How does the test taker verify the results? [Archive]

both_sides

23rd March 2006, 08:41 PM

Hi,

This is my first post. The reason I call myself both_sides is because it describes the fact that I am both a person who places value on scientific reasoning and logical argumentation and a person who believes that the realm of the spirit and the metaphysical are real. For example, I had dreams that I could not deduce because of their symbolic language BEFORE the events as meaning what they did, but after which it was clear presaged September 11, the Indonesian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina. They were my dreams. I suppose it's a gift. I cannot call upon these things on demand. Perhaps I could if I really dedicated myself to it.

This is my question about the test. I'm sure JREF will appreciate my skepticism.

I have to think that an organization that stands to have to give up $1M and renounce all the members define as reality has a tad bit of an interest in making sure that there is no way a person with any metaphysical gifts of any sort can ever prove the skill to be legitimate. There's a reason the rules of the challenge come across really quite aggressively (that and that you must attract your fair share of crackpots). My line of questioning is healthy cynicism, is it not?

I saw a post that presented a screening question to a person claiming to have a gift...reading minds I think it was. The challenge gave three first names with the last names omitted and asked the person to come up with last names and determine if the people are living or dead. My question is this: what is in place to insure that your organization doesn't tell the person they're wrong no matter WHAT they say? How is this independently verified and by whom? Suppose I took the challenge (I'm not planning it) and said Joe (Carter) deceased, Laurie (Brannon) living, and Quincy (VanDaam) deceased, and got it completely right. What would stop you from saying, "Nope, sorry, you blew it, thanks for trying?"

The same question applies to any stage of the challenge.

Mercutio

23rd March 2006, 09:01 PM

Hi,

This is my first post. Welcome!
The reason I call myself both_sides is because it describes the fact that I am both a person who places value on scientific reasoning and logical argumentation and a person who believes that the realm of the spirit and the metaphysical are real. For example, I had dreams that I could not deduce because of their symbolic language BEFORE the events as meaning what they did, but after which it was clear presaged September 11, the Indonesian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina. They were my dreams. I suppose it's a gift. I cannot call upon these things on demand. Perhaps I could if I really dedicated myself to it.
I saw a cloud once, that looked like a blob, until a friend said it looked like a dragon with its head cut off. After that, that is exactly what it looked like.

It is very easy to fit something after the fact. "After which, it was clear..." is a very common occurance. I wish it was evidence...but it is not.

This is my question about the test. I'm sure JREF will appreciate my skepticism.
Of course!

I have to think that an organization that stands to have to give up $1M and renounce all the members define as reality has a tad bit of an interest in making sure that there is no way a person with any metaphysical gifts of any sort can ever prove the skill to be legitimate. There's a reason the rules of the challenge come across really quite aggressively (that and that you must attract your fair share of crackpots). My line of questioning is healthy cynicism, is it not?
So far...but please remember, if the claimed ability is real, its discovery is worth much more than a mere million dollars! Randi has said many times that he would be glad to give up the prize, if it opened the door to a new area of exploration. The rules of the challenge are not so much "aggressive" as they are "appropriate". If the claimant is honest and the talent is real, the challenge rules are a trifle! The true ability to, say, read minds, would have no trouble at all with the challenge rules--especially since the procedure is determined by both the JREF and the challenger! The JREF asks what the claimant can do--if it fits the criteria, they are tested on that claim alone--not on something more than that.

I saw a post that presented a screening question to a person claiming to have a gift...reading minds I think it was. The challenge gave three first names with the last names omitted and asked the person to come up with last names and determine if the people are living or dead. My question is this: what is in place to insure that your organization doesn't tell the person they're wrong no matter WHAT they say? How is this independently verified and by whom? Suppose I took the challenge (I'm not planning it) and said Joe (Carter) deceased, Laurie (Brannon) living, and Quincy (VanDaam) deceased, and got it completely right. What would stop you from saying, "Nope, sorry, you blew it, thanks for trying?"
A very good question indeed! Such an outcome is exactly why the experimental controls are agreed upon ahead of time. The "correct answers" would be held in a secure location, so that no one, skeptic or believer, could interfere with the test. A proper test must be safe from experimenter effects, as it is safe from subject effects. You are quite right to raise such a concern, and I hope you will be happy to hear that the protocol does indeed address this concern!

The same question applies to any stage of the challenge.As well it should! And it is addressed at all stages! Take a look at the challenge FAQ sheet, and if you see any problems, please point them out!

strathmeyer

23rd March 2006, 09:09 PM

For example, I had dreams that I could not deduce because of their symbolic language BEFORE the events as meaning what they did, but after which it was clear presaged September 11, the Indonesian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina. They were my dreams. I suppose it's a gift. I cannot call upon these things on demand. Perhaps I could if I really dedicated myself to it.

Welcome to the forums! I assume you will be applying for the million dollar prize! How amazing it will be when somebody finally wins it!

Aepervius

23rd March 2006, 09:30 PM

I am both a person who places value on scientific reasoning and logical argumentation

Hi, and welcome.
Since you value scientific reasonning, could you please tell us the reasonning behind associating a postriori some symbolism to an event which came after the dream. In other word, every prediction of the future means a break in the causality.

Furthermore, usually in scientific reasoning, you do not presuppose the existence of "new entity" if a perfect explanation can be used previous knowledge. For example you do not make up a "purple invisible dragon flying over the cloud" to explain rainfall, when another explanation not requiring that dragon exist. Which lead me to this : if you believe in metaphysical stuff, then this means you observed something which cannot be explained by science. If so can we get the HARD evidence. If not, then how is this consistent with placing value on csientific reasoning.

Finally the challenge protocol as far as I can tell is akin to a contract. If you respect your side, and JREF not, then you can attack them for breach of contract, and get the money anyway. Also, to avoid fraud as far as I understood the protocol and result are handled by a third neutral party (although I could be wrong).

