Randi's involvement in tests [Archive]

Peter Morris

1st November 2004, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by Carn
Easy to do, if you accept german sites:

http://www.gwup.org/psitest/

I don't read German. Got any English ones?

NB Randi only accepts claim applications written in English, and rejects babelfish translations. Allow me the same.

On a report i saw on TV, it was also stated and showed on video, that german sceptics conducted the tests at a university and that Randi was not present, except for the retesting of one candidate, who scored good in the first test(34 of 50, while for passing he would have needed 40 of 50, chance expectation was 25 of 50).
German sceptics decided it was interesting enough to test again and Randi also thought it interesting enough to be present at the test, though he only observed and did not conduct anything. The second test result was 22 of 50, so likely candidate was only lucky on first try.(or it were Randis mystical anti-para powers working)

Carn

Assuming that's an accurate desvcription, then I approve of that. It's something that Randi gets wrong. When a test subject scores higher than chance there are sevceral possibilities :

- fluke
- some flaw in the test design that skews the results
- deliberate cheating
- some real talent

When it happens in Randi's test, his response is to crow about it falling short of the target score, and deny any further test. This is totally wrong. These Germans, noting a higher than expected score tried the same guy again, to see if he could repeat the higher than expected score. That is the right way to do it.

Carn

2nd November 2004, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
I don't read German. Got any English ones?

NB Randi only accepts claim applications written in English, and rejects babelfish translations. Allow me the same.

Sorry, doesn't seem to exist in English and Randi does not tell anything in his commentary.

Assuming that's an accurate desvcription, then I approve of that. It's something that Randi gets wrong. When a test subject scores higher than chance there are sevceral possibilities :

- fluke
- some flaw in the test design that skews the results
- deliberate cheating
- some real talent

When it happens in Randi's test, his response is to crow about it falling short of the target score, and deny any further test. This is totally wrong. These Germans, noting a higher than expected score tried the same guy again, to see if he could repeat the higher than expected score. That is the right way to do it.

I would not be certain about Randi "crowing" about applicants falling short of the target score, but i am at least certain that he does so with applicants who only score little better than chance and are still certain they have some ability.
As good scoring in tests does not happen often(after all its unlikely if its just chance), i do not know further examples, where a applicant scored good, but not good enough, so i do not know how Randi behaves in this cases, do you have links about such cases where applicant scored far better than chance?

Also in the report i saw and the newspaper articles, there was no hint that Randi in any way disproved the retesting and his coming to watch the retest, i think can only be interpreted as Randi wanting to know whether it was chance, cheating, real ability or test problems, so i cannot agree to your point, that Randi, as you implied, "always" makes fun of failed applicants, maybe he only picks those, where he also has other reasons to "crow" about.

But without lots of reports on prelim tests i can only guess and nothing more can you do, unless you know reports of tests where applicants scored good and where "crowed".

Also he does not deny any further test, though he sets the bar, that applicant has to wait 12 months and reapply(from official rules):
"There is no limit on the number of times an applicant may re-apply, but re-application can take place only after 12 months have elapsed since the preliminary test."

It seems to me that an applicant can even reapply with exactly the same claim and ask for exactly the same test protocol.

But i agree that waiting 12 months and reapply might demotivate people to retest, but that still different from "deny any further test".

BTW, i'm still waiting for your to prove through cites or something like that, that:

1."All scientist, except Einstein, ignored the(=all?) facts"

2."No scientist, except Einstein, did alter the theory to make it fit the facts."

at the thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44920&perpage=40&pagenumber=3

I'm interested, because i think it might be possible to prove 2., but i think its impossible to prove 1.

Carn

Added: I insist so much on discussing those statements of you, that seem to have an "always" or "never" in it, because i think they are among those, that cause a lot of people to dislike you, first because, while everybody knows for example, that Randi can be very nasty, nobody thinks he always is and second its very hard to prove "always" and "never" statements and you do not seem to manage often and third disproving such statements is very easy, one conterexample is enough and people regularly try to show you one and you, as far as i have seen, never acknowledged, that somebody has found an counterexample or something thats close to counterexample.
I think it would be better, if you try to be careful with "always" and "never", i also got a bloody nose somewhere on this forum with that and had to change my position.

But maybe i just get the wrong picture.

Peter Morris

2nd November 2004, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by Carn
As good scoring in tests does not happen often(after all its unlikely if its just chance), i do not know further examples, where a applicant scored good, but not good enough, so i do not know how Randi behaves in this cases, do you have links about such cases where applicant scored far better than chance?

Yeah, here's (http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm) one.

Expected score : 10%
Actual score (for water dowsers) : 22%
Odds against this happening : approx 107 to 1

Randi's excuses :

1) To combine the results of three totally seperate tests. Different people were testing for different claims. They have nothing to do with each other. By this trick Randi makes the 22% figure vanish.

2) He crows about the figure falling below the target score of 80%. He makes loads of nasty remarks about how they thought they would get 80%, but they really only got 22%, much less than they thought. By this trick, Randi distracts from the fact that they scored substantally above chance.

Let me repeat. there are several possible explainations for this.

- fluke
- some flaw in the test skewing the results
- deliberate cheating
- actual dowsing skill

An honest person running getting this result would have said : Well, this sort of thing happens ocasionally if you run enigh tests

A competent person getting this result would have performed further tests, to see if the 22% success could be repeated.

Randi is neither competent nor honest. His response to this was to play with figures and deny that the score was above chance at all.

Also he does not deny any further test, though he sets the bar, that applicant has to wait 12 months and reapply(from official rules):

That's not the same thing. I'm talking about additional trials as part of the same test. You are talking about a totally seperate test.

The Germans got it right. When they saw a result substantially above chance, they tried it again. Thus they were able to say the first test was just a fluke.

Randi got it wrong. When he saw a result substantially above chance, he simply denied it. And offered no further tests.

BTW, i'm still waiting for your to prove through cites or something like that, that:

1."All scientist, except Einstein, ignored the(=all?) facts"

2."No scientist, except Einstein, did alter the theory to make it fit the facts.".

Einstein discovered relativity. Everyone else didn't. What more do you want?

Ask a silly question...

Added: I insist so much on discussing those statements of you, that seem to have an "always" or "never" in it, because i think they are among those, that cause a lot of people to dislike you,

The reason people dislike me is that they want to belive Randi is some sort of hero, but I keep showing how dishonest he is. They really hate me for that.

first because, while everybody knows for example, that Randi can be very nasty,

Except for Larsen who refuses to believe it.

nobody thinks he always is and second its very hard to prove "always" and "never" statements and you do not seem to manage often and third disproving such statements is very easy, one conterexample is enough and people regularly try to show you one and you, as far as i have seen, never acknowledged, that somebody has found an counterexample or something thats close to counterexample.

Well, it is pretty rare. Randi fans are a strange bunch, and their ideas of what a counter-example is are peculiar to say the least. Very often the examples they cite prove the exact opposite.

The Don

2nd November 2004, 11:05 AM

Or the 22% could be the result of choosing a subset fo the tests (which I guess is a combination of sheer dumb luck and flaw in the design of the experiment).

SpaceFluffer

2nd November 2004, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Yeah, here's (http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm) one.

Expected score : 10%
Actual score (for water dowsers) : 22%
Odds against this happening : approx 107 to 1

It's not clear to me from this description how the percentage success values were arrived at. Anyone know?

How did you determine that the "Odds against this happening" are 107 to 1?

Dr Adequate

2nd November 2004, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
When it happens in Randi's test, his response is to crow about it falling short of the target score, and deny any further test. This is totally wrong. These Germans, noting a higher than expected score tried the same guy again, to see if he could repeat the higher than expected score. That is the right way to do it.
And is apparently what Randi did. Are you fawning on him, by any chance?
Originally posted by Carn
On a report i saw on TV, it was also stated and showed on video, that german sceptics conducted the tests at a university and that Randi was not present, except for the retesting of one candidate, who scored good in the first test(34 of 50, while for passing he would have needed 40 of 50, chance expectation was 25 of 50).

German sceptics decided it was interesting enough to test again and Randi also thought it interesting enough to be present at the test, though he only observed and did not conduct anything. The second test result was 22 of 50, so likely candidate was only lucky on first try.(or it were Randis mystical anti-para powers working)
Of course Randi doesn't normally attend tests, but a hot chance like this is worth going out of your way to see, IMO.

Carn

2nd November 2004, 02:37 PM

Carn quote: BTW, i'm still waiting for your to prove through cites or something like that, that:

1."All scientist, except Einstein, ignored the(=all?) facts"

2."No scientist, except Einstein, did alter the theory to make it fit the facts.".

Peter Morris
"
Einstein discovered relativity. Everyone else didn't. What more do you want?

Ask a silly question...
"

Ok, Peter Morris, since 30 years science faces the problem, that the QCD standard model does not describe gravity in any satisfactory way. When you consider gravity, like its explained in General Relativity, QCD is just plain wrong.
It is certain that either QCD or GR or both are wrong at some point and that maybe a complete new idea is needed to get a consitent theory.
One try is super string theory. Unfortunately, its not yet testible, there are no big enough accelerators and also there are some reasons to believe its actually wrong.

Now consider in 40 years some genius shows up and solves the problem with a completely new theory.

Would you then say:

- All scientist between 1970 and 2040 ignored the fact that GR and QCD don't work together and no scientists did alter the theories, to make them fit the facts.

-Scientist knew there was something wrong, but all the ideas they had, how to deal with this problem failed, they were too stupid and the genius was needed to find a good theory.

I hope you see that the first statement is identical to the one you made for 19th century scientist, while the second statement is different, because it implies that scientist did not ignore the facts, though were too stupid to find a fitting theory, so both statements cannot be correct the same time.

Carn

Peter Morris

2nd November 2004, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
And is apparently what Randi did. Are you fawning on him, by any chance?

Of course Randi doesn't normally attend tests, but a hot chance like this is worth going out of your way to see, IMO. :dl:

Peter Morris

2nd November 2004, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
It's not clear to me from this description how the percentage success values were arrived at. Anyone know?

How did you determine that the "Odds against this happening" are 107 to 1?

First of all I knocked up a quick computer simulation, ran it several hundred thousand times. This showed me the figure was slightly more than 100-1, maybe about 110-1.

Then I posted the figures on a maths forum and asked for an exact answer. Someone posted 0.935%. When I asked how this was calculated he replied "It's a binomial distribution, conveniently it's a function in excel."

So now we know.

Peter Morris

2nd November 2004, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by Carn

I hope you see that the first statement is identical to the one you made for 19th century scientist, while the second statement is different, because it implies that scientist did not ignore the facts, though were too stupid to find a fitting theory, so both statements cannot be correct the same time.

Carn

Don't you think you're being a bit obsessive about this?

I can no longer even remember the point we were discussing when this first came up. Just get over it. We've moved onto other subjects.

Zombified

2nd November 2004, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Don't you think you're being a bit obsessive about this?Have you ever spent more than a couple posts on anything other than trying to discredit the challenge?

:i:

CFLarsen

2nd November 2004, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
First of all I knocked up a quick computer simulation, ran it several hundred thousand times. This showed me the figure was slightly more than 100-1, maybe about 110-1.

Can we see the source code for this?

JimTheBrit

2nd November 2004, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
When it happens in Randi's test, his response is to [...] deny any further test.BS, see rule 5.
This is totally wrong. These Germans, noting a higher than expected score tried the same guy again, to see if he could repeat the higher than expected score. That is the right way to do it.The right way to do what? The million dollars is awarded for the successful demonstration of a claim. If the challengers can't demonstrate their abilities to the previously, mutually agreed on criteria for success, they fail. If others contend that the failure might yet have been successful enough to perhaps show evidence of paranormality, there's nothing to stop the claimant being tested by other parties. Neither is there anything to stop the claimant revising their claim and resubmitting it for testing at a later date.

*******************************************

That was their choice. If they choose to have me do
the tests -- and in
some cases, they INSIST on it -- I do so. That
applies to all aspects, to
suit the applicant. As for the escrow matter, all that
has been posted on my
web site.

James Randi

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim S [mailto:*EMAIL*ADDRESS*DELETED*]
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 4:02 PM
To: randi@randi.org
Subject: Concerns about your writings regarding the
challenge

Dear Mr Randi,

Iâ€™ve recently been reading through the commentary
archive and have noticed that a number of your
statements regarding the paranormal challenge seem
contradictory. Iâ€™ve listed below those that have me
puzzled, in the hope that you can address them and
restore my confidence in your award.

-Repeatedly, you state that the JREF is not involved
in the testing, which is completed by a mutually
agreed independent third party.

â€œThe JREF does not involve itself in the testing
procedure, other than helping to design the protocol
and approving the conditions under which a test will
take place.â€ http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

Yet in the commentaries of 22nd Feb 2002
(http://www.randi.org/jr/022202.html) and 1st Oct 2000
(http://www.randi.org/jr/10-01-2000.html), you
describe your direct involvement in the testing of
Natalie Lulova and a healer from Lithuania (an
apparent contravention of rule 4 of the challenge
rules). Were you simply over-enthusiastic in these
cases or should I take it that testing is always done
independently from the JREF except in certain cases in
which the foundation has special interest (and then
only with the consent of the challenger)?

-*QUESTION*REGARDING*PROTOCOL*DESIGN*DELETED*

-*QUESTION*REGARDING*ESCROW*DELETED*

I look forward to your response and would be grateful
if you would grant me permission to post it in the
JREF forums where I have already voiced my concerns.

Regards,
Jim S., *LOCATION*DELETED*.

******************************************

From Application for status of claimant (http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html):
"NOTE: No special rules, exceptions, conditions, standards, or favors will be granted without the mutual agreement of those concerned â€” in advance."

Peter Morris

2nd November 2004, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Zombified
Have you ever spent more than a couple posts on anything other than trying to discredit the challenge?

:i:

Well, discussing Randi's scribblings, his tests, and general talk about skeptics is the main subject of the message board. Most of my posts have indeed been on this topic.:hit:

What would you want me to talk about?

Peter Morris

2nd November 2004, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Can we see the source code for this?

Possibly, but a few potential problems.

1) I'm not sure how to post it here. As I understand it, we can't actually post content here, only links to it. That means that I'd have to set up a website, put my file on it, then provide a link to the file.

2) It was written in an old students edition of VB6. I believe that it will only run from within that particular software. The particular version I have does not permit creation of executables that would run on other computers.

3) I'm not sure if I even still have it. It was a simple program written many months ago for a single purpose. I had no real use for it afterwards.

CFLarsen

2nd November 2004, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Possibly, but a few potential problems.

1) I'm not sure how to post it here. As I understand it, we can't actually post content here, only links to it. That means that I'd have to set up a website, put my file on it, then provide a link to the file.

2) It was written in an old students edition of VB6. I believe that it will only run from within that particular software. The particular version I have does not permit creation of executables that would run on other computers.

3) I'm not sure if I even still have it. It was a simple program written many months ago for a single purpose. I had no real use for it afterwards.

You can email it to me: editor@skepticreport.com

No "potential problems" whatsoever.

Peter Morris

2nd November 2004, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by JimTheBrit
BS, see rule 5.

You misunderstand me. I've explained it above. But once again:

Someone makes a paranormal claim. Someone agrees to test that claim. They set up a test : Random chance would expect to score X in the test. A score of 8x is so unlikely that it would be strong evidence of paranormal powers. In fact the claimant only scores 5x, much higher than chance, much less than the target score.

Reaction of the Germans : Hey, that's interesting, he got higher than chance. Lets test him some more, and see if he keeps it up.

Reaction of Randi : You got less than the target, that's a fail. There will be no further tests done, but you can come back next year.

The point is, if Randi sets a target of 80%, then a score of 79.999999% is a failure, and proof that you're self-deluded.

The right way to do what? The million dollars is awarded for the successful demonstration of a claim.

The right way to investigate a claim. It has nothing to do with a prize on offer.

-Repeatedly, you state that the JREF is not involved in the testing, which is completed by a mutually
agreed independent third party.

good luck getting an answer. I'll predict he'll say something along the lines of "read the rules" and leave it at that.

