EFT Claims

[-42-]

In the recent commentary is a EFT (Emotional Freedom Technique) guy who wants to win the $1mil.

http://www.randi.org/jr/041505hollywood.html
http://www.emofree.com/

He clearly doesn't understand what the word "Prove" means as you can see throughout the correspondence.

I think there is a pretty easy way to easily induce a room full of simultaneous headaches, though. Simply have a group of people listen to him run on about the gobblygook. That would handle that aspect.

Looking through the website, there's a claim under Allergies to be able to cure symptoms within a few minutes.

Does that include a skin allergic reaction? ;p

[juryjone]

I would have to agree with Randi that communication is much of the problem in regards to the claims on the million dollars, but it seems that Randi is somewhat guilty of not communicating clearly. Granted, he may not (probably IS not) publishing the entire conversation, but it seemed to me he left out a sentence or two that would have made his side of the conversation a little clearer. Such as, "We cannot determine if your claim qualifies for the prize until we know exactly what you claim you will be able to do." Or "Headaches can be of varying severity, and can stem from many causes. However, they show no outside indication that they are present or that they have passed. Therefore, headache is not the optimal ailment to use for a test of this kind, when you need a clear-cut proof of cure by alternative methods."

I realize Randi and Kramer can lose it occasionally, especially given the obtuseness exhibited by many claimants. However, I think, given that the JREF is an educatiuonal foundation, an attempt should be made to educate rather than immediately attacking a claimant too befuddled to know what their claim is in the first place.

[jmercer]

No.
(TM -- PixyMisa)

[jmercer]

Well, my above response probably deserves a little clarification.

If someone's going to apply to win a million bucks, they should at least read the rules and follow them. This is basic courtesy. If they don't have the time or inclination to do that, why would you even imagine that Randi (or anyone else at JREF) is obligated to help them formulate a proposal?

Nope, this comes under the heading of "I can't be bothered to read that crap you wrote - even for a million bucks - so here's what I'm gonna do to win it. You ok with that?"

It's a Challenge, not a counseling session!

[juryjone]

All I'm saying is that if you alienate people before they even start to formulate a claim in their minds, then they will never get to the preliminary tests. And to me, it's much more effective to say that claimants have been tested and failed than to say no claimant is coherent enough to be tested. That sounds like arrogance, not the disproof of a claim.

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by jmercer
Well, my above response probably deserves a little clarification.

If someone's going to apply to win a million bucks, they should at least read the rules and follow them. This is basic courtesy. If they don't have the time or inclination to do that, why would you even imagine that Randi (or anyone else at JREF) is obligated to help them formulate a proposal?

Nope, this comes under the heading of "I can't be bothered to read that crap you wrote - even for a million bucks - so here's what I'm gonna do to win it. You ok with that?"

It's a Challenge, not a counseling session!


The problem is, these people don't know how to follow rules. That's how they can believe in this nonsense in the first place. They believe that rules don't apply.

[Ian Osborne]

The guy was very clear about what (thinks) he could do - he can cure headaches with a series of taps and sentences. What he was unclear on is how to formulate a series of tests to analyse his 'abilities', for example, testing whether tapping in the 'wrong' areas or varying what he said affected the results. He was also unable to design his own test too, but all this proves is he's no scientist. Randi could've been more helpful in this respect - his responses seemed to anticipate more knowledge than the EFT guy clearly had.

Perhaps JREF could come up with a document outlining the expectations of the organisation, and making suggestions for protocols and methodology? I realise every claim is different, but it would be a start...

[IIRichard]

This whole thing sounds like a takeoff on "Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing" which you can research using a Google search. As the original garbage is copyrighted and costs a lot to learn, I wonder if the author of this scam just wanted to make a fast buck without the need to make up something original. On the other hand, there never seems to be anything "new" in this area, at least since Hahnemann.

[davefoc]

I was a little disappointed in Randi's response.

I felt that the guy was sincere and deserved a little more explanation as to the problems with his claim as a qualification for the million dollar prize.

I think, in principle, the claim that tapping and saying a few magic words could cure headaches involves enough a paranormal element to make it eligible for the million dollar prize. It wasn't clear to me that Randi clearly conveyed this fact to the claimant.

The problem, of course, is with how such a claim could be tested in a reliable way. I thought Randi might have done a little better job of explaining this to the fellow. Randi seemed to assume that the guy had a skeptics understanding of the nature of a reasonable test. As was mentioned above, if he had that understanding he probably wouldn't be making the claim.

I have never tried to talk to somebody who thinks like this guy (unless kumar counts) so I don't know how successful talking to the guy about the concepts of the placebo effect and double blind testing would be, but I just couldn't see that Randi was making much of an effort to explain them to the guy.

[EGarrett]

I was also disappointed by Randi's response, or at least what we could see of it.

The guy seemed to be honestly deluded. I understand that Randi must deal with this junk constantly, but there isn't progress made if you don't try to get people to the testing stage.

If he's fed up, Randi should just forward these e-mails to other people at the JREF. If I was there, I'd be more than willing to deal with a few loonies every week on his behalf, if only to try and explain the basic rules to them. It'd be a novelty.

[BillyJoe]

Yes, I agree, Randi should have helped him out alot more than he did. He probably wouldn't convince him but at least he may not now be passing on the ill-feeling that he has regarding Randi and scepticism

BJ.

[SquishyDave]

For what it's worth I also felt Randi missed the point. The EFT guy is not stupid, probably, but he clearly has no idea how to conduct a scientific test. Why would he? It's often not taught in schools or anything.

The answer I think he was after was "Yes your claim would certainly qualify for the million dollar challenge. Please carefully read our rules here (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html), and apply according to them, and we will go from there." Or something like that.

[Beth]

Originally posted by SquishyDave
For what it's worth I also felt Randi missed the point. The EFT guy is not stupid, probably, but he clearly has no idea how to conduct a scientific test. Why would he? It's often not taught in schools or anything.

The answer I think he was after was "Yes your claim would certainly qualify for the million dollar challenge. Please carefully read our rules here (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html), and apply according to them, and we will go from there." Or something like that.

I concur. I think that's what the guy was after, although I personally don't think his claim would quality. Sounded basically like something along the lines of SNL's Stuart Smalley's daily affirmations. I dunno, but there's probably a name for that sort of therapy, anyway it didn't sound paranormal to me.

Beth

[Number Six]

Originally posted by EGarrett
I was also disappointed by Randi's response, or at least what we could see of it.

The guy seemed to be honestly deluded. I understand that Randi must deal with this junk constantly, but there isn't progress made if you don't try to get people to the testing stage.

If he's fed up, Randi should just forward these e-mails to other people at the JREF. If I was there, I'd be more than willing to deal with a few loonies every week on his behalf, if only to try and explain the basic rules to them. It'd be a novelty.

