Would you try it, if you thought you could?

[Temporal Renegade]

Just a thought, brought about by too much coffee, and not enough sleep:

If you suddenly thought that you just might have some sort of 'special power', would you try for the prize, even though you've been a long-time skeptic? For example, if you've guessed who was calling you on the phone nine times out of ten, or 'sensed' that someone was behind you, etc?

Or, would you just chalk it up to intuition & guesswork, and not even think about it?

(If this seems like a ramble, please forgive me, as I've been up for almost 36 hours!)

[webfusion]

Thinking about sending in an application myself.

Randi's weekly commentary about the Gas-Saver thingy nudged me towards trying to claim the million, showing that it WORKS!

I'm in the process right now of compiling extensive and supportable data, and recruiting expert witnesses to sign some notarized affidavits (if required by the next Challenge administrator).

The double-blind part is tricky, since I need an identical vehicle that doesn't have the device attached to the engine, and I'll need to drive that one part of the time, while not knowing which car is which! #)*^(G#$@Y

I cannot offer the official application as yet, since there is the minor issue of how to define the claim and how to set up a preliminary test protocol.

Essentially, what it boils down to is this:

I wish to show easily observable evidence of a consumer device that 'magically' and without any known scientific reason or explainable mechanical principle, allows my ordinary new 2006 Huyundai Sonata V6 GLS to get better gas mileage than it obtained prior to the installation of this device.


Any advice from the usual gang of numbskulls here is appreciated.

[rjh01]

Suggest before you apply you do some tests yourself. See how much this device does save you. If it saves you nothing you have saved yourself heaps of embarrassment.

[ChristineR]

The easy thing to do is to get someone to install (or not install) the device then drive around and note your mileage. Ideally you could obtain two devices and have your helper destroy the innards on one so that you can't tell which is which even if you have to look at the engine.

Then after a few weeks have the helper install the other (dummy or real) device.

Have the helper flip a coin to decide which device to install. Do ten trials. If you want the test to be double blind, don't talk to your helper until the test is over. You could leave notes of a predetermined nature (dates, times, no other info.)

For the JREF tests you are probably going to need to pay someone (an independent test lab approved by JREF) to do the same test for you. The drivers have to be somebody the JREF can trust not to peek into the devices and see if they are dummies.

[WanderinWTF]

Just a thought, brought about by too much coffee, and not enough sleep:

If you suddenly thought that you just might have some sort of 'special power', would you try for the prize, even though you've been a long-time skeptic? For example, if you've guessed who was calling you on the phone nine times out of ten, or 'sensed' that someone was behind you, etc?

Or, would you just chalk it up to intuition & guesswork, and not even think about it?

(If this seems like a ramble, please forgive me, as I've been up for almost 36 hours!)
I think that might be the only problem for a lot of people is knowing we all have something but how do you proove it. I prefer to use gifts, powers seem to comic book. Hey next time you stay up for this long wanna use a instant messenger and ramble on and continuely thinking and moving on. I have found that when up for a good amount of time and having to post it seems it slows down somethinking cause when someone stays up some need to just work on something real strong while the thought is still fresh. When I post i have to wait for a response slows it down to me. PM me if you wanna try it.

[Peachy]

If I could prove to myself that I had some sort of special gift, then I would. Hey, its a million bucks! I can curb my skepticism for a bit for a million bucks.

[TjW]

(snippage)
Essentially, what it boils down to is this:

I wish to show easily observable evidence of a consumer device that 'magically' and without any known scientific reason or explainable mechanical principle, allows my ordinary new 2006 Huyundai Sonata V6 GLS to get better gas mileage than it obtained prior to the installation of this device.

Any advice from the usual gang of numbskulls here is appreciated.

Well, one obvious way would be to do an EPA "driving cycle" on a dyno or a track. Use several different drivers.
Ideally, the drivers should not know what is being tested.
Or even distract them by allowing them to think they're being measured to see how accurately they can follow the profile. That only requires one car.

Incidentally, if the car really is new, there is some slight decrease in friction in the first thousand miles or so, as the engine parts wear together.

[Pup]

Sure, I'd try the challenge. If I found I could do something that seemed paranormal, I'd first want to test it myself in all the ways I could think of, to understand what was happening. If it still seemed paranormal, it would either be because I'd overlooked some obscure normal explanation, or it was paranormal.

Taking, or even just applying for, the JREF challenge would be a positive step either way, by enlisting others more experienced than me, to help finally discover the explanation, or making me a million richer. The abuse and ridicule seems to be reserved for those who are trying to preserve their self-delusion, and not for those who are earnestly seeking all possible normal explanations.

