Is Randi's challenge scientific?

[plindboe]

It is my impression that Randi hasn't claimed that his tests are scientific, but that they still strive to make the tests somewhat scientific.

Perhaps what I'm wondering most of all is, what exactly is it that would make a test scientific? Just because a test uses specific scientific requirements, like double blinding, doesn't make it scientific. How much does it take, in order to refer to a test as scientific?

[Zep]

I think you may be mistaken in your original supposition.

The JREF Challenge seems to be designed to use fair and reasonable means, including quite possibly testing at a "professional science" level, in order to examine paranormal claims. As I see it, if a conclusive, fair and reasonable result that all will accept can be achieved using chewing-gum and an umbrella and a lemon, as opposed to hectares of bunsen burners and test-tubes and white lab-coats, then so be it.

For example, the testing of dowsers in Australia by the Australian Skeptics some years back used assorted water barrels, plastic pipes, taps and tonnes of dirt out in a field to construct a fair testing arena. Not a test-tube or lab-coat in sight. And yet it was scrupulously fair to all concerned, and did the job well.

The essence of the matter is that a testable claim must be made, and the testing method and expected results agreed to by both sides, BEFORE testing begins.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Zep
The essence of the matter is that a testable claim must be made, and the testing method and expected results agreed to by both sides, BEFORE testing begins.

Indeed, I'm having a discussion with a proclaimed psychic and I must have explained that exact thing a billion times to her, but she keeps on repeating the same tiresome arguments.

For instance, she keeps saying Randi's challenge isn't scientific(though I believe she doesn't have a clue about what that means exactly, in even less degree than myself). So that's why I'm wondering, what exactly would constitute a scientific test, and is Randi's challenge scientific?

PS.I can give a link to the discussion in private, if anyone's interested, but I don't want to give it in the open, since I prefer to be the only skeptic there.

[Zep]

Ask her -

(a) What tests she would agree can prove beyond reasonable doubt that her psychic powers do or do not exist, and

(b) What it would take for her to agree she does NOT have any psychic powers.

I'm guessing the answers are (a) anecdotal evidence only, and (b) nothing will convince her.


I suppose you could also ask her what she thinks "scientific tests" actually means. Get her to describe it for you, either by concept or by example, so you both understand exactly what she means. (And I'm guessing you have already done this!)

[69dodge]

Originally posted by plindboe
For instance, she keeps saying Randi's challenge isn't scientificWhy does that bother her?

If she and Randi agree to a protocol for a test, and she passes the test, then she wins the money. Whether anyone considers it scientific doesn't really matter.

In order for her to agree to a protocol, it needs to be something she thinks she can do. In order for Randi to agree to a protocol, it needs to be something he thinks non-psychics can't do. Those are the only two requirements.

So, what can she do that non-psychics can't do?

[Luke T.]

There was an excellent Horizons television program last year in which Randi ponied up the million dollars in a homeopathy challenge. In this case, there were white lab coats and British scientists out the wazoo. Randi participated not at all, except to make a few predictions about how things would go.

It was a classic example of a double blind experiment and ended with the predicted results.

[Luke T.]

I would say that the accusation of Randi's experiment not being scientific is an attempt to say that since it isn't scientific, it leaves room for Randi to cheat. In other words, it doesn't leave any room for the challenger to cheat. ;)

[Rolfe]

It depends on how you define "scientific". In my opinion, white coats and machines that go "beep" do not science make. Without looking it up, and entirely in my opinion, "science" describes meticulous, objective investigation designed to add to our knowledge of objective fact. However it is done.

In that case, the JREF Challenge is scientific.

Rolfe.

[Luke T.]

The Scientific Method (http://www.ldolphin.org/SciMeth2.html)

[wollery]

The challenge is a test designed to differentiate between two hypotheses.

1. The test subject has a prespecified paranormal ability.

2. They don't.

All parties agree before hand which results will support which hypothesis.