I agree with this post. I think it's revealing that Randi included that exchange in his weekly column as an example of what he has to face. What we see is not only a potential claimant that has a hard time explaining a specific claim (which we expected) but also Randi being anything but patient and engaging. And remember, this is an exchange that Randi volunteered.

Granted, it must be a PITA (PITA = Pain In The A**) to constantly deal with people that are such poor communicators and/or wackos but then again that is by definition a major part of the JREF mission.

As I was reading the exchange I found myself wanting to engage the person and figure out exactly what it was they were claiming and how it could be tested. But then again, I never _have to_ deal with such people. If I'm in the mood then I go to go some website or Paltalk or something and engage such people and if I'm not in the mood I can do something else. If I _had_ to deal with such stuff day after day it'd probably drive me crazy.

The general notion of having JREF outsourcers that screen such things is a good one but in practice there might be problems. For example, the JREF probably wouldn't want non-employees formally representing them in such things even if it was just a case of doing prelminary screenings.

But in the end I don't see a way of avoiding an unpleasant reality given the JREF's mission and goals. Namely, if you're going to have a $1 million prize for something that you know beforehand is going to attract a certain type of people then you have to cope with such people when they want the prize, either by being extremely patient with them (which can be taxing) or else by blowing them off when they say something stupid.

[Keneke]

I've got to chime in against Randi's approach. Yes, this other guy was a looney who will probably never understand what a proper protocol is, and yes, it is not our place to teach people what correct protocol is...

Ah, but wait. Is this not an educational foundation? Do we not volunteer our time trying to teach the world that these claims are bunk? I understand how terrible a burden it is, going over and over the same ground, but for those who just surrender in a heap of sarcasm, regardless of the relentless stream of dumbness flowing into our inbox, I suggest a re-evaluation. Even the most ignorant man can be taught.

So, yes. We are fulfilling the stereotype of "grumpy old skeptics with long beards and tweed jackets". Battles can certainly be lost in PR, I fear.

[Ian Osborne]

I can certainly understand the applicant's frustrations when he says this:

When I point you to a step by step detailed description of the process, you say you don't have time to read it. When I try to give a quick overview, you say the description is "fuzzy."

What impression is that guy going to have about the Million Dollar Challenge, and who can blame him anyway? The Foundation rightly complains when people wriggle out of tests, lay down unacceptable conditions or fail to define what it is they can actually do, but this applicant was guilty of none of these sins.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Foundation rightly complains when people wriggle out of tests, lay down unacceptable conditions or fail to define what it is they can actually do, but this applicant was guilty of none of these sins.

Well, I wouldn't say his conditions were acceptable, either. We need scientific, verifiable, reproducible evidence, and he wasn't even in the ballpark. My concern is merely over the unwillingness to tell this guy why his protocols were unacceptable.

I see a lot of people do this, skeptic or no: they try to give a person "enough rope to hang himself with". The problem is that you come off unhelpful and confusingly terse if this particular debating trap is used incorrectly, which I believe in this case it was.

[roger]

I agree with much of the above. To be honest, I am seriously rethinking whether I want to support this foundation. Not that the pocket change I sent last year has any appreciable effect on the operations, but still. It's supposed to be an educational foundation.

Here's perfect example - my mother. She has an eight grade education at a rural school, and is natively smart but would really not know where to start to read and comprehend the legalese type of language of the challenge rules. And she believes in ghosts, and thinks she has evidence that her house is haunted. She is mistaken, of course.

But if I was to point her to JREF, she would write or email a very basic letter, along the lines of "there are ghosts in my house", along with some ambling anecdotes. With the expectation that there is somebody on the receiving end who is actually polite, and recognizes that she is a person with feelings. And that she isn't college educated. She'd, oddly enough, expect a conversation, and some honest help, because that is how she is normally treated. It's just her style, and the style of a heck of a lot of people who aren't college educated, or trained in offices on how to conduct official communications, or however one gains this experience.

But no, JREF has to act like a bunch of pompous f*****g a******s.


A company or individual who purposely lies in order to profit (spurious magnet devices, talking to the dead) warrants tough talk - a normal person without the sophistication to design, and articulate a double blind experiement does not.

Hey, I bet I'm stronger than Randi, through the luck of genetics. Shall I be rude and snide to him because of it, just like he is rude and snide to people with lesser IQs? Because that's the kindergarden level of petulancy that is being displayed here. "I'm stronger than you" - "I'm smarter than you".

:(

[Francois Tremblay]

Whine whine whine ! Why are these people posting here if they hate the JREF or Randi so much ? I understand wanting it to change, but it's obviously not going to change, and it shouldn't change.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Keneke
Well, I wouldn't say his conditions were acceptable, either. We need scientific, verifiable, reproducible evidence, and he wasn't even in the ballpark.

True enough, but what I meant was he wasn't building unneccessary barriers, giving him the opportunity to dodge the test and then blame JREF for his not taking it. I agree that nothing he offered was designed to produce 'scientific, verifiable, reproducible evidence' (though I think your reference to 'his conditions' is a little strong), but the ordinary man in the street has no idea how to formulate experiments to produce such evidence. And that's what the vast majority of applicants are - ordinary men (and women) in the street.

And Francois, no one here hates Randi. Quite the opposite. We respect and admire him, but do not uncritically accept everything he says and does. It's a credit to the Foundation that a thread like this can exist.

[davefoc]

...And Francois, no one here hates Randi. Quite the opposite. We respect and admire him, but do not uncritically accept everything he says and does. It's a credit to the Foundation that a thread like this can exist.

Exactly, many of us here have been Randi fans for more than twenty years and can't exactly remember when we didn't know of him.

He's my favorite celebrity, and I have followed his adventures long before I ever heard of this web site or the James Randi Educational Foundation. But all that doesn't mean that I think he is perfect and this was one of those times when I thought he was less than perfect.

[BillyJoe]

It seems that all of us (except for one lollypop kid :D ) feel Randi handled this incorrectly. That he included it in his commentary suggests that he was pleased with the way he handled it and he probably thought all of us would feel the same. I wonder if we could coax Randi into a response to our concerns.

BJ

[roger]

Exactly. This has nothing to do with hero worship, nor does it have anything to do with hatred of the JREF or Randi.

I am honestly perplexed by how some people treat others who lack critical thinking skills. Critical thinking is woefully undertaught in our schools, so far as I am aware. And some people just never become very skilled at certain modes of thinking. Don't we all know people who flat out can't do math, or read, or whatever, yet are overall both intelligent and nice people? I won't name names, but some of our posters have posted questions about their children who have difficulties in these areas. (note: I haven't seen any of them bashing others, either, and I am not implying they would). I would hope that people would know better than to be rude and condescending to somebody who has trouble with the associative law, or quickly reading the newspaper.

