Should the Randi Challenge be trusted ?

[jambo372]

I wonder about the challenge. How can anyone be sure that it is not a fix by Randi and/or his employees.

It hasn't been unknown for magicians to cheat psychics in tests eg Richard Wiseman recently fixed a test to take advantage of Natasha Demkina.
There have also been allegations made by mediums and spiritualists against magicians testing phenomena in historical cases eg Houdini cheated Mina Crandon and Harry Price doctored photos of seances with Helen Duncan.

I myself do not trust Randi at all and I can understand why psychics don't trust his test protocols.

I think Randi (or any other magicians) certainly have motives for doing this ...
Many people find magic tricks boring but retain interest in psychic phenomena because they believe it is genuine. People know magicians use trickery - they admit as much themselves. Psychics say that the phenomena is actually real.

eg If you thought an object was being levitated by psychokinesis or spirits you'd probably be more impressed with this than you would be if the same object was levitated but you knew that trickery was involved. People may be more impressed by something if they think is paranormal (regardless of whether or not it is), than by something they know is trickery by a magician.
eg I am more impressed by psychics like Nina Kulagina who say they use paranormal methods than by magicians like Randi whom I know use perfectly normal mundane methods.

I am just questioning peoples trust in magicians testing this phenomena, yes they do know better than most other people the tricks to look for but they certainly do have motive for debunking psychics whether or not they are genuine, psychics may prove to be competition for magicians because the public may be more impressed by something they believe is 'real'.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by jambo372
I wonder about the challenge. How can anyone be sure that it is not a fix by Randi and/or his employees.

It hasn't been unknown for magicians to cheat psychics in tests eg Richard Wiseman recently fixed a test to take advantage of Natasha Demkina.
There have also been allegations made by mediums and spiritualists against magicians testing phenomena in historical cases eg Houdini cheated Mina Crandon and Harry Price doctored photos of seances with Helen Duncan.

I myself do not trust Randi at all and I can understand why psychics don't trust his test protocols.

I think Randi (or any other magicians) certainly have motives for doing this ...
Many people find magic tricks boring but retain interest in psychic phenomena because they believe it is genuine. People know magicians use trickery - they admit as much themselves. Psychics say that the phenomena is actually real.

eg If you thought an object was being levitated by psychokinesis or spirits you'd probably be more impressed with this than you would be if the same object was levitated but you knew that trickery was involved. People may be more impressed by something if they think is paranormal (regardless of whether or not it is), than by something they know is trickery by a magician.
eg I am more impressed by psychics like Nina Kulagina who say they use paranormal methods than by magicians like Randi whom I know use perfectly normal mundane methods.

I am just questioning peoples trust in magicians testing this phenomena, yes they do know better than most other people the tricks to look for but they certainly do have motive for debunking psychics whether or not they are genuine, psychics may prove to be competition for magicians because the public may be more impressed by something they believe is 'real'.
How is it possible to "trick" a genuine psychic? Wouldn't they know of the trick and avoid it using their amazing psychic powers?

[Joe_Black]

A keen observation Wildcat. That is exactly what i am doing.

[JPK]

Good afternoon jambo372,

Originally posted by jambo372

I am just questioning peoples trust in magicians testing this phenomena, yes they do know better than most other people the tricks to look for but they certainly do have motive for debunking psychics whether or not they are genuine, psychics may prove to be competition for magicians because the public may be more impressed by something they believe is 'real'.

I think you might have this the wrong way around. I think it's more likely that the psychics you mention above couldn't make a living at being a magician and needed to resort to relatively small audiences of gullable people who need to believe in this kind of silliness.

JPK

[Azrael 5]

Jambo weren't you supposed to be providing evidence for some statements of your previous threads? ;)
In answer to your oop get one of your many medium friends to take it and let us know ;)

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Joe_Black
A keen observation Wildcat. That is exactly what i am doing.
You're a psychic?

