Just More Excuses About "Challenge" Results...

[Clancie]

This has been mentioned here before, but Randi addresses it in this week's commentary as well. Frankly, I find the explanations he offers...wanting, to say the least.

As I understand it, the JREF has an operating budget of $600,000 a year, receives many grants and donations, and is tax-exempt because it is an "educational" foundation. Other than Randi's lectures, the educational output of JREF seems centered on (1) the Challenge and (2) this board.

Therefore, reporting the results of the Challenge seems extremely important to the stated educational "mission" of JREF. Yet, there seems little attempt to publicize them openly. For example, here are some exerpts from this week's Commentary:
A correspondent signed only as "Alexander" seems to be having difficulty understanding some basics about the JREF. He says we should write up all the applications and what resulted

He...wants "a list of what tests have been conducted, who the challengers were and contact details or links."

Personally, I think this is a very reasonable request. This minimal amount of record keeping should be done for each preliminary test anyway, shouldn't it? It's hard to believe no such list has been made. Or that doing so would be insurmountably difficult. But Randi continues:

Sure, so long as you'll come to Florida and spend a few months getting it together. This task would be huge, involving months of full-time work and the resulting costs to the JREF. As we've repeated many times, the records are available to anyone who wants to come here and go through drawers and cartons of records and thousands of computer files.

I find this incredible. A million dollar challenge...debunking alleged practitioners of the paranormal...educatiing the public about these frauds...these are at the heart of JREF. And yet...there is no list of challenges taken and the results? Incredible!!!!

Randi continues, in what seems an unnecessarily defensive tone.
Alexander also wrote that this investment of labor and money "would make [our] site seem more respectable and less like the crazies that [we] complain about." His perception is ridiculous. We've received wide approval and acceptance for our site — which currently receives some 85,000+ page views a day, internationally. I'll rest on that record.
What is ridiculous, imo, is that the head of this tax-exempt, educational foundation would tell people to "go to Florida" if they want to know about the challenges given and the results.

The information Alexander mentions should be public knowledge, publicly posted here for educational purposes. I find Randi's refusal to do this--and his defensiveness about a very reasonable suggestion--very troubling.

[Peter Jenkins]

I agree that every single challenge participant who completes the preliminary part of the challenge, whould be thoroughly documented.....................................Uhh h, but, then again, no one has completed a preliminary test, have they.

As i undertsand it, the preliminary part of the challenge is a simple test, to weed out the mistaken, the deluded and the insane. To this end, the test is often simple.
If you claim to control meteorites, OK, drop one on Randis garden.
Wow, guess what? nothing happens.
In a busy office situation, is this worthy of time and effort to record this fully? Even if it was, would this be enough to fully satisfy the anti-skeptical brigade?


You have a lot of problems with 'the challenge' Clancy. Some people might draw the conclusion that you are just out to pick holes in it. The fact is, it is the one unanswerable criticism to the dowser, the homeopathist and the psychic advisor.

Show me what paranormal skill you have. If it cant be show to have been acheived by rational terms, you get $1 million.

And no one has.

Peter

[Markus702]

I agree somewhat with Clancy. And while going through past JREF records of failed tests may in fact be time consuming, what would be so hard about starting an on-line log of newer tests shortly after they happen? If they were to start this now, they could also add details of past tests as time permits, with no worry about how long it takes. I for one would love to read in detail about some of the testing that goes on there (and I have no immediate plans to go to Florida).

[Fade]

Go to Florida and do it for them. Money doesn't grow on trees.

[Markus702]

Originally Posted by Fade
Go to Florida and do it for them. Money doesn't grow on trees.

I'm not sure if this comment is directed at me or Clancy, but I don't see how my suggestion about starting an online log of all new tests would be very expensive. A short description of the alleged paranormal ability and test performed entered at the conclusion of each test would take very little time.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancy
As I understand it, the JREF has an operating budget of $600,000 a year, receives many grants and donations, and is tax-exempt because it is an "educational" foundation. Other than Randi's lectures, the educational output of JREF seems centered on (1) the Challenge and (2) this board.

Had you taken the time to actually do some research, you would have learned that JREF also is involved with classroom demonstrations, giving out scholarships and awards, holding educational seminars, supporting and conducting research into paranormal claims through well-designed experiments utilizing "the scientific method" and by publishing the findings in the JREF official newsletter, Swift, and other periodicals, provide reliable information on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims by maintaining a comprehensive library of books, videos, journals, and archival resources open to the public.

Take a deep breath. We're not finished yet.

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

Did you actually go to the JREF website and find the goals of JREF? No.

Originally posted by Clancy
I find this incredible. A million dollar challenge...debunking alleged practitioners of the paranormal...educatiing the public about these frauds...these are at the heart of JREF. And yet...there is no list of challenges taken and the results? Incredible!!!!

So, you find it unacceptable that people have to go to Florida to check the data? Do you find it similarly unacceptable, then, that Gary Schwartz demanded that Randi came to Arizona to check his data, when Schwartz did his tests on mediums? I don't seem to recall in the discussions we had a long time ago that you did.

Originally posted by Clancy
Randi continues, in what seems an unnecessarily defensive tone.

That is what you believe you hear. I don't. But the, it sure is in the mind of the believer, isn't it?

Originally posted by Clancy
What is ridiculous, imo, is that the head of this tax-exempt, educational foundation would tell people to "go to Florida" if they want to know about the challenges given and the results.

Contrary to what you might believe, the Internet has not been here forever. Not everything is available online.

Originally posted by Clancy
The information Alexander mentions should be public knowledge, publicly posted here for educational purposes. I find Randi's refusal to do this--and his defensiveness about a very reasonable suggestion--very troubling.

If you could try to present Randis point truthfully, it would be most helpful. He doesn't refuse to do it, he simply doesn't have the resources.

[Clancie]

originally posted by Peter Jenkins
I agree that every single challenge participant who completes the preliminary part of the challenge, whould be thoroughly documented.....................................Uhh h, but, then again, no one has completed a preliminary test, have they.
lol. Its misstatements like this that would be avoided if there was an attempt to post information about the Challenge publicly.

FYI, there have been reports of some (how many we don't know for sure) claimants who have taken the preliminary challenge. They've taken it, Peter, just not passed it.
You have a lot of problems with 'the challenge' Clancy. Some people might draw the conclusion that you are just out to pick holes in it.
Well, I can understand why you would rather attack me than try to address the points I've made. (i.e. "Educational mission"=publicizing the Challenge results and taking every opportunity to expose these frauds and their deceptive claims to the public).
Show me what paranormal skill you have. If it cant be show to have been acheived by rational terms, you get $1 million.
How come my little smiley guy with the rolley eyes has been disabled? :(

:p :p

[Clancie]

And, Claus, please provide a quote to support your claim.

You know, some place where Randi says, "I want to make our Challenge test results very easily accessed by the public..."

[Incitatus]

I raised this precise issue years ago and was given the line about "records in disarray"..

It seems that the board of Directors would demand some sort of accounting.

It stinks, frankly.

[Peter Jenkins]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
originally posted by Peter Jenkins
I agree that every single challenge participant who completes the preliminary part of the challenge, whould be thoroughly documented.....................................Uhh h, but, then again, no one has completed a preliminary test, have they.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


lol. Its misstatements like this that would be avoided if there was an attempt to post information about the Challenge publicly.

FYI, there have been reports of some (how many we don't know for sure) claimants who have taken the preliminary challenge. They've taken it, Peter, just not passed it.

Pardon my poor use of English. I should have said no one has succesfully completed a preliminary test.

Well, I can understand why you would rather attack me than try to address the points I've made. (i.e. "Educational mission"=publicizing the Challenge results and taking every opportunity to expose these frauds and their deceptive claims to the public).

Well, I call it as I see it. This is the second thread that you have started in the past few days to criticise the challenge.
In the thread regarding Sylvia's challenge, I pointed out some flaws in your argument , which you chose not to address - as is your perfect right - however, when you choose not to address points on one thread, and then start a new thread about the challenge, one is naturally inclined to be suspicious.

I think that CF Larsen has covered any other points very well

Peter

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancy
And, Claus, please provide a quote to support your claim.

You know, some place where Randi says, "I want to make our Challenge test results very easily accessed by the public..."

No, no, no, Clancy. You make the first claim: That Randi "refuses" to make it public.
You know, some place where Randy says, ""I refuse to make our Challenge test results very easily accessed by the public..."

Do you concede that JREF does a little bit more than what you claimed?

Do you find it a problem that Gary Schwartz demands that people go to Arizona to see the data?

Do you recognize that the tests made before JREF went online are not necessarily in electronic format?

I know you "skirted" these issues, but they are kinda pivotal to your complaints about the Challenge...

[Clancie]

Claus,
In support of my position, I'll just repeat Randi's quote from above:
As we've repeated many times, the records are available to anyone who wants to come here and go through drawers and cartons of records and thousands of computer files.
You can interpret it anyway you like. I take it as a "No".

How about you? Do you have anything that shows a willingness on Randi's part to share these very educational results showing real-life frauds at work with as wide a public as possible?

And, Peter, I do have problems with the Challenge. I stopped arguing about the Sylvia test, because I felt there were fundamental differences about the concept behind it that wouldn't be resolved by more debate.

I can make a point about the design of it in a different way, though. (It will just have to wait till summer, when there's a little more time for it....:)

[KelvinG]

I find it interesting that it has now become fashionable among believers to attack the JREF challenge itself, since none of their heroes have had the courage to step forward and take it.
As usual, it's just another diversionary tactic to draw attention away from the fact that the likes of JE and SB are almost certainly frauds.

Can anyone imagine a scenario where believers would say "I've studied the JREF challenge and I believe it is completely legitimate and fair."
It will never happen. They need this excuse as an out to explain away the cowardice of the con artists they hold as idols.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancy
You can interpret it anyway you like. I take it as a "No".

Do you?? What is keeping you from accessing the data??