Yet rudeness, taunting, etc., seems to be the rule of the day when confronted with somebody who has trouble putting together a grammatical sentence, of reading and clearly responding to a question, etc. Why???

[heath]

I was confused by this piece too. Randi's posted on his site as an example of the sorts fo things he has to deal with but he's the one that comes accross badly.

The guy raising the question seemed reasonable if a bit lazy in his attitude and language. Randi is the one that was unreasonable and argumentative, in fact he came accross as a comple arse. Maybe it's best he leave these to Kramer from now on even if they do promise to be quick.

On another note if people keep coming up with the same things repeatedly why not flesh out the challenge FAQ? Then just link to the specific item when people come up with those queries. Demanding "read the FAQ!" never works in my experience but linking to the particular Q in the FAQ they have works pretty much every time (and that's not "see item 356 in the FAQ", it's "go to this link where your question has already been answered"). People are lazy, it's up to the person trying to educate to do the leg work sadly (sure there's the argument the person wanting the $M should do the work but this is the real world).

[jmercer]

Well... here we go again, I guess.

JREF has published an excruciatingly clear set of requirements for challenging for the JREF prize of one million dollars. This applicant (as others) clearly hasn't done any kind of research into what is necessary to claim that prize. A million bucks are on the line, and they can't be bothered to even read the rules? Please. I'll be sympathetic (as I have been) to people who are serious and trying their best - not someone like this.

So why is it incumbent on ANYONE at JREF to assist this person in understanding the requirements when they obviously haven't even read them? Case in point - Julia Henning (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54533). Here's a person that didn't read any of the Challenge information, was treated politely by Kramer, has been instructed on the next steps, and is still wandering around in woo-woo land... wasting everyone's time. How did we educate her? Or help her, in the end? Beth Clarkson (sp?) and Michael Anda both received information about specific questions on the JREF Challenge rules and the implications of those rules when they asked. That's because they did their homework, and were taken seriously in turn because of their approach.

Sure, Randi could have been more "helpful", if he so chose. But it's a CHALLENGE, not a partnership or customer service situation... and part of the challenge is the applicants ability to comply with the Challenge requirements. (Which are hardly unreasonable, I might add.)

If I apply for a government grant, do you think they're going to hold my hand and walk me through the process? Or are they simply going to point me in the direction of the instructions and wave goodbye until I come back with a properly completed application? If I participate in a Readers Digest lottery and fail to follow the labyrinth of rules (designed specifically to disqualify contenders before the final drawing, in fact!), do you think they'll make an exception for me?

The answer is, of course, "no".

Further, the Challenge rules and documentation were designed and published specifically to protect JREF from legal entanglements due to disputes over interpretation of the rules. As has been stated by JREF, the application (following the rules) is essentially a contract between JREF and the Challenger. Why would Randi (or any JREF employee) be expected to recite this information, opening themselves up to a possible lawsuit later on over what they wrote in an email? And if all they were going to do was cut and paste the rules into an email in response to this individual, then what's the point?

There is a process for the Challenge. People who avoid or ignore the process should not expect a particularly helpful (or even necessarily polite) response if they do so.

[Number Six]

That answer sounds like a long way of saying bascially "The nature of the challenge, our legal system and people that are likely to apply for the challenge are such that the challenge can't exist in a way that is educational." In that case just get rid of the challenge. What's the point of having it if when people inquire about it you're going to denigrate them?

Yes, many of them may deserve denigration in theory because they're too lazy to read the rules or too dumb to comprehend the rules or think too sloppily to understand how a proper test is conducted but that is beside the point. The point of the JREF is to educate (I think) and so any device or approach that is used that doesn't educate is counterproductive. The fact that it may be the other guys' fault that he isn't getting educated is irrelevant. Whether or not people are getting educated should be all that matters IMO.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Number Six
That answer sounds like a long way of saying bascially "The nature of the challenge, our legal system and people that are likely to apply for the challenge are such that the challenge can't exist in a way that is educational." In that case just get rid of the challenge. What's the point of having it if when people inquire about it you're going to denigrate them?

Yes, many of them may deserve denigration in theory because they're too lazy to read the rules or too dumb to comprehend the rules or think too sloppily to understand how a proper test is conducted but that is beside the point. The point of the JREF is to educate (I think) and so any device or approach that is used that doesn't educate is counterproductive. The fact that it may be the other guys' fault that he isn't getting educated is irrelevant. Whether or not people are getting educated should be all that matters IMO.

No. (TM - PixyMisa)

[Number Six]

Here is another thought about this general topic which came to me both after reading Randi's exchange in the commentary and also the Randi/Astrologer thread in the Million Dollar Challenge section. I think communication with people on these challenge issues would be much more efficient if they were done over the phone or in persron rather than on e-mail. In an e-mail one person writes a bunch and then the other has to answer each point and ask for clarifications or whatever and often some of what the first person wrote becomes irrelevant due to a clarification made earlier and it's just a messy process.

In other words it'd be easier to clear stuff like this up if the opportunity existed on both sides to ask for immediate clarification on a point rather than waiting until the other side finished a bunch of points, like happens in an e-mail exchange. It makes the whole process easier if both sides are clear as you go on everything up to that point. Sometimes my job involves either me explaining something complicated to someone else or someone else explaining something complicated to me and in those cases I just tell the person to call me because it's a waste of both our times to try to straighten such things out by exchanging e-mails.

[jmercer]

FYI, some of them are done on the phone after the initial contact. :)

Also, since you raised the question about JREF and education... just who is the education targeted at? The applicants? Or the rest of us? :)

[SquishyDave]

Originally posted by jmercer
Well... here we go again, I guess.

JREF has published an excruciatingly clear set.....etc
Fair enough, but this is how I see what happened, that EFT guy had no idea whether his brand of healing qualified for the million.

Why? Because to him it's not paranormal, it's normal, it's easy and it works, like the farting he mentioned. Why win a million for farting, or doing something equally easy, healing by fingering someones head? So he shoots off an email to ask if this thing really does qualify, it seems to good to be true. Instead of getting a response back along the lines of "Yes, that claim does qualify, but I really must insist you read the rules and apply properly for the challenge." He gets some baffling array of questions and a big load of nastiness.

No ones saying he should have been accepted into a challenge, just his question should have been answered (taking one word, either yes or no) and pointed to the rules so he could apply properly. Why didn't that happen? He wasn't asking for hand holding through the whole application process, not yet anyway. He simply asked if his brand of healing was eligible. Is this such a problem question?

[jmercer]

Originally posted by SquishyDave
Fair enough, but this is how I see what happened, that EFT guy had no idea whether his brand of healing qualified for the million.