Peter Morris

2nd November 2004, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You can email it to me: editor@skepticreport.com

No "potential problems" whatsoever.

And what do you want it for, anyway?

CFLarsen

2nd November 2004, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
And what do you want it for, anyway?

So everyone can see how you got your result, of course.

JimTheBrit

2nd November 2004, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Reaction of the Germans : Hey, that's interesting, he got higher than chance. Lets test him some more, and see if he keeps it up.
Reaction of Randi : You got less than the target, that's a fail. There will be no further tests done, but you can come back next year.[/i]
So the crux of your complaint against Randi seems to be the lapse of 12 months between tests. Randi isn't a competent investigator because he's not eager enough, is that what you're saying?

good luck getting an answer. I'll predict he'll say something along the lines of "read the rules" and leave it at that. Thanks. The reply was included in my post.

Edited for clarity.

Peter Morris

2nd November 2004, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by JimTheBrit
So the crux of your complaint against Randi seems to be the lapse of 12 months between tests.

No. 12 years or 12 seconds makes no difference.

Randi isn't a competent investigator because he's not eager enough, is that what you're saying?

No. Randi doesn't know how to conduct a test properly.

The point is, the German test one subject scored far higher than chance. So they extended the test. The additional stuff they did was PART OF THE SAME TEST.

In the same situation, Randi would not extend the test.

Thanks. The reply was included in my post. [/B]

Ah, the trouble with top-posting. It makes conversatuions hard to follow.

Prolix

2nd November 2004, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris:
First of all I knocked up a quick computer simulation, ran it several hundred thousand times. This showed me the figure was slightly more than 100-1, maybe about 110-1.

Originally posted by CFLarsen:
Can we see the source code for this?

Peter, Your chance to avoid total loss of credibility.

Claus, I'll bet you can anticipate how Peter will try to further slither out of this.

MESchlum

2nd November 2004, 11:58 PM

Quoth a math nut:

Out of 50 attempts, you have 11 success. Since each attempt is binary (succeed/fail) you also have 39 failures. However, the order in which they take place does not matter, so long as you get the right number.

The exact mathematical furmula here is:

Let p be the chance of success, with n tests and k successes.

The chance is C(n,k)*p^k*(1-p)^(n-k)

C(n,k) is the number of possible combinations of exactly k successes among n tests, the rest is the chance of a specific order of successes and failures.

C(n,k) is n!/(k!*(n-k)!, where ! denotes the factorial, or the product of all integers up to that number. So 5! is 1*2*3*4*5 (=120), and 50! is BIG.

If you have Excel, or a decent pocket calculator, or know how to program, etc. you can compute this.

In the case of 50 attempts, 11 successes and a 10% chance of success, you get roughly 1/163 (to quote Excel -which is probably fairly accurate).

Approximating it by hand is more of a pain, but feasible, and gives the same size.

The answer is 1/163 for all practical purposes. Programs / rough calculations / instructions in use of software available on request, but this isn't the forum for it.

Should one try to write such a program for the merry folks of the forums? It's easy, really.

End of math rant.

T'ai Chi

3rd November 2004, 12:12 AM

I think he's getting it from:

Probability(of getting more 11 or more out of 50, given that the probability for each independent trial is 10%) =

SUM { nCr(n,r) * p^r * (1-p)^(n-r) }

(where nCr = n!/(r!(n-r)!)

Where n = 50, p = .1, and r runs from 11 to 50.

This yields .0093546.

MESchlum

3rd November 2004, 12:27 AM

Good point.

As a math note, I'd use 1-(Sum up to 10 inclusive), as it involves less work.

I get 1/69, roughly (or 0.014). The order of magnitude seems about right, anyway.

MESchlum

3rd November 2004, 12:37 AM

Here we go.

Just dug up an old program that computes Poisson tails, that is the odds of more than a certain number of events occuring when you know the number of expected events.

50 tests, 10% chance gives 5 tests expected, and 11 observed.

The Poisson tail is 0.01369. Not quite the exact value, but close enough for government work.

Using the same program, I can get estimates of how many tests you'd need to pass to have a one in a million chance (20), and so forth. It's small, it's dirty, it works. Please PM if interested.

princhester

3rd November 2004, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Can we see the source code for this?

Hell, Claus. Get a clue. Scoring 22% on a 1 in 10 test is going to be fairly long odds. Does it matter exactly what they are? The important point has been made by JimtheBrit.

princhester

3rd November 2004, 05:57 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Well, discussing Randi's scribblings, his tests, and general talk about skeptics is the main subject of the message board. Most of my posts have indeed been on this topic.:hit:

Most of your posts on the Dope are also on the same topic. You're not getting off that easily.

princhester

3rd November 2004, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
No. 12 years or 12 seconds makes no difference.

The Australian tests were well over 12 months ago.

No one has come forward to apply saying they can get 22% on a 1 in 10 test. What conclusion do you draw, Peter?

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Reaction of Randi : You got less than the target, that's a fail. There will be no further tests done, but you can come back next year.

A reasonable offer. Consider that testing a 22% claim requires recalculation of the proper setup (ie how many iterations are appropriate before the odds of a fluke are long enough to make it proper to award the prize).

What's wrong with saying "go away, think calmly about what we need to set up for next year then we'll have another go"

Sounds like good procedure to me.

Why is doing a hasty test for something different to what you set out to test in the first place redolent of good testing procedure?

I would have thought quite the opposite.

princhester

3rd November 2004, 06:07 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Except in cases when he does. conduct the test.

Such as Mike G's dowsing test (http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html) where Randi describes his own involvement.

And the psychic healer from Lithuania. (http://www.randi.org/jr/10-01-2000.html) And Randi's stated intention that he would conduct (http://www.randi.org/jr/10-08-2000.html) the test "this week."

And the aforementioned testing of the Russian x-ray vision girl, test performed by Randi.

And .... Well, you get the idea.

Actually, I'm hard pressed to find a single description of a million doller test that WASN'T conducted by Randi.

You always bring this up like it matters. If you could come up with an example of a testee saying that they didn't want Randi to be present, but he insisted on being there anyway, I could see your point.

BillHoyt

3rd November 2004, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
When it happens in Randi's test, his response is to crow about it falling short of the target score, and deny any further test. This is totally wrong. These Germans, noting a higher than expected score tried the same guy again, to see if he could repeat the higher than expected score. That is the right way to do it.

Patent nonsense displaying a total disregard for statistics in two different ways:

1. "Above average" is of no interest. Scientifically, if it does not meet the predetermined score, it is insignificant. Scientifically, the test failed. Period.

2. Retesting is begging for someone to walk away with a million dollars on chance alone. If you set your predetermined score as p = .05, that means that 1 time in 20, by chance alone, you will hit that score. No special powers needed, it will simply happen 1 time in 20. It would prove nothing except that the tester who lets this happen is innumerate.

Peter Morris

3rd November 2004, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by Prolix
Originally posted by Peter Morris:
First of all I knocked up a quick computer simulation, ran it several hundred thousand times. This showed me the figure was slightly more than 100-1, maybe about 110-1.

Originally posted by CFLarsen:
Can we see the source code for this?

Peter, Your chance to avoid total loss of credibility.

Claus, I'll bet you can anticipate how Peter will try to further slither out of this.

Oh? loss of credibility? Why would that be, exactly? What are you disputing, precisely?

Are you acusing me of being unable to write a program? If so, that's a pretty desperate ploy, isn't it? Ha ha, Peter said he wrote a program, but he's unable to prove that he wrote it, he claims that he didn't keep it, ha ha ha, he's unable to prove that he wrote it, and I demand proof, ha ha ha. Quite pathetic if that's what you want to do.

Or are you disputing the results of the program? Are you disputing the figures? Doubting the odds are 0.935%, as I said? jzs has shown the maths to work this out.

Or is your beef something else?

Come on, I want to know what your problem is. You specifically, since you made the demand.

Carn

3rd November 2004, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Don't you think you're being a bit obsessive about this?

I can no longer even remember the point we were discussing when this first came up. Just get over it. We've moved onto other subjects.

Sorry,
but you're statements were affronting all scientists between Newton and Einstein and also implied most scientists do not care for facts(which is affronting me personally, as i'm one).

Furthermore i think its wrong and hoped, that i can show you why its wrong.

And if you demonstrate, that you can change you're opinion in case you made a mistake, this would indicate you are a sceptic, though a different kind, that generally hangs round here.

On the other hand, if you keep you're position no matter the facts, you are no sceptic.

So i'm interested whether you are a sceptic or not.

Of course this will only work, if i'm realy right on the topic, but therefore i stick with those points, because there i'm fairly certain to be right and ready to argue, while on other things you bring up(e.g. Randi is a close-minded pseudo sceptic) my knowledge is not good enough to be certain i have good chances to convince you, if thats possible.

Carn

Peter Morris

3rd November 2004, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by princhester
You always bring this up like it matters. If you could come up with an example of a testee saying that they didn't want Randi to be present, but he insisted on being there anyway, I could see your point.

Well, there was a case not too long ago. Someone produced an alleged magic rock with peculiar properties. JREF agreed to test it. But the owner had two worries.

First, he claimed that his rock had potentially dangerous radiation, and wanted someone to advise on safety in the test.

Secondly, he was concerned that JREF wouldn't test it fairly and impartially.

So, he requested that the test be performed by an independent third party - a "high energy scientist." Presumably he meant a radiologist, or similar.

Randi refused. Randi insisted that the test would be carried out by a JREF member, and refused to allow the inclusion of a scientist, "high energy" or otherwise.

That answer your question?

Last I heard, they had rethought their position, but only after I told them why it was wrong.

MESchlum

3rd November 2004, 07:18 AM

Mutter.

I stand by my 1.4% (roughly, more digits is really a waste of accuracy). jzs, do you have any idea why we diverge by about a multiplier of about 1.5?

BillHoyt

3rd November 2004, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Are you acusing me of being unable to write a program? If so, that's a pretty desperate ploy, isn't it? Ha ha, Peter said he wrote a program, but he's unable to prove that he wrote it, he claims that he didn't keep it, ha ha ha, he's unable to prove that he wrote it, and I demand proof, ha ha ha. Quite pathetic if that's what you want to do.
Your credibility sinks even further went you won't open your "work" to outside review.

Or are you disputing the results of the program? Are you disputing the figures? Doubting the odds are 0.935%, as I said? jzs has shown the maths to work this out.
Appealing to T'ai's credibility hardly helps your case. Neither does it go to the question of possible problems in your "work."

Carn

3rd November 2004, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris

No. Randi doesn't know how to conduct a test properly.

The point is, the German test one subject scored far higher than chance. So they extended the test. The additional stuff they did was PART OF THE SAME TEST.

In the same situation, Randi would not extend the test.

To give a correction, as far as i read and saw, the additional stuff was not part of the JREF challenge.

If on retesting the score would have been 50 of 50(truly high indication for paranormal), this would have been irrelevant for getting the 1 million, because the test agreement was 1 test with 40 of 50 to pass.

You might say thats unfair, but the test agreement was signed by all sides and was clear on this point, allowing sucessful retesting as passing the prelim, would violate JREF rules and Randi could be sued by JREF for neglecting his duties.

The retesting was done because of interest, not because of uncertainity whether the applicant should proceed to formal test.

If score would have been high again, i suspect german sceptics would have stayed in contact with applicant and would have tried to help him find out how high his success rate actually is(40 of 50 was criteria, because applicant claimed 100%). With this knowledge the guy could have reapplied JREF next year and would have had a high chance to pass prelim.

But as he seems to score randomly, that did not happen.

Carn

kookbreaker

3rd November 2004, 08:06 AM

steenkh

3rd November 2004, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Well, there was a case not too long ago. Someone produced an alleged magic rock with peculiar properties. JREF agreed to test it. But the owner had two worries.

First, he claimed that his rock had potentially dangerous radiation, and wanted someone to advise on safety in the test.

Secondly, he was concerned that JREF wouldn't test it fairly and impartially.

So, he requested that the test be performed by an independent third party - a "high energy scientist." Presumably he meant a radiologist, or similar.

Randi refused. Randi insisted that the test would be carried out by a JREF member, and refused to allow the inclusion of a scientist, "high energy" or otherwise.

That answer your question?

Last I heard, they had rethought their position, but only after I told them why it was wrong.
The rock guy is not himself a "high energy scientist" and he handles the rock all the time. He has never been able to define what he means by high energy radiation or how he found out that the rock could produce it.

In fact, he only became concerned that a high energy scientist should be involved the moment it was suggested that a normal rock would be used for a comparison test. It was not the safety of the tester he was concerned about, but the safety of his claim.

The claim itself was not of a high energy type, but rather the opposite, because he claimed that his rock could prevent ice from melting. In order to stall the negotiations, he asked for this high energy scientist to determine if the ice had melted or not, and when JREF finally - and I really do not think that Peter Morris' opinions had any say in this matter - decided to give in and allow such a specialist to be present, if the rock owner could produce one, the claim was never heard of again.

Peter Morris

3rd November 2004, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by princhester
The Australian tests were well over 12 months ago.

No one has come forward to apply saying they can get 22% on a 1 in 10 test. What conclusion do you draw, Peter?

A reasonable offer. Consider that testing a 22% claim requires recalculation of the proper setup (ie how many iterations are appropriate before the odds of a fluke are long enough to make it proper to award the prize).

What's wrong with saying "go away, think calmly about what we need to set up for next year then we'll have another go"

Sounds like good procedure to me.

Why is doing a hasty test for something different to what you set out to test in the first place redolent of good testing procedure?

I would have thought quite the opposite.

Okay, Princhester, consider this situation:

Let's say there's a laboratory researching treatments for cancer. They test various experimental drugs on lab rats with cancer.

Now, let us suppose that without drugs the rats have a 10% survival rate. One in 10 get better by themselves.

So, there's various new drugs they want to test. They test each drug on a group of 50 rats. They'd expect 5 survivors (10%) per group. 40 survivors (80%) would be clear evidence that the drug works. They also keep some control groups without drugs.

Many of the drugs they try have no effect at all. But one day they try a new drug on a group of 50 rats. 11 survive, (22%) while in the control group only 5 survive (10%).

Now, tell me what they ought to do with those results? Should they:

option 1

On the grounds that 22% is less than the 80% target, they declare that drug a failure, and don't bother trying it again.

option 2

Wait 12 months, try the same drug. If it scores 22% again, it's a failure. Wait 12 months , try again. If it gets 22% a third time it still fails. Each trial is seperate, ignore previous tests. Repeat, the drug keeps scoring 22%, but never gets to the magical 80% requirement. It never passes the test.

Just for good measure, deny that the result ever was 22%. Note that they were also testing a totally different drug at the time, and with that one, all the rats died, 0% survival. By adding the results of the two different drugs together, they get almost exactly the 10% predicted.

option 3

Look with interest at the 22% result. It might be a 107-1 fluke, or it might indicate the drug is worth something. Try the drug again, several times if neccessary. See if the 22% rate is repeated. If so, the drug is a success. If not, then the original was a fluke.

Well, which do you think is the best way?

Do you see that Randi does no 2, while the Germans did no 3?

Do you see why someone might think no 3 is better?

kookbreaker

3rd November 2004, 08:22 AM

Comparing medical studies to the challenge is a worthless comparison. Especially given the variables involved in testing medicine. In reality a fourth option, tinkering with the drug and testing it sooner would be the option taken.

However, if you must use that example. Let's say this "drug" has been around for a while. Many folks swear by its 80-100% success rating. Normal cure rate is 10%.

When tested over the decades, the drug has shown no more than chance levels. Yet many still swear by it.

In one test, conveniently done in Australia (hey, my metaphors gotta fit) a set of rats and white mice are tested. The mice pretty much all die, doing worse than chance. By one fluke or another, however, the rats survive 22% of the time.

But overall, the drug never shows promise of more than chance levels. If you start conentrating on the 22% figure you are basicly data-mining. Soon folks start examining for all sorts of flukes and notice that when the dug is administered by a left handed lab assistant, the survival rate is 25%.

But flukes like these never make the drug work any better than chance, even when administered by left handed lab assistants.

