Mia Dolan and the Million Dollar Challenge

[Hilary Sinclair]

Hi guys, i'm rather new on here but i would appreciate your help with a querie i have.

This is it. I recently sent an email to Mia Dolan (a poipular British Medium) asking her the following question: ' Mia, what is your reason for not taking James Randi's £1 million dollar change?' I received this reply.

Hi Hilary,

I have not taken the challenge as when we looked into doing it we were told they would not allow an independent body to judge it, we had asked if a University in the states could do it
They said all test's were judged by James Randi and only him so I don't believe its a real test
Sorry if this is not a good enough answer for you, but I will not get involved in things that are not what they seem to give publicity to an organisation that is not what it seems
Yours sincerely
Mia Dolan

Is this true? Has she been in contact with James over taking his paranormal challenge? I suspect she's looking for reasons not to take it. Anyone got any answers.

Big thanks, Hilary.

[BTMO]

Is this true? Has she been in contact with James over taking his paranormal challenge? I suspect she's looking for reasons not to take it. Anyone got any answers.

Big thanks, Hilary.


I have had a quick look in the million dollar challenge applicants log, and I can't see her name anywhere.

Additionally, it is my understanding that JREF specifically point people at places like local universities to get claims reviewed initially before the person moves to "applicant" status.

Based on what you have written, and the response you have received, I simply don't believe she has made a proper application. I suspect she probably hasn't been in contact with JREF - but that is just my cynicism...

[rjh01]

I susggest you start by reading the rules here http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html

Another good read is the previous applicants http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43

Also see this http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

James Randi does not normally attend any tests.

[Hilary Sinclair]

Her objection seems to be James Randi would not allow an independant body to conduct the test. I don't see a problem here. Why not bring in other people, why not just call her bluff? Allow a third party to conduct the test.

[Cavemonster]

Read the challenge rules.
James Randi doesn't judge the challenges because no protocol will be accepted which requires any judgement. The results must be self evident.

[SezMe]

Cavemonster is right - there is no judging. It would be interesting to write her back with that information and ask who it was that so misinformed her.

[rjh01]

I do not see any point in telling her about the challenge. She knows she cannot win it as she must do something that she cannot actually do. So she will find pathetic excuses not to do the challenge.

[GzuzKryzt]

Her objection seems to be James Randi would not allow an independant body to conduct the test. I don't see a problem here. Why not bring in other people, why not just call her bluff? Allow a third party to conduct the test.

Her alleged misunderstandings of the MDC process should tell you enough: There is a million dollars waiting for something that she claims to be able to do, yet she refuse to snag up the cash en passant.

Does. Not. Compute.

[Cavemonster]

Here are a couple possible explanations for her mistake.
1) She received her information from sources other than the JREF (Uri Geller's site?)
2) Her intern/manager miscommunicated the message to her.
3) She misunderstood the information conveyed to her.
4) She is lying about having actively "looked into it".
5) Someone at the JREF misinformed her.

I find #5 pretty unlikely, but if it is the case, or if 1-3 are the case, you should correct her perception. If she still refuses to pursue the challenge, I can only assume #4 is the case.

[rjh01]

If there was a million dollars going for something I could do I would seriously look into it, from first hand sources not just take the word of somebody. Since she has not looked seriously into it then you can draw your own conclusions.

[Cavemonster]

If there was a million dollars going for something I could do I would seriously look into it, from first hand sources not just take the word of somebody. Since she has not looked seriously into it then you can draw your own conclusions.

Well, to give her the benefit of the doubt, I get emails every day offering me millions of dollars for actions within my power. They're from Nigeria. I don't look into it because I know that the source is not to be trusted. Perhaps she feels the same way.

[rjh01]

Well, to give her the benefit of the doubt, I get emails every day offering me millions of dollars for actions within my power. They're from Nigeria. I don't look into it because I know that the source is not to be trusted. Perhaps she feels the same way.

But first time you received such an offer you would have done your research, and proved to yourself, beyond reasonable doubt, that they are a con trick and not a real offer. After that it is all one offer repeated.

[RoboTimbo]

Yours sincerely
Mia Dolan

Anyone got any answers.

Big thanks, Hilary.

You may wish to email her back with the great news that the challenge results aren't judged at all! So, if that was her sincere reason for not previously taking the challenge, she is now completely free to do so, secure in the knowledge that her amazing talents will be showcased as being self-evident.

Her talents are self-evident, aren't they?

You could also invite her to participate in this forum. She claims sincerity in her closing signature.

[Hilary Sinclair]

Ok guys thanks for that. So you're saying Mia never actually aplied for the test in the first place, or at least there is no record of her doing so. I shall email her back and ask for further details. Personality, if i had a sixth sense i'd take the test. I'll let you know how she replies.

[Cavemonster]

But first time you received such an offer you would have done your research, and proved to yourself, beyond reasonable doubt, that they are a con trick and not a real offer. After that it is all one offer repeated.

But did you personally need to look up information about the specific offer in your spam folder, or did you already know all about it from secondary sources.

Around the internet, I'm constantly finding different offers that guarantee me vast wealth, some of them are phishing schemes, some are pyramid schemes, some are Ponzi schemes, others are other sorts of scams completely. Neither you nor I need to research each of these claims completely because we know what category they fall under, but they are many different types of scam from many sources.

[GzuzKryzt]

Ok guys thanks for that. So you're saying Mia never actually aplied for the test in the first place, or at least there is no record of her doing so. I shall email her back and ask for further details. Personality, if i had a sixth sense i'd take the test. I'll let you know how she replies.

While I do not want to discourage your personal endeavors - quite the opposite - I would like to say this:

Mia Dolan has the chance to win USD 1,000,000 for doing two controlled tests of her claimed ability.

How high do you consider the chance of you getting an honest answer from someone who has nothing to gain from it?

She will not even behave honestly - I am referring to her alleged misunderstandings of the MDC - when having the chance of winning a million dollars.

Read the rules and encourage her to take the Challenge - if you want to experience a waste of time and read another batch of misunderstandings, weaseling and outright lies.

[jojonete]

But did you personally need to look up information about the specific offer in your spam folder, or did you already know all about it from secondary sources.

Around the internet, I'm constantly finding different offers that guarantee me vast wealth, some of them are phishing schemes, some are pyramid schemes, some are Ponzi schemes, others are other sorts of scams completely. Neither you nor I need to research each of these claims completely because we know what category they fall under, but they are many different types of scam from many sources.

Some time ago I started a thread (named "The Bike Riding Million Dollar Challenge") about Randi's MDC trustworthiness (not sure that's a correct word but you get the idea). In that thread I mentioned the "Nigerian scam vs. Randi's challenge" comparison with the following result:

Let me just address this one point. A Nigerian "419" scam is something I get via email. It comes from a person who I've never heard of, whose existence I can't verify, and who (as far as I can tell) doesn't have so much as an Ebay Seller Feedback vouching for him. Indeed, I get hundreds of such emails making basically-indistinguishable offers. A few minutes on Google will confirm that Nigerian 419 emails are well known to be scams, and that potential victims are actively warned off by the State Department, the FBI, Nigerian embassy, and so on. If I got involved but got cheated, I would have no idea who to sue for damages---all I have is a Hotmail address.