Originally posted by Clancy
How about you? Do you have anything that shows a willingness on Randi's part to share these very educational results showing real-life frauds at work with as wide a public as possible?

Yes, as a matter of fact I do. I read the goals of JREF, Clancy. You should try that as well.

Now, could you please address those points of yours? Or do you simply choose to ignore them, as so many other things?

Originally posted by Clancy
And, Peter, I do have problems with the Challenge. I stopped arguing about the Sylvia test, because I felt there were fundamental differences about the concept behind it that wouldn't be resolved by more debate.

As a matter of fact, you were trounced, because every argument you came up with was thoroughly refuted.

Originally posted by Clancy
I can make a point about the design of it in a different way, though. (It will just have to wait till summer, when there's a little more time for it....:)

Of course. "Coming soon". You have learned a great deal from paranormal researchers.

[Clancie]

Can anyone imagine a scenario where believers would say "I've studied the JREF challenge and I believe it is completely legitimate and fair."
It will never happen. They need this excuse as an out to explain away the cowardice of the con artists they hold as idols.
Another personal attack rather than dealing with the issue of education.
Pitiful.

P.S. Kevin. I think Sylvia's a fraud.

[Peter Jenkins]

Originally posted by Clancy
And, Peter, I do have problems with the Challenge. I stopped arguing about the Sylvia test, because I felt there were fundamental differences about the concept behind it that wouldn't be resolved by more debate.


actually 'the problems' with the sylvie challenge can be resolved if you answer one question

Q) Do you believe that:

a) the challenge , proposed for Sylia, by Randi, was 'set in stone', and - if Sylvia accepted the challenge - she should would have Had to have taken the test, exactly as proposed.

b) The challenge for Sylvia was a 'suggested' test. She would have had the opportunity to mutually design a test, with Randi, which fit her own professed 'powers'

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we've repeated many times, the records are available to anyone who wants to come here and go through drawers and cartons of records and thousands of computer files.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You can interpret it anyway you like. I take it as a "No".

I interpret it as qualified yes

Peter

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancy
Another personal attack rather than dealing with the issue of education. Pitiful.

If you are that concerned with dealing with the issues, then why don't you address this issue that you bring up yourself?

Pitiful indeed.

Originally posted by Clancy
P.S. Kevin. I think Sylvia's a fraud.

Please show the difference between Sylvia Browne and John Edward.

[TLN]

Summarizing:


Do you concede that JREF does a little bit more than what you claimed?
Do you find it a problem that Gary Schwartz demands that people go to Arizona to see the data?
Do you recognize that the tests made before JREF went online are not necessarily in electronic format?
Please show the difference between Sylvia Browne and John Edward.


Clancy, why do you ignore these questions? Is it because you can't answer them?

[CFLarsen]

TLN,

Now, why didn't I think of making a list of unanswered questions? :D

There are plenty more unanswered questions for Clancy. But I think that these will do nicely, for the time being.

[Clancie]

Let's see...What a great look at some "Defend Randi/The Challenge From Any Criticism At All Cost" Tactics. A summary of the responses to my question on this thread:

Tactic #1: personal attack

Tactic #2: derail the thread by posing numerous unrelated questions

Tactic #3: smear tactics/guilt by association (As in. "Oh, this person criticizing Randi/The Challenge is just another 'believer'"--read: "Randi-hater", "Sylvia lover", "gullible imbecile"....etc.)

Tactic #4: ask the critic lots of new questions, unrelated to the issue of the thread in the hope the questions don't get answered and thereby make the critic seem uninformed to others (while the basic questions of the thread still remain unaddressed by Randi/Challenge "believers"....)

Again, the question is....why shouldn't The Challenge claimants and results be briefly summarized and publicly and easily available for educational purposes right here, or at least in a written document people can send for (and pay for), if interested? What's so darned time-consuming about doing this?

Why the secrecy? Why insist anyone who wants to know this brief bit of information about the Challenge results has to "go to Ft. Lauderdale and see for themselves"?

And, if there's such a disarray of record-keeping to date at JREF, then why--as Markus702 suggests--can't a brief summary of all future claimants, tests, and results be made available as a link here? I can't believe it would take more than an hour to summarize, date, and post the results of each test, briefly. (An hour to do it, tops). Yet, there seems no willingness to even try to share these important results with all the members of the public who cannot just get on a plane, book a hotel, rent a car and "come to Ft. Lauderdale".

My question (still unanswered by anyone here) is....why?

[Clancie]

Oh, and even though it's a sad attempt to derail discussion of the issue of this thread, I'll address the questions from Peter, TLN and Kevin G anyway:

From TLN:

1. Do you concede that JREF does a little bit more than what you claimed?

Yes, I said it seemed JREF educational efforts are "centered" on the Challenge and this board. I know, of course, that there are other forms of educational outreach, too. My point is that these two are very important to the stated mission of JREF.

My question: Are you saying that the Challenge--and its exposure to a wide audience of fake paranormal claims--isn't central to the educational goals of JREF?

2. Do you find it a problem that Gary Schwartz demands that people go to Arizona to see the data?

Actually, Randi personally objects to having to go to Arizona to see Schwartz's tons of raw data for himself. How ironic is that?

And Randi's not looking for just an abstract/summary of results, like I'm suggesting should be made public here. He wants Schwartz to actually send him all the cartons and cartons of documents and files. He wants all this shipped from Az. to Ft. Lauderdale so he doesn't have to travel to see all the raw data for himself!!!!

Funny that you can't see some, uh, "inconsistent" principle in that demand, isn't it?

3. Do you recognize that the tests made before JREF went online are not necessarily in electronic format?

Well, duh. :rolleyes: Why does writing up the results and putting a nice record of it online here now seem so insurmountable an obstacle to you? And, if that's "too time-consuming" :confused: then why not just start doing it right now, with all future claimants?

4. Please show the difference between Sylvia Browne and John Edward.

Still more derailing of my thread? Okay, let's just say that I've seen Sylvia live on TV, read two of her books, talked with people who think she's the "real deal", and read her MSN chats and still don't see anything to make me think she isn't a fake.

After doing the same with JE (plus seeing him live, in seminar), there are things I can't explain as just "cold/hot reading". Maybe he is a fraud (that's what I assumed when I got interested in all this). On the other hand, maybe he isn't. I don't feel that kind of doubt about Sylvia, from what I have observed so far anyway.

From Peter Jenkins

actually 'the problems' with the sylvie challenge can be resolved if you answer one question

Q) Do you believe that:

a) the challenge , proposed for Sylia, by Randi, was 'set in stone', and - if Sylvia accepted the challenge - she should would have Had to have taken the test, exactly as proposed

Well, I don't think this addresses any of the problems of the Challenge at all. And, frankly, I'm not sure if it's still open to negotiation or not regardless, since Sylvia did accept already--and is apparently too stupid to ever come prepared with an alternative suggestion (the "gamesmanship" move would be to have an idea that sounds reasonable to people who don't follow this closely, makes her seem honest, but is totally unacceptable to JREF).

b) The challenge for Sylvia was a 'suggested' test. She would have had the opportunity to mutually design a test, with Randi, which fit her own professed 'powers'

Well, maybe yes, maybe no. She did accept it already, after all.

But it's not about Sylvia to me anyway. I just think that Randi's proposal shows us a lot about his intentions. (But I've tried to address this before here to no avail. Perhaps another time and in a different way....)

And, finally, from Kevin G

Can anyone imagine a scenario where believers would say "I've studied the JREF challenge and I believe it is completely legitimate and fair."
It will never happen. They need this excuse as an out to explain away the cowardice of the con artists they hold as idols.

What a put down this is! I'm sure there are plenty of believers like myself, who would have absolutely no problem saying they thought the design was fair and the results were accessible to the public for educational purposes. Unfortunately, I don't think either of these things are true....(Nor has any "Randi believer" argued otherwise on this thread....)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancy
Oh, and even though it's a sad attempt to derail discussion of the issue of this thread, I'll address the questions from Peter, TLN and Kevin G anyway:

From TLN:

1. Do you concede that JREF does a little bit more than what you claimed?

Yes, I said it seemed JREF educational efforts are "centered" on the Challenge and this board. I know, of course, that there are other forms of educational outreach, too. My point is that these two are very important to the stated mission of JREF.

Sorry, Clancy,

That clank you heard was the sound of the "no sale" flag going up on my register. You are now waffling on your original assertion. "Centered on" is a phrase reserved for the most important aspects of something, not merely "important" aspects. Also, please put your statement back into its original context to see you clearly meant three efforts were the most important: the lectures, the challenge and the board.

If you want to say this original claim was in error, that is one thing. But please do not waffle and weasel on the statement.

Cheers,

[Clancie]

Okay, Bill. I did consider the three things I listed as being the most important educational features of JREF (meaning, receiving the most effort, attention, etc.) If its widely agreed among people more familiar with JREF than I that educational outreach in the way CFL mentioned is more important than these three, then I'll stand corrected, no problem. Maybe I'm missing something, but it just seems like kind of nitpicking. But, okay, I've added them to my mental list of JREF activities....

However, this broadened list doesn't change anything about the point I'm making about the Challenge, does it? Or the purported educational purpose of the Challenge--and, along with it, the need to publicize the results as much as possible to clearly expose the specifics of the fraud detected to as many people as possible.....

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancy
Okay, Bill. I did consider the three things I listed as being the most important educational features of JREF (meaning, receiving the most effort, attention, etc.) If its widely agreed among people more familiar with JREF than I that educational outreach in the way CFL mentioned is more important than these three, then I'll stand corrected, no problem. Maybe I'm missing something, but it just seems like kind of nitpicking. But, okay, I've added them to my mental list of JREF activities....

However, this broadened list doesn't change anything about the point I'm making about the Challenge, does it? Or the purported educational purpose of the Challenge--and, along with it, the need to publicize the results as much as possible to clearly expose the specifics of the fraud detected to as many people as possible.....
I think you missed my point. JREF does far more than the three things you enumerated. Your response to TLN about this was to waffle on the phrase "centered on". Your perspective on JREF activities is parochial, and based largely on this website. JREF existed long before the JREF website. Judging from Randi's and Andrew's relative lack of particpation here, this site is not a main focus.

