself, "How can I profit from my ability?"

Uncayimmy

26th January 2009, 01:19 PM

Now this is probably more a result of a poor choice of example than anything, but I thought I'd clarify this.

It wasn't a poor choice example at all. I chose it deliberately to demonstrate that performing "above chance" doesn't have to factor into it at all. Many claims are not 100%. Those that are not 100% will require some statistical analysis to determine a number of trials that will give sufficient confidence that someone is performing at their claimed percentage level.

Thus, to determine that I am performing at a 90% success rate one does not have to consider a 1:6 chance of getting it right by chance. One need only run sufficient trials to confirm 90% is correct. What are the odds of hitting a baseball going 85mph? I dunno. But if I say I can do it 40% of the time, we'll need to crunch some numbers to figure out how to validate that claim.

Where chance comes into play is determining whether a claim is paranormal or not. You'd better be able to kick chance's butt if you want it to be considered paranormal.

At this point, we fall back into an argument that's been made here before, and seems to be at the root of all this discussion: if you're paranormal ability varies only slightly from chance (or requires a complex set of conditions), should JREF be required to spend their time and effort to test you? Given that it's their challenge, no (I do not, of course, presume to speak for them).

I agree. I said as much already about Ganzfeld. I wouldn't put my money up in a bet where a minor mistake in protocol would be enough to make me lose.

At that point, you should instead be asking yourself, "How can I profit from my ability?"
Amen!

Rasmus

26th January 2009, 01:41 PM

It wasn't a poor choice example at all. I chose it deliberately to demonstrate that performing "above chance" doesn't have to factor into it at all. Many claims are not 100%. Those that are not 100% will require some statistical analysis to determine a number of trials that will give sufficient confidence that someone is performing at their claimed percentage level.

Thus, to determine that I am performing at a 90% success rate one does not have to consider a 1:6 chance of getting it right by chance. One need only run sufficient trials to confirm 90% is correct. What are the odds of hitting a baseball going 85mph? I dunno. But if I say I can do it 40% of the time, we'll need to crunch some numbers to figure out how to validate that claim.

Where chance comes into play is determining whether a claim is paranormal or not. You'd better be able to kick chance's butt if you want it to be considered paranormal

I agree. But none of that is a problem of the JREF. The applicant has to know what it is they can do and make an according claim.

For that, they ought to know with what kind of reliability or confidence they can expect from themselves.

But that is something at least slightly different from the JREF announcing how big the likelihood is that someone without the claimed ability could pass the test by chance.

There is no need for an honest applicant to care let alone worry about that!

If the ability is less than 100% reliable - and I would always expect that - it would still be trivial for someone to pass the test that has the ability.

I can read.

This can easily be tested. It would be close to trivial to define a protocol for it. Part of the protocol would be that there have to be so-and-so many different words, randomly selected from a dictionary, to ensure that I am really reading rather than just guessing words.

If I can read reasonably well and am worried about errors I can easily have a test that is both lenient enough to allow for the odd mistake of the testee and strict enough to make it nearly impossible to pass by chance alone.

The english language has several hundred thousand words - so my chances of guessing just one of them are pretty small to begin with. (Not accounting for clues like lenght, or a partial ability to read, etc.) So it would be near enough impossibly to correctly guess 5 or 10 words, especially if they are the same lenght and contain the same vowels, say.

If I was now worried about mistakes: No problem, we can just double the amount of words and allow me a single mistake or some such thing - whichever makes me feel confident.

It's not going ot be a problem, because I can read.

Uncayimmy

26th January 2009, 03:06 PM

It's not going ot be a problem, because I can read.

Right.

But if somebody is willing to put up a million bucks because he doesn't believe I can read when I know I can, then I am going to make triple-sure he's not trying to pull a fast one. I'm sure at least some of the sincerely mistaken and delusional are bright enough to at lest be wary of a trap.

This quote by you sums it up quite well: "If I can read reasonably well and am worried about errors I can easily have a test that is both lenient enough to allow for the odd mistake of the testee and strict enough to make it nearly impossible to pass by chance alone."

This seems to be at odds (pardon the pun) with the statement (not by you) to which I was responding: "Doing what you claim to be able to do requires no odds." Then again, I am reading "doing" as "proving" or "doing it to prove to others" rather than just "doing it in your basement."

For the record, I have no problems with the challenge as it is written. It's fair. I have no belief whatsoever that anybody is going to win the challenge because I don't believe the paranormal is real.

William Smith

26th January 2009, 03:22 PM

Now this is probably more a result of a poor choice of example than anything, but I thought I'd clarify this.

My understanding is that the JREF's intent in setting successes/trials is to come up with a protocol where the likelihood of succeeding by chance in the preliminary trial is about 1/1000. For dice rolls, which carry a 1/6 individual probability, 1/1000 is 10 out of 20 trials, not 18.

A challenge applicant should be concerned with reducing the likelihood that he will fail purely by chance, given his ability. Increasing the sample size, while maintaing the 1/1000 chance success rate, decreases the likelihood that the claimant will fail by chance. In this particular case, if the claim is 90%, the odds of him failing 11 times out of 20 is less than one in a million.

At this point, we fall back into an argument that's been made here before, and seems to be at the root of all this discussion: if you're paranormal ability varies only slightly from chance (or requires a complex set of conditions), should JREF be required to spend their time and effort to test you? Given that it's their challenge, no (I do not, of course, presume to speak for them).

At that point, you should instead be asking yourself, "How can I profit from my ability?"

Thanks, Bindamel.

And again we see: It all depends on the claim.

Uncayimmy

26th January 2009, 04:31 PM

And again we see: It all depends on the claim.

Hmm... I should have said, "each protocol and accuracy conclusion must be negotiated individually."

Oh. Wait a sec. I did say that.

Rasmus

27th January 2009, 05:19 AM

This seems to be at odds (pardon the pun) with the statement (not by you) to which I was responding: "Doing what you claim to be able to do requires no odds." Then again, I am reading "doing" as "proving" or "doing it to prove to others" rather than just "doing it in your basement."

Yes, it is "doing it to prove it to others", but at the end of the day, there would be no difference between that and what I do in my basement.

I think the difference here is between "odds" and "confidence" or "failure rate".

If I can do something then there is simply no need to concern myself with how small my chances would be of solving the take if I couldn't do that something.

Let us pick a slightly different example: A magician tries to tell you what card you selected from a normal deck of cards. (Yes, it's a trick and he's cheating but we'll ignore that for the sake of the example.)

What would be his chances of randomly getting the card right ten times in a row?

1.70801981 × 1016, or, in a word: Impossible.

But that wouldn't be a problem at all. We're talking about a magician who knows how the trick is performed. So his chances ought to be near enough 100%. Maybe he'll mess it up once in a while, so we'll give him 99%, or it's a really, really ,really bad magician and he'll only get it right half the time. The odds of getting only 5 cards right out of 10 would still be quite high. (My math fails me, I am getting a rough one in three million chance to get 5 cards right in a row, so any 5 out of 10 would be even better than that, I guess.)

Still, it wouldn't be a problem. An applicant wouldn't have to worry about his chances at all.

Now, The Ganzfield experiments are slightly different, it seems, because the abilities of seem to be only slightly above chance. But even then, there is no real problem. An applicant would only have to state what it is they can do! (And they usually can't, and that speaks volumes!)

We're being asked "what if you had to run very many experiments to show the effect?" and the reply tends to be "well, how many exactly are you thinking of?".

Now, somebody who actually knew that they had an abiulity would be able to answer that question. Even if it's only a small ability they have, because otherwise they couldn't possibly kno that they have any ability at all.

Cuddles

27th January 2009, 05:21 AM

Bear in mind that this thread was initiated by andy2001 asking: "Could Ganzfeld be used for the Randi challenge?" To which GzuzKryzt responded that, if andy2001 want a "definite and official answer", he could ask challenge@randi.org.

Yes, I know. And you know what, that's remarkably similar to the post of mine you just quoted that says "Of course, as always only the JREF can give an absolute answer.". It's almost as if everyone agrees that only the JREF can speak for the JREF.

You now seem to be conceding that, if andy2001 does ask the JREF his question, he is not going to receive a response, any more than I did.

As I do not speak for the JREF I cannot "concede" anything. In addition, it would be impossible for me to concede since I have never argued anything else. Rather an odd choice of words really, considering that it apparently has nothing whatsoever to do with my post.

And let's be honest, it really shouldn't be at all surprising so I don't see why you're making such a fuss about it. The JREF is interested, as far as the MDC is concerned, in applications. If you're not making an application, and apparently have no interest in ever doing so, they will have no reason to engage in hypothetical discussions of whether someone else who has no interest in applying could apply.

Personally, I would have expected a reply along the usual lines of "Apply or go away". However, as GzuzKryzt notes, your email demonstrated a clear failure to understand, or deliberate ignoring of, the rules. Include that along with no possibility of any application and I can see why the person dealing with the challenge email would just ignore it, especially if they had actually read the thread you refer to.

Rodney

27th January 2009, 07:55 AM

However, as GzuzKryzt notes, your email demonstrated a clear failure to understand, or deliberate ignoring of, the rules.
The very first MDC rule begins: "I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 [One Million Dollars/US] to any person who can demonstrate ANY [emphasis added] psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions." Then, at the end, there is a note stating: "IMPORTANT: Only claims that can be verified by evidence under proper observing conditions will be accepted. Also, JREF will NOT accept claims of the existence of deities or demons/angels, the validity of exorcism, religious claims, cloudbusting, causing the Sun to rise or the stars to move, etc. JREF will also NOT test claims that are likely to cause injury of any sort, such as those involving the withholding of air, food or water, or the use of illicit materials, drugs, or dangerous devices." See http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html

There is nothing in any of the MDC rules that would prevent a Ganzfeld challenge, and yet several people on this and other threads have stated that they do not believe such a challenge would be accepted. Andy2001 and I are simply requesting a clarification of the MDC rules in this regard.

Aepervius

27th January 2009, 08:25 AM

andy2001

27th January 2009, 09:44 AM

The very first MDC rule begins: "I, James Randi, through the
There is nothing in any of the MDC rules that would prevent a Ganzfeld challenge, and yet several people on this and other threads have stated that they do not believe such a challenge would be accepted. Andy2001 and I are simply requesting a clarification of the MDC rules in this regard.

I’m engaged in an argument about why nobody has won the Randi prize especially with regard to the Ganzfeld test. I’ve already established that if the odds where one hundred in a hundred million it would take a few years working every day to be 90% to 99% sure of getting this level of significance. And would most likely cost the claimant more than one million dollars But I would like to know exactly what the odds would be and if Randi would even except a claim taking a few years working every day under lab conditions if someone where to apply.

RoboTimbo

27th January 2009, 09:57 AM

I’m engaged in an argument about why nobody has won the Randi prize especially with regard to the Ganzfeld test. I’ve already established that if the odds where one hundred in a hundred million it would take a few years working every day to be 90% to 99% sure of getting this level of significance. And would most likely cost the claimant more than one million dollars But I would like to know exactly what the odds would be and if Randi would even except a claim taking a few years working every day under lab conditions if someone where to apply.

What is your paranormal claim?

andy2001

27th January 2009, 11:20 AM

What is your paranormal claim?

It’s my opinion that esp is real and has been demonstrated under lab conditions using protocols including but not limited to Ganzfeld. If you are referring to me wanting to apply for the Randi prize this is not something I will be doing.

Rodney

27th January 2009, 11:24 AM

If i understand cuddle correctly, to make a study of ganzfield of otehr people at 35% as per such is not a valid claim, but an individual claim to be able to read Zener card 35% of the time, would be one ? That make a lot of sense. Now If i read this correctly, why can't rodney do it too.
While the MDC rules seem to be tailored toward individual claims, I again note that the first rule 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."

So, it would seem to me that the conductor of a Ganzfeld experiment could be the person who "demonstrates" a paranormal ability, even if s/he is not claiming that ability. However, if the JREF has a different interpretation, it should clarify that this type of group experiment would not be acceptable, just as it has already clarified that claims of the existence of deities or demons/angels, the validity of exorcism, religious claims, cloudbusting, causing the Sun to rise or the stars to move, etc. are not acceptable.

Uncayimmy

27th January 2009, 11:40 AM

It’s my opinion that esp is real and has been demonstrated under lab conditions using protocols including but not limited to Ganzfeld. If you are referring to me wanting to apply for the Randi prize this is not something I will be doing.

We're going in circles here. The only way to get an official statement on Ganzfeld is for someone to apply for the challenge. Period. The speculation by myself and others is only that - speculation. Every claim is negotiated on an individual basis. The broad rules allow for a lot of leeway for both the JREF and the applicant. There is absolutely no need for the JREF to expend any effort to rule out a Ganzfeld challenge in advance. Even if they wanted to, it's not possible because "Ganzfeld challenge" is a broad term itself and meaningless without a specific claim and protocol behind it.

Suppose it were ruled out. What do you think would happen if someone actually applied with a Ganzfeld-like challenge? There would be a debate and negotiation as to whether it was really a Ganzfeld-like challenge or something slightly different. And where would we be? Exactly where we are right now - each challenge is addressed on its own merits.

As for the Ganzfeld studies, they had seriously flaws in execution and prove nothing. If you want to debate that, then we can start a thread in General Skepticism and Paranormal forum. Would you participate in such a thread?

RoboTimbo

28th January 2009, 08:00 AM

It’s my opinion that esp is real and has been demonstrated under lab conditions using protocols including but not limited to Ganzfeld. If you are referring to me wanting to apply for the Randi prize this is not something I will be doing.

It wasn't an idle question. This is the MDC forum, not General Skepticism. If you or someone else intends to apply for the MDC, then we can discuss that here. If you want to discuss Ganzfeld in general, that should go to General Skepticism. My opinion, but I think the nature of Ganzfeld does not lend itself well to the challenge. It's been said before in other threads, the MDC is NOT a study. It doesn't care about theory. It isn't interested in anyone eking out a tiny statistical aberration over a period of years. Opinion again, but I don't think that's paranormal.

There are more concrete protocols to determine that esp is or isn't real. This Ganzfeld thing is a dead horse as far as the MDC goes.

petre

28th January 2009, 08:35 AM

While the MDC rules seem to be tailored toward individual claims, I again note that the first rule 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."

So, it would seem to me that the conductor of a Ganzfeld experiment could be the person who "demonstrates" a paranormal ability, even if s/he is not claiming that ability. However, if the JREF has a different interpretation, it should clarify that this type of group experiment would not be acceptable, just as it has already clarified that claims of the existence of deities or demons/angels, the validity of exorcism, religious claims, cloudbusting, causing the Sun to rise or the stars to move, etc. are not acceptable.

If it's not listed as something they will not consider, then they will consider it. I could imagine variations on the Ganzfeld experiment that would be accepted. As it was conducted in the actual study, probably not. I believe JREF's objection to Ganzfeld would be grounded in how it was applied and measured, not on the examined ability itself.

So there you are, some forum members feel it would be out of the question, others feel it may be acceptable. That's about all the satisfaction you're likely to get out of a forum post.

Cuddles

28th January 2009, 09:58 AM

The very first MDC rule begins: "I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 [One Million Dollars/US] to any person who can demonstrate ANY [emphasis added] psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions." Then, at the end, there is a note stating: "IMPORTANT: Only claims that can be verified by evidence under proper observing conditions will be accepted. Also, JREF will NOT accept claims of the existence of deities or demons/angels, the validity of exorcism, religious claims, cloudbusting, causing the Sun to rise or the stars to move, etc. JREF will also NOT test claims that are likely to cause injury of any sort, such as those involving the withholding of air, food or water, or the use of illicit materials, drugs, or dangerous devices." See http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html

There is nothing in any of the MDC rules that would prevent a Ganzfeld challenge, and yet several people on this and other threads have stated that they do not believe such a challenge would be accepted. Andy2001 and I are simply requesting a clarification of the MDC rules in this regard.

