A Deadly Flaw in a Test Protocol

[Patricio Elicer]

Someone started a thread a time ago about whether the million can be won by chance. Seems the answer is yes, especially when there are flaws in the protocol.

It appears that Kramer and The Amazing himself made a gross statistical mistake in the protocol design to test a challenger who claims to be able to improve/change the sound quality of a music CD by applying a special "treatment" to it. That's bad news, and a serious concern, IMO.

The good news is that the error was detected by forum members, so it's pretty sure that the million is safe. BTW, it proved that plublicizing challenge's details in the forums is well worth the effort.

For details, go to http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53829, an explainatory post by Randi is in there.

For those who don't want to go through countless posts, here's a summary of the proposed protocol:

1) Two identical sealed CDs would be purchased. One of them is to be treated by one person from the claimant party, by whatever method he chooses to

2) Following strict double blind procedures, a second subject from the claimant team would attempt to identify, by listening, which of the two CDs is the one treated.

3) Step 2 is to be repeated a number of times, say 10, with the same two CDs (the claimant says he can have success ten times in a row).

This protocol looks fair at first glance, since the double blind procedure would neutralize any cheating attempt by the claimant "marking" one CD by means of a scratch or a distinctive smell, for example. This way, the odds of getting 10 hits in a row are 1 in 1024, pretty small.

But there's a trick to the case (here the credits go to a number of posters, Timothy being the first, I think). A flaw in the protocol is introduced by using the same pair of CDs in all the trials. The "treatment" can in effect introduce a distinctive "mark" (known to the tester) in one CD. So, all he has to do is pick the marked one (or the other one for that matter) in all ten trials, and the odds of being right will rise to 1 in 2. So a good safeguard is to use different pairs of CDs for each trial, so that we'll end up with a set of ten independant events.

Pretty clever folks!

[webfusion]

And this deserved a thread of it's own, why?

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by webfusion
And this deserved a thread of it's own, why? I wanted to point out and bring up for discussion the fallibility of the JREF on protocol design. The subject deserves a thread of its own, IMO. Also, the importance of discussing tests details in the forums.

[webfusion]

"Also, the importance of discussing tests details in the forums."

That's pretty much a given.

As for Randi's tests and JREF protocol design, so far we haven't seen any evidence there are flaws, since no tests were passed in the first instance.

In the meantime, my feeling is that this thread is going nowhere, based on a flawed OP that deserved to be posted in the Audio Critic file.

See ya over there, OK?

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by webfusion
As for Randi's tests and JREF protocol design, so far we haven't seen any evidence there are flaws, since no tests were passed in the first instance. Eh?, are you suggesting that a protocol can be proved to be flawed only after a test is passed?.

The point is that Randi outlined a protocol that he and Kramer were pretty sure was OK. But it was flawed, the claimant could've easily won the prize by chance alone.


EDIT: needless to say, you are free to post in whatever thread you want.

[webfusion]

The deadly flawed thread.

What are you going to say next to keep this topic alive?

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by webfusion
The deadly flawed thread.

What are you going to say next to keep this topic alive? Look dude, I'm not interested in keeping this thread alive. I started it because I honestly thought it was a sensitive subject. If no one shares my concerns and interest about it, and the topic dies promptly, so be it. I can live with that.

Interestingly enough, it is you who is adding fuel to keep it alive.

If no one has been able to pass a test by cheating, then the protocol is fine. Yes, probably. And I mean probably.

But you're missing the point. The fact that Randi has not made a mistake so far is no guarantee that he won't in the future. In the draft protocol for the "audio treatment" test, he made a mistake, and a serious one. And the worst part is that he and Kramer were pretty confident that the protocol was OK.

We won't wait till someone wins the prize by cheating to admit that the JREF made a mistake on the protocol, will we?

[webfusion]

Look dude, I'm not interested in keeping this thread alive.

Yes, you are. You keep asking more questions. You know, those sentences ending with these funny squiggly marks and dots under them ????

Here's the real point you don't want to face:
This same topic has been discussed at length previously in other threads (Winning by Chance (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53118))

and also

(
Screening Trickery (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53951))


and your opening a new thread on basically the same subject seemed to be unneccessary, dude.

But you go ahead, it's an open forum, so try and make whatever case you want to.

Have a nice day.