On the other hand, James Randi is a well-known public figure. He's been on TV talking about the paranormal for close to 40 years. His prize is publicly advertised, his terms are on the Web for anyone to see, his finances are a matter of public record per normal nonprofit rules. It's one of a very small class of such prizes, all offered with comparable levels of transparency. If something goes wrong, your lawsuit names a real person and a registered nonprofit organization in the State of Florida. Finally, if you want to see other people's experiences, you're not going to go to a FBI web page telling you not to be a sucker----you're going to go to the Challenge email archives and see the actual contracts agreed to by Achau Nguyen, Mike Whatsisname the dowser, and so on.

In other words, in order for James Randi to be a scammer, he'd have to have put his entire career on the line every time he signed a contract. He'd have to know he was losing challenges on the merits, but to count on a team of expensive lawyers to weasel him out of an endless string of lawsuits. The Challenge has been going on for decades and that hasn't happened. (Public record.) Unless you want to invoke a conspiracy theory---"omg randi has been sued a million times but its proberly all covered up by the cia omg plus real psychics are too poor to afford lawyers"---you can't possibly stand by this Randi/419 analogy.


As that very same topic has arised here, I thought the previous comments could be useful.

BTW: after reading that answer again, I wonder why I conceded that point. Right now it doesn't sound convincing.
BTW2: after reading the whole thread again, I remember why I conceded it. :)

[Cavemonster]

But on that note, there are plenty of public figures actually more well known than Randi who offer products that are scams in their own way. Look at Tony Robbins for example.

Just like with the self help financial gurus of late night infomercials, a challenge like Randi's could easily be unbalanced and unfair without actually being illegal, so like them he wouldn't be putting his career on the line.

I can tell you honestly that I don't go and look at the detailed terms of every late night informmercial pitch who promises thousands of dollars a day for virtually no work. Logically it isn't impossible for one of their systems to be legitimate, but I can make a higher level decision about the likelyhood that the source is legitimate without slogging through the particulars. You do this too. In fact, If you're like me and most people, the instant you hear the promise of great rewards with little effort, you feel fairly certain that it isn't worth while to explore further.

There are many categories of scam, some of them are outright theft like the Nigerian emails, but just as many are about the fine print and are perfectly legal. One of them even had the dad from Happy Days as a spokesman, and I assure you he's more well known than Randi.

There are perfectly good reasons for supposed psychics not to enter the challenge.

[Azrael 5]

I recall soem years ago she had her own forum. myself and some other JREF members joined and took part(as best skeptics ever can hope to on a believer forum) it was then she spouted about being tested. Randi himself joined up made a post denying her claims. I think she wanted to try a get some TV fame in USA using MDC.
Do a search on her, it was discussed here.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=27237&highlight=dolan
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=27761&highlight=dolan

Test topic: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=22071&highlight=dolan

[Jackalgirl]

Ok guys thanks for that. So you're saying Mia never actually aplied for the test in the first place, or at least there is no record of her doing so. I shall email her back and ask for further details. Personality, if i had a sixth sense i'd take the test. I'll let you know how she replies.

I don't think anyone's actually saying that she never applied for the test. What we're saying, though, is based on what you've said she said, it's unlikely. Also, there's no record of her having actually applied on the Forum, but the only people who could answer the question of whether she's actually applied would be the good folks at challenge@randi.org.

From what you've said, tho, my guess is that she never actually went through the application process, which involves submitting a notarized application form, because of her misconceptions about how the Challenge works.

I'll chime in and encourage you to encourage her, though: the actual demonstration has to be self-evident, so no one, at any point, can come in and say "well, in my opinion, nothing happened at all!" Plus, the actual steps of the demonstration -- and what constitutes failure and success -- have to be agreed to by both her and the JREF. So she cannot, by any means, be forced to participate in a demonstration she feels she can't succeed. If she can do what she claims to do (and if she's like any famous "psychic", what she claims to be able to do regularly), then this should all be totally cut-and-dry for her.

[Yoink]

I can tell you honestly that I don't go and look at the detailed terms of every late night informmercial pitch who promises thousands of dollars a day for virtually no work. Logically it isn't impossible for one of their systems to be legitimate, but I can make a higher level decision about the likelyhood that the source is legitimate without slogging through the particulars. You do this too. In fact, If you're like me and most people, the instant you hear the promise of great rewards with little effort, you feel fairly certain that it isn't worth while to explore further.

There are many categories of scam, some of them are outright theft like the Nigerian emails, but just as many are about the fine print and are perfectly legal. One of them even had the dad from Happy Days as a spokesman, and I assure you he's more well known than Randi.

There are perfectly good reasons for supposed psychics not to enter the challenge.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. Yes, one can have perfectly good reasons to assume that the offer of instant get-rich-quick schemes is bound to be false (why wouldn't everyone do it if it were easy). But Randi's offer isn't like that at all. He offers a million dollars only to people who do something unimaginably difficult. There's nothing prima facie unbelievable about that. People offer millions of dollars to people who can throw a baseball accurately at over 90mph, for example, or to people who can hit a little ball around a golf course with great accuracy. <i>Nobody</i> has ever been able to publicly and unquestionably display a paranormal ability. Why wouldn't someone offer a million dollars to the first person who managed to do so?

Now, if you happen to be the first person in the world who will be able to do this unprecedented thing, don't you think it's worth your while checking out the single most famous public offer of a large cash reward for the public and verified performance of this ability?

Of course, with most of these supposed abilities, the people wouldn't need to claim the million because they'd be able to clean up at the casino, or at lotto or whatever--but if you happen to have a skill that is definitely paranormal but which doesn't otherwise seem remunerative, what on earth could make you dismiss this offer out of hand?

[plumjam]

If she wins I hope she'll slightly rearrange her name to Mian Dola.
Even better if she's Asian.

[Cavemonster]

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. Yes, one can have perfectly good reasons to assume that the offer of instant get-rich-quick schemes is bound to be false (why wouldn't everyone do it if it were easy). But Randi's offer isn't like that at all. He offers a million dollars only to people who do something unimaginably difficult. There's nothing prima facie unbelievable about that. People offer millions of dollars to people who can throw a baseball accurately at over 90mph, for example, or to people who can hit a little ball around a golf course with great accuracy. <i>Nobody</i> has ever been able to publicly and unquestionably display a paranormal ability. Why wouldn't someone offer a million dollars to the first person who managed to do so?

Now, if you happen to be the first person in the world who will be able to do this unprecedented thing, don't you think it's worth your while checking out the single most famous public offer of a large cash reward for the public and verified performance of this ability?

Of course, with most of these supposed abilities, the people wouldn't need to claim the million because they'd be able to clean up at the casino, or at lotto or whatever--but if you happen to have a skill that is definitely paranormal but which doesn't otherwise seem remunerative, what on earth could make you dismiss this offer out of hand?

People who claim these abilities fall into two categories.

Some of them are liars, and there's no reason to discuss their reasons for not engaging in the challenge, as it's self evident.

But the rest are believers. I've never met a believer who thought that all other psychics and dowsers and ghosts are fake, the vast majority of true believers may think their ability is very rare, but they also tend to think that there are tons of other psychics and ghost channelers out there.

So from this perspective, they can say "Why has no other psychic won the challenge in all these years?" there are three possible answers.