I don't think that there could be a better definition of a scientific test.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by plindboe

Perhaps what I'm wondering most of all is, what exactly is it that would make a test scientific? Just because a test uses specific scientific requirements, like double blinding, doesn't make it scientific. How much does it take, in order to refer to a test as scientific?

The big thing that Randi's test lacks is an investigative purpose; science is mostly about investigation (finding stuff out), not about demonstration/challenging (showing stuff off). This isn't a criticism, by the way, but a description.

One of the complains that I've often heard (on this forum, no less) about Randi's challenge is that he's got too clear-cut, black/white, success/failure conditions. For example, if I claimed that I could make a roulette ball land on black 80% of the time (and Randi and I agreed on that threshhold), but in testing I could only manage 79/100 trials, Randi would say "You lose, feel free to reapply in a year." In "real" science, a "real" scientist would be really impressed by the near-miss and start trying to replicate this effect. Formally, to pass the preliminary test, you need a p value of 0.001 or less, for the final, of 0.000001 or less. If I scored a p value in testing 0.002, that's still "highly significant," and worthy of further research, but not acceptable to Randi

Randi doesn't do further research. There's three reasons for that --- first, he's not in the research business, but in the fraud-busting business. Second, there's a lot of money at stake and he has to have clear-cut rules for everyone to play by.

Third, by any sensible standard, if you're applying for the Challenge, you should already know what you can (and can't) do -- it's not a question of figuring something out, but of demonstrating a talent you claim to possess. There's no reason to "investigate" something you should already know. (This is part of the problem with Beth Clarkson's proposed TK protocol; she's a good statistician, but doesn't know whether or not the effect she claims really exists. She wants to do research on her ability [which I commend], but she should be able to do that in her own lab before approaching the JREF. Once she's found a reliable effect -- and she's a good mathematician, she knows what "reliable" means -- then talk to KRAMER.)

However, the tests are as clear-cut an example of how to run a scientific experiment as you could hope for. He does the experiment right, and better than a lot of card-carrying Ph.D-equipped professionals lab-nerds. He's one of the best experimental designers I know. However, he doesn't design experiments; he designs controlled demonstrations.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by new drkitten
One of the complains that I've often heard (on this forum, no less) about Randi's challenge is that he's got too clear-cut, black/white, success/failure conditions. For example, if I claimed that I could make a roulette ball land on black 80% of the time (and Randi and I agreed on that threshhold), but in testing I could only manage 79/100 trials, Randi would say "You lose, feel free to reapply in a year."

The thing that always gets overlooked is that the claimnant is perfectly able to control this. If you think you can hit 80%, tell Randi that you get at least 150/200. Determine beforehand what is the lower limit of what is acceptable. If you think it is 80%, know the standard deviation for the number of trials you are going to do and chose a limit 4 SD's below 80%. That means that if you actually can get it right 80% of the time, as you claim, then you have more than a 99% chance of winning.

In 100 trials, that is a SD of about 3.5, so if you say you can get 68 right, you will be safe.

Now, Randi may not accept 68% in 100 trials, so go to more trials. Here's about how many you need given the number of trials

100: 68 (68%)
250: 175 (70%)
500: 366 (73%)
1000: 753 (75%)

I would guess that if you told Randi you could get 75% out of 1000 correct in a 50/50 choice, he'd accept it. If you actually can get it right 80% of the time, then 750/1000 is pretty much guaranteed. I just ran 1000 samples of random trials and the lowest I got was 761/1000. I got 753 once in a second thousand, so close, but still over the 750 threshold. Indeed, with 10000 trials, the lowest I got was 753. Therefore, if you are actually able to predict red/black 80% of the time, just tell Randi you will get 750 out of 1000. You are pretty much guaranteed to win.

Assuming, of course, you can actually get it right 80% of the time.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
The thing that always gets overlooked is that the claimnant is perfectly able to control this. If you think you can hit 80%, tell Randi that you get at least 150/200.

Not disagreeing with what you say --- but this also points up the fundamental difference between the Randi Challenge and "science."