None of which has anything to do with my post. You seem to be making a bit of a habit of that.

As I, and GzuzKryzt, clearly pointed out, your email asked that the rules be changed. You don't deny that, do you? As such, you clearly either failed to understand, or simply ignored, the clear statements that no changes to the rules will be made for any applicant.

In the end, it just boils down to this:

So there you are, some forum members feel it would be out of the question, others feel it may be acceptable. That's about all the satisfaction you're likely to get out of a forum post.

Some people think the JREF would accept Ganzfeld for the challenge, others don't. Only the JREF can say, and unless someone actually applies they are unlikely to do so.

The question now becomes - what do you hope to gain from posting here? You're not going to get any more than the above paragraph, and you already know that. You can keep posting the same things over and over and over and over as you have done so far, or you can just accept the answer and get on with your life.

Rodney

28th January 2009, 06:50 PM

The question now becomes - what do you hope to gain from posting here? You're not going to get any more than the above paragraph, and you already know that. You can keep posting the same things over and over and over and over as you have done so far, or you can just accept the answer and get on with your life.
But, my esteemed friend, I have never received an answer from the JREF. The fact that there is disagreement among forum members on whether a Ganzfeld protocol would be an acceptable challenge shows that my question (and andy2001's) is legitimate, and yet the JREF can't be bothered to respond.

RoboTimbo

28th January 2009, 07:02 PM

Uncayimmy

28th January 2009, 08:19 PM

William Smith

28th January 2009, 10:20 PM

Rasmus

29th January 2009, 02:35 AM

Cuddles

29th January 2009, 05:11 AM

But, my esteemed friend, I have never received an answer from the JREF. The fact that there is disagreement among forum members on whether a Ganzfeld protocol would be an acceptable challenge shows that my question (and andy2001's) is legitimate, and yet the JREF can't be bothered to respond.

Once again, you quote my post but fail to actually respond in any relevant way. For example, what exactly is the word "But" doing at the start there? Try reading what I actually wrote:
"Some people think the JREF would accept Ganzfeld for the challenge, others don't. Only the JREF can say, and unless someone actually applies they are unlikely to do so."
I just explained exactly why the JREF are unlikely to respond, and you come back and say that the JREF are didn't respond. As I said, you are certainly free to repeat these same things over and over again, but I really can't work out what you hope to achieve from it.

I'll put this as simply as I can. The JREF are very unlikely to respond to hypothetical questions. You are asking them a hypothetical question. Therefore, they are unlikely to respond to you.

"I asked the JREF a question and they didn't respond."
"The JREF are unlikely to respond to that question."
"But the JREF didn't respond when I asked them."
"Yes, that's what we just said."
"But people here disagree about what the answer might be."
"Yes. And?"
"The JREF didn't answer when I asked them."
"We know, that's because they're not going to answer hypothetical questions."
"How about if I ask them a hypothetical question?"
"That would be pointless because they won't respond."
"But I already asked them and they didn't respond."
"Are you listening to a word I say?"
"I don't know, maybe I'll ask the JREF."
"Er, what?"
"They didn't respond you know."
"Um. Maybe?"
"I asked the JREF a question a while ago and they didn't respond."
"Are we still talking about the same question?"
"Yes, the one they didn't respond to."
"You mean the one that no-one thinks they're likely to respond to?"
"Yes, they didn't respond to it."
"My cat's breath smells of cat food."
"Doesn't everyone else think it's terrible that the JREF didn't respond to this question that no-one thinks they'll respond to?"
...

Rodney

29th January 2009, 07:01 AM

Do you understand that wanting a rule to be changed demonstrates a firm - and very likely deliberate - misunderstanding of the Challenge Rules, and hence provokes an inquiry to be ignored on the grounds that it seems a waste of time?
So I guess that means the Challenge Rules are set in stone forever and can never be changed. (Except, of course, when the JREF decides to drastically change them, as it has done twice in recent years -- first by introducing out of the blue a "media presence" requirement; and second, by announcing that the Challenge will no longer exist after March 6, 2010.)

RoboTimbo

29th January 2009, 07:02 AM

So I guess that means the Challenge Rules are set in stone forever and can never be changed. (Except, of course, when the JREF decides to drastically change them, as it has done twice in recent years -- first by introducing out of the blue a "media presence" requirement; and second, by announcing that the Challenge will no longer exist after March 6, 2010.)

What is your paranormal claim?

Czarcasm

29th January 2009, 07:45 AM

William Smith

29th January 2009, 08:58 AM

Rasmus

29th January 2009, 09:23 AM

So I guess that means the Challenge Rules are set in stone forever and can never be changed. (Except, of course, when the JREF decides to drastically change them, [...]

That seems about accurate.

Or, in other words (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html):

Any applicant who refuses to agree to meet the rules as outlined here, will not be considered to have ever been an applicant. Only complete agreement with these rules will allow the "applicant" to become a "claimant."

Again: Apply. Write a proper, honest and reasonable application. It should be simple. It might be very unlikely that the JREF will then change their rules for you - but I think it is even less unlikely to happen before you apply and demonstrate that you are both serious and reasonable about your application.

Rodney

29th January 2009, 10:56 AM

Again: Apply. Write a proper, honest and reasonable application. It should be simple. It might be very unlikely that the JREF will then change their rules for you - but I think it is even less unlikely to happen before you apply and demonstrate that you are both serious and reasonable about your application.
I'm not a candidate for the MDC, but would-be serious candidates are discouraged from applying by the unclear and changing nature of the Challenge. As a prominent Ganzfeld researcher communicated to me: "We psi researchers have examined the Randi proposal repeatedly and watched as others have been tested. It is our conclusion that he has his offer so hedged and the criteria for success so arbitrarily set up and changeable at his whim that nobody will ever be able to pass his test."

RoboTimbo

29th January 2009, 11:02 AM

I'm not a candidate for the MDC, but would-be serious candidates are discouraged from applying by the unclear and changing nature of the Challenge. As a prominent Ganzfeld researcher communicated to me: "We psi researchers have examined the Randi proposal repeatedly and watched as others have been tested. It is our conclusion that he has his offer so hedged and the criteria for success so arbitrarily set up and changeable at his whim that nobody will ever be able to pass his test."

Your psi researchers are welcome to join the forum where it can be discussed first hand with them. I'd like to hear what their concerns are that they think the MDC is unwinnable by someone with genuine paranormal ability.

Dancing David

29th January 2009, 02:25 PM

Then please enlighten me, at least as to the second issue: Are all protocols, including time-consuming ones such as Ganzfeld experiments, eligible for the Challenge?

Late response, the Challenge would be upon the Claimant. To run the experiement by the protocol specified for the preliminary. No burden upon the JREF at all.

There are other issues with the ganzfeld, why not use Rhine Cards?

jojonete

29th January 2009, 02:42 PM

I'm not a candidate for the MDC, but would-be serious candidates are discouraged from applying by the unclear and changing nature of the Challenge.
What would a would-be serious candidate to Ganzfeld applicant's paranormal claim be?

Rasmus

29th January 2009, 03:45 PM

I'm not a candidate for the MDC,

No sh..., Sherlock!

but would-be serious candidates are discouraged from applying by the unclear and changing nature of the Challenge.

Well, if they can't even speak for themselves, I am not going to take their worries overly serious.

As a prominent Ganzfeld researcher communicated to me: "We psi researchers have examined the Randi proposal repeatedly and watched as others have been tested.

ah huh ...

It is our conclusion that he has his offer so hedged and the criteria for success so arbitrarily set up and changeable at his whim that nobody will ever be able to pass his test."

Again, not a word as to where the actual problem is, not a single mention of what precisely they could show under what specific changes of the rules. (And I won't even go into why I think those statements are in contradiction to the observable facts in the first place ...)

See those grapes up there?

Rodney

29th January 2009, 06:46 PM

What would a would-be serious candidate to Ganzfeld applicant's paranormal claim be?
That a (rather lengthy -- perhaps on the order of six months) Ganzfeld experiment would produce a number of hits far in excess of the number that would be expected by chance.

RoboTimbo

29th January 2009, 07:01 PM

That a (rather lengthy -- perhaps on the order of six months) Ganzfeld experiment would produce a number of hits far in excess of the number that would be expected by chance.

So why doesn't one of them apply? You explained to them how silly their whining about "arbitrarily set up" criteria is, didn't you? Or, as a skeptic, did you make them give you anything specific that is arbitrary about it? I hope you didn't just fall for their childish whinging. If all they can do is claim that the MDC is rigged, you could direct them to the openly published protocol negotiations from previous applicants, couldn't you?

A good start would be to have them sign up here and begin a dialog.

Rodney

29th January 2009, 07:46 PM

Or, as a skeptic, did you make them give you anything specific that is arbitrary about it?
I saw no need. As a skeptic, do you not find it arbitrary that the JREF -- with no third party involvement whatever -- establishes the MDC rules, changes them whenever it wishes, and is the judge and jury of all MDC applications?

RoboTimbo

29th January 2009, 07:52 PM

I saw no need. As a skeptic, do you not find it arbitrary that the JREF -- with no third party involvement whatever -- establishes the MDC rules, changes them whenever it wishes, and is the judge and jury of all MDC applications?

Who would you suggest do it if not the JREF? A Ganzfeldian? Someone trying to win the million by non-paranormal means?

So, how about those psi researchers coming on here so we can iron out these things so that you aren't having to be the go-between for them?

Rodney

29th January 2009, 08:09 PM

Who would you suggest do it if not the JREF? A Ganzfeldian? Someone trying to win the million by non-paranormal means?
I'm suggesting that some sort of objective panel be set-up by the JREF that would have input into the MDC process. For example, the panel might consist of three neutral psychologists or parapsychologists. Or perhaps a believer, a skeptic, and a neutral one.

So, how about those psi researchers coming on here so we can iron out these things so that you aren't having to be the go-between for them?
I don't have control over them, but I think they regard the MDC in about the same way you would regard a "Million Dollar Darwinian Evolution Challenge" established by the Discovery Institute.

William Smith

29th January 2009, 10:30 PM

I saw no need. As a skeptic, do you not find it arbitrary that the JREF -- with no third party involvement whatever -- establishes the MDC rules, changes them whenever it wishes, and is the judge and jury of all MDC applications?

Compare it to a lottery company: Do you not find it arbitrary that the lottery company -- with no third party involvement whatever -- establishes the lottery rules, changes them whenever it wishes, and is the judge and jury of all lottery drawings? It is their money after all, they offer the competition, right?

Rodney, the rules will not be changed for you. Try to wrap your head around that.

If your buddies can perform a feat above what chance suggests they should consider another way of making money and fame off of it.

Uncayimmy

29th January 2009, 10:31 PM

I'm suggesting that some sort of objective panel be set-up by the JREF that would have input into the MDC process. For example, the panel might consist of three neutral psychologists or parapsychologists. Or perhaps a believer, a skeptic, and a neutral one.

You mean people who don't represent the ones putting up the money? Nobody is stopping anyone from making their own challenge and running it how they see fit.

I don't have control over them, but I think they regard the MDC in about the same way you would regard a "Million Dollar Darwinian Evolution Challenge" established by the Discovery Institute.
You know, that very well may be true. But there isn't such a challenge, is there? But suppose there were. How would you evaluate it? Here's what I would do:

Are the rules published and available to the public?
Is pass/fail negotiable?
Is pass/fail
Is the protocol negotiable?
Am I allowed to openly discuss my protocol with the general public?
Are prior challenges well documented as to the protocol and what constitutes pass/fail?
Were the protocols actually followed?
Were there reliable witnesses?
Were the results every disputed? If so, in what way?

How would you evaluate a challenge?

The only remotely similar challenge of which I am aware is these two regarding HIV:
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/award.htm
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/news/araward.htm

They dictate both the protocol as well as the pass/fail. It doesn't surprise me at all that nobody has succeeded.

Uncayimmy

29th January 2009, 10:44 PM

That a (rather lengthy -- perhaps on the order of six months) Ganzfeld experiment would produce a number of hits far in excess of the number that would be expected by chance.

Define "far in excess" for us. I saw 35% instead of the expected 25%. As a critical thinker that tells me that most likely what I thought was properly blinded and randomized wasn't. From what I read of the tests, they were not properly blinded or randomized.

The most optimistic conclusion is that maybe in a small percentage of the time there might actually be something there. I would then do my best to figure out what it was. I would then run further tests to increase that percentage to some number that truly could not be explained by procedure flaws. Thus if I got it up to 50% under the same testing conditions, I would get excited that I was going in the right direction.

Do you want to discuss Ganzfeld? Yes or no? Please answer.

autumn1971

29th January 2009, 11:16 PM

I saw no need. As a skeptic, do you not find it arbitrary that the JREF -- with no third party involvement whatever -- establishes the MDC rules, changes them whenever it wishes, and is the judge and jury of all MDC applications?
The JREF established the MDC and its rules; your idea that some third (who was the second?) party jump in to officiate and make rules decisions is strange.
Actually, not so strange. Because an offer is being made by a non-profit the IRS has considerable interest in the MDC, at least the boring accounting parts of it. Because the offer is world-wide, the FBI and various federal orginizations would have a great interest if your "psi" researchers had even a little bit of a tiny iota of a factoid indicating that the game was fixed or unwinnable. They don't like the fact that the MDC specifies proper observing conditions. They hate that.

Rasmus

30th January 2009, 12:37 AM

I saw no need. As a skeptic, do you not find it arbitrary that the JREF -- with no third party involvement whatever -- establishes the MDC rules, changes them whenever it wishes, and is the judge and jury of all MDC applications?

No.

I find that that the JREF rules are sensible.

I find your notion that some random people should be put in charge utterly ridiculous. What you present here is the poster child of an ad-hominem argument: "The challenge rules are bad because of who makes them rather than because of what they are."

You have failed to address as much as a single actual point of criticism with the rules as written.

Grow up!

highflyertoo

30th January 2009, 01:06 AM

I hope to try for the supernatural challenge within the next few months or so . ( my many dreams have been narrowed down ) .
I am not an academic person , yet have had alot of dreams that have come true to my understanding . My dreams have been repeating themselves for quite sometime . The dreams reveals that I attain the ability to move objects by looking at then and moving objects into mid air by motioning with my hands .:jaw-dropp . I have been future seeing for the last 30 years .

I only joined today and hope I am on the correct thread .

Pixel42

30th January 2009, 01:17 AM

I only joined today and hope I am on the correct thread .
Not really, no. But you are in the correct forum.

If you want to discuss a suitable test protocol for your claimed ability that you can submit to JREF - and there are plenty of people here who can help you design one - you should start a new thread.

Rasmus

30th January 2009, 02:52 AM

Not really, no. But you are in the correct forum.

If you want to discuss a suitable test protocol for your claimed ability that you can submit to JREF - and there are plenty of people here who can help you design one - you should start a new thread.

Already been done, thanks to Jackalgirl (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=134280)

chillzero

30th January 2009, 03:46 AM

Jackalgirl

30th January 2009, 04:58 AM

The 'neutral one' should be the skeptic, by definition.
Suggesting 3 'neutral' people from the same area of expertise kind of undermins the whole 'neutral' thing, too.

As the JREF is fronting up the money, they have the right to set the rules, and they ensure fairness through the process of negotiation over protocol. The only things they reject are those things that would permit cheating, so I am constantly surprised by the people who object to this. It's very telling.