MRC_Hans

3rd November 2004, 08:29 AM

The JREF challenge is not scientific research. It is a challenge to demonstrate something paranormal USING a scientifically valid test protocol.

If a claimant claims that he can do something 80% of the time (against, say, a 10% chance probability), then that is the success criterion, period. If he does 79% then it is bloody interesting, scientifically, but he failed the challenge.

Now, after one year, the claimant can re-apply (and of course the one year curfew has no relevance to scientific tests, it is just to keep from being swamped by some nutter), and if he has in the meantime realized that he can only do twice the odds of chance (here 20%), then, obviously, that is what he will state in his new application (unless he is totally nuts).

Hans

Stitch

3rd November 2004, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Okay, Princhester, consider this situation:

Let's say there's a laboratory researching treatments for cancer. They test various experimental drugs on lab rats with cancer.

Now, let us suppose that without drugs the rats have a 10% survival rate. One in 10 get better by themselves.

So, there's various new drugs they want to test. They test each drug on a group of 50 rats. They'd expect 5 survivors (10%) per group. 40 survivors (80%) would be clear evidence that the drug works. They also keep some control groups without drugs.

Many of the drugs they try have no effect at all. But one day they try a new drug on a group of 50 rats. 11 survive, (22%) while in the control group only 5 survive (10%).

Now, tell me what they ought to do with those results? Should they:

option 1

On the grounds that 22% is less than the 80% target, they declare that drug a failure, and don't bother trying it again.

option 2

Wait 12 months, try the same drug. If it scores 22% again, it's a failure. Wait 12 months , try again. If it gets 22% a third time it still fails. Each trial is seperate, ignore previous tests. Repeat, the drug keeps scoring 22%, but never gets to the magical 80% requirement. It never passes the test.

Just for good measure, deny that the result ever was 22%. Note that they were also testing a totally different drug at the time, and with that one, all the rats died, 0% survival. By adding the results of the two different drugs together, they get almost exactly the 10% predicted.

option 3

Look with interest at the 22% result. It might be a 107-1 fluke, or it might indicate the drug is worth something. Try the drug again, several times if neccessary. See if the 22% rate is repeated. If so, the drug is a success. If not, then the original was a fluke.

Well, which do you think is the best way?

Do you see that Randi does no 2, while the Germans did no 3?

Do you see why someone might think no 3 is better?

You seem to be missing the point of the challenge. The challenge asks the claimant to state what they can do, to what accuracy and then demonstrate it, in the case of the challenage a miss is as good as a mile, it is pass or fail, there is no grey area.

You can grumble all you like, but the rules are there and clear. If you don't like it don't take part, take up somebody else's challenge.

Ashles

3rd November 2004, 08:33 AM

Nice long example. Not analogous to the JREF prize of course, but we expect no different from you by now Peter.

The JREF claim is by its very nature quite rough and ready, so for clarity and lack of confusion the tests are a good way away from what could be considered chance results.

They want a clear result that couldn't in any way be chance. If someone can predict coin tosses predicting 50/100 would be chance. 70/100 would be considered above chance rates, but it could be luck.
So to avoid any doubt the JREF would set the target somewhere in the region of 95+ to ensure a clear result.
It sounds high, but if the person can do it then this shouldn't be a problem and it eliminates later arguments.

And you are also forgetting that the results are agreed by the claimant beforehand, or the test won't go ahead.

I know you know all of this and yet are still hellbent on inventing examples that are not similar at all to try and somehow prove your unfounded claims about unfair testing.

When will you ever understand that it is not a scientific test - it is a prize for a challenge, so the rules are especially tight to prevent cheating or unclear results.

If someone can do what they claim all of your complaints and issues are irrelevant. They would pass the test and win. Maybe this is all just your way of trying to distract yourself from this fact.

Your obsession is really weird and your legal request and the deceptive and sneaky way you tried to gain legal information makes it look like there is some personal grudge you have against the JREF.

And using Dalton as any example of unfair treatment of a claimant is really desperate scraping of the bottom of the barrel.

BillHoyt

3rd November 2004, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Okay, Princhester, consider this situation:

Let's say there's a laboratory researching treatments for cancer. They test various experimental drugs on lab rats with cancer.

Now, let us suppose that without drugs the rats have a 10% survival rate. One in 10 get better by themselves.

So, there's various new drugs they want to test. They test each drug on a group of 50 rats. They'd expect 5 survivors (10%) per group. 40 survivors (80%) would be clear evidence that the drug works. They also keep some control groups without drugs.

Many of the drugs they try have no effect at all. But one day they try a new drug on a group of 50 rats. 11 survive, (22%) while in the control group only 5 survive (10%).

Now, tell me what they ought to do with those results? Should they:

option 1

On the grounds that 22% is less than the 80% target, they declare that drug a failure, and don't bother trying it again.

option 2

Wait 12 months, try the same drug. If it scores 22% again, it's a failure. Wait 12 months , try again. If it gets 22% a third time it still fails. Each trial is seperate, ignore previous tests. Repeat, the drug keeps scoring 22%, but never gets to the magical 80% requirement. It never passes the test.

Just for good measure, deny that the result ever was 22%. Note that they were also testing a totally different drug at the time, and with that one, all the rats died, 0% survival. By adding the results of the two different drugs together, they get almost exactly the 10% predicted.

option 3

Look with interest at the 22% result. It might be a 107-1 fluke, or it might indicate the drug is worth something. Try the drug again, several times if neccessary. See if the 22% rate is repeated. If so, the drug is a success. If not, then the original was a fluke.

Well, which do you think is the best way?

Do you see that Randi does no 2, while the Germans did no 3?

Do you see why someone might think no 3 is better?

You've got the science wrong, the statistics wrong and the nature of the JREF challenge wrong. Other than that...

Peter Morris

3rd November 2004, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Comparing medical studies to the challenge is a worthless comparison. Especially given the variables involved in testing medicine. In reality a fourth option, tinkering with the drug and testing it sooner would be the option taken.

But not in Randi's tests.

Peter Morris

3rd November 2004, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Ashles

[hate snipped]

When will you ever understand that it is not a scientific test - it is a prize for a challenge, so the rules are especially tight to prevent cheating or unclear results.

Of course it's not a scientific test, and that's what I've been trying to point out since day one. All it is is a game. In no way is it a scientific test. It is so flawed that the results prove nothing.

The trouble is there are too many people that think it is scientifically valid, when it's not.

Peter Morris

3rd November 2004, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Ashles
Nice long example. Not analogous to the JREF prize of course, but we expect no different from you by now Peter.

Nice dodging there. Accuse me of error without facts or logic to support it, but we expect no different from Randi fanatics by now.

Ashles

3rd November 2004, 08:59 AM

[hate snipped]
Coming from you that's laughable.

All it is is a game. In no way is it a scientific test. It is so flawed that the results prove nothing.

The trouble is there are too many people that think it is scientifically valid, when it's not.
It's not a scientific test but as has been explained to you repeatedly it uses scientific methodology.

If there was someone who could actually do what these claims say, they would pass the test.

And the results have proved that the claimants tested could not do what they claimed. However much you don't like it that is a fact.

If they felt that they had achieved what they claimed they could have sued Randi for the money. This hasn't happened.
But don't take my word for it, why not ask your legal friends. You could pretend you were concerned for Randi again.

BillHoyt

3rd November 2004, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Nice dodging there. Accuse me of error without facts or logic to support it, but we expect no different from Randi fanatics by now.

How many people tried to explain this to you? What is your problem with understanding that the challenge is not used for scientific purposes but that it is, nonetheless, scientific? There's nothing flawed about that, but plenty flawed in your attempts to keep characterizing it as flawed.

Ashles

3rd November 2004, 09:03 AM

Nice dodging there. Accuse me of error without facts or logic to support it, but we expect no different from Randi fanatics by now.
I said the JREF prize was not a scientific test.
You agreed it was not a scientific test.
Your example refers to a scientific test.
Your example is not analogous to the JREF test.

There, logic and facts.
You should try them some time Peter.

CFLarsen

3rd November 2004, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by Prolix
Claus, I'll bet you can anticipate how Peter will try to further slither out of this.

I know.

CFLarsen

3rd November 2004, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Oh? loss of credibility? Why would that be, exactly? What are you disputing, precisely?

Are you acusing me of being unable to write a program? If so, that's a pretty desperate ploy, isn't it? Ha ha, Peter said he wrote a program, but he's unable to prove that he wrote it, he claims that he didn't keep it, ha ha ha, he's unable to prove that he wrote it, and I demand proof, ha ha ha. Quite pathetic if that's what you want to do.

Or are you disputing the results of the program? Are you disputing the figures? Doubting the odds are 0.935%, as I said? jzs has shown the maths to work this out.

Or is your beef something else?

Come on, I want to know what your problem is. You specifically, since you made the demand.

I have not received your program in my email yet. When will you send it?

KRAMER

3rd November 2004, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Well, there was a case not too long ago...

Last I heard, they (JREF) had rethought their position, but only after I told them why it was wrong.

With this one sentence, PM has just annointed himself the greatest comedian in the forum.

Too bad they don't make dunce caps big enough for his big fat head, or small enough for his tiny little brain.

Peter Morris

3rd November 2004, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
How many people tried to explain this to you? What is your problem with understanding that the challenge is not used for scientific purposes but that it is, nonetheless, scientific? There's nothing flawed about that, but plenty flawed in your attempts to keep characterizing it as flawed.

Sigh.

Peter : The Randi challenge is flawed because it's not a proper scientific test.

Fanatic: But it's not meant to be a scientific test. It's a challenge.

Peter: That's what's wrong with it. It's not a scientific test.

Fanatic: You don't understand. It's not a scientific test. It's a challenge that's why its right.

Peter : No, its not a scientific test, its a challenge, that's why its wrong.

Fanatic : You don't understand. It's not a scientific test. We keep telling you. It's not a scientific test.

Peter : That's the problem.

Fanatic : You don't understand. It's not scientific. It's a challenge wibble wibble wibble.

etc .

CFLarsen

3rd November 2004, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Sigh.

Peter : The Randi challenge is flawed because it's not a proper scientific test.

Fanatic: But it's not meant to be a scientific test. It's a challenge.

Peter: That's what's wrong with it. It's not a scientific test.

Fanatic: You don't understand. It's not a scientific test. It's a challenge that's why its right.

Peter : No, its not a scientific test, its a challenge, that's why its wrong.

Fanatic : You don't understand. It's not a scientific test. We keep telling you. It's not a scientific test.

Peter : That's the problem.

Fanatic : You don't understand. It's not scientific. It's a challenge wibble wibble wibble.

etc .

So, your problem is that the JREF doesn't do what you want them to do?

Hey, get your own million and start your own challenge.

KRAMER

3rd November 2004, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by steenkh
...he asked for this high energy scientist to determine if the ice had melted or not, and when JREF finally - and I really do not think that Peter Morris' opinions had any say in this matter - decided to give in and allow such a specialist to be present, if the rock owner could produce one, the claim was never heard of again.

This is a misconception. JREF never refused to allow a "high energy scientist" (whatever that is) to be in attendance. We simply refused the applicant's demands to provide one, and insisted that the attendance of one was entirely unnecessary in testing his claim.

But you are right in your assessment regarding the true value of PM's opinions and their affect on the decision-making process here at JREF. We'd sooner listen to a sock monkey.

kookbreaker

3rd November 2004, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
But not in Randi's tests.

What's Randi supposed to do? Choose their dowsing stick for them?

Ashles

3rd November 2004, 09:59 AM

Sigh.

Peter : The Randi challenge is flawed because it's not a proper scientific test.

Normal person: But it's not meant to be a scientific test. It's a challenge.

Peter: That's what's wrong with it. It's not a scientific test.

Normal person: It uses scientific methodology but it requests much higher rates of success than a scientific test as it is meant to provide a clear result in one single set of experiments, not over repeated trials by multiple researchers. A genuine applicant would still pass this easily.

Peter : No, its not a scientific test, its a challenge, that's why its wrong.

Normal person: Did you hear what I just said?

Peter: That's what's wrong with it. It's not a scientific test.

Normal person: Hello Peter?

Peter : No, its not a scientific test, its a challenge, that's why its wrong.

Normal person: Sorry which bit didn't you understand? I could go over it again if you like.

Peter: That's what's wrong with it. It's not a scientific test.

Normal person: Are you ill? There seems to be some foam coming out of your mouth.

Peter: No, its not a scientific test, its a challenge, that's why its wrong.

Normal person: I'm concerned for you.

Peter: That's what's wrong with it. It's not a scientific test.

Normal person: I'm going to get help...

etc .

Peter Morris

3rd November 2004, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I have not received your program in my email yet. When will you send it?

What do you want it for? Why should I send it to you?

Why does it matter to you so much?

Justify why I should send it to you, and we'll see.

I don't think I'll be sending it to YOU, anyway. I might post it to someone honest, but not you.

This is just a desperate attempt to discredit me isn't it? A real pathetic clutch at straws argument.: Hey Peter claimed that he wrote a little program a year and a half ago. I demand that he produce it. I demand it . I demamnd it. If he can't then I've won in some way. Ha ha ha, it's not much but it's all I've got.

CFLarsen

3rd November 2004, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
What do you want it for? Why should I send it to you?

Why does it matter to you so much?

Justify why I should send it to you, and we'll see.

I don't think I'll be sending it to YOU, anyway. I might post it to someone honest, but not you.

This is just a desperate attempt to discredit me isn't it? A real pathetic clutch at straws argument.: Hey Peter claimed that he wrote a little program a year and a half ago. I demand that he produce it. I demand it . I demamnd it. If he can't then I've won in some way. Ha ha ha, it's not much but it's all I've got.

I already explained it to you:

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So everyone can see how you got your result, of course.

It would seem a reasonable request. If you are right, then I can't see where the "discredit" comes in, quite contrary. This is actually an opportunity to prove yourself.

If not me, who are you going to email it to? Either way, we will all see it.

SpaceFluffer

3rd November 2004, 10:28 AM

All this talk of code and statistics is moot, IMO. I still haven't seen a description of how the probability of success or failure is calculated.

The actual process for dowsing over a predetermined path is going to result in a statistical process far more complex than a coin toss. The closest I could figure from the description is that there is a grid and the dowser will hit a certain number of squares on it, and the incidence of correct and incorrect squares can be measured. That doesn't help much, since we don't know how many squares there are, how many the dowsers are allowed to hit, etc.

You can talk about binomial distributions until Florida freezes over, but if you don't understand the specifics of the problem you're dealing with you're wasting your time.

drkitten

3rd November 2004, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Sigh.

Peter : The Randi challenge is flawed because it's not a proper scientific test.

Fanatic: But it's not meant to be a scientific test. It's a challenge.

Peter: That's what's wrong with it. It's not a scientific test.

Yes, that's exactly how I see the conversation as going, too. The difference is, I think that the person in the wrong in the above conversation is the imaginatively named "Peter." The "Fanatic" is quite right; the Randi Challenge has never claimed to be a scientific test, has never been used as a scientific test, does not have the same purpose as a scientific test.

So. Granted that we agree that the Randi Challenge is not a scientific test, in what way would it be improved -- better suited to ITS OWN PURPOSE -- by being more like a "scientific test"?

Note, I'm not asking how it could be made more like a scientific test. I'm asking why making it more like a scientific test would be "better" in any sense that the Randi foundation would recognize.

SpaceFluffer

3rd November 2004, 10:52 AM

What do you folks consider to be the definition of a scientific test? Why aren't (or are) Randi's tests scientific tests?

T'ai Chi

3rd November 2004, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by MESchlum
Mutter.

I stand by my 1.4% (roughly, more digits is really a waste of accuracy). jzs, do you have any idea why we diverge by about a multiplier of about 1.5?

I think I do.

Computing it by using a Poission, with mean = .1*50 = 5, and summing the probability from 11 to 50, does yield the .01369.

The numbers .0093546 and .01369 differ because the Poisson is an approximation to the Binomial.

The Poisson is a good approximation with large n and small p.

