the Winders claim (for TechHead)

[DrBenway]

TechHead, I wanted to comment on something you posted in another thread.

from
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=363290#post363290

"There is at least one. In 1987, Randi tested a Mr. Dell Winders of Haines City, FL for dowsing ability. According to Mr. Winders, he correctly dowsed 8 of 12 times, which was statistically very significant for that particular test protocol."

Hold on a sec. By chance alone, you'd expect he'd get 6/12 right. 8/12 doesn't look very impressive to me. Someone who knows statistics can calculate the p-value for that.

"According to Winders, Randi had denied the test ever took place. I once asked Randi about the test, and after a bit of discussion, Randi seemed to have a vague recollection of the event. But, he stated that Winders failed the test, even though he had no documentation to show that to be true.

Who else was present for the test? If what Winders says is true, he ought to be able to get one of the other independent observers present to corroborate his statements.

"Did the test really take place? Yup, I even have a partial videotape of the test being set up, with Randi & Winders discussing the protocol."

Sometimes discussions about test protocols don't happen on the same day that the test itself happens. Is it clear from your tape that the test follows immediately after the discussion?

Winders says it was filmed by a television station, on the beach (probably Ft. Lauderdale). Yet, Randi had no copy of the tape, I got my copy from Winders.

Is it possible that the taped discussion about the protocol was all that ever happened? If a TV station was present, you'd think they'd have an archived copy someplace as well.

The tape abruptly ends before the actual test begins, so it does not support either man's claim. So, here we have a test that really took place, that the claimant says he passed, yet Randi has no documentation of the test."

I agree, it would be best if the JREF had a record of who was present, what was done, on what date, for each trial. As there have only been "a couple dozen" of these events, it shouldn't be too difficult to retain this information. So I'm puzzled by what you're saying here about this fellow. It leads me to wonder if

a. A record of what happened has been lost by the JREF
b. Mr. Wenners is claiming a trial happened, when actually, only a discussion about the protocol for the trial happened.

In either event, I don't see why Mr. Wenners wouldn't re-apply for the million bucks.

----
Hold on a sec. By chance alone, you'd expect he'd get 6/12 right. 8/12 doesn't look very impressive to me. Someone who knows statistics can calculate the p-value for that.
----


Again, this is where the experimental design comes in to play.

In the scenario above, if there were, say, 12 cannisters, and he'd say, for each cannister, whether there was something in it or not, then the p-value is NOT significant (2-sided p-value=.387, from a 1-sample Z-test of proportions). In fact, for it to be significant in this scenario (at the 5% level), he'd have to get 10 or above.

In a different scenario, the p-value would be different. For example, if he dowsed 12 times, where each time was something hidden in 1 out of k cannisters, got it right, then the k cannisters were reset, then dowsed again, etc., the p-value would be much smaller.

For example, if each of the 12 trials was choosing which out of k=5 cannisters had something in it, and he chose correctly 8 times, then the 2-sided p-value would be .0011.

I'd assume the first scenario, but it isn't too clear because we don't know the experimental design for sure.

[TechHead]

Originally posted by DrBenway
TechHead, I wanted to comment on something you posted in another thread.

from
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=363290#post363290

Hold on a sec. By chance alone, you'd expect he'd get 6/12 right. 8/12 doesn't look very impressive to me. Someone who knows statistics can calculate the p-value for that.


Only for a binary event. This test had either 10 or 12 possible locations, I'd have to dig through some archives to find out. Let's say 10. And, I apologize, I mis-stated the results in the original post, it was 6 of 8 correct. With 10 locations, 8 trials, the chance of getting 6 correct hits is about 1-in-44,000. That's not phenomenal, and certainly not proof that Winders' dowsing contraption worked, but it is a fairly significant result.

Who else was present for the test? If what Winders says is true, he ought to be able to get one of the other independent observers present to corroborate his statements.


The video does not identify individuals. Randi and Dell Winders are the only two I can identify, the 2 or 3 others were TV crew and/or possibly Randi's assistants.

Sometimes discussions about test protocols don't happen on the same day that the test itself happens. Is it clear from your tape that the test follows immediately after the discussion?