Science is concerned with the question "is there (possibly) an effect?" Randi is concerned with the question "has the claimant unequivocably demonstrated an effect?"

Because of this different, Randi and "science" handle ambiguous results differently, and even the analysis procedure is a little bit different (a scientist would gather data first, then run the stats to figure out if the data meant anything. Your proposal above reverses that order).

[Luke T.]

One of my biggest pet peeves about the paranormal community is the way they hijack the hard work of real scientists and twist it into gibberish and consider the result just as scientific.

It is my hypothesis ( ;) ) that because the paranormal community has mired itself so deeply in this gibberish which they believe to be "science", they haven't a clue what the hell science is, much less a scientific experiment. Not when you have psychics who bloviate impressive mathematical claims of "90 percent hit rates" and crap like that.

So when Randi tries over and over to explain that in order to be tested you FIRST have to explain what the hell it is you can do that is so freaking special, he is often already speaking over their heads. Never mind getting into the nuts and bolts of how your ability will actually be tested. That's just too far into the deep end for these whackos to understand.

Thus we get freaks like Lucianarchy who thinks he won the million bucks because he posted "ladybrook" in a post on this forum and believes, or wants others to believe, he was robbed.

This kind of unstructured thinking leads to the argument that someone claiming a paranormal ability "proved" their ability, Randi didn't pay up, which means Randi cheats, which means the test is unscientific.

Totally, utterly, bogus.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Luke T.
One of my biggest pet peeves about the paranormal community is the way they hijack the hard work of real scientists and twist it into gibberish and consider the result just as scientific.

It is my hypothesis ( ;) ) that because the paranormal community has mired itself so deeply in this gibberish which they believe to be "science", they haven't a clue what the hell science is, much less a scientific experiment. Not when you have psychics who bloviate impressive mathematical claims of "90 percent hit rates" and crap like that.

So when Randi tries over and over to explain that in order to be tested you FIRST have to explain what the hell it is you can do that is so freaking special, he is often already speaking over their heads. Never mind getting into the nuts and bolts of how your ability will actually be tested. That's just too far into the deep end for these whackos to understand.

This is the big thing. I don't know that Randi ever really says he is doing scientific testing of psychics. It is always, "We are testing to see if you can do what you claim to be able to do."

And as you note, the biggest problem is getting them to come out and say exactly what it is they can do. Ask a psychic what they can do, they say, "I'm psychic." What does that mean? "I can tell things by using my psychic abilities."

Keep going, and going, but you never get anything specific for an answer. Of course, it is important that they never actually define their abilities, because in that case, they know that they can be shown to be wrong, so they keep it as vague as possible to leave it non-testable.

Look at the pulling of teeth that Randi went through with Sylvia Browne. It took forever to come up with a protocol, because she kept asking, "How many do I have to get right?" and he kept saying, "It depends on what you claim you are able to do." She never caught on that SHE was the one who needed to tell HIM what she was able to do. If she is able to correctly see 75% of the information, then he would devise a test that would require her to demonstrate a 75% success rate. Apparently, she wanted him to provide the minimum requirements for "passing," but that isn't what it is about. It is about their claims. Randi never says, "I bet you can't get XX," he says, "You have claimed to be psychic. I'll give you a million dollars if you can do something you claim to do by psychic means."

[plindboe]

Thanks for the great replies!

The discussion I have with this woman is the most frustrating discussion I have ever had. She has the intellectual capability of a child, and I have at great length tried to explain stuff to her, only to see the same refuted arguments resurface in the very next post. Her husband is a scientist, and has helped her with her posts and main arguments, so she just keeps repeating them ad nauseam, even though I have put each and every one of her points to shame.

The one she repeats the most is that since there are different standards in each case it's fraud and manipulation. I have explained over and over that it is necessary, because applicants have unique requirements, and yet she repeats it with the very same conviction as before.