1) There are no psychic powers. (believers can dismiss this option)
2) None of the real psychics have applied (Why wouldn't they if the challenge was legit, after all these years, that seems unlikely)
3) The challenge is a fraud. (The only possibility left)

I'll agree that if a psychic thought they were the only one in the world, the challenge might make sense, but that's not the perspective of most psychics. The majority tap into existing mythologies of ghosts, angels, spirits etc and seem to think that our world is full of strange powers. Given that, option #3 does logically follow. #1 is a contradiction of their premise, and #2, while not technically impossible, seems unlikely and isn't mutually exclusive with #3.

[Moochie]

People who claim these abilities fall into two categories.

Some of them are liars, and there's no reason to discuss their reasons for not engaging in the challenge, as it's self evident.

But the rest are believers. I've never met a believer who thought that all other psychics and dowsers and ghosts are fake, the vast majority of true believers may think their ability is very rare, but they also tend to think that there are tons of other psychics and ghost channelers out there.

So from this perspective, they can say "Why has no other psychic won the challenge in all these years?" there are three possible answers.

1) There are no psychic powers. (believers can dismiss this option)
2) None of the real psychics have applied (Why wouldn't they if the challenge was legit, after all these years, that seems unlikely)
3) The challenge is a fraud. (The only possibility left)

I'll agree that if a psychic thought they were the only one in the world, the challenge might make sense, but that's not the perspective of most psychics. The majority tap into existing mythologies of ghosts, angels, spirits etc and seem to think that our world is full of strange powers. Given that, option #3 does logically follow. #1 is a contradiction of their premise, and #2, while not technically impossible, seems unlikely and isn't mutually exclusive with #3.

Another possibility is that of the "altruistic psychic" -- psychics who use their powers only for good and in secret; they know who they are! Such psychics are not the least bit interested in mundane things, certainly not money. And since they're not trying to prove anything, the notion of an MDC becomes moot.


M.

[Pixel42]

Another possibility is that of the "altruistic psychic" -- psychics who use their powers only for good and in secret; they know who they are! Such psychics are not the least bit interested in mundane things, certainly not money. And since they're not trying to prove anything, the notion of an MDC becomes moot.
If they're genuinely trying to do good they must surely want the most influential people in society - those who can act on the information they obtain by psychic means - to believe them. Think of the lives that could be saved, from evacuation of areas about to be hit by a natural disaster to the tracking down of terrorists and murderers. Currently the vast majority of people in a position to make use of such information dismiss psychics as either fools or con artists.

So a truly altruistic psychic would want the MDC to be won, thus proving the validity of psychic powers and ensuring that his/her psychically obtained information would be acted on. Such a person would certainly take the MDC (I'm sure JREF would be amenable to arranging for an applicant to take the challenge without being publically identified if requested) and give the $1m to charity.

[themagicwand]

The results must be self evident.
Yes, but "self-evident" to whom exactly? What is self-evident to me (eg Sheffield United are the world's greatest football team) will clearly not be self-evident to someone else. To say there is "no judgement" is just plain silly, surely? If, for eaxample, I claim to be able to read minds and I believe that my gift is self-evident, yet another person claims that my gift is not self-evident, who's opinion counts? There must be someone who judges what is self-evident and what isn't self-evident... surely?

[Pixel42]

Yes, but "self-evident" to whom exactly?
To everybody.

Take astrology, for example. People may judge their horoscope to be an accurate description of them, but that judgement is not reliable because of the Forer Effect. So to test the accuracy of an astrologer's horoscopes you get him to produce, say five for five different subjects, give copies of all five to all five subjects, and ask them to pick out the one that's the best description of them. If the Forer Effect is all that's going on then all 5 will seem accurate, and the one that's the best description will be the right one no more often than would be expected by chance (i.e. only one of the five subjects will pick it out). But if there's any truth to astrology at all then each subject's horoscope will be a much more accurate description of them than those of four strangers, and they will be able to pick it out every time.

So a success result significantly better than chance, say three out of five, is set in advance. On the day of the test the subjects look at the five horoscopes and either at least three pick out theirs or they don't. No judgment of the result is required, it's self-evident whether or not the astrologer has met the agreed success criteria.

Likewise something like dowsing would be tested by burying barrels in a field, half of which contain water and half sand, and seeing if the dowser can tell them apart. Again the success criteria is set in advance, and on the day either the dowser meets that criteria or he doesn't. The result is again self evident to everyone present - when the adjudicator removes the lid of the barrels it's clear to everyone whether they contain water or sand, and therefore whether the dowser has correctly identified enough barrels.

Do you get the idea? Can you come up with a similar protocol for your reading minds example?

[Cavemonster]

Yes, but "self-evident" to whom exactly? What is self-evident to me (eg Sheffield United are the world's greatest football team) will clearly not be self-evident to someone else. To say there is "no judgement" is just plain silly, surely? If, for eaxample, I claim to be able to read minds and I believe that my gift is self-evident, yet another person claims that my gift is not self-evident, who's opinion counts? There must be someone who judges what is self-evident and what isn't self-evident... surely?

That's agreed on between the applicant and the JREF before the application is accepted. There is a standard for success established that shows an effect significantly greater than random chance would allow.

For instance. "I had a dream last night about catterpillars turning into butterflies and today the economy got better" requires a judgement that the dream somehow maps onto the real world events, and that it was a meaningfully accurate prediction.

"I will draw an x on the one envelope out of a thousand that has a picture of Bea Arthur in it" (The rest have pictures of antelopes). We open the envelope, and it either has a picture of Bea Arthur or an antelope. No interpretation needed.

[Cuddles]

Yes, but "self-evident" to whom exactly? What is self-evident to me (eg Sheffield United are the world's greatest football team) will clearly not be self-evident to someone else. To say there is "no judgement" is just plain silly, surely? If, for eaxample, I claim to be able to read minds and I believe that my gift is self-evident, yet another person claims that my gift is not self-evident, who's opinion counts? There must be someone who judges what is self-evident and what isn't self-evident... surely?

As others have said, to everybody. One of the simplest examples is dowsing - 10 identical cups are placed upside-down, with a lump of gold under one of them. Either the dowser finds the gold or he doesn't. No judging, no opinions, no question. Self-evident.

All the examples you give of self-evident things are, to put it bluntly, wrong. Claiming that a particular team is the best is entirely a matter of judgement and opinion and is in no way self-evident. The fact that you can write a sentence including the claim along with the words self-evident does not make it so.

[Gr8wight]

Yes, but "self-evident" to whom exactly? What is self-evident to me (eg Sheffield United are the world's greatest football team) will clearly not be self-evident to someone else. To say there is "no judgement" is just plain silly, surely? If, for eaxample, I claim to be able to read minds and I believe that my gift is self-evident, yet another person claims that my gift is not self-evident, who's opinion counts? There must be someone who judges what is self-evident and what isn't self-evident... surely?

That's why all the questions are asked up front.

Whose mind can you read? Anyone's, or just a specific person?
What kinds of things can your read from those minds? Words, images, places, what?
With what degree of accuracy can you perform? 100%? 50%? 10%?
What factors limit or interfere with your ability? Can you only do it in the morning? Under the influence of drugs? When your friend/receiver is under the influence of drugs? When you already know what word/image/place your friend is going to think of?

If you can decribe your ability with enough detail, a test whose result will be self evident to all can be designed. This is where most applicants hit the first hurdle. They cannot even accurately and precisely describe their alleged ability, therefore they are unable to devise a suitable test.

Getting an applicant over that first hurdle seems to be a good 90% of the work involved in protocol negotiations.

[Soapy Sam]

To everybody.