Ultimately, though, the test should be such that it wouldn't matter who was observing. The challenger could bring all his friends, Uri Geller and an elephant, and JREF could bring Big Bird, Stephen Hawking, and the Boston Philharmonic Orchestra. Then the challenger would cause a bowling ball enclosed in a large, sealed glass tank to rise two feet off of the ground while standing ten feet away from the tank, thereby demonstrating his claim that he can move bowling balls with the power of his mind (or, at least, without effecting them through conventional means). And win the Challenge.

It should, in theory, all be on tape, and both parties should make the effort to set up the cameras from enough angles so as to preclude cheating on either side. There are your "neutral observers" right there.

Edited to add: I'm sorry, Rodney, but I think that your idea of finding three "objective" people to judge the input into the MDC makes about as much sense as finding "uninterested Danes" to moderate the Forum. It adds a great deal of complication to a process that does not -- to me at least -- appear to be broken.

Do you have any evidence that such a panel is necessary? By "evidence" I am talking about past Challenges that had specific problems that such a hypothetical panel would have fixed. I admit that my memory is by no means excellent, but the only problems (as in, "reasons people have not won") I have seen in the Challenges that have been heretofore reported have been due to: 1) applicants being unable to clearly state what they can do, 2) protocol negotiations breaking down because of 1) or because the applicant is insisting on something that would enable cheating or that would require subjective judgement calls, 3) a single applicant whose proctors did not follow the agreed-upon protocol, 4) an applicant applying in bad faith in order to use the Challenge for personal promotion, 5) an applicant insisting on changes to the rules, 6) applicants whose claims were not paranormal, 7) applicants whose claims would require them to engage in potentially lethal behavior, 8) applicants not being able to do what they claim to be able to do once controls were put in place. I could probably go on, but you see that in all of these cases but one, the issue was (largely) with the applicant, and usually boiled down to the applicant being unable to think of their claim in a critical fashion.

I have a suggestion for your Ganzfield question: get the help of one of your psychic buddies and apply for the Challenge (if you can get the academic affidavit and media notoriety, either on your part or the parts of your friends, that is). It's already been established that the claimant does not have to possess the powers -- if I'm telekinetic, you can apply by saying "I will demonstrate that the ability to move things only by the power of the mind exists and is real, and I will do so by having my friend Jackalgirl move a bowling ball placed inside a sealed glass tank. She will stand not less than 10 feet away from the tank and, within 5 minutes of the commencement of the test, will cause the bowling ball to raise completely above a mark painted on the glass whose height above the tank's base is equal to that of the bowling ball's diameter. To correct for parallax, video cameras will be placed so that they look square at the mark on stands that place the center of the camera's focal point at the same height as the mark. The recordings will be time-stamped and the commencement of the test will be clearly audible on the recordings. Success will be indicated by the ball rising completely above the mark as viewed on the cameras' recordings within five minutes of the test's commencement. Failure will be indicated by the ball failing to move completely above the mark as viewed on the cameras' recordings within five minutes of the commencement of the test." Then I do my thing with telekinesis and you collect the million.

So your Ganzfield psychics don't have to apply. But you can, using them as the means to demonstrate paranormality. So devise a specific claim and protocol and actually apply. Then you can get the answer from JREF that you're looking for. But remember, if JREF rejects your specific Ganzfield claim, it does not automatically follow that they will reject anyone else's.

Dancing David

30th January 2009, 05:21 AM

It’s my opinion that esp is real and has been demonstrated under lab conditions using protocols including but not limited to Ganzfeld. If you are referring to me wanting to apply for the Randi prize this is not something I will be doing.

The Ganzfeld has demonstrated sloppy methodology and lack of an understanding of statistics.

If there was sample matching to prevent similar pictures in a set, a rater system to score hits reliably, and then a single or group of individuals rose one standard deviation above the mean. Then you could say that the Ganzfeld meant something.

There is not a base chance of 25% for a hit certain words will match multiple pictures in a set, this means that some sets could have .25,.50 ,.75 and 1.0 chance of a hit.
There is not a consistent rating of what makes for a hit.
You need to know the frequency of an occurance before you can decide what is a significant change. The p probability needs other factors to back it up.

Seriously it would not take years and lots of dollars.

It would take a video camera, sets generated to avoid the word match issue and about a year of trials.

If you used Rhine cards it would be better.

RoboTimbo

30th January 2009, 05:47 AM

William Smith

30th January 2009, 08:55 AM

Ultimately, though, the test should be such that it wouldn't matter who was observing. The challenger could bring all his friends, Uri Geller and an elephant,...

Two minor points:

1. It's not "challenger". It's "claimant".
2. As of the last protocol proposal, Pavel Ziborov has not been granted to bring observers to the testing area.

Rodney

30th January 2009, 02:14 PM

Define "far in excess" for us. I saw 35% instead of the expected 25%. As a critical thinker that tells me that most likely what I thought was properly blinded and randomized wasn't. From what I read of the tests, they were not properly blinded or randomized.
Because ganzfeld experiments have produced 32% hits where only 25% would be expected by chance ("Between 1974 and 2004, 88 ganzfeld experiments were done, reporting 1,008 hits in 3,145 tests" -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment#cite_note-EntangledMinds-10), I think somewhere in that range would be an appropriate threshold to test. If a 30% threshold were used and the experiment were to achieve 600 hits in 2000 trials (as opposed to the expected 500 hits), the odds against would be 4.3 million to one, according to the binomial distribution.

The most optimistic conclusion is that maybe in a small percentage of the time there might actually be something there. I would then do my best to figure out what it was. I would then run further tests to increase that percentage to some number that truly could not be explained by procedure flaws. Thus if I got it up to 50% under the same testing conditions, I would get excited that I was going in the right direction.
You seem to be assuming that, if Ganzfeld experiments are showing a real psi effect, that effect can be refined and the hit rate increased to 50% or more. Why do you assume that?

Do you want to discuss Ganzfeld? Yes or no? Please answer.
Sure.

Startz

30th January 2009, 03:01 PM

Because ganzfeld experiments have produced 32% hits where only 25% would be expected by chance ("Between 1974 and 2004, 88 ganzfeld experiments were done, reporting 1,008 hits in 3,145 tests" -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment#cite_note-EntangledMinds-10), I think somewhere in that range would be an appropriate threshold to test. If a 30% threshold were used and the experiment were to achieve 600 hits in 2000 trials (as opposed to the expected 500 hits), the odds against would be 4.3 million to one, according to the binomial distribution.

You seem to be assuming that, if Ganzfeld experiments are showing a real psi effect, that effect can be refined and the hit rate increased to 50% or more. Why do you assume that?

Sure.

Not knowing anything about Ganzfield experiments but being curious, I read the referenced Wikipedia article. Apparently, each test takes over an hour. So is the suggestion that a useful protocol would require two to three thousand hours of testing?

Jackalgirl

30th January 2009, 03:31 PM

Two minor points:

1. It's not "challenger". It's "claimant".
2. As of the last protocol proposal, Pavel Ziborov has not been granted to bring observers to the testing area.

1. Good point; in essence, Randi is the challenger. Thanks for that
2. And sigh, you're right; this just brings us back to the point that there can be no hard and fast rules for the protocol-portion of the MDC, because it depends on both the claim and how the claimant proposes to demonstrate the claim.

Still, though, the results need to be self-evident. I still think that video cameras are (usually) perfectly fine "neutral observers", if set up correctly and in sufficient quantity (the latter which, of course, depends on the claim and how the claimant proposes to demonstrate the claim).

Uncayimmy

30th January 2009, 04:26 PM

I started a Ganzfeld thread in the General Skepticism and Paranormal forum.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4392479#post4392479

Rodney

30th January 2009, 07:03 PM

Not knowing anything about Ganzfield experiments but being curious, I read the referenced Wikipedia article. Apparently, each test takes over an hour. So is the suggestion that a useful protocol would require two to three thousand hours of testing?
According to the Wikipedia article:

"In a typical ganzfeld experiment, a 'receiver' is left in a room relaxing in a comfortable chair with halved ping-pong balls over the eyes, having a red light shone on them. The receiver also wears a set of headphones through which white or pink noise (static) is played. The receiver is in this state of mild sensory deprivation for half an hour (emphasis added). During this time a 'sender' observes a randomly chosen target and tries to mentally send this information to the receiver. The receiver speaks out loud during the thirty minutes (emphasis added), describing what he or she can see. This is recorded by the experimenter (who is blind to the target) either by recording onto tape or by taking notes, and is used to help the receiver during the judging procedure.

"In the judging procedure, the receiver is taken out of the ganzfeld state and given a set of possible targets, from which they must decide which one most resembled the images they witnessed. Most commonly there are three decoys along with a copy of the target itself, giving an expected overall hit rate of 25% over several dozens of trials."

Including the judging procedure, I think each trial takes about 40 minutes. If that's about right, the time for 2000 trials would be about 1,333 hours.

RoboTimbo

30th January 2009, 07:10 PM

"In the judging procedure...

No need to go any further. From the Challenge application: "All tests must be designed in such a way that the results are self-evident, so that no judging or voting process is required (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/content/article/37-static/253-challenge-application.html)."

Startz

30th January 2009, 07:33 PM

According to the Wikipedia article:
Including the judging procedure, I think each trial takes about 40 minutes. If that's about right, the time for 2000 trials would be about 1,333 hours.

I see I misread the article. Let's go with your time, 1,333 hours. Are you suggesting a useful protocol would require somewhere over 1,000 hours?

Rasmus

31st January 2009, 07:54 AM

No need to go any further. From the Challenge application: "All tests must be designed in such a way that the results are self-evident, so that no judging or voting process is required (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/content/article/37-static/253-challenge-application.html)."

I understood that in a way that the "judging" was done by the receiver, i.e. they decide between one of four possible targets.

Whether they selected the right target, however, would be obvious and would not require any need to interpretation, etc.

Of course, it is an utterly superfluous step and makes me very suspicious of the entire study conducted in a such a way: Why not make the receiver aware of the possibilities beforehand?

RoboTimbo

31st January 2009, 08:05 AM

I understood that in a way that the "judging" was done by the receiver, i.e. they decide between one of four possible targets.

Whether they selected the right target, however, would be obvious and would not require any need to interpretation, etc.

Of course, it is an utterly superfluous step and makes me very suspicious of the entire study conducted in a such a way: Why not make the receiver aware of the possibilities beforehand?

Isn't that what Zener cards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zener_cards) are for? Why doesn't one of those "psi researchers" just apply for the MDC and negotiate a protocol. Then everyone will be able to see if it is as arbitrary as they claim (second hand).

It can't be that difficult, can it? Claim to be able to discern 70 out of 100 or whatever would give you the 1000 to 1 odds and then do it. Why can it be stated so easily by rationalists and be obfuscated so thoroughly by wooists?

Rasmus

31st January 2009, 08:43 AM

Isn't that what Zener cards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zener_cards) are for?

You'd think. And if te cards don't work you could simply use pre-defined objects that are sufficiently different from each other

a yellow rubber ducky
a white bottle of milk
a red brick
a wooden spoon

Why doesn't one of those "psi researchers" just apply for the MDC and negotiate a protocol. Then everyone will be able to see if it is as arbitrary as they claim (second hand).

My guess: Because they know very well where the flaws in the setup are.

It can't be that difficult, can it? Claim to be able to discern 70 out of 100 or whatever would give you the 1000 to 1 odds and then do it. Why can it be stated so easily by rationalists and be obfuscated so thoroughly by wooists?

See above.

Moochie

31st January 2009, 12:33 PM

It’s my opinion that esp is real and has been demonstrated under lab conditions using protocols including but not limited to Ganzfeld. If you are referring to me wanting to apply for the Randi prize this is not something I will be doing.

Until the evidence for esp builds to a significance where the majority of the scientific community thinks it's worth pursuing, I seriously doubt anyone else will be applying for the MDC in this context. At the present time the evidence for esp is of the will-o'-the-wisp variety, and that's simply not good enough. Furthermore, the MDC isn't set up to be a lab experiment. If your confidence in the evidence is so high, you should be out there building on the research so that the world can see what it is you claim to see.

M.

Moochie

31st January 2009, 01:07 PM

According to the Wikipedia article:

"In a typical ganzfeld experiment, a 'receiver' is left in a room relaxing in a comfortable chair with halved ping-pong balls over the eyes, having a red light shone on them. The receiver also wears a set of headphones through which white or pink noise (static) is played. The receiver is in this state of mild sensory deprivation for half an hour (emphasis added). During this time a 'sender' observes a randomly chosen target and tries to mentally send this information to the receiver. The receiver speaks out loud during the thirty minutes (emphasis added), describing what he or she can see. This is recorded by the experimenter (who is blind to the target) either by recording onto tape or by taking notes, and is used to help the receiver during the judging procedure.

"In the judging procedure, the receiver is taken out of the ganzfeld state and given a set of possible targets, from which they must decide which one most resembled the images they witnessed. Most commonly there are three decoys along with a copy of the target itself, giving an expected overall hit rate of 25% over several dozens of trials."

Including the judging procedure, I think each trial takes about 40 minutes. If that's about right, the time for 2000 trials would be about 1,333 hours.

"Judging procedure"? You're kidding us, aren't you? How do you establish that a) the sender has sent; b) the receiver has received; c) the receiver has received what the sender sent? ie, how do you establish any communication between these two individuals is actually taking place? Shouldn't that be the first order of business? As written, it looks as though everyone is being asked to take on faith that there is anything happening here. Do you see how utterly ridiculous that is?

This reminds me of homeopathy's "memory of water" nonsense. The question is, if the water remembers, wouldn't it be filled to the brim (!) with "memory" of everything it's ever been in contact with? And if so, how do you establish that the memory of the ingredient you (as the homeopath) is applying, is what is actually affecting the patient? Pure twaddle!

M.

Dancing David

31st January 2009, 01:19 PM

Because ganzfeld experiments have produced 32% hits where only 25% would be expected by chance

Oh my FSM, can you still really make that claim? You have failed to show that it is 25% in any thread whatsoever.

that is what is wrong with the Ganzfeld from the start.

Say that the word spoken is 'round' or that the thought is 'round'.

Then you have three pictures in a set that match the word 'round'.

That means that the base chance of a 'hit' is 75% , not 25%. (With that word and that set.)

You still ignore that?

Why, we have been down this before, and the auto Ganzfeld is worse, not better.

Please address this point Rodney, it is the heart of why the Ganzfeld has shown nothing so far.

Dancing David

31st January 2009, 01:26 PM

"

"In the judging procedure, the receiver is taken out of the ganzfeld state and given a set of possible targets, from which they must decide which one most resembled the images they witnessed. Most commonly there are three decoys along with a copy of the target itself, giving an expected overall hit rate of 25% over several dozens of trials."

And this even more prone to bias than asking the receiver to generate a word string and trying to score a hit. How are the picture of the decoy selected so that they are obviously different?
They are NOT decoys they are 'nulls'.

Why not use Rhine cards?

This is one of three ways to rate the success, this quote has mixed up the success rate between methodologies.

Dancing David

31st January 2009, 01:34 PM

"Judging procedure"? You're kidding us, aren't you? How do you establish that a) the sender has sent; b) the receiver has received; c) the receiver has received what the sender sent? ie, how do you establish any communication between these two individuals is actually taking place? Shouldn't that be the first order of business? As written, it looks as though everyone is being asked to take on faith that there is anything happening here. Do you see how utterly ridiculous that is?

This reminds me of homeopathy's "memory of water" nonsense. The question is, if the water remembers, wouldn't it be filled to the brim (!) with "memory" of everything it's ever been in contact with? And if so, how do you establish that the memory of the ingredient you (as the homeopath) is applying, is what is actually affecting the patient? Pure twaddle!