I wonder, whether I have died a week ago, and ended up in Hell. (Perhaps that could win the challenge)

[patnray]

Originally posted by plindboe
The one she repeats the most is that since there are different standards in each case it's fraud and manipulation. I have explained over and over that it is necessary, because applicants have unique requirements, and yet she repeats it with the very same conviction as before.
Have you tried asking her what ONE standard she would use to evaluate the following 3 claimants?
1) Claims to be able to detect buried water pipes by dousing with 100% accuaracy.
2) Claims to be able to diagnose medical conditions by looking at a person. Doesn't claim to detect every condition but claims she is never wrong about a condition she does detect.
3) Claims to be able to predict whether a roulette ball will land on red or black 60% of the time.

Then ask her to pick just one number for the number of trials that would be needed to test all three claims and one number for the success rate that would be considered "passing" for all three claims.

[hgc]

Originally posted by patnray
Have you tried asking her what ONE standard she would use to evaluate the following 3 claimants?
1) Claims to be able to detect buried water pipes by dousing with 100% accuaracy.
2) Claims to be able to diagnose medical conditions by looking at a person. Doesn't claim to detect every condition but claims she is never wrong about a condition she does detect.
3) Claims to be able to predict whether a roulette ball will land on red or black 60% of the time.

Then ask her to pick just one number for the number of trials that would be needed to test all three claims and one number for the success rate that would be considered "passing" for all three claims. Don't do it. She'll blow a gasket.

[CBL4]

I do not think the level of accuracy (e.g. 60% or 80%) is that important. I presume that Randi just wants to get a p level so low that he will never pay out by chance.

Assume you and Randi agree to a level of 80 out of 100 because it provides a p < .00001 (or whatever). If you get a score of 75 (p < .0001 or whatever), then Randi keeps his money but you also get to say Randi has proven your psychic abilities. Even though you do not get $1,000,000 from Randi, you can probably get a lot more from other people.

CBL

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by CBL4
I do not think the level of accuracy (e.g. 60% or 80%) is that important. I presume that Randi just wants to get a p level so low that he will never pay out by chance.

Assume you and Randi agree to a level of 80 out of 100 because it provides a p < .00001 (or whatever). If you get a score of 75 (p < .0001 or whatever), then Randi keeps his money but you also get to say Randi has proven your psychic abilities. Even though you do not get $1,000,000 from Randi, you can probably get a lot more from other people.

CBL

It can't work this way. The number of trials needed is based on the claimed ability, not the other way around. This is done to protect the claimnant, in fact. If claim I can predict 55% of coin flips, it is not fair to require me to get 80 out of 100. However, if I can actually predict 55% of coin flips, then I most certainly do have a non-standard ability and am certainly eligible for the million dollars. By your standards, I pretty much could not win despite having paranormal ability. THAT would be unfair.

Instead, tests are designed for me to show what I claim to be able to do. If I claim I am able to get 55%, I have to be able to do it to a level where p < 0.000001. You can't do that in 100 trials, or even 1000, for that matter. It would take a very, very large number to trials to get 55% to be significant. But that is what I would have to do to win the money. On the other hand, if I have the ability, then I am not concerned, given my built in safeguards (see above about 4 SD)

The short answer: 80% in 100 trials is far too stringent if I claim I can only get 60% right. In that case, we need to go to more trials. It all depends on what I claim I can do.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by patnray
Have you tried asking her what ONE standard she would use to evaluate the following 3 claimants?
1) Claims to be able to detect buried water pipes by dousing with 100% accuaracy.
2) Claims to be able to diagnose medical conditions by looking at a person. Doesn't claim to detect every condition but claims she is never wrong about a condition she does detect.
3) Claims to be able to predict whether a roulette ball will land on red or black 60% of the time.

Then ask her to pick just one number for the number of trials that would be needed to test all three claims and one number for the success rate that would be considered "passing" for all three claims.

Ah, yes, I tried something similar yesteday. I wrote "explain to me how testing a person who claims he can survive without breathing and testing a person who claims he can communicate telepathically with animals can have the same standard." & "explain to me how testing a dowser and testing a person who claims he's God can have the same standard.". Of course, she changed tactics after that, and instead said that there should be the same standard for each ability.