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by jambo372 eg I am more impressed by psychics like Nina Kulagina who say they use paranormal methods than by magicians like Randi whom I know use perfectly normal mundane methods.
How do you know the former is any different to the latter?

[DangerousBeliefs]

Your questions have been asked and answered SEVERAL HUNDRED TIMES right here. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=16)

[Nex]

Jambo, are you saying skeptical conjurors are skeptical because they're somehow in competition with psychics?

That doesn't make any sense. People go to see a conjuror's act knowing it's trickery, but that doesn't mean they enjoy it any less. I, for one, am absolutely horrible at figuring out conjuror's tricks. I'm always stumped when I go see a performance, and it's fun that way.

If I could figure all the tricks out, it wouldn't be any fun, would it? At least, not to me it wouldn't.

But that's got nothing to do with what psychics claim to do... :con2:

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jambo372

I am just questioning peoples trust in magicians testing this phenomena,


Well, Randi and the claimaint agree to the tests.

[Peter S.]

Originally posted by jambo372
I wonder about the challenge. How can anyone be sure that it is not a fix by Randi and/or his employees.


Read the challenge: "JR may be present at some preliminary or formal tests, but will not interact with the materials used."


It hasn't been unknown for magicians to cheat psychics in tests eg Richard Wiseman recently fixed a test to take advantage of Natasha Demkina.
There have also been allegations made by mediums and spiritualists against magicians testing phenomena in historical cases eg Houdini cheated Mina Crandon and Harry Price doctored photos of seances with Helen Duncan.


Sites please



I myself do not trust Randi at all and I can understand why psychics don't trust his test protocols.



They are NOT Randi's protocols. The applicant proposes the protocols and the preliminary testing does not start untill they have been mutually agreed on.



I think Randi (or any other magicians) certainly have motives for doing this ...
Many people find magic tricks boring but retain interest in psychic phenomena because they believe it is genuine.


It's not.



People know magicians use trickery - they admit as much themselves. Psychics say that the phenomena is actually real.

That is because they are liars and/or deluded.



eg If you thought an object was being levitated by psychokinesis or spirits you'd probably be more impressed with this than you would be if the same object was levitated but you knew that trickery was involved. People may be more impressed by something if they think is paranormal (regardless of whether or not it is), than by something they know is trickery by a magician.



I know you don't like to belive it, but no one has ever performed a levitation in front of a qualified magician who could verify trickery was not being used. Anyone who tells you it has is lying.


eg I am more impressed by psychics like Nina Kulagina who say they use paranormal methods than by magicians like Randi whom I know use perfectly normal mundane methods.

So, you would find us magicians impressive if we lied like the psychics you love so much?



I am just questioning peoples trust in magicians testing this phenomena, yes they do know better than most other people the tricks to look for but they certainly do have motive for debunking psychics whether or not they are genuine, psychics may prove to be competition for magicians because the public may be more impressed by something they believe is 'real'.



Interesting staw man you have developed there. Can you find any magicians who say they are threatened by the prospect that psi is real?

(insert ad hom insult here...I'm restraining myself)

[Azrael 5]

Jambo I tire of your repeated bleatings about psychics you have never met,never tested(neither have I,before you say)never seen doing their feats-other than over the net,perhaps on TV-yet you blindly believe!!
We humour you ,repeatedly ask for evidence,yet all you do is start another silly thread asking the same old rubbish.Go fetch some proof,man.:)

[Psiload]

Originally posted by jambo372
***snip***

It hasn't been unknown for magicians to cheat psychics in tests eg Richard Wiseman recently fixed a test to take advantage of Natasha Demkina.

***snip***
Bullcrap.

http://www.csmmh.org/demkina/

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Psiload
Bullcrap.

http://www.csmmh.org/demkina/

I'd bet that had they given the same test to an intelligent, sceptical, seventeen-year-old girl, she would have got better results than this attention-seeking young fraud. Not only is Demkina a fraud, but she is obviouly stupid not to pick up some of the clues. I mean, who would pick the youngest, fittest-looking subject as being the one with a hip joint replacement?