M.

It gets worse. Assuming the match rate is 25% is bogus.

For the 'auto ganzfeld' where the receiver chose the picture they think was 'sent'.

First you would run a trial without a sender, just select the picture and then have receiver do the 'ganzfeld' state and then pick a picture.

This would then generate the 'raw pick probability' for each picture. Some pictures are going to be picked more often than others and some less. (A great study in and of itself.) So You Can Not Say that the Base Chance is 25%.

For some pictures the 'raw pick rate' is going to be higher.

If the 'sending' picture is always one of theose pictures in teh set, then the 'hit' rate is always going to be above twenty five percent.

To be a good protocol, every picture in the set would have to be matched and have the same 'raw pick rate' and in fact a second round of testing would be needed to assure that.

Then each 'sent' picture would have to be chosen at random from a matched set. That way you would have a better chance of the base rate being 25%

Did you read that Rodney?

Do you get it?

Startz

31st January 2009, 02:29 PM

According to the Wikipedia article:

"...During this time a 'sender' observes a randomly chosen target and tries to mentally send this information to the receiver.
It gets worse. Assuming the match rate is 25% is bogus.

I don't really understand how these Ganzfield things are run, but as long as the sender's target is chosen randomly and everything is properly blinded, why wouldn't the match rate be 25%?

Klimax

31st January 2009, 02:45 PM

I don't really understand how these Ganzfield things are run, but as long as the sender's target is chosen randomly and everything is properly blinded, why wouldn't the match rate be 25%?

Unless you get true random function where each thing has same chance being chose with uniform distribution ,you have pseudogenerator and it wil cause some things being more likely selected then others.(Like Gaus distribution and such) Quite interesting part of statistics.

Startz

31st January 2009, 03:15 PM

I don't really understand how these Ganzfield things are run, but as long as the sender's target is chosen randomly and everything is properly blinded, why wouldn't the match rate be 25%? Unless you get true random function where each thing has same chance being chose with uniform distribution ,you have pseudogenerator and it wil cause some things being more likely selected then others.(Like Gaus distribution and such) Quite interesting part of statistics.

I would think "chosen randomly" would mean each potential target would have a 1 in 4 chance of being chosen. Do the people running these experiments do something else?

Rodney

31st January 2009, 05:06 PM

I would think "chosen randomly" would mean each potential target would have a 1 in 4 chance of being chosen. Do the people running these experiments do something else?
If you read the Wikipedia article (clearly most posters here have not), you will find that even skeptic Ray Hyman concedes that "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."

Jackalgirl

31st January 2009, 05:44 PM

If you read the Wikipedia article (clearly most posters here have not), you will find that even skeptic Ray Hyman concedes that "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."

Okay, so it seems (at least via Wikipedia) that there may be something going on. Do you know what the methodology of this test is? If so, why not apply? If you don't, can you find out, and then apply?

Is it the media presence / academic affidavit part that's holding you up? Have your researcher friends published? Would they be willing to let you apply on their behalf and do all of the heavy lifting for them? If you provide a precise claim and a detailed protocol to JREF in an application, and if you satisfy all the other requirements of the Challenge, then you'll have an answer -- either the JREF will accept your application (in which case, the answer is "Yes, the JREF will accept this particular Ganzfield setup") or it will not (and will probably [hopefully] explain, at which point the answer will be "No, the JREF will not accept this particular Ganzfield setup" -- and, hopefully, we'll know why).

But given the JREF's unwillingness to play "what-if" games and enter into hypothetical discussions of imaginary Challenge applications, it really does look like you'll have to apply if you want to find out whether the particular Ganzfield protocol that you have in mind would be acceptable.

You could always go look at other Challenges (e.g., IIG), too. If you can pass theirs, it would satisfy the notoriety requirements of the Challenge. Might even get you straight to the formal demonstration of the MDC, IIRC.

Rodney

31st January 2009, 08:16 PM

Okay, so it seems (at least via Wikipedia) that there may be something going on. Do you know what the methodology of this test is? If so, why not apply? If you don't, can you find out, and then apply?

Is it the media presence / academic affidavit part that's holding you up? Have your researcher friends published? Would they be willing to let you apply on their behalf and do all of the heavy lifting for them? If you provide a precise claim and a detailed protocol to JREF in an application, and if you satisfy all the other requirements of the Challenge, then you'll have an answer -- either the JREF will accept your application (in which case, the answer is "Yes, the JREF will accept this particular Ganzfield setup") or it will not (and will probably [hopefully] explain, at which point the answer will be "No, the JREF will not accept this particular Ganzfield setup" -- and, hopefully, we'll know why).

But given the JREF's unwillingness to play "what-if" games and enter into hypothetical discussions of imaginary Challenge applications, it really does look like you'll have to apply if you want to find out whether the particular Ganzfield protocol that you have in mind would be acceptable.

You could always go look at other Challenges (e.g., IIG), too. If you can pass theirs, it would satisfy the notoriety requirements of the Challenge. Might even get you straight to the formal demonstration of the MDC, IIRC.
Thanks for the advice, but I don't have the time to get involved in such a quixotic venture. I'm merely suggesting that it would be desirable for the JREF to clarify its position on Ganzfeld experiments, which clearly involve a significant expenditure of time.

Jackalgirl

1st February 2009, 12:17 AM

Thanks for the advice, but I don't have the time to get involved in such a quixotic venture. I'm merely suggesting that it would be desirable for the JREF to clarify its position on Ganzfeld experiments, which clearly involve a significant expenditure of time.

I doubt they will, though. I'm fairly sure that they'll take it on a claim-by-claim basis. Some experiements might lend themselves better to the MDC than others depending on how their claims are worded and how their protocols are structured.

If JREF came back to you and said, "maybe; it depends on the claim", would you accept that?

Jackalgirl

1st February 2009, 12:18 AM

...and would you accept it if -- if you were to start proposing hypothetical experiments and situations -- JREF replied with "we will not entertain hypotheticals; apply or go away"?

William Smith

1st February 2009, 01:59 AM

Thanks for the advice, but I don't have the time to get involved in such a quixotic venture.
...

A Freudian slip or a satori? ;)

Dancing David

1st February 2009, 06:05 AM

I would think "chosen randomly" would mean each potential target would have a 1 in 4 chance of being chosen. Do the people running these experiments do something else?
There are two issues to start,

traditional Ganzfeld: receiver generates a 'word string' (IR talks about the mental pictures) this is then rated and matched as a hit.

auto-Ganzfeld: receiver choses the picture that they think was 'sent' from a set of four pictures.

As frequency statistics are based upon actual occurance,
traditional Ganzfeld: multiple pictures in a set can have 'hits' with a 'word string'. This can mean that a set could have a 'random word string match rate' of 25%, 50%, 75% or 100%.

auto-Ganzfeld: pictures can have higher rates of 'random pick' than others. For various reasons, certain pictures could get chosen at higher rates just because receivers 'like' them more than others. If this sort of picture appears in the sequence of 'sent' pictures more than 25% of the time, this could bias the hit rate.

And then there are many other confounding factors to the '25% base chance rate'.

Psi could exist, Ganzfeld is not structured to show that,

Dancing David

1st February 2009, 06:07 AM

Dancing David

1st February 2009, 06:09 AM

Thanks for the advice, but I don't have the time to get involved in such a quixotic venture. I'm merely suggesting that it would be desirable for the JREF to clarify its position on Ganzfeld experiments, which clearly involve a significant expenditure of time.

The procedure for the application is what it is. The issues of the claimants making the claim is upon the claimant. Not the JREF. Given the number of people interested in such things, you could run a study at low cost. You could probably even get donate space and materials.

Startz

1st February 2009, 06:26 AM

There are two issues to start,

traditional Ganzfeld: receiver generates a 'word string' (IR talks about the mental pictures) this is then rated and matched as a hit.

auto-Ganzfeld: receiver choses the picture that they think was 'sent' from a set of four pictures.

As frequency statistics are based upon actual occurance,
traditional Ganzfeld: multiple pictures in a set can have 'hits' with a 'word string'. This can mean that a set could have a 'random word string match rate' of 25%, 50%, 75% or 100%.

auto-Ganzfeld: pictures can have higher rates of 'random pick' than others. For various reasons, certain pictures could get chosen at higher rates just because receivers 'like' them more than others. If this sort of picture appears in the sequence of 'sent' pictures more than 25% of the time, this could bias the hit rate.

And then there are many other confounding factors to the '25% base chance rate'.

Psi could exist, Ganzfeld is not structured to show that,

Very helpful. I certainly see why the "traditional Ganzfeld" doesn't have a 25 percent chance.

RoboTimbo

1st February 2009, 08:47 AM

If it isn't likely that there will be a forthcoming challenge application, perhaps this thread should be merged with the one in General Skepticism. If, or when, a psi researcher gets their muddled testing protocols straightened out, then they could start their own thread here.

Rodney

1st February 2009, 04:34 PM

I doubt they will, though. I'm fairly sure that they'll take it on a claim-by-claim basis. Some experiements might lend themselves better to the MDC than others depending on how their claims are worded and how their protocols are structured.

If JREF came back to you and said, "maybe; it depends on the claim", would you accept that?
Possibly -- if they confirmed that they would accept a 1000 hour+ Ganzfeld protocol.

Rodney

1st February 2009, 04:52 PM

...and would you accept it if -- if you were to start proposing hypothetical experiments and situations -- JREF replied with "we will not entertain hypotheticals; apply or go away"?
I have no intention of proposing hypotheticals -- I just want to understand the JREF's position on whether Ganzfeld experiments qualify for the MDC.

Rodney

1st February 2009, 04:55 PM

There are two issues to start,

traditional Ganzfeld: receiver generates a 'word string' (IR talks about the mental pictures) this is then rated and matched as a hit.

auto-Ganzfeld: receiver choses the picture that they think was 'sent' from a set of four pictures.

As frequency statistics are based upon actual occurance,
traditional Ganzfeld: multiple pictures in a set can have 'hits' with a 'word string'. This can mean that a set could have a 'random word string match rate' of 25%, 50%, 75% or 100%.

auto-Ganzfeld: pictures can have higher rates of 'random pick' than others. For various reasons, certain pictures could get chosen at higher rates just because receivers 'like' them more than others. If this sort of picture appears in the sequence of 'sent' pictures more than 25% of the time, this could bias the hit rate.

And then there are many other confounding factors to the '25% base chance rate'.

Psi could exist, Ganzfeld is not structured to show that,
Your concerns were addressed by more recent Ganzfeld experiments, as Ray Hyman concedes.

Jackalgirl

1st February 2009, 06:04 PM

Possibly -- if they confirmed that they would accept a 1000 hour+ Ganzfeld protocol.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. If JREF says "maybe, it depends on the claim", they would be saying "maybe, it depends on the claim".

In other words, someone would have to actually make the claim involving a 1000 hour+ protocol in order to find out whether JREF would accept it.

Cuddles

2nd February 2009, 05:10 AM

I have no intention of proposing hypotheticals -- I just want to understand the JREF's position on whether Ganzfeld experiments qualify for the MDC.

Perhaps you could try looking up the definition of "hypothetical". You may find it enlightening.

Dancing David

2nd February 2009, 05:22 AM

Your concerns were addressed by more recent Ganzfeld experiments, as Ray Hyman concedes.

That is not the standard here, where did Hyman address this, and how did the protocols change?

Moochie

2nd February 2009, 06:47 AM

A Freudian slip or a satori? ;)

Please, oh please let it be a satori! :D

M.

jojonete

2nd February 2009, 08:48 AM

Wow! I've been out for the weekend and I find two new full pages in the thread.

Summary of this post: if an application were filled with the proposal implied in this thread, I'd expect the JREF to reject it as untestable.

Here's why (i.e. here's my "raw data" for anyone to examine :)):
If a 30% threshold were used and the experiment were to achieve 600 hits in 2000 trials (as opposed to the expected 500 hits), the odds against would be 4.3 million to one, according to the binomial distribution.
I think each trial takes about 40 minutes. If that's about right, the time for 2000 trials would be about 1,333 hours.
On my part, I'm assuming 6 trials per day with 15-minute breaks every 2 trials (total 4.5 hours). For 2000 trials, a whole 11 months would be needed (including Sundays, etc.).

So, we have the sender, the receiver and all the observers "tied" to the experiment for 4.5 hours a day, every day for 11 months. Lots of concerns:
I'd reject any involvement (either as sender, receiver or observer) with such an experiment unless I were very well paid and really needed the money. Do you know how boring this can be?
I'd expect everyone's performance (i.e. the sender's, receiver's and observers' performance) significantly decrease over time just out of sheer boredom. Grab a pen and copy the text of this post into a sheet of paper (it'll surely take less than 4.5 hours). Do the same for 10 days in a row. Compare your handwriting the first day with the last one. You know what I mean, don't you? :)
In a two-hour test, it's not unusual to have difficulties finding a time and place in which everyone involved can be at the same time with everything ready. I don't think it would be possible to keep all the people involved "tied" for 4.5 hours each and every day for 11 months.
Even if everyone agreed to be "tied" as required, unexpected things are going to happen: someday, someone will get sick, be 15 minutes late, have a very urgent call during the test, their car will break on the road to the test, etc. For observers, this can be softened having "replacement" observers go every day "just in case" someone fails to show up for any reason; however the sender and receiver would be "irreplaceable".
Who would keep the record sheets for the tests? How to ensure no tampering?

These are just the five first concerns coming to my mind. Surely I could think of a few more. As I see it, the claim "a receiver can know what image (out of 4) the sender is thinking about, but it takes 40 minutes and only happens 30% of the time" is untestable.

Then, I have a conversation with myself:Me: If the claim is untestable, how did Gandfeld experimenters test it?
Myself: They didn't. No one has ever attempted an experiment like the one proposed here.
Me: Why do they claim they can do it, if they've never actually tried it?
Myself: Hey! ask them!

Dancing David

2nd February 2009, 01:33 PM

I think the procedure can be done in about an hours time.

The number of trails would be up to the person submitting the challenge application.

A smart applicant would find a sender and receiver who were way above the expected rate and just use them in the preliminary and the challenge.

Rodney

2nd February 2009, 05:07 PM

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. If JREF says "maybe, it depends on the claim", they would be saying "maybe, it depends on the claim".

In other words, someone would have to actually make the claim involving a 1000 hour+ protocol in order to find out whether JREF would accept it.
But why should that be? Doesn't the JREF know whether a 1000+ hour protocol would be acceptable?

Czarcasm

2nd February 2009, 05:54 PM

But why should that be? Doesn't the JREF know whether a 1000+ hour protocol would be acceptable?1. It would depend on the exact claim now, wouldn't it? And besides...
2. They are far too busy trying to work with the real claimants to waste their time with pretend ones. When someone puts in a real claim, they will deal with it, period.

If you want to play "gotcha" with the rules, please go elsewhere.

Jackalgirl

2nd February 2009, 06:00 PM

But why should that be? Doesn't the JREF know whether a 1000+ hour protocol would be acceptable?

It depends on the protocol. Are you talking about all 1000 hours in one go? Are you breaking it up into 30-minute periods? One-hour periods? Two-hour periods? How much actual time (including setup, breakdown, rest, and administrative time), involving how many people, are you talking about? What are the logistical requirements of the protocol?

See jojonete's excellent post, also. This is why a vague hypothetical statement such as yours can only be met with "maybe, it depends on the claim and the protocol".