Take astrology, for example. People may judge their horoscope to be an accurate description of them, but that judgement is not reliable because of the Forer Effect. So to test the accuracy of an astrologer's horoscopes you get him to produce, say five for five different subjects, give copies of all five to all five subjects, and ask them to pick out the one that's the best description of them. If the Forer Effect is all that's going on then all 5 will seem accurate, and the one that's the best description will be the right one no more often than would be expected by chance (i.e. only one of the five subjects will pick it out). But if there's any truth to astrology at all then each subject's horoscope will be a much more accurate description of them than those of four strangers, and they will be able to pick it out every time.

So a success result significantly better than chance, say three out of five, is set in advance. On the day of the test the subjects look at the five horoscopes and either at least three pick out theirs or they don't. No judgment of the result is required, it's self-evident whether or not the astrologer has met the agreed success criteria.

Likewise something like dowsing would be tested by burying barrels in a field, half of which contain water and half sand, and seeing if the dowser can tell them apart. Again the success criteria is set in advance, and on the day either the dowser meets that criteria or he doesn't. The result is again self evident to everyone present - when the adjudicator removes the lid of the barrels it's clear to everyone whether they contain water or sand, and therefore whether the dowser has correctly identified enough barrels.

Do you get the idea? Can you come up with a similar protocol for your reading minds example?
While the example would be adequate for JREF purposes- ie it's a test of what the claimant says he can do- I'd caution that it is not necessarily a reliable test of astrology per se. It's possible (ie let's imagine) there is an astrological effect on personality, but that it is very small. A huge test might be required with detailed statistical analysis to pick the effect out from random noise.

If a claimant stated only that he would be right about personality assessment 1% more than we might get by random birthdate selection, that would be very hard to test.

But then , such people seem to be as rare as actual psychics.

[GzuzKryzt]

...
If a claimant stated only that he would be right about personality assessment 1% more than we might get by random birthdate selection, that would be very hard to test.

But then , such people seem to be as rare as actual psychics.

And the question I would ask said claimant would be: "How did you arrive at that 1% number, i.e., which data let you conclude exactly that number?"

But then, as with astroman818's case, one hardly ever sees a clear definition of a claimed ability.

[themagicwand]

As others have said, to everybody. One of the simplest examples is dowsing - 10 identical cups are placed upside-down, with a lump of gold under one of them. Either the dowser finds the gold or he doesn't. No judging, no opinions, no question. Self-evident.

I'm afraid this whole "self-evident" criteria is a flawed concept. The example given above could be pure dumb luck. However the dowser claims it shows their paranormal ability. Would JREF pay out on the above example? I think not, and rightly so. The claimamant could have quite easily relied on luck to be their freind on that particular day. Perhaps the test could be repeated over several days, and if the claimant continued to be succesful the chances of this being pure luck are hugely diminished. However it could, in theory, still be a "lucky streak". Who then judges the outome and decides when luck becomes evidence of a paranormal ability? Somebody from JREF I assume. And if so the whole idea of self-evidence is thrown out of the window, is it not?

Please don't think I'm trying to stand up for the claimants (who, in my judgement, are often very delusional people who need to seek medical help), but I'm uncomfortable with the notion of "self evident". It doesn't seem to hold water for me.

Can I give an example? Physical things can be self-evident. It is self-evident that if a gun is fired at you it is likely you will be harmed. That is self-evident and no-one would argue with it. With matters that involve the interpritation of data on a purely personal level the waters get a lot more cloudy. It is NOT self-evident that Lionardo DiVinci was a great artist. Many people may believe this, but others may not. It is open to interpritation. Likewise with the succesful divining example given above, many people may believe that they have shown a paranormal ability, while others may interpret the data differently and say that the diviner was lucky/ cheated/ or used some other method not associated with the ability they are claiming. At that point somebody has to judge. Somebody has to make the call. Where does that leave "self evidence"?

[Seren_]

I'm afraid this whole "self-evident" criteria is a flawed concept. The example given above could be pure dumb luck. However the dowser claims it shows their paranormal ability. Would JREF pay out on the above example? I think not, and rightly so. The claimamant could have quite easily relied on luck to be their freind on that particular day. Perhaps the test could be repeated over several days, and if the claimant continued to be succesful the chances of this being pure luck are hugely diminished. However it could, in theory, still be a "lucky streak". Who then judges the outome and decides when luck becomes evidence of a paranormal ability? Somebody from JREF I assume. And if so the whole idea of self-evidence is thrown out of the window, is it not?


That's why probabilities of possible outcomes are calculated beforehand. And the tests are designed accordingly to avoid "dumb luck".

And in fact, the JREF Challenge is not constitued of a single "test", but many.

There is at least one preliminary test before THE test.

If you manage to do something, that has only 1 chance in a million to happen, repeatedly, it means you have a gift or at least a peculiar talent.

From what I understand, until now, no one has successfully passed the preliminary test.

[themagicwand]

If you manage to do something, that has only 1 chance in a million to happen, repeatdly, it means you have a gift or at least a peculiar talent.

So the test MUST be something that has a one in a million chance? Jeez. No wonder nobody passed the preliminary test. I don't think I could succesfully blow my nose that consitantly, never mind do something considered paranormal. :)

But again, one in a million could be pure luck. Somebody needs to judge this. Therefore not self evident but judged? Or am I really just missing something here? Seems to me (and I'm only a poor boy from the north of Engalnd so be patient with me) that "self evident" is a nice little phrase that had been latched onto but actually means nothing. A "test", by definition, has to be judged. No?

[Pixel42]

I'm afraid this whole "self-evident" criteria is a flawed concept. The example given above could be pure dumb luck.
That's why there are two tests: the preliminary test, to demonstrate that the claimant can do what he/she claims to be able to do; the final test, to demonstrate that the result of the first test wasn't just dumb luck.

There is still a chance that the claimant will get lucky twice (though the success criteria are set so that chance is very small indeed), or that he/she will find a way of cheating that JREF hadn't anticipated and eliminated before agreeing the protocol. Doubtless if anyone ever does pass both tests there will be much debate and discussion along those lines. But after ten years and hundreds of claimants, none of whom have managed to pass even the preliminary test, I'd say the MDC has served its purpose.

[Pixel42]

So the test MUST be something that has a one in a million chance?
I believe the rule of thumb for the preliminary test is that odds of 1 in 1000 must be beaten. Repeat the test and succeed again and you have beaten odds of 1 in a million.

A "test", by definition, has to be judged. No?
No.

[themagicwand]

I believe the rule of thumb for the preliminary test is that odds of 1 in 1000 must be beaten. Repeat the test and succeed again and you have beaten odds of 1 in a million.
Is that right? Isn't it just one in a thousand again on the second go? EG toss a coin ten times and get heads everytime, what are the odds on getting a heads again on the 11th attempt? 50/50. No?

And how does the whole odds thing equate to something like spoon bending?


No.
But that's just silly. What other test in the whole wide world uses "self evidence" as the criteria for whether someone has passed a or not? Again, I may be missing the point (I usually do and I apologise).

[BTMO]

But that's just silly. What other test in the whole wide world uses "self evidence" as the criteria for whether someone has passed a or not? Again, I may be missing the point (I usually do and I apologise).

Pretty much any test that doesn't require interpretation on the part of the people testing or being tested.

Example - I make a claim that I can comply with the law of gravity. My experiment is that I will drop a ball, and it will fall under the influence of gravity.