You are also quite mistaken about the nature of JREF applicants. Most are not frauds. Most are regular folk. Sadly deluded, but regular folk. Randi has no interest in dragging them censoriously into the light. Most importantly, however, there is precious little data here. The applicants simply don't pass the preliminary tests and simply don't become claimants. Lastly, and as has been pointed out before, the data are available for review.

Randi has often commented on the paltry quality of applicant claims. Some are hilarious. (Take, for example, the woman whose toaster channeled voices.) As another example, take Carlos. What data value is there in noting that a man from Fargo did not melt brownies with his gaze in his preliminary trial? Or that a woman's toaster stopped channeling voices whenever the local radio station wasn't broadcasting? Or that that Duluth couple's garden cabbage did not speak French, and was not God?

These claims would make a great book. Which, of course, is an excellent segue into yet another JREF educational vehicle you failed to acknowledge.

Cheers,

[Markus702]

I know I'm going to be of unpopular opinion here, but I think Clancy is kind of taking a bum rap in this thread. Obviously many of you have personal differences with him (myself probably included, but in all fairness I'm unfamiliar with any of his other threads). But he makes a point where he says this thread was somewhat derailed with unrelated questions and personal attacks. This thread was not based on whether someone believes in anything paranormal, but rather the JREF's ability/duty to educate the public to the best of their ability. In Clancy's defense, he did answer each question asked of him, and conceded he may have been incorrect in his original post. I stand by my original assertation that he makes somewhat of a valid point when he says there should be on-line access to JREF testing (not with spending months of full time work entering past tests, but starting now with future tests).
Is there any reason why it would be overly difficult, starting now, to give brief descriptions of applicant claims and tests on-line? I'm assuming there's some type of electronic log kept already, so why not put it on-line?

[dharlow]

I agree with Markus (although Clancy is a "she" :) ) I see no reason why these tests are not published. The fact that this is "time-consuming" is weak and unscientific. Like it or not, the challenge plays a major role in the JREF. I don't even think this material HAS to be published online. Perhaps results could be published in a quarterly journal distributed among members. Hell, if the JREF wants to up membership dues to get this done, so be it.

I might also quote from Randi's book, Flim Flam. On page three, he states, "To date, more than six-hundred people have offered to submit to tests, and only fifty-five have gotten by the preliminaries." But now we learn that NO ONE has gotten by the premilinaries. What is the truth here?

The JREF promotes scientific education in the paranormal. It has been a frequent and misguided opinion that parapsychologists let their negative results languish in a "file-drawer". Randi, as a scientific inquirer, should adhere to the criticisms put forth. These results, each and every one of them, should be published, negative or not. There can be no excuses on this.

[Martin]

Originally posted by dharlow
On page three, he states, "To date, more than six-hundred people have offered to submit to tests, and only fifty-five have gotten by the preliminaries." But now we learn that NO ONE has gotten by the premilinaries. What is the truth here?Look at the context. To date, more than six-hundred people have offered to submit tests. I would read this as meaning that only 55 actually got as far as sending in the application and suchlike.

[dharlow]

Originally posted by Martinm
Look at the context. To date, more than six-hundred people have offered to submit tests. I would read this as meaning that only 55 actually got as far as sending in the application and suchlike.

I'm not sure about that. On page 252 he states, "....over 650 persons have applied as claimants. Only 54 (as of this writing) have made it "past" (my quotes) the preliminaries, and none of them ever got a nickel. "

Of course, this debate centers around the vagueness of Randi's "preliminary" test. He states, "JR may be present at some preliminary or formal tests, but will not interact with the materials used." But he interacts with almost all the tests I've seen, including Natilie's blindfold. Now I know that she is pulling the old blindfold-peek act, but this demonstration (with the limited infomation we've been provided on it.... and which my ultimate argument has been to "provide the details") passed on the first try. The preliminary test is described as a "test", not "tests", yet Randi manipulated conditions twice. I am astounded that people familiar with proper scientific protocol cannot see the breaches apparent in these descriptions. Now...a fully detailed report would clear many of these objections up immediately, hence my proposal. Isn't the JREF's primary goal about promoting true scientific inquiry?

[dharlow]

I might also state that from Randi's book, he infers that his challenge was originally made in 1964. The book, written in 1982, states that 55 got by the "preliminaries". Now if this is true, and the assertation that only 55 have actually "submitted" to testing, then the actual "tests" conducted by now, through extrapolation number somewhat over 100. Can not 100 (200?) tests, with the resources and funding provided to the JREF put these in print? If for nothing else, they could make for great amusement.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by dharlow

I'm not sure about that. On page 252 he states, "....over 650 persons have applied as claimants. Only 54 (as of this writing) have made it "past" (my quotes) the preliminaries, and none of them ever got a nickel. "

Yes, but the phrase "the preliminaries" in this context almost certainly means the process of getting the claimant in question to describe their claim exactly, agreeing on a mutually acceptable protocol and so on.

The preliminaries to the testing, in other words.

If you read it any other way, I think you're deliberately trying to twist Randi's words.


Of course, this debate centers around the vagueness of Randi's "preliminary" test. He states, "JR may be present at some preliminary or formal tests, but will not interact with the materials used." But he interacts with almost all the tests I've seen, including Natilie's blindfold. Now I know that she is pulling the old blindfold-peek act, but this demonstration (with the limited infomation we've been provided on it.... which my ultimate argument has been to provide) passed on the first try. The preliminary test is described as a "test", not "tests", yet Randi manipulated conditions twice. I am astounded that people familiar with proper scientific protocol cannot see the breaches apparent in these descriptions. Now...a fully detailed report would clear many of these objections up immediately, hence my proposal. Isn't the JREF's primary goal about promoting true scientific inquiry?

Somehow this seems like petty quibbling.

The point is to see if they can do what they say they can do, under the conditions they said were okay.

If they wanted to specify in their conditions that Randi do or do not do X, they could have done so and my guess is that he'd have gone with it.

Like it says, each test is different depending on what each claimant says they can do.

[dharlow]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe


Yes, but the phrase "the preliminaries" in this context almost certainly means the process of getting the claimant in question to describe their claim exactly, agreeing on a mutually acceptable protocol and so on.

The preliminaries to the testing, in other words.

If you read it any other way, I think you're deliberately trying to twist Randi's words.



I am not, in any way trying to twist his words. They are there, and if he has decided to mix his "preliminary" definition in 1982 with what he does now, then that is his fault, not mine.


Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

Somehow this seems like petty quibbling.

The point is to see if they can do what they say they can do, under the conditions they said were okay.

If they wanted to specify in their conditions that Randi do or do not do X, they could have done so and my guess is that he'd have gone with it.

Like it says, each test is different depending on what each claimant says they can do.

In what way? I ask that he publish the details of his tests. Is this not normal scientific procedure? Are we to judge a scientific test or judge an anecdote? I see nothing wrong in asking these tests to be publicized, in one form or another, in detail. Skeptics and believers can only gain from such exact illustration.

[Fade]

I see nothing wrong in asking these tests to be publicized, in one form or another, in detail.

Because you aren't paying the bills. If you want to see the results, go to Ft Lauderdale and look. If you want them online, then go to Ft Lauderdale and write them up.

If I am right, most of them would be largely hand written, with typed up conclusions afterwards, along with signatures, possibly pictures, letters back and forth, and other miscellaneous data. Turning this into a coherent online explanation is a MUCH larger chore than a lot of you would make it out to be. The way we interact in our world of paper just doesn't transfer to the net easily. Undoubtedly, the vast majority of the work would have to be typed in. Then, pictures would have to be scanned in, and stored / served somewhere. Then, the type and pictures would have to be formatted. Databases would have to be constructed. Indexes would have to be made.

This is a HUGE undertaking. I once tried to make only a personal webpage. I put things that I liked, musings, art I had found, interesting stories and things I had heard in it. The thing is, an update could take me as much as 40 hours to complete, because all the little things began to add up.

Imagine doing this for a few decades of collected data gathering! It's WORK, that must be PAID for. Publicizing the results of the challenges wouldn't serve anyone. I know that every single claim has failed miserably so far, and that's all I need to know. I don't need to know the claimants name, or what they do for a living, or what the weather conditions were like. I don't need to see where they did it, what they were wearing. I don't need the type of information that would be demanded to be included, should he begin publicizing the results on the web.

It's a huge, huge undertaking.

[The Fool]

Clancy.

A couple of points.
A fair proportion of the people that send test applications to the Jref are unhinged. Randi has to put up with this, It comes with the job. It does lead to e-mail harrasment as well as loonies harrasing and trolling this board when their challanges fail. Publishing a list of failures will tend to agravate the less stable, probably leading to further legal harrasment of the Jref in the form of injunctions to remove someones puiblished "failed" status when they refuse to accept that they have failed. You may think this is far fetched but we have had cases of people conducting long campagns of harrasment of the JREF and this board when a smudged video of a bird was not accepted as proof of a paranormal event. The vast majority of failures, I would think, may just want to quietly disappear...publishing thier failure would be counter productive for them and JREF.......Anyway, the only stat that really means anything is "Number of tests=X, number of failures also=X" Do we really need the list of names?

[Regnad Kcin]

Hear, hear to Fade and The Fool.

(BTW ... Do it, Fool. :p )

[dharlow]

Originally posted by Fade


Because you aren't paying the bills. If you want to see the results, go to Ft Lauderdale and look. If you want them online, then go to Ft Lauderdale and write them up.


If this were Joe Schmoe conducting paranormal tests, then fine, I don't have a disagreement. But this is the James Randi "EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION". One of it's expressed goals is "Supporting and conducting research into paranormal claims through well-designed experiments utilizing 'the scientific method' and by publishing the findings in the JREF official newsletter, Swift, and other periodical statements."