[thatguywhojuggles]

I'm not sure why you would need to double blind the car driving experiment. Is it because the driver might drive differently (burn more or less gass) if he knew?

[Mercutio]

I'm not sure why you would need to double blind the car driving experiment. Is it because the driver might drive differently (burn more or less gass) if he knew?
That is one possibility, and one is all it takes.

[Gr8wight]

Just a thought, brought about by too much coffee, and not enough sleep:

If you suddenly thought that you just might have some sort of 'special power', would you try for the prize, even though you've been a long-time skeptic? For example, if you've guessed who was calling you on the phone nine times out of ten, or 'sensed' that someone was behind you, etc?

Or, would you just chalk it up to intuition & guesswork, and not even think about it?

(If this seems like a ramble, please forgive me, as I've been up for almost 36 hours!)

Being a skeptic, I would have to do a significant amount of self testing, in order to convince myself that something that deserved further study was, indeed, going on. I would then post here describing my experience and asking the forum regulars for advice on more self testing, looking for fresh minds to point out methodology errors I may have missed in my own self designed tests, and recommend different tests I could try. If, after that round of self testing, I still believed I was able to demonstrate an ability that did not have a mundane explanation, I would definitely apply for the challenge.

To use your analogy, if I predicted correctly the identity of 9 of the next 10 people who called me on the telephone, I would have to repeat that feat, at a similar level of accuracy, several times before I even suspected that something odd was going on.

[webfusion]

BTW, the item in question is this:
http://www.alibaba.com/catalog/11268765/Super_Tech_Fuel_Saver.html


It was mentioned in this Commentary:
http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-01/010606netherlands.html#i3
Jan. 6th, 2006
randi says --
"I continue to be puzzled at why these folks don’t just demonstrate their invention for the JREF and walk away with our million-dollar prize!"

Since I am not the inventor or the distributor making any claims of its' effectiveness, I was wondering if I could be eligible for the prize as well just by being an end-user who showed results? -- if we take the example of the GSIC, then it should be clear that I am free to pursue this vigorously, scientifically and properly, within the parameters of the Challenge.

Of course, since there is no Challenge Administrator currently, I'm not sure how to proceed.

[Freethinker]

I'm not sure why you would need to double blind the car driving experiment. Is it because the driver might drive differently (burn more or less gass) if he knew?

Virtually any device claimed to improve mileage will do so if the driver knows about it and believes it might work. They want it to work, so they are easy on the gas.

[ChristineR]

BTW, the item in question is this:
http://www.alibaba.com/catalog/11268765/Super_Tech_Fuel_Saver.html


It was mentioned in this Commentary:
http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-01/010606netherlands.html#i3
Jan. 6th, 2006
randi says --
"I continue to be puzzled at why these folks don’t just demonstrate their invention for the JREF and walk away with our million-dollar prize!"

Since I am not the inventor or the distributor making any claims of its' effectiveness, I was wondering if I could be eligible for the prize as well just by being an end-user who showed results? -- if we take the example of the GSIC, then it should be clear that I am free to pursue this vigorously, scientifically and properly, within the parameters of the Challenge.

Of course, since there is no Challenge Administrator currently, I'm not sure how to proceed.


The JREF allowed something similar with audio chip thing. I can't remember the name, but the thread went on and on and the claiment made excuse after excuse for why he couldn't do the test. Anyhow, the JREF was willing to give him a million dollars if he could hear the difference in CDs treated with someone else's thingamabob.

[Pope130]

It would depend on the power I had discovered.
If, for example, I discovered I could reliably predict winning lottery numbers, I would not reveal that power for any fiddling little million dollars. I'd go for the big bucks.
On the other hand, I f I could dowse reliably, I'd take the challange. Winning would be the best possible advertising.
If it were something trivial but paranormal (like being able to guess a persons birthday from their personality), I think I'd take the challange to bring attention to the phenominon.
Of course, if I could kill people at a distance with the power of my mind, I wouldn't take the challange. First, since it would involve danger to humans it would not be allowed, and second, rude questions about how I know I can do this might be asked.

Robert Klaus

[Gr8wight]

Thinking about sending in an application myself.

Randi's weekly commentary about the Gas-Saver thingy nudged me towards trying to claim the million, showing that it WORKS!

I'm in the process right now of compiling extensive and supportable data, and recruiting expert witnesses to sign some notarized affidavits (if required by the next Challenge administrator).

The double-blind part is tricky, since I need an identical vehicle that doesn't have the device attached to the engine, and I'll need to drive that one part of the time, while not knowing which car is which! #)*^(G#$@Y

I cannot offer the official application as yet, since there is the minor issue of how to define the claim and how to set up a preliminary test protocol.