[Zep]

Originally posted by plindboe
Ah, yes, I tried something similar yesteday. I wrote "explain to me how testing a person who claims he can survive without breathing and testing a person who claims he can communicate telepathically with animals can have the same standard." & "explain to me how testing a dowser and testing a person who claims he's God can have the same standard.". Of course, she changed tactics after that, and instead said that there should be the same standard for each ability. The obvious response now is that each and every JREF challenge applicant claims to have a unique ability, entirely different from everybody else in the world including all other applicants.

Ask her what she thinks Randi should do in that case?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by plindboe
Of course, she changed tactics after that, and instead said that there should be the same standard for each ability.

To add to Zep's response, note that this is pretty much already the case. For example, Randi is certainly willing to give every dowser who claims to be able to detect water with 100% accuracy the exact same test. In fact, this is why dowsers are so commonly tested. They all make very similar claims, so protocols are easily created.

It's the clowns like Sylvia Browne who refuse to even state their abilities in the first place that cause problems.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Zep
The obvious response now is that each and every JREF challenge applicant claims to have a unique ability, entirely different from everybody else in the world including all other applicants.

Ask her what she thinks Randi should do in that case?

I have said that too, but she said that all psychics use the same kind of powers. Nothing gets through to this woman. She has a fanatical hatred of Randi, and will twist anything she's offered into some more proof that Randi is evil. But self-delusion and people who believe they have super powers, go hand in hand, so I shouldn't really be surprised.

Thanks for the advices everyone. :) I have ended the discussion with her, and will instead go find someone who I will be able to communicate with.

[T'ai Chi]

The JREF challenge makes me wonder; should we send magicians in to help out with any experiment that involves people, you know, to prevent possible trickery/self delusion?

[69dodge]

Originally posted by jzs
The JREF challenge makes me wonder; should we send magicians in to help out with any experiment that involves people, you know, to prevent possible trickery/self delusion?Who's "we"?

Everyone is free to run his experiment as he sees fit. And everyone else is free to ascribe as much credibility to the experiment as he feels it deserves.

P.S. Your question makes me wonder: why are you, you know, such a troublemaker? :p

[Zep]

Originally posted by jzs
The JREF challenge makes me wonder; should we send magicians in to help out with any experiment that involves people, you know, to prevent possible trickery/self delusion? Hello? Are you for real? What log have you been living under? The LAST thing most of these scam artists want is someone who can actually see through their trickery turn up when they take their shot at the million.

And have a look at what Beneviste said about Randi turning up at his (failed) testing of homeopathy by the Horizon team. And at what people like Schwartz and Edwards and Sylvia have to say along similar lines. You wouldn't be their friends for long with this kind of suggestion.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by 69dodge
Who's "we"?


Anyone interested in science.


P.S. Your question makes me wonder: why are you, you know, such a troublemaker? :p

You basically avoided the actual question.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Zep
What log have you been living under?


I live in a nice apt.


The LAST thing most of these scam artists want is someone who can actually see through their trickery turn up when they take their shot at the million.


Not just with 'scam artists', where the need is obvious, but with science experiments in general.

Say there is some psychology experiment somewhere or some biology or medical experiment, etc. Should we send in magicians to prevent possible trickery/self delusion?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by jzs


Not just with 'scam artists', where the need is obvious, but with science experiments in general.

Say there is some psychology experiment somewhere or some biology or medical experiment, etc. Should we send in magicians to prevent possible trickery/self delusion?

I believe Randi himself has recommended something similar; that any self-respecting scientist should be aware of the possibility of trickery and consult a magician if necessary as part of the experimental design to control for it.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by jzs
Anyone interested in science [should perhaps send in magicians].

You basically avoided the actual question.I was not as explicit as I might have been, but I figured you'd get the idea.

A random person who's interested in science can't "send in" magicians if the people running the experiment don't want him to. All he can do is decide how much he trusts the results of the experiment.