[Vikram]

Patricio,

While I agree that there was a flaw in the original protocol, I doubt if it would have been "deadly". I'm sure that the JREF, before committing to the final protocol and signing on it, would have passed it by a statistician for approval. Terming the flaw as "deadly' is being a touch too alarmist.

[Gr8wight]

I don't believe anybody is going to die if Mr. Anda wins his challenge.

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by Vikram
I'm sure that the JREF, before committing to the final protocol and signing on it, would have passed it by a statistician for approval. Terming the flaw as "deadly' is being a touch too alarmist. Alright, that's a good point, maybe I overreacted. However, I'm not sure that the protocol for the prelim is that tight. The Yellow Bamboo's is one example of it.

No one has passed the prelim so far, so just someone passing it would suffice for the woos to cry out loud victory over James Randi.

[Beady]

Originally posted by webfusion
This same topic has been discussed at length previously in other threads

So what?

Personally, I'm glad this thread, with it's summation, was started. I was trying to follow the other thread but got lost in the details. As for looking up topics previously discussed, who has the time? It's not as if there's an index, or anything.

And, when you get right down to it, why on earth should you care? Do you have any authority or liability in the matter, at all?

[CFLarsen]

Patricio,

Well spotted.

Have you emailed Kramer about this?

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Vikram
Patricio,

While I agree that there was a flaw in the original protocol, I doubt if it would have been "deadly". I'm sure that the JREF, before committing to the final protocol and signing on it, would have passed it by a statistician for approval. Terming the flaw as "deadly' is being a touch too alarmist.

Yeah, but having a thread entitled "protocol for prelim not that tight" would have been less exciting.

Your point about a final confirmation from a statistician is a good one, but the danger was that Randi was making so many positive noises about the 2 discs and freedom to treat, that if it had gone much futher down the line he would have been criticised for "going back on a deal". You know the way some people operate. They'll try to twist every tiny thing to make it seem like the challenge is rigged, even if it was an honest mistake.

[Beady]

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
No one has passed the prelim so far, so just someone passing it would suffice for the woos to cry out loud victory over James Randi.

Again, I have to ask "So What?"

It may be appropriate at this point to ask what the exact purpose of the Challenge might be. Is it bait? Is it a "dare"? Is it an encouragement?

If the $1 million were ever to be awarded, would JREF see it as a defeat? Why? Just supposing somebody did win the Challenge, and did it honestly, wouldn't this broaden scientific horizons? Is Randi's ego really that big, that he would take it as a personal or professional defeat? If so, then I don't see how maintaing the Challenge could be considered honorable.

[Vikram]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Yeah, but having a thread entitled "protocol for prelim not that tight" would have been less exciting.

Your point about a final confirmation from a statistician is a good one, but the danger was that Randi was making so many positive noises about the 2 discs and freedom to treat, that if it had gone much futher down the line he would have been criticised for "going back on a deal". You know the way some people operate. They'll try to twist every tiny thing to make it seem like the challenge is rigged, even if it was an honest mistake.
You're right about that. Maybe the JREF (if it wishes to) should make it a standard policy to pass all protocol proposals by a statistician before offering them to the claimant. After all, there's a lot of money at stake.

[Vikram]

Originally posted by Beady
Again, I have to ask "So What?"

It may be appropriate at this point to ask what the exact purpose of the Challenge might be. Is it bait? Is it a "dare"? Is it an encouragement?

If the $1 million were ever to be awarded, would JREF see it as a defeat? Why? Just supposing somebody did win the Challenge, and did it honestly, wouldn't this broaden scientific horizons? Is Randi's ego really that big, that he would take it as a personal or professional defeat? If so, then I don't see how maintaing the Challenge could be considered honorable.
Beady,

It would be a pity if someone were to win the challenge simply because of faulty experimental design. That certainly wouldn't in any way "broaden scientific horizons" and all that would happen would be that the woos would get the opportunity to claim that the paranormal exists.

I personally am a great fan of Randi and the work that he does and I wouldn't want to see the Million Dollar Challenge undermined by a tiny statistical error.

I don't know why you're trying to bring Randi's ego into the issue. He has repeatedly admitted whenever he's made a mistake. In fact, when the flaw in the protocol was pointed out, Kramer acknowledged it. He could have very well said, "Yes. Yes. We know that already. We realized this by ourselves. You didn't need to point it out. We'd already corrected the protocol." and could have tried to save face. But he didn't do that.

By bringing Randi's ego and the honor of the challenge into the picture, are you just trying to fan some non-existent flame?