I run the experiment 10 times, and each time, sure enough, the ball hits the floor.

This is a self evident test. There is no need to interpret the results, because any fair observer watching can see that what I have claimed to do has in fact occured.

Second example - I make a claim that I can commune with the dead, and my cat is the only person that can hear the responses. I make some mystical sounds, wave my arms in the air and my cat meows. I bend down and listen to the cat. I mysteriously report that the dead are pissed off with being dead.

This is NOT a self evident test - as there are just so many things that have to be interpreted - there is no way to actually and objectively demonstrate that what I have claimed is true. I may have made it all up.

I may not even have a cat...

[themagicwand]

This is NOT a self evident test - as there are just so many things that have to be interpreted - there is no way to actually and objectively demonstrate that what I have claimed is true. I may have made it all up.

So talking to the dead (for example) is not elligible to be tested for the $1 million challenge?

[Seren_]

I believe the rule of thumb for the preliminary test is that odds of 1 in 1000 must be beaten. Repeat the test and succeed again and you have beaten odds of 1 in a million.


Is that right?

Yes.


Isn't it just one in a thousand again on the second go?


It is one in a thousand if you consider only the second trial.

But since to get to the second trial, you must succeed at the first, you must take that into account.


EG toss a coin ten times and get heads everytime, what are the odds on getting a heads again on the 11th attempt? 50/50. No?


It is a comparable situation.

It depends if you consider the 11th attempt alone, or the whole sequence.

In the second case, it is equivalent to pick a binary number between 00000000000 and 11111111111
(with all the possible combination of 0 and 1)
and there is 2048 possibilities.

So the chance to get heads at the 11th attempt is 1 in 2048.


And how does the whole odds thing equate to something like spoon bending?


How many times have you seen a (normal) spoon bending by itself?

From my personnal life experience, I say the odds would be 0.


But that's just silly. What other test in the whole wide world uses "self evidence" as the criteria for whether someone has passed a or not? Again, I may be missing the point (I usually do and I apologise).

I don't see the problem : this is similar to betting.

You agree beforehand that you will do something, the other guy say you won't, that's no more complicated than that. It happens everyday.

[Seren_]

So talking to the dead (for example) is not elligible to be tested for the $1 million challenge?

The claim must be testable by an independent observer.

If you claim you are hearing the voice of your dead grand mother in you head, it is not testable.

However, if by talking to the dead, you can get some extra information like "what is in the envelop ?", this is testable.

And the way you got that information is not even relevant, it could be spirits, dead people or X rays vision.

[BTMO]

So talking to the dead (for example) is not elligible to be tested for the $1 million challenge?

Only if you can think of a way to make the outcome self evident.

How it might work is a person claims they can talk to the dead, and the dead tell them things about other people, such as date of birth.

A valid test might be to have a dozen people walk into a room where the dead-communicator is sitting blindfolded.

As people walk in, the person being tested might say "13th of March".

If he is right, that is self evident, and has a really low probability of just being guessed.

If he is wrong, that is pretty evident, too.

However, if the person says something like "this person was born during rain", it is pretty meaningless - it always rains somewhere...

[Seren_]

So talking to the dead (for example) is not elligible to be tested for the $1 million challenge?

The claim must be testable by an independent observer.

If you claim you are hearing the voice of your dead grand mother in you head, it is not testable.

However, if by talking to the dead, you can get some extra information like "what is in the envelop ?", this is testable.

And the way you got that information is not even relevant, it could be spirits, dead people or X rays vision. As long as you pass the test, that was agreed upon, it is OK.

This is the limit of the MDC, it can only test "testable" claim.

[Pixel42]

Is that right? Isn't it just one in a thousand again on the second go?
Yes, the odds of passing the second test by chance are 1 in 1000. The odds of passing the first test by chance are 1 in 1000. But the odds of passing both tests by chance are 1 in (1000 X 1000), i.e. 1 in a million.

And how does the whole odds thing equate to something like spoon bending?
The type of protocol we've been discussing so far is not suitable for spoon bending. Different protocols are negotiated, depending on the claim. But the objective is the same: success criteria, agreed by both parties in advance, which any observer can immediately confirm have been met (or not).

But that's just silly. What other test in the whole wide world uses "self evidence" as the criteria for whether someone has passed a or not?
The criteria is not "self evidence". The criteria is "at least 4 out of the 5 subjects pick the horoscope which was cast using their birth date", or "at least 4 out of the 5 barrels containing water are correctly identified by the dowser". It's whether or not the claimant has met the success criteria which must be self evident.

[themagicwand]

The claim must be testable by an independent observer.


Independant as in "independent of both the testee and JREF?"
As people walk in, the person being tested might say "13th of March".

If he is right, that is self evident, and has a really low probability of just being guessed.
I don't think getting DOB's correct in this manner would get you the payout, do you? :) And I wouldn't say this was self evidence of anything paranormal going out. It might just as well be self evidence of guessing/cheating going on. I know plenty of mentalists that could do this. :)

What I'm picking up here, reading between the lines, is that the test guidelines are worded in such a way as to lead different observers to interpret them in different ways. I'm not for one moment suggesting that this ambiguity is any way intentional and designed to tilt the playing field in JREF's favour. What I am suggesting is that as members of the skeptical community we must hold ourselves up to the same high level of scrutiny that we also (rightly) regard the "paranormal community". We should be whiter than white. It is my belief that phrases like "self evident" leaves us ipen to the accusation of unfair bias.

Geat debate by the way.

[Pixel42]

Independant as in "independent of both the testee and JREF?"
Yes.

I don't think getting DOB's correct in this manner would get you the payout, do you? :)
Yes, I do.

And I wouldn't say this was self evidence of anything paranormal going out. It might just as well be self evidence of guessing/cheating going on. I know plenty of mentalists that could do this. :)
That's why mentalists/magicians (like Randi himself) are consulted about how to set up the test so that all known ways of cheating are carefully and methodically eliminated. As I said before, there remains a very small chance that the claimant will either be incredibly lucky or find a way of cheating that the best/most devious minds did not anticipate, so someone winning the million is not 100% conclusive proof that that person really does have paranormal powers. But it would certainly be much better evidence than is currently available.

What I'm picking up here, reading between the lines, is that the test guidelines are worded in such a way as to lead different observers to interpret them in different ways.
I disagree.

[BTMO]

I don't think getting DOB's correct in this manner would get you the payout, do you? :) And I wouldn't say this was self evidence of anything paranormal going out. It might just as well be self evidence of guessing/cheating going on. I know plenty of mentalists that could do this. :)

Getting one right, maybe. Getting a dozen right (or whatever number is required for statistical significance) - no way.

example - is your birthday the 14th of April? I have a 1 in 365-ish chance of guessing that right. Let's line up another 11 people and ask them. If I get them all right - something interesting is going on, or I have a clever way of cheating.

If I get 1 or 2 right, it isn't that amazing. It is just a coincidence.

Mentalists *always* have a trick. You'd run a test of this nature so as to minimise the likelihood of cheating.

As others have mentioned - professional magicians watch and assist in the protocol setting and testing.

[themagicwand]

so someone winning the million is not 100% conclusive proof that that person really does have paranormal powers. But it would certainly be much better evidence than is currently available.


See, I don't think this degree of doubt in the result would lead to the million being paid out. Indeed I would suggest that there would need to be 100% conclusive proof before the cheque was handed over. And probably rightly so.