If there was lots of opportunity and motivation for cheating, and the results of the experiment are very surprising, he might reasonably be suspicious of the results. If there was little opportunity and motivation for cheating, and the results are nothing out of the ordinary anyway, he might reasonably be trusting of the results.

Therefore, people who run experiments should make sure that no opportunity for cheating exists---by consulting magicians if necessary---if they want others to trust any very surprising results that may ... um ... result.

Was that sufficiently explicit?

May I ask you some questions now?

Don't you think that the million dollar prize provides to Challenge applicants a greater motivation to cheat than the participants in most scientific experiments have? Also, that a Challenge applicant successfully demonstrating paranormal powers is a much more surprising result than most scientific experiments are likely to yield? And therefore that more stringent precautions against cheating are warranted during the Challenge than during most scientific experiments?

Oh, and I still want to know why you're such a troublemaker. :p

[patnray]

Originally posted by jzs
Say there is some psychology experiment somewhere or some biology or medical experiment, etc. Should we send in magicians to prevent possible trickery/self delusion? [/B]
Most psychology, biology, and medical experiments are conducted with people chosen randomly who do not calim any special "powers" and do not have any motivation to cheat. They often do not know what the experiment is designed to test. And these fields do not have a long prior history of being fooled by frauds and con artists. Many parapsycholgy experiments are also done with subjects chosen at random.

It is when evaluating people who do claim some special "power" that the potential for fraud becomes an issue.

There have been cases where researchers have falsified data, but these cases could not be uncovered by magicians. They are discovered by peer review and careful examination of the raw data.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by 69dodge

Don't you think that the million dollar prize provides to Challenge applicants a greater motivation to cheat than the participants in most scientific experiments have?


It is certainly another reason to cheat. However, grant money, tenure, and lots not forget probably the biggest reason; prestiege, power, being well known.


And therefore that more stringent precautions against cheating are warranted during the Challenge than during most scientific experiments?


Yes, I agree with that; tighter experimental conditions and smaller alpha.


Oh, and I still want to know why you're such a troublemaker. :p

I'm getting a new car. What should I get?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by jzs

It is certainly another reason to cheat. However, grant money, tenure, and lots not forget probably the biggest reason; prestiege, power, being well known.


Remember we're talking here about a specific kind of cheating -- the sort that magicians are likely to be able to catch, such as sleight-of-hand, active misdirection, and so forth. The person likely to get grant money, tenure, prestige, power, etc. from a typcial scientific experiment is the experimentor, not the subject. The experimentor has a lot of easier ways to cheat such as simply making up data, or lying in their papers.

Magicians are great at catching cheating on the part of the experimental subject during the experiment itself. Once the experiment is over, the magician will probably go home, then. At which point the experimentor could still go to town....

[69dodge]

Originally posted by 69dodge
A random person who's interested in science can't "send in" magicians if the people running the experiment don't want him to.jzs, I guess you already knew that. So, what did you mean by, "should we send in magicians?"Originally posted by jzs
I'm getting a new car. What should I get?Whatever kind you like.

But please don't drive it slowly in the passing lane.

Because that would be annoying.

:p

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by 69dodge
jzs, I guess you already knew that. So, what did you mean by, "should we send in magicians?"Whatever kind you like.


If an experiment is going on where the potential to cheat is there (ie. all experiments), should the commitee (organization, whatever) who ultimately oversee the experiment, or an independent organization or 'watchdog" group, send in a magician(s) to make sure cheating doesn't take place?


But please don't drive it slowly in the passing lane.


LOL, there is no chance of that. :) I'm thinking of a Scion, xA or tC.
(http://www.scion.com/drive/gallery/drive_xa_gallery.html)

[Skeptic]

Keep going, and going, but you never get anything specific for an answer. Of course, it is important that they never actually define their abilities, because in that case, they know that they can be shown to be wrong, so they keep it as vague as possible to leave it non-testable.

Which always makes me wonder why on earth does anybody claim psychic abilities.

Out-and-out frauds have the profit motive, but the "average Joe" of a psychic is not like that. He tries to believe something that, deep down, he KNOWS isn't true. They are constantly in denial.