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Patricio,

Well spotted.

Have you emailed Kramer about this? No, but I'm sure he's well aware of it.

[Patricio Elicer]

Beady,

I meant to say .... the woos would cry out loud that the paranormal exists

Vikram answered to your post nicely.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
No, but I'm sure he's well aware of it.

That's a belief. Go with evidence: Tell him. :)

[Vikram]

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
However, I'm not sure that the protocol for the prelim is that tight. The Yellow Bamboo's is one example of it.
The Yellow Bamboo protocol wasn't tight? Could you explain?

[Vikram]

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
I meant to say .... the woos would cry out loud that the paranormal exists
Precisely. I don't know why Beady went all ballistic there.

[Beady]

Originally posted by Vikram
Precisely. I don't know why Beady went all ballistic there.

I didn't go ballistic, I took issue with the idea that someone winning the Challenge, or even passing the prelim, would be a bad thing. To reresh your memory, the statement was:

No one has passed the prelim so far, so just someone passing it would suffice for the woos to cry out loud victory over James Randi.

If I didn't have a point, why was this later amended to read

I meant to say .... the woos would cry out loud that the paranormal exists

To me, the two quotes are substantially different, and I would be interested to see an explanation of why you apparently feel they are substantially the same. And if they are the same, why was the amendment necessary?

[Beady]

I have to wonder if you actually read what I wrote. I asked:

Just supposing somebody did win the Challenge, and did it honestly, wouldn't this broaden scientific horizons?

To which you answered:

It would be a pity if someone were to win the challenge simply because of faulty experimental design.

I honestly do not understand what your response has to do with my question.

[Vikram]

Beady,

If you cast your eyes to the post that begins this thread, you'll realize that Patricio was expressing concern about the fact that someone might win the million dollars not because they actually have any ability but simply because the protocol was flawed. That's what everyone has been referring to on this thread.

Except perhaps you.

For some reason, you seem to have chosen to believe that people here were concerned that some genuine paranormal phenomenon would pass rigorous JREF tests and get the million. That's not what people on this thread were talking about AT ALL. You were the one who completely misinterpreted Patricio's statement and when Patricio tried to word it differently so that you would understand, you called it an 'amendment' and asked for an explanation. :rolleyes:

In any case, so that all your doubts should be smoothed out, let me state the following:

1) Someone wins the challenge because of flawed protocol: A very sad day. I wouldn't want such a day to ever come.

2) Someone wins the challenge by passing proper protocol: A very happy day. The door to a whole new field of knowledge will have been opened.

Does that clear out any of your confusion? As far as the true purpose of the test goes, you would have to ask Randi, because it's his test. As for me - as much as I would be delighted if a hitherto-unknown phenomenon were to be revealed to the world, I also find the 'put-up-or-shut-up' potential of the challenge to be invaluable.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Vikram

2) Someone wins the challenge by passing proper protocol: A very happy day. The door to a whole new field of knowledge will have been opened.


Unless they win by chance.

Unless it is then deemed, because the event occured in the natural and normal world, that the event was really not supernatural and paranormal all along.

Unless people conclude that Randi and/or team getting tricked is more probable than a supernatural or paranormal thing occuring.

Unless people realize that one event occuring doesn't determine anything in science, only replication does.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by jzs
Unless they win by chance.

But that will be picked up by later research.

Unless it is then deemed, because the event occured in the natural and normal world, that the event was really not supernatural and paranormal all along.

Doesn't matter. It will still be something new and exciting.

Unless people conclude that Randi and/or team getting tricked is more probable than a supernatural or paranormal thing occuring.

Of course that's more likely. People get tricked every day. People don't have paranormal experiences every day. Anyway, if it's a trick it's not a proper protocol, is it?

Unless people realize that one event occuring doesn't determine anything in science, only replication does.

No one's saying that we'll instantly understand what happened. Only that a new possibility will have been proposed. Mind you, I have to say that, even if this chip thing does seem to make a CD sound different, I doubt my life will be any better as a result.

[Vikram]

Originally posted by jzs
Unless they win by chance.
A one-in-a-million chance under controlled settings is odds enough to justify serious further investigation.
Unless it is then deemed, because the event occured in the natural and normal world, that the event was really not supernatural and paranormal all along.
That would be equivalent to the opening of a door into a new field of knowledge.
Unless people conclude that Randi and/or team getting tricked is more probable than a supernatural or paranormal thing occuring.
As TheBoyPaj said, then it wouldn't be a proper protocol.
Unless people realize that one event occuring doesn't determine anything in science, only replication does.
What part of "the door to a whole new field of knowledge will be opened" did you not understand?