In a way, I feel sorry for her. Is she being manipulated, or is she the one doing the manipulation?

So, how did Wiseman cheat or trick her, jambo? Looks to me like they all bent over backwards to accomodate her.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
I'd bet that had they given the same test to an intelligent, sceptical, seventeen-year-old girl, she would have got better results than this attention-seeking young fraud. Not only is Demkina a fraud, but she is obviouly stupid not to pick up some of the clues. I mean, who would pick the youngest, fittest-looking subject as being the one with a hip joint replacement?

In a way, I feel sorry for her. Is she being manipulated, or is she the one doing the manipulation?

So, how did Wiseman cheat or trick her, jambo? Looks to me like they all bent over backwards to accomodate her. Oh brother! This is too funny...

http://www.csmmh.org/demkina/appendix.htm

One of the six test cards the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health and the Committee for the Scientfic Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal used to test Natasha Demkina, the 17-year-old Russian who claims to be able to diagnose medical problems with her "x-ray vision." This card required her to identify which of seven subjects had had his or her appendix removed. Finding the challenge dificult, the young psychic protested that appendixes can grow back. When told that appendixes do not grow back after an appendectomy, she insisted that they do in Russia. She failed to correctly identify the subject without an appendix. :dl:

[JLam]

I once had my appendix grow back, but I went to the homeopath and he gave me a 100000000000X dilution of human appendix and, using the principle of "like cures like" my appendix went away again.

Oh, wait. I'm sorry....that was a load of crap. Sorry, my brain went haywire for a moment. Maybe this nice young woman can cure that too.

How about this for a test? Get one person in a cast with a genuinely broken leg, and mix that person in with a bunch of people in casts who have never broken their legs. The game: Find the broken leg. Should be pretty simple.

I guess the hard part would be getting a bunch of healthy people to put on casts...

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by jlam4911
How about this for a test? Get one person in a cast with a genuinely broken leg, and mix that person in with a bunch of people in casts who have never broken their legs. The game: Find the broken leg. Should be pretty simple.

I guess the hard part would be getting a bunch of healthy people to put on casts...

Fiberglass casts go on and then off pretty easily. And they come in colors! Or you could use walking casts.

[Ladewig]

Is there a reason you started a thread about the million-dollar challenge in this forum rather than the million-dollar-challenge forum?

Is there a reason why you started a thread abut the million-dollar challenge without actually reading the million-dollar challenge (which can be view on this very website)?

[voidx]

Hey where'd Jambo go? That's a pretty cool trick!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jambo372
I wonder about the challenge. How can anyone be sure that it is not a fix by Randi and/or his employees.

Top Excuses for not taking the Randi Challenge (http://www.skepticreport.com/tools/topjref.htm)

Nice try, though.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by jambo372
It hasn't been unknown for magicians to cheat psychics in tests eg Richard Wiseman recently fixed a test to take advantage of Natasha Demkina.

Aren't there rules about libel on this forum? What is the basis for your accusation? How exactly was this "fix" carried out?

[Azrael 5]

1inChrist will have a new friend soon I fear...;)

[JimTheBrit]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
What is the basis for your accusation?Probably this: Josephson strikes again. (http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/propaganda/)

[TheBoyPaj]

The initial decision to consider a score of 4 hits out of 7 as 'failure' when the probability of getting such a score is less than two per cent is hardly in step with normal scientific practice.

Do we know if Natasha (and her promotors) agreed to this criterion prior to the test? It can't be a fix if they did.

[Ashles]

We have already discussed Houdini and Mina Crandon, as you well know Jambo.

Remember this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870710660&highlight=mina+crandon#post1870710660) where you even admitted she used fraud and trickery at least some of the time.