Rodney

2nd February 2009, 07:41 PM

Rodney

2nd February 2009, 07:52 PM

It depends on the protocol. Are you talking about all 1000 hours in one go? Are you breaking it up into 30-minute periods? One-hour periods? Two-hour periods? How much actual time (including setup, breakdown, rest, and administrative time), involving how many people, are you talking about? What are the logistical requirements of the protocol?

See jojonete's excellent post, also. This is why a vague hypothetical statement such as yours can only be met with "maybe, it depends on the claim and the protocol".
Try re-reading my e-mail, which is reproduced in post #5 on this thread. If you don't have the time to do that, read the below excerpt from that e-mail about the arduous choice faced by the JREF. They have to choose either (2) or (2A):

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

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

They don't even have to type anything -- they just have to copy either (2) of (2A) and paste it into this thread.

remirol

2nd February 2009, 08:11 PM

So why doesn't the JREF simply respond to my e-mail of last May by saying that?

See Czarcasm's post. They are waiting for you or these researchers to apply.

Jackalgirl

2nd February 2009, 08:58 PM

Try re-reading my e-mail, which is reproduced in post #5 on this thread. If you don't have the time to do that, read the below excerpt from that e-mail about the arduous choice faced by the JREF. They have to choose either (2) or (2A):

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

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

They don't even have to type anything -- they just have to copy either (2) of (2A) and paste it into this thread.

Except that you assume that Ganzfield experiments would automatically be of the type that are not eligible for the Challenge due to impact of JREF resources if choice 2A were selected. You have left out:

"Some time-consuming protocols may be eligible for the Challenge depending on the nature of their time and logistical requirements, their impact on JREF resources, and the capability of involved persons to maintain the integrity of the test and its documentation over the proposed span of time".

I do not think that you will ever see JREF saying "all protocols...are eligible" or "some protocols...are eligigle" because the JREF has made it quite clear that claims are handled on a claim-by-claim basis. What flies for one claimant may not fly for another, depending on the claim and the claimant's protocol requirements (and JREF's own requirements for the protocol).

I believe that this is important. It allows JREF the flexibility to handle claims on a claim-by-claim basis. The minute they start "if-thenning", they begin to lose that flexibility. So your experimenters, or you, or anyone else interested in submitting a Ganzfield claim should simply submit one. An actual claim, that is. The JREF may or may not respond favorably, depending on the nature of the claim and the structure of the proposed protocol.

That's just my guess, of course. I do not speak for the JREF.

Paul2

2nd February 2009, 09:05 PM

To put perhaps too fine a point on what Jackalgirl said, it is inherent in the nature of the Challenge that every contingency and detail cannot be accounted for beforehand because of the complexity of how every aspect of a claim may interact with each other. That is the fundamental reason why each claim is judged on a case by case basis.

William Smith

2nd February 2009, 10:20 PM

So why doesn't the JREF simply respond to my e-mail of last May by saying that?

For an official answer please contact the JREF.

Gr8wight

3rd February 2009, 06:06 AM

So why doesn't the JREF simply respond to my e-mail of last May by saying that?

For an official answer please contact the JREF.

Oh, you cheeky monkey!

Moochie

3rd February 2009, 09:02 AM

jojonete

3rd February 2009, 09:27 AM

Summary of this post: if an application were filled with the proposal implied in this thread, I'd expect the JREF to reject it as untestable.
So why doesn't the JREF simply respond to my e-mail of last May by saying that?
While I admit I'd be much happier had the JREF given some answer, I see at least two reasons for them to not give the answer you suggest.

First:
Your e-mail (as quoted in post 5 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4366422)) does not provide the information I used, namely:
600 hits are required out of 2000 trials.
There will be 6 trials per day.
Each trial requires 40 minutes.
The receiver requires a 15-minute break every 2 trials.
The total time for the experiment will be about 11 months, including Sundays, etc.

Notice that, when I didn't have that information, my post was quite different:
What would a would-be serious candidate to Ganzfeld applicant's paranormal claim be?
Only when you answered that question with specific numbers could I decide the claim is untestable.

Second:
The "untestable" verdict comes from the problems I mentioned in my previous post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4399586). The first JREF answer (if the e-mail contained the information above) should be to ask how those problems will be solved, and not declaring first-hand they can't be solved. If the applicant can't solve them, then the claim would be declared untestable.
Of course and as always, I don't speak for JREF. This is what I would expect to happen if someone applied for the MDC with the proposed claim.

And, well, I still wonder: if Ganzfeld experimenters have never tried an experiment similar to this one, what would make them think they can succeed?

Rodney

3rd February 2009, 09:30 AM

For an official answer please contact the JREF.
I did -- in an e-mail of May 10, 2008 titled "Clarifying the Challenge."

Rodney

3rd February 2009, 09:35 AM

And, well, I still wonder: if Ganzfeld experimenters have never tried an experiment similar to this one, what would make them think they can succeed?
Because, according to Radin, the composite results of more than 3,000 Ganzfeld trials show better than a 30% hit rate, when 25% would be expected by chance. This is highly statistically significant.

jojonete

3rd February 2009, 10:02 AM

And, well, I still wonder: if Ganzfeld experimenters have never tried an experiment similar to this one, what would make them think they can succeed?Because, according to Radin, the composite results of more than 3,000 Ganzfeld trials show better than a 30% hit rate, when 25% would be expected by chance. This is highly statistically significant.
Oops! Didn't notice how off-topic my comment was until I saw the reply.
Sorry, won't go that way again in this forum.

William Smith

3rd February 2009, 10:04 AM

I did -- in an e-mail of May 10, 2008 titled "Clarifying the Challenge."

You know how to do what you have to do yet you do not do it for some reason. "De do do do de da da da is all I want to say to you."

Enough Groundhog Day for me.

Dancing David

3rd February 2009, 01:25 PM

Because, according to Radin, the composite results of more than 3,000 Ganzfeld trials show better than a 30% hit rate, when 25% would be expected by chance. This is highly statistically significant.

Rodney, should I e-mail Ersby?

How many of these had a goods protocol and did not have the potential for bias? How many of these were sloppy and did not meet a protocol to rule out bias?

After all the threads I have ask you:
1. Why if there was bias in the test should this be called 'significant'?

Again it could be 'significant' but until the procedures and protocols are tight, it is not 'significant'.

andy2001

3rd February 2009, 02:08 PM

remirol

3rd February 2009, 04:12 PM

I did -- in an e-mail of May 10, 2008 titled "Clarifying the Challenge."

I bet they pay more attention to an application. Have you considered applying?

Of course, you _could_ just send another e-mail. In case the first one got, you know, lost or deleted by mistake and you're incorrectly ascribing malice where none exists.

Or you could do nothing, at which point nothing will change.

The choice is yours.

petre

3rd February 2009, 05:49 PM

I did -- in an e-mail of May 10, 2008 titled "Clarifying the Challenge."

You misunderstand, I believe the suggestion was that if you wish to have an official answer why your e-mail was never replied to, you will need to contact the JREF and ask.

Rodney

3rd February 2009, 07:53 PM

You misunderstand, I believe the suggestion was that if you wish to have an official answer why your e-mail was never replied to, you will need to contact the JREF and ask.
Okay, I just forwarded my May 10, 2008 e-mail to challenge@randi.org with the following message:

Greetings,

I did not receive a response to the below inquiry. Some Randi Forum participants suggested that I jog your memory about it.

Regards,

Rodney

RoboTimbo

3rd February 2009, 08:03 PM

My money says no answer is the answer to hypotheticals again. Takers?

William Smith

3rd February 2009, 10:20 PM

My money says no answer is the answer to hypotheticals again. Takers?

(Just when I thought I'm out I push myself back in.)

Taken.

Let's not forget Rodney asked for a rule change, too.

Rodney

4th February 2009, 06:19 AM

(Just when I thought I'm out I push myself back in.)

Taken.

Let's not forget Rodney asked for a rule change, too.
It looks as if you have stumbled into the truth. ;) I have already received the following response from Jeff Wagg:

Hello Rodney,

Thanks for the suggestions. So you know, the challenge rules are being reconsidered, and we'll take your suggestions into account.

If we do make changes, they'll be posted publicly.

Jeff

RoboTimbo

4th February 2009, 06:34 AM

(Just when I thought I'm out I push myself back in.)

Taken.

Let's not forget Rodney asked for a rule change, too.

Will you take a check?

Cuddles

4th February 2009, 06:35 AM

It looks as if you have stumbled into the truth. ;) I have already received the following response from Jeff Wagg:

Hello Rodney,

Thanks for the suggestions. So you know, the challenge rules are being reconsidered, and we'll take your suggestions into account.

If we do make changes, they'll be posted publicly.

Jeff

So you've spent all this time whining and ignoring all the people telling you to contact the JREF when you could have just taken 5 minutes to actually do what you were told. Now that you've done so, do you see just how much easier it would be in the future if you actually take advice when you ask for it instead of just whining about it?

Rodney

4th February 2009, 08:26 AM

So you've spent all this time whining and ignoring all the people telling you to contact the JREF when you could have just taken 5 minutes to actually do what you were told. Now that you've done so, do you see just how much easier it would be in the future if you actually take advice when you ask for it instead of just whining about it?
I don't know about you, but when I send someone an e-mail, it doesn't bounce back, and I don't receive a reply, I assume that the recipient simply chose not to reply. Yes, glitches do happen, but they're pretty rare, and Jeff did not express surprise that I had previously sent an e-mail. I do admit that I was pleasantly surprised, not only at the speed of the response, but the fact that Jeff states that "the challenge rules are being reconsidered, and we'll take your suggestions into account." Perhaps the JREF management is more open-minded than most of the participants on this thread? :)

jojonete

4th February 2009, 08:38 AM

600 hits are required out of 2000 trials.
There will be 6 trials per day.
Each trial requires 40 minutes.
The receiver requires a 15-minute break every 2 trials.
The total time for the experiment will be about 11 months, including Sundays, etc.
Cramming that many trials into such a small space of time is probably unrealistic. That many trials would realistically take at least five and half years.
I'd like a little more detail about what you consider "realistic". The five lines you quoted are the closest to "realistic" I could come up with. Could you write a proposal with your own numbers? You see, it doesn't need to be more than five lines.

I (speaking only for me) don't care if it's just a hypothesis. I'd like to see a specific claim to work with, even if nobody intends to apply using it. This thread is about Ganzfeld tests; what's a realistic Ganzfeld test like?

William Smith

4th February 2009, 09:22 AM

It looks as if you have stumbled into the truth. ;)
...

Truth is a semantic fiction.

I gladly stumble upon evidence, data and information though.

William Smith

4th February 2009, 09:26 AM

Will you take a check?

Let's say I have bragging rights for the duration of this post and we're even.

petre

4th February 2009, 02:48 PM

I don't know about you, but when I send someone an e-mail, it doesn't bounce back, and I don't receive a reply, I assume that the recipient simply chose not to reply. Yes, glitches do happen, but they're pretty rare, and Jeff did not express surprise that I had previously sent an e-mail. I do admit that I was pleasantly surprised, not only at the speed of the response, but the fact that Jeff states that "the challenge rules are being reconsidered, and we'll take your suggestions into account." Perhaps the JREF management is more open-minded than most of the participants on this thread? :)

In light of this new evidence, are you reconsidering (at least the degree of certainty in) your hypothesis that the JREF actively chose not to reply to your previous e-mail?

Rodney

4th February 2009, 06:38 PM

In light of this new evidence, are you reconsidering (at least the degree of certainty in) your hypothesis that the JREF actively chose not to reply to your previous e-mail?
To some extent, but I still think it's likely that my original e-mail was read, as opposed to a glitch that prevented it from being read. If it were the latter, I believe Jeff would have stated in his reply either that: 1) The JREF had no record of my prior e-mail, or 2) That e-mail had gotten lost in the shuffle.

Dancing David

5th February 2009, 05:17 AM

I don't know about you, but when I send someone an e-mail, it doesn't bounce back, and I don't receive a reply, I assume that the recipient simply chose not to reply.

Huh, my experience is different. I send out blanket requests for information at both my schools as well as advise on storing data and the like.

Response rate is about 5% at one school and up to 60% at another.

So yes people choose not to respond, but sometimes they just don't respond because that is the pattern. People usually scan the e-mail titles and the first two sentences (when they do open) and decide which ones to respond to.

Dancing David

5th February 2009, 05:18 AM

To some extent, but I still think it's likely that my original e-mail was read, as opposed to a glitch that prevented it from being read. If it were the latter, I believe Jeff would have stated in his reply either that: 1) The JREF had no record of my prior e-mail, or 2) That e-mail had gotten lost in the shuffle.

Or without singling you out it was an e-mail that he does not respond to in type.

andy2001

8th February 2009, 06:04 PM

William Smith

8th February 2009, 10:29 PM

http://www.dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge

Note I had to make the last two posts to be allowed to post the url.

The mods would probably advise you to post in one of the hunour thread in order to increase your post count.

Ah, I haven't seen this link in a while. How does it relate to your OP?

jojonete

9th February 2009, 08:29 AM

I'd like a little more detail about what you consider "realistic". The five lines you quoted are the closest to "realistic" I could come up with. Could you write a proposal with your own numbers? You see, it doesn't need to be more than five lines.
http://www.dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge
The only proposal for a Ganzfeld test I could find there is the one about recruiting of 989x2 people for more than four years; and it's clearly an example of a completely unrealistic Ganzfeld test, i.e. just the opposite of what you're supposedly answering.

At this point, I can only repeat my question: what is a realistic Ganzfeld test like?

Dancing David

9th February 2009, 08:55 AM

fls

9th February 2009, 09:41 AM

http://www.dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge

Note I had to make the last two posts to be allowed to post the url.

This is the problem. For some reason, people keep referring to effects that are not visible to the naked eye. And yet, the source of paranormal claims is casual and informal observation - effects that are so large that they are obvious and amazing to everyone who is privileged to see them, not effects that are small enough to be shrugged off as due to chance. If the ganzfeld trials really did show a paranormal result, you'd only need 37 trials to have a good chance of demonstrating this effect to a standard of less than 5 in 1000 due to chance.

Linda

William Smith

9th February 2009, 09:58 AM

...
If the ganzfeld trials really did show a paranormal result, you'd only need 37 trials to have a good chance of demonstrating this effect to a standard of less than 5 in 1000 due to chance.

Linda

I do not understand this part. Could you clarify, please?

fls

9th February 2009, 12:30 PM

If the ganzfeld trials really did show a paranormal result, you'd only need 37 trials to have a good chance of demonstrating this effect to a standard of less than 5 in 1000 due to chance.

Linda

If a do a sample size calculation with a large (i.e. visible to the naked eye) effect size (i.e. h=0.80) that exceeds a standard of being due to chance less than 5 in 1000 times (i.e. one-tailed alpha of 0.005), then 37 trials will show a difference that exceeds the above standard 80% (a typical power level) of the time.

(Source: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences, Cohen)

Linda

Dancing David

9th February 2009, 02:20 PM

Thanks FLS, so 2,000 would be too small a sample.

Of course my contetion is that there is a bias effect to begin with.

Rodney

9th February 2009, 02:25 PM

If a do a sample size calculation with a large (i.e. visible to the naked eye) effect size (i.e. h=0.80) that exceeds a standard of being due to chance less than 5 in 1000 times (i.e. one-tailed alpha of 0.005), then 37 trials will show a difference that exceeds the above standard 80% (a typical power level) of the time.