[Beady]

Originally posted by Vikram
If you cast your eyes to the post that begins this thread, you'll realize that Patricio was expressing concern about the fact that someone might win the million dollars not because they actually have any ability but simply because the protocol was flawed.

That's how the thread started, but that's not what I was responding to. I was responding to:

No one has passed the prelim so far, so just someone passing it would suffice for the woos to cry out loud victory over James Randi.

IOW, passing the prelim, in and of itself, with no qualifiers applied.

If "just" in this quote does not mean "regardless of how they do it, whether by true ability, mistake or chance," then please explain to me exactly what it does mean.

Alternatively, please explain how you interpret "just" to mean "solely because of flawed protocol."

You were the one who completely misinterpreted Patricio's statement and when Patricio tried to word it differently so that you would understand, you called it an 'amendment' and asked for an explanation.

Looking at the two quotes side-by-side, I don't see that they are different versions of the same statement, unless, of course, it is your contention that "the woos would cry out loud that the paranormal exists" is synonymous with " the woos to cry out loud victory over James Randi."

I ask you directly: Would proof of the existance of "the paranormal" be a victory over James Randi? If it would not, then Patricio's two statements are completely different in meaning and I did not misunderstand the original. If it would, then his two statements really are different wordings of the same statement. If the latter is the case, why is my original question ("So what?") inappropriate? And, as a bonus, what is the answer to, "So what?"

BTW, I am perfectly willing to allow that Patricio simply misspoke the first time around, that the second version was a correction (which I happen to agree with), and that correction makes the subsequent "discussion" moot. I am curious, though, why you are so adamant that he was not making a correction, but rather was speaking more slowly so that I might understand.

[Vikram]

Beady,

This is going to be my last attempt to explain this. If you still don't understand, then I will not attempt to explain it any further.
Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
Alright, that's a good point, maybe I overreacted. However, I'm not sure that the protocol for the prelim is that tight. The Yellow Bamboo's is one example of it.

No one has passed the prelim so far, so just someone passing it would suffice for the woos to cry out loud victory over James Randi.
This was the original post by Patricio. It's very very clear that Patricio was concerned that the protocol for the prelim might not be that tight. He follows that up with his concern that since no one has passed the prelim so far, just someone passing it would suffice for the woos to cry out loud victory over James Randi. Any logical mind will realize that the two statements are clearly contextually connected to each other. It's obvious that Patricio is concerned that a less than tight protocol might lead to a state of affairs in which the woos would cry out loud victory over James Randi. It's obvious that Patricio did not suddenly diverge into an analysis of the general implications of someone passing the challenge. There were no qualifiers required. Which basically renders all your further comments unnecessary.

Patricio had (in the context of the prelim protocol not being tight) said "just someone passing the prelim would suffice for the woos to cry out loud victory over James Randi." In response to your "So what?" and your sudden flare-up about Randi's ego, he reworded it as "the woos would cry out loud that the paranormal exists".

You chose to excise the "woos would cry out loud" parts of the sentences and only compare "victory over James Randi" with "the paranormal exists". Another example of you taking things completely out of context. To any rational mind, the existence of the paranormal would not be a victory over James Randi. But it is obvious that the woos, whose delusions are regularly shattered by Randi, would certainly equate the two. For them, even a claim that passes a faulty protocol would be enough for them to cry out that the paranormal exists and that they have been victorious over James Randi.

Hence, it is my contention that "the woos would cry out loud that the paranormal exists" is synonymous with " the woos to cry out loud victory over James Randi."

To selectively excise the sentence and attempt to equate "the paranormal exists" to "victory over James Randi" is just plain silly. That is what you have been doing. So many of your posts on this thread have been plain silly.

As far as my response to your "so what?" goes, I simply tried to clear out your misunderstanding of Patricio's post and explain to you better what Patricio meant. Patricio himself endorsed my explanation. In any case, I have taken issue not at your asking of a question (you are free to ask whatever genuine questions you might wish to), but at your pointless inflammatory remarks about Randi's ego. Further down the page, I also explained to you the general implications of someone passing the challenge.

Is that clear now? If it isn't, then I bid you well.