It's a bit sad when you're just recycling your old arguments now.

[jambo372]

It can be a fix - if Wiseman changed it afterwards.

I'm just showing that magicians and psychics could be competition for each other and as a result magicians certainly have motive to debunk psychics even if that means cheating.

Here is an example of what I mean by competition :

You go to a performance with a magician levitating, say David Copperfield. He admits trickery is used.

You go to a seance where a medium does the exact same thing, she claims spirits are lifting her up (it doesn't matter whether it's faked or genuine), you believe her.

If you believe the medium you are likely to be far less impressed by a magician doing the same thing. You are more likely to be impressed by something you think is 'real' (even if isn't), than by something you know to be fake.

[Stitch]

Originally posted by jambo372
---snip---

If you believe the medium you are likely to be far less impressed by a magician doing the same thing. You are more likely to be impressed by something you think is 'real' (even if isn't), than by something you know to be fake.

But if you know one person is doing it by trickery and admits it, why do you not consider that the person that says it is real is in actual fact using the same method and just lying?

[jambo372]

It doesn't matter, as long as you believe that it's paranormal you'll find it far more impressive than something you know to be a trick.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by jambo372
It can be a fix - if Wiseman changed it afterwards.

I'm just showing that magicians and psychics could be competition for each other and as a result magicians certainly have motive to debunk psychics even if that means cheating.

Here is an example of what I mean by competition :

You go to a performance with a magician levitating, say David Copperfield. He admits trickery is used.

You go to a seance where a medium does the exact same thing, she claims spirits are lifting her up (it doesn't matter whether it's faked or genuine), you believe her.

If you believe the medium you are likely to be far less impressed by a magician doing the same thing. You are more likely to be impressed by something you think is 'real' (even if isn't), than by something you know to be fake.

If Wiseman changed WHAT afterwards? The metal plate in the subject's skull? The titanium hip in the subject's leg?

Natasha's claim was that she has "X-ray vision", and she's "100% accurate". I repair X-ray equipment for a living. You know what I'd call an X-ray machine that can't detect a metal skull plate, and a titanium hip replacement?

A boat anchor.

***edited to correct a name confusion***

[jambo372]

Natasha never claimed 100 % accuracy.
He could have changed the contract or swapped the cards.

[Ashles]

He could have changed the contract or swapped the cards.
Maybe he beat her over the head with an iron bar to put her off.

After all that's the only way we sceptics can make paranormal practitioners look like fraudsters - by cheating.

Because, of course, we've seen Natasha on the cover of so many magazines haven't we?

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by jambo372
Natasha never claimed 100 % accuracy.
He could have changed the contract or swapped the cards.
Which is more likely:.Dr Richard Wiseman cheating to make it look like Natasha was fake..or Natasha claiming the unlikely claim that she has X-Ray vision and failing to produce results?

[rppa]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
Originally posted by jambo372
I am more impressed by psychics like Nina Kulagina who say they use paranormal methods than by magicians like Randi whom I know use perfectly normal mundane methods.
How do you know the former is any different to the latter?

I think jambo is saying he is more impressed by magicians who lie about what's going on than those who tell the truth. I'm not quite sure why this should be, but that's what he said.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by jambo372
Natasha never claimed 100 % accuracy.
He could have changed the contract or swapped the cards. Yes... Natasha has done several televison appearences in which she, or her mother, have claimed that "She has never misdiagnosed a patient."

That's sound like a cliam of 100% accuracy in my book.

The only changes made to the contract , were changes made at Natasha's request. Changes which could onlyhave benefitted Natasha.

As far as "swapping the cards"... the "patients" themselves revealed their own conditions after the test was over. In the case of the subject with a plate in his head(that Natash failed to detect), he allowed people to walk up and feel the plate for themselves.

So I ask you again... do you think two of the subjects swapped the metal skull plate and the replacement hip just to confound Natasha?