PS: did you read the challenge FAQ ?

joller

23rd March 2006, 09:49 PM

EDIT: to quickly answer the question in the subject of your post:
you shouldn't have to! The results should be self evident and not require any subjective judging!

Hi,
This is my first post.
Welcome to the forum.
The reason I call myself both_sides is because it describes the fact that I am both a person who places value on scientific reasoning and logical argumentation and a person who believes that the realm of the spirit and the metaphysical are real.
Prepare to have that statement tested many times over and over again.

For example, I had dreams that I could not deduce because of their symbolic language BEFORE the events as meaning what they did, but after which it was clear presaged September 11, the Indonesian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina.
You didn't say much here - what was it exactly that you dreamt about?
Interpeting the dreams as prophecies or visions after the fact isn't really a proof of anything - if you could predict the catastophy - that would definitely be something.
Have you ever had a dream which you would consider 'a vision' and then nothing happened afterwards? maybe you have the dreams quite often, but you only count the hits?
Maybe you add to the dreams afterwards, to make it look to yourself like they were a hit?
Maybe you use the symbolisms in the dreams very liberally?
NExt time you have a dream which you think predicts something, let us all know. you can also establish a timeframe from your dream to the catastrophy, so say if you dream it on a given day, the catastrophy must come within three days.
Have you ever tested it like that?
What have you done to prove to yourself that the dreams are indeed visions?

They were my dreams. I suppose it's a gift.
Read some webpages on skepdic.com
Check wishful thinking, subject validation, confirmation bias, self deception and related webpages. See if one of those doesn't apply to your dreams. Make sure you're honest with yourself though.
I cannot call upon these things on demand. Perhaps I could if I really dedicated myself to it.
If you can do it on demand, or if you can predict something that's not very probable with high enough accuracy (say i.e. that there will be another tsunami with a 48 hour prediction window, and the seismic sensors etc. didn't pick up anything yet) you would have a good chance to land yourself US$1 million
I have to think that an organization that stands to have to give up $1M and renounce all the members define as reality has a tad bit of an interest in making sure that there is no way a person with any metaphysical gifts of any sort can ever prove the skill to be legitimate.
If it would be the case, none of us would support the project. You are of course welcome to be suspicious and demand the answer to your question.
The reason for why no one claimed the big bucks yet is not that the protocol was skewed to not allow any claims to be successful, it's because no one has ever demonstrated any powers. The protocol you get to negotiate yourself, and you only agree on the protocol if you think it's fair and you're confident it won't allow fo cheating on any side. A lot of time is spend to make sure it's the case, and that's partially the reason for why protocol negotiations often take months.
I believe many people here, and Randi himself would like someone to claim the prize, to prove us all wrong, to demonstrate that paranormal powers exist! It was even discussed that a brilliant scientist with a new discovery no one else knew about, could claim the price and Randi would be happy to pay up!

There's a reason the rules of the challenge come across really quite aggressively (that and that you must attract your fair share of crackpots).
Crackpots and the fact that JREF doesn't want to allow for any cheating or ambiguity that could give base to lawsuits. The process is to be clear, with no judgmental calls, Randi himself is not judging the hits and misses etc.. it's all supposed to protect BOTH the JREF and the claimant (i.e. if you proved your claim, you WILL get the money, that's for sure).

My line of questioning is healthy cynicism, is it not?
Cynicism is associated with 'jaded negativity' - and there's nothing like that in your question.

I saw a post that presented a screening question to a person claiming to have a gift...reading minds I think it was.
I want you to understand, that although the folks on the forum will give you a lot of ideas on how to set up the protocol and how you can prove the phenomenon (or disprove it) to yourself,the actual protocol negotiations are with the JREF and not the forum. So although you might find the suggestions on the forum useful, should you choose to apply, they are not a part of the formal negotiations with JREF.
The challenge gave three first names with the last names omitted and asked the person to come up with last names and determine if the people are living or dead. My question is this: what is in place to insure that your organization doesn't tell the person they're wrong no matter WHAT they say? How is this independently verified and by whom?
One of the points of the challenge is that the result has to be self evident and not require any subjective judgment.
I imagine that you will be shown the correct answers.
The whole process of selecting the names, and making sure they are not mixed up in the process should be well documented.
Suppose I took the challenge (I'm not planning it)
maybe you should? US$1M is certainly a lot of money.
and said Joe (Carter) deceased, Laurie (Brannon) living, and Quincy (VanDaam) deceased, and got it completely right. What would stop you from saying, "Nope, sorry, you blew it, thanks for trying?"
it wouldn't be JREF to say that. It would be an independent referee, whom you would trust as well (that's my understanding). The results should be self evident.
The same question applies to any stage of the challenge
The same answer applies.

Rasmus

23rd March 2006, 11:38 PM

I have to think that an organization that stands to have to give up $1M and renounce all the members define as reality has a tad bit of an interest in making sure that there is no way a person with any metaphysical gifts of any sort can ever prove the skill to be legitimate.

Why would you assume that?

The point of the challenge is not that the money gets to stay on the JREF accounts longer. Many institutions offer money to other people and their buisness is giving it away. (Scholarships, e.g.)

There's a reason the rules of the challenge come across really quite aggressively (that and that you must attract your fair share of crackpots). My line of questioning is healthy cynicism, is it not?

Your forgot the frauds and liars.

The challenge has to discriminate the genuinly gifted from the crackpots, frauds and liars. (And those who are somewhat less ofd a crackpot but honestly mistaken about their abilities.)

It is in everyone's best interest if that discrimination happens early on in the process, before peolpe invest too much time, money and other resources.

I am sure you will agree that the rules are actually very simple:

1) Tell us what you can do.
2) Tell us how it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt
(with a low chance on suceeding by sheer luck, and ensuring that you can't cheat.)
3) Prove it.

I saw a post that presented a screening question to a person claiming to have a gift...reading minds I think it was. The challenge gave three first names with the last names omitted and asked the person to come up with last names and determine if the people are living or dead.