(edited to change "1 to 50" to "11 to 50")

MESchlum

3rd November 2004, 11:17 AM

Very true. Silly me - I apologise for the confusion.

Part of the reason for my confusion was that I forgot to add in the case with 0 successes (I must be too optimistic). When included, I do indeed get .9355%.

BillHoyt

3rd November 2004, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
What do you folks consider to be the definition of a scientific test? Why aren't (or are) Randi's tests scientific tests?

The purpose is not to investigate a scientific problem but to scientifically test a paranormal claim. In a purely scientific test, one may look strictly at a purported phenomenon and simply ask if what is observed is truly against chance. In a JREF test, if a claimant says he can tell you the color of your underwear 80% of the time, JREF tests against the 80% claim. If the claimant fails, JREF doesn't immediately redesign the test as a scientist might do. If the claimant wants to try again a year later, JREF would entertain him.

The whole premise of this discussion, however, is quite twisted by Morris' inability to understand the statistical reason why you can't mine the claim with repeated tests. We've got some serious innumeracy going on here.

Ashles

3rd November 2004, 11:42 AM

In a scientific experiment anything above chance might be evidence of some kind of effect and might be researched by other scientists and labs. It is a long slow process and builds research on other research.
Mechanisms might be suggested and tests arranged to investigate these theories.
Often scientific tests are to investigate a theory so a variety of different experiments might be designed to test that theory.

The JREF challenge is an entirely different type of investigation. Some people claim a particular ability that is strong enough to be observed. There is no theory required, no layers of research to go through. The challenge is designed to test, very clearly, with no room for argument on either side, whether this ability exists or not, so, although it uses scientific methodology wherever necessary, it is not run in the same way as a scientific experiment.

If results were shown in the JREF challenge it would be very difficult for anyone to doubt their veracity because a successful challenge would have performed way above chance.

SpaceFluffer

3rd November 2004, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
The purpose is not to investigate a scientific problem but to scientifically test a paranormal claim. In a purely scientific test, one may look strictly at a purported phenomenon and simply ask if what is observed is truly against chance. In a JREF test, if a claimant says he can tell you the color of your underwear 80% of the time, JREF tests against the 80% claim. If the claimant fails, JREF doesn't immediately redesign the test as a scientist might do. If the claimant wants to try again a year later, JREF would entertain him.
But if someone were to obtain a 75% score in this case, although they would ostensibly fail the test, this would still be an interesting case worth discussing. I see the distinction between this an a scientific test, but the difference seems to be in the interpretation and application of the results, rather than the way the test is performed. It seems to me that Randi's tests would have to be performed in the same way as a scientific test, but the results would be handled differently since science doesn't require a particular result be obtained from the outset.
The whole premise of this discussion, however, is quite twisted by Morris' inability to understand the statistical reason why you can't mine the claim with repeated tests. We've got some serious innumeracy going on here.
I agree, but I'm also concerned with the flurry of statistics flying around with no sense of how the test was conducted.

JimTheBrit

3rd November 2004, 11:49 AM

Zombified

3rd November 2004, 11:54 AM

You misunderstand the point Mr. Morris is trying to make. To him 'scientific' is a magical word which makes tests work. If he can take away the magic word, then it will make the test not work, and never mind the actual meaning or significance of any particular test procedure.

Ashles

3rd November 2004, 12:00 PM

You misunderstand the point Mr. Morris is trying to make.
He has a point?

No I'm afraid I certainly missed that bit.

princhester

3rd November 2004, 08:09 PM

princhester

3rd November 2004, 08:57 PM

On the "scientific" thing. Peter the distinction you are missing or ignoring is between "testing" and "research".

Agreed test protocols used by Randi are good science. They utilize double blinding, they are (from what I've seen) clearcut, well designed etc. I know you have (IMHO invalid) queries about whether they test for the right things etc, but in themselves I have never seen a bad protocol.

So they are good scientific tests.

What other posters above (or at least those with a clue) have conceded is not that Randi doesn't do scientific tests, but that he doesn't do scientific research. That is, he doesn't set out to explore the paranormal (as someone doing research would), he just provides an opportunity for others to demonstrate it.

You have all sorts of complaints about what Randi should do to further advance research of the paranormal. You say when he notices a significant result (22%) he should go into that further, rather than just calling the challenge a fail because it doesn't reach the agreed result.

I suspect that Randi is not that interested because he's seen lots of dowsing results. Some of them are bound to come in above chance, some below. If you're looking at a big picture, there'd be no reason to get excited about it. In fact, if results always came in at exactly chance levels, that would be weird.

But if the dowser concerned actually thinks they can do 22% regularly, why don't they look into it? Why don't they reapply for the challenge on that basis? If they don't, why is that Randi's fault? Why is your scorn never directed anywhere except at him?

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I have not received your program in my email yet. When will you send it?

Maybe he hasn't sent it because you are pursuing a silly Peter Morris like enquiry? He said he wrote a program to approximate a result. He posted that result. Others who have looked at the problem have arrived at near enough to the same result Peter did. What the heck are you hoping to achieve besides give him more reason to think that sceptics are a bunch of pedantic wallies on a par with Peter?

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
I agree, but I'm also concerned with the flurry of statistics flying around with no sense of how the test was conducted.

Then follow the link to the Australian Dowsing test report that PM provided early on in this thread. All will be revealed.

Prolix

3rd November 2004, 10:50 PM

Which does this look like?:

"What do you want it for? Why should I send it to you?
Why does it matter to you so much?
Justify why I should send it to you, and we'll see.
I don't think I'll be sending it to YOU, anyway. I might post it to someone honest, but not you.
This is just a desperate attempt to discredit me isn't it? A real pathetic clutch at straws argument. ' Hey Peter claimed that he wrote a little program a year and a half ago. I demand that he produce it. I demand it . I demamnd it. If he can't then I've won in some way. Ha ha ha, it's not much but it's all I've got. ' "

Yep, a skeptic would would have to be pathetically desperate to offer a credulite so easy an opportunity to affirm himself.

BillHoyt

4th November 2004, 05:10 AM

Anyone interested in understanding what is really afoot here should look in on this other thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45617) where several posters have provided evidence that there is more than a hint of some kind of revenge motive or "get Randi" mission here. This includes evidence of :

o Morris alleging Randi has plagiarized Isaac Asimov
o Morris suggesting that the JREF should lose its non-profit status should it follow through on the Wu lawsuit.

Dr Adequate

4th November 2004, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by Prolix
Which does this look like?:

"What do you want it for? Why should I send it to you?
Why does it matter to you so much?
Justify why I should send it to you, and we'll see.
I don't think I'll be sending it to YOU, anyway. I might post it to someone honest, but not you.
This is just a desperate attempt to discredit me isn't it? A real pathetic clutch at straws argument. ' Hey Peter claimed that he wrote a little program a year and a half ago. I demand that he produce it. I demand it . I demamnd it. If he can't then I've won in some way. Ha ha ha, it's not much but it's all I've got. ' "

Yep, a skeptic would would have to be pathetically desperate to offer a credulite so easy an opportunity to affirm himself.
Slither. Plus his usual fabrication of quotations, or, as he calls it, "sarcasm".

Sujay

6th November 2004, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Okay, Princhester, consider this situation:

Let's say there's a laboratory researching treatments for cancer. They test various experimental drugs on lab rats with cancer.

Now, let us suppose that without drugs the rats have a 10% survival rate. One in 10 get better by themselves.

So, there's various new drugs they want to test. They test each drug on a group of 50 rats. They'd expect 5 survivors (10%) per group. 40 survivors (80%) would be clear evidence that the drug works. They also keep some control groups without drugs.

Many of the drugs they try have no effect at all. But one day they try a new drug on a group of 50 rats. 11 survive, (22%) while in the control group only 5 survive (10%).

Now, tell me what they ought to do with those results? Should they:

option 1

On the grounds that 22% is less than the 80% target, they declare that drug a failure, and don't bother trying it again.

option 2

Wait 12 months, try the same drug. If it scores 22% again, it's a failure. Wait 12 months , try again. If it gets 22% a third time it still fails. Each trial is seperate, ignore previous tests. Repeat, the drug keeps scoring 22%, but never gets to the magical 80% requirement. It never passes the test.

Just for good measure, deny that the result ever was 22%. Note that they were also testing a totally different drug at the time, and with that one, all the rats died, 0% survival. By adding the results of the two different drugs together, they get almost exactly the 10% predicted.

option 3

Look with interest at the 22% result. It might be a 107-1 fluke, or it might indicate the drug is worth something. Try the drug again, several times if neccessary. See if the 22% rate is repeated. If so, the drug is a success. If not, then the original was a fluke.

Well, which do you think is the best way?

Do you see that Randi does no 2, while the Germans did no 3?

Do you see why someone might think no 3 is better?

Ummm ok, so if tommorow I suddenly believe that I can move objects around me.

And I go to JREF, and take a test, and NOTHING happens. So do you meant to say that I am supposed look at what happend with INTEREST, and try it again and again and again?

You are so dumb,you need to find a brain URGENTLY!!!!

Zombified

6th November 2004, 01:15 PM

Sujay, Mr. Morris keeps forgetting that people are encouraged to test their abilities themselves before applying to make sure they are real. His analogy simply doesn't apply There has been at least one recent withdrawl by someone who retested his own ability with a more open mind.

Of course, Mr. Morris's agenda is simply to discredit the Challenge so that his fellow travellers can continue to bilk the public with fraudulent displays of psychic abilities. This is all he ever does on the forum.

Peter Morris

7th November 2004, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Slither. Plus his usual fabrication of quotations, or, as he calls it, "sarcasm". :dl:

Peter Morris

7th November 2004, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Zombified

Of course, Mr. Morris's agenda is simply to discredit the Challenge so that his fellow travellers can continue to bilk the public with fraudulent displays of psychic abilities. This is all he ever does on the forum.

Sujay, here we see the last resort of the absolutelydesperate, even more pathetic than you are, in fact.

I have pointed out time after time that I am a sceptic, but I object to Randi's lies. The desperate idiots cannot answer that. They have to pretend that I am a believer, then attack me for that. They cannot answer the facts.

Peter Morris

7th November 2004, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by princhester
Others have pointed out that this is factually inaccurate. Even if it weren't, it doesn't say anything at all about Randi's presence, which was the subject at hand.

No, others have pretended that this is factually inaccurate. Other than the argument you have to be wrong because Randi is so wonderful, he can't possibly be wrong so you must be they haven't got anything to support them.

Peter Morris

7th November 2004, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by princhester

Maybe he hasn't sent it because you are pursuing a silly Peter Morris like enquiry? He said he wrote a program to approximate a result. He posted that result. Others who have looked at the problem have arrived at near enough to the same result Peter did. What the heck are you hoping to achieve besides give him more reason to think that sceptics are a bunch of pedantic wallies on a par with Peter?

Uh, thanks, (I think.)

Of course, I rarely get anywhere near as pedantic and desperate as Larsen is all the time.

Zombified

7th November 2004, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
I have pointed out time after time that I am a sceptic, but I object to Randi's lies. The desperate idiots cannot answer that. They have to pretend that I am a believer, then attack me for that. They cannot answer the facts.You can call yourself a skeptic all you like, but I see no evidence of it. Trolls like you come here to attack "pseudoskeptics" all the time. Many of them claim they're "true" skeptics, unlike the rest of us. So a mere claim of skepticism is pretty worthless. If a believer wanted to attack the challenge it would be a perfectly rational strategy, for the sake of credibility, to claim they were a skeptic and avoid making any statements about paranormal phenomona while mounting their attack.

Furthermore, there is your apparent inability to consider the replies that have been posted to you on this and other threads; your quixotic crusade against the challenge proceeds regardless of how many times you are corrected. This characteristic is likewise similar to the believer troll.

So assuming you are a believer (and a liar) until proven otherwise is simply a parsimonious inference. Feel free to provide contrary evidence.

As for your "facts" they've been answered dozens of times over. You just keep repeating the same unsupported assertions over and over and ignoring the responses. You're as bad as Kumar.

Peter Morris

7th November 2004, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by Zombified
So assuming you are a believer (and a liar) until proven otherwise is simply a parsimonious inference. Feel free to provide contrary evidence.

Yeah, "assuming" I'm a liar is sure easier than actually presenting evidence of any lies I told.

Accusing me of being a believer, then pouring out hatred, sure is easier than actually answering the points I raise.

It's the usual response from the cornered rat : You've pointed out some of Randi's lies, but I'm not going to answer that. You are obvuiously a believer. You can't be a sceptic. Sceptics make excuses for Randi. If you point out his lies then you are a believer. How stupid you are for being a bel;iever. I am going to attack you for being a beliver. wibble wibble wibble. Praise ythe name of Randi. I hate you, believer. I will accuse you of being a believer so I can ignore the facts you point out. LALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU

Peter Morris

7th November 2004, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by Sujay
Ummm ok, so if tommorow I suddenly believe that I can move objects around me.

And I go to JREF, and take a test, and NOTHING happens. So do you meant to say that I am supposed look at what happend with INTEREST, and try it again and again and again?

You are so dumb,you need to find a brain URGENTLY!!!!

Try to understand. This is very simple.

I talked about a test where the results were MUCH higher than chance.

You talked about a test where 'nothing happens.'

Have a think about it. Maybe you can ask your parents to explain the difference to you.

You might not understand the difference, but I do. In the situation you dcescribe, where "NOTHING happens" I certainly would NOT look at it with interest, or advise trying it again and again and again.

It would appear that Randi fans are unable to tell the difference between the two. Or maybe it's just you

I advise looking with intetrest at the tests where the results are far above chance, and trying it again because one result above chance is likely to be a fluke.

Zombified

7th November 2004, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Yeah, "assuming" I'm a liar is sure easier than actually presenting evidence of any lies I told.
Strawman.

I am not assuming you are a liar. I am inferring that you are a believer from your behavior. "Liar" follows logically from that conclusion.
Accusing me of being a believer, then pouring out hatred,
Hatred? I don't hate you, or any other believer. I think you're a moron, but that's not the same thing.
sure is easier than actually answering the points I raise.Your points have been answered. Reposting them does not make them unanswered.
It's the usual response from the cornered rat : You've pointed out some of Randi's lies,
Strawman. You have done no such thing, nor have I posted at any point that you did.
but I'm not going to answer that.
I, among others, have addressed your points previously in this thread. You reposting the same thing over and over does not unanswer them.
You are obvuiously a believer. You can't be a sceptic. Sceptics make excuses for Randi. If you point out his lies then you are a believer. How stupid you are for being a bel;iever. I am going to attack you for being a beliver. wibble wibble wibble. Praise ythe name of Randi. I hate you, believer. I will accuse you of being a believer so I can ignore the facts you point out. LALALALA I CANT HEAR YOUYou have entirely missed the point. Hardly surprising.

Edit to add: any reader of this thread is free to use the forum search function to examine both your posts and mine and draw their own conclusion.

princhester

7th November 2004, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
No, others have pretended that this is factually inaccurate. Other than the argument you have to be wrong because Randi is so wonderful, he can't possibly be wrong so you must be they haven't got anything to support them.

Well I've read everything I can lay my hands on regarding the amazing rock fellow, and I've read your account of what happened and I've read other's corrections of your account. The latter seems to be accurate, your account seems inaccurate. If you have any cite that supports your account, provide it by all means.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Sujay, here we see the last resort of the absolutelydesperate, even more pathetic than you are, in fact.

I have pointed out time after time that I am a sceptic, but I object to Randi's lies. The desperate idiots cannot answer that. They have to pretend that I am a believer, then attack me for that. They cannot answer the facts.

All those that respond to you are very familiar with the problem you are decrying here. The problem of other posters who right off one's position on the basis that it comes from close minded fanaticism rather than facts and logic. It's annoying, isn't it Peter?

You might like to bear in mind how annoying it is next time you are tempted to engage in "the last resort of the absolutelydesperate" and tell us that nothing we say has any value because we are all a bunch of Randilovers.

BillHoyt

8th November 2004, 05:41 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
I have pointed out time after time that I am a sceptic, but I object to Randi's lies. The desperate idiots cannot answer that. They have to pretend that I am a believer, then attack me for that. They cannot answer the facts.