[Ashles]

I think jambo is saying he is more impressed by magicians who lie about what's going on than those who tell the truth. I'm not quite sure why this should be, but that's what he said.

I can't imagine. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870635565&highlight=charity#post1870635565)

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by jlam4911
I once had my appendix grow back, but I went to the homeopath and he gave me a 100000000000X dilution of human appendix and, using the principle of "like cures like" my appendix went away again.

Oh, wait. I'm sorry....that was a load of crap. Sorry, my brain went haywire for a moment. Maybe this nice young woman can cure that too.

How about this for a test? Get one person in a cast with a genuinely broken leg, and mix that person in with a bunch of people in casts who have never broken their legs. The game: Find the broken leg. Should be pretty simple.

I guess the hard part would be getting a bunch of healthy people to put on casts...

No doubt she'd say she can't see through plaster casts. She refused to diagnose people behind a curtain because she says she can only see through cloth that someone is wearing.

:D :D :D

[Azrael 5]

Have them on individual beds(or hospital gurneys),no cover,no clues and away she goes..;)

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by rppa
How do you know the former is any different to the latter?

I think jambo is saying he is more impressed by magicians who lie about what's going on than those who tell the truth. I'm not quite sure why this should be, but that's what he said. [/QUOTE]

This is what is so disturbing. jambo has invested so much of his time and energy into this stuff that no matter the moral implications he prefers to believe his psychic friends and heroes even if they are lying. It seems that magicians who tell the truth about what they do are spoiling his little topsy-turvy fantasy land. Black is white, and white is black down jambo's rabbit hole. Even the OP turns everything on its head. This is really DESPERATE clinging to a false worldview. He was probably traumatised when he found out there was no Santa.

Yet, he doesn't believe in Geller. I suspect he thinks Geller just "looks evil" like Derren Brown.

How many serial killers "look evil"? Most tend to look just like normal folk.

[Quinn]

Originally posted by jambo372
If you believe the medium you are likely to be far less impressed by a magician doing the same thing. You are more likely to be impressed by something you think is 'real' (even if isn't), than by something you know to be fake.

On the contrary, if someone really had the ability to peer inside my mind and tell what I was thinking, then watching them do it would cease to be impressive or entertaining. The fact that they could do it would be impressive, of course. But as a form of entertainment (which seems to be what you're addressing), watching them repeatedly demonstrate it would become as boring and pointless as watching someone tell how many fingers I was holding up by using their remarkable power of vision, or move a ten-pound block with only the strength of their arm, or distinguish tea from bourbon with nothing but their incredible skills of smell and taste.

[gnome]

Jambo372 must still explain how cheating by Randi/JREF is possible within the agreement.

If there were any actual cheating, it would be a breach of the agreement, and the applicant could sue JREF, and probably get the million just on that basis.

JREF can't afford to be caught doing that, it would undermine their entire purpose. The simplest way not to be caught doing it is not to do it. They have no real motivation to take such a risk...

Especially since so far all applicants need no help to cause them to fail to perform (or show up) it seems.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by jambo372
It doesn't matter, as long as you believe that it's paranormal you'll find it far more impressive than something you know to be a trick. This works even if it is not a trick! All it takes is ignorance of the real method used.

I am much more impressed by my car's performance when I think it is magic, rather than the internal combustion engine, at work.

I am much more impressed by my television's performance when I think it is little elves, rather than phosphors in a cathode ray tube.

I am much more impressed by my computer's performance when I think it is magic, rather than...well, in truth, to me it may as well be magic.

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by Quinn
On the contrary, if someone really had the ability to peer inside my mind and tell what I was thinking, then watching them do it would cease to be impressive or entertaining. The fact that they could do it would be impressive, of course. But as a form of entertainment (which seems to be what you're addressing), watching them repeatedly demonstrate it would become as boring and pointless as watching someone tell how many fingers I was holding up by using their remarkable power of vision, or move a ten-pound block with only the strength of their arm, or distinguish tea from bourbon with nothing but their incredible skills of smell and taste.