I remember that, too. Please bear in mind that I did not go back to look for it, though, and am explaining from memory.

My question is this: what is in place to insure that your organization doesn't tell the person they're wrong no matter WHAT they say?

Nothing.

IIRC the request did match the claim made, i.e. the applicant said he could do this. It was an offer by the JREF to let things happen fast and simple.

No money would have been awared if the applicant had past this first test.
The applicant could have refused to take the test and negotiated another protocol for the first run of tests. (If he didn't trust the JREF on this one, or if the JREF had been mistaken in assuming that the applicant could perform this task or if the applicant just didn't like to do it this way for no reason whatsoever.)

How is this independently verified and by whom? Suppose I took the challenge (I'm not planning it) and said Joe (Carter) deceased, Laurie (Brannon) living, and Quincy (VanDaam) deceased, and got it completely right. What would stop you from saying, "Nope, sorry, you blew it, thanks for trying?"

Nothing.

But then, that wasn't a real test according to the rules. It was just a way the applicant could have earned truckloads of credibility at the cost of just another e-mail.

At this stage, there was no possibility of blowing it, since it hadn't even started yet.

The same question applies to any stage of the challenge.

As others have pointed out, during the challenge both parties will agree on a protocol that ensures that no such thing is possible. How this is done will vary depending on the nature of the claim.

Telling the difference between living and dead peolpe should be rather simple, I asume. You can show the living, and there usually is documentation about the dead. (You could eve ndesign the test so that you would only need live people. Say, the applicant was allowed to judge anyone dead living, but any living person judged dead would be a miss. It'd take a few more trials and the math would be more comlicated, but you could still do it and then line up al lthe living people.)

Rasmus.

Mendeli

24th March 2006, 01:26 AM

Applying for a case of predicting stuff with dreams is a pretty hard one to success in. I have had a couple of dreams which I used to tell my friends about. In one of them I was downhill skiing and fell into some cliffs after a jump. I used to have that dream almost every night for about a year. Later on when I was really downhill skiing in a Finnish place called Ylläs, I suddenly realized the place seemed familiar although I had never been there. I stopped just before what seemed like a nice jumping place. In fact it was not a jumping place at all but a pile of snow blown together by wind, covering a fence next to a 50 meter drop into some cliffs! I used to count that as supernatural thing but now I just think of it as a wonderful luck and confirmation bias.

Another very strong dream I used to have for quite a while: Year 2036 I'm going to Mars on a spaceship with a good friend of mine. Not very likely eh? Also not easy to apply for. I'm probably not allowed to make an application with result so far away in future... and on the other hand if the trip was ever going to happen, there's going to have to be some major breakthrough in science within next couple of decades, hence me applying for that claim in 2035 would either be silly as it was not going to happen or with huge amount of luck trips to mars would be so common then that my prediction would not be paranormal at all!

JohnF_73

24th March 2006, 03:24 AM

Off the top of my head...one way to test dream predictions would be:

Get 10 people say, and get them to 'create' some weirdly symbolic dreams, (or if they're not the creative type, just use their own) and describe them in 30 words or less. Let the claimant also submit his dreams. (This process goes on for a month, or some other appropriate time.)

At some point event X will happen, which claimant says was predicted by a dream on day 'Y'.

All the dreams not just for day 'Y' are given to a bunch of independent people. They are told to rate the dreams predictive / symbolic connection to a series of recent news stories, one of which is event X.

If enough independents pull out claimants dream and event X, then you could probably argue that there's something worth looking at in more detail, at which point a better protocol than this could be developed.

Mendeli

24th March 2006, 04:08 AM

At some point event X will happen, which claimant says was predicted by a dream on day 'Y'.

I see a problem here. If the claimant sees a connection between an event and a dream, there's a chance some individual observers will too. But that is all after the event happened already.

IMO, It would only be interesting if the event was actually predicted.

edit: for example: The claimant must look at all these dreams and give accurate predictions on some future events that will happen. Then individual jury would score the predictions after the event happened or didn't happen during the predetermined time interval. Additionally, the events will need to be unlikely and specific enough.

petre

24th March 2006, 08:07 AM

I saw a post that presented a screening question to a person claiming to have a gift...reading minds I think it was. The challenge gave three first names with the last names omitted and asked the person to come up with last names and determine if the people are living or dead. My question is this: what is in place to insure that your organization doesn't tell the person they're wrong no matter WHAT they say? How is this independently verified and by whom? Suppose I took the challenge (I'm not planning it) and said Joe (Carter) deceased, Laurie (Brannon) living, and Quincy (VanDaam) deceased, and got it completely right. What would stop you from saying, "Nope, sorry, you blew it, thanks for trying?"

The same question applies to any stage of the challenge.

I'll just add a side note that Kramer's communication here was a bit different than normal, in that the applicant had not actually submitted an application. The communication was preliminary, to try and hash out what might work as a protocol. Kramer's response was a kind of informal test, suggesting that if the powers worked as described, this would be a definitive way to test them.

The person involved did send me an answer to his query, and claims to have sent same to Kramer. Sadly, he did not post a reply to this before leaving. Perhaps one day he'll come visit us on the boards again :)

JohnF_73

24th March 2006, 08:18 AM

I see a problem here. If the claimant sees a connection between an event and a dream, there's a chance some individual observers will too. But that is all after the event happened already.

IMO, It would only be interesting if the event was actually predicted.

I agree, but the claimant looks like he's already giving himself an 'out' by saying he can't make it happen, etc... Granted there's a higher risk of a false positive with this protocol, but that's why I would use it only for a preliminary test (if that).

Anti_Hypeman

24th March 2006, 08:43 AM

If somebody can demonstrate paranormal powers the tape of the event will be worth far more than one million. If you win the JREF also wins.

both_sides

24th March 2006, 01:14 PM

Welcome!