Essentially, what it boils down to is this:

I wish to show easily observable evidence of a consumer device that 'magically' and without any known scientific reason or explainable mechanical principle, allows my ordinary new 2006 Huyundai Sonata V6 GLS to get better gas mileage than it obtained prior to the installation of this device.


Any advice from the usual gang of numbskulls here is appreciated.


Well, since the sellers claim a 70% reduction in emissions, it should be very easy to test, and no actual driving tests need be done.

[rjh01]

But I would not even bother with this device. It is highly unlikely to offer any benefit to the consumer. You have read what James Randi says about the device, well he says it all.

[ChaoticLimbs]

The ad you linked says the unit works by emitting infrared radiation (heat). And yet it takes no batteries. I would say that IF it has a power source it would have to be its own jostling within the fuel tank moving an internal magnet in a coil or something.
Even if it was powered this way, how is a warmer gas tank gonna help?
It simply does not and cannot work. The diode and ceramic are there for no reason. I seriously doubt it even generates its own power, because if warmer gas burned more efficiently, the effect of this little widget compared to the hot cylinder head is so tiny you'd never be able to detect it.
the gas is injected into the intake manifold which is rather warm. Hot to the touch, in fact. So any "infrared radiation" this thing emits wouldn't even make it through the multiple feet of fuel line, nice warm fuel pumps, injectors and FIRE in the cylinder during the compression phase (which heats it up LOTS too).

So I'm gonna go out on a limb and call it mumbo-jumbo based on the pseudoscientific mention of infrared as if it was some amazing technological marvel.
The ad is clearly designed to fool especially ignorant people.

[Soapy Sam]

Webfusion- Does using this device affect the warranty on your new vehicle?
I mean- if the fuel pump dies tomorrow, anyone who has seen this thread can say you pot a foreign body in your fuel system.

What I'm saying is - don't show this to the dealer you got the vehicle from.

[ChaosEngineer]

The double-blind part is tricky, since I need an identical vehicle that doesn't have the device attached to the engine, and I'll need to drive that one part of the time, while not knowing which car is which! #)*^(G#$@Y
I don't think you could build a good test protocol around real-world driving; there are just too many variables involved. Your gas mileage is naturally going to vary depending on the driving conditions, so you'd have to burn dozens and dozens of tanks of gas to get useful statistics.

What you want to do is minimize the number of variables. Just get some lawnmower motors, and see how long they run on a cup of gas with/without the device.

Since I am not the inventor or the distributor making any claims of its' effectiveness, I was wondering if I could be eligible for the prize as well just by being an end-user who showed results?
Yes, absolutely. You just have to demonstrate something paranormal; you don't need to be the root cause.

But before you invest a lot of money in this, you might want to consider the reason why the inventor hasn't applied for the prize himself. I mean, Randi impugned his honor on a public website, so you'd think that he'd be eager to make Randi eat crow.

[epepke]

Just a thought, brought about by too much coffee, and not enough sleep:

If you suddenly thought that you just might have some sort of 'special power', would you try for the prize, even though you've been a long-time skeptic? For example, if you've guessed who was calling you on the phone nine times out of ten, or 'sensed' that someone was behind you, etc?

Being a skeptic, I would especially want to do it.

[T'ai Chi]

If you suddenly thought that you just might have some sort of 'special power', would you try for the prize, even though you've been a long-time skeptic? For example, if you've guessed who was calling you on the phone nine times out of ten, or 'sensed' that someone was behind you, etc?

Or, would you just chalk it up to intuition & guesswork, and not even think about it?


It would seem to make more sense IMO that when wanting to test the scientific validity of something to go through the standard channels of Science rather than a challenge by skeptical organizations.

[Mercutio]

It would seem to make more sense IMO that when wanting to test the scientific validity of something to go through the standard channels of Science rather than a challenge by skeptical organizations.
That's a good point...I am really torn about it, though. My gut feeling is that if I thought I could do (for instance) the remote viewing thing, I would want to do the challenge thing, just because of its notoriety.

But, of course, I would not want to do the challenge until I had convinced myself that I was not merely fooling myself, and it seems to me that the best way to do that would be to subject myself to the protocols of the experimental laboratory and the critiques of my peers. Fortunately, I and some of my close colleagues have actually run subjects in parapsychology tests, so we are quite familiar with the parapsychology and psychology literatures, have some experience designing and running the experiments, and could very easily set up the appropriate tests to confirm or disconfirm this newfound ability.

I suppose the two are not mutually incompatible. The data collected in order to convince myself could be written up and submitted for publication, while (assuming I am convinced) I go on to take the challenge.