Just to carry on in this thread, assume that psi exists and is proven beyond doubt. I'd be more impressed with the fakers than the known Psionics. Think about it...it's not really that impressive to see a huge, 300-lb. mass of muscle weightlifter to dead lift 600 lbs. That's in fact, almost a yawn. But then, you have a 100-lb. man say he can do the same thing? I'd pay to see that.

The only reason it's impressive now is because it's new/different/non-mainstream. However, the factthat someone can do the exact same thing without needing psi powers is, to me, much more impressive. All the psi has to do is look in a mind. The cold-reader has to reconstruct everything from subtle hints and clues, and does just as well or better than a person that can read minds.

That's f***ing impressive.

It's like the 100lb. weakling lifting the 600 lbs AND the mucle-bound weightlifter.

[Ipecac]

Here's the thing. How would such x-ray vision actually work?

You see, as I understand it, x-ray machines work by shooting x-rays through an item onto a sensitive plate which records the x-rays. Things like bones block the x-rays and so they are registered on the plate.

If you could emit x-rays from your eyes, you still wouldn't be able to see inside someone without placing a film plate behind them and then developing the plate. (This is why the x-ray sights on the rail guns in "Eraser" are so ridiculous.)

The technology that would be more akin to the descriptions given by these charlatans would be ultrasound vision. If I understand correctly, ultrasound technology uses soundwaves that go out, hit things, and bounce back, much like radar. Yet no one ever has ultrasound vision, probably because of unfamiliarity with the technology. Everyone understands that x-rays see through things. After all, Superman had it!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Here's the thing. How would such x-ray vision actually work?Well, yeah, it could be the way you described, but I think there are those who would be just as satisfied with something like:

"It's accomplished through quantum tunnelling. If an electron can get to the other side of an atom without going through it, then a photon can get to the otherside of a blindfold."


Note the use of power words like "quantum" and misapplied analogies

[jambo372]

He (or whoever was testing) could eg. a telekinetic is tested.
They add extra weight onto the objects to be moved without the subject knowing.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by jambo372
He (or whoever was testing) could eg. a telekinetic is tested.
They add extra weight onto the objects to be moved without the subject knowing. Telekinetic test? Who, in this day and age, is claiming telekinetic powers? I thought that stuff went out back in the 70's with bell bottoms. What's the point in dreaming up ways to cheat a telekinetic? That's like coming up with recipes for Loch Ness Monster gumbo, or Bigfoot burgers...

what's the point?

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by jambo372
He (or whoever was testing) could eg. a telekinetic is tested.
They add extra weight onto the objects to be moved without the subject knowing.

And the subject would not want to check this and expose the testers as cheats? The subject or his referee would be able to check the weight using scales that have been accurately calibrated and verified by both sides.

You are really clutching at straws to imagine the JREF would cheat. The JREF is as interested as any in finding that "one white crow". If they found it, they wouldn't need to paint it black. They would want to show it to the world.

Have you actually read and understood the Challenge Rules?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by jambo372
He (or whoever was testing) could eg. a telekinetic is tested.
They add extra weight onto the objects to be moved without the subject knowing.
Or if the subject claimed to be able to tell which of a number of sealed film canisters on a table was filled with water, they could paint rubber cement on the bottom of the canisters. :D

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Psiload
Telekinetic test? Who, in this day and age, is claiming telekinetic powers? I thought that stuff went out back in the 70's with bell bottoms. What's the point in dreaming up ways to cheat a telekinetic? That's like coming up with recipes for Loch Ness Monster gumbo, or Bigfoot burgers...

what's the point?

jambo372 thinks he may have emerging powers.