Okay, two things Mercutio,

1) A skeptic who is sure that without ANY of the information, much less all of it, he can declare dreams another person had to be figments of their fertile imagination, is no more correct in his observations and criteria for forming a judgment than the person who believes EVERYTHING out of a desperate need to believe or a basic lack of intelligence.

Just for the sake of telling a story, I had a dream on September 9th, 2001 about a building full of terrified people who were running from someone who was shooting at all of them and killing many, also blowing up bombs in some areas, for no reason other than unbridled hatred, as the people were running up and down the stairs in a dark building. Eventually, it turned out that I was playing two roles in the dream. I was the attacker, and I was part of the group running. At a point, the building started to crumble, and someone said, "We have to get over to the other building before she reaches us." I said, "What other building?" The man said, "If you walk across that catwalk, it connects this building to another one that's exactly identical to it." They started to run when the catwalk collapsed and the other building started to come down.

I woke up screaming and was so terrified because the feel of the dream was so apocalyptic that I couldn't even speak of it when my husband asked me what happened. Two mornings later, I woke up to the phone ringing and a friend telling me to turn on the news because someone had flown an airplane into the World Trade Center (two buildings, exactly alike, which used to have a catwalk attaching them on one of the floors --- third, fourth or fifth I think).

It is the part of me that thinks like you, the rationalist, the doubter, that would not have made it possible for me to realize what this dream meant in my waking hours. In order to do that, I would have to make it really my life's work to immerse myself in that realm and my worldly mind will not allow me to do so. To do it would mean living almost a monk-like existence and would make me virtually unemployable.

2) I disagree that the test is performed in a controlled environment. When a a person posts a test question on a website without saying, "We have forwarded a registered letter to your attorney containing answers. Contact us when it arrives. Answer when you feel ready," that does not constitute a carefully controlled environment.

I realize, as some said in this thread, that it was intended as an informal test, but had I been the person to whom the question were posed, I would have hesistated to take that informal, preliminary trial purely on the basis that given the tone of much of what appears on this site, I would be concerned that no matter what I said, I'd be told it was wrong.

Maybe that's not the best way to approach it in the future.

both_sides

24th March 2006, 01:23 PM

If somebody can demonstrate paranormal powers the tape of the event will be worth far more than one million. If you win the JREF also wins.

That's an interesting conclusion. It may be so. It does beg the question though: what is JREF's most pressing concern: that their universal view is confirmed and people live entirely in the realm of physical reality, or that a tape proving otherwise might be worth a lot of money?

As an objective, or at least bi-partisan, outsider looking in, I think this site comes across as more committed to proving all cases to be false than I think you might realize

both_sides

24th March 2006, 01:34 PM

I agree, but the claimant looks like he's already giving himself an 'out' by saying he can't make it happen, etc... Granted there's a higher risk of a false positive with this protocol, but that's why I would use it only for a preliminary test (if that).

John, I am not a claimant. I am a person who could just as easily have made every point I made, and had them stand alone, without ever needing to have told you about my dreams.

I don't need an "out." As you may have surmised, I already somewhat suspect that most here have their minds made up to force people to prove what is essentially a non-existent event in their minds, and so I really have no investment in whether anyone here does or does not believe that I occasionally have genuinely premonitory dreams.

One mistake I have seen the skeptics here make repeatedly is that they make the uneducated judgment that because a person has skill X, they ought to be able to call on skill X whenever they wish. As much as you all hate this fact, it just doesn't work like that. I hate the fact that it doesn't work like that. I hate the fact that I can't just get these dreams literally so that I can see exactly what is supposed to happen and maybe save some people. If I thought I could do that, I might dedicate more time and energy to it. It's not like doing a sport or learning an academic subject. It just isn't that way. Of course, there has to be some basis for figuring out who is for real and who isn't, but I think this organization's complete lack of neutrality on the subject (neutrality would be reasonable) may be leading to making it impossible to prove even for people with a legitimate ability.

But I know you don't believe that, so back to our regularly scheduled programming (which for me is going to the gym).

chillzero

24th March 2006, 02:12 PM

Just for the sake of telling a story, I had a dream on September 9th, 2001 about a building full of terrified people who were running from someone who was shooting at all of them and killing many, also blowing up bombs in some areas, for no reason other than unbridled hatred, as the people were running up and down the stairs in a dark building. Eventually, it turned out that I was playing two roles in the dream. I was the attacker, and I was part of the group running. At a point, the building started to crumble, and someone said, "We have to get over to the other building before she reaches us." I said, "What other building?" The man said, "If you walk across that catwalk, it connects this building to another one that's exactly identical to it." They started to run when the catwalk collapsed and the other building started to come down.

I woke up screaming and was so terrified because the feel of the dream was so apocalyptic that I couldn't even speak of it when my husband asked me what happened. Two mornings later, I woke up to the phone ringing and a friend telling me to turn on the news because someone had flown an airplane into the World Trade Center (two buildings, exactly alike, which used to have a catwalk attaching them on one of the floors --- third, fourth or fifth I think).

Your dream does not relate at all to what happened on 9/11. There was not shooting or bombs, and the catwalk (if you are correct about its existence) had little, if anything, to do with the deaths of that day.

This is a question I have asked others who claimed to have these types of dreams. What use is this 'gift', if it can only be applied retrospectively? Prophetic dreams need to be exactly that - prophetic - which means you could tell in advance what it is about.

juryjone

24th March 2006, 02:55 PM

both_sides, I have a couple of points to make here.

First of all, when you bring up informal tests that are asked for in the forum, I wonder if you realize that this in no way reflects the official stand of the JREF. Informal tests are requested for three reasons:

1) To try to pin down exactly the claim;
2) to get the claimant to start thinking of the appropriate testing that could be done to establish the claim;
3) To satisfy the curiosity of the forum members, who just can't wait through all of the official testing to see if there's finally something extraordinary to be proved.

None of these are any reflection of what the JREF test is all about. The JREF test is a mutually-agreed-upon, independently administered test that does its best to be all things for all people. In trying to be that, discussions on protocol can stretch on for a long time. Informal tests are rarely that controlled, and are no more than an indication of the way a properly-controlled test might go. They do not prove that the claimant actually has powers, and they do not prove that she doesn't.