The video shows them actually setting up the test, on a public beach (complete with the normal beach crowd), so I would assume that the test follows.


Is it possible that the taped discussion about the protocol was all that ever happened? If a TV station was present, you'd think they'd have an archived copy someplace as well.


I believe the event took place on Ft Lauderdale Beach, or nearby, based on what Dell told me. He also mentioned that it was being filmed for a public TV special. I've contacted a few area TV stations down there, but was either told that they don't keep archives for that long, or got no reply at all.

I agree, it would be best if the JREF had a record of who was present, what was done, on what date, for each trial. As there have only been "a couple dozen" of these events, it shouldn't be too difficult to retain this information. So I'm puzzled by what you're saying here about this fellow. It leads me to wonder if

a. A record of what happened has been lost by the JREF
b. Mr. Wenners is claiming a trial happened, when actually, only a discussion about the protocol for the trial happened.

In either event, I don't see why Mr. Wenners wouldn't re-apply for the million bucks.

What do you mean by "a couple dozen" of these events? Randi has supposedly tested a few hundred dowsers, at least. I can think of several possible scenarios as well:

a. Winders, in fact, failed the test, and is either lying, or believes that some of the results that were not correct, should have been counted as such. Dowsers do this quite often: the target is at location #4, they select #3, and believe it was "close enough."

b. Winders did get 6-of-8 -- either out of pure luck, true dowsing skills, or a flawed test protocol -- and those results were not what Randi wanted for the TV special, so he moved on without filing the results, and eventually forgot about this test.

c. The same as b, except that the results are filed at JREF, unavailable to the public.

The first test took place in 1987, before the $million, although Randi was carrying around a check for $10,000. Dell claims that he was not trying for the prize money, but that he was asked to do the test, strictly for the TV special. I have asked Dell to retake the test, this time for the $million, but he is pretty bitter about the first test, and doesn't trust Randi.

[DrBenway]

Interesting.

Unless things have changed over the years, a successful preliminary trial would be followed by a more carefully controlled trial on another day. I believe that the repeat performance is part of the deal specifically so Randi has some protection against losing due to an unforseen weakness in the original protocol.

Typically, dowsers are given an opportunity to display their powers with a run-through of the testing area knowing where the targets are located. The dowsers have a 100% success rate with this initial trial. Then the targets are moved and hidden, and the dowsers get a second chance. This time, the dowsers' performance is close to chance.

Did Mr. Winders mention either of these aspects of the typical dowsing protocol?

If this guy really did as well as you report, I'd think the media would have a field day with the evidence. What a great story! The fact that I've never heard of Mr. Winders before makes me doubtful that we're getting all the facts.

When did you last correspond with Randi about this? Can we bug him again?

[TechHead]

As I said, and according to Winders, this was not even a prelim for the money. In fact, the official "challenge" may not have even existed back then, don't really know, although Randi was offering $10,000 on-the-spot for a successful demonstration of the paranormal.

I've never really gotten straight answers from either Winders or Randi on this. I know that now, Randi requires pre- and post-test baseline demonstrations, where the location of the target is known. This is basic science protocol. Perhaps he did the same with Winders, and of the 6 "successes", 5 of them were full-view baseline tests.

The odd thing about all this, is that when Winders brought this up on a forum a few years ago, several people called Randi, and he told them that he knew nothing of Dell Winders. Winders claimed that Randi subsequently called him, with angry verbage of some sort. This is all hearsay. I also asked Randi about the test, and at first was told that it didn't happen -- but I pressed harder, and Randi finally said, yes, he tested Winders, but that Winders failed. The video I have does prove that at the very least, they were prepping for a test on a beach, with a camera crew. And, supposedly, no file exists for this test, or whatever it was.

[DrBenway]

Well, that's a disappointing story.

The JREF was founded in 1996, I think. In 1999, Randi said the JREF had done "a couple dozen" preliminaries. Many more people backed out before a preliminary test could be completed.