(Source: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences, Cohen)

Linda
Fine, but in a controlled test, psi may be weak because there is no strong emotional component. Guessing which of four pictures that the sender was trying to transmit is not the most exciting way for the average person to spend a day. Nonetheless, if the results are in the 30-35% range over thousands of trials in a tightly-controlled experiment, what is the alternative to psi?

andy2001

9th February 2009, 02:27 PM

If a do a sample size calculation with a large (i.e. visible to the naked eye) effect size (i.e. h=0.80) that exceeds a standard of being due to chance less than 5 in 1000 times (i.e. one-tailed alpha of 0.005), then 37 trials will show a difference that exceeds the above standard 80% (a typical power level) of the time.

(Source: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences, Cohen)

Linda

This is a ridiculous argument. Nobody is claiming an 80% hit rate for Ganzfeld, and anyone that understands statistics knows that a hit rate only a little bid above chance would be very unlikely to have happened by chance if the sample size is sufficient to give a small enough p value.

fls

9th February 2009, 02:29 PM

Fine, but in a controlled test, psi may be weak because there is no strong emotional component. Guessing which of four pictures that the sender was trying to transmit is not the most exciting way for the average person to spend a day. Nonetheless, if the results are in the 30-35% range over thousands of trials in a tightly-controlled experiment, what is the alternative to psi?

Why ask for an explanation for something that hasn't happened?

Linda

Rodney

9th February 2009, 02:30 PM

Thanks FLS, so 2,000 would be too small a sample.
No. A 30% hit rate in 2,000 trials would defy odds of about 1 in 4.3 million.

Rodney

9th February 2009, 02:38 PM

Why ask for an explanation for something that hasn't happened?

Linda
That depends on whom you believe. Again, at p. 120 of his 2006 book, Entangled Minds, Dean Radin reports that out of 3145 ganzfeld trials in 88 different experiments conducted during 1974-2004 that used standard hit or miss protocols, 1008 produced hits (32% hit rate). Ersby contends that Radin omitted a number of ganzfeld experiments that would dramatically reduce that hit rate, but Radin argues that those experiments did not use standard protocols.

fls

9th February 2009, 02:40 PM

This is a ridiculous argument. Nobody is claiming an 80% hit rate for Ganzfeld, and anyone that understands statistics knows that a hit rate only a little bid above chance would be very unlikely to have happened by chance if the sample size is sufficient to give a small enough p value.

You didn't understand what I was saying.

First off, I didn't say a hit rate of 80%. I said an effect size of 0.8. This corresponds to a hit rate of 64% for the ganzfeld.

Second, the point of the MDC, and also of parapsychology research, is that people claim to do and see amazing things. People are unable to see effects that are only a little bit above chance (that's the point of dividing effects into 'small', 'medium' and 'large' for the purposes of statistical analysis). Things have to (appear to) be way above chance before it becomes obvious enough for word to get around. So parapsychology research and the MDC should be looking for things that are obvious. If they are finding small to tiny effects, that suggests that they are missing whatever it is that they are supposed to be looking for.

Third, nobody denies that these things are unlikely, due to chance. However, bias also contributes to differences, and the lack of control groups means that the effect of bias cannot be eliminated. A "small enough p value" may simply be a measure of the presence of bias.

Linda

fls

9th February 2009, 02:42 PM

Thanks FLS, so 2,000 would be too small a sample.

Huh?

(If this is a joke, I apologize in advance for missing it...)

Linda

fls

9th February 2009, 02:46 PM

That depends on whom you believe. Again, at p. 120 of his 2006 book, Entangled Minds, Dean Radin reports that out of 3145 ganzfeld trials in 88 different experiments conducted during 1974-2004 that used standard hit or miss protocols, 1008 produced hits (32% hit rate). Ersby contends that Radin omitted a number of ganzfeld experiments that would dramatically reduce that hit rate, but Radin argues that those experiments did not use standard protocols.

So what? A bunch of small trials is not the same as one large trial. In medicine, when a meta-analysis suggests that an effect is present, it's considered reliable enough to make it worthwhile to do a large trial, but it's not considered reliable on its own merits. Large randomized controlled trials often overturn the results of meta-analysis, and it is the large trial that is given more weight.

Linda

andy2001

9th February 2009, 02:56 PM

You didn't understand what I was saying.

First off, I didn't say a hit rate of 80%. I said an effect size of 0.8. This corresponds to a hit rate of 64% for the ganzfeld.

Well they are also not claiming a 64% hit rate.

As for the rest of what you say I will have to conclude that if this is also the view of Randi then the million dollar prize can not reasonably considered any more than a con. Statistics are used in many fields such as medical treatments to come to firm conclusions often on effect sizes much smaller than that found in Ganzfeld.

andy2001

9th February 2009, 03:01 PM

So what? A bunch of small trials is not the same as one large trial. In medicine, when a meta-analysis suggests that an effect is present, it's considered reliable enough to make it worthwhile to do a large trial, but it's not considered reliable on its own merits. Large randomized controlled trials often overturn the results of meta-analysis, and it is the large trial that is given more weight.

Linda

But even if anyone where to apply to Randi with an experiment set up with 0.8 power for what ever p value he was looking for based on the results of the studies mentioned you appear to think this would be a waste of time because the effect size is to small.

Rodney

9th February 2009, 03:08 PM

So what? A bunch of small trials is not the same as one large trial.
I'm still trying to figure out why that is the case if the protocol is uniform in each small trial. Can you explain?

In medicine, when a meta-analysis suggests that an effect is present, it's considered reliable enough to make it worthwhile to do a large trial, but it's not considered reliable on its own merits. Large randomized controlled trials often overturn the results of meta-analysis, and it is the large trial that is given more weight.
I'm guessing that the protocol was not uniform in each of the small trials. Can you give an example where a large trial overturned the results of a meta-analysis of a number of small trials where the protocol in each small trial was uniform?

andy2001

9th February 2009, 03:17 PM

I'm still trying to figure out why that is the case if the protocol is uniform in each small trial. Can you explain?

I'm guessing that the protocol was not uniform in each of the small trials. Can you give an example where a large trial overturned the results of a meta-analysis of a number of small trials where the protocol in each small trial was uniform?

You forget to ask her to do this for a meta analysis which had odds against chance that was a few billion to one against.

fls

9th February 2009, 03:42 PM

Well they are also not claiming a 64% hit rate.

I realize that.

As for the rest of what you say I will have to conclude that if this is also the view of Randi then the million dollar prize can not reasonably considered any more than a con.

Why? I'm simply trying to convey what it is that we usually consider paranormal - information that seems amazingly accurate, objects that move in front of our eyes, sensing who is calling us on the telephone more often than you'd expect from guesses. We don't consider an occasional lucky guess paranormal, nor an object that we don't see move, but someone tells us it moved when subject to incredibly meticulous measurements.

Statistics are used in many fields such as medical treatments to come to firm conclusions often on effect sizes much smaller than that found in Ganzfeld.

But they have the benefit of control groups, which eliminates bias as an alternate explanation. (ETA: that should be bias wrt internal validity)

Linda

fls

9th February 2009, 03:45 PM

But even if anyone where to apply to Randi with an experiment set up with 0.8 power for what ever p value he was looking for based on the results of the studies mentioned you appear to think this would be a waste of time because the effect size is to small.

I'm saying that the MDC works well to test obvious effects, but it's not a good choice for testing smaller effects. The MDC would also be a poor choice for most of the medical research that takes place nowadays. It's simply the wrong setting.

It makes more sense, if someone is interested in the ganzfeld, to run a proper experiment in a more appropriate setting, than to try and make a square peg fit a round hole.

Linda

andy2001

9th February 2009, 04:08 PM

But they have the benefit of control groups, which eliminates bias as an alternate explanation.
Linda

You need control groups in medical studies to rule out the placebo affect, and establish the base line for chance. For Psi you just need a properly designed test which has been peer reviewed to check for sensory leaks. You already know what score is chance.

andy2001

9th February 2009, 04:15 PM

I'm saying that the MDC works well to test obvious effects, but it's not a good choice for testing smaller effects.

Linda

But the MDC is regularly used as evidence that there is there is no such thing a PSI.
Despite strong evidence from multiple tests in labs all over the world with different protocols. If such tests are not eligible for the prize I find this very deceptive and a con.

wardenclyffe

9th February 2009, 04:23 PM

I would be willing to guess that if someone bothered to apply for the MDC with a Ganzfeld claim, and that applicant were willing to pay the millions of dollars that would probably be required to mount a proper test, something could easily be worked out. That applicant might even win Randi's million after spending all that money. I'm more of a bargain shopper and would try to come up with a claim that's provable for less than a million. That way, I'd come out ahead.

Ward

fls

9th February 2009, 04:28 PM

You need control groups in medical studies to rule out the placebo affect, and establish the base line for chance. For Psi you just need a properly designed test which has been peer reviewed to check for sensory leaks. You already know what score is chance.

The baseline in medical studies includes those other things that lead to differences from chance, like various biases. The problem is that the ganzfeld studies haven't always operated at chance. It's easier to establish a realistic baseline with a control group than to try and achieve a perfect baseline.

Linda

fls

9th February 2009, 04:32 PM

But the MDC is regularly used as evidence that there is there is no such thing a PSI.

Is it? I would have guessed that scientists wouldn't pay that much attention to it.

Despite strong evidence from multiple tests in labs all over the world with different protocols. If such tests are not eligible for the prize I find this very deceptive and a con.

Really? Why would it occur to scientists that this is the proper place to test their ideas?

Linda

Gr8wight

9th February 2009, 05:22 PM

But the MDC is regularly used as evidence that there is there is no such thing a PSI.
Despite strong evidence from multiple tests in labs all over the world with different protocols. If such tests are not eligible for the prize I find this very deceptive and a con.

Ah! once again we come to it: you clearly have no idea what the Million Dollar Challenge, or why it exists. The MDC is never used as evidence that there is no such thing as PSI. The MDC is only used as evidence that, to date, no one who claims to be able to demonstrate PSI has successfully been able to do so. This is at the center of why Rodney's argument is flawed. The MDC only deals with claims made by applicants for the MDC. No one, to date, has applied to the MDC using a Ganzfeld type of test, so the JREF One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge makes no commentary on the Ganzfeld.

Sure, Randi has commented on the Ganzfeld before, but Randi is not The JREF One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge. He exists as a separate entity.

andy2001

9th February 2009, 10:29 PM

Is it? I would have guessed that scientists wouldn't pay that much attention to it.

Linda

I was talking about average Joe, not scientists.

Uncayimmy

9th February 2009, 11:52 PM

No. A 30% hit rate in 2,000 trials would defy odds of about 1 in 4.3 million.
To be very clear here, it would indicate with great confidence that the events that took place were not entirely random. Since we have humans making subjective judgments in Ganzfeld, we already know that things are not random. For example, when choosing a picture, people will probably be likely to pick pictures that appeal to them for some reason. It could aesthetics. It could be that it reminds them of something familiar. They could eliminate pictures because they don't like them. The only way humans can randomly choose a picture is to use something that is random to make the choice for them.

Therefore, it is foolish (yes, foolish) to claim the deviation from random is due to ESP.

If you want to get excited about such a small deviation, you at least need a control. That is, randomly determine if the sender is going to send or not, but don't tell the receiver. He cannot know this. While you're at it, add a fifth option: Nothing. Then compare the success rates. If I see 20% (5 options now) when the sender does nothing and 25% when the sender sends something, I'll probably sit up and pay some attention.

On top of all that, analyze every picture the receiver selected to see if there's a patten. For example, if the person likes the color blue, they might have a tendency to select photos with blue in them. So, what percentage of the photos have blue? Proper analysis could show that blue was at work, not ESP.

Uncayimmy

9th February 2009, 11:56 PM

You need control groups in medical studies to rule out the placebo affect, and establish the base line for chance. For Psi you just need a properly designed test which has been peer reviewed to check for sensory leaks. You already know what score is chance.

Actually, you don't. I contend that it is impossible for a subjective human to mentally make choices at random without relying on something else that's actually random (coins, dice).

Rodney

10th February 2009, 06:56 AM

To be very clear here, it would indicate with great confidence that the events that took place were not entirely random. Since we have humans making subjective judgments in Ganzfeld, we already know that things are not random. For example, when choosing a picture, people will probably be likely to pick pictures that appeal to them for some reason. It could aesthetics. It could be that it reminds them of something familiar. They could eliminate pictures because they don't like them. The only way humans can randomly choose a picture is to use something that is random to make the choice for them.

Therefore, it is foolish (yes, foolish) to claim the deviation from random is due to ESP.

If you want to get excited about such a small deviation, you at least need a control. That is, randomly determine if the sender is going to send or not, but don't tell the receiver. He cannot know this. While you're at it, add a fifth option: Nothing. Then compare the success rates. If I see 20% (5 options now) when the sender does nothing and 25% when the sender sends something, I'll probably sit up and pay some attention.

On top of all that, analyze every picture the receiver selected to see if there's a patten. For example, if the person likes the color blue, they might have a tendency to select photos with blue in them. So, what percentage of the photos have blue? Proper analysis could show that blue was at work, not ESP.
The issues you're talking about have been accounted for, as I noted in post #106 on this thread: " . . . even skeptic Ray Hyman concedes that '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.'"

Moochie

10th February 2009, 07:25 AM

jojonete

10th February 2009, 10:51 AM

I would say that you have twenty people do ten trials each. Then you have two hundred trials.
This could be replicated 10 times (at different sites) for 2,000.

The issues remain, can people do the Ganzfeld at the same time? Or do they have to be seperate runs? When they ran the ganzfeld in the past did they put 10 people sending and ten people receiving at teh same time? That way you could run the twenty trials in four hours. With seperate runs you then have like 40 hours.

Rodney suggested 40 minutes per trial (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4392898), however the page linked to by andy2001 (http://www.dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge) says "One ganzfeld session lasts about 1.5 hours". Also, I suggested 6 trials per day (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4399586), however andy2001's link (http://www.dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge) says "Previous experiments show that it is not advisable to run more than one session per day".

Now, even assuming 20 people with simultaneous trials, 40 minutes per trial and no breaks between trials, I can't see how your calculations can arrive at such a short time as 40 hours. Each person will have to do 100 trials (in 10 rounds of 10 or whatever). 100 times 40 minutes is 66 hours and 40 minutes.

Of course, given what andy2001's link says, we clearly should limit things to 1 trial per day per test subject. With 20 subjects that would be 100 days. Now, every single trial (of the 2000) will need at the very least 4 persons: a sender, a receiver, an observer at the sender's location and an observer at the receiver's location. This means having at least 80 people "tied" to the test for more than 3 months. I'll leave open the question about how "realistic" this sounds.

Now, using 20 different receivers for an MDC test (and I'm always speaking from the point of view of a hypothetical MDC test) raises another issue: some are going to score better than others, and the best scoring ones are going to be called "real" by Ganzfeld proponents.

To show this, I actually wrote a VBS script simulating 2000 trials and using pseudo-random numbers as results. In total I got 486 hits, i.e. a failure (success is defined as 600 or more). However, making 20 groups of 100 trials each there's an impressive subject #17 with 34 hits, while all others are 28 or less. To Ganzfeld proponents, this would surely be considered clear evidence that subject #17 was really receiving transmissions while all others were just receiving garbage or imagining results (maybe due to the lack of cooperation from experimenters).

fls

10th February 2009, 11:21 AM

I was talking about average Joe, not scientists.

I don't think the average Joe would pay much attention to it either if the presence of psi was generally accepted by scientists (not just by scientists who are believers).

Linda

andy2001

10th February 2009, 11:23 AM

Actually, you don't. I contend that it is impossible for a subjective human to mentally make choices at random without relying on something else that's actually random (coins, dice).

The person can have a non random way of picking such as always choosing the first target, or preferring red targets. But if targets are presented randomly the chance score is 25%.

andy2001

10th February 2009, 11:36 AM

I don't think the average Joe would pay much attention to it either if the presence of psi was generally accepted by scientists (not just by scientists who are believers).

