The reason for not demanding that failing claimants stop their practice?

[matt4magic]

Since the claimants are to accept the testing protocol and they are to verify that testing conditions are fair before testing, why not throw in a bonus?

Claimants who fail has to stop practicing their (now proven) b-s.

I can think of a few reasons, e.g. scaring away the few participants willing to participate.

Other thoughts why this is a bad idea?

[NoZed Avenger]

Primarily, the problem is that it would give potential contestants one large reason to avoid the test.

Also, they'd have a point -- this is a punitive step taken after failing one challenge - when even Randi admits that the failure on one particular day can never prove that the claimant does not have the abilities claimed -- maybe they had an off day.

Say what you like about the odds of every claimant having an off day when they happen to be tested, the mere possibility would be enough for them to avoid the challenge and scoriate Randi about being unfair in the process.

N/A

[drkitten]

Originally posted by matt4magic


Other thoughts why this is a bad idea?

Because making demands that you have no way to enforce harms your own credibility?

[NiallM]

In ways it's already implicit in the challenge that the failing applicant cannot continue to practice their crap.

They may find themselves in a difficult legal position if they continued to make claims that had been scientifically debunked - in particular because they were part of the process of debunking, which might mean that they cannot claim ignorance of the debunking.

[Beady]

Originally posted by NiallM
They may find themselves in a difficult legal position if they continued to make claims that had been scientifically debunked - in particular because they were part of the process of debunking, which might mean that they cannot claim ignorance of the debunking.

Failing the Challenge carries no implicit meaning other than they failed the Challenge. The failed applicant has not necessarily been found guilty of anything, especially fraud. The only true result is that they have failed on that specific occasion to prove their claim.

[NiallM]

Originally posted by Beady
Failing the Challenge carries no implicit meaning other than they failed the Challenge. The failed applicant has not necessarily been found guilty of anything, especially fraud. The only true result is that they have failed on that specific occasion to prove their claim.
Agreed, but if, for instance, they were advertising a product which has been proved to be ineffective, then they might be amenable to legal action.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by NiallM
Agreed, but if, for instance, they were advertising a product which has been proved to be ineffective, then they might be amenable to legal action.

Perhaps in theory -- but you notice that the failure of homeopathy in the widely televised Horizon study has not even slowed down the practicioners.

N/A

[Beady]

Originally posted by NiallM
Agreed, but if, for instance, they were advertising a product which has been proved to be ineffective, then they might be amenable to legal action.

But that's just it. It would not have been proven ineffective, it would merely have failed a single, privately funded test. The Challenge results could be cited as a data point, but only a single data point.

[NiallM]

Originally posted by Beady
But that's just it. It would not have been proven ineffective, it would merely have failed a single, privately funded test. The Challenge results could be cited as a data point, but only a single data point.
But that's the powerful thing about the challenge. The test that the product would have failed would have been a test which was devised in conjunction with the claimant and the test proocol itself and the conclusion to be drawn from the results are agreed in advance by the claimant. It's much more powerful than a single data point; it has prior agreement and input from the claimant.

[Beady]

Originally posted by NiallM
It's much more powerful than a single data point; it has prior agreement and input from the claimant.

Let me put it this way: What standing, precisely, does the Challenge have in the world outside of JREF? Has it been endorsed by any legal, academic or scientific organizations? Is its existence even known to these groups? If it is, what do these groups think of the Challenge? How does the JREF Challenge rate alongside the Nobel Prize, or even a single peer-reviewed article, as just two examples?

As the now-official FAQ puts it, the JREF Challenge process is hostile to applicants and has its own bias. Essentially, it is one side in a "Yes I can/No you can't" argument. Randi, himself, is self-described as an "angry man" on a mission ("The Faith Healers"). This is not the picture of an outfit trying to represent itself as scientifically objective.

[Carn]

Originally posted by Beady
Has it been endorsed by any legal, academic or scientific organizations?

I do think JREF challenge could be used as an argument in court, as in undoubtely proves, that the applicant had no good idea, what he is able to do, so is effectively meddling around with things he doesn't understand.
Originally posted by Beady

How does the JREF Challenge rate alongside the Nobel Prize, or even a single peer-reviewed article, as just two examples?

Not winning the nobel prize fortunately does not prove anything.