He hasn't applied for the Challenge because, despite all his scratching here, he can't figure out how to cheat on a Telekinetic test. All the usual cheating methods have been exposed somewhere on these forums. He'd need to invent a new trick and hope it isn't detected. Not likely, IMO.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50603

[Open Mind]

With regard to the CSMMH reply (seems to be organization setup to debunk complimentary medicine?) How very neutral for such a test .......



Accusations: The investigators raised the bar so that Natasha would fail. The odds of Natasha getting four or more correct matches out of seven was 1 in 50 (or 2 percent). Those are odds that are statistically significant and widely regarded in science as passing.

Answer: Those odds are not considered statistically significant for testing extremely unlikely events. As Prof. Hyman points out, "We used accepted conventions that even parapsychologists recognize. The idea is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. For at least 75 years the convention has been that paranormal claims have to be tested at the .01 [probability] level or even smaller. Indeed, the convention is typically the .001 level. Using this convention, the criterion we set up in advance, used the more lenient criterion of .01 rather than .001. She would have had to get at least 5 correct matches to have surpassed the .01 level. "


I think that is an outrageous excuse from CSMMH / CSICOP! This was a preliminary trial to see if her claim merited further scientific research ... she achieves odds of 1 in 50 and they claim 'failure' ...... this is not just bad science, it's close minded dogmatism :rolleyes:

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Open Mind
With regard to the CSMMH reply (seems to be organization setup to debunk complimentary medicine?) How very neutral for such a test .......



I think that is an outrageous excuse from CSMMH / CSICOP! This was a preliminary trial to see if her claim merited further scientific research ... she achieves odds of 1 in 50 and they claim 'failure' ...... this is not just bad science, it's close minded dogmatism :rolleyes:
Thanks for the rolleyes, but in what way is this bad science? Are you able to discern the difference?
Show us the evidence that it is bad science or I shall whop you over the head with a lutefisk.

[gnome]

Originally posted by jambo372
He (or whoever was testing) could eg. a telekinetic is tested.
They add extra weight onto the objects to be moved without the subject knowing.

If the "telekinetic" was concerned this might happen, he could ask that the object be placed upon a scale... or that he be allowded to lift it with his hands before using his powers.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Open Mind
With regard to the CSMMH reply (seems to be organization setup to debunk complimentary medicine?) How very neutral for such a test .......

I think that is an outrageous excuse from CSMMH / CSICOP! This was a preliminary trial to see if her claim merited further scientific research ... she achieves odds of 1 in 50 and they claim 'failure' ...... this is not just bad science, it's close minded dogmatism :rolleyes:


Why did the Russians accept the test standard in the first place, then? Remember Natasha was given much more information than she would have had in her "normal" readings. Such a comparitively "easy" test should have yielded !00% success accoding to her claims. She and her mother HAVE claimed that she has 100% success in diagnoses, have they not? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Open Mind
With regard to the CSMMH reply (seems to be organization setup to debunk complimentary medicine?) How very neutral for such a test .......



I think that is an outrageous excuse from CSMMH / CSICOP! This was a preliminary trial to see if her claim merited further scientific research ... she achieves odds of 1 in 50 and they claim 'failure' ...... this is not just bad science, it's close minded dogmatism :rolleyes:

This is what's known as "moving the goal posts." She can't do what she claimed, so you change the rules to make her successful. We don't know if there were unconscious clues given by the subjects so we set firm expectations before hand. If a doctor and a conjourer were given the same test I suspect that they would achieve symilar results though for different reasons.

[Temporal Renegade]

Whenever I hear something like this, I flashback to the 'Larry King / Sylvia Browne' debacle. She agreed to take the test, then proceeded to tell Randi that he had to alter the rules, otherwise she wouldn't agree to it. She delibrately tried to get him to throw his hands up in frustration and give up, whereas she could claim that he wasn't really serious about testing her.

However, he kept agreeing to her requests, even placing the prize in escrow (which she thought would really screw him up), just to get her to take the test.

And, she still said 'No'.


Now, who's fault is that?