Why? Because to him it's not paranormal, it's normal, it's easy and it works, like the farting he mentioned. Why win a million for farting, or doing something equally easy, healing by fingering someones head? So he shoots off an email to ask if this thing really does qualify, it seems to good to be true. Instead of getting a response back along the lines of "Yes, that claim does qualify, but I really must insist you read the rules and apply properly for the challenge." He gets some baffling array of questions and a big load of nastiness.

No ones saying he should have been accepted into a challenge, just his question should have been answered (taking one word, either yes or no) and pointed to the rules so he could apply properly. Why didn't that happen? He wasn't asking for hand holding through the whole application process, not yet anyway. He simply asked if his brand of healing was eligible. Is this such a problem question?

There's certainly some point to what you say, no doubt about it. But let's put the email in context:

"Sam" to James Randi
If I could demonstrate that EFT (Emotional Freedom Technique) works, would I win the million bucks? It involves tapping on points while focusing on a problem.


James Randi's immediate narrative after this two liner email:
James Randi
Not having heard of this recent boon to mankind from woo-woo land, I looked up "EFT" and found this site: www.emofree.com.


So "Sam" sends Randi a two-liner email. He doesn't introduce himself or give any background. He doesn't describe his claim. He doesn't even explain what EFT is. (Apparently assumes that the world simply knows about "EFT".)

So Randi has to take valuable time out of his day (and the older you get, the more valuable your time becomes :)) to research EFT. Then he responds to the guy:

Randi responding to "Sam"
What "points," what "problem"?


To anyone who even took the time to browse the Challenge - or some of the previous applicant exchanges - that would be a request for a specific claim.

After that, Sam launches into a detailed description of a hypothetical treatment to explain how EFT works. Still no specific claim or usable information, really. Just an increasingly wooish dialogue about something this guy believes in.

Now, at this point, you can either decide that Randi lost his patience, or that "Sam" had worn out his welcome. That's up to each person to decide. But from my perspective, all this dude did was annoy Randi without any effort to prepare himself for the dialogue, let alone think through what his claim would be.

Accordingly, Randi became increasingly short with "Sam" because (I assume based on LOTS MORE experience than any of us have with this stuff) he realized that this guy was just wasting his time.

I would also point out that by visiting the website he found, Randi actually did more research than "Sam" did... and he wasn't considering winning a million bucks, either. :)

[SquishyDave]

I see what you are saying jmercer.

But to me the whole thing is just another nail in the coffin of skeptic-believer communications, a simple "Although you didn't give me a lot to go on, it looks like your claims might be eligible for the challenge, but you have to go and apply through the proper channels or I cannot take this any further. Info is available here" and that would have been the end of it. No mess, no fuss. Game over.

IF he came back again asking stupid questions after that, well the gloves can come off.

Seems to me like he didn't want to get into the nitty gritty until he was sure he was eligible to win the million. I would do exactly the same, I hate paperwork. Why try to establish a claim from "Sam" when all he wanted was to know if he should bother slogging through the red tape?

You keep telling me applicants should read the information, yet Randi never once told him that. How would he know?

I don't work with people trying to convince me dowsing etc works all day everyday, so maybe I'm too far removed.

We may have to agree to disagree on this one.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by SquishyDave
I see what you are saying jmercer.

But to me the whole thing is just another nail in the coffin of skeptic-believer communications, a simple "Although you didn't give me a lot to go on, it looks like your claims might be eligible for the challenge, but you have to go and apply through the proper channels or I cannot take this any further. Info is available here" and that would have been the end of it. No mess, no fuss. Game over.

IF he came back again asking stupid questions after that, well the gloves can come off.

Seems to me like he didn't want to get into the nitty gritty until he was sure he was eligible to win the million. I would do exactly the same, I hate paperwork. Why try to establish a claim from "Sam" when all he wanted was to know if he should bother slogging through the red tape?

You keep telling me applicants should read the information, yet Randi never once told him that. How would he know?

I don't work with people trying to convince me dowsing etc works all day everyday, so maybe I'm too far removed.

We may have to agree to disagree on this one.

We probably will have to agree to disagree. :)

Regarding "reading the information" - the guy took the time to find Randi's email (which as far as I know, is only on the website), but that's about it. The link to the Challenge is pretty darned obvious on that webpage... that being the case, the "How would he know" excuse is kind of thin, IMHO. Obviously, "Sam" didn't just stumble on Randi's email, etc. - he heard about the Challenge, and then came looking for a contact instead of even doing the slightest bit of background investigation. And the JREF rules are brief - takes less than a minute to read, really... the FAQ takes a bit longer, but we're still talking under 3 minutes, I'd estimate. Let's say for a slow reader, going through both would take about 8-10 minutes. Not a bad investment of time if you're going for a million bucks. :) If he were wading through 50 pages of dense text... yeah, I could see that being an issue. But given the amount and clarity of the info... sorry, that's a bit over the top for me.

Skeptic-Believer communications really happens here in these forums, IMHO. The Foundation's purpose - and the purpose of the Challenge - is to educate the general public in the truth about the paranormal. Don't take my word for it - here's the text from the "About the Foundation" link on the main page:

JREF
The James Randi Educational Foundation is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1996. Its aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.

The Foundation's goals include:


1) Creating a new generation of critical thinkers through lively classroom demonstrations and by reaching out to the next generation in the form of scholarships and awards.

2) Demonstrating to the public and the media, through educational seminars, the consequences of accepting paranormal and supernatural claims without questioning.

3) Supporting and conducting research into paranormal claims through well-designed experiments utilizing "the scientific method" and by publishing the findings in the JREF official newsletter, Swift, and other periodicals. Also providing reliable information on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims by maintaining a comprehensive library of books, videos, journals, and archival resources open to the public.

4) Assisting those who are being attacked as a result of their investigations and criticism of people who make paranormal claims, by maintaining a legal defense fund available to assist these individuals.

To raise public awareness of these issues, the Foundation offers a $1,000,000 prize to any person or persons who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability of any kind under mutually agreed upon scientific conditions. This prize money is held in a special account which cannot be accessed for any purpose other than the awarding of the prize.



I draw your attention in particular to the fact that the list of goals does not include any particular requirement to educate believers in the paranormal. In fact, item 4 indicates a strong awareness of the adversarial nature of skepticism and "woo-dom", as it were.

[Zep]

We've had this issue out before w.r.t. KRAMER's handling of some applicants. The REAL problem is NOT guiding the misbegotten through the rules of the Challenge itself, it's the PR exercise of how you go about that. To be honest, more badwill(?) towards JREF and Randi has been generated through bad PR towards applicants than through applicants "failing" the application process.

The problem I see is that Randi, despite his age, is still quick-witted, but alas he also suffers fools badly. What this conveys to the woo folks is that he's just a grumpy old man, whereas we see that he has simply grasped the situation quickly and is not afraid to call a spade a spade. The problem is that it is not us skeptics who need to be convinced that Randi is trying to help them get their own act together, it's the woos who need the convincing. And that requires good PR no matter what your stripe - any politician can tell you that.