I am not seeing this goal being met. I see anecdotes from Randi of these "well-designed" experiments. I do not understand why anyone here, who so fundamentally believes in science, can disagree with this. I do not believe in paranormal abilities, and I do not believe, whatsoever, that anyone that Randi has tested has demonstrated them. I do believe that his tests, whatever their results, should be published, and not relegated to anecdotes from Randi. This has consequences, including the interpretation by believers. If you could shove a conclusive, well designed and well DOCUMENTED test into a believer's face, the impact is far stronger than presenting them with an anecdote.

The JREF had a benefactor increase the pot from $10,000 to $1,000,000. Does the JREF not have enough money to publicize these tests, or even in a more modest goal, publicize those from now on?

[Brickroad]

If you could shove a conclusive, well designed and well DOCUMENTED test into a believer's face, the impact is far stronger than presenting them with an anecdote.

I somehow do not think this would be the case. I think they would just move to the next excuse on their list.

Based solely on what I've read in this thread, the tets are already conclusive, well-designed, and well-docuented... just not in the format that you'd prefer.

The question I have is how difficult would it be if someone were to ask the JREF for specific information about one of their tests? If you were to request information about only one test and still got the "come to Ft. Lauderdale and see it yourself" answer, I think there would be cause for concern.

[Fade]

I do believe that his tests, whatever their results, should be published, and not relegated to anecdotes from Randi

Okay, what AREN'T you understanding.


To publish the results of something as ongoing as this would COST A LOT OF MONEY, AND TAKE A LOT OF TIME. As a non-profit organization, the JREF wouldn't really have enough of either of these things to indulge in the whim of every schmuck with a demand.

If. You. Want. Them. Published. Then. Pay. For. It. Yourself.

You have no right to make demands of non-profit organizations with which you share no financial responsibility.

[Denise]

Originally posted by Fade




If. You. Want. Them. Published. Then. Pay. For. It. Yourself.



Well said. It's available to the public. Seek and you shall find, build it and they will come.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancy
Yes, I said it seemed JREF educational efforts are "centered" on the Challenge and this board. I know, of course, that there are other forms of educational outreach, too. My point is that these two are very important to the stated mission of JREF.

They are. But you said this:

"Other than Randi's lectures, the educational output of JREF seems centered on (1) the Challenge and (2) this board."

Centered means, as BillHoyt said, the most important aspects.

Originally posted by Clancy
My question: Are you saying that the Challenge--and its exposure to a wide audience of fake paranormal claims--isn't central to the educational goals of JREF?

Nobody is saying that. We would all like to see the results. We just acknowledge that it takes time and money to do it.

Originally posted by Clancy
Actually, Randi personally objects to having to go to Arizona to see Schwartz's tons of raw data for himself. How ironic is that?

Not ironic at all. You see, Schwartz first agreed to let Randi see it. Then he backed down and started making all sorts of excuses, so Randi could not even look at the data without Schwartz controlling what he said.

Please remember that nobody has seen Schwartz' data. Not even other scientists.

Originally posted by Clancy
And Randi's not looking for just an abstract/summary of results, like I'm suggesting should be made public here. He wants Schwartz to actually send him all the cartons and cartons of documents and files. He wants all this shipped from Az. to Ft. Lauderdale so he doesn't have to travel to see all the raw data for himself!!!! Funny that you can't see some, uh, "inconsistent" principle in that demand, isn't it?

You may not know this, but I had a lengthy discussion with Steve Grenard about this, who claims intimate relationship with Schwartz. Steve hedged and explained away, but it came down to this: There are no reasons whatsoever why Schwartz cannot send the digitized data via the Internet to Florida. It would take less than an hour.

Originally posted by Clancy
Well, duh. :rolleyes: Why does writing up the results and putting a nice record of it online here now seem so insurmountable an obstacle to you? And, if that's "too time-consuming" :confused: then why not just start doing it right now, with all future claimants?

It still represents a considerable effort. Andrew, I believe, is not even paid at JREF. JREF does not have a huge staff.

Originally posted by Clancy
Still more derailing of my thread? Okay, let's just say that I've seen Sylvia live on TV, read two of her books, talked with people who think she's the "real deal", and read her MSN chats and still don't see anything to make me think she isn't a fake.

Excuse me, you are the one who claims Sylvia Browne is a fake to defend your point, so if there is any derailing going on, it comes from you.

You are very quick to dismiss skeptics who say that Edward is a fake because you don't consider the skeptics educated enough about Edward. Yet, you are apparently able to determine that Sylvia is a fake without having the same level of knowledge that you demand that the skeptics have of Edward, before they pass judgment. Highly hypocritical of you, I'd say.

Originally posted by Clancy
After doing the same with JE (plus seeing him live, in seminar), there are things I can't explain as just "cold/hot reading". Maybe he is a fraud (that's what I assumed when I got interested in all this). On the other hand, maybe he isn't. I don't feel that kind of doubt about Sylvia, from what I have observed so far anyway.

You have stated so many times that you believe that Edward is a real medium.

Originally posted by Clancy
But it's not about Sylvia to me anyway. I just think that Randi's proposal shows us a lot about his intentions. (But I've tried to address this before here to no avail. Perhaps another time and in a different way....)

Perhaps. In the meantime, you can think about why John Edward does not want to be tested.

[Markus702]

Originally posted by Fade
To publish the results of something as ongoing as this would COST A LOT OF MONEY, AND TAKE A LOT OF TIME. As a non-profit organization, the JREF wouldn't really have enough of either of these things to indulge in the whim of every schmuck with a demand.
Again I have to ask; what would be so expensive or difficult to start publishing future testing conducting by the JREF? Forget sifting through the old boxes of test results (which we understand would be costly, time consuming, yadda yadda yadda), but just starting now.
I couldn't care less if the full names of the tested individuals is included or not (so long as they are available to those that must confirm the validity that such testing did take place). I think it would be educational to see the type of testing designed by the JREF and associates for different claims.
Furthermore, I'm sure I've heard more than once someone claiming they performed their paranormal ability adequately enough to merit the million dollar prize, but Randi did not pay and is not a man of honor, blah blah blah. Obviously I don't believe that for a minute, but if results of said testing were published, don't you believe the public may be less likely to take the claims of such crackpots seriously? The popular opinion around here seems to be that most people either believe vehemently or do not. I personally believe that many many people are on the fence when it comes to the existence of paranormal occurences, and if they only hear one side of the story (i.e. I can read minds, talk to the dead, Randi cheated me out of a million) they're likely to believe it.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Markus702
Again I have to ask; what would be so expensive or difficult to start publishing future testing conducting by the JREF?

Apparently, not (http://www.randi.org/jr/022202.html) much. (http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html)

[Markus702]

Origianlly posted by TLNApparently, not much.
With all due respect, both of those commentarys are over a year old, and they represent exceptions, not the norm. Randi even comments in the opening paragraph of the February 22, 2002 Commentary "We expect lots of comments on this item, and I hope that this will satisfy those of you who rant that we don't report on what happens with the applicants for the prize..... ". So apparently complaints of this sort are nothing new.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Markus702
Originally Posted by Fade


I'm not sure if this comment is directed at me or Clancy, but I don't see how my suggestion about starting an online log of all new tests would be very expensive. A short description of the alleged paranormal ability and test performed entered at the conclusion of each test would take very little time.

[/quote]

Ignore Fade. He's an ar*ewipe.

[Clancie]

originally posted by Fade
You have no right to make demands of non-profit organizations with which you share no financial responsibility.
Actually, Fade, we as tax payers do have that right. "Non-profit" status doesn't mean "We don't earn any money". It means that "Due to our mission (which is in the public interest) we don't have to pay taxes on any of the money that we earn." Many non-profits have multi-million dollar budgets, are run like corporations, and, just like private corporations, have large amounts of their untaxed income going to a few very generous administrative salaries. (The American Red Cross comes to mind as an example of this).

In any case, in this way, "non-profits" are tax-payer subsidized. This privilege is due solely to their stated mission, which is "in the public interest". As dharlow pointed out, the James Randi Educational Foundation includes the following statement as an important part of their educational mission:
"Supporting and conducting research into paranormal claims through well-designed experiments utilizing 'the scientific method' and by publishing the findings in the JREF official newsletter, Swift, and other periodical statements."
So, the public definitely has the "right to know" more than anecdotes about these tests.
originally posted by Fade
Turning this into a coherent online explanation is a MUCH larger chore than a lot of you would make it out to be. The way we interact in our world of paper just doesn't transfer to the net easily.
Really? Why, Fade? There's a website already available and many things already posted and linked here. Or, if print is really so much easier, why not make it available in a journal? Or even typed up and able to be ordered as a xeroxed copy? The issue is documentation of testing and some sort of access to the actual results--not just being invited to go to Florida and rummage through cartons and files to see if anything relevant turns up.

After all, if photos are too difficult to include (though Randi often puts photos with his commentary), why not just type up the report of testing as text? A simple format to start with would be:
I. Applicant (full name not necessary)
II. Claim
III. Test (including agreed on protocol and all participants/observers)
IV. Results

In fact, # I-III could even be written up ahead of time. (Even one of those bright high school volunteers that JREF uses could probably do a very credible first-draft of all this--and would find it a valuable experience to do so).
originally posted by The Fool
Publishing a list of failures will tend to aggravate the less stable, probably leading to further legal harrassment of the JREF in the form of injunctions to remove someones published "failed" status when they refuse to accept that they have failed. You may think this is far fetched
Yes, I do find this idea kind of far-fetched (and not one stated by Randi himself as a reason). Especially as JREF has applicants sign a detailed release.
Publishing their failure would be counter productive for them and JREF......
Then, if this is really a problem, JREF is not prepared to live up to its mission statement regarding publishing testing results and should change it to say, "Results of these tests must remain confidential." So far, that hasn't happened.
originally posted by markus702
I personally believe that many many people are on the fence when it comes to the existence of paranormal occurences, and if they only hear one side of the story (i.e. I can read minds, talk to the dead, Randi cheated me out of a million) they're likely to believe it.
I agree that there are many people on the fence. These are the ones that are most likely to change their minds when presented with evidence of test results. Isn't this the group JREF is most trying to reach with their educational efforts?
originally posted by dharlow
If you could shove a conclusive, well designed and well DOCUMENTED test into a believer's face, the impact is far stronger than presenting them with an anecdote.
Yes, dharlow. I would think that everyone here would defintely agree with you that some people can change their ideas based on evidence rather than anecdote. In fact, I'm sure many of us here have experienced such changes in our own ideas through the years, when given good reason to do so.