Carn

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Carn
I do think JREF challenge could be used as an argument in court, as in undoubtely proves, that the applicant had no good idea, what he is able to do, so is effectively meddling around with things he doesn't understand.

Not winning the nobel prize fortunately does not prove anything.


That's the point. Not winning the Nobel Prize doesn't prove that you were wrong, it just proves that you weren't right enough for the Nobel Committee.

And, yes, the JREF challenge could be used as an argument in court, if you could get the applicant into court in the first place. But failing the test, by itself, does not mean anything except that the applicant couldn't demonstrate his/her powers under controlled conditions at that particular time and place. It certainly doesn't mean that the applicant is necessarily fraudulent, and it also doesn't give the JREF any special standing to sue.

[Carn]

Originally posted by new drkitten


And, yes, the JREF challenge could be used as an argument in court, if you could get the applicant into court in the first place.

Wouldn't a failed test also helping bringing an applicant before court?
E.g. someone offering healing and patient does not get better anyway after paying lots of money. Then i guess the lawyer would have an easier time to drag the fraud before court, if the guy also failed a throughfull well documented test with many different patients completely, since that is more than a "i didn't get any better, i think he is not able to do anything at all".

Of course upon the failed test alone no applicant will face any legal consequences.

Carn

[Metullus]

Originally posted by Carn
Wouldn't a failed test also helping bringing an applicant before court?
E.g. someone offering healing and patient does not get better anyway after paying lots of money. Then i guess the lawyer would have an easier time to drag the fraud before court, if the guy also failed a throughfull well documented test with many different patients completely, since that is more than a "i didn't get any better, i think he is not able to do anything at all".

Of course upon the failed test alone no applicant will face any legal consequences.

Carn

Possibly useful in a Civil trial. The problem is that, in the US anyway, the standard of proof is generally "the preponderance of the evidence" and one could expect any number of woos coming forward to testify to the reality of the psi claim. One hundred "it worked for me witnesses" v a single "we tested and it failed" witness... who do you think would win?

I seem to recall reading of a case - it may have been in Skeptical Inquirer circa 1987 / 1988 - wherein a self-professed psychic sued her hospital and the manufacturer of the cat-scan used by her physician, alleging that her psychic ability was destroyed by the cat-scan.

Long and the short, the jury found for the plaintiff, in the low millions as I recall. In the end, the judge overturned the verdict because:

1. Plaintiff offered no proof that she ever had such an ability.
2. Plaintiff could not prove that she did not now have such an ability.
3. Plaintiff could offer no proof that if she did once have such an ability and no longer had the ability the hospital, doctor or cat-scan was the cause of her loosing the ability.

Point is, even with no evidence what-so-ever, the jury found for the plaintiff - it took a fairly gutsy decision by the judge to make things right.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Metullus
Possibly useful in a Civil trial. The problem is that, in the US anyway, the standard of proof is generally "the preponderance of the evidence" and one could expect any number of woos coming forward to testify to the reality of the psi claim. One hundred "it worked for me witnesses" v a single "we tested and it failed" witness... who do you think would win?


The one with the better lawyer.

Almost by definition.

A good lawyer for the woos would be able to dig up some clear examples of out of context quotes from, among other sources, Randi's own writings and the JREF forum discussions proving that failing the Challenge meant nothing because the Challenge itself is no more than an unwinnable publicity stunt maintained only to increase donations to the JREF.

A good lawyer for the skeptic would be able to present the material from the JREF challenge (and the associated scientific "experts") in such a way as to make the non-existence of the paranormal an established scientific fact, as beyond question as the existence of gravity.

Neither lawyer would be particularly hampered by the actual truth in this matter. That's part of how you can tell that they're good lawyers.

[Metullus]

Originally posted by new drkitten
The one with the better lawyer.

Almost by definition.

A good lawyer for the woos would be able to dig up some clear examples of out of context quotes from, among other sources, Randi's own writings and the JREF forum discussions proving that failing the Challenge meant nothing because the Challenge itself is no more than an unwinnable publicity stunt maintained only to increase donations to the JREF.

A good lawyer for the skeptic would be able to present the material from the JREF challenge (and the associated scientific "experts") in such a way as to make the non-existence of the paranormal an established scientific fact, as beyond question as the existence of gravity.