So what is really needed is a change in the way various things are said. Usually the best way is to consider yourself in the other person's shoes - if you were a woo, how would you like to be addressed if you considered seriously applying for the JREF Challenge. And among the first things I'd expect would be politeness and willingness to listen... The education and guidance towards developing a test protocol, which is usually inevitably necessary, should come after that.

Incidentally, there should be a standard well-written publicly-available FAQ for developing a test protocol somewhere on this website - can anyone point out where it is?

[jmercer]

Hiya, Zep... glad to see you jump in the thread. :)

Honestly - do you really see any amount of politeness helping the vast majority of the applicants? (Especially "Sam", who paid to learn this stuff, and - I'm sure - charges his "patients" for his "services".)

[BillyJoe]

jmercer,

Originally posted by jmercer
Honestly - do you really see any amount of politeness helping the vast majority of the applicants? (Especially "Sam", who paid to learn this stuff, and - I'm sure - charges his "patients" for his "services".) The point is that, if forum members and fellow sceptics get a bad feeling about reading how Randi handled an enquiry by a potential applicant as most of us here have done, think of the effect on an outsider browsing the forum and reading the commentary.

BJ

[SezMe]

Originally posted by jmercer
Hiya, Zep... glad to see you jump in the thread. :)

Honestly - do you really see any amount of politeness helping the vast majority of the applicants? (Especially "Sam", who paid to learn this stuff, and - I'm sure - charges his "patients" for his "services".)
Not addressed to me but I hope you don't mind my $0.02. You're right, more politeness is not likely to help the applicants very much. But I think what others are saying here is that there is another (maybe large) but invisible set of other people - namely lurkers or people who just happen by. Many may well not be on the All-American Woo team. THEIR reaction to the challenge dialogs also must be considered...and it is here that folks are arguing that the JREF interferes with its own mission.

[Ian Osborne]

And exchanges such as the one in the commentary offer fuel for those who criticise the $Million Challenge as worthless...

[jmercer]

These are all good points and I don't deny they have a lot of merit. Perhaps JREF would be served by taking a less adversarial tone in these communications - perhaps not, however. I don't think of JREF as an "outreach" organization. Erroneously or not, I view JREF as a bastion for promoting objective and critical thinking in an enviroment that is increasingly hostile to those concepts. Yes, JREF has flaws (we're all human, after all), and yes, there's room for improvement. (Again, true for everything mankind does.)

But since I view JREF (and science, and education institutions) as under increasing attack by fundamentalists and "woo" proponents, I (perhaps wrongly) have been experiencing decreasing sympathy for people who promote these kinds of distortions of reality - whether they are self-deluded or are knowing frauds. (I still have sympathy - and hope - for those that I perceive as struggling with their beliefs in the paranormal, such as Beth or Michael Anda.)

I equate "Sam" with "John of God" types. This man is providing utterly bogus "curative" treatments to people who may have a serious medical condition, and (I speculate) is taking money from them for these treatments. Sincere or not, paid or not, these people are harmful... and given what they are "selling" to the world, not particularly deserving of politeness. They are not scientists exploring or creating new medical options; they are not explorer's of the unknown, as they are often romantically portrayed. They are proponents of snake oil, of bogus treatments. At best, they are self-deluded fools that are unintentionally causing harm to others; at worst, they are charlatans that prey on the gullible.

It is, perhaps, a failure to not consider the impact that blunt antagonism may cause on those who are neutral in their views. But I also believe that much of the sympathy for believers in the paranormal as stated in this (and other threads) is misplaced.

I must point out that polite, logical and reasoned arguments against the paranormal have been going on since before the days of Voltaire, and the educational systems have much improved since those long-gone days... yet belief in the paranormal never disappeared, and seems be actually growing in today's world. So it may also be that having a veneer of politeness over cold rationality reduces the effectiveness of the effort. There's something to be said for the "cold pail of water as a wakeup call" approach. Perhaps blunt or even harsh rationality is required at times... perhaps even more often these days than before. As the saying goes "How do you stop a charging bull? Well, first you have to get it's attention..."

In general, people who are self-deluded are seeking ways to legitimize their delusions, not debunk them; similarly, people who are frauds are seeking ways to protect their lies, not expose them. Neither catagory is likely to come to JREF seeking the truth. (There are exceptions, but they are far in the minority.)

In a day and age when there are serious (and apparently occasionally successful!) efforts to promote creationism in schools over evolution... when stem-cell research is being stymied by emotional storms, rather than reasoned ethics... where fundamentalism in many religions is enjoying a massive resurgence in popularity, while educational and science-related budgets are being cut by governments... and with the media apparently aiding and abetting these attacks on rationality... I rather think that a bit of rudeness toward proponents of nonsense is ultimately a minor issue.

Just my opinion, of course, and I apologize if all this seems like a rambling dissertation - but for whatever reason, I felt it needed to be said. :)

(Edited to make some minor corrections and clarifications)

[Keneke]

Originally posted by jmercer
So why is it incumbent on ANYONE at JREF to assist this person in understanding the requirements when they obviously haven't even read them?

Because it's so easy simply to point them to the rules, and probably faster. To toy with them in the manner Randi did probably took him more time and energy.

Case in point - Julia Henning (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54533). Here's a person that didn't read any of the Challenge information, was treated politely by Kramer, has been instructed on the next steps, and is still wandering around in woo-woo land... wasting everyone's time.

Yes, but Kramer treated her politely at first, telling what she needs to do; that's the point. He didn't get sarcastic from the very beginning. Like I said before, I have no qualms dragging someone through the mud who doesn't listen, but there is a clear difference between the two cases.

If I apply for a government grant, do you think they're going to hold my hand and walk me through the process? Or are they simply going to point me in the direction of the instructions and wave goodbye until I come back with a properly completed application?

Even pointing one to the rules is fine, however curtly. This is not what Randi did.

EDIT: I seem to not check on the boards often enough to keep up, forgive me!

[Keneke]

I certainly can appreciate your monologue, jmercer. It is very frustrating. The problem is, I just didn't see an attack against woos, all I saw was snide remarks. It didn't seem like the cutting, damning accusations of Penn and Teller, it seemed like the bitter denials of an old man defeated. Of course, we know he is far from defeated, but image is everything, says the little Sprite Guy.

[EGarrett]

The most important points here that I see are...

1. It's easy and quick to link people to the FAQ. It could be even easier and quicker to have a "polite form response" of a few sentences that could be copied/pasted into e-mail.

2. I see no reason that Randi has to busy himself with these minor exchanges if they frustrate him so much. There are plenty of other people who can simply politely point would-be applicants to the rules page.