Excuse me, golem, but one of you claims to be skeptical, and the other of you clearly is not. One example is that Slinker claims he is skeptical of dowsing, but stinker makes clear he is not:

Stinker:
"First of all, I would like to suggest that dowsing does in fact work"

Slinker:

"Note: I personally do not believe in dowsing, but am open
to evidence."

Hastur

8th November 2004, 06:30 AM

Peter Morris

9th November 2004, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Excuse me, golem, but one of you claims to be skeptical, and the other of you clearly is not. One example is that Slinker claims he is skeptical of dowsing, but stinker makes clear he is not:

Stinker:
"First of all, I would like to suggest that dowsing does in fact work"

Slinker:

"Note: I personally do not believe in dowsing, but am open
to evidence."

Of course, this demonstrates the basic dishonesty of Randi fanatics.

This liar is quoting one sentence, out of contexxt, from a po9st where I made it clear that I DON'T believe in dowsing.

I just made a brief remark where I considered the hypothetical possibility that it MIGHT work, but followed that with a statement that I am not convinced of it.

This is about the usual level that I expect from Randi fanatics. The desperate semantics yoga of the deeply pathetic, trying to claim I said something when actually I said the exact opposite.

Same old Randi fans, same old lies.

Zombified

9th November 2004, 01:58 PM

You've had plenty of time to find some examples of you being a skeptic. I don't see any. But I see hundreds of your posts on what awful people all those other skeptics are. Perhaps you can explain why you don't seem to participate in skeptical discussions except where you see an opportunity to discredit others.

Peter Morris

9th November 2004, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by princhester
Well I've read everything I can lay my hands on regarding the amazing rock fellow, and I've read your account of what happened and I've read other's corrections of your account. The latter seems to be accurate, your account seems inaccurate. If you have any cite that supports your account, provide it by all means.

Well, Princhester, most of the actual facts are not disputed. What is in dispute is whether Randi's behaviour was appropriate. Randi fans make excuses for Randi breaking his promises. Randi promised that JREF would not involve itself in testing other than designing the protocol. Then Randi insisted that the test would be performed by a JREF member. There were a series of lies and broken promises. If you don't think that matters, if you make excuses for Randi's dishonesty, then nothing will convince you.

Peter Morris

9th November 2004, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by Zombified
You've had plenty of time to find some examples of you being a skeptic. I don't see any. But I see hundreds of your posts on what awful people all those other skeptics are. Perhaps you can explain why you don't seem to participate in skeptical discussions except where you see an opportunity to discredit others.

Because talking to Randi fans about skepticism is a waste of time. They only have one argument, which is a bunch of baloney, and it goes like this : If it were true, they could win a million from Randi PBUH, since they have't won a million from Randi they must be wrong, case proved conclusively, ha ha ha.

I'd love to have a discussion about paranormal phenomena, but the phoney $1M argument gets in the way of your critical thinking.

Dr Adequate

9th November 2004, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Well, Princhester, most of the actual facts are not disputed. What is in dispute is whether Randi's behaviour was appropriate. Randi fans make excuses for Randi breaking his promises. Randi promised that JREF would not involve itself in testing other than designing the protocol. Then Randi insisted that the test would be performed by a JREF member. There were a series of lies and broken promises. If you don't think that matters, if you make excuses for Randi's dishonesty, then nothing will convince you.
As the Peter Morris case was handled by KRAMER, this is a lie from start to finish.

Dr Adequate

9th November 2004, 02:09 PM

CFLarsen

9th November 2004, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
I'd love to have a discussion about paranormal phenomena, but the phoney $1M argument gets in the way of your critical thinking.

So, you applied for the "phoney" $1M, lying in the process?

Zombified

9th November 2004, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Because talking to Randi fans about skepticism is a waste of time. They only have one argument, which is a bunch of baloney, and it goes like this : If it were true, they could win a million from Randi PBUH, since they have't won a million from Randi they must be wrong, case proved conclusively, ha ha ha.

I'd love to have a discussion about paranormal phenomena, but the phoney $1M argument gets in the way of your critical thinking. So in other words, no, you have not participated in any skeptical discussions and cannot demonstrate your so-called skepticism.

The $1M challenge is one point that's brought up, but it is hardly the only one on many, many threads. If you believe that's the only argument ever presented, you're clearly not even reading the forum, let alone participating.

Lots of people call themselves skeptics on this board, Morris. There's no value in the label, the value is in the contribution. You've contributed nothing but silly strawman arguments against the challenge. You've got no one to blame but yourself for the impression you're making.

Carn

10th November 2004, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris

I'd love to have a discussion about paranormal phenomena, but the phoney $1M argument gets in the way of your critical thinking.

Sounds good, where will you put the thread and will it be about paranormal phenomena in general or about specific topics(e.g. talking to dead, dowsing, healing, homeopathy,...)?

Carn

Zombified

10th November 2004, 01:36 AM

I forgot to add:

Mr. Morris also makes another basic error in assuming that all of the skeptics on this board are a uniform, homogeneous faction. Nothing could be further from the truth - the forum participants here are unorganized individuals, each with their own opinions, views and expertise. In refusing to participate with any of them, he does them and himself a grave disservice.

Dr Adequate

10th November 2004, 04:16 AM

Peter Morris

10th November 2004, 04:55 AM

Originally posted by Zombified
I forgot to add:

Mr. Morris also makes another basic error in assuming that all of the skeptics on this board are a uniform, homogeneous faction. Nothing could be further from the truth - the forum participants here are unorganized individuals, each with their own opinions, views and expertise. In refusing to participate with any of them, he does them and himself a grave disservice.

In the first place, on this forum most of the people are Randi fans by definition. And Randi's $1M challenge is central to Randi's arguments. Ergo this board is populated mainly by people who think the $1M is a good and persuasive argument.

As for my "refusing to participate with any of them" that is your invention. The exact opposite is true. My experience has been attempting to discuss, and finding them unwilling. From most Randi fans, the only argument is Randi's $1M challenge, which they so often claim as conclusive proof against 100% of all paranormal claims.

You do yourselves a disservice by relying on that canard so heavily.

Peter Morris

10th November 2004, 04:57 AM

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
We're all winners here.

You misspelt "whiners."

Carn

10th November 2004, 05:13 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
From most Randi fans, the only argument is Randi's $1M challenge, which they so often claim as conclusive proof against 100% of all paranormal claims.

I for one have further arguments against paranormal powers existing since several hundreds or even more years, across all cultures in some, but not all, male humans, that would have a significant impact on everyday live(knowing the future, precise mind reading, effective faith or what ever healing,...):

The main desire of male humans is impressing/finding sex partners and gain status, which is just assisting the first point(boss of group always gets best chicks or thats what man think). Looking at all the information of past behaviour of men, i see they all employed good old non paranormal skills to reach their goals.
Instead of simply gaining lots of money by gambling, they do laborous things like robbing conquering or even fair trading.
Instead of simply mind controlling the women, they do a lot of stupid things and sometimes life threatening things to gain their attention.
All cultures, which are said to had a "grip" into paranormal, where conquered and sometimes exterminated by paranormal disbelieving imperalistic europeans. Whatever powers they have/had its useless in war.

Of course this does say nothing about subtle, seldom and random appearing powers, but at least something about the world shaking ones.(Imagine how conqering would have looked like, if Jesus suggestion of moving mountains would have worked)

Carn

BillHoyt

10th November 2004, 05:16 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Because talking to Randi fans about skepticism is a waste of time. They only have one argument, which is a bunch of baloney, and it goes like this : If it were true, they could win a million from Randi PBUH, since they have't won a million from Randi they must be wrong, case proved conclusively, ha ha ha.

I'd love to have a discussion about paranormal phenomena, but the phoney $1M argument gets in the way of your critical thinking.

I suggest you either visit an optometrist or take a remedial reading course. Apparently something severely affects your reading comprehension. The overwhelming majority of skeptical arguments posted on this board have naught to do with the JREF challenge. Your capacity for lying, distorting and ignoring the facts is unfathomable.

Dr Adequate

10th November 2004, 05:34 AM

Peter Morris

10th November 2004, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
I suggest you either visit an optometrist or take a remedial reading course. Apparently something severely affects your reading comprehension. The overwhelming majority of skeptical arguments posted on this board have naught to do with the JREF challenge. Your capacity for lying, distorting and ignoring the facts is unfathomable.

Likewise I'm sure.

Every time I see a discussion about "the paranormal" on any discussion board it gets polluted by references to Randi and his $1M challenge.

Just take a trip to Straight Dope Message Boards (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/) sometime. You can register as a guest for free. Try posting a comment or question on any paranormal subject. I guarantee that within the first 20 replies there will be several different loonies citing Randi's challenge as absolute cast iron proof against whatever subject you mention.

And it's a pretty fair bet that Princhester will be one of the first three to mention Randi.

kookbreaker

10th November 2004, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Likewise I'm sure.

Every time I see a discussion about "the paranormal" on any discussion board it gets polluted by references to Randi and his $1M challenge.

Just take a trip to Straight Dope Message Boards (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/) sometime. You can register as a guest for free. Try posting a comment or question on any paranormal subject. I guarantee that within the first 20 replies there will be several different loonies citing Randi's challenge as absolute cast iron proof against whatever subject you mention.

And it's a pretty fair bet that Princhester will be one of the first three to mention Randi.

That it gets mentioned does not equal it being the only arguement.

And in fairness, when arguing about something that may not exist, someone is going to ask for proof. The million dollar challenge has been judged to be a fair test for the existance of potentially paranormal subjects. Even if you do not like it.

It happens in other threads on the SDMB too, post something saying that Conservatives or Liberals do mean things, and somebody is going to say 'Cite?'. Doesn't mean that is the only arguement presented.

Carn

10th November 2004, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Likewise I'm sure.

Every time I see a discussio0n about "the paranormal" on any discussion board it gets polluted by references to Randi and his $1M challenge.

Just take a trip to Straight Dope Message Boards (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/) sometime. You can register as a guest for free. Try posting a comment or question on any paranormal subject. I guarantee that within the first 20 replies there will be several different loonies citing Randi's challenge as absolute cast iron proof against whatever subject you mention.

Which brings us back to the point, that you are relative certain, that nobody, whatever paranormal ability he posseses(even the mounting throwing ability bible ones mentions), has a chance to pass the JREF challenge, because Randi is a lyer,... and ... and therefore will concious or subconciously disrupt any test, so that applicant fails.

Maybe i'm wrong and you are just certain, that those paranormal powers, that could be have been missed to notice through human and science history(therefore are not that obvious, e.g. throwing mountains around would have been noticed and made into a weapon), are the only ones "left", that might exist, therefore the only ones worth to talk about and for those the JREF challenge does not work due to thing being not so significant, that the lyin trickster Randi cannot hide it.

On the other i and i guess most others are certain, that truly extraordinary powers(e.g. mountain throwing) have no problem to pass, "mediocre" paranormal claims have good chance to pass the test(e.g. rock stopping ice melting), "weak" claims might fail even if true(e.g. causing feelings across far distances in persons knowing someone tries to create a feeling) and claims that are close to the statistical noise have no chance to pass and need to refined further or be tested with a different approach(e.g. causing a candle to burn more on one side, homeopathy).

So if someone brings up a paranormal claim from my point of view the randi challenge might be an argument, depending on whether the claim is "strong" enough to be tested with the resources JREF and the applicant can bring up.

To give an example, if someone claims, "I'm ready to take any poison and cure myself afterwards with homeopathy", i see no reason, not to bring up the randi challenge, because this is easy to test, take lethal amount of cyanide, take your pills and if you survive you passed.

But if someone claims "homeopathy increases the survival chance of human beings after taking poison by 1/10000000000"(e.g. from 1% to 1.00000000001%), i'm certain this claim would have no chance to pass challenge and therefore would not use it as argument(though i would inquire how claimer does no its 1/10000000000 and not 1/11000000000).

Of course there are many paranormal claims, where one can argue whether this can or cannot pass the challenge, so i'm certain there might exist discussions, where someone uses JREF challenge argument and its not appropriate.

Carn

Zombified

10th November 2004, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
In the first place, on this forum most of the people are Randi fans by definition. And Randi's $1M challenge is central to Randi's arguments. Ergo this board is populated mainly by people who think the $1M is a good and persuasive argument.Randi fans by definition? Well, says you. I'm not sure what definition it is you think you're using.
As for my "refusing to participate with any of them" that is your invention. The exact opposite is true. My experience has been attempting to discuss, and finding them unwilling.I've asked you for examples of your participation, and you haven't provided any.
From most Randi fans, the only argument is Randi's $1M challenge, which they so often claim as conclusive proof against 100% of all paranormal claims.This is simply factually false. Go to the science forum and take a look at the homeopathy threads. Homeopathy clearly involves claims of the paranormal. While the challenge has been brought up with some frequency, there are many, many other arguments against homeopathy that have been discussed, including scientific, clinical testing of homeopathy that doesn't involve the challenge. You are simply not reading the forum.
You do yourselves a disservice by relying on that canard so heavily. You do yourself a disservice by having no idea what you're talking about.

KRAMER

10th November 2004, 10:44 AM

I am presently doing my very best to persuade Randi to award PM the million dollars if he agrees to GO AWAY!!!

steenkh

10th November 2004, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Every time I see a discussion about "the paranormal" on any discussion board it gets polluted by references to Randi and his $1M challenge.

And rightly so! While Randi's challenge is in no way proof of the absence of anything paranormal, it is a good indicator. There are many aspects of the paranormal that would not be either testable or likely to be tested by the JREF. And even if something is tested, the only thing that has been proven is that it did not work at that time. The $1M challenge is not proof that it will never work.

But nevertheless, there is good reason to believe that if some claim should be correct, then, at some point, somebody will net the million bucks on that claim.

While we are waiting for someone to win the challenge, we can amuse ourselves with all those fakes who will gladly rob their believers' purses but who shy away from being tested for a million dollars. This is the best aspect of the challenge: to use it offensively against fraudsters, and Randi is doing it all the time.

The other aspect of the challenge, how some deluded or mentally ill people actually try to get tested, is somewhat sad. But even so, that we are able to point out that hundreds of dowsers have already been tested all over the world, and they have always failed, THAT is an important bonus, and it can be used to tell prospective millionaires: "Are you really sure that you are that much better? Why not experiment with double-blind testing before you apply?"

Why should the mentioning of Randi's challenge "pollute" a discussion? After all, one of the most obvious things to demand from people who have a paranormal claim is that they demonstrate this claim under proper scientific controls. Here they can even go home with a million dollars. I fail to see how this can pollute anything. Besides, there are many other places where claims can be tested - properly. At some of these places, money rewards are offered, and at some, you only go away with the honors, if your claim works.

kookbreaker

10th November 2004, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by KRAMER
I am presently doing my very best to persuade Randi to award PM the million dollars if he agrees to GO AWAY!!!

Kramer, please do not feed into Peter's "Randi is trying to hide from my crusade" fantasy.

Peter Morris

10th November 2004, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by KRAMER
I am presently doing my very best to persuade Randi to award PM the million dollars if he agrees to GO AWAY!!!

And stop exposing your lies?

KRAMER

10th November 2004, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Kramer, please do not feed into Peter's "Randi is trying to hide from my crusade" fantasy.

You're right, Kook.

Sorry. I wrote that before I had my morning tea.

BillHoyt

10th November 2004, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Likewise I'm sure.

Every time I see a discussion about "the paranormal" on any discussion board it gets polluted by references to Randi and his $1M challenge.

Just take a trip to Straight Dope Message Boards (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/) sometime. You can register as a guest for free. Try posting a comment or question on any paranormal subject. I guarantee that within the first 20 replies there will be several different loonies citing Randi's challenge as absolute cast iron proof against whatever subject you mention.

And it's a pretty fair bet that Princhester will be one of the first three to mention Randi.