Neither lawyer would be particularly hampered by the actual truth in this matter. That's part of how you can tell that they're good lawyers.

I'd think that the Jury would be the larger problem. Too many people are willing to believe damn near anything. In addition, the skeptic's position would likely be:

1. I have never seen real evidence to support the existence of psi;
2. I do not accept wooish anecdotal evidence as substantial evidence;
3. I have seen evidence of gravity;
4. I have reason to accept gravity as real;
5. I have no reason to accept psi as real.

That is not the same thing as saying psi is not real. Not proven to exist is not the same thing as "does not exist".

(Hence the endless threads with turtle, jambo, janice, mayday, et al.)

To the juror untrained in either science or logic it may well appear that he is presented with two positions: the wooish position - psi is real and has been demonstrated 100s of times, and the skepical / scientific position - psi is unproven.

Or, to put it more simply, psi is either real or, at the least, might be real.

The question is then not "yes" or "no"; rather, it is "yes" or "maybe yes".

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Metullus
I'd think that the Jury would be the larger problem. Too many people are willing to believe damn near anything. In addition, the skeptic's position would likely be:


... not allowed anywhere near a jury, if the lawyer is any good at all.

Subtle issues like the difference between "there is no reason to accept psi as real" and "psi is unreal" wouldn't make it past the metal detectors.

The lawyer's position would be:
(slightly emended)

1. There is no evidence to support the existence of psi;
2. There is lots of evidence disproving psi
3. Psi doesn't exist
4. The defendant is a liar, a cheat, and a fraud
5. Give us lots of money.


As I said, a good lawyer does not permit himself to be hampered by the actual truth. If your lawyer does, he's not a good one.

[Metullus]

The lawyer's position, sure, but his expert, his scientist, is going to testify that there is no evidence of psi.

He is not likely to testify that there is demonstrably no such thing as psi.

The testimony that the jury will hear is there is definately a psi effect (the woos) and I don't think / there is no evidence / it is unproven (the skeptic).

Ask the woo witnesses "What evidence would change your mind about what you believe about psi?" and the answer will more than likely be "Nothing can change my mind, I know what I saw, felt, experienced." To the jury a strong, unyeilding, convinced answer.

Ask the skeptic the same question, and he is likely to say "Evidence. Give me evidence that is not otherwise explainable."

Uncertain, weak, "just not convinced".

Logically the skeptical case is the stronger; unfortunately to a jury the lady who says her scoliosis was cured overnight might easily carry more weight than any so-called "scientific" evidence.

As to voir dire, how does plaintiff's attorney cull the wooish from the jury pool?

Query:
Are you religious? If so, do you believe in miracles? Are you open minded? Do you understand the scientific method? Do you read the daily horoscope? Have you ever experienced something unexplained? Unexplainable?

Randi's challenge is useful because it stands as the $1M dare that the charlatans of the woo-world, the Sylvias, the Uri's, and even the wannabes (Carey) dare not accept. While lesser adepts, those that truly believe in their powers, can test themselves, and, having failed, reconsider their own beliefs.

And, of course, maybe, just maybe, someday someone will surprise us all. (I'm not putting any money on that, though!)

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by new drkitten
[BAs I said, a good lawyer does not permit himself to be hampered by the actual truth. If your lawyer does, he's not a good one. [/B]

I realise this is a popular meme.

However, it is wrong.

[Metullus]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
I realise this is a popular meme.

However, it is wrong.

Wrong in the sense that he cannot knowingly present fraudulent evidence.

True in the sense that TRUTH is not that which he serves. An attorney is not obliged to present or even argue the TRUTH, he is obliged to present and argue the evidence.

There is a difference.

Edited to make sense in english.
Sorta

[Carn]

Originally posted by Metullus


Long and the short, the jury found for the plaintiff, in the low millions as I recall. In the end, the judge overturned the verdict because:

Anyone ever having the idea, that a jury is not the best way to determine, whether someone is guilty?
A lot of countries get along without them.
Originally posted by Metullus

1. Plaintiff offered no proof that she ever had such an ability.
2. Plaintiff could not prove that she did not now have such an ability.
3. Plaintiff could offer no proof that if she did once have such an ability and no longer had the ability the hospital, doctor or cat-scan was the cause of her loosing the ability.