Please don't enter the JREF testing with your mind already made up that you're going to be screwed. That is one way to ensure that the final test will be no more proof than the informal test requested on the forum - if you can't agree that the test is fair, it cannot go any further.

I don't need an "out." As you may have surmised, I already somewhat suspect that most here have their minds made up to force people to prove what is essentially a non-existent event in their minds, and so I really have no investment in whether anyone here does or does not believe that I occasionally have genuinely premonitory dreams.

One mistake I have seen the skeptics here make repeatedly is that they make the uneducated judgment that because a person has skill X, they ought to be able to call on skill X whenever they wish. As much as you all hate this fact, it just doesn't work like that. I hate the fact that it doesn't work like that. I hate the fact that I can't just get these dreams literally so that I can see exactly what is supposed to happen and maybe save some people. If I thought I could do that, I might dedicate more time and energy to it. It's not like doing a sport or learning an academic subject. It just isn't that way. Of course, there has to be some basis for figuring out who is for real and who isn't, but I think this organization's complete lack of neutrality on the subject (neutrality would be reasonable) may be leading to making it impossible to prove even for people with a legitimate ability.

If I told you I could make 100 of 100 free throws blindfolded, but then told you that it only worked some of the time, on my court, and only after I had eaten a properly-prepared buffalo steak, might you not think that I am preparing some sort of "out" in case you requested that I back up my claim about the free throws? When someone says they can do something extraordinary, then immediately backs that with caveats, how are we NOT supposed to think that we are being setup with reasons why there will be no proof of the extraordinary abilities?

drkitten

24th March 2006, 03:22 PM

I don't need an "out." As you may have surmised, I already somewhat suspect that most here have their minds made up to force people to prove what is essentially a non-existent event in their minds, and so I really have no investment in whether anyone here does or does not believe that I occasionally have genuinely premonitory dreams.

One mistake I have seen the skeptics here make repeatedly is that they make the uneducated judgment that because a person has skill X, they ought to be able to call on skill X whenever they wish. As much as you all hate this fact, it just doesn't work like that.

Of course it doesn't, and I suspect you've seen that mistake a lot less often than you feel you've seen it.

But very few "claimants" suggest that they have an erratic power until they are challenged to prove it. The stereotypical exchange goes something like this:

Fruitcake: "I can predict coin flips with perfect accuracy!"
Skeptic : "Can you? Prove it!"
Fruitcake: "Well, maybe not perfect -- but very good!"
Skeptic: "How good?"
Fruitcake: "Well, 90% -- call it 80%"
Skeptic: "Really? So, if I flipped a coin a hundred times, you'd get it right 80 times?"
Fruitcake: "Well, maybe not 80. But I did seven out of ten last night."
Skeptic: "How about the night before last?"
Fruitcake: "Huh?"
Skeptic: "Did you try it the night before last?"
Fruitcake: "Um, .... yeah. I got six out of ten?"
Skeptic: "So if I flipped a coin a hundred times, you'd get sixty right?"
Fruitcake: "Well, yeah. And if I was as psychic as I was last night, I'd get at least seventy!"
Skeptic: "What makes you be more or less psychic?"
Fruitcake: "Well, I had lasagna for dinner last night...."
Skeptic: "So you can get seventy correct as long as you eat lasagna beforehand?"
Fruitcake: "Yeah!"
Skeptic: "Let's try it, then. I'll make the lasagna and you get a coin."
Fruitcake: "Well, it has to be a special kind of lasagna."
Skeptic: "What kind?"
Fruitcake: "Well, I'm not sure. The kind I made last night, I guess."
Skeptic: "And you don't know what kind that is."
Fruitcake:"Well, you know. It comes and it goes."
Skeptic: "What does, the lasagna?"
Fruitcake: "No, my psychic power, silly!"
Skeptic: "And sometimes it's not there at all?"
Fruitcake: "Well, yeah. Last Tuesday, I only got four out of ten."
Skeptic: "Did you have lasagna that night?"
Fruitcake:"I don't remember."
Skeptic: "So you remember what you had on the nights you did well, but not badly?"
Fruitcake: "Huh?"
Skeptic: "Don't you think this is selective reporting?"
Fruitcake: "No, it's psychic power!"
Skeptic: "Really, don't you just get lucky sometimes in your flips?"
Fruitcake: "No, it's magic, really it is. I never get less than four -- well, three -- out of ten."
Skeptic: "Three out of ten."
Fruitcake: "... so I could guarantee to get at least thirty coin flips correct out of a hundred."
Skeptic: "You do know that almost anyone could make that statement, from probability alone."
Fruitcake: "Waaaah! You don't believe me!"

I think this organization's complete lack of neutrality on the subject (neutrality would be reasonable) may be leading to making it impossible to prove even for people with a legitimate ability.

What's neutral? If you think you have a power, show it off. It's precisely because all of the people who think they have power either collapse under study or avoid being studied at all that the question even arises.

jimtron

24th March 2006, 03:45 PM

That's an interesting conclusion. It may be so. It does beg the question though: what is JREF's most pressing concern: that their universal view is confirmed and people live entirely in the realm of physical reality, or that a tape proving otherwise might be worth a lot of money?

As an objective, or at least bi-partisan, outsider looking in, I think this site comes across as more committed to proving all cases to be false than I think you might realize
Welcome! I think most of us would be quite excited to see someone win the challenge. It's not that we want the paranormal claims to be bogus, it's that we believe it is important to discriminate between bogus claims and real claims. I think it would be not only incredibly cool, but extremely useful if people could predict the future. I would be thrilled if someone could prove that (which would be pretty simple, if they truly had that power). But that doesn't mean that I'll give someone the benefit of the doubt if they make that claim.