Two possibilities leap to mind--the JREF finds something I missed, and I blushingly add a post-script to the paper (which of course is accepted for publication anyway, as a cautionary tale), or I win the challenge, and the increased attention for the subsequent paper starts a flurry of activity in the standard channels of science. Either way, I don't think the challenge detracts from the process. But then, I started this off admitting that my gut is biased toward taking the challenge... :D

[Complexity]

To the OP: No, I wouldn't try it. To do so not believing in the paranormal would be an attempt to defraud, and that would not be honorable.

[Mercutio]

To the OP: No, I wouldn't try it. To do so not believing in the paranormal would be an attempt to defraud, and that would not be honorable.
I guess I read the OP differently--I assumed that, for some reason, I was beginning to accumulate evidence that I actually could perform [dowsing, remote viewing, whatever], and it got to the point where the evidence was enough to begin to convince me. Not that I had figured out a way to cheat.

Believing in it (or not) does not, for me enter into it--it is a matter of following the evidence.

[drkitten]

To the OP: No, I wouldn't try it. To do so not believing in the paranormal would be an attempt to defraud, and that would not be honorable.

My understanding about reality is that it works whether you believe in it or not. If I found clear evidence of the paranormal, I don't think it would matter much whether or not I personally was convinced by the evidence.

The history of science is littered with people who reported surprising findings that they themselves didn't necessarily believe or take seriously, but that other people did. If I stumbled upon something that I thought Randi would be interested in investigating, of course I'd apply. It's a win-win situation. Either he teaches me something, or I teach him something.

The key thing, of course, is I would want a lot of evidence before I dragged him out of his hospital bed. Merely guessing who was on the phone nine times out of ten probably wouldn't do it.

[Silly Green Monkey]

If I suddenly found I could fly unaided, I'd go for the million right away. I even have an idea for a test protocol.

[Complexity]

I'm afraid that my post has caused some confusion.

The JREF challenge has been issued to elicit and test claims of the paranormal.

If something occurs that I don't understand or don't expect, I would want it to be studied scientifically. It would not be paranormal or supernatural, but my understanding of nature could be (and certainly is) deficient.

My first reaction would be to question myself, my sanity, and my ability to make sense out of what I am experiencing.

My next reaction would be to question my understanding of the world and my understanding of science.

If, at any time, I found myself believing myself to be competent to have an opinion on the unusual phenonenon and believing that it contradicts my scientific understanding of the world, I would be open to involvement in its scientific investigation.

If the evidence persuaded me that it is real, I would have to alter my model of the world, and I would not rest until I gained some understanding of how it fits into the rest of nature.

At no time would I regard it as being supernatural (there being no such thing).

Since I do not, and would not, believe in the supernatural or paranormal, I feel that it would be dishonorable for me to apply for the JREF challenge, even though, by the rules of the challenge, I would be fully entitled to do so and, possibly, claim the million dollars.

I would have been acting as a scientist, a skeptic, and a rational person, attempting to make sense out of something that didn't fit my model of the world. Unlike a woo, I would seek a deeper understanding of nature rather than posit a supernatural.

[T'ai Chi]

My first reaction would be to question myself, my sanity, and my ability to make sense out of what I am experiencing.


It is somewhat questionable that that would accomplish anything.

For example, if you are not insane and you have ability to make sense out of what you are experiencing, you wouldn't need to question yourself in the first place.

If, however, you are insane and unable to make sense out of what you are experiencing, what would questioning yourself (hypothetically insane and unable, remember) accomplish exactly?

[Carn]

I'm afraid that my post has caused some confusion.

The JREF challenge has been issued to elicit and test claims of the paranormal.

If something occurs that I don't understand or don't expect, I would want it to be studied scientifically. It would not be paranormal or supernatural, but my understanding of nature could be (and certainly is) deficient.

My first reaction would be to question myself, my sanity, and my ability to make sense out of what I am experiencing.

My next reaction would be to question my understanding of the world and my understanding of science.

If, at any time, I found myself believing myself to be competent to have an opinion on the unusual phenonenon and believing that it contradicts my scientific understanding of the world, I would be open to involvement in its scientific investigation.

If the evidence persuaded me that it is real, I would have to alter my model of the world, and I would not rest until I gained some understanding of how it fits into the rest of nature.

At no time would I regard it as being supernatural (there being no such thing).

Since I do not, and would not, believe in the supernatural or paranormal, I feel that it would be dishonorable for me to apply for the JREF challenge, even though, by the rules of the challenge, I would be fully entitled to do so and, possibly, claim the million dollars.