Regarding the odds thing; I've had a chat with a few guys here in the lab and even the numbers guys disagree. Apparently it's one in a million to pass both tests. But the odds of passing the first test are one in a thousand and the odds of then passing the second test are also one in a thousand. Confused? You will be. :)

[Seren_]

Regarding the odds thing; I've had a chat with a few guys here in the lab and even the numbers guys disagree. Apparently it's one in a million to pass both tests. But the odds of passing the first test are one in a thousand and the odds of then passing the second test are also one in a thousand. Confused? You will be. :)

That's what I explained earlier.

The problem is that you can't pass the second test if you failed at the first one. So the second case is not even possible.

The odds are the same the second time only if the two events are independent.

Usual example : playing to the lottery. Each draw is independent so every week you have the same odds. Playing one week does not affect the result for the following or your ability to play again.

When the two events are "dependent" as it is the case for the MDC, you can't separate the two tests.

[themagicwand]

Cool. I still think that the wording is not clear and defined enough. Rather than "self-evident" I think that something along the lines of "independent observers agreed on beforehand who's decision is binding to both parties" would clear up any misunderstanding and leave both parties knowing exactly what would happen.

I don't like the idea of the testee winning by default (however unlikely) or JREF worming out of paying. Fair's fair and all that. ;)

[Cuddles]

See, I don't think this degree of doubt in the result would lead to the million being paid out. Indeed I would suggest that there would need to be 100% conclusive proof before the cheque was handed over. And probably rightly so.

No offense, but you're just plain wrong. There have already been tests of things along those lines, and if the claimants had actually passed they would have been paid the million. Well, either that or they'd have sued the pants of the JREF for fraud.

I think you are completely missing the point of the challenge. It isn't scientific research, it's a challenge. Somebody claims to be able to do something, and the JREF says "We don't believe you, and we'll give you a million dollars if you prove us wrong.". There's no question of 100% proof, or even of proving the paranormal at all, it's simply a case of doing what you claim to do under the conditions agreed between you and the JREF.

And yes, of course many things can be done by trickery. That's precisely why you have to agree on an acceptable protocol first, rather than the JREF just handing out millions every time someone asks for it. Perhaps it would help if you read through the various protocol negotiations that have been posted here so you can see how things actually work.

Regarding the odds thing; I've had a chat with a few guys here in the lab and even the numbers guys disagree. Apparently it's one in a million to pass both tests. But the odds of passing the first test are one in a thousand and the odds of then passing the second test are also one in a thousand. Confused? You will be. :)

Which part do you find confusing? Two chances of 1/1,000 makes a total chance of 1/1,000,000. That's pretty basic high school maths.

In any case, there is no hard and fast standard for the odds required. There have been protocols with odds as low as something like 1/100 and others with odds many times worse than 1/1,000,000, as well as plenty for which it doesn't even make sense to talk about odds at all (see Rosemary Hunter, for example). Ultimately, it's entirely up to the JREF whether they accept a test protocol or not.

[themagicwand]

Whoops. I appear to have hijacked a thread. Apologies. :blush:

[Menalitus]

See, I don't think this degree of doubt in the result would lead to the million being paid out. Indeed I would suggest that there would need to be 100% conclusive proof before the cheque was handed over. And probably rightly so.

Regarding the odds thing; I've had a chat with a few guys here in the lab and even the numbers guys disagree. Apparently it's one in a million to pass both tests. But the odds of passing the first test are one in a thousand and the odds of then passing the second test are also one in a thousand. Confused? You will be. :)


The degree of doubt you might feel is present is irrelevant, the only thing that matters in relation to the payout is that the (pre-agreed) criteria are fulfilled.

The only "Proof" needed is that the claimant has done precisely what they agreed before the test. If the agreement was to stand on one foot with their fingers in their ears for 10 minutes and that is what they do (twice) then they win. If they fail to do this they lose (maybe one finger goes up their nose instead). It doesn't matter what the odds are it only matters that they fulfil the criteria agreed beforehand by both parties.

Clearly JREF will look at the statistics and develop a test that not only provides a clear indication of success or failure but also satisfies them that it was not chance that decided the outcome. If the claimant doesn't like the success criteria they can either get lost or propose an alternative set of criteria that both parties can agree on.

[GzuzKryzt]

...
But that's just silly. What other test in the whole wide world uses "self evidence" as the criteria for whether someone has passed a or not? Again, I may be missing the point (I usually do and I apologise).

Any multiple choice test, think "Who wants to be a millionaire?".

Try to pick lottery numbers. No judging there either.

[GzuzKryzt]

See, I don't think this degree of doubt in the result would lead to the million being paid out. Indeed I would suggest that there would need to be 100% conclusive proof before the cheque was handed over. And probably rightly so.
...

I see where you're coming from.

However, the MDC rules clearly state that "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. Such demonstration must take place under the following rules and limitations:[...]"

Basically, Randi says: If you do what we have agreed upon twice, you get the Prize. No matter how it has been done. Just that it has been done is what matters.

[RoboTimbo]

Whoops. I appear to have hijacked a thread. Apologies. :blush:

I think you've been asking good questions. Here is a link to past challenge applicants (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43) and their protocol negotiations. If you look through some of those, I think you'll have your eyes opened.

[Pixel42]

See, I don't think this degree of doubt in the result would lead to the million being paid out. Indeed I would suggest that there would need to be 100% conclusive proof before the cheque was handed over. And probably rightly so.
JREF sign a contract agreeing to pay the million if the claimant meets the agreed success criteria. If a claimant passed both tests and JREF then tried to back out they would be successfully sued for the million, and rightly so. Even if they realised belatedly that the protocol did indeed allow a way of cheating which the claimant had taken advantage of they would still be obliged to pay out.

Regarding the odds thing; I've had a chat with a few guys here in the lab and even the numbers guys disagree. Apparently it's one in a million to pass both tests. But the odds of passing the first test are one in a thousand and the odds of then passing the second test are also one in a thousand. Confused? You will be. :)
No I'm not in the least confused. That is exactly what I said in post #45

[petre]

If the test were going to have a bit more longevity I'd probably write my own "first exposure to the MDC" FAQ, since themagicwand has run through just about all of them :)

Perhaps the reason so many people get hung up on the "self-evident" requirement is because those demonstrating the paranormal prefer (perhaps even INSIST) they be judged: "Here, let me do something, and if you think it's amazing give me some money! If not, oh well, guess you wouldn't be convinced by anything, you non-believer you!"

The tests are not designed so that it is "self-evident that this person is talking to the dead" or "self-evident that this person can rewind time until coin flips come up the way he wants". It is designed so that it is "self-evident that something paranormal happened", and this is achieved by adding controls to rule out any possible non-paranormal explanation. In summary, if you rule out the non-paranormal, you have demonstrated something paranormal :)

As noted, some tests have results that could be achieved by chance alone, and so the number of trials or other variables are adjusted until the odds of succeeding by chance alone reach a level comfortable to the JREF (the value of 1/1000 has been agreed to in several tests, so it is generally used as a value the JREF would likely accept in future protocols). Note that this is only the odds of success if the claimaints cannot actually do what they claim to be able to do. If they CAN perform as they describe, their odds of passing the test ought to be near 100%.