Rasmus

24th March 2006, 04:52 PM

John, I am not a claimant. I am a person who could just as easily have made every point I made, and had them stand alone, without ever needing to have told you about my dreams.

I don't need an "out." As you may have surmised, I already somewhat suspect that most here have their minds made up to force people to prove what is essentially a non-existent event in their minds, and so I really have no investment in whether anyone here does or does not believe that I occasionally have genuinely premonitory dreams.

rarara.... heared it all before ....

so riddle me this, if you please: If you truly didn't care, then why on earth would yo urelate that part of yourself to us?

You didn't, so please don't start whining if we don't exactly believe you if you claim that you can see into the future.

One mistake I have seen the skeptics here make repeatedly is that they make the uneducated judgment that because a person has skill X, they ought to be able to call on skill X whenever they wish.

No, the idea is that if someone has these powers evewn some of the time, than it would *stoill* be possible to test for them.

The methodology suggested is the same used for testing of new medication, e.g.:

If it works even some of the time, then the group that got the real medication should - on everage - be better of healthwise than those who got the placebo treatment. That will work regardless of whether the medication works in 0.1, 1 or 100% of the cases.

As much as you all hate this fact, it just doesn't work like that. I hate the fact that it doesn't work like that. I hate the fact that I can't just get these dreams literally so that I can see exactly what is supposed to happen and maybe save some people.

If you cannot see what is going to happen *before* it happens, than why should anyone - including you - belive that the dream depicted the future? Why not instead belive that you interpreted a dream to fit the facts *after* the facts?

(These claims tend to remind me of the experiment done with a severly disabled person and his or her translator when the two of them were describing a picture. I will see if i can find the details later if noone else can fill them in for me.)

If I thought I could do that, I might dedicate more time and energy to it. It's not like doing a sport or learning an academic subject. It just isn't that way.

You're wasting an awful lot of bandwidth, considering that you don't really care if anyone belives you. Still, why not use some of it telling us how it *does* work?

What precisely makes you think that you cannot train this ability, btw?

Of course, there has to be some basis for figuring out who is for real and who isn't, but I think this organization's complete lack of neutrality on the subject (neutrality would be reasonable) may be leading to making it impossible to prove even for people with a legitimate ability.

So far I haven't seen any clear claims that couldn't have been tested rather easily. Claims like yours are hard to test, of course: If *you* cannot tell if you can tell the future until it'S over, how should anyone else judge if you did? And then judge if you performed better than chance, even?

Do you think that the tests for dowsers and the likes that are conducted by the JREF are unfair? How so?

(And why don't the applicants seem to view it that way?)

Finally, what makes you think that the testability of your the paranormal skills should be any different than that of any other skill? I have seen plenty of tests in my life, and not a single one was depending of the perfect mastery of the claim tested. They all allowed for degrees of ability to be presented.

Of course, good tests have the nasty tendency to also report of a testee is a total loser in the subject being tested. Usually, the test is not to blame.

Rasmus.

Soapy Sam

24th March 2006, 06:31 PM

One mistake I have seen the skeptics here make repeatedly is that they make the uneducated judgment that because a person has skill X, they ought to be able to call on skill X whenever they wish. As much as you all hate this fact, it just doesn't work like that. ...

That's perfectly possible and you are right that in such a case the JREF challenge is not the best tool for testing it. But remember what the challenge actually is. It is a challenge to the claimant to demonstrate an ability which he claims to have and claims the ability to prove. If he cannot do that, he has no business applying for the money.

Also- becase an effect is not under 24/7 control does not mean it is untestable-
For example in the case of a prophetic dreamer he should be keeping detailed records of the dreams as they occur, having the records notarised and awaiting the outcome. He should also record all dreams , so he has a percentage of proven to unproven. (Of course he might argue that they all come true somewhere, somewhen , but he may never learn of it) The strange thing is that very few people who think they have a gift of any sort seem to take these sort of elementary actions. They just know they are right. We are guilty of hubris too, as you infer, but we do try to gather the data first.

Of course, there has to be some basis for figuring out who is for real and who isn't, but I think this organization's complete lack of neutrality on the subject (neutrality would be reasonable) may be leading to making it impossible to prove even for people with a legitimate ability.

Neutrality would not be reasonable. Remember who JREF actually is. It's James Randi. A career stage magician.* He , after a lifetime in the entertainment business, has seen many tricks. When he saw those tricks being misapplied to earn money by fraud, he was disgusted . He started the challenge precisely to weed out cheats. That is it's function. It was never intended to take a neutral, scientific stance.
There are many genuine parapsychological researchers out there, some of whom at least start neutral but interested. Sadly, the more reearch they do, the less neutral they tend to become.
By far the majority tend to conclude there is simply nothing there to find. They move on to other work. There are few scientists so objective that they will spend a lifetime hunting for evidence of something they are increasingly sure does not exist.
By definition, those who stay in psychical research tend to be those who believe there is something to it. Some are fools. Some are frauds. Some may genuinely be on to something. I can only give my personal opinion here. The evidence I have seen is very, very poor. Your mileage may vary.

* Incidental edit to add- it's easy to confuse JREF with the JREF forum. The forum has nothing to do with the foundation in terms of administering the challenge. I think you know this, but other lurkers may not.

But I know you don't believe that, so back to our regularly scheduled programming (which for me is going to the gym).

Excellent. What do you think of Pilates ?

Timothy

24th March 2006, 07:01 PM

As you may have surmised, I already somewhat suspect that most here have their minds made up to force people to prove what is essentially a non-existent event in their minds, and so I really have no investment in whether anyone here does or does not believe that I occasionally have genuinely premonitory dreams.

1. You shouldn't be surprised that an audience comprised of skeptics will be skeptical. You have an extraordinary claim. We see many other "normal" explanations. We require more than anecdotal evidence before we believe in a extraordinary explanation. If you don't want to be dismissed outright, you have to show some evidence. Sorry, but relating a story doesn't count.