I would have been acting as a scientist, a skeptic, and a rational person, attempting to make sense out of something that didn't fit my model of the world. Unlike a woo, I would seek a deeper understanding of nature rather than posit a supernatural.

Just imagine for a moment, that one day, you trip on stair downwards, but instead of breaking you're neck, you're fall stops with you floating a meter above the ground.
After recovering from surprise, you think about how to get done and immiediately gently land. You realize you lost something upstairs, but before you can raise a foot, you float upstairs.
After a few days of testing(leaving every day your house through a thid floor window, jumping of skyscrapers, flying so high you get dizzy from thin air), you are convinced, that you can fly, by simply thinking about it.

Would you apply for the million?


I certainly would, it's paranormal.

Carn

[CFLarsen]

It would seem to make more sense IMO that when wanting to test the scientific validity of something to go through the standard channels of Science rather than a challenge by skeptical organizations.
That wasn't the issue. Temporal Renegade didn't say anything about being tested scientifically. TR asked if people - skeptics in particular - would go for the million bucks if they thought they had paranormal powers.

What do you think of the JREF Challenge? Is it worthless? Useful?

[drfrank]

Personally, if I discovered I had an easily tested paranormal power, I'd apply so fast that it'd almost be a paranormal event in itself :D

From watching discussions with actual applicants, it is clear that I'd get treated with respect as long as I didn't start waffling randomly and concentrated on getting a protocol sorted it.

After winning, I'd then use my amazing psychic powers to determine whether homeopaths and all the other quacks truly believe in the crap they peddle ;)

[Spektator]

If I had a special talent, a paranormal power that I was 100% sure was genuine and would work every single time, and knowing that a million dollars is there, just for the taking, why I'd do the only sensible thing a man could do and send in endless emails to the forum explaining that JREF is unfair, that the test is biased, that they won't let me win anyway, that they'll rig the protocol, that I'm going to apply Real Soon Now (but I would never actually apply, of course), I'd resist understanding all the well-meaning explanations of protocol setting and so forth that I'd be bound to get, claiming that no matter how much sense they make, they are just plain wrong, biased, stupid and so forth, and when the million dollars is clearly within my grasp, why I'd immediately begin to curse and defame everyone associated with the JREF and so get banned and then go and complain and whine all over the Internet about how unfair everyone is.

But that's just me. Most people aren't like that.

[drfrank]

If I had a special talent, a paranormal power that I was 100% sure was genuine and would work every single time, and knowing that a million dollars is there, just for the taking, why I'd do the only sensible thing a man could do and send in endless emails to the forum explaining that JREF is unfair, that the test is biased, that they won't let me win anyway, that they'll rig the protocol, that I'm going to apply Real Soon Now (but I would never actually apply, of course), I'd resist understanding all the well-meaning explanations of protocol setting and so forth that I'd be bound to get, claiming that no matter how much sense they make, they are just plain wrong, biased, stupid and so forth, and when the million dollars is clearly within my grasp, why I'd immediately begin to curse and defame everyone associated with the JREF and so get banned and then go and complain and whine all over the Internet about how unfair everyone is.

But that's just me. Most people aren't like that.
Classic :clap:

[Spektator]

Classic :clap:
So nominate, it Doc! ;)

[Piscivore]

Just imagine for a moment, that one day, you trip on stair downwards, but instead of breaking you're neck, you're fall stops with you floating a meter above the ground.
After recovering from surprise, you think about how to get done and immiediately gently land. You realize you lost something upstairs, but before you can raise a foot, you float upstairs.
After a few days of testing(leaving every day your house through a thid floor window, jumping of skyscrapers, flying so high you get dizzy from thin air), you are convinced, that you can fly, by simply thinking about it.

Would you apply for the million?


I certainly would, it's paranormal.

Carn

I would start looking for Fenchurch, because it would be obvious I'd become Arthur Dent.

[dvdmx]

Of course I would, the worst that could happen is not to win the million, so I wouldnt loose anything....

[Hellbound]

dvdmx:

And, you'd get to meet and talk to Randi in person! So at least you'd get good conversation from it :)

[ChristineR]

It doesn't even have to work everytime, it just has to be statistically different from chance...I always get angry at those people who claim that they have ESP but it's not reliable enough to test. Even ESP that only works .1% of the time can be measured, you just need to do a whole lot of tests.

[Beth]

While that's true, Randi doesn't have the resources to provide observers for extensive testing. Thus, at least in the past, they have not beetn willing to agree to any protocol that allows for that.