And isn't documented scientific testing of bogus paranormal claims a big part of what the "educational" part of JREF's mission is supposed to be about?

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Clancy

What a put down this is! I'm sure there are plenty of believers like myself, who would have absolutely no problem saying they thought the design was fair and the results were accessible to the public for educational purposes. Unfortunately, I don't think either of these things are true....(Nor has any "Randi believer" argued otherwise on this thread....)

Oh yes, plenty of believers who think Randi's test is fair. Highly unlikely if you ask me.
If they had to admit Randi's test was fair, then what is the reason for JE not taking the challenge. Oh, that's right, he's too busy, he has nothing to prove, blah, blah, blah.
That is why the challenge itself is continually attacked. That way the believers can create diversionary excuses for the their idols reluctance to prove his abilities.

And Clancy, have you contacted Randi directly about not having challenge results made public. If you have such a problem with it, open a dialogue with him. It's pointless for third party persons to make excuses for him. Get it straight from JREF itself.

[SteveGrenard]

With all due respect to Schwartz, Robinson and Roy and numerous other researchers of mediumship, ESP and psychic phenomena, these folks have published the results of their inqueries and in many cases followed up with books devoted mainly to them.

In the case of the Schwartz/Randi aborted Challenge, it was the boxes of reams of work product of Schwartz' lab that Randi wanted shipped to him in Florida and not the published results of the tests which were publicly available to him. Schwartz was recently subjected to a critique by Ray Hyman which he answered in writing in the SI as well. Randi was invited to visit the lab and discontinued further dialogue when he could not get his way which was ironic since he has always responded to calls for information about the challenege in precisely the same vein.


Many well known scientific skeptics such as Richard Wiseman, Susan Blackmore and C.O'Keefe routinely publish the results of their studies in the JSPR and elsewhere and their contributions are as welcome as are those of Schwartz, Robinson and Roy, Keen and others. James Randi does not deign to peer publish any of his results where his Challenge is concerned and provides only one sided cursory descriptions in his commentaries from time to time.

No scientists [save for those sponsored by large pharmaceutical companies shipping out tractor trailer loads of data to the FDA ]
send out their work product but they do allow auditors into the lab to examine such data on site. The NIH, for example, requires such inspection privileges as part of its grant making process.
Schwartz was quite willing for Randi and his suggested referees to inspect his workproduct on this basis. The University of Arizona was following normally accepted practices and standards.

I would not expect Randi to publish his entire work product but I don't think expecting him to publish summaries and results of his challenge applicants on a case by case basis would be so difficult or expensive. I am sure he could even recruit a local grad student to do the scut work. Until he does that anything he says about the process and its results are, as many skeptics say, anecdotal. And until he does publish his results, no serious researcher would likely even be interested in examining the supporting data and work product on site.

Added:

With regard to John Edward not applying for the Challenge, I believe that Edward does not take the process seriously if his comments on LKL re this are any indication. If Randi were to publish his efforts or collaborate with his many researcher friends to do so then the aura of anecdocity would be removed and his efforts might be taken more seriously by a wider range of people.

Since Randi is also in full control and is the final arbiter and does not allow any judging there is also an element of distrust which myself and others have pointed out or felt on many occasions.

Since there is no judging and everything must be yes or no, black or white ...... one hundred percent obvious and apparent or not, then there are no reviewers, no referees, no arbiters, no interpreters of data (which is very important in many areas of psychic research) and this certainly runs counter to the way scientific research is conducted and reviewed. Now I realize supporters will say Randi is NOT a scientist and I agree. He is a magician and is skilled at unmasking deception using his long experience and logic but having input from others is just as important at arriving at a conclusion ... but this may require some haggling, some study and, yes, some informed judgement calls.

[Markus702]

Originally posted by KelvinGAnd Clancy, have you contacted Randi directly about not having challenge results made public. If you have such a problem with it, open a dialogue with him. It's pointless for third party persons to make excuses for him. Get it straight from JREF itself.
Is Randi available to every Joe Message Board Poster who would like to speak with him directly? I'd imagine he'd be much busier than that. Besides Randi seemed to make his viewpoint on the issue clear in this weeks Commentary. This thread was started to debate whether the JREF has an obligation to in some way publish Test results. I can tell a lot of people on this board don't seem to care for Clancy, but from where I stand, every argument she's made has been very clear and well thought out. That's not to say it may not be without fault, but she has at least answered any questions asked of her. Even though MANY of those questions seem to accomplish little but detract from the main topic of this thread.

[Markus702]

Originally posted by Steve GrenardI would not expect Randi to publish his entire work product but I don't think expecting him to publish summaries and results of his challenge applicants on a case by case basis would be so difficult or expensive. I am sure he could even recruit a local grad student to do the scut work. Until he does that anything he says about the process and its results are, as many skeptics say, anecdotal. And until he does publish his results, no serious researcher would likely even be interested in examining the supporting data and work product on site.
I agree that a summary of the alleged ability, and test results would be more than adequate.

Clancy:

You are losing your time with your correct position.

All the members that are against your claim, are members, donators, and supporters of JREF. They will never be against Randi, no matter that he is wrong not publishing the findings in the JREF official newsletter, Swift, and other periodical statements.

When you are against the position of JREF members, they will consider you a "woo.woo", "obtuse". "stupid", "idiot", or you will be in the black list. Soon, your threads will me move, then lock, and then dissapear. It is the way that this forum works.

[Argo Nimbus]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I would not expect Randi to publish his entire work product but I don't think expecting him to publish summaries and results of his challenge applicants on a case by case basis would be so difficult or expensive. I am sure he could even recruit a local grad student to do the scut work. Until he does that anything he says about the process and its results are, as many skeptics say, anecdotal. And until he does publish his results, no serious researcher would likely even be interested in examining the supporting data and work product on site.


This is a red herring since, in general, null results are not publishable. A scientific journal would be wasting paper and ink if it published such results. What serious researchers would, however, be interested in reading about is evidence that psychic phenomena exist.

--- Argo

[SteveGrenard]

Falsification of hypotheses and null studies are the stuff of which debunking paranormal claims is made. This is not like any other science so people need to stop comparing it with other branches.
If this is what Randi says he is doing then he needs to let the world in on the details, not just make blanket statements which can't be backed up or which he declines to back up.


The JSPR, JSE, ASPR, Parapsychology Review and other journals have all published studies, both controlled and observational, by Susan Blackmore, Richard Wiseman, Ciaran O'Keefe and many others which proved, for example, that a claimant in the UK who said he could dream wining horses could not do so and a ghost that appeared on a closed circuit videotape of an empty wharehouse was, er, not a ghost. Wiseman did studies of ghostly sounds in the bowels of Edimburgh Castle. Sorry no ghosts. He traced the noise to infrasound. Are you seriously saying Argus that all the people who have heard these ghostly sounds and those who read about them would not be interested in Professor Wiseman's findings and that they should not have been pubished because they were null for presence of ghosts.
I doubt it.

However, Randi need not publish them in these peer reviewed, yes, peer reviewed journals but even in Swift or his own house organs as a start or how about a book length just on the challenege and its applicants? I will bet anyone that the editors of any of the publications cited above would be more than interested in a review of his experiences with the challenge offer including an assement and description of claimants and what happened with them. Ditto for his book publisher, Prometheus.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Markus702
Originally posted by KelvinG
Is Randi available to every Joe Message Board Poster who would like to speak with him directly? I'd imagine he'd be much busier than that. Besides Randi seemed to make his viewpoint on the issue clear in this weeks Commentary. This thread was started to debate whether the JREF has an obligation to in some way publish Test results. I can tell a lot of people on this board don't seem to care for Clancy, but from where I stand, every argument she's made has been very clear and well thought out. That's not to say it may not be without fault, but she has at least answered any questions asked of her. Even though MANY of those questions seem to accomplish little but detract from the main topic of this thread.

If Clancy thinks challenge results should be made public, then who should she talk to?? I don't think that Randi is so untouchable from the average joe that he would totally ignore any inquiries of this matter. However, I can't speak for him.

Does Randi have an obligation to make challenge results public? Perhaps.
Does Clancy actually want to see these results, or does she just want to complain that she can't? Hmm, who knows.

[TLN]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
With all due respect to Schwartz, Robinson and Roy and numerous other researchers of mediumship, ESP and psychic phenomena, these folks have published the results of their inqueries and in many cases followed up with books devoted mainly to them.

And where can we view Schwartz's data?

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancy

Actually, Fade, we as tax payers do have that right. "Non-profit" status doesn't mean "We don't earn any money". It means that "Due to our mission (which is in the public interest) we don't have to pay taxes on any of the money that we earn." Many non-profits have multi-million dollar budgets, are run like corporations, and, just like private corporations, have large amounts of their untaxed income going to a few very generous administrative salaries. (The American Red Cross comes to mind as an example of this).

In any case, in this way, "non-profits" are tax-payer subsidized. This privilege is due solely to their stated mission, which is "in the public interest".

A complete strawman since the JREF is not taxpayer subsidized, regarless of their exempt status. If you want the results, pay for them to be published.

What don't you understand?

[SteveGrenard]

There are multiple websites where some of these studies are published.


If you go to:

http://www.openmindsciences.com/

Click on Afterlife Experiments drop down. These are full text versions. They are also available in hard copy form in Schwartz's
book which he published after the first two series were journal published. But you gotta buy this. I think its around for $15 or 17.50 on Amazon.Com or B&N., etc.