Denial is understandable under some circumstances. Mind you, often people are like that due to the stresses of life, not being able to face a horrible truth.

But why in God's name would anybody find it so horrible and horrific to admit, not that they're dying of cancer, or their wife is cheating on them, or their son an alcoholic... but merely that they are not "psychic"?

Is that really that hard to face? Isn't it a bit on the same order of finally coming to accept that you cannot fly by flapping your arms?

[69dodge]

Originally posted by jzs
If an experiment is going on where the potential to cheat is there (ie. all experiments), should the commitee (organization, whatever) who ultimately oversee the experiment, or an independent organization or 'watchdog" group, send in a magician(s) to make sure cheating doesn't take place?All experiments?

You are seriously asking whether it's a good use of limited resources to hire magicians to be present at every single scientific experiment?

No, of course not.

Did you expect anyone to give you a different answer than that?

How about you? Do you think it's a good use of limited resources to hire magicians to be present at every single scientific experiment?LOL, there is no chance of that. :) I'm thinking of a Scion, xA or tC.
(http://www.scion.com/drive/gallery/drive_xa_gallery.html)The tC looks nice. (Naturally, it's the more expensive one. :D)

At least you had the sense to avoid the hideous xB.

Now if only you could extend that sensibility just a bit, and avoid asking silly questions ...

In any case, I think I will try in the future to have the sense to avoid answering silly questions.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by 69dodge
All experiments?

You are seriously asking whether it's a good use of limited resources to hire magicians to be present at every single scientific experiment?


Yes.

Why not?

You're telling me that for a science experiment, which usually are very expensive, that hiring a magician, in addition, would be a serious expense?

If I am to be persuaded that magicians are needed for detecting trickery in experiments where there is a chance for deception, why not use them in all such experiments? How can we be sure of the results from such experiments unless a magician is present?


How about you? Do you think it's a good use of limited resources to hire magicians to be present at every single scientific experiment?


If there is trickery going on, how can we be sure unless we have magicians present?

[69dodge]

I do not know how expensive experiments generally are. Presumably, there is a wide range.

There is always something else money can be spent on. I don't see why magicians should always be at the top of the list. But neither should they always be at the bottom of the list.

Things are rarely black and white. Recognizing that fact would, I figure, be second nature to someone with statistical training. Yet you seem to be saying that there are only two reasonable positions: (1) completely trust all experiments, or (2) completely distrust an experiment unless a magician was present.

One's level of confidence in the results of an experiment should never, in my opinion, be 0% or 100%; rather, it should always be somewhere in between. Yet you seem to be considering only those two extremes.

Asking "how can we be sure?" is the wrong question. We can never be sure of anything. The right question is, "what factors affect our level of confidence?". The presence or absence of a magician is one factor among many. In some experiments, it is a big factor; in others, a negligible one. I briefly described, in a previous post, when it's important and when it isn't. drkitten's comment is also quite relevant, I think.

If I am to persuade you of anything, it would help if I knew what your current position is and why you hold it. Do you trust every experiment, or none, which was not supervised by a magician? If you trust some but not others, then we already basically agree, and there is no need for persuasion.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by 69dodge

Things are rarely black and white. Recognizing that fact would, I figure, be second nature to someone with statistical training. Yet you seem to be saying that there are only two reasonable positions: (1) completely trust all experiments, or (2) completely distrust an experiment unless a magician was present.


I didn't say that at all, nor do I think that.


In some experiments, it is a big factor; in others, a negligible one.


Right, and so should we get magicians in any experiment where it is a big factor?


Do you trust every experiment, or none, which was not supervised by a magician?


Now who is saying there are only two possibilities...

[69dodge]

Originally posted by jzs
I didn't say that at all, nor do I think that.Great. Then what are we arguing about?Right, and so should we get magicians in any experiment where it is a big factor?Naturally.Now who is saying there are only two possibilities...I mentioned a third possibility in the very next sentence...