3. The JREF's goal is to promote critical thinking. You don't promote critical thinking to JREF members. They already understand it. You must promote criticial thinking to the objective people who haven't thought either way about it. You do that by being polite in your exchanges, so that uninterested passersby will see who's conducting themselves in the most mature and intelligent fashion.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by EGarrett
The most important points here that I see are...

1. It's easy and quick to link people to the FAQ. It could be even easier and quicker to have a "polite form response" of a few sentences that could be copied/pasted into e-mail.

2. I see no reason that Randi has to busy himself with these minor exchanges if they frustrate him so much. There are plenty of other people who can simply politely point would-be applicants to the rules page.

3. The JREF's goal is to promote critical thinking. You don't promote critical thinking to JREF members. They already understand it. You must promote criticial thinking to the objective people who haven't thought either way about it. You do that by being polite in your exchanges, so that uninterested passersby will see who's conducting themselves in the most mature and intelligent fashion.

Interesting perspectives. I agree with # 1. Easy to do, and should probably be a part of JREF's email signature.

Number 2, on the other hand - you need to read Randi's commentary. He did it on purpose to prove a point, and he hired Kramer so he wouldn't have to do it.

Number 3 - This makes no sense. You speak about these dialogues as if they were public conversations on a sidewalk as people pass by. In addition, why would an uninterested passerby even take notice of a quiet and mature discussion? Moreover, why would an "uninterested" anyone gain any insights from observing an exchange in passing? You can't teach someone critical thinking in a single exchange, no matter how polite, mature and intelligent. :)

[SquishyDave]

Originally posted by jmercer
Number 3 - This makes no sense. You speak about these dialogues as if they were public conversations on a sidewalk as people pass by. In addition, why would an uninterested passerby even take notice of a quiet and mature discussion? Moreover, why would an "uninterested" anyone gain any insights from observing an exchange in passing? You can't teach someone critical thinking in a single exchange, no matter how polite, mature and intelligent. :)
Nah, see what happens now is, whenever someone says "Oh no one ever wins the million, Randi sees to that!" You can point to evidence right in the commentary itself that seems to indicate this is true, Rand flat out failing to answer a simple question and getting nasty.

[SquishyDave]

My brother likes critical thinking also, but is not registered here. So I am posting his thoughts here, what follows is from him.

Questions:

1) Did Randi act in an appropriate manner when asked by a possible applicant if he qualifies for the million dollars?

2) Was the original question by the potential applicant one that should have been given a polite and appropriate response by the organisation under its guidelines. Question was “If I could demonstrate that EFT (Emotional Freedom Technique) works, would I win the million bucks?�

Arguments

Start with question 2)

Firstly, there is no evidence to suggest that “Sam� did not read the guidelines.

Secondly, rule one (appendix A) of the official rules clearly states that applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated
Also in FAQ2.2 (appendix A) it says Potential applicants are free to inquire (prior to submitting an application) as to whether or not their claim would be acceptable under the Challenge rules
Also his claim of EFT is neither explicitly listed as not being paranormal or being paranormal under FAQ 2.3 (Appendix A)

Conclusion

Answer to question 2
The potential applicant was well within his rights under the rules and FAQ guidelines to ask the question.

Following from that (and answer to question 1), Randi did not act appropriately when trying to ascertain the exact details/definition of the claim.

Another question that could be asked is did the potential applicant give enough detail about the claim for Randi to answer. The short answer would be probably not, however, in my opinion, this is irrelevant as Randi could have responded with a polite response saying he needed more information.

[EGarrett]

Originally posted by jmercer
Number 3 - This makes no sense. You speak about these dialogues as if they were public conversations on a sidewalk as people pass by. In addition, why would an uninterested passerby even take notice of a quiet and mature discussion? Moreover, why would an "uninterested" anyone gain any insights from observing an exchange in passing? You can't teach someone critical thinking in a single exchange, no matter how polite, mature and intelligent. :)

Au contraire. These exchanges are easily passed around. Any organization that wants to influence the public should always be on its best behavior.

Standard politics...that's all.

[Zep]

If JREF truly considers itself an educational source then it has much of the role of a teacher. So if you consider that metaphor, who would you rather be taught by: the snappy old pedagogue who continually fumes at you and refers you to the text book if you ask a dumb question, or the polite but firm mentor who is prepared to review your efforts with you until you get it right by the book.

Remember: Most of the people who come up with these woo ideas have only a passing acquaintence at best (if at all) with science and logic and development of arguments and proofs. Their very lives are based on faiths, often passed down by force, which they cannot question for fear of losing all sense of personal stability. Whereas many of us regular skeptics live by science and logic and are comfortable using them, and can easily consider other viewpoints without feeling threatened ourselves in the slightest. Therefore to scold them for their lack of understanding of what we hold to be simple truths is somewhat condescending, I feel.

On the other hand, the persistent scam-artists are really just the "bad" variant of the skeptic. They fully understand the nature of phenomenon as well as we do, as well as the scam they are trying to pull, making them all the more contemptible!

[Ian Osborne]

It will be interesting to see if the issue is mentioned in this week's commentary...

[Darat]

Originally posted by Zep
If JREF truly considers itself an educational source then it has much of the role of a teacher. So if you consider that metaphor, who would you rather be taught by: the snappy old pedagogue who continually fumes at you and refers you to the text book if you ask a dumb question, or the polite but firm mentor who is prepared to review your efforts with you until you get it right by the book.

...snip...

Slight aside:

Neither! :p

Seriously I don't think it is an either/or matter. A good teacher alters their approach depending on the person and also the person’s requirement at that time. The best teachers I ever had were the ones that (in hindsight) helped me only when I needed help, not when I wanted help. The most influential teacher I ever had was an elderly English teacher who was the epitome of an English schoolmarm. Incredibly strict and authoritarian in approach “don’t sniffle in my class� who would tell me if I was being lazy or even stupid (and I mean stupid in sense of meaning she considered I was showing a lack of intelligence for me) in no uncertain terms. However when I did need help because something was beyond my capabilities or I was struggling she would expend inordinate amount of time and effort to help me, help myself. Her approach meant I learnt to have confidence in my own abilities and to try but also taught me that there was no shame in seeking help when I needed it.


Back to the topic:


I don’t think there is one approach that “fits all�. To say, for instance Randi or the JREF should always be polite is just as wrong as to say they should always be rude. It has got to be horses for courses and of course Randi and the JREF do (and will continue to do so) make mistakes. In this particular instance it appears (in my opinion and from what I can read) that Randi was too quick to reach his conclusions and I would have thought a slightly more “polite� approach may have been more beneficial.

[Keneke]

Yeah, Randi did mention it again this week. Looks like there was more to the conversation than what we saw. To that I say: what a horrible edit job! But at least I am glad Randi is nowhere near as snide as he made himself seem.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Keneke
Yeah, Randi did mention it again this week. Looks like there was more to the conversation than what we saw. To that I say: what a horrible edit job! But at least I am glad Randi is nowhere near as snide as he made himself seem.