And I note that you've already changed your claim, Peter. Now you write about discussions getting "polluted" by JREF challenge references. Previously you wrote this:
They only have one argument, which is a bunch of baloney, and it goes like this : If it were true, they could win a million from Randi PBUH, since they have't won a million from Randi they must be wrong, case proved conclusively, ha ha ha.

princhester

11th November 2004, 03:42 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Every time I see a discussion about "the paranormal" on any discussion board it gets polluted by references to Randi and his $1M challenge.

Just take a trip to Straight Dope Message Boards (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/) sometime. You can register as a guest for free. Try posting a comment or question on any paranormal subject. I guarantee that within the first 20 replies there will be several different loonies citing Randi's challenge as absolute cast iron proof against whatever subject you mention.

And it's a pretty fair bet that Princhester will be one of the first three to mention Randi.

You're ON fella. How much?

This is right up there with your Randi and dry spots challenge. You've made the challenge, now how much are you going to put on the line? Or are you going to weasel out now that I'm taking you up on your bet?

Actually, I can't take candy from a baby. I have to admit I've already done the search. There's not a single thread on the SDMB where someone raises a paranormal topic and I'm one of the first three to mention Randi.

But don't worry about it, Peter. It's just a minor inaccuracy. A piece of (inaccurate) rhetoric. And we all know that that is unimportant when committed by you. Completely forgiveable.

Right?

princhester

11th November 2004, 04:56 AM

This thread started out as being about Randi's involvement in tests. I pointed out that I couldn't see it as a problem unless the claimant actually didn't want Randi present. You provided this:

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Well, there was a case not too long ago. Someone produced an alleged magic rock with peculiar properties. JREF agreed to test it. But the owner had two worries.

First, he claimed that his rock had potentially dangerous radiation, and wanted someone to advise on safety in the test.

Secondly, he was concerned that JREF wouldn't test it fairly and impartially.

So, he requested that the test be performed by an independent third party - a "high energy scientist." Presumably he meant a radiologist, or similar.

Randi refused. Randi insisted that the test would be carried out by a JREF member, and refused to allow the inclusion of a scientist, "high energy" or otherwise.

This doesn't contain any mention of the claimant not wanting Randi to be present, and doesn't make any mention of the claimant not wanting a JREF person to be present.

But now we have:

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Well, Princhester, most of the actual facts are not disputed. What is in dispute is whether Randi's behaviour was appropriate. Randi fans make excuses for Randi breaking his promises. Randi promised that JREF would not involve itself in testing other than designing the protocol. Then Randi insisted that the test would be performed by a JREF member. There were a series of lies and broken promises. If you don't think that matters, if you make excuses for Randi's dishonesty, then nothing will convince you.

I do my humble best to keep up, but the goal posts seem to dance like dervishes. Perhaps you'd better say exactly what it was the claimant did or did not want, and provide a cite for that, and then relate exactly what way it was that JREF refused to comply with the claimant's wants, and provide a cite with that.

Your summaries tend to say whatever you want them to say, Peter.

Peter Morris

12th November 2004, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by princhester
You're ON fella. How much?

How about if you promise to stop being such a silly boy and never mention Randi again on the SDMB?

That a deal?

This is right up there with your Randi and dry spots challenge. You've made the challenge, now how much are you going to put on the line? Or are you going to weasel out now that I'm taking you up on your bet? [/b]

Hardly.

Actually, I can't take candy from a baby. I have to admit I've already done the search. There's not a single thread on the SDMB where someone raises a paranormal topic and I'm one of the first three to mention Randi.

Oh? Not a single one, eh? None at all?
Are you really confident of that?

But don't worry about it, Peter. It's just a minor inaccuracy. A piece of (inaccurate) rhetoric. And we all know that that is unimportant when committed by you. Completely forgiveable.

Right? [/B]

Oh? And when you make a wrong statement? Do you have the guts to alologise for it?

We'll see.

princhester

12th November 2004, 05:49 AM

As I understand the rules, we are looking for threads where someone raises a paranormal topic and then I chime in about Randi. Not threads where Randi, or your position on Randi, are the OP from the outset.

Right?

princhester

12th November 2004, 05:53 AM

And I'm one of the first three to mention Randi?

Peter Morris

12th November 2004, 06:23 AM

Yup.

Do you agree to the terms offered?

If I can show one single thread where you are among the first three to mention Randi, you agree to stop talking about Randi on the SDMB?

That a deal?

kookbreaker

12th November 2004, 07:04 AM

So who is judging this?

Do multiple mentions of Randi by the same poster count?

I assume just saying "There's a million dollars waiting for you" counts?

Does it work from the begining of the thread, or from where somebody brings up their ability to see ghosts, dowse, etc?

You should probably answer these questions now.

Peter Morris

12th November 2004, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by kookbreaker
So who is judging this?

There is no judging. The results must be obvious to any observer.

Do multiple mentions of Randi by the same poster count?

Princhester as one of the first three people to mention Randi.

So, an argument between 2 people, with 20 posts or so where both mention Randi several times, then Princhester responds, that would make him the 3rd person to mention Randi.

I assume just saying "There's a million dollars waiting for you" counts?

Sure, why not.

Does it work from the begining of the thread, or from where somebody brings up their ability to see ghosts, dowse, etc?

In any discussion about "the paranormal, " sooner or later somebody will mention Randi. Maybe a dozen or so posts into the thread. Count the people that mention Randi as part of their argument. Princhester being one of the first three people that mention Randi.

You should probably answer these questions now. [/B]

Done and dusted.

princhester

12th November 2004, 04:16 PM

You accept that it's only threads where someone posts on a paranormal topic (not on the topic of you or of Randi) and then I mention Randi in a reply?

I note that you have proposed a forfeit for me, but nothing for you if you are wrong. Not much chance of me accepting that.

Darat

12th November 2004, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
...snip...

Oh? And when you make a wrong statement? Do you have the guts to alologise for it?

We'll see.

Will we see you admitting to making allegations that you can't substantiate?

Carn

13th November 2004, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Yup.

Do you agree to the terms offered?

If I can show one single thread where you are among the first three to mention Randi, you agree to stop talking about Randi on the SDMB?

That a deal?

Shouldn't that be "If I can show one single thread on the SDMB where ..." at least if taking Princhesters posts above the one i'm citing here?
The way everybody is hacking on words, this could otherwise end with Peter presenting a thread from elsewhere claiming he suceeded, while Princhester would argue, that sentence implied thread from SDMB.

davefoc

21st November 2004, 10:20 AM

I'm just posting to subscribe to this thread. After having spent this long reading the whole thing I'd like to follow it a little bit longer.

I would like to add that PM has had an anti-Randi thing going on for awhile but I have a recollection of him backing away from some of it after having been shown evidence that he was at least partially wrong.

For me, princhester (and many others) did a good job of explaining that the JREF testing is a challenge and not an investigation. If a result is achieved that interested somebody I don't see any reason why that interested somebody couldn't investigate further, but blaming Randi because he didn't further investigate a result which was interesting to somebody seems inappropriate. JREF never says anything that would lead one to believe that they are going to investigate claims further based on a result which is interesting to somebody and so when they don't do what the haven't said they will do PM thinks that Randi is a bad person?

Carn

22nd November 2004, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by davefoc

For me, princhester (and many others) did a good job of explaining that the JREF testing is a challenge and not an investigation. If a result is achieved that interested somebody I don't see any reason why that interested somebody couldn't investigate further, but blaming Randi because he didn't further investigate a result which was interesting to somebody seems inappropriate.

I still need to see prove, that Randi would not investigate further upon a "interesting" result, i just see prove that PM's definition of "interesting" does not fit Randi's.
I guess Randi would be interested in claimants which score close to what they themselves think they should be able to achieve under the test conditions, for which they have weeks or months to prepare for.
So it could be that the guy in Germany, who got 34 of the 40 he agreed to(and therefore thought he could manage), was interesting, as he was not that far from what would have been success(=could have been very unlucky or a bad day), while those dowser people from australia were with 22% success not interesting, because they agreed they could get 80%(which clearly proves, that even if they have some ability, they are totally deluded about how good their ability is).

I would understand, that someone who could have just had a bad day, is interesting enough to retest, while people who obviously large delusion about if/how great their ability is actually are useless or at least very frustrating for further study, because you would have to dig through their delusions to catch their ability and they would be of little help in the process.

Originally posted by davefoc

JREF never says anything that would lead one to believe that they are going to investigate claims further based on a result which is interesting to somebody and so when they don't do what the haven't said they will do PM thinks that Randi is a bad person?

In the application "treaty" JREF agrees, that upon passing prelimenary, JREF has to try to agree upon a protocol with applicant for formal test, so JREF offically has a criteria, when to investigate further with a refined protocol. Also i guess if applicant would fail formal test with a high above chance performing, JREF would be very interested in a retry one year later and would be interested why applicant failed formal after passing prelimanary.

Also in some commentaries from Randi and posts from KRAMER, there is the strong implication, that after a succesful prelimenary, they would spend serious effort to get whatever expert would be neccessary and that they would also be interested in the explanations(short version) of the applicant.
And i think somewhere Randi explicitely stated, that upon passing formal test, he would be even interested in the long version, which also means, that he would be interested in further tests and would at least help applicant to get in contact with the right scientists.

So Randi takes interest in good performing applicants, only his definition of good is relativ strict to filter out all that deluded chance performers.

And Peter Morris, you keep refering to that dowsing test done 20 years ago, i think its possible even for older people to change their opinions slightly, so maybe Randi would ask today those dowsers with 22% to retry further and then reapply with just claiming to score 16-20%, which is also testable, just more tests needed.

Carn

princhester

22nd November 2004, 03:15 AM

Originally posted by Carn
[B]I still need to see prove, that Randi would not investigate further upon a "interesting" result, i just see prove that PM's definition of "interesting" does not fit Randi's.

A good point. Although there is a significant difference between Randi following up on a result that interests him, and Randi (rather than the applicant themselves) somehow being culpable if he does not. That would appear to be the point for the purposes of this discussion.

Peter Morris

24th November 2004, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by princhester
You accept that it's only threads where someone posts on a paranormal topic (not on the topic of you or of Randi) and then I mention Randi in a reply?

Yes, that's it exactly.

Remember in your own words, you just mention Randi or his million dollar challenge, mention being your word not mine.

I note that you have proposed a forfeit for me, but nothing for you if you are wrong. Not much chance of me accepting that.

Are you chickening out? You proposed it, do you have the guts to stand your ground?

What forfeit do you want for me? How 'bout the same one? That satisfy you, or are you going to weasel out of your own challenge?

Put up or shut up.

Peter Morris

24th November 2004, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Darat
Will we see you admitting to making allegations that you can't substantiate?

No, because I always make absolutely sure of my allegations before I post them.

Peter Morris

24th November 2004, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by davefoc
For me, princhester (and many others) did a good job of explaining that the JREF testing is a challenge and not an investigation.

And that is precisely what's wrong with it.

If a result is achieved that interested somebody I don't see any reason why that interested somebody couldn't investigate further,

Well, sometimes scientists do in fact investigate further. And sometimes, according to qualified scientists conducting actual investigations not challenges, the results validate paranormal claims.

The problem comes from people who reject every other test in the world, and only respect Randi's challenge.

They have the idea that the challenge IS a test, that anything true will certainly pass the test and get the prize.

[/quote] but blaming Randi because he didn't further investigate a result which was interesting to somebody seems inappropriate. JREF never says anything that would lead one to believe that they are going to investigate claims further based on a result which is interesting to somebody and so when they don't do what the haven't said they will do PM thinks that Randi is a bad person? [/QUOTE]

I think it is a poor substitute for a proper test.

Darat

24th November 2004, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
No, because I always make absolutely sure of my allegations before I post them.

Then can you show to quote your own words where I have demanded you send me anything, never mind a program?

Your words were: "You demand that I send you a copy of the program. "

I have asked you more then once to substantiate this allegation yet you have so far ignored my request. If, as you say, you make sure of your allegations before you post them then it can only be a matter of moments to show the post where I â€œdemandâ€ (your word) you send me a program.

JimTheBrit

24th November 2004, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
No, because I always make absolutely sure of my allegations before I post them.

You were having an off day when you posted these, I gather? -

"But Randi certainly considered the matter a 'paranormal' one right up until Lintjen was able to demonstrate it. "

"Lintjen was tested as part of Randi's anti-paranormal crusade. Randi thought it paranormal right up until he passed, then Randi weaseled out."

Peter Morris

24th November 2004, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by Darat
Then can you show to quote your own words where I have demanded you send me anything, never mind a program?

Your words were: "You demand that I send you a copy of the program. "

I have asked you more then once to substantiate this allegation yet you have so far ignored my request. If, as you say, you make sure of your allegations before you post them then it can only be a matter of moments to show the post where I â€œdemandâ€ (your word) you send me a program.

When Larsen was harassing me, demanding that I send him a copy of my program, you joined in with :

" Then why not post it here or make it availble to everyone? I have webspace I can upload it to if you'd like. "

I had already made it clear that I threw out the program a year ago, but you still posted your crap.

Even Princhester agreed that Larsen (and you) were demanding my program, and that you were being stupid to do so.

But I predict that you will play silly word games, and argue the tossabout whether it was a "demand" or not. To me, it seemed like a demand. If you claim it wasn;'t, that is just a petty word game.

Peter Morris

24th November 2004, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by JimTheBrit
You were having an off day when you posted these, I gather? -

no, I stand by that claim. It is fully supported by the article that even Randi cites.

Prolix

24th November 2004, 09:49 PM

Peter,

Presenting your program, or recreating it offhandedly, as you said you wrote it in the first place, wasn't a demand. It was an OPPORTUNITY for you to retain some measure of credibillity. Now I admit, when someone declines such an opportunity it does make him look like a liar, or at best he looks like a self-defeating juvenile. But that's your chosen response, for which YOU are responsible, not Larsen.

Come to think of it 'tho, you could still become an adult and either admit to the lie or present the program. Still your choice, no demand involved.

Darat

25th November 2004, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
When Larsen was harassing me, demanding that I send him a copy of my program, you joined in with :

" Then why not post it here or make it availble to everyone? I have webspace I can upload it to if you'd like. "

That quote shows no evidence that supports your allegation that I "demand" you send me the copy.

Originally posted by Peter Morris

I had already made it clear that I threw out the program a year ago, but you still posted your crap.

What was "crap" in what I posted? I merely asked you a question that arose directly from what you had just posted. i.e.

From Peter: "...If I sent him my code, the lying little fanatic will simply pretend there is a flaw in it, one that exists only in his own fantasy."

Also the "crap" cannot refer to my claim that I have webspace I could upload it to, I have two domains I could upload it to and I have stored files for other Members in the past and I am willing to provide evidence of such.

So again I ask what "crap" did I post in asking you a question that followed on from what you had posted?

Originally posted by Peter Morris

Even Princhester agreed that Larsen (and you) were demanding my program, and that you were being stupid to do so.

What Claus may or may not have done or posted has nothing to do with any allegation you have made about what I posted.

You again have not provided any evidence that supports your allegation.

Originally posted by Peter Morris

But I predict that you will play silly word games, and argue the tossabout whether it was a "demand" or not. To me, it seemed like a demand. If you claim it wasn;'t, that is just a petty word game.

It is not a petty word game. You made the allegation that I made a demand of you, you cannot now support that allegation. The honest way to deal with a mistake is to just admit it, I'm not even asking you to apologise for the allegation just to acknowledge that this is an allegation that you can't support.

As for this allegation it isnâ€™t the only one you've made about me that you can't support. Here is another one:

Peter Morris (Underline by me)

...snip...

You just demand that I re-write my program and send it to the liar, but you don't know why.

I never asked you to send the program to anyone, never mind demanded it.

And another:

Peter Morris (Underline by me)

You just keep shrieking that not giving you the program somehow discredits me, and you don't know why, but it's all you've got.

Please support this further allegation of what you say I have posted.

All in all Peter this exchange shows that you do make allegations that you can't subsequently provide any evidence for. If I wanted to be uncharitable I would say it demonstrates that you will lie about what someone else has posted. However I try to be charitable so I'll wait to see if you will retract the false allegations you have made about my posts before I come to the conclusion that you are knowingly lying about what you say I've posted.