Especially jury could have no ideas what the words "evidence" and "proof" mean, a judge is more likely to find them in his dictionary.
Originally posted by Metullus

Point is, even with no evidence what-so-ever, the jury found for the plaintiff - it took a fairly gutsy decision by the judge to make things right.
What did jury memebers make of the judge's decision?
I mean effectively he told them "you are plain obviously stupid, to decide for plaintiff, although he presented no evidence whatsoever".

When i'm already bashing the US juriskativ system, i read, that O.J. would never have gotten away in a system without Jury, because genetical fingerprint proved, that he was at the scene of murder, but didn't offer any sensible explanation, what he did there, is that correct?

Further question, is it true, that in principle O.J. could write a bood about how he commited the murder and got away with it, without fear to be sentenced?

Carn

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Carn
Anyone ever having the idea, that a jury is not the best way to determine, whether someone is guilty?
A lot of countries get along without them.

Juries can get things wrong. Judges can get things wrong.

America has "gotten along" with them for quite a while. The longer I work with juries, the more respect I have for them -- their collective memory, their collective sense, their collective wisdom. Any system has its problems, real or potential, and the jury system is no different -- but it is not inferior to any other type of system, and I personally would not trade the advocacy/jury system for any other I am aware of.

[Carn]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Juries can get things wrong. Judges can get things wrong.

America has "gotten along" with them for quite a while. The longer I work with juries, the more respect I have for them -- their collective memory, their collective sense, their collective wisdom. Any system has its problems, real or potential, and the jury system is no different -- but it is not inferior to any other type of system, and I personally would not trade the advocacy/jury system for any other I am aware of.

I guess the jury system allows for more nonesense judgements, though as theeir number is low anyway it doesn't matter much, e.g. juries might vote 4 from 100000 cases total nonsense, while judges might get away with 3, but that makes only a difference for the press.
OTOH i guess that juries do better in case of legativ unmapped territory, but likely i'm wrong.

Are there any good studies comparing the systems in things of cost, speed, wrong judgements,...?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Metullus
Wrong in the sense that he cannot knowingly present fraudulent evidence.

True in the sense that TRUTH is not that which he serves. An attorney is not obliged to present or even argue the TRUTH, he is obliged to present and argue the evidence.

There is a difference.

And, furthermore, the lawyer has a certain degree of leeway even in what evidence he presents and argues -- although witnesses are sworn to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," lawyers have tremendous liberty in deciding what, among the mass of possibly relevant stuff, will actually be brought forward and presented as "evidence."

Just as an example, the statement that :

The lawyer's position, sure, but his expert, his scientist, is going to testify that there is no evidence of psi.

He is not likely to testify that there is demonstrably no such thing as psi.

reveals an incompetent lawyer who is not in control of his own expert witness.

A competent lawyer for the skeptics would never pose the witness a question as "is there demonstrably no such thing as psi?" (Even a third year student in moot court wouldn't make such a mistake.)

Even if the expert wanted to make the distinction between "no evidence to support" and "evidence to reject," a good lawyer would not allow him to say that on the stand, possibly by cutting him off with "please just answer the question," possibly more politely.

A cooperative expert will have worked with the lawyer before the case to make sure that all the questions posed are word-for-word acceptable to the expert and that the answers will illustrate to the jury the theory of the case to be proven. An uncooperative expert will simply not be allowed to express his own views, instead being confined to answering highly directed questions to which the lawyer already knows the answer and desires the effect that specific answer will have on the jury.

As I said, earlier, "a good lawyer for the skeptic would be able to present the material from the JREF challenge (and the associated scientific "experts") in such a way as to make the non-existence of the paranormal an established scientific fact, as beyond question as the existence of gravity." If your lawyer can't do that, find a better lawyer.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Any system has its problems, real or potential, and the jury system is no different -- but it is not inferior to any other type of system, and I personally would not trade the advocacy/jury system for any other I am aware of.

A friend of mine in law school spent quite a lot of time on this in her first year classes, examining the real problems with the advocacy/jury system and trying to fix them. The final conclusion (which I'm sure was at least partly directed by the professor) was that any fixes that anyone has managed to come up with -- and a lot of very bright people have worked on developing fixes for literally centuries -- introduce more problems than they solve.