2. You said in your first post that you value scientific reasoning and logic. I would think that you would see why anyone else requires more than anecdotal proof. If you are interested in a serious investigation, we will assist you. (I will, at least.)

3. Since your premonitions are only occasional, you must admit that it's a hard claim to test. Hard, but not impossible. You don't seem to know the extent of the phenomenon...we can only surmise secondhand from your descriptions, so don't be surprised when suggestions are made that don't fit with your gut feelings of what's going on.

4. The key in any of this is to come up with a method that both you and a skeptical proctor agree will show what you claim. A goal would be to make an informal test as simple as possible, so that it can be determined whether a phenomenon exists or not without wasting resources. There are millions of people who claim to have paranormal powers...it's easy to claim paranormal powers; to show that it is worth the effort to expend resources examining your claim, positive results from an informal test would go a long way.

5. Suggested method: post your dreams here. Create a thread in which you post the details of your dreams, and afterwards any events that you think the dream presaged. If you had posted your September 9th dream here *on September 9th*, you would have raised some eyebrows given the number of correlating images. If a significant correlation occurs between one of your posted dreams and a future event (to the level of detail in your 9/9 dream), unlikely to be caused by coincidence, you'll have some people paying attention...even if it only happens in one out of a hundred dreams.

6. If you're willing to look at the phenomenon objectively, you'll have the respect of at least some of the people here. But if you've already made your mind up that the audience won't give you a fair hearing, then you're guilty of the same lack of objectivity and neutrality that you're accusing us of.

- Timothy

dubious

25th March 2006, 12:19 AM

For an some enlightening information about the reality of dreaming, I suggest you peruse Scientific American, volume 12 Number 1: The hidden Mind.
The scientific facts pertaining to our ability to dream are far more interesting than anything the paranormal has (incorrectly) imagined.
"knowledge of science is inverse to belief in the 'supernatural'".

joller

25th March 2006, 03:38 AM

I already somewhat suspect that most here have their minds made up to force people to prove what is essentially a non-existent event in their minds
You make the claim - you need to prove it. And even though you're not entering a claim for the JREF prize, you still claimed you've got paranormal powers, so you ARE a claimant in that sense.
Forgive me for being skeptical about it to start with, but your claim is really dodgy.
There were no planes in your dream, and what you described is what many people get afer playing too much computer games. You might have also been thinking about ie. Columbine the day before etc. To assume you had a premonition about 9/11 after what you postedis a big leap of faith.

One mistake I have seen the skeptics here make repeatedly is that they make the uneducated judgment that because a person has skill X, they ought to be able to call on skill X whenever they wish
1. How is that claim 'uneducated'- there is no proof those powers even exist! What's there to be educated about - what, anecdotes and hearsay?

. As much as you all hate this fact, it just doesn't work like that.
Tell that to divinrs, te X-ray girl, John Edward, Syvia Brown, Ui Geller etc - it works ALL the time for them. They even got TV shows, where they can do that at say 9 pm every week!
I hate the fact that it doesn't work like that.
What I hate even more is that i doesnt work at all.
It just isn't that way.
You'be got no supernatural powers. Get over it.
Of course, there has to be some basis for figuring out who is for real and who isn't, but I think this organization's complete lack of neutrality on the subject (neutrality would be reasonable) may be leading to making it impossible to prove even for people with a legitimate ability.
No one has ever proven to have any legitimate ability, after all, this is what's it all about! It's up to you to negotiate a protocol that will demonstrate without a doubt the powers you have.
Look at the protocols designed to date - no bias in them. Sometimes JREF even went out of their way to accomodate all the ridiculous wishes the claimants might have had!

But I know you don't believe that, so back to our regularly scheduled programming (which for me is going to the gym).
I don't believe that, you're right. Please prove me wrong.
Post one dream when you get it, with your thoughts on what you think it predicts, and when will the prediction come true.

Godmode

25th March 2006, 06:46 AM

I think a lot of people who are believers think that skeptics don't want the paranormal to be true. That's not always the case. Personally, I would love it if there was scientific evidence for the paranormal. I honestly would. Who doesn't want magic to be real? But it's not. So there's no point in pretending it is. But if I'm wrong about that, then science will prove it one day, and I will accept the results.
Being a skeptic does not mean you ignore evidence. It means you look for it.

ChristineR

25th March 2006, 04:27 PM

Soapy Sam

25th March 2006, 06:25 PM

And keep track of both hits and misses. You described a dream about a building during a crisis. What did you dream about the night before? Do you remember, or did you just remember the one that later events appeared to reinforce?

Flange Desire

26th March 2006, 06:45 PM

That's an interesting conclusion. It may be so. It does beg the question though: what is JREF's most pressing concern: that their universal view is confirmed and people live entirely in the realm of physical reality, or that a tape proving otherwise might be worth a lot of money?
Neither. The JREF's most pressing concern is education.
The view that people live entirely in the realm of physical reality is well supported by the available evidence, and a tape proving otherwise would be worth more than you can ever dream.

As an objective, or at least bi-partisan, outsider looking in, I think this site comes across as more committed to proving all cases to be false than I think you might realize
Don't worry about mere appearences or opinions.
Just show your evidence.
Money, kudos, Nobel prizes - all these await the successful claimant.

Ashles

27th March 2006, 12:57 PM

Just for the sake of telling a story, I had a dream on September 9th, 2001 about a building full of terrified people who were running from someone
In 9/11 no-one in the buildings was running from anyone.

who was shooting at all of them and killing many,
There was no shooting in the buildings

also blowing up bombs in some areas,
There were no bombs

for no reason other than unbridled hatred, as the people were running up and down the stairs in a dark building. Eventually, it turned out that I was playing two roles in the dream. I was the attacker, and I was part of the group running. At a point, the building started to crumble, and someone said, "We have to get over to the other building before she reaches us."
Who is 'she'? This sounds like the dream is describing a very specific threat from a female person.