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by plindboe

Perhaps what I'm wondering most of all is, what exactly is it that would make a test scientific? Just because a test uses specific scientific requirements, like double blinding, doesn't make it scientific. How much does it take, in order to refer to a test as scientific?

I would have to say the challenge is not scientific, or at the very least, it is not known whether it is or not. This is due to the fact that Randi does not publish the precise details of his methodology, nor does he submit them for peer review. So we have no way of knowing whether his team adhere's to the scientific method or not.

In my opinion, the challenge is more of a publicity tool than anything else. It's also convienient when confronted with woo's in person, more than once I've simply stated, "Hey, go get the million bucks and then I'll believe you". This is surprisingly effective.

However, one should question whether the challenge itself has any real utility in uncovering legitimate paranormal ability. In my opinion, it doesn't.

Think about it, if someone had extensive psychic/paranormal powers, there would be no need to even bother with the challenge. It would be trivial to prove. And really, a million bucks would mean little to them.

However, if someone had a real, but extremely subtle ability, I doubt the JREF would have the resources to detect it. They do not have the background, funding or technical resources to conduct anything but the most basic of experiments.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Because of this different, Randi and "science" handle ambiguous results differently, and even the analysis procedure is a little bit different (a scientist would gather data first, then run the stats to figure out if the data meant anything. Your proposal above reverses that order). Gathering data before calculating stats is called "data mining". Legitimate statistical calculations must be done before seeing the data. Not that data mining doesn't have a place: it can suggest avenues of further research. But to test a hypothesis, you must decide what will "mean anything" before you know whether the data qualifies.

Originally posted by plindboe
The one she repeats the most is that since there are different standards in each case it's fraud and manipulation. I have explained over and over that it is necessary, because applicants have unique requirements, and yet she repeats it with the very same conviction as before. The real explanation is that it is the APPLICANTS that have different standards. If someone goes to Randi and says "I want to have a trial in which the standards are exactly the same as in this other trial", Randi will agree to it. How does Randi's flexibility show that it's fraud? If he were really interesting in defrauding people, wouldn't the best thing be to choose one type of fraud and stick with it? What possible advantage would there be in having to come with a NEW type of fraud each time?


Originally posted by Skeptic
Out-and-out frauds have the profit motive, but the "average Joe" of a psychic is not like that. He tries to believe something that, deep down, he KNOWS isn't true. They are constantly in denial.Oh, come on. That's like Christians saying that deep down, everyone knows that God exists. Some people honestly believe that they are psychic.

Is that really that hard to face? Isn't it a bit on the same order of finally coming to accept that you cannot fly by flapping your arms? Look, I realize that the preliminary trials have not gone well, but I hardly think that all possibilities have been exhausted. I'm sure that it's just that I'm not flapping my arms the right way.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Think about it, if someone had extensive psychic/paranormal powers, there would be no need to even bother with the challenge. It would be trivial to prove. And really, a million bucks would mean little to them.


The naivete of this statement astonishes me. Glance at any newspaper and read the headlines about the various corporate executive multimillionaires being investigated, indicted, and sent to prison for various illegal acts involving enhancing their personal wealth. I don't think most people ever get to the point where "a million buck would mean little to them" -- the people who aren't obsessive about money never get to be that wealthy, and the people who get to be that wealthy, almost by definition, are sufficiently acquisitive that they're always looking for more.

If it were really as trivial as you sugggest to win the challenge, then someone would simply have done it. No bother, no risk of jail time, just show that you can move objects with your mind and then collect your check.

[CapelDodger]

The challenge certainly appears scientific enough to the professional woos to scare them off. Which is where it wins. I think it's brilliant. The types who do take it on - overwhelmingly dowsers, I gather, and mostly harmless amateurs - really do believe, and very few will be shifted from that.

The great thing about the $million is that it gets you past the switchboard. The word "Challenge" is excellent too, the media lap that up, they all remember the stuff about "conflict" in creative-writing class. And the follow-up - "That's the Amazing Randi" - is to die for. Serious respect to The Man.