The real meat of the challenge isn't a test itself (they are generally unremarkable, with results generally very close to what you'd expect by chance) but in the protocol negotiations. Very often applicants will find (if they bother to self-test protocol suggestions) that when controls are put in place to prevent cheating or eliminate common human errors in perception, that the paranormal ability seems to disappear.

You've already been pointed to the record of applicant communication with the JREF, which are an entertaining and enlightening read to help explain all this further.

To get back specifically to Mia Dolan, a protocol would require specific information about her ability. I looked for a small description of what she does and found this quote in her blog:

Anyway this lady - lets call her Sue - met me smiling and seemingly happy, but very quickly when the reading started I saw that she had been through a terrible time, had recently buried her young son who had been around seven years old. I realized she had deliberately tried to look happy because she desperately wanted a real reading, so didn’t want to give anything away. I did not pick up her son, it was far to early for that, and even if he had been over a few years its not very often that children come back to visit.

So it would seem independant of her ability to speak with the dead (she did not "pick up" her dead son) she is able to get information about recent family deaths simply by being present with a person.

Next, we'd need to hear from Mia about how reliable this ability is. Given 50 people, 25 of whom had lost a child in the last year and 25 that had no deaths in the family (or friends they saw at least once a week, or whatever other confounders Mia would like to exclude), would she be able to identify which people had lost children and which people had not with some degree of accuracy? If she picked 25 she though had, and 25 she thought hadn't, would she be right on...49 out of 50? 40 out of 50? 25 out of 50? Pure guessing would have a high likelyhood of getting results near 25 out of 50. Surely she could do better than that with the additional aid of paranormal powers, but it'd be up to her to decide what number she'd be willing to commit to. The JREF would also have to agree to the number, and a value of 37 out of 50 would pass that threshold of 1/1000 (it's actually a tad harder than 1/2000, but 36 out of 50 doesn't quite get to 1/1000). Could Mia accurately classify 37 out of 50 such individuals using her parnormal powers? Only she could say, but if she could I imagine there's a good chance she could beat the MDC.

I think any reasonable observer would agree that the status of the volunteers' children could be adequately established. Provided Mia's classifications were clear in the recordings, it would seem self-evident to any observer whether or not she had accurately classified the agreed number of people, which would not appear to have any reasonable non-paranormal origin.

If such a test is agreed on and actually taken, the applicant will end up performing below the agreed performace level (get maybe only 27 out of 50, or even get only 22 out of 50 right). The hope, of course, is that they WILL get that 37 out of 50 or whatever, but so far no applicant has succeeded. Usually, the applicant will then claim to have discovered a new confounder (all the people that had dead children were in the same room with the others for 10 minutes and all that "deadness" rubbed off! Lots of the people with living children were wearing black, which gives off a "dead" vibe! etc). For this reason we always advocate extensive self-testing to ensure an applicant has the best possible chance of passing the challenge.

[Profwag]

Her objection seems to be James Randi would not allow an independant body to conduct the test. I don't see a problem here. Why not bring in other people, why not just call her bluff? Allow a third party to conduct the test.

Hilary,
The simplest response back to Mia Dolan is that prior to Randi conducting the test, it MUST be observed by an independant body. She has to have her abilities verified by an independent source before even submitting an application and getting her claim verified by a University is a requirement of the challenge. If she passes that portion, then the negotiations for the MDC begin and she can then request independent observers and anything she wants. She's simply feeding you an excuse to not get caught.

[Azrael 5]

I had email correspndence with Ms Dolan years back, I recall she wasn't interested in any genuine testing.

[Moochie]

If the test were going to have a bit more longevity I'd probably write my own "first exposure to the MDC" FAQ, since themagicwand has run through just about all of them :)


<snipped for brevity



Good post petre, clear and easy to understand.


M.

[Jackalgirl]

Whoops. I appear to have hijacked a thread. Apologies. :blush:

Maybe a little, but we (well, at least, I) don't mind. You're asking good questions. Welcome to the Forum. : )

[Typicallucas]

As far as I know Randi has independent people (from local universities and the JREF *I think*) to administer the testing and do any observations.

The test is real, but I can understand how she might believe that it exists to feed off the popularity of the psychics it tests...

I wonder if it is correct to call it "James Randi's £1 million dollar change" since it is 1 million in American $ not £ which I think there is a significant difference.

[themagicwand]

I wonder if it is correct to call it "James Randi's £1 million dollar change" since it is 1 million in American $ not £ which I think there is a significant difference.
Yes, I understand that a million dollars is $100,000 - or one hundred thousand dollars. Whereas a good old school UK million is a thousand thousand or £1000,000. With the exchange rate $100,000 is around £70,000. So the million dollar challenge in the UK is the seventy thousand pound challenge. Doesn't have the same ring does it? And as the average house price in the UK is at least double that, one could understand why some UK psychics, who probably earn that in a year, are a bit backwards in coming forwards (as we say around here). :)

[Loopus]

Yes, I understand that a million dollars is $100,000 - or one hundred thousand dollars. Whereas a good old school UK million is a thousand thousand or £1000,000. With the exchange rate $100,000 is around £70,000. So the million dollar challenge in the UK is the seventy thousand pound challenge. Doesn't have the same ring does it? And as the average house price in the UK is at least double that, one could understand why some UK psychics, who probably earn that in a year, are a bit backwards in coming forwards (as we say around here). :)

A million dollars is $1,000,000, or about 659,000 GBP.

[BTMO]

Yes, I understand that a million dollars is $100,000 - or one hundred thousand dollars. Whereas a good old school UK million is a thousand thousand or £1000,000. With the exchange rate $100,000 is around £70,000. So the million dollar challenge in the UK is the seventy thousand pound challenge. Doesn't have the same ring does it? And as the average house price in the UK is at least double that, one could understand why some UK psychics, who probably earn that in a year, are a bit backwards in coming forwards (as we say around here). :)

Two things...

I think the use of the pound symbol in the initial post was a simple typo. It can safely be ignored.

Secondly, the American usage of "million" is identical to the UK (and everywhere else) usage of "million".

A US million = 1,000,000. A UK million is ALSO = 1,000,000.

It is when you get to billions and trillions that things go weird.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Cool. I still think that the wording is not clear and defined enough. Rather than "self-evident" I think that something along the lines of "independent observers agreed on beforehand who's decision is binding to both parties" would clear up any misunderstanding and leave both parties knowing exactly what would happen.

I don't like the idea of the testee winning by default (however unlikely) or JREF worming out of paying. Fair's fair and all that. ;)No, no, no. The reason that the results must be self-evident is specifically avoid the type of bias and uncertainty that you describe.

Here’s an example: A woman claims she has powers of remote viewing. To test her claim, a photograph is placed in a room and the woman is in another room and does a drawing of the photo. Then we compare the drawing to the photo to see if she passed. But the drawing may have some similarities to the photo and some differences. Some people may feel that the drawing has enough similarities that it is clearing a drawing of the photo. Others may feel that the drawing looks nothing like the photo and that any similarities are vague or just random shapes that could have similarities to any photo. So did she do what she claimed she can do? We don’t know. It is not self-evident. So, before the test JREF and the applicant would have to agree on who would judge the results. But even if a judge is agreed upon, the judge may not be qualified, or may make a bad decision, or may have some bias or personal predispositions that were not made clear prior to the test. The judge could rule that the woman passed, even though almost everybody else feels that the drawing doesn’t look anything like the photo. Or the other way around. Or after the challenge, the judge might say that the drawing was only vaguely similar but he ruled that she passed because he had always wanted someone to win the MDC. Or that he ruled against the applicant just because he didn’t particularly like her. So, is this test fair or unbiased? No.