Linda

How would a scientist accept it without believing it?
Most scientists who have done sufficient research into the matter do accept it.
Most scientists who have not are not known for the view on it.

Rodney

10th February 2009, 12:03 PM

To show this, I actually wrote a VBS script simulating 2000 trials and using pseudo-random numbers as results. In total I got 486 hits, i.e. a failure (success is defined as 600 or more).
So how do you explain the fact that 3145 standard ganzfeld trials conducted during 1974-2004 resulted in 1008 hits (32% hit rate)?

fls

10th February 2009, 12:22 PM

How would a scientist accept it without believing it?

The usual way. They are presented with persuasive evidence.

Most scientists who have done sufficient research into the matter do accept it.

Do they? I find it hard to tell. There are parapsychologists or ex-parapsychologists who don't accept it. Cj, who is familiar with the literature, says that the parapsychology journals are full of criticisms about the results of various studies.

I'm not a parapsychologist. I'm a medical doctor with experience in designing research studies and in analysis. I've read a lot of the studies, and I've read sources that are pointed to as making the best case for psi. I use my own experience and knowledge to analyze the results, but I don't know how much dissent there is within the field.

Most scientists who have not are not known for the view on it.

I can't really parse this sentence.

Scientists from other fields that should be interested in the findings from parapsychology don't seem to find the results compelling enough to stimulate further research on their part.

Linda

andy2001

10th February 2009, 12:42 PM

The usual way. They are presented with persuasive evidence

Yes and many have done. But at this point they would believe in it. This would them put them in a category whose opinions you ignore.

Scientists from other fields that should be interested in the findings from parapsychology don't seem to find the results compelling enough to stimulate further research on their part.

Linda

This may explain something about that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew

fls

10th February 2009, 02:57 PM

Yes and many have done. But at this point they would believe in it. This would them put them in a category whose opinions you ignore.

I'm sorry. I don't really understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that some people are persuaded? I would agree with that. But whose opinions would I ignore?

This may explain something about that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew

I listened to part of that. I will probably have to listen to it in bits and pieces because it's quite long. However, I have read quite a lot of stuff from Radin on that topic, and I didn't hear anything new in the part that I heard. The problem is that I look up and read references, and I am able to understand the technical aspects. Plus I have worked within academia so I have first-hand experience of the culture. This means that I don't have to depend upon his presentation of the information in order to understand or evaluate the validity of his ideas.

Linda

fls

10th February 2009, 03:11 PM

Well they are also not claiming a 64% hit rate.

I'm listening to the talk by Radin and he just said that the hit-rate for some individuals (creative, open to new experiences, siblings) is 65% (at 25 minutes).

Linda

andy2001

10th February 2009, 03:20 PM

You said

I don't think the average Joe would pay much attention to it either if the presence of psi was generally accepted by scientists (not just by scientists who are believers).

Linda

How can a scientist accept psi without moving into the category of believer? Even if 99 out of 100 scientists did accept psi it would only be those that were believers that did because when you accept it you move from a non believer to a believer.

wardenclyffe

10th February 2009, 03:32 PM

andy2001,

I think fls was suggesting that psi is not generally accepted by scientists. It is generally accepted by scientists who are believers, but not by the scientific community as a whole. The fact that there are outliers who happen to be believers is being acknowledged by fls. That doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the scientific community does not believe in psi. The fact that there are only a few true believers in Ganzfeld or some other form of psi does not prove that psi does not exist. It's hard to prove that negative.

It would be simple to prove it exists, though. Just apply for the MDC, front the millions of dollars that it will take to have a proper test and maybe you'll win a million.

I'd be willing to bet that if you could track down those individuals with the really high hit rates (like 65%), you could probably put together a cheap and easy protocol which should soon have your pockets bulging with cash.

Ward

fls

10th February 2009, 03:38 PM

How can a scientist accept psi without moving into the category of believer? Even if 99 out of 100 scientists did accept psi it would only be those that were believers that did because when you accept it you move from a non believer to a believer.

Ah, I see what you mean.

I'm thinking of people who don't have an a priori belief, or an a priori inclination to believe. So, information about fMRI that neuroscientists would find persuasive, for example.

Linda

andy2001

10th February 2009, 03:44 PM

andy2001,
It would be simple to prove it exists, though. Just apply for the MDC, front the millions of dollars that it will take to have a proper test and maybe you'll win a million.

Ward
Ray Hyman
"but as a leading Fellow of CSICOP, Ray Hyman, has pointed out, this "prize" cannot be taken seriously from a scientific point of view: "Scientists don't settle issues with a single test, so even if someone does win a big cash prize in a demonstration, this isn't going to convince anyone. Proof in science happens through replication, not through single experiments."

andy2001

10th February 2009, 03:50 PM

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/index.htm

fls

10th February 2009, 04:09 PM

Okay, here's an example of Radin's willingness to be, if not overtly dishonest, at least highly misleading.

Someone just asked Radin why one couldn't win the MDC with the ganzfeld. Radin states that when he calculates what it takes to win the prize, it would take 4 to 8 years of performing the experiment every day. Yet when I made that same calculation I came up with 37 trials. Why are his results so different? Because he chose a p value that exceeds by many orders of magnitude any p value that Randi has requested. And he chose a power value that far exceeds a power value any honest researcher would choose.

Andy2001, presumably you watched this presentation. Were you able to realize that Radin was presenting wildly outrageous numbers at that part of the presentation? If not, how do you know whether or not the rest of what he presented was highly misleading?

Linda

andy2001

10th February 2009, 05:51 PM

fls

10th February 2009, 05:58 PM

Even if you drop the power to 0.8 it would still take about 465 trials just to get the one in an a thousand to pass the preliminary test. Based on 32% expected hit rate. That’s over a years work.

But Radin stated earlier in his talk that he can identify a group of people that average a 65% hit rate. Why wouldn't he use them?

What does Randi ask anyway as know one will tell me.

I don't understand this question.

Linda

Rodney

10th February 2009, 06:45 PM

But Radin stated earlier in his talk that he can identify a group of people that average a 65% hit rate.
At what point in the talk does he state that?

Why wouldn't he use them?
If he said that they can consistently average a 65% hit rate, that's a good question.

I don't understand this question.
andy2001 is raising the issue that I raised nine months ago in my e-mail to the JREF: "In tests where the odds of success can be readily calculated, it is unclear what odds standard must be met."

P.S. You have not answered my question about why small trials cannot be aggregated if the same protocol is used in each of the small trials.

andy2001

10th February 2009, 06:49 PM

But Radin stated earlier in his talk that he can identify a group of people that average a 65% hit rate. Why wouldn't he use them?

There is evidence for higher hit rates form certain people, such as Dalton 1997 with a hit rate of 46.6% and a z score of 5.2 on an auto Ganzfeld. I think that was for musicians. But I’m not sure how he gets 65%.

I don't understand this question.

Linda

What P value does he want to win the million?

Gr8wight

10th February 2009, 09:10 PM

Ray Hyman
"but as a leading Fellow of CSICOP, Ray Hyman, has pointed out, this "prize" cannot be taken seriously from a scientific point of view: "Scientists don't settle issues with a single test, so even if someone does win a big cash prize in a demonstration, this isn't going to convince anyone. Proof in science happens through replication, not through single experiments."

The same point as I made before. We seem to be discussing apples and oranges here. The Million Dollar Challenge is not looking to be "taken seriously from a scientific point of view." The Million Dollar Challenge is not a scientific study. The Million Dollar Challenge is not trying to find out whether or not PSI (or any other alleged paranormal ability) exists.

If you would like to see more work done on Ganzfeld type studies, approach a university. The JREF is not interested.

The Million Dollar Challenge is no more and no less than exactly what its name implies. It is a challenge to those who make claims of paranormal abilities to demonstrate those claims. Nothing more. You and Rodney are engaging in one very long Strawman argument. You are criticising the JREF Million Dollar Challenge for not being something it has never claimed to be.

wardenclyffe

10th February 2009, 09:24 PM

I'm pretty new around here. I was confused. I thought these guys wanted to win a million bucks. I didn't realize they wanted the MDC to prove something scientific.

I'd like "The Price Is Right" to prove something scientific, but that's not what it's designed for. Neither is the MDC.

Ward

Limbo

10th February 2009, 09:26 PM

Randi & JREF,

Approach a noted music and/or art school, and administer personality tests to the student body and faculty. Select the people with the most psi-conducive personality traits and who report previous psi experiences and form them into a tight-knit ganzfeld group. Train them to meditate (individually and as a group) for a few months, and then administer ganzfeld trials for as long as it takes to achieve whatever statistical significance is deemed necessary. If properly psi-conducive subjects are selected (not too tough to do) then the necessary numbers are inevitable. Keep the subjects from getting bored with the trials somehow. Keep it fresh and exciting. Use a control group of psi-inhibitory people, if deemed necessary.

Piece of cake.

Once that is done, award the million dollar$ to your$elf for beating your own challenge and tell the world you did parapsychologists jobs for them.

fls

11th February 2009, 03:53 AM

I'm still trying to figure out why that is the case if the protocol is uniform in each small trial. Can you explain?

The protocols are often not uniform. Different populations are tested. Outcomes are measured differently.

In particular, the ganzfeld studies have significant heterogeneity when subject to tests, which tells us that they aren't uniform.

I'm guessing that the protocol was not uniform in each of the small trials. Can you give an example where a large trial overturned the results of a meta-analysis of a number of small trials where the protocol in each small trial was uniform?

Please note that the protocol can be exactly the same and still lead to problems (this was explained in the link I provided earlier), so uniformity does not necessarily avoid the problem.

This is an example:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1882525
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7968073?dopt=Abstract

Linda

fls

11th February 2009, 03:58 AM

At what point in the talk does he state that?

At 25 minutes.

andy2001 is raising the issue that I raised nine months ago in my e-mail to the JREF: "In tests where the odds of success can be readily calculated, it is unclear what odds standard must be met."

It's pretty clear that it's not 100,000,000 to one, though. I thought someone had listed the range of odds standards that had been used in tests to date and it was something around 500 to one to 1000 to one. It gives you a ball-park idea, anyway.

P.S. You have not answered my question about why small trials cannot be aggregated if the same protocol is used in each of the small trials.

Oops, I missed that.

Linda

fls

11th February 2009, 04:03 AM

There is evidence for higher hit rates form certain people, such as Dalton 1997 with a hit rate of 46.6% and a z score of 5.2 on an auto Ganzfeld. I think that was for musicians. But I’m not sure how he gets 65%.

I suspect he's referring to small group analysis - dividing people into groups based on characteristics and looking at their success rates.

What P value does he want to win the million?

I think that looking at the values used on prior tests would give you an idea. Somebody here made a list, but I don't remember where or when. I'll see if I can find it later.

Linda

William Smith

11th February 2009, 06:20 AM

...
What P value does he want to win the million?

Short answer: It depends on the claim.
How would one come up with a P value for Rosemary Hunter's claim? (Zing.)

Almost as short answer: Odds of succeeding by chance should be around 1 in 1000 for each test. Although I am not 100% sure, perhaps other forumites will weigh in.

Definitive answer: challenge@randi.org

Rasmus

11th February 2009, 06:43 AM

Definitive answer: challenge@randi.org

I predict the answer will run along the lines of "apply or go away". And rightly so.

For the millionth time: If they could do what they claim they could do, it simply wouldn't matter to them.

fls

11th February 2009, 07:09 AM

I think that looking at the values used on prior tests would give you an idea. Somebody here made a list, but I don't remember where or when. I'll see if I can find it later.

Linda

Here is what I was thinking of:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3993129#post3993129
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3993390#post3993390

It seems to run from one in a hundred to one in a million.

If I were applying, I'd start with one in a hundred.

Linda

Moochie

11th February 2009, 07:46 AM

The same point as I made before. We seem to be discussing apples and oranges here. The Million Dollar Challenge is not looking to be "taken seriously from a scientific point of view." The Million Dollar Challenge is not a scientific study. The Million Dollar Challenge is not trying to find out whether or not PSI (or any other alleged paranormal ability) exists.

If you would like to see more work done on Ganzfeld type studies, approach a university. The JREF is not interested.

The Million Dollar Challenge is no more and no less than exactly what its name implies. It is a challenge to those who make claims of paranormal abilities to demonstrate those claims. Nothing more. You and Rodney are engaging in one very long Strawman argument. You are criticising the JREF Million Dollar Challenge for not being something it has never claimed to be.

Yes, and it is getting oh so tiresome, like a gnawing toothache that only extraction will ameliorate.

Andy2001 and Rodney, your questions have been asked and answered numerous times. Just what do you hope to achieve by continuing?

If either of you are going to apply to take the MDC, then do it. Your continued quibbling about your pet fantasies is misplaced in this part of the forum.

M.

andy2001

11th February 2009, 10:56 AM

Here is what I was thinking of:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3993129#post3993129
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3993390#post3993390

It seems to run from one in a hundred to one in a million.

If I were applying, I'd start with one in a hundred.

Linda

Don’t forget Randi needs two tests and the numbers in that link are probably just to pass the first one. If you have two tests at one in a thousand like GzuzKart said you end up with one in a million.

Looking at these tests I get the impression that only the most delusional applicants ever get as far as agreeing a protocol. Some of them are so stupid they seem eager to agree to standards even higher that what Randi requires. It seems only large effect sizes from short tests will do.

andy2001

11th February 2009, 11:10 AM

Yes, and it is getting oh so tiresome, like a gnawing toothache that only extraction will ameliorate.

Andy2001 and Rodney, your questions have been asked and answered numerous times. Just what do you hope to achieve by continuing?

If either of you are going to apply to take the MDC, then do it. Your continued quibbling about your pet fantasies is misplaced in this part of the forum.

M.

Well some recent posts from GzuzKart and the links from fls do seem to have shed some light on the matter. It seems to win the prize a ball park number is odds of one in a million based on two tests of one in a thousand. It also seems that the effect size will need to be high and based on a short test. I thank those on the tread who helped me reach this conclusion.

Uncayimmy

11th February 2009, 11:24 AM

The person can have a non random way of picking such as always choosing the first target, or preferring red targets. But if targets are presented randomly the chance score is 25%.

Before the test, yes. After the test and knowing the target results and technique used to guess, no. And we're talking about analyzing the results here, which comes after the test.

Take a very simple test consisting of two coin flips. There are four possible outcomes: HH, HT, TH, TT. We have two people guessing: random guy (RG) and always heads guy (AHG).

Before the test, what are the chances of either guy guessing both results correctly? 25%.

After the test, what are the chances either guy guessed both results correctly? 25%

After the test we look at the results of the two coin flips and see that it came up HH. What are the chances that RG got both right? 25%. What are the chances that AHG got both right? 100%. What if it came up TH, what are the chances that RG got both right? 25%. How about AHG? 0%.

So, let's suppose we use 1,000 coin flips. Getting 700 correct is unlikely (the exact odds don't matter). Before the test RG and AHG have equal chance of getting 700 correct. There's only one way AHG can get 700: we need 700 coin flips to come up heads. RG can get 700 correct with any distribution of heads and tails. Interestingly, the odds are the same for either guy, so if I'm a betting man, I don't care what technique they use.

But as a scientist analyzing the results, I care very much about the distribution of my coin flips and the manner in which my subjects guessed. Suppose both guys got 700. I look at my distribution of coin flips and see that heads came up 700 times, a very unlikely event, but it happened.