[Patricio Elicer]

Beady,

I'm sorry I've caused such a confusion for not wording my thoughts correctly. I entirely agreed with you when you first objected my infamous remark, that's why I later reworded it into what I really meant to say.

I for one, would be the happiest person if someone was to genuinely pass the challenge on a paranormal claim. It would revolutionize our present understanding of nature, it would change our lives in unforseeable ways, etc. Also it would make our world more exciting than it is today, because it would be proof that we are not trapped by the laws of nature as we know them.

You see, I'm not concerned that someone passes the test per se. If the woos cry out loud victory over James Randi on a genuinely paranormal claim, I'd be happy. And I'm sure Randi would as well. He would have the honor to be the first researcher ever to have tangible proof that the paranormal exists. But what I'd hate, as Vikram put it, is that the woos cry victory over James Randi due to a faulty protocol.

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by Vikram
The Yellow Bamboo protocol wasn't tight? Could you explain? In my estimation a preliminary test was conducted under loosely conditions, which led the claimants to proclaim that they had won the prize (these news spread over the internet).

In the event that you missed the case originally, I'll provide you the links to the Commentaries with Randi's descriptions of the whole "affair". There's a thread in the "Challenge" section also, that I've been unable to locate, where the matter is discussed at lenght.

The worst aspect IMO, is that Randi appointed a stranger to conduct the test. He didn't know that person, except for a few e-mail exchanges or phone conversations. The man could've perfectly been in collusion with the claimant, but Randi argued that his "intuition" told him that the man was an honest person. A strange remark by Randi.

Second, it appears that the guy was not given a written and detailed protocol as a clear guideline on how the test was to be conducted. I infere this, because of Randi saying "I told him this", "I told him that".

September 19, 2003 Commentary (http://www.randi.org/jr/091903.html)

September 26, 2003 Commentary (http://www.randi.org/jr/092603.html)

October 3, 2003 Commentary (http://www.randi.org/jr/100303.html)

October 10, 2003 Commentary (http://www.randi.org/jr/101003.html)


[Edited for spelling]

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Vikram
A one-in-a-million chance under controlled settings is odds enough to justify serious further investigation.


If it occurs and is considered natural and normal, then the odds are thrown out the window, as a supernatural and paranormal challenge wouldn't apply anymore, by definition.

[Vikram]

Originally posted by jzs
If it occurs and is considered natural and normal, then the odds are thrown out the window, as a supernatural and paranormal challenge wouldn't apply anymore, by definition.
If a paranormal claim passes a proper JREF challenge protocol (and the odds of passing it by chance are less than one in a million) then I bet a lot of scientists would consider it worth their time and effort to investigate it further by replicating the results and expanding upon the tests. That would probably lead to the phenomenon being recognized as natural and normal. We will all be able to celebrate then because a new and wonderful world of knowledge will have been revealed to us.

Now of course, I'm not going to hold my breath until a valid claim comes along. To the best of my knowledge, I'm not an anaerobic creature.

[Darat]

I've heard Randi say on two separate occasions that if the challenge was won the money is paid out, whether it was won by means of a “perinormal� ability, a paranormal ability or plain old fashioned skilled trickery.

[Beady]

Originally posted by Vikram
This is going to be my last attempt to explain this.

Thank you.

You chose to excise the "woos would cry out loud" parts of the sentences and only compare "victory over James Randi" with "the paranormal exists". Another example of you taking things completely out of context.

I wonder how you can say such things and look yourself in the mirror. For how many messages did I quote the passages in their entirety? I summarized only in the most recent one in order to ask a question, and now you are accusing me of purposely editing throughout the exchange. Those parts I cited in my last post *were* the changes made, so why compare the unchanged parts? Talk about taking things out of context!

As far as my response to your "so what?" goes, I simply tried to clear out your misunderstanding of Patricio's post...

Whose misunderstanding? Let's see what Patricio, himself, has to say about it (a message or two after yours):

I'm sorry I've caused such a confusion for not wording my thoughts correctly. I entirely agreed with you when you first objected my infamous remark, that's why I later reworded it into what I really meant to say.


Patricio agreed with my "misunderstanding"? And you say that proves my error?

You are using a definition of logic with which I have been heretofore unfamiliar.

[Beady]

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
I'm sorry I've caused such a confusion for not wording my thoughts correctly. I entirely agreed with you when you first objected my infamous remark, that's why I later reworded it into what I really meant to say.