[Rodney]

It doesn't even have to work everytime, it just has to be statistically different from chance...I always get angry at those people who claim that they have ESP but it's not reliable enough to test. Even ESP that only works .1% of the time can be measured, you just need to do a whole lot of tests.
Which is exactly what PEAR has done. "Over the laboratory’s 27-year history, thousands of such experiments, involving many millions of trials, have been performed by several hundred operators. The observed effects are usually quite small, of the order of a few parts in ten thousand on average, but they compound to highly significant statistical deviations from chance expectations. These results are summarized in 'Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention' and 'The PEAR Proposition.'"
See -- http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/2.html

[drkitten]

Which is exactly what PEAR has done. "Over the laboratory’s 27-year history, thousands of such experiments, involving many millions of trials, have been performed by several hundred operators. The observed effects are usually quite small, of the order of a few parts in ten thousand on average, but they compound to highly significant statistical deviations from chance expectations. These results are summarized in 'Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention' and 'The PEAR Proposition.'"
See -- http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/2.html

Yes. Unfortunately, close examination of the PEAR protocols indicates insufficient controls, so their data indicates either that psi exists, that the researcher have been fooled by sufficiently determined subjects, or that the researchers themselves are falsifying information.

[Rodney]

Yes. Unfortunately, close examination of the PEAR protocols indicates insufficient controls, so their data indicates either that psi exists, that the researcher have been fooled by sufficiently determined subjects, or that the researchers themselves are falsifying information.
What is your evidence for this assertion?

[drkitten]

What is your evidence for this assertion?

Start here (http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/PEARCritique.htm):


"The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program has produced a number of experimental reports discussing remote-viewing results and analyses. This work is reviewed with attention to methodological and statistical issues. The research departs from criteria usually expected in formal scientific experimentation. Problems with regard to randomization, statistical baselines, application of statistical models, agent coding of descriptor lists, feedback to percipients, sensory cues, and precautions against cheating. Many of the issues of remote-viewing methodology were identified by Stokes and Kennedy over 10 years ago. It is concluded that the quoted significance values are meaningless because of defects in the experimental and statistical procedures."

[Jorghnassen]

As soon as I can assemble an elite team of magicians, statisticians and possibly a few other scientists, we can find a way to beat the JREF challenge with a paranormal claim but no paranormal ability...

[Rodney]

Start here (http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/PEARCritique.htm):


"The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program has produced a number of experimental reports discussing remote-viewing results and analyses. This work is reviewed with attention to methodological and statistical issues. The research departs from criteria usually expected in formal scientific experimentation. Problems with regard to randomization, statistical baselines, application of statistical models, agent coding of descriptor lists, feedback to percipients, sensory cues, and precautions against cheating. Many of the issues of remote-viewing methodology were identified by Stokes and Kennedy over 10 years ago. It is concluded that the quoted significance values are meaningless because of defects in the experimental and statistical procedures."
This 1992 critique relates to remote viewing, which has nothing to do with the first paper and little to do with the second paper, that I cited. Do you have a critique either of PEAR's 1997 "Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention" paper or its 2005 "The PEAR Proposition" paper?

[drkitten]

This 1992 critique relates to remote viewing, which has nothing to do with the first paper and little to do with the second paper, that I cited. Do you have a critique either of PEAR's 1997 "Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention" paper or its 2005 "The PEAR Proposition" paper?

The first, yes. Not yet the second (it's too recent), but given the track record of incompetence that the organization represents, there's no real need.

And no, I won't bother sending it to you. Do your own homework..

[Overman]

No way!!!

If I had special powers I would also have a million dollars!?!?!

:D

[jj]

Thinking about sending in an application myself.

Randi's weekly commentary about the Gas-Saver thingy nudged me towards trying to claim the million, showing that it WORKS!

I'm in the process right now of compiling extensive and supportable data, and recruiting expert witnesses to sign some notarized affidavits (if required by the next Challenge administrator).

The double-blind part is tricky, since I need an identical vehicle that doesn't have the device attached to the engine, and I'll need to drive that one part of the time, while not knowing which car is which! #)*^(G#$@Y

I cannot offer the official application as yet, since there is the minor issue of how to define the claim and how to set up a preliminary test protocol.

Essentially, what it boils down to is this:

I wish to show easily observable evidence of a consumer device that 'magically' and without any known scientific reason or explainable mechanical principle, allows my ordinary new 2006 Huyundai Sonata V6 GLS to get better gas mileage than it obtained prior to the installation of this device.


Any advice from the usual gang of numbskulls here is appreciated.

A speed governor. So?

[Temporal Renegade]

If my skill was, say, telekenisis (sp), I'd still play roulette in Vegas or Atlantic City. AFter all, how can it be cheating, if I'm not touching the wheel? :D

[Rodney]

The first, yes. Not yet the second (it's too recent), but given the track record of incompetence that the organization represents, there's no real need.