Yep, I agree. Context is just about everything in these kinds of discussions...

[BillyJoe]

Maybe it's just me but he still sounds gruff - to those who are gently suggesting that he may sound a bit gruff in his dealings with the claimant.....er.....sorry.....applicant

[Cosmophilosopher]

I agree that Randi's approach to this fellow was inappropriate, and only gives fuel to the fire that guys like Randi are not credible.
EFT could very well have certain effects, it COULD help a headache, or another psychosomatic complaint.
EFT is basically a perversion of Cognitive Therapy, and there CAN be some real effects with these processes. But it has to be TESTED FIRST.
The correct answer is... WE DON'T KNOW UNTIL ITS TESTED PROPERLY.

Regardless, Randi's approach was self-defeating, and has nothing to do with Skepticism.

I made a post about this serious problem in the Skeptic community.
Randi-style Skepticism's BLINDSPOTS
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55990

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Cosmophilosopher
I agree that Randi's approach to this fellow was inappropriate, and only gives fuel to the fire that guys like Randi are not credible.
EFT could very well have certain effects, it COULD help a headache, or another psychosomatic complaint.
EFT is basically a perversion of Cognitive Therapy, and there CAN be some real effects with these processes. But it has to be TESTED FIRST.
The correct answer is... WE DON'T KNOW UNTIL ITS TESTED PROPERLY.

Regardless, Randi's approach was self-defeating, and has nothing to do with Skepticism.

I made a post about this serious problem in the Skeptic community.
Randi-style Skepticism's BLINDSPOTS
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55990

Read it. Rant on, it's amusing. :)

[Cosmophilosopher]

What else that is very amusing, is the fact the EFT might very well be able to eliminate a headache.

Its just relaxation, and suggestion, and some tapping. A placebo.
Hypnosis, visualization and relaxation can very easily eliminate headaches with some people.
So can placebos.
There is lots of evidence for the effects of the placebo.
http://www.dylan.org.uk/placebo.html

I was shocked the way Randi treated this guy. When people approach a professional institute, they should be treated professionally, whether or not they are professional. Just set up a proper system to deal with people, and treat them all with respect.

I was also very surprised when he said that relieving a heachache in this way would qualify for the prize.
Perhaps someone who practices medical hypnosis should take him up on it. Here is a link to quite a bit of scientific evidence, that hypnosis has real physical effects on certain medical conditions. Hypnosis is just relaxation, and focussed cognition.

Hypnosis: Applications in Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery
http://www.emedicine.com/derm/topic921.htm

Also, Cognitive Therapy has scientifically proven that our Cognitions literally can cause depressions, panic, and many other physiological responses.
To deny this is pure folly and blindness.

http://www.beckinstitute.org/FolderID/194/SessionID/{A8437DEC-686D-48BA-9778-653492950CDE}/PageVars/Library/InfoManage/Guide.htm

or http://tinyurl.com/9ma7g

In my view, it seems most of these so-called alternative treatments are placebos, and placebos CAN work.

There is nothing supernatural about the fact that our Cognitions PROFOUNDLY influence our physiological responses. That is an established fact.

[-42-]

Originally posted by Cosmophilosopher

I was also very surprised when [Randi] said that relieving a heachache in this way would qualify for the prize.
Perhaps someone who practices medical hypnosis should take him up on it.

The Real Deal:
Tap on left finger, tap on forehead above ear and say "You love yourself completely"

The Placebo:
Tap on middle finger, tap on forehead above the eye and say "You love yourself completely"

Keep in mind, they are selling that the tapping locations matter, since that's what they teach.

[pmurray]

The challenge is a challenge: "You say you can do X? Well, do it and we'll give you a million bucks."

But medical claims are particularly difficult to demonstrate. Clinical drug trials, for instance, often involve thousands of volunteers and hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[BillyJoe]

CP,

Originally posted by Cosmophilosopher
In my view, it seems most of these so-called alternative treatments are placebos, and placebos CAN work.Placebos are used to see if a particular treatment works. If the improvement seen with the treatment is no better than that seen with the placebo, then the treatment is useless. It's pretty simply really.

BJ

[davefoc]

pmurray wrote:But medical claims are particularly difficult to demonstrate. Clinical drug trials, for instance, often involve thousands of volunteers and hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Yes, I thought that immediately about the claim. And the related issue of how one would go about separating the placebo effect from the paranormal effect that tapping in a particcular place accompanied with some magic words cures headaches.

I doubt that it is possible. And if it were it would not be the kind of thing that JREF is capable of testing. It would probably be necessary to dig up lots of people that are prone to serious headaches, have medical professionals in cooperation with the subjects characterize their headaches as objectively as possible and then do lots of controlled experiments to see if any significant difference could be found for any sorts of physical manipulation treatments. You'd have to control for the expectation of patients. For instance if a patient had expectations that a particular treatment would work that treatment might be more effective on him.

Overall, a very costly experimental regimen way beyond the means and skills of JREF to actually carry out. Although it would have been very difficult if not impossible to explain this to some individuals it might have been nice to try, I thought.

In essence this is a homeopathy type claim with the added problem that it is difficult to devise good double blind tests because the treatment is obvious to the subject. For the most part, JREF can't test most homeopathy claims either. These require medical professionals and large resources for controlled medical trials. Although, JREF can test some homeopathy claims that can be reduced to simple double blind experiments. I doubt that any of this potential applicant's claims could be reduced to a claim testable within the scope and resources of JREF but once again this was the key problem of the claim related to the JREF prize and I thought the exchanges should have been oriented to explaining that to the individual

I wonder if the people who have been arguing for a FAQ that would cover some of the standard type claims don't have a point. A few paragraphs on what kinds of medical claims can be tested might have been useful to this guy.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by davefoc

I doubt that it is possible. And if it were it would not be the kind of thing that JREF is capable of testing. It would probably be necessary to dig up lots of people that are prone to serious headaches, have medical professionals in cooperation with the subjects characterize their headaches as objectively as possible and then do lots of controlled experiments to see if any significant difference could be found for any sorts of physical manipulation treatments. You'd have to control for the expectation of patients. For instance if a patient had expectations that a particular treatment would work that treatment might be more effective on him.

Overall, a very costly experimental regimen way beyond the means and skills of JREF to actually carry out. Although it would have been very difficult if not impossible to explain this to some individuals it might have been nice to try, I thought.

In essence this is a homeopathy type claim with the added problem that it is difficult to devise good double blind tests because the treatment is obvious to the subject. For the most part, JREF can't test most homeopathy claims either. These require medical professionals and large resources for controlled medical trials. Although, JREF can test some homeopathy claims that can be reduced to simple double blind experiments. I doubt that any of this potential applicant's claims could be reduced to a claim testable within the scope and resources of JREF but once again this was the key problem of the claim related to the JREF prize and I thought the exchanges should have been oriented to explaining that to the individual

I wonder if the people who have been arguing for a FAQ that would cover some of the standard type claims don't have a point. A few paragraphs on what kinds of medical claims can be tested might have been useful to this guy.