Thank you! I actually figured it was simply a misstatement, and was trying to engage you over it, the same way Vikram, himself, engaged you over the "deadly" part. I got sidetracked by Vikram's rather pointless objections to my own post. Anyway, it sounds like you might have fallen victim to one major problem that writing on the web shares with oral communication: little or no chance to review and edit.

Other than that, we are in total agreement. My bit about Randi's ego was said in objection to the statement, it was not a diatribe against Randi or the Challenge. I think part of what caused my reaction was my memory of the FAQ's original casting of the Challenge as a hostile process, with simultaneous protestations of fairness.

But what I'd hate, as Vikram put it, is that the woos cry victory over James Randi due to a faulty protocol.

As I said, we're in total agreement. I think where we might differ is that I'm a little more open than most to the possibility that something we consider paranormal might, in actuality, be merely unknown. I'm out of my depth, here, but I liken it to how Newtonian physics were once, literally, considered the Laws Of The Universe, but we now know that there's a theoretical realm where they begin to break down.

I'm probably saying it badly. I guess what it amounts to is that I believe that, if we don't know, then all it means is that we don't know, not that it's not possible. Please remember, however, that when I say things like this that I mean it all within the context of my sig line:

[Vikram]

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
In my estimation a preliminary test was conducted under loosely conditions, which led the claimants to proclaim that they had won the prize (these news spread over the internet).

In the event that you missed the case originally, I'll provide you the links to the Commentaries with Randi's descriptions of the whole "affair". There's a thread in the "Challenge" section also, that I've been unable to locate, where the matter is discussed at lenght.

The worst aspect IMO, is that Randi appointed a stranger to conduct the test. He didn't know that person, except for a few e-mail exchanges or phone conversations. The man could've perfectly been in collusion with the claimant, but Randi argued that his "intuition" told him that the man was an honest person. A strange remark by Randi.

Second, it appears that the guy was not given a written and detailed protocol as a clear guideline on how the test was to be conducted. I infere this, because of Randi saying "I told him this", "I told him that".
Oh yes! I do recall reading this. And I also recall wondering why Randi doesn't demand that all preliminary tests be performed in Florida as well. After all, if the claimant were to pass even the prelim, he/she would get $10,000 on the spot, which by itself would be enough to cover many times over any expenses that the claimant might have had to bear for the travel.

That would of course lead to a lot of people complaining that the challenge is inaccessible to them because they are unable to fly to Florida, but I think that's quite a weak argument - if you're sure you're going to win a million, then a thousand in plane fare shouldn't really be enough to dissuade you. And performing the test in Florida under the direct supervision of either Randi or someone directly authorized by Randi would definitely eliminate the possibility that someone in cahoots with the claimant might volunteer to test him/her.

A more valid criticism of the demand that the preliminary test be performed in Florida is that a number of foreigners are often rejected when they apply for US visitor visas. That problem could be solved by having the claimant tested by the nearest official skeptic organization in their own or another country.

In any case, I suppose this is Randi's call. It IS his million after all. :)

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by Vikram
Maybe the JREF (if it wishes to) should make it a standard policy to pass all protocol proposals by a statistician before offering them to the claimant.

This is exactly what we do, whenever we're getting close to hammering down a protocol, which happens rarely.

Chip Denman of the DC Area Skeptics is the man we consult on all such matters. I talked to him once last year, and then the applicant vanished.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Vikram

After all, if the claimant were to pass even the prelim, he/she would get $10,000 on the spot,...


Is this new? I don't see it in the FAQ or rules..



In any case, I suppose this is Randi's call. It IS his million after all. :) Actually it's not.

[TheBoyPaj]

It's point 8 of the rules.


Edit: actually, it's not. That's for the final test. not the prelim.

[Vikram]

Diogenes,

You're right about that. I'm sorry. I must have misread the rules. I thought $10,000 were for the preliminary test. My bad.

Saying that it's Randi's money was just an abbreviated way of saying that the money belongs to his foundation and since he's laid down the rules for the foundation, that of course gives him the right to execute the tests in the way he deems fit. Hence, even though I personally feel allowing someone he's never met to execute a test seems a little lax (if I were in his place I would only probably insist that all tests should be performed in Florida or be performed by well-establised skeptics associations), one must acknowledge that since it's his money, so to speak, he has the right to assign anyone he wants as a tester. Does that clarify it?