Here’s a test that has self-evident results: The applicant is shown a certain number of photos (let say 5 photos) that she agrees are different enough that she can remotely view them and tell them apart. The photos are then ordered randomly and, one by one, each placed in a room. The applicant sits in another room and while each photo is placed in the other room can do drawings or take notes. Then the photos are ordered randomly and given to the applicant. The applicant then determines which photos were in the other room 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th. If the applicant was able to remotely view the photos, she should be able to put them in the correct order. Then we compare the applicants order with the actual order to see if she got them all right. The results are self-evident. For example, the photo that the applicant says was in the room first either was the first photo, or it was not. We can look at the records and video to see if it was or not. Nobody has to judge anything.

Is it possible the applicant could pass just by lucky guessing? Yes! So the number of photos or number of trials may need to be increased in the protocol so that it becomes statistically unlikely that the applicant would pass by chance alone. This might mean increasing the number of trials or photos so the odds of passing by chance alone are 1 in 1000, or more likely by setting the odds to be outside of 3 or 4 standard deviations of the norm.

But this might mean that the applicant will have to get many, many matches correct, and may claim that her ability is not perfect. Maybe she gets a false view 10% of the time. OK. So instead of having to get 100% correct, the applicant only has to get 90%, but this increases that probability of passing the test by chance alone, so the number of photos or trials would have to be increased.

For this type of test, there will always be some possibility that the applicant could win by chance alone. But by increasing the number of photos or number of trials, the applicant is not required to do more than she claims to be able to do and the odds of wining by simply making lucky guesses become extremely unlikely.

So the test is fair and unbiased and the results are self-evident. The applicant either gets enough photos in the right order or does not. No judges required. :)

[GimmePepsi]

No, no, no. The reason that the results must be self-evident is specifically avoid the type of bias and uncertainty that you describe. Here’s an example:

Very excellent explanation. I don't understand how some people, when hearing the term "self-evident", think that's referring to James Randi's self, and that it therefore means he personally will judge the result. It's the exact opposite. I think your example illustrates it very well.

[Paul2]

I also think part of the misunderstanding is that, under a literal reading of the word "judge" or "judgment," any test, including the one outlined in post #68, requires judging when "judging" means, broadly speaking, making a conclusion based on data. Saying that results are "self-evident" removes this problem with the word "judge."

[Hilary Sinclair]

Hello again guys, just to let you know i've just sent the dragon queen an email suggesting i set up a preliminary test somewhere over here. Shouldn't be difficult - her claim is she can see auras - i think i've seen a video of the great man conducting a similiar test - so should be a synch. Soon as she replies i'll get back to you.

[chillzero]

Hello again guys, just to let you know i've just sent the dragon queen an email suggesting i set up a preliminary test somewhere over here.

I hope you took a more diplomatic approach when contacting her?

[GzuzKryzt]

Hello again guys, just to let you know i've just sent the dragon queen an email suggesting i set up a preliminary test somewhere over here. Shouldn't be difficult - her claim is she can see auras - i think i've seen a video of the great man conducting a similiar test - so should be a synch. Soon as she replies i'll get back to you.

What would Ms. Dolan have to gain from taking the test?
What would she stand to lose in case of a failure?

Weigh those two answers against each other - keeping in mind which outcome is suggested by common sense - and you will understand why she will - very, very, very likely - not agree to any controlled test.

[Toke]

I don´t see why claimants are so worried about the statistics.:)

Example.

Shuffle a deck of cards and lay them in a long row on a table. I would then try to name them in the order they lie.
My chance of getting it right depends heavily on whether they are face up or down.
A claimant with "x-ray vision" would have no difference in succes chance.

[UncaYimmy]

I don´t see why claimants are so worried about the statistics.:)

Example.

Shuffle a deck of cards and lay them in a long row on a table. I would then try to name them in the order they lie.
My chance of getting it right depends heavily on whether they are face up or down.
A claimant with "x-ray vision" would have no difference in succes chance.
That's not true. If the person had x-ray vision, the numbers would appear backwards.

[Toke]

That's not true. If the person had x-ray vision, the numbers would appear backwards.

Ok, my example is not perfect, imagine an opaque plate covering the cards instead.

The point is that if someone can do what he claim, the probability of succes by chance is irrelevant to him.

[Startz]

...
The point is that if someone can do what he claim, the probability of succes by chance is irrelevant to him.

Very few applicants are concerned about the probability of success. (The exception being applicants whose power works imperfectly.) It's almost always JREF that's concerned about the statistics.

My particular power is that if you lay a deck of cards face down I can identify the whether the first card is red or black. While JREF is unconcerned with theories of how powers work, let me mention that this power was granted by a genie and can only be exercised twice...say once at the preliminary and once at the final test.;)

[UncaYimmy]

Ok, my example is not perfect, imagine an opaque plate covering the cards instead.
If a person has x-ray eyes, they may not penetrate an opaque plate. If they do, then it would be reasonable to expect that they would also go through the playing cards. Thus he couldn't read the cards in the same way you could without an opaque covering.

Boy, you skeptics sure don't know much about testing! ;) Seriously, though, if we're gonna be sticklers when it comes to claimants, we should be even tougher on ourselves.

The point is that if someone can do what he claim, the probability of succes by chance is irrelevant to him.
I think you have misstated your point. The probability of success by chance alone is only relevant to the guy giving up the $1M. A claimant who believes he can do what he says he can do is worried about failing due to chance.

I can ride a unicycle. Suppose that qualified for the MDC. I've seen a number of people try them over the years. Lots of complete novices actually do a few revolutions of the wheel before falling over. The JREF would interested in eliminating that kind of chance happening from being a winning attempt.

Meanwhile, sometimes I screw up the mount. Sometimes something strange happens to make me lose my balance (cramp, foot slips on the pedal, wheel slips on a rock, bad luck). I don't want a test that requires me to be perfect, especially considering that I'll be pretty nervous with $1M at stake.

So, it's only natural for the two parties to negotiate an agreement that satisfies the JREF's desire to avoid paying due to a chance success and my desire to be paid out even if there's a chance failure. Thus we might say that a success is two successful circuits around the course with a maximum of 10 attempts.

The reality is that if I can ride like I say I can ride, I should be able to do it no problem. If I can't ride, there's really no way I'm gonna get lucky enough to make that circuit twice.

Both parties want things to be in their favor as much as possible. Even the most sincere of applicants will want the bar set as low as possible. Wouldn't you if you had a shot at $1M?

I think in many cases too much emphasis is placed on the numbers. That should come last, not first.

[Toke]

I see, still it should not be a problem to reach an agreament that accounts for both succes and failure by chance.
Not considerring how certain most are of their powers.

My particular power is that if you lay a deck of cards face down I can identify the whether the first card is red or black. While JREF is unconcerned with theories of how powers work, let me mention that this power was granted by a genie and can only be exercised twice...say once at the preliminary and once at the final test.;)
This is an exception and will probably not get tested.:D

[Startz]

I see, still it should not be a problem to reach an agreament that accounts for both succes and failure by chance.
Not considerring how certain most are of their powers.


This is an exception and will probably not get tested.:D

I agree with the former. The statistical issues are usually quite straightforward with a little technical help; it's developing adequate control procedures that's tough.