Before the JREF, who knows how many dowsers Randi had checked out? I suppose it's possible Randi just can't remember much about this particular fellow (I can't remember the names of any patients I took care of in 1987, either --and I'm not in my 70s). Randi may not have kept a diary or other record of his more minor appearances back in the 80s. If he says he can't remember, I guess we're stuck with that answer.

Where's the videotape of the trial? How come Winders only has the set-up, but not the trial? If I were in his shoes, I'd have insisted the TV station or whoever did the taping, make me a copy of my glorious victory before the Amazing Randi that day. I'd have wanted a copy for my mom, too.

I'd tell the guy that no one's going to buy his story without better evidence. He'll need to tape himself doing the thing again, with some independent, reputable, trained scientists watching the whole event. Randi doesn't have to be involved if he doesn't trust Randi.

[TechHead]

I don't disagree with anything you said... it is very possible that an event that was memorable for Dell Winders, was not at all for Randi, although I'd certainly have trouble forgetting a test on a public beach, even if it was 1-out-of-1000. But this particular test (?) is why I believe it is important for Randi to not only document what he is doing, but to place that documentation (or a summary of it) in easy public access.

Randi is not some obscure psych grad student whose paper will be read by tens of people. He is a vocal, and very public, representative of critical thinkers, and the science community in general. When he screws up, the pseudoscience crowd has a field day with it, using the opportunity to drag critical thinkers through the mud and, in turn, further promote their own nonsense. "Ah-ha! See? Randi's hiding something!"

I have a copy of the video. I believe Dell said he doesn't know which station taped it. Why the tape stops right when the test is to begin, is another mystery, and the main reason why I doubt the results Dell claims.

[Drooper]

This Dell Winders posts to this forum:

Treasurenet Forums (http://www.treasurenet.com/forum/locator/)

I dropped a message there encouraging anybody to take the JREF Challenge.

I didn't specifically mention Dell Winders, although he has made his claims about a succsessful challenge on that forum.

[NullPointerException]

Just wondering, but why would a scientific institution not make all these files available to the public?

[Drooper]

Originally posted by NullPointerException
Just wondering, but why would a scientific institution not make all these files available to the public?

I wouldn't claim to be able to answer for Randi, but from the bits and pieces I have gleened from hanging around here I would make the following comments.

[list=1]
JREF is no highly funded scientific institution. It is a small fly-by-night (boutique? :cool: ) operation that runs mostly on the enthusiasm of its supporters and small (select? :cool: ) band of staff. It does not have the resources to fully document every attempt on the Challenge, nor every one that has been made in the past - which must number in the thousands.

Randi would probably say that it is not the objective of the JREF to document and research paranormal phenomenon. Nor is that the purpose of the Challenge. JREF's purpose is to promote and advance the cause of critical thinking and the $1 million is a good way to make a public, media friendly point: as in, despite the proliferation of paranormal claims and a burgeoning industry in such things, the million bucks is still there. It is also a way of telling the world "if you believe in someoone who makes a claim of some outrageous powers, ask yourself why haven't they even taken test, let alone passed it.

Another point from a perspective of practicality. Because of the potential for lots and lots of time wasters, Randi insists on a preliminary test. This prelimnary test does not need to be conducted by Randi, or JREF personally. JREF will accept the results of a preliminary test conducted under satisfactory conditions by other. You will sometimes see accounts of such things in his commentaries. One mass dowsing test in Australia is an example - it was conducted by the Australian skeptics and Randi deemed it to be satisfactory as an initial test for the Challenge. I think (though I am guessing a little) you will sometimes find tests conducted by television comapnies (e.g. the recent homeopathy test for Channel 4 in the UK). Under these circumstances JREF is simply a viewer of events, like you and me - albeit one with a bit more at stake. They don't conduct these tests and so don't document them.
[/list=1]

What all this means is that JREF will possess various partial materials on tests conducted in connection with the Challenge in different forms.

I have seen no evidence that they actively try to prevent the dissemination of such information, but it is clear that they do not possess either the resources, nor the inclination to turn themselves into a paranormal research organisation and collate and publish the information at their disposal.

So that is my take. :cool:

edited because I just can't spell