You can also find Wiseman and O'Keefe's critique on CSICOP's website. Hyman's may not be up yet, nor Schwartz's reply and Hyman's rebuttal to the reply.

Schwartz has published the entire series, three to date and two more coming I believe, in the JSPR which can be found in abstract form at:

http://www.spr.ac.uk

Click on Journal on homepage. You can also find two of the three Robinson and Roy Mediumship studies in abstract form here. We are all awaiting the third round of these studies which are going undergoing peer review. These involved hundreds of sitters and about 40 low-profile mediums.

You can also find eports and abstracts/descriptions of many other studies going back a hundred years or more at:

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org

Everyone thinks Schwartz's studies are the only game in town. They just happen to be the last, and with R&R, among the most recent, in a long line of scientific research into this.


Insofar as JREF as a tax exempt being a strawman is concerned it is subsidized by taxpayers since it is a 501-3c organization and does not pay corporate income taxes. It is not taxpayer supported but could be and apply for grants if it wished to. It is obviously supported by membership fees, tax deductible donations from private donors and the sale of miscellaney and seminar and speaking fees. It would depend on whether or not the articles of incorporation and mission statement of JREF includes release and publication of the data under discussion. If it is, then it is JREF's obligation to do publish same. If not, it would be optional. If it is a membership organization, depending on how its incorporated and where, then in theory it could belong to its members but I am not sure of this as there is no publication of the articles anywhere that I know of.

[Markus702]

Originally posted by TLNA complete strawman since the JREF is not taxpayer subsidized, regarless of their exempt status. If you want the results, pay for them to be published.
I don't think that was the point Clancy was trying to make. At no point did she state the JREF is being subsidized by tax payers money, but rather Clancy's position seems to be that the JREF is exempt from paying taxes, because it is supposed to be an organization acting in the public's interest. And if it is acting in the public interest, shouldn't every effort be made to educate the public. I'll say it again; forget publishing past tests and sifting through boxes (I hear it would be quite costly). But why not publish future ones with brief summaries?

[Argo Nimbus]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Wiseman did studies of ghostly sounds in the bowels of Edimburgh Castle. Sorry no ghosts. He traced the noise to infrasound. Are you seriously saying Argus that all the people who have heard these ghostly sounds and those who read about them would not be interested in Professor Wiseman's findings and that they should not have been pubished because they were null for presence of ghosts.
I doubt it.


I'm not saying that null results are never published, but in general these are not going to be published unless there is something else to make it worthwhile. In the case you cite, tracing ghostly noises to infrasound is a positive result well worth publishing. However, the typical JREF test is not going to establish anything except that the claimants are unable to do what they said they could do. The tests are not going to distinguish between liars and the seriously deluded, so they are not going to establish the cause of the failure.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to having the test results summarized and made available to the public. But I think that calling this "serious research" misses the point. The purpose of the tests is to challenge people like John Edwards or Sylvia Brown to put up or shut up, so the educational value is in how they respond.


From: About the Foundation (http://www.randi.org/jref/index.html)
To raise public awareness of these issues, the Foundation offers a $1,000,000 prize to any person or persons who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability of any kind under mutually agreed upon scientific conditions



--- Argo

[davefoc]

So Clancy's a woman. I had no idea.

I actually had thoughts somewhat similar to Clancy's when I read this week's commentary. I didn't find Randi's justifications completely reasonable.

OTOH, I didn't care that much either. I feel like we get the general idea of what's going with regard to the challenge from Randi's commentaries and sometimes that's already more information than I have an interest in.

It seems like the heart of Clancy's argument is that the JREF credibility might be heightened if there was a summary of the challenge activity published. I'm not sure about how much extra credibility there would be for JREF, and I have a hard time seeing who would find this information useful.

Perhaps Clancy could share with us what the nature of the summary that she had in mind. Maybe, if we understood this some of us would be more convinced about the value of a summary.

[CFLarsen]

Ah, Steve...Steve...you're at it again.

We've been over this so many times, and still you cannot help yourself from lying.

Since Randi is also in full control and is the final arbiter and does not allow any judging there is also an element of distrust which myself and others have pointed out or felt on many occasions.

You know damn well that this is not true. The applicant and Randi decides together when a test is passed.

Stop being such a f*cking liar, Steve...

You know precious little of science, and you were even the "science moderator" on Pam's Website for the Adoration of Pam/John Edward (before you had a falling out with her). In science, the data is laid out, so everyone can access them.

Where exactly can we find all of Schwartz' data? You merely point to websites with abstracts. We don't see things we don't see in his book.

Schwartz demanded that he got full control with what Randi had to say about his data. That is completely unacceptable and a blatant attempt of censorship.

You also know the reasoning for John Edward not taking the challenge, yet you invent some other excuse. Can't you ever just stick to the truth, Steve?

If you don't consider the study of paranormal claims to be a science, then you cannot claim scientific evidence of any kind. You are actually contradicting yourself, because you have a site of your own called "SurvivalScience"....

Oh, yeah...almost forgot: How is your anonymous smear-campaign against JREF going? Do you think you have reached the hundreds of thousands of people yet?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Fade
To publish the results of something as ongoing as this would COST A LOT OF MONEY, AND TAKE A LOT OF TIME. As a non-profit organization, the JREF wouldn't really have enough of either of these things to indulge in the whim of every schmuck with a demand.

If. You. Want. Them. Published. Then. Pay. For. It. Yourself.

You have no right to make demands of non-profit organizations with which you share no financial responsibility. You know this seems like a great opportunity for those who think Randi is doing something underhanded to expose him.

Isn't it odd that he makes the data available to anyone who wants it? If Randi had something to hide why would he offer to make the data available?

Randi has a right to decide how to best use resources. He doesn't have to cater to the whims of the people on this forum. If the data is important to you go to Florida and publish the data.

[Yahzi]

I wish all the test applications and results were on-line. It would make for some very amusing reading.

Of course, it's pretty ammusing reading posts here wherein various people complain about how easy it would be for some one else to do a vast load of work. For free. And quickly, too, please. It's downright amazing how easy a job is when you don't have to do it.

Never mind that the freaking FBI can't send all the right papers to the court in the biggest death penalty case of the century: Randi should be able to completely index, review, digitize, comment on, illustrate, explain, and present every case he's dealt with in 20 years without any real effort. After all, he's a magician!

But hey, you know what? If all you woo-woos would promise, really promise, to stop lying, cheating, and being intentionally dense, I'm sure Randi would go ahead and do it. If Randi (or any of us) thought for even one moment that it would actually have any impact, I'm sure he'd find the money to do it. But it won't. No matter what excuse you have today, if we answer it, you'll just make up another excuse tommorrow. Excuses are free.

How about you stop whining, and just plain produce somebody that can actually f**king do something? I had to bust my ass to get where I am today, to prove that I could do what I said I could do: why the hell should Randi make it easy on you? All that matters is that it's possible.

Ah, the true nature of the woo-woo revealed. They want the million dollars, but they don't want to work for it.

[TLN]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
There are multiple websites where some of these studies are published.

I'm sorry Steve, I wasn't specific enough. Since we were talking about the John Edward study earlier in this thread, that's the study I was referring to.

Schwartz claims this study proves Edward is the real thing, but refuses to let anyone review his data. Do you know where I can view the data and the testing protocol for this experiment?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Since Randi is also in full control and is the final arbiter and does not allow any judging there is also an element of distrust which myself and others have pointed out or felt on many occasions.

Trust is irrelevant if we can view the testing protocol and see that it's sound and free from bias. That's the whole point. The trust argument is a lame excuse used by Edward and others to dodge the test. Trusting Randi is not necessary.

Can you offer any evidence that Randi is cheating challenge applicants?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Since there is no judging and everything must be yes or no, black or white ...... one hundred percent obvious and apparent or not, then there are no reviewers, no referees, no arbiters, no interpreters of data (which is very important in many areas of psychic research) and this certainly runs counter to the way scientific research is conducted and reviewed.

Unequivocal nonsense that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how scientific research is conducted. If judging were required it would be an opportunity for bias to seep in. You and others like you would no doubt complain (and rightfully so) that Randi would always judge the results negatively since his opinions would color his perceptions.

So, if judging were required, you'd still complain. Since judging is not required, you complain. Randi can never please you because your belief systems won't allow it.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Markus702
I'll say it again; forget publishing past tests and sifting through boxes (I hear it would be quite costly). But why not publish future ones with brief summaries?

Because that would also be costly. An employee of the JREF would have to do the data entry, or someone would have to volunteer. The JREF doesn't exactly have a lot of money to hire someone to digitize this data, even if it's just for the future.

In the meantime, anyone is free to visit the JREF and ask to see the data. What's wrong with that?

[Stevie -G-]

I am a firm supporter of the JREF mission, and am active in opposing pseudoscience. I have no hesitation, though, in supporting two of Clancy's points of view: I would find it interesting, educational and entertaining to read the information being asked for by Clancy, and originally "Alexander". I also thought that Randi's tone was a little harsh on Alexander.

If the resources aren't there to put it online, then fair enough, but I am sure that most of the people here would like to see it if possible.

[Markus702]

Originally posted by TLNBecause that would also be costly. An employee of the JREF would have to do the data entry, or someone would have to volunteer. The JREF doesn't exactly have a lot of money to hire someone to digitize this data, even if it's just for the future.
To digitize this data?? Does this mean that records of new testing aren't kept on computer? I don't see how recording future testing as it occurs would be either costly or time consuming. It seems to be a point we'll have to agree to disagree on.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Markus702
I don't see how recording future testing as it occurs would be either costly or time consumingThen start your own damn educational foundation and find out. Or better still, offer to do it for JREF.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Markus702
To digitize this data?? Does this mean that records of new testing aren't kept on computer? I don't see how recording future testing as it occurs would be either costly or time consuming. It seems to be a point we'll have to agree to disagree on.

It may be hard to believe, but even today, not everything is stored immediately on computer. You'd be amazed at the number of people who not NOT spend their entire life online.