I said, "What other building?" The man said, "If you walk across that catwalk, it connects this building to another one that's exactly identical to it." They started to run when the catwalk collapsed and the other building started to come down.
A catwalk would not be relevent as, if you were on the third or fourth floor, you would probably be running down and out of the building rather than across to another one.

Why can you accept the hits in the dream and ignore the misses?

I have had recurring dreams about being trapped in skyscrapers that were similar to your dream, but with less of the misses, but I don't interpret them as prophetic, merely some of the thousands and thousands of random dreams I have had.

joller

27th March 2006, 04:27 PM

Who is 'she'? This sounds like the dream is describing a very specific threat from a female person.
she said:
I was the attacker, and I was part of the group running.
It was her. People were trying to get away from her.
What's even more worrying, is that she was running away from herself as well.

Spidey13

27th March 2006, 08:34 PM

I think the most important question is: Was Kaz there?

opqdan

28th March 2006, 09:34 AM

Skeptics do need to keep an open mind and accept that there are somethings that occur that cannot (yet) be explained completely. A problem occurs when one opens their mind so much that their brain falls out. The default position is that there has to be some sort of non-paranormal reason for the phenomena. For claims like yours, this default position is that you may be deluding yourself into believing you can predict the future based on vague dreams.

An open mind does not require that all hypothesis are deemed equal. I doubt you believe in leprechauns or Santa Claus, but you must agree that no evidence has been found to disprove their existence. You should be able to see from this example that the default skeptic position is that the phenomena does not exist. I run into this a lot with discussions with my friends about atheism vs. agnosticism (not to turn this into a theology thread, just making a point). They contend that by calling myself an atheist I am putting faith in there being no god, whereas an agnostic says that the question cannot be answered. Do my friends call themselves "leprechaun agnostics", "santa claus agnistics" and "invisible pink unicorn agnostics"? Of course they do not, but why is it possible to say that they do not exist when there is no evidence, when the same cannot be said for other phenomena that are more widely accepted (theism, telepathy, clairvoyance). I will grant that all of these things (God, leperachauns, I.P. unicorns etc) could possibly exist, but without any sort of evidence they must be assumed not to. The same goes for predictions of the future.

On a separate note, have you really looked at your dream with a critical eye? One valid concern of mine is that your memory of the dream chaned when you head the WTC news. Unless you kept good records prior to the event, you have no way of knowing if your dream was changed to fit the event or not.

Also, what about the points of your dream that did not fit with the event? your dream of the event claims 5 discrete items: guns, bombs, 2 identical building, catwalk, collapse. Only 3 out of 5 of these items are correct (3/4 if you count guns and bombs as a single item), and I am not sure about the catwalk. I cannot find any information regarding a bridge across the lower floors, but I will assume that in such a building one would exist. The other items are rather vague. A real clincher would have been if you had dreamt of a plane causing the incident, something that seems to me would be a major component of a true premonition of the event. It looks to be suitably vague to fit almost any disaster (except for the 2 identical buildings). As another question, how many dreams have you had that did not come true?

I'm not trying to tell you that you are an idiot, or that you are a "crackpot", but I am trying to get you to critically look at your own claim (whether or not it is for the JREF prize) and decide whether it was truly a premonition. If so, I would request that you apply for the prize as soon as possible. Not for the money, but keeping this new knowledge of the universe to yourself, when it could help so many people (not to mention completely change how we look at science), is an extremly selfish thing to do.

opqdan

28th March 2006, 09:36 AM

I think the most important question is: Was Kaz there?Nah, I doubt she would have seen her. Kaz says she was stuck in the elevator where she received the <echo effect>"Rock of Jesus"</echo effect>. The OP only mentions stairs. :)

chillzero

29th March 2006, 04:12 AM

Also, what about the points of your dream that did not fit with the event? your dream of the event claims 5 discrete items: guns, bombs, 2 identical building, catwalk, collapse. Only 3 out of 5 of these items are correct (3/4 if you count guns and bombs as a single item), and I am not sure about the catwalk. I cannot find any information regarding a bridge across the lower floors, but I will assume that in such a building one would exist. The other items are rather vague. A real clincher would have been if you had dreamt of a plane causing the incident, something that seems to me would be a major component of a true premonition of the event. It looks to be suitably vague to fit almost any disaster (except for the 2 identical buildings). As another question, how many dreams have you had that did not come true?

There were no bombs.
To the best of my knowledge (I am open to being proved wrong here) there were no guns either.

So - 2 buildings. a collapse. that's it.
I did raise the comparison of the dream to actual events earlier, but seem to have been 'overlooked'. ;)

RSLancastr

29th March 2006, 03:10 PM

I saw a post that presented a screening question to a person claiming to have a gift...reading minds I think it was.both_sides, please understand that only a small percentage of the posts on this forum are official JREF posts. The vast majority of them are just the thoughts and opinions of people, such as yourself, who use the board.

So, unless the post was one in which Kramer quoted his correspondence with a potential claimant, the "screening question" you mention was just the suggestion of a fellow board member, and NOT an "official JREF" screening.

Also, you are correct thqat some of the people here don't want to see anyone beat the Million Dollar Challenge, but I believe they are in the minority.

Welcome!

[snip]

Of course!

[snip]

If the claimant is honest and the talent is real, the challenge rules are a trifle! The true ability to, say, read minds, would have no trouble at all with the challenge rules--especially since the procedure is determined by both the JREF and the challenger!

[snip]

A very good question indeed!

[snip]

You are quite right to raise such a concern, and I hope you will be happy to hear that the protocol does indeed address this concern! As well it should! And it is addressed at all stages! Take a look at the challenge FAQ sheet, and if you see any problems, please point them out!Merc, please do not use up all of the exclamation points, as some of the rest of us might want to use a few.

Welcome to the forums! I assume you will be applying for the million dollar prize! How amazing it will be when somebody finally wins it!Never mid Merc, strathmeyer found another box of 'em.

I think the most important question is: Was Kaz there?Maybe Kaz was the "she" everyone was running from?