If I look at AHG's guesses, it is painfully obvious what he did. I can easily explain why he scored 700. When I look at RG's guesses, I can't explain why he got the score he did, so I may choose to investigate further. If we add a third guesser, always tails guy, we'll know why he scored well below chance.

So, if I'm a Ganzfeld researcher and actually see the percentages I've seen reported here, I'm going to look for all possible causes, not just assume some psi stuff is at work.

andy2001

11th February 2009, 12:19 PM

Before the test, yes. After the test and knowing the target results and technique used to guess, no. And we're talking about analyzing the results here, which comes after the test.

Take a very simple test consisting of two coin flips. There are four possible outcomes: HH, HT, TH, TT. We have two people guessing: random guy (RG) and always heads guy (AHG).

Before the test, what are the chances of either guy guessing both results correctly? 25%.

After the test, what are the chances either guy guessed both results correctly? 25%

After the test we look at the results of the two coin flips and see that it came up HH. What are the chances that RG got both right? 25%. What are the chances that AHG got both right? 100%. What if it came up TH, what are the chances that RG got both right? 25%. How about AHG? 0%.

So, let's suppose we use 1,000 coin flips. Getting 700 correct is unlikely (the exact odds don't matter). Before the test RG and AHG have equal chance of getting 700 correct. There's only one way AHG can get 700: we need 700 coin flips to come up heads. RG can get 700 correct with any distribution of heads and tails. Interestingly, the odds are the same for either guy, so if I'm a betting man, I don't care what technique they use.

But as a scientist analyzing the results, I care very much about the distribution of my coin flips and the manner in which my subjects guessed. Suppose both guys got 700. I look at my distribution of coin flips and see that heads came up 700 times, a very unlikely event, but it happened.

If I look at AHG's guesses, it is painfully obvious what he did. I can easily explain why he scored 700. When I look at RG's guesses, I can't explain why he got the score he did, so I may choose to investigate further. If we add a third guesser, always tails guy, we'll know why he scored well below chance.

So, if I'm a Ganzfeld researcher and actually see the percentages I've seen reported here, I'm going to look for all possible causes, not just assume some psi stuff is at work.

This is silly. It can not explain for example Dalton 1997 Z score 5.2 using the standard hit miss analysis agreed on before the test. Getting 700 coin tosses from 1000 is a Z score of 12.65. If everyone on the planet tossed the coin 1000 times it unlikely anyone would get 700 correct by chance.

Uncayimmy

11th February 2009, 12:58 PM

This is silly. It can not explain for example Dalton 1997 Z score 5.2 using the standard hit miss analysis agreed on before the test. Getting 700 coin tosses from 1000 is a Z score of 12.65. If everyone on the planet tossed the coin 1000 times it unlikely anyone would get 700 correct by chance.

What part of "the exact odds don't matter" did you not understand? I stipulated the results as being 700 heads out of 1,000 flips. Therefore, it has already happened. We're only concerned about the results and how our two subjects got there. We're not talking about getting 700 correct answers on a 501 to 499 split in the flips. I'm saying that in order to analyze the data you have to look at the distribution after the fact.

As for explaining Dalton, I'm telling you that you have to look at why somebody seemingly did better than chance. For example, if my test randomly picked C as the target 30% of the time and my subject picked C 100% of the time, does that mean the same thing as both my test and subject picking each target ~25% of the time with my subject being right 30% of the time?

Or what if it turns out that 30% of the time the target happened to be the only picture with a bird in it and my subject always picked a picture with a bird in it. What does that mean? To me it means that I have something else I need to control for in the next test.

andy2001

11th February 2009, 01:13 PM

What part of "the exact odds don't matter" did you not understand? I stipulated the results as being 700 heads out of 1,000 flips. Therefore, it has already happened. We're only concerned about the results and how our two subjects got there. We're not talking about getting 700 correct answers on a 501 to 499 split in the flips. I'm saying that in order to analyze the data you have to look at the distribution after the fact.

As for explaining Dalton, I'm telling you that you have to look at why somebody seemingly did better than chance. For example, if my test randomly picked C as the target 30% of the time and my subject picked C 100% of the time, does that mean the same thing as both my test and subject picking each target ~25% of the time with my subject being right 30% of the time?

Or what if it turns out that 30% of the time the target happened to be the only picture with a bird in it and my subject always picked a picture with a bird in it. What does that mean? To me it means that I have something else I need to control for in the next test.

If the bird target happened by chance then it will also happen by chance that the bird was not the target and the odds will even out in the long run so this still does not explain the data.

Dancing David

11th February 2009, 01:32 PM

Fine, but in a controlled test, psi may be weak because there is no strong emotional component. Guessing which of four pictures that the sender was trying to transmit is not the most exciting way for the average person to spend a day. Nonetheless, if the results are in the 30-35% range over thousands of trials in a tightly-controlled experiment, what is the alternative to psi?

Oh, so are you saying that there is no Ganzfeld effect?

Or that there have been thousands of tightly controlled trials?

Dancing David

11th February 2009, 01:34 PM

Dancing David

11th February 2009, 01:36 PM

If the bird target happened by chance then it will also happen by chance that the bird was not the target and the odds will even out in the long run so this still does not explain the data.

Nope you have to show that there was a deliberate control to make sure that there were not multiple cards in a set that had a bird and that the target bird was distributed randomly.

This is a huge problem with the Ganzfeld in general.

In the past they did neither.

Uncayimmy

11th February 2009, 02:27 PM

If the bird target happened by chance then it will also happen by chance that the bird was not the target and the odds will even out in the long run so this still does not explain the data.

You are not understanding what I am saying. Instead of working really hard to prove me wrong, try working really hard to understand what I am saying.

You are talking about the odds of something happening in advance. Under those conditions we agree. I am talking about what actually happened. This is always known with 100% certainty because it already happened. You're talking about the "long run," which by definition means further trials. I'm talking about the N trials that already occurred. That's a different scenario.

Answer these questions for me:

What are the odds of flipping a coin three times and getting heads three times?

What are the odds of someone randomly guessing three heads?

What are the odds that this person got all three correct?

What are the odds of someone who always guesses heads guessing three heads?

What are the odds that this person got all three correct?

Now supposing that after the fact we look at our coin flips and see that we got three heads.

What are the odds that the random guesser got three correct?

What are the odds that the always head guesser got three correct?

There is no guarantee that any set number of trials will end up with an even distribution of answers. Actually, the odds are that you will not have perfectly distributed answers. If you end up with an uneven distribution, certain patterns of non-random guessing could explain the accuracy after the fact. I am not saying that non-random guessing will change in advance the potential results.

andy2001

11th February 2009, 02:41 PM

Nope you have to show that there was a deliberate control to make sure that there were not multiple cards in a set that had a bird and that the target bird was distributed randomly.

This is a huge problem with the Ganzfeld in general.

In the past they did neither.

They have computers randomly chose the target. Take 4 photos let the computer randomly pick one as the target. Let the computer randomly pick the order they will be shown. Do all this and it’s random. It’s not huge problem with Ganzfeld in general.

andy2001

11th February 2009, 03:04 PM

You are not understanding what I am saying. Instead of working really hard to prove me wrong, try working really hard to understand what I am saying.

You are talking about the odds of something happening in advance. Under those conditions we agree. I am talking about what actually happened. This is always known with 100% certainty because it already happened. You're talking about the "long run," which by definition means further trials. I'm talking about the N trials that already occurred. That's a different scenario.

Answer these questions for me:

What are the odds of flipping a coin three times and getting heads three times?

What are the odds of someone randomly guessing three heads?

What are the odds that this person got all three correct?

What are the odds of someone who always guesses heads guessing three heads?

What are the odds that this person got all three correct?

Now supposing that after the fact we look at our coin flips and see that we got three heads.

What are the odds that the random guesser got three correct?

What are the odds that the always head guesser got three correct?

There is no guarantee that any set number of trials will end up with an even distribution of answers. Actually, the odds are that you will not have perfectly distributed answers. If you end up with an uneven distribution, certain patterns of non-random guessing could explain the accuracy after the fact. I am not saying that non-random guessing will change in advance the potential results.

What are the odds of flipping a coin three times and getting heads three times?

7 to 1

What are the odds of someone randomly guessing three heads?

7 to 1

What are the odds that this person got all three correct?

7 to 1

What are the odds of someone who always guesses heads guessing three heads?

7 to 1

What are the odds that this person got all three correct?

7 to 1

Now supposing that after the fact we look at our coin flips and see that we got three heads.

What are the odds that the random guesser got three correct?

7 to 1

What are the odds that the always head guesser got three correct? 1 to 1

There is the answer to you’re silly questions, but they chance nothing. The analysis of Ganzfeld studies may be done after the fact but you would have needed a very improbable series of events for them to have happened with out a real effect. Ideas like someone just happened to get a bird by chance and liked birds can not explain the results. This reasoning is flawed.

fls

11th February 2009, 03:19 PM

That's what I've always found odd about the assumptions that are sometimes made about the baseline in parapsychology research. Why would anyone assume that people guess in a random fashion?

Linda

andy2001

11th February 2009, 03:27 PM

That's what I've always found odd about the assumptions that are sometimes made about the baseline in parapsychology research. Why would anyone assume that people guess in a random fashion?

Linda

There no need to make this assumption. If you set up an experiment with odds of 25% because you have 4 photos randomly select one as the target and randomly select the order they will be shown the expected results for choosing the first target or liking red targets or choosing randomly are still 25%.

Uncayimmy

11th February 2009, 03:29 PM

Now supposing that after the fact we look at our coin flips and see that we got three heads.

What are the odds that the random guesser got three correct?

7 to 1

What are the odds that the always head guesser got three correct? 1 to 1

There is the answer to you’re silly questions, but they chance nothing. The analysis of Ganzfeld studies may be done after the fact but you would have needed a very improbable series of events for them to have happened with out a real effect. Ideas like someone just happened to get a bird by chance and liked birds can not explain the results. This reasoning is flawed.

The questions are not silly. You are making statements without any facts.

In the N Ganzfeld trials, what was the distribution of A, B, C and D for the target?

What was the distribution of A, B, C, and D for the subject selections?

In a control group with no sender, what would be the expected distribution of selections made by human subjects? Hint: It's not equal.

What, if anything, did the target images have in common beyond a perfect distribution?

How about the decoy images?

You are jumping to the conclusion that only psi can be at work without considering any other possible factors. You are arguing in effect, "Psi will result in answers greater than chance. We see results greater than chance. Therefore, psi must be at work."

That's just wrong.

andy2001

11th February 2009, 03:47 PM

The questions are not silly. You are making statements without any facts.

In the N Ganzfeld trials, what was the distribution of A, B, C and D for the target?

What was the distribution of A, B, C, and D for the subject selections?

In a control group with no sender, what would be the expected distribution of selections made by human subjects? Hint: It's not equal.

What, if anything, did the target images have in common beyond a perfect distribution?

How about the decoy images?

You are jumping to the conclusion that only psi can be at work without considering any other possible factors. You are arguing in effect, "Psi will result in answers greater than chance. We see results greater than chance. Therefore, psi must be at work."

That's just wrong.

Ganzfeld has been subjected to intense peer review to look for flaws. As long as the targets are randomly selected and randomly presented and there is no sensory leakage then there is no other reasonable explanation but psi.

And as for the question about what you call the control group my answer is I would expect it to be biased to whatever was listed as target even if there is no sender. Telepathy is not the only type of psi. If there was no correct choice then I would expect a bias towards the first option shown, but if this is done on a real test it only gets 25% correct.

Uncayimmy

11th February 2009, 05:00 PM

Ganzfeld has been subjected to intense peer review to look for flaws. As long as the targets are randomly selected and randomly presented and there is no sensory leakage then there is no other reasonable explanation but psi.

You say psi. I say that the statistical difference was because Oprah had precognition and used telekinesis to exercise mind control over the device that selected which images to show.

Please explain to me how either of our theories could be falsified.

BTW, you keep throwing around "random" as if it means "perfectly distributed" when it does not mean that at all. The random chance of being dealt four aces in five card draw is pretty slim, but it happens all the time. If you flip a coin 20 times, only 17% of the time will you get 10 heads. About 50% of the time you will get 9, 10, or 11 heads. I just want to be clear on that.

And as for the question about what you call the control group my answer is I would expect it to be biased to whatever was listed as target even if there is no sender. Telepathy is not the only type of psi. If there was no correct choice then I would expect a bias towards the first option shown, but if this is done on a real test it only gets 25% correct.

In the Ganzfeld studies it is my understanding that the subjects picked the second, third and fourth target presented much more frequently than the first. Was randomization done in the presentation of targets?

Furthermore, why do you insist on repeating what we have already agreed upon? Before the test is run, I agree completely that knowing a guy will always pick heads will not make any difference in his accuracy level.

What I am arguing is how to judge what caused a deviation from strict chance after it happens. You say, "it must be psi" and get butterflies in your tummy because the idea excites you.

I say that one thing to look at is the distribution of the data as it actually happened. You keep arguing that it shouldn't matter of an infinite set of trials. Too bad we're dealing with a finite set, eh?

andy2001

11th February 2009, 05:22 PM

At point we seem to be heading for an infinite verbal loop. I think I have got as close as possible to getting an answer to my original question. I thank everyone who helped me with that. I will probably not post again on this thread.

jojonete

11th February 2009, 05:23 PM

So how do you explain the fact that 3145 standard ganzfeld trials conducted during 1974-2004 resulted in 1008 hits (32% hit rate)?
Of all the possible explanations given so far in this thread, my favorite goes along the lines of "failed tests get less publicity, so the test results available for use in a meta-analysis are likely to be the most successful ones".

Now, I hope you'll agree that, until the results of the meta-analysis are replicated in an independent test, they don't carry much weight. So, Ganzfeld proponents should be at this moment working in more tests to replicate the results. As I see it, the point of this whole thread is to ask if those new tests could be valid for the MDC, which of course can't be answered until there's some description of those tests, which in turn is the reason why I keep asking what a Ganzfeld test is like.

The idea is: If someone's willing to replicate the results, I'd like to know how the new tests will be conducted, so I can make an idea about how MDC-like they are.
If nobody's willing to replicate the results, we can assume that Ganzfeld will never be observed again, so it surely won't win the MDC.

Rodney

11th February 2009, 07:23 PM

But Radin stated earlier in his talk that he can identify a group of people that average a 65% hit rate. Why wouldn't he use them?
I have now reviewed the tape and Radin's claim is that "special populations" have hit rates "more like 65%." I just e-mailed him to ask whether these populations have been re-tested and, if so, whether the hit rates remained the same.

Rodney

11th February 2009, 07:49 PM

Of all the possible explanations given so far in this thread, my favorite goes along the lines of "failed tests get less publicity, so the test results available for use in a meta-analysis are likely to be the most successful ones".
Have you watched the video that andy2001 posted? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew). On it, Radin argues that there is no significant Ganzfeld file drawer problem.

Now, I hope you'll agree that, until the results of the meta-analysis are replicated in an independent test, they don't carry much weight. So, Ganzfeld proponents should be at this moment working in more tests to replicate the results. As I see it, the point of this whole thread is to ask if those new tests could be valid for the MDC, which of course can't be answered until there's some description of those tests, which in turn is the reason why I keep asking what a Ganzfeld test is like.

The idea is: If someone's willing to replicate the results, I'd like to know how the new tests will be conducted, so I can make an idea about how MDC-like they are.
If nobody's willing to replicate the results, we can assume that Ganzfeld will never be observed again, so it surely won't win the MDC.
On the video, Radin notes that Ganzfeld experiments have been replicated. However, with respect to the MDC, it's very unlikely that a Ganzfeld proponent will apply unless the JREF clarifies that a Ganzfeld experiment is eligible.