Have you read Randi's book "FlimFlam"? In it, he describes a dowsing test. That takes many pages, and is a very good example of how tedious such a test can be. I would like your opinion on how you would digitize that kind of information.

[Markus702]

Originally posted by CFLarsenHave you read Randi's book "FlimFlam"? In it, he describes a dowsing test. That takes many pages, and is a very good example of how tedious such a test can be. I would like your opinion on how you would digitize that kind of information.
I have read that book and it is one of my favorites. I'm not suggesting detailed descriptions of every test performed but rather something along the lines of:
Applicant: Mr. X
Claim: Able to detect gold using dowsing rods.
Result: With approximately 2 oz of gold placed under one of ten plastic cups, Mr. X was able to correctly determine which cup housed the gold in 1 out of 10 tries. This constitutes a failure as it is exactly what would statistically be expected by chance.

Granted they may not be all this straight forward, but this brief summary took less than 5 minutes to type. If they had some basic data base created, I still fail to see how entering this minimal information would be time consuming or expensive. If this brief summary is not enough, then let the person go to Florida and view a complete synopsis of the testing procedure. I just think having brief summaries of tests available to the public would be both interesting and educational.

[Incitatus]

So. organization "x" makes claim "Y" and says that it is true "the data is right here but is too messy to promulgate. Sceptics say "OK".

That does not sound right. I made the suggestion years ago that a simple spe\read sheet be constructed on a forward basis, nothing. The lack of data on this topic is malfeasence.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

This whole thing doesn't sit right with me, either. I'm sure the reason given---that the information is all over the place and would require a lot of labor to pull together---is true. But it doesn't sound like the entire story. If it is, at least why not publish the information about an application in every third or fourth Swift?

Maybe most of the applications are mundane and wouldn't make a good read. Maybe there are legal issues: Would applicants balk if they found their story plastered all over the Net? Maybe most applications never get past the discussion stage, and who wants to read just a dialog that goes nowhere?

We do learn about the high-profile applications. Maybe the rest are dull and boring.

~~ Paul

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Would applicants balk if they found their story plastered all over the Net?

At New York Area SKeptics, there was agreement that if a person wanting to be tested by NYASK did not want to go public, it was respected.

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Maybe most applications never get past the discussion stage, and who wants to read just a dialog that goes nowhere?

Exactly. In the Danish skeptical shows "A Sense of Deceit", Randi mentions that about 90% (if I remember right) of the people who make the claims never show up at the actual test.

Recently, I've had the chairman of the Danish Association of Astrologers, Pierre-Francios Bitsch, back down from a test. I have also been involved with other Danish astrologers, who chickened out.

[hal bidlack]

Couple of thoughts from a quasi-insider.

It would definately be great to have all the challenge applications available, on line, etc.

Here are the problems with that:

The JREF is a 501 (c) 3, as noted. It has a very limited budget, with very, very little in the way of "profit" so to speak. There are two full-time employees, Mr R and Linda. Andrew is a part-timer, working a few hours each week.

The challenges themselves that come in often are not computer friendly. That is, they are long, hand-written letters. Sitting at Andrew's desk some months back, I went through the stack that had recently arrived. The list of claims included "I can kill people when I think about them" (a tough one to ethically evaluate! :)), "I can change the weather" (not too specific), "I can change things by thinking it."

How, exactly, would you code each of the above? Given the dozens that arrive each month, creating a data base to include them, enter the data, and (most awkwardly) code the data into proper cells on the table, would take at least one full time employee. All the data is there at JREF, in boxes. Now, in a perfect world, these would all have been coded from day one. But the cost and difficulty made that impossible.

If a wealthy person decided to fund a half dozen college students to do internships down there, and provided the funds needed for data entry and analysis, I bet Mr Randi would be thrilled. But such an offer has not been forthcoming.

Linda spends the majority of her time (jump in here if I am wrong, Linda) handling the basic logistics of the JREF. She pays the bills, logs the contributions, works with the bank, boxes up the books and T-shirts and such members order, and supervises the forum. She works VERY hard, and certainly could not also take on the task of managing a challenge database.

I think when people think about something like the JREF, they all to often think of large organizations like the Red Cross, or the American Cancer Society, each with hundreds of staffers. The JREF is a tiny, tiny organization, with a tiny budget, trying to do as much as is possible.

Oh, and you can imagine how much supervision I require, so there you go. :)

[CFLarsen]

...which reminds me: At the Amazing Meeting, we did actually get a copy of a challenge from a guy. Handwritten, it looked like it came from a demented person. Reading it, you realized this was indeed the case.

I've worked professionally with Information Technology for almost 20 years (in the early years, it was called "computing"), and I would have a very hard time coming up with a format for which letters like that one could be filed.

Long rants, hard to spot the actual claim, difficult to read.

If people want to see just how small an operation JREF is, go check the pictures from the Radio Show the day before the Amazing Meeting started. People crammed in very small rooms.

I've walked around the JREF "mansion" (Naturally, I chose a day in February 2002 to visit where Randi wasn't there - mope!). Takes less than 30 seconds.

I did see the dog house and chain, reserved for Hal, though... ;)

[Incitatus]

Date Claim Letter Sent(date) Response (Date) Disposition


A start. Why not request voleanteers, just fax the letters out daily. Just seeing the enormity of the nuttsieness would be informative.

re coding. start with something. Try "Mind over matter- weather, etc. It ain't that hard

[Markus702]

Oh I can imagine some of the letters and applications the JREF may receive. I wasn't suggesting that all of those be put online, but rather just those that go to the preliminary testing stage.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by The Fool
Publishing a list of failures will tend to agravate the less stable, probably leading to further legal harrasment of the Jref in the form of injunctions to remove someones puiblished "failed" status when they refuse to accept that they have failed.Undoubtedly. Does JREF even get permission to publish the applications?

Does an archeologist publish the results of every shovel full of dirt containing nothing of interest? People are acting like this information is data upon which someone is basing a claim, and the data needs to be checked to support the veracity of the claim. That's simply not true. No one is claiming that these applications show anything. They are simply a way to weed out the worthless claims, so that the JREF isn't overwhelmed with testing claimants who are obvious going to be failures. When someone get to actually test their claims for the challenge, then that information should, and most probably will, be published. Until something interesting shows up in the shovel, however, JREF is perfectly justified to throw the records onto the heap. You can sift through the pile of discarded dirt if you wish, but don't expect someone else to spend their time and money on it, simply because you make a claim that the information is meaningful.

[Brown]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
It would definately be great to have all the challenge applications available, on line, etc.

Here are the problems with that....I find something disturbing about what has been said so far.

Any claimant who wants to sue the JREF (e.g., because of a perceived unfair test or for nonpayment of a prize that is believed to be "earned") might get the idea that he could seriously affect the organization by filing a lawsuit and propounding ordinary discovery requests (such as interrogatories and requests for production) that ask about all challenge applications and how they were handled. Responding to these discovery requests would be a burden.

A disgruntled claimant might think that he could bankrupt the organization by pursuing these tactics (or at least cause severe financial hardship, perhaps forcing a favorable settlement).

I would expect that the JREF carries insurance, however, that pays legal fees in the event of a lawsuit. If so, then this tactic of trying to use discovery to impose hardship on the JREF would not work.

[The One called Neo]

Originally posted by CFLarsen




You know damn well that this is not true. The applicant and Randi decides together when a test is passed.



How can they decide together? They have mutually opposing interests. Randi wants to make success in the test as difficult as possible, the claimant wants success in the test to be as easy to acheive as possible. So any "agreement" is a compromise. And of course it is extremely easy to psychologically manipulate the claimant so that s/he will agree to demonstrating phenomena somewhat above a statistically significant level, especially considering that people generally have a poor understanding of probability.

And what happens if in defiance of the the pressure to demonstrate "superpsi" (or whatever) the applicant insists on demonstrating phenomena of statistically significance only?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by The One called Neo


How can they decide together?

Easy. They decide _beforehand_ what will constitute a pass. Then, if those criteria are met, then they will both agree that is a pass.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by The One called Neo


How can they decide together? They have mutually opposing interests. Randi wants to make success in the test as difficult as possible, the claimant wants success in the test to be as easy to acheive as possible. So any "agreement" is a compromise. And of course it is extremely easy to psychologically manipulate the claimant so that s/he will agree to demonstrating phenomena somewhat above a statistically significant level, especially considering that people generally have a poor understanding of probability.

And what happens if in defiance of the the pressure to demonstrate "superpsi" (or whatever) the applicant insists on demonstrating phenomena of statistically significance only?
Ian,

Please, stop. My sides are aching and you are already over-represented on May's Logic prize nominations. If you must persist in inanity, please wait until June.

Take a deep breath, think about how ridiculous these assertion are, and then take the next, definitive step: present us, please, with one JREF test protocol that corroborates your claims.


Cheers,

[The One called Neo]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Easy. They decide _beforehand_ what will constitute a pass. Then, if those criteria are met, then they will both agree that is a pass.

It seems you have missed the rest of my post after that first sentence. I then went on to say:

"They have mutually opposing interests. Randi wants to make success in the test as difficult as possible, the claimant wants success in the test to be as easy to acheive as possible. So any "agreement" is a compromise. And of course it is extremely easy to psychologically manipulate the claimant so that s/he will agree to demonstrating phenomena somewhat above a statistically significant level, especially considering that people generally have a poor understanding of probability.

And what happens if in defiance of the the pressure to demonstrate "superpsi" (or whatever) the applicant insists on demonstrating phenomena of statistically significance only"?

[Brown]

Originally posted by The One called Neo
How can they decide together? They have mutually opposing interests. Randi wants to make success in the test as difficult as possible, the claimant wants success in the test to be as easy to acheive as possible. So any "agreement" is a compromise. No offense, but what you've said doesn't make sense. You seem to be saying that true agreement is never possible. I disagree.

The nature of a contract is agreement in light of differing interests. If the parties enter into the contract, then they agree.