And no, I won't bother sending it to you. Do your own homework..
So you had the time to post a critique irrelevant to the two papers that I posted, but not a relevant critique?

[Rodney]

This 1992 critique relates to remote viewing, which has nothing to do with the first paper and little to do with the second paper, that I cited. Do you have a critique either of PEAR's 1997 "Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention" paper or its 2005 "The PEAR Proposition" paper?
To answer my own question, an Internet search reveals the following brief critique of the first paper by none other than this week's Randi Forum guest commenter, Robert Todd Carroll:

"Based on the results of these experiments, [Dean] Radin claims that 'researchers have produced persuasive, consistent, replicated evidence that mental intention is associated with the behavior of …physical systems' (Radin 1997: 144). That sounds like a hasty conclusion to me. He also claims that 'the experimental results are not likely due to chance, selective reporting, poor experimental design, only a few individuals, or only a few experimenters' (Radin 1997: 144). He's probably right except for the bit about it being unlikely that the experimental results are due to chance."
See -- http://skepdic.com/pear.html
So, Carroll seems to believe that PEAR did its machine anomaly experiments properly, but that the results may be due to chance. This conclusion, however, only serves to point out Carroll's lack of knowledge about statistics. As Christine notes, even a very minor deviation from chance is highly statistically significant if it persists over many experiments.

[webfusion]

The 'Check Engine' light came on and the dealer told me that I had to drop the tank and remove the device. All expenses of this are charged to me. Also, my warranty for 'engine and power train' is now null and void (new Hyundai vehicles provide 100,000 mile warranty -- now I have zero).

Before the warning light signalled a problem, I was achieving LESS mileage on average. So much for that whole escapade. Thanks for playing the "JREF Million Dollar Challenge Home Game"

[davefoc]

The 'Check Engine' light came on and the dealer told me that I had to drop the tank and remove the device. All expenses of this are charged to me. Also, my warranty for 'engine and power train' is now null and void (new Hyundai vehicles provide 100,000 mile warranty -- now I have zero).

Before the warning light signalled a problem, I was achieving LESS mileage on average. So much for that whole escapade. Thanks for playing the "JREF Million Dollar Challenge Home Game"
Webfusion, I wasn't quite sure where you were going with this but the EPA has a protocol for testing mileage and has tested numerous alleged fuel saving gadgets and has found none that work. The bottom line here is that it is very unlikely that a company with a legitimate fuel saving device would not submit it for EPA testing to validate its performance. The monetary reward for a device that could just be bolted on somehow and could produce a 6-8% fuel economy improvement would be staggering. The JREF million would be less than chump change.

It is hard to believe that people can make such sincere sounding, but completely bogus claims but they do all the time and the chances of one of these devices actually working is about the same as that a real bigfoot was photographed for the Patterson film.

But I congratulate you on your willingness to try one. I am tempted myself at times. The driving I do with one of my cars is very repetetive which leads to a very tight grouping of mileage figures that I calculate with every gas fillup. If there was a device out there that could really improve mileage by 6% I think I could easily detect the change.

The experiment that I've wanted to run is to change to synthetic oil and see what kind of improvement I'd get there. Unfortunately, I drive an old car (200,000+ miles) and it has an oil leak that I'm not going to fix (the car is on death watch, nothing fixed unless necessary to make it go and stop and no fixing of any major problems), so I'm not going to start using expensive oil, the cheap oil does just fine at staining my garage floor. I thought about some of the spark plugs that are supposed to improve mileage but my mechanic didn't think much of them and he said they might cause problems with emission tests.

[LTC8K6]

Whenever someone claims that all the fuel doesn't burn in your engine, that's your sign of a scam.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Supertech

As soon as Super Tech® is installed, it begins working. However, because the device causes a cleaning process to take place in the engine, initially higher emissions may be present, which are the breakdown of previously deposited hydro carbons prior to the Super Tech® being installed."

You just needed to wait longer. Like until the money back guarantee expired.

[webfusion]

LTC8K6 -- My Hyundai had less than 3000 miles on it when I dropped the SuperTech into the tank. This engine was essentially factory-fresh, and no way could there be 'carbon deposits' --- however, it apparently created some kind of emissions FUBAR and the dealer has now voided my warranty.

And so ends this JREF Challenge attempt, kiddies.
Yes, I tried it myself, since I thought I could.

[Gr8wight]

LTC8K6 -- My Hyundai had less than 3000 miles on it when I dropped the SuperTech into the tank. This engine was essentially factory-fresh, and no way could there be 'carbon deposits' --- however, it apparently created some kind of emissions FUBAR and the dealer has now voided my warranty.