Of course, this is formally an argument from ignorance: I don't see a better way, so there can't be one. But a lot of very very intelligent people (and she herself was no dumb blonde) have admitted to massive ignorance on this very issue.

[Metullus]

Originally posted by new drkitten
And, furthermore, the lawyer has a certain degree of leeway even in what evidence he presents and argues -- although witnesses are sworn to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," lawyers have tremendous liberty in deciding what, among the mass of possibly relevant stuff, will actually be brought forward and presented as "evidence."

Just as an example, the statement that :

reveals an incompetent lawyer who is not in control of his own expert witness.

A competent lawyer for the skeptics would never pose the witness a question as "is there demonstrably no such thing as psi?" (Even a third year student in moot court wouldn't make such a mistake.)

Even if the expert wanted to make the distinction between "no evidence to support" and "evidence to reject," a good lawyer would not allow him to say that on the stand, possibly by cutting him off with "please just answer the question," possibly more politely.

A cooperative expert will have worked with the lawyer before the case to make sure that all the questions posed are word-for-word acceptable to the expert and that the answers will illustrate to the jury the theory of the case to be proven. An uncooperative expert will simply not be allowed to express his own views, instead being confined to answering highly directed questions to which the lawyer already knows the answer and desires the effect that specific answer will have on the jury.

As I said, earlier, "a good lawyer for the skeptic would be able to present the material from the JREF challenge (and the associated scientific "experts") in such a way as to make the non-existence of the paranormal an established scientific fact, as beyond question as the existence of gravity." If your lawyer can't do that, find a better lawyer.

Plaintiff's attorney has little to say about what the defendant asks in cross - therein lies the rub.

Even a less than brilliant lawyer will ask: "Mr. Expert, can you tell me today that there is absolutely no possibility whatsoever that such a thing exists?"

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Carn
Are there any good studies comparing the systems in things of cost, speed, wrong judgements,...?

There have been a few, but I don't have any handy. Judge Posner (a federal judge who has written a large amount on economic and business matters) wrote on a study involving highly complex financial cases back in the early 90's, IIRC. the outcome was that the judged (who are selected to handle those types of cases because of their past experience in that field of law) reported that they agreed with the jury verdict completely about 93% of the time. Disagreement over the amount of monetary award was (I think) the largest area of disagreement, butmy memory on that item is fuzzy.



With regard to the whole idea/thread, you have to pay attention to the sfihting of the burden of proof very carefully. It is one thing to place the burden on the person claiming psychic powers, for example -- either they can or cannot demonstrate those powers.

What 'taking them to court as frauds' does, however, is place the burden of proof squarely on those trying to prove fraud. Not only that, but (ina criminal cae), prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I think many are underestimating the extreme difficulty in meeting that burden. Fraud is a difficult case to prove under ideal circumstances, and metaphysical questions get even trickier.

N/A

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Metullus
Plaintiff's attorney has little to say about what the defendant asks in cross - therein lies the rub.

Even a less than brilliant lawyer will ask: "Mr. Expert, can you tell me today that there is absolutely no possibility whatsoever that such a thing exists?"

To which the brilliant lawyer will respond in re-direct, "Mr. Expert, can you tell me today that there is absolutely no possibility whatsoever of fairies living at the bottom of the garden who make the daisies bloom?"

The even more brilliant lawyer would already have prepped Mr. Expert with an appropriately withering dismissive response to the expected question in cross. "None that a rational person would entertain."

[Metullus]

Which brings us back to the jury pool...:)

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Metullus
Which brings us back to the jury pool...:)

Yes, but at least the jury pool like to think of themselves as rational.

[Beady]

Originally posted by Metullus
To the juror untrained in either science or logic...

First, you are right that the jury is the "problem," if you mean that as "problematic" as opposed to "obstructive." There's a saying, from another context, that libel is anything a jury says it is.

Having said that, don't sell juries short. They're not stupid. There are people, almost certainly there are some here, that think it would be better to have juries pupose-built for each case, comprised of experts in the fields most likely to be pertinent. I'm not one of them.

Yes, there's a pretty good chance (especially where I live) that you'll get a couple of old farmers, a little old lady and the village idiot in the pool, but the village idiot can be excused, and if there's one thing farmers can do, it's recognize bulls**t when they see it. You also stand a pretty good chance of getting someone like you or me.