(Edited a why to a way.)

Carn

25th November 2004, 03:40 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris

Well, sometimes scientists do in fact investigate further. And sometimes, according to qualified scientists conducting actual investigations not challenges, the results validate paranormal claims.

The problem comes from people who reject every other test in the world, and only respect Randi's challenge.

They have the idea that the challenge IS a test, that anything true will certainly pass the test and get the prize.

Cool, so you do not complain about me, because i do not think, "that anything true will certainly pass the test and get the prize".

Why do i know, that i have the opinion?

Well, if you look at Shine Sun and my comments in the following post, you'll see that i do not exclude the possibility, that he does something, but i try to explain, that the results till now, are not enough to pass JREF challenge(except for his healing of Nan depending on what he was suffering).

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870697188#post1870697188

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48099

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48099

So i'm aware of the fact that paranormal claims could exist and have an effect on real world, but are to "weak" and "complicated"(sorry, no better way to say it) to pass a JREF test, but could be checked by a competent scientists, which have a lot of time and money.

But there are claims, which i think are perfectly testable by JREF. Example is the russian girl claimed to be able to read/see, while being totally blind folded(http://www.randi.org/jr/022202.html). JREF test showed, that she is not able to read, while totally blind folded.

Let's try to clearify with some thought up claims about dowsing:

-perfectly testable by anyone: dowser claiming to be able to detect the presence of water in a certain radius under any circumstances(even while a dozen sceptics nerve him with insults and ridiculous demands) and being able to give exact direction, distance, velocity and amount of water.

...

-still testable: dowser claiming to be able to score 75% of the time correct while dowsing for water in painted plastic bottles on tables in a calm, but sceptic infested, setting.

...

-difficult to test for JREF: dowser claiming to be able to find natural occuring water and to be able to give depth with a small error
...

-not testable for JREF, but maybe by lot of scientists: dowser claiming to be able to find natural occuring water with slightly higher than random chance, if in a enviroment similar to the one he grew up and lives and if he is not exited or under stress.

...

-not testable by anyone: dowser claiming to be able to dowse for natural water with a chance 0.5% above random and only if he is alone in the area and the area has not been searched with any non dowsing technique for water(e.g. digging, ...), as this would disturb the earth ray pattern to much he is using to detect water.

Therefore the question is always, is a claim testable by JREF or not. And if yes then its correct to bring up the JREF challenge and ask "why don't you want to earn a million with what you can do anyway?". And its ok, to argue, if there is no realy good answer to this, that this indicates, this claim does not hold much.
Of course the answer is often, that it does work a bit differentl, but then at least its known, that the initial claim was not worded correctly and that also helps those people claiming things, to determine what exactly they think they can do.

I'm aware that there could be different opinions on certain claims, if they are testable by JREF, but that's to be expected.

Care to start a thread about what claims are testable by JREF and what claims would be also testable, if JREF was a bit more forthcoming towards applicants?

Carn

KRAMER

25th November 2004, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Carn
Care to start a thread about what claims are testable by JREF and what claims would be also testable, if JREF was a bit more forthcoming towards applicants?
Carn

No thanks.

Unless of course PM agreed to read it without posting on it.

Peter Morris

25th November 2004, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by Prolix
Peter,

Presenting your program, or recreating it offhandedly, as you said you wrote it in the first place, wasn't a demand. It was an OPPORTUNITY for you to retain some measure of credibillity. Now I admit, when someone declines such an opportunity it does make him look like a liar, or at best he looks like a self-defeating juvenile. But that's your chosen response, for which YOU are responsible, not Larsen.

Come to think of it 'tho, you could still become an adult and either admit to the lie or present the program. Still your choice, no demand involved.

Jeez, how is it possible to fit so many errors into so few words?

Just for a start, you don't understand what the word demand actually means.

1 To ask for urgently or peremptorily.
2 To claim as just or due.
3 To ask to be informed of.
4 To require as useful, just, proper, or necessary;

Well, just look at what you wrote. You claim that somehow I am discredited unless I provide a copy of the program. You are certainly asking for it peremptorilly. You are asking to be informed of my program. You are saying that somehow it is neccessary that I give my program to retain credibilty. By the accepted definition, you are demanding my program. There is no question of it.

As for your demand, you still have not made it clear why I should provide my program. Why exactly is my credibility damaged if I don't give it? Note that some matematicians already discussed the subject, and confirmed the results of my simulatioon metematically.

What is in doubt, that I need to show you my program? What do I have to prove? I've asked this several times, and you still haven't said.

So, you claim that if I don't submit to your demand I look like a liar? Why so? You don't seem to know yourself.

Please try to understand this concept. I wrote a program about 18 months ago, I didn't keep it, I haven't seen it in over a year. I had no need of it.. I can't send it to Larsen because it doesn't exist anymore.

Even if I still had it, I wouldn't send it to Larsen. In the first place, Larsen has demonstrated that he is not competent to judge the quality of my program. In the second place, he is a hate-filled liar who is desperate to discredit me any way he can.

As for the rest, do you think that you are actiing in an adult fashion? Do you really?

Peter Morris

25th November 2004, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by Darat
That quote shows no evidence that supports your allegation that I "demand" you send me the copy.

On the contrary, I have shown the demand that you made. Look at the definition of demand, provided above.

It is not a petty word game. You made the allegation that I made a demand of you, you cannot now support that allegation.

On the contrary. Word games are all you have.

Larsen issued a demand that I provide him with the program. He made this with the threat that I will be discredited unless I comply. After I had already stated that the program no longer exists, you joined in and told me to send the program to you instead. You participated in Larsen's petty harassment, there was still the implication that I am obliged to comply.

These facts are not disputed. All you are doing is objectiong to one word. You don't agree that it was a "demand" and on this word game you base your attack.

The honest way to deal with a mistake is to just admit it, I'm not even asking you to apologise for the allegation just to acknowledge that this is an allegation that you can't support.

I've supported my allegation.

If I wanted to be uncharitable I would say it demonstrates that you will lie about what someone else has posted. However I try to be charitable so I'll wait to see if you will retract the false allegations you have made about my posts before I come to the conclusion that you are knowingly lying about what you say I've posted.

Look, do you deny the fact that you told me to send me a copy of my program? That is a fact, is it not?

due to the manner in which you told me to do so, I feel comfortable calling it a demand. You object to the word demand, but that at worst is a difference in opinion.

Would you prefer I said "appeal, badger, beg, beseech, besiege, challenge, clamor for, coerce, command, compel, enjoin, entreat, implore, importune, inquire, insist on, interrogate, knock, nag, pester, petition, request, require, requisition, solicit, urge"

kookbreaker

25th November 2004, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Look, do you deny the fact that you told me to send me a copy of my program? That is a fact, is it not?

due to the manner in which you told me to do so, I feel comfortable calling it a demand. You object to the word demand, but that at worst is a difference in opinion.
[/B]

Geez:

What Darat actually said
Then why not post it here or make it availble to everyone? I have webspace I can upload it to if you'd like.

Boo-hoo. Boo-hoo-hoo-hoo. Peter can't be asked for anything it seems. Too tender to take a request! Boo-hoo, boo-hoo-hoo-hoo.

davefoc

25th November 2004, 10:50 PM

I am not PM's biggest fan, but I don't see this as an issue to get on his case about.

He said he wrote a monte carlo type analysis program in Visual Basic. I see no particular reason to doubt this.

He says it predicted a result that was consistent with what somebody else calculated, still seems plausibe to me.

The mathematical result was verified by others posting to this thread, seems like that adds a little credibility to the story.

Now he says he lost the program. OK, I've written lots of little junk code over the years and I can tell you I can't find it all, so it all seems within the range of possible to me.

So what is the point of hastling him over this?

I think PM's various anti-Randi obsessions are adequately ill founded and ill thought out to provide enough material to disagree with him on without having to spend time going down this path.

CFLarsen

26th November 2004, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by davefoc
He said he wrote a monte carlo type analysis program in Visual Basic. I see no particular reason to doubt this.

See how this changes?

Originally posted by Peter Morris
If I sent him my code, the lying little fanatic will simply pretend there is a flaw in it, one that exists only in his own fantasy.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
I wrote a program about 18 months ago, I didn't keep it, I haven't seen it in over a year. I had no need of it.. I can't send it to Larsen because it doesn't exist anymore.

Even if I still had it, I wouldn't send it to Larsen. In the first place, Larsen has demonstrated that he is not competent to judge the quality of my program. In the second place, he is a hate-filled liar who is desperate to discredit me any way he can.

That's why.

Darat

26th November 2004, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
On the contrary, I have shown the demand that you made. Look at the definition of demand, provided above.

I'll use your definition at the moment. (By the way where is it from? Your link doesn't work, indeed it isnâ€™t even a mangled address... ):

i.e.
1 To ask for urgently or peremptorily.
2 To claim as just or due.
3 To ask to be informed of.
4 To require as useful, just, proper, or necessary;

So did I

1 To ask for urgently or peremptorily.

My post said: Then why not post it here or make it availble to everyone? I have webspace I can upload it to if you'd like.

No urgency or any "peremptory" wording. So did not according to the first definition demand anything.

2 To claim as just or due.

My post said: Then why not post it here or make it availble to everyone? I have webspace I can upload it to if you'd like.

So again according to number 2. - no demand.

3 To ask to be informed of.

My post said: Then why not post it here or make it availble to everyone? I have webspace I can upload it to if you'd like.

I do ask a question so according to the definition you posted it could just be said I made a "demand". However I'll show below that this "demands" is not what you later alleged I had demanded.

4 To require as useful, just, proper, or necessary;

We need to look at what we both actually posted.

Me: Then why not post it here or make it availble to everyone? I have webspace I can upload it to if you'd like.

You: You just demand that I re-write my program and send it to the liar, but you don't know why.

I have not demanded anything from you. I have not demanded you re-write your program and I have not demanded you send it to anyone. (And by "demand" I'm using your definition.) Therefore again by using the words of the actual posts we both made I have shown that you from the beginning claimed that I had done and said something that I didnâ€™t.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
On the contrary. Word games are all you have.

They are all you have to try and explain away an allegation you have made about what I posted that you can not support.

The facts are as I have shown, our respective posts show that from the beginning of this exchange you made allegations about what I had posted that are incorrect, to say anything else is untruthful.

Since your allegation has been shown to be wrong to repeat it is to keep repeating a lie.

Originally posted by Peter Morris

Larsen issued a demand that I provide him with the program. He made this with the threat that I will be discredited unless I comply. After I had already stated that the program no longer exists, you joined in and told me to send the program to you instead. You participated in Larsen's petty harassment, there was still the implication that I am obliged to comply.

I am not Claus so why you keep bringing him into a discussion about false allegation you made about me is beyond me.

The simple fact is that your allegation of what you say I posted was wrong. You still have not withdrawn that allegation even though (again and again) I have posted my actual posts alongside your posts and shown that your allegation was and is wrong.

Originally posted by Peter Morris

These facts are not disputed. All you are doing is objectiong to one word. You don't agree that it was a "demand" and on this word game you base your attack.

Which attack? You made an allegation about me and I have challenged that allegation. My posts to you have been at all times polite (even though your responses have not always been as polite) and relevant to the accusation you made.

Originally posted by Peter Morris

I've supported my allegation.

Even within this post my actual words can be seen and they directly and clearly contradict your accusation. You have been shown to have been "attacking" (to use your term) me about something I have never posted.

Originally posted by Peter Morris

Look, do you deny the fact that you told me to send me a copy of my program? That is a fact, is it not?

No that is not a fact, what I posted was this:

Then why not post it here or make it availble to everyone? I have webspace I can upload it to if you'd like.

Originally posted by Peter Morris

due to the manner in which you told me to do so, I feel comfortable calling it a demand. You object to the word demand, but that at worst is a difference in opinion.

Would you prefer I said "appeal, badger, beg, beseech, besiege, challenge, clamor for, coerce, command, compel, enjoin, entreat, implore, importune, inquire, insist on, interrogate, knock, nag, pester, petition, request, require, requisition, solicit, urge"

I would prefer if you represented my actual posts in an accurate and honest manner.

And you seem to have missed this part of my post when you responded, which refers to further allegations you have made about me that you cannot substantiate.:

By Darat

...snip...

As for this allegation it isnâ€™t the only one you've made about me that you can't support. Here is another one:

Peter Morris (Underline by me)

...snip...

You just demand that I re-write my program and send it to the liar, but you don't know why.

I never asked you to send the program to anyone, never mind demanded it.

And another:

Peter Morris (Underline by me)

You just keep shrieking that not giving you the program somehow discredits me, and you don't know why, but it's all you've got.

Please support this further allegation of what you say I have posted.

...snip...

You made the allegations and you claim you always check your allegations before you make them so please provide the evidence.

And so that we keep to the point remember this is not about your program, this is about allegations you made about me.

Darat

26th November 2004, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by davefoc
I am not PM's biggest fan, but I don't see this as an issue to get on his case about.

He said he wrote a monte carlo type analysis program in Visual Basic. I see no particular reason to doubt this.

...snip...

So what is the point of hastling him over this?

I think PM's various anti-Randi obsessions are adequately ill founded and ill thought out to provide enough material to disagree with him on without having to spend time going down this path.

I'm not bothered about the program or if Peter provides it or not. My issue with Peter that he keeps repeating an allegation about me that just isn't true.

princhester

26th November 2004, 03:51 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Yes, that's it exactly.

Remember in your own words, you just mention Randi or his million dollar challenge, mention being your word not mine.

Are you chickening out? You proposed it, do you have the guts to stand your ground?

What forfeit do you want for me? How 'bout the same one? That satisfy you, or are you going to weasel out of your own challenge?

Put up or shut up.

I'm not going to agree to stop mentioning Randi or his challenge just because you think you've found some instance of me mentioning him in threads as described. His challenge is too interesting for that. The forfeit is out of proportion to the importance of the bet.

I'm also not willing to bet anything significant in relation to you because it is a one sided bet: I will forfeit the forfeit as agreed if I lose, but if you lose you will lie or weasel because you are delusional. For all I know, you will declare outright that you never made the bet. Just like on the SDMB where in that recent thread you said things then just blatantly denied having said them a few days later.

I propose the loser start a thread both here and on the SDMB the thread title of which is "I made a bet with [insert winner's name here] and I lost" and the body of which links to this thread.

princhester

26th November 2004, 03:55 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
no, I stand by that claim. It is fully supported by the article that even Randi cites.

Which article? Cite.

princhester

26th November 2004, 04:03 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
[B]Well, sometimes scientists do in fact investigate further. And sometimes, according to qualified scientists conducting actual investigations not challenges, the results validate paranormal claims.

If so, once the subject has reached the point where they can provide results that validate paranormal claims, they could win the challenge. But they don't. Why is that?

I think it is a poor substitute for a proper test.

Yes. That is understood. We are all a little less than clear on why you think that.

Peter Morris

26th November 2004, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
See how this changes?

Where's the change, Larsen?

Peter Morris

26th November 2004, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Darat
[B]I'll use your definition at the moment. (By the way where is it from? Your link doesn't work, indeed it isnâ€™t even a mangled address... ):

[b]

Sorry, here's the source of the definition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=demand

As for the rest, I'm not going to play your stupid word games. You are just being incredibly pathetic. You are not challenging the facts here, all you have is pathetic word games. Go play them on your own. I won't lower myself to participate.

Peter Morris

26th November 2004, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Darat
I'm not bothered about the program or if Peter provides it or not. My issue with Peter that he keeps repeating an allegation about me that just isn't true.

The allegatiion is true. You can't fault the actual facts. you are just arguing the toss about the definition of one particular word. And that's all you have.

Nex

26th November 2004, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
...

As for the rest, I'm not going to play your stupid word games. You are just being incredibly pathetic. You are not challenging the facts here, all you have is pathetic word games. Go play them on your own. I won't lower myself to participate.
:dl:

You lowered yourself enough to start this whole melodramatic thing, and now you try to claim the high ground?

You know, you don't even have to admit you messed up. Just stop making it worse for yourself, OK? ;)

Peter Morris

26th November 2004, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by princhester
You're ON fella. How much?