Well... the Challenge agreement and the FAQ written by Bethany pretty much make the bearing of the cost clear:

Challenge
All of the applicant's expenses such as transportation, accommodation, materials, assistants, and/or all other costs for any persons or procedures incurred in pursuit of the reward, are the sole responsibility of the applicant. Neither the JREF nor JR will bear any of the costs.


FAQ
5.4. Who pays for my expenses, and why?

You do. It's spelled out in the Challenge rules. Remember that your position in the Challenge is that of defendant. But it's also important to realize that there is an important difference between this and a court of law: you are not innocent until proven guilty. Rather, you are normal until proven paranormal, and it is up to you to prove your paranormality. This means that you have to pay for travel, you have to pay to build any devices you want to demonstrate, and so forth. All the ingredients required in proving your claim are yours and yours alone. The JREF will under no circumstances incur such costs.


Under the circumstances, I would expect that any applicant who wanted to be tested for a medical-based claim would be required to follow the appropriate process as you described above. Prohibitively expensive, unless they're independently wealthy, of course.

Between the Challenge and the FAQ, there's really no excuse for an applicant to show complete ignorance of the requirements. Question aspects of it, certainly - but not simply be ignorant of it. :)

[Cosmophilosopher]

Its not so simple, actually.
If sugar water gives a placebo effect, then it has value in that sense.

If there are cognitive-behavioral techniques used WITH the placebo, then the results can EXCEED a basic placebo, in certain instances.

If it is an "active placebo", that gives dry mouth, etc, then it can also exceed the placebo response, and even equal the drug response.
The human body can even give effects as powerful as morphine, in certain instances.
It can also STRONGLY effect immune response, in ways that are not yet understood.

There is nothing simple about it at all. Its amazingly complex.

This is why many so-called skeptics could perhaps be called delusional, if anyone is delusional about this subject. If not delusional, then at least of a overly-simplistic primitive and uneducated mindset, and unable to perceive the subtleties in Nature, as it conflicts with their primitive, ignorant and oversimplified beliefs.

Originally posted by BillyJoe
CP,

Placebos are used to see if a particular treatment works. If the improvement seen with the treatment is no better than that seen with the placebo, then the treatment is useless. It's pretty simply really.

BJ

[Cosmophilosopher]

As far as The Challenge, since it is open to the public, there are going to be all sorts of Wild Claims being made from unprofessional people, and even unstable people.
Instead of mocking these people, it would be a great opportunity to open a discussion about how science works, and how difficult science is, and how expensive it is to do proper tests, etc. This could be done in an open way to educate the wider community.
It COULD be a wonderful chance to deal with these issues, in an educational way.

Also, when someone comes making claims about EFT, then all they need is a protocol for them to go through, and try to set up tests, etc.
It doesn't have to become a personal whipping session.
Its not "personal".

Behaving in an unprofessional manner just serves to help discredit something like The Challenge in the minds of the New Age folks.

Also, for so-called skeptics to claim that EFT doesn't work, without any studies being done, is just as wrong as claiming it works without any studies.
I actually knew a guy who did this EFT thing, and in my view its really a cognitive-behavioral intervention, and that can have real results, in certain limited circumstances.

But to claim it is "nonsense" is a false statement.
Its efficacy is unknown until it is properly studied.
That's it.

Is Randi going to listen to reason and modify his approach?
Not a snowflakes chance in hell.

So us in the wider skeptical community have to make clear publicly that Randi's style is not disciplined skepticism, but really just aggressive Debunking, which can function as a type of entertainment for some people, and create a type of cult-following.
But skepticism needs a more measured, precise, RATIONAL and less emotional approach to really impact the wider community, in my view.
If there are going to be emotions, we would be wise to communicate more positive emotions about the wonderful Cosmos, and the marvelous fabric of reality and the universe we live in.

[BillyJoe]

Cosmophilosopher,

Originally posted by Cosmophilosopher
Its not so simple, actually.
If sugar water gives a placebo effect, then it has value in that sense. In what sense?
You would use sugar water as a placebo only if you were doing a clinical trial of a solution that tasted like sugar water. The placebo would measure the psychological effect of drinking a solution that tastes like sugar water. If the test solution does no better it is useless for the condition being treated. (However, it would be simpler to put the solutions into identical capsules)

Originally posted by Cosmophilosopher
If there are cognitive-behavioral techniques used WITH the placebo, then the results can EXCEED a basic placebo, in certain instances. You would measure the effect of CBT against not with placebo to see if CBT is effective. I'm not sure what a placebo would look like in this case however.

Originally posted by Cosmophilosopher
If it is an "active placebo", that gives dry mouth, etc, then it can also exceed the placebo response, and even equal the drug response. I guess you mean that (for example) sugar water could have a greater placebo effect than sugar water placed in a capsule. However, it is still a placebo effect. To say that the effect of a placebo can exceed a placebo effect is a bit confusing I think..

Originally posted by Cosmophilosopher
The human body can even give effects as powerful as morphine, in certain instances.Yes....by producing endorphins (morphine-like substances).

Originally posted by Cosmophilosopher
This is why many so-called skeptics could perhaps be called delusional, if anyone is delusional about this subject. If not delusional, then at least of a overly-simplistic primitive and uneducated mindset, and unable to perceive the subtleties in Nature, as it conflicts with their primitive, ignorant and oversimplified beliefs. Yes, Randi! ;)

regards,
BillyJoe

[Cosmophilosopher]

An "active placebo" is a placebo that gives certain side-effects like a real drug, but they have nothing to do with what is being tested.

So if an antidepressant is being tested, an "active placebo" might be an antihistamine, that would give "dry mouth", which makes the placebo even MORE convincing to the patient and the doctor.
So the person is taking an antihistamine, but because they are getting dry mouth they THINK, "holy crap, this is the real drug!".
These types of active placebos can have a much greater impact than a pure dummy pill.

My point is that the entire acupuncture schtick, or all of the other cognitive-behavioral stuff that goes along with EFT, or whatever, could function as an active placebo, as the last time i checked, someone shoving needles in my ass, or tapping me on the head, is a real side-effect.
For True Believers, they are going to BELIEVE what they are being told.

So you could test it by changing the procedures, but much of the cognitive content would stay.
A better way to test EFT would be to take ALL of the cognitive part out of it.
Bottom line, until those EFT guys do some PROPER tests, then EFT is scientifically unproven.

[BillyJoe]

Cosmo,

I believe we are on the same wavelength.

BillyJoe