And so ends this JREF Challenge attempt, kiddies.
Yes, I tried it myself, since I thought I could.

I think this serves as a great demonstration that even critical thinkers can be fooled by these scam artists. We should go easier on the credulous among us, knowing that even one of our own can fall for a classic scam.

[LTC8K6]

I don't think webfusion fell for a scam, really. Testing something isn't falling for a scam. I'll bet Webfusion would not have done this at all if the possibility of what actually occurred had been mentioned beforehand.

I wonder if the instruction to suspend the thing on a wire so it can be removed was a response to complaints? It would allow you to remove the thing and play innocent as the dealer tries to reset your MIL.

[Gr8wight]

I don't think webfusion fell for a scam, really. Testing something isn't falling for a scam. I'll bet Webfusion would not have done this at all if the possibility of what actually occurred had been mentioned beforehand.

I wonder if the instruction to suspend the thing on a wire so it can be removed was a response to complaints? It would allow you to remove the thing and play innocent as the dealer tries to reset your MIL.

I think Webfusion has been the victim of an unfortunate coincidence, and an opportunistic car dealership. It is extremely unlikely that the device Webfusion put into his gas tank had any effect whatsoever on the operation of his vehicle unless it physically impeded the flow of fuel. It certainly had no chemical effect on the fuel or the fuel system.

[JollyRoger]

I often wondered, If their where such thing as ESP how many people with secrets vital to their business or life style would feel threatened by it. If someone where to be able to read another's mind no information would be safe.

There are those who feel that ESP and all the stuff that go's with it may be the next stage in human evolution, but imagine going through life knowing that everything you think can be heard by everyone around you.

What if some one where to have ESP and for whatever reason refused to acknowledge it on any physical level, perhaps the person inflicted with ESP knew of those who felt threatened by such things, they may want to repress it in the individual, give him a label of mental illness, and keep him in a nut house under close observation.

If someone where to for see all of this the million dollar offer may seem worthless or perhaps insulting. IE do you know what can happen and how people will treat me If I am known as a legitimate Psychic.:jaw-dropp

Perhaps when the human race evolves to a point where we can be honest and have know need for secrecy everybody will have esp as just another sense. but for now I think we may not be ready for it.

the best of good luck in your quest Randi, but with all the secrecy in the world today, I think it highly unlikely that one will step forward and prove to science such things are real for all the world to see, it just puts to much at stake, but you must admit it makes for wonderfully entertainment.:D

[webfusion]

Think of all the intenet bandwidth we would save if ESP existed!

However, if everyone's brainwaves are transmitting, some kind of 'filtering' techniques would be required, otherwise, the reception of a multitude of thoughts all at once would be unintelligble.

... do you know what can happen and how people will treat me If I am known as a legitimate Psychic?

If I knew that, I myself would be Psychic, no?

The first thing anyone should do who feels the need to show his abilities --- go ahead and set up a webpage. It's easy, it costs next to nothing, and immediately offers a portal of insight as to what you are capable of.

While you are waiting for Randi to recover and resume processing Challenge Applications, spend a few hours putting together a website (that is sound general advice for anyone who is currently pending an Application and gives you an opportunity to get some feedback in the meantime).

[Ririon]

IE do you know what can happen and how people will treat me If I am known as a legitimate Psychic.:jaw-dropp
Many people are known as legitimate psychics. (They are not, but are still known as such.) Apart from being ridiculed here and wherever else scientific-minded people meet, they live wonderful lives in fame and luxury, rolling in cash. I would not worry.

[JollyRoger]

If I where psychic I would still be very reluctant to use it for anything other then a way of getting more information about my environment for my continued survival. Personally all this ESP stuff seems a bit too sci fi for me.
I could only imagine how it can become more of a problem then a gift, how would you be able to function going through life knowing what people think or knowing that they can hear you think, or knowing whats gonna happen, would it not take the fun out of life? people walking up to you asking for this and that can you read my fortune tell me what is to be, yuck I am not so sure (for some people) the fame would be worth the fortune.

[trvlr2]

Gr8wight's got it...the device couldn't have affected the fuel or the emissions,but may have rolled into the fuelpump/filter mechanisms. The gizmo just doesn't work.
As an aside, I have a friend who believes that a magnetic unit called a DE-Bug keeps the fuel tank in his boat clean(kills the bacteria in the diesel, doncha know). He completely disregards that the engine pumps excess fuel. and basically will filter the entire tank about every 24 hours running time, and that every 2 weeks the entire tank is emptied and re-filled.
Rooting out cherished belief is hard.