This is right up there with your Randi and dry spots challenge. You've made the challenge, now how much are you going to put on the line? Or are you going to weasel out now that I'm taking you up on your bet?

Actually, I can't take candy from a baby. I have to admit I've already done the search. There's not a single thread on the SDMB where someone raises a paranormal topic and I'm one of the first three to mention Randi.

But don't worry about it, Peter. It's just a minor inaccuracy. A piece of (inaccurate) rhetoric. And we all know that that is unimportant when committed by you. Completely forgiveable.
Then a bit later:

I'm not going to agree to stop mentioning Randi or his challenge just because you think you've found some instance of me mentioning him in threads as described. His challenge is too interesting for that. The forfeit is out of proportion to the importance of the bet.

I'm also not willing to bet anything significant in relation to you because it is a one sided bet: I will forfeit the forfeit as agreed if I lose, but if you lose you will lie or weasel because you are delusional. For all I know, you will declare outright that you never made the bet.

Yeah, your're right, Princhester. It's exactly like the dry spots challenge.

1) A loud mouthed jackass issues a challenge in public. Jackass claims that his opponent won't take up the challenge.

2) I accept his challenge.

3) Loud mouthed jackass then backs out of his own challenge.

4) Jackass then hurls abuse to cover for his own weaseling.

As for the bet being one sided, you are the one trying to weasel out, Princhester. Your words : "Youre ON, Fella. How much"

Well, that's the stake. If you are too much of a coward to honour your own bet, so be it.

So, you now admit that Randi's challenge is "too interesting" for you to stop mentioning. That confirms my original statement.

Peter Morris

26th November 2004, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by princhester
Which article? Cite.

Discussed at great length previously. Silly Randi fans play their usual dumb word games to explain it away. But here's two articles that make it plain that Randi was chosen as a paranormal investigator.

http://www.snopes.com/music/info/reader3.htm
http://www.snopes.com/music/info/reader2.htm

Peter Morris

26th November 2004, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by princhester
If so, once the subject has reached the point where they can provide results that validate paranormal claims, they could win the challenge. But they don't. Why is that?

Yes. That is understood. We are all a little less than clear on why you think that.

Sigh.

In the first place, as I've said, repeatedly, I don't believe in the paranormal. They fail because it doesn't work.

But apart from that, Randi conducts his challenge with a combination of incompitence and dishonesty. Even if the claimants were actually right, they would still fail because of the inherrent flaws in Randi's protocols.

Most applications never even get as far as actually being tested. Someone might write to Randi claiming the ability to detect underground streams. He gets offered a protocol dowsing for bottles of water, and drops out, because he finds the protocol on offer unacceptable.

But, for the small percentage that find the offer acceptable, there are still problems. Randi does not ask "can this person dowse?" he asks "can this person dowse with 80% accuracy under these precise conditions?" And if the person scores 22%, or 79.9995% they fail.

And various other problems that I've discussed previously.

nbenami

26th November 2004, 04:56 PM

Someone might write to Randi claiming the ability to detect underground streams. He gets offered a protocol dowsing for bottles of water, and drops out, because he finds the protocol on offer unacceptable.

The protocol tests a certain hypothesis just fine. If I had a device that could locate water through twenty feet of soil, testing it with a bottle of water would be trivial and acceptable. The protocols that I have seen devised have demonstrated neither incompetence nor dishonesty.

But, for the small percentage that find the offer acceptable, there are still problems. Randi does not ask "can this person dowse?" he asks "can this person dowse with 80% accuracy under these precise conditions?" And if the person scores 22%, or 79.9995% they fail.

********. Frankly, if you've been on this board for as long as you have and still make ludicrous claims like this, you are either (a) not paying attention or (b) dishonest and incompetent.

The numbers requested, as far as I have seen, have been devised to show a reasonable difference from chance.

I'm sure you think you are being reasonable, Mr. Morris, but I think its time for you to seriously reevaluate your opinions - if a neutral party like myself, new to this board, can spot huge holes in your arguments (as well as a clear emotional bias), this bodes badly for your state of mind.

Carn

27th November 2004, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris

Most applications never even get as far as actually being tested. Someone might write to Randi claiming the ability to detect underground streams. He gets offered a protocol dowsing for bottles of water, and drops out, because he finds the protocol on offer unacceptable.

This does not always happen:

Some wrote to JREF, that he can dowse for some minerals, but is unable to dowse for minerals or water in bottles. JREF responded, that its ok to keep the claim to natural occuring minerals.

I do not post the link, because you know well, where it is and when this happend - not more than a month ago.

So JREF certainly does not always behave the way described above.

Carn

Carn

27th November 2004, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Discussed at great length previously. Silly Randi fans play their usual dumb word games to explain it away. But here's two articles that make it plain that Randi was chosen as a paranormal investigator.

http://www.snopes.com/music/info/reader3.htm
http://www.snopes.com/music/info/reader2.htm

Interesting articles and they seem to confirm, that Randi thought it to be paranormal, until test and explanation, but where and when did Randi "weasel out". Articles do not tell what Randi did or say afterwards.

In what way did Randi "weasel out"?

Carn

princhester

27th November 2004, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
[B]As for the bet being one sided, you are the one trying to weasel out, Princhester. Your words : "Youre ON, Fella. How much

So are you taking me up on the bet or not?

[Edited to add] I never said I'd accept the bet no matter what the stake. I've proposed a different stake. Are you taking me up or not?

Don't bother blathering about how I'm backing out, consider yourself lucky I'm bothering to speak to a madman.

Yes or no?

princhester

27th November 2004, 03:02 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Discussed at great length previously. Silly Randi fans play their usual dumb word games to explain it away. But here's two articles that make it plain that Randi was chosen as a paranormal investigator.

http://www.snopes.com/music/info/reader3.htm
http://www.snopes.com/music/info/reader2.htm

I've read the articles. Neither says Randi thought the claim was paranormal. I know you like to read things into the articles that aren't there, but the articles just plain don't say that Randi thought the claim was paranormal.

If you say otherwise, find the bit in those articles which says that. You won't find it, it's not there. But you'll persist in thinking it is because you're delusional.

princhester

27th November 2004, 03:13 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
[B]Someone might write to Randi claiming the ability to detect underground streams. He gets offered a protocol dowsing for bottles of water, and drops out, because he finds the protocol on offer unacceptable.

Cite. Of course, there isn't one because if there was you'd have raised it before. But you persist in this suggestion (as you have for the last 18 months or so) because you're delusional.

Randi does not ask "can this person dowse?" he asks "can this person dowse with 80% accuracy under these precise conditions?" And if the person scores 22%, or 79.9995% they fail.

Cite. Of course, what actually happens is that the dowser suggests they can succeed with 80% accuracy, which is why that is what the protocol says. But of course this isn't good enough for you. If Randi tests at 80% because that's what the claimant says they can do, then Randi's being unfair. No doubt if he tested for something other than what the claimant said they could do, that would be unfair also.

Everything Randi does you say is unfair, because you are delusional. You blatantly lie about and/or can't remember things you've said within the last day. How you could possibly be qualified to comment on anyone else's competence at anything?

And various other problems that I've discussed previously.

Have you? How would you know? You can't reliably remember what you've said at all. Although, it is interesting to note that I've never known you to forget something you've said previously when it suits you to remember. It seems to me that there are two possibilities here.

1/ You've actually raised various other problems with some validity previously or

2/ You're delusional and never have, but since it suits your obsession to remember it as if you have, that's what you say.

Personally, I'm going with 2/.

kookbreaker

27th November 2004, 05:36 AM

Originally posted by Carn
Interesting articles and they seem to confirm, that Randi thought it to be paranormal, until test and explanation, but where and when did Randi "weasel out". Articles do not tell what Randi did or say afterwards.

In what way did Randi "weasel out"?

Carn

Peter seems to think the test was part of the Randi challenge. It was not.

princhester

27th November 2004, 05:59 AM

There's that one, Kookbreaker, and the other one is: "the articles mention that Randi mostly tests and/or is well known as a tester of claim of the paranormal, therefore he must have thought what Lintgen did was paranormal."

Kind of like "Princhester's a lawyer therefore if he goes to a building he must think it's a court". Or something.

kookbreaker

27th November 2004, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by princhester
There's that one, Kookbreaker, and the other one is: "the articles mention that Randi mostly tests and/or is well known as a tester of claim of the paranormal, therefore he must have thought what Lintgen did was paranormal."

Kind of like "Princhester's a lawyer therefore if he goes to a building he must think it's a court". Or something.

The other 'arguement' is that since Randi was doubtful of Lintgen's ability, therefore Randi thought it was paranormal. Well, if a fat guy says to me that he can run a four-minute mile and I am doubtful, that does not make the four-minute mile a paranormal event.

Of course, the true joy for Peter (if you look at the "Uri-Geller where's the harm" thread) is that Peter gets to complain no matter what Randi does. If Lintgen fails, Peter complains that Randi would be crowing about it, if Lintgen passes, Randi weaseled out. Peter goes out of his way to make certain there is no right choice for Randi except total submission to Peter's ludicrous demands (if any).

CptColumbo

27th November 2004, 10:10 AM

My God!

I finally got through all that.

I don't think I've ever read a more circular arguement, that diverges very little. Yes it is, no it isn't. One person unable to look facts in the face and accept that he is wrong (it's like not admiting you misspelled a word), and a large number of people trying to convince an obvious lunatic of the facts.

Human beings make mistakes, when we admit to them we get stronger.

So, what is Randi's involment in tests?

Hastur

27th November 2004, 07:25 PM

Ooh, you haven't seen anything, Captain. You should check out the Robert Scott Anderson (aka Darkstar, et alia) debates over at stardestroyer.net. There is a man who will not admit when he is wrong and then will try to bore you to death that he is right. I warn you, take it in small doses or you will just end up begging for the pain in your head to end.

CptColumbo

27th November 2004, 10:00 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hastur
Ooh, you haven't seen anything, Captain. You should check out the Robert Scott Anderson (aka Darkstar, et alia) debates over at stardestroyer.net. There is a man who will not admit when he is wrong and then will try to bore you to death that he is right. I warn you, take it in small doses or you will just end up begging for the pain in your head to end. [/QUOTE

How dare you question my post!!!

It was flawless!!

I doubt this so called "stardestroyer.com" even exists.

You lying sack of.....

I am just kidding.

You know that right.

Don't hate me.

XXXOOO

Darat

28th November 2004, 04:39 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
The allegatiion is true. You can't fault the actual facts. you are just arguing the toss about the definition of one particular word. And that's all you have.

You are a liar.

Darat

28th November 2004, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Sorry, here's the source of the definition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=demand

As for the rest, I'm not going to play your stupid word games. You are just being incredibly pathetic. You are not challenging the facts here, all you have is pathetic word games. Go play them on your own. I won't lower myself to participate.

I have shown that nearly everything you said about my posts was in fact a lie. I now label your posts as lies because previously it could have been that you were just mistaken and being mistaken is not the same as being a liar. However to wilfully repeat a mistake when it has been shown to be a mistake is a dishonest representation of the facts and therefore I have to conclude that you are a liar.

So that the actually posts can be seen all together without any chance of claims of â€œout of contextâ€ I will post our exchange up to the point were I posted the evidence that you were mistaken. From that point on you merely repeat your lies about my posts.

I posted:

Then why not post it here or make it availble to everyone? I have webspace I can upload it to if you'd like.

Your response to this was:

PM:
What part of this don't you understand?

I wrote a program 18 months ago. I didn't bother keeping it. I no longer have it. It doesn't exist any more.

I'm not going to re-write it just because some whiney little baby demands to see it.

My response to that: Darat:
Well since you had just said "â€¦Why would I trust him to assess my code honestly? If I sent him my code, the lying little fanatic will simply pretend there is a flaw in it, one that exists only in his own fantasyâ€¦." I was giving you an opportunity that meant you wouldnâ€™t have to rely on one poster's honesty.

All we are left with is your word, and I'll use the evidence of your posts here and elsewhere to assign the appropriate value to that

Your response:

PM:
"my word?"

What are you challenging, exactly?

Are you refusing to believe that I wrote a program?

Are you challenging the results generated by the program?

You don't seem to have a clear idea what you want. You just demand that I re-write my program and send it to the liar, but you don't know why

My response:

Originally posted by Peter Morris
"my word?"

What are you challenging, exactly?

Are you refusing to believe that I wrote a program?

I am saying all we have is your word you did.

Originally posted by Peter Morris

Are you challenging the results generated by the program?

I am saying all we have is your word the results were as you say they were.

Originally posted by Peter Morris

You don't seem to have a clear idea what you want. You just demand that I re-write my program and send it to the liar, but you don't know why.

You are confused, I haven't demanded anything from you.

I havenâ€™t even asked you to do anything and I certainly havenâ€™t demanded you send anything to anyone. (Donâ€™t know who you mean by "the liar" since you have called quite a few people "liar" in your recent posts.)

I offered a solution to a problem you put forward i.e. you not being able to trust one person's evaluation of your program.

Your response:
Originally posted by Darat
I have no interest in his program one way or the other or the results of it.

It was just that Peter seemed to be saying one of his reasons for not making it available was that he didn't trust someone to make an honest evaluation. I tried to provide him with an opportunity that solved his issue. Peter seems to have taken that to mean I am "demanding" he provide the software.

But that is exactly what you are doing.

You demand that I send you a copy of the program.

And you don't have any clear idea of why you want it.

You just keep shrieking that not giving you the program somehow discredits me, and you don't know why, but it's all you've got.

My response:

Originally posted by Peter Morris
But that is exactly what you are doing.

You demand that I send you a copy of the program.

Please show where I demand this? To make it easier for you here are my posts on the matter - please tell me which of the following posts is a demand.

By Darat

Then why not post it here or make it availble to everyone? I have webspace I can upload it to if you'd like.

By Darat

Well since you had just said "â€¦Why would I trust him to assess my code honestly? If I sent him my code, the lying little fanatic will simply pretend there is a flaw in it, one that exists only in his own fantasyâ€¦." I was giving you an opportunity that meant you wouldnâ€™t have to rely on one poster's honesty.

All we are left with is your word, and I'll use the evidence of your posts here and elsewhere to assign the appropriate value to that.

By Darat

Originally posted by Peter Morris
"my word?"

What are you challenging, exactly?

Are you refusing to believe that I wrote a program?

I am saying all we have is your word you did.

Originally posted by Peter Morris

Are you challenging the results generated by the program?

I am saying all we have is your word the results were as you say they were.

Originally posted by Peter Morris

You don't seem to have a clear idea what you want. You just demand that I re-write my program and send it to the liar, but you don't know why.

You are confused, I haven't demanded anything from you.

I havenâ€™t even asked you to do anything and I certainly havenâ€™t demanded you send anything to anyone. (Donâ€™t know who you mean by "the liar" since you have called quite a few people "liar" in your recent posts.)

I offered a solution to a problem you put forward i.e. you not being able to trust one person's evaluation of your program.

By Darat
I have no interest in his program one way or the other or the results of it.

It was just that Peter seemed to be saying one of his reasons for not making it available was that he didn't trust someone to make an honest evaluation. I tried to provide him with an opportunity that solved his issue. Peter seems to have taken that to mean I am "demanding" he provide the software.

Originally posted by Peter Morris

And you don't have any clear idea of why you want it.

As I have said I don't want it, I was just trying to provide you with a solution to one of the problems you said you had with making it available to one person.

Originally posted by Peter Morris

You just keep shrieking that not giving you the program somehow discredits me, and you don't know why, but it's all you've got.

As can be seen in my quotes above I have not asked for it. I have offered to place it online for you to solve a problem you put forward.

Can you please show where I have:

1) demanded you provide the software
2) asked you for the software
3) shrieked
4) said that not providing the software discredits you

Those four questions arise from what you state I have done. I am assuming that you can provide evidence for your statements otherwise like any honest debater I am sure you will admit you were mistaken and withdraw them.

Since those exchanges you have been repeating the same lies over and over.

Your own words prove that you lie.