This sort of thing happens all the time. It is not unsual.

In the context of the challenge, part of the agreement is that they decide upon criteria for success or failure.

Originally posted by hal bidlack


The challenges themselves that come in often are not computer friendly. That is, they are long, hand-written letters. Sitting at Andrew's desk some months back, I went through the stack that had recently arrived. The list of claims included "I can kill people when I think about them" (a tough one to ethically evaluate! :)), "I can change the weather" (not too specific), "I can change things by thinking it."




Long ? Not if they are a notaryzed challenge (the only one that is accepted by the JREF).

Notaryzed challenges to The JREF : Do you have a number of how many did you received ? According to Mr. Randi tv reports , they are very few.
Don't confuse the board with personal letters or e-mails he received about potential claims, they don't constitute official challenges.

This form must be accompanied by a brief, two-paragraph description of what will constitute the demonstration.

Thanks,
S&S

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by The One called Neo

"They have mutually opposing interests. Randi wants to make success in the test as difficult as possible, the claimant wants success in the test to be as easy to acheive as possible.

You are missing some information here. Randi wants to make _random_ success to be as difficult as possible. Thus, he might insist on a test that is only possible 1 in a million times randomly. However, the test should show a positive result if the applicant does what they claim to be able to do.

The requirement for 1/million random success does not preclude small but significant effects. You just have to state up front that the effect is small so that it can be tested for properly. For example, if I claim to be able affect the outcome of a coin flip, the test that is given will depend on what I claim to be able to do. For example, if I claim I can control the outcome of every coin flip, then it might only take 20 trials (chance of doing it randomly is 1 in a million). However, if I claim that I can only do it 1% of the time, it is going to take a lot more than 20 trials, so that is what will be done. The key is that it is all stated ahead of time, and it is incumbant upon the applicant to state what they can do.

It wouldn't make anyone any more or less likely to succeed by chance if they claim they can make a 1% change in the outcome, because the test would be designed to take that into account.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Redman said:Does an archeologist publish the results of every shovel full of dirt containing nothing of interest? People are acting like this information is data upon which someone is basing a claim, and the data needs to be checked to support the veracity of the claim. That's simply not true. No one is claiming that these applications show anything.
Good point.

~~ Paul

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Brown
I find something disturbing about what has been said so far.

Any claimant who wants to sue the JREF (e.g., because of a perceived unfair test or for nonpayment of a prize that is believed to be "earned") might get the idea that he could seriously affect the organization by filing a lawsuit and propounding ordinary discovery requests (such as interrogatories and requests for production) that ask about all challenge applications and how they were handled. Responding to these discovery requests would be a burden.

A disgruntled claimant might think that he could bankrupt the organization by pursuing these tactics (or at least cause severe financial hardship, perhaps forcing a favorable settlement).

I would expect that the JREF carries insurance, however, that pays legal fees in the event of a lawsuit. If so, then this tactic of trying to use discovery to impose hardship on the JREF would not work. They could simply make the documents available, and the plaintiff would have to go over to the office and make copies, on their own dime. It would be funny if someone hoping to force the publication of this information used this tactic, when they are free to go down to the office, and compile the information for free as things now stand.

[The One called Neo]

Originally posted by Brown
No offense, but what you've said doesn't make sense. You seem to be saying that true agreement is never possible. I disagree.

The nature of a contract is agreement in light of differing interests. If the parties enter into the contract, then they agree.

This sort of thing happens all the time. It is not unsual.

In the context of the challenge, part of the agreement is that they decide upon criteria for success or failure.

You can call it an agreement if you like, but this then doesn't alter the fact that an applicant may well feel very unhappy and dissatisfied with what he is required to do in order to win the million.

[The One called Neo]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
[B]

You are missing some information here. Randi wants to make _random_ success to be as difficult as possible.


I find it incredibly implausible that he also doesn't want non-random success to be as difficult as possible.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by The One called Neo
You can call it an agreement if you like, but this then doesn't alter the fact that an applicant may well feel very unhappy and dissatisfied with what he is required to do in order to win the million.

As can Randi.

If you agree to the agreed-upon conditions, it is simply to start testing.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by The One called Neo


I find it incredibly implausible that he also doesn't want non-random success to be as difficult as possible.

In fact, if you examine the test that have been carried out, "non-random" success is basically trivial. Look at the test of the woman who claimed she could see auras. If she could see auras as she claimed, her chance of succeeding was 100%.

If you think about it, here's what you need: From the applicant perspective, you want a test that will be essentially 100% successful if you do what you claim to be able to do. Randi will insist upon a procedure that does not allow me to win by doing other stuff or by random. The final test will incorporate both of those aspects.

Unlike what the others are saying, it is not a really a compromise. It is finding a solution that satisfies both sets of criteria. They are not mutually exclusive at all.

If there is any real chance that you are not able to pass the test even if you have the ability you claim, then you better not take it. How sure do you have to be? Well, if Randi requires 1 in a million for a random error, then you are justified in insisting upon that as well.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by The One called Neo
You can call it an agreement if you like, but this then doesn't alter the fact that an applicant may well feel very unhappy and dissatisfied with what he is required to do in order to win the million. Dissatisfied?!? It's a million dollars! Too burdensome? Boo frickin' hoo!! Christ, the way some people whine you would think the money was their inheritance.

[Brown]

Originally posted by The One called Neo
You can call it an agreement if you like, but this then doesn't alter the fact that an applicant may well feel very unhappy and dissatisfied with what he is required to do in order to win the million. I don't understand this point, as the applicant's happiness or unhappiness doesn't seem to me to be all that relevant to the issue of agreement.

If the applicant enters into an agreement to perform a feat that he cannot in fact perform, then the unhappiness that results from the failure of performance is the applicant's own fault.

If he knows or has reason to believe that he cannot perform the feat, then he is foolish for agreeing to perform it.

As far as I can tell, no one is twisting any applicants' arms or otherwise coercing any applicants to enter into any agreement.

Redman said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does an archeologist publish the results of every shovel full of dirt containing nothing of interest? People are acting like this information is data upon which someone is basing a claim, and the data needs to be checked to support the veracity of the claim. That's simply not true. No one is claiming that these applications show anything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Randi is not an archeologist.
His commentaries are about those those "stupid" claims.
Is just JREF work.

But only the JREF members are still presenting the "excuses".

Just do it. What is your fear ?
Do you know the real number of officials notarized challenges?

Thanks,
S&S

[The One called Neo]

Originally posted by Brown
[B]I don't understand this point, as the applicant's happiness or unhappiness doesn't seem to me to be all that relevant to the issue of agreement.

If the applicant enters into an agreement to perform a feat that he cannot in fact perform, then the unhappiness that results from the failure of performance is the applicant's own fault.



I'm talking about the unhappiness in being compelled to agree to perform beyond what he thinks he can demonstrate.



If he knows or has reason to believe that he cannot perform the feat, then he is foolish for agreeing to perform it.



So he has the option of attempting to pass an impossible challenge or simply not bothering at all. Great :rolleyes:

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by The One called Neo


I'm talking about the unhappiness in being compelled to agree to perform beyond what he thinks he can demonstrate.

So he has the option of attempting to pass an impossible challenge or simply not bothering at all. Great :rolleyes:

I see. So, your complaint is that the applicant can't demonstrate something sufficiently to meet standard scientific criteria, so those criteria should be relaxed sufficiently to meet said applicant's "abilities"?

Okay, so I apply to JREF, and claim I can guess an unknown person's name in a 1,000 tries. For this, I should be given the opportunity to walk away with $1m?

Cheers,

[Pyrrho]

Assuming all JREF records were made easily available -- let's say on the Internet -- I'm certain the result would be long hypercritical screeds from the more vocal attention-wanters among the anti-Randi crowd. Many on that side of the fence desperately want access to all JREF data -- but why, really? Is it in the interest of paranormal research? Can't be -- there is already loads of paranormal research being done in pro-paranormal venues -- why would access to a bunch of failed attempts be useful? The JREF tests aren't science and have never been claimed to be science. No, I submit that the real reason is a desire to "find something wrong" and howl about it. I see no good reason why Randi should go out of his way to provide grist for the mills of his enemies.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by The One called Neo
I'm talking about the unhappiness in being compelled to agree to perform beyond what he thinks he can demonstrate.

So he has the option of attempting to pass an impossible challenge or simply not bothering at all. Great :rolleyes:
The Challenge rules state that both parties must be in agreement on the test protocols prior to testing. Yes, if the claimant doesn't like the setup he can walk away. There's money to be made in other venues, as numerous "psychics" continue to prove.

Either the claimants can do what they claim to be able to do, or they can't. So far, it seems they can't.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Assuming all JREF records were made easily available -- let's say on the Internet -- I'm certain the result would be long hypercritical screeds from the more vocal attention-wanters among the anti-Randi crowd. Many on that side of the fence desperately want access to all JREF data -- but why, really? Is it in the interest of paranormal research? Can't be -- there is already loads of paranormal research being done in pro-paranormal venues -- why would access to a bunch of failed attempts be useful? The JREF tests aren't science and have never been claimed to be science. No, I submit that the real reason is a desire to "find something wrong" and howl about it. I see no good reason why Randi should go out of his way to provide grist for the mills of his enemies.

You hit the nail on the head. The anti-Randi crowd must do all they can do to destroy the credibility of the JREF challenge so they can continue to excuse away the likes of JE and SB who refuse to take the test.

[Michael Redman]

I think they were caught off guard by the fact that the information is not secret.

Them: We demands to see the information!

JREF: OK. It's all right here. Come take a look.

Them: Well . . . now . . . we can't be doing that. . . You bring it to us! Yah, that's the ticket. We want it served up on a platter!

:rolleyes:

[Lucianarchy]

If the Challenger has set the precedent that the applicant must come to the JREF in order to evaluate previous applications, then there is no excuse for the Challenger, in a case where scientific evidence exists which could fulfill the criteria of 'paranormal', of not going to review the data at the lab.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
If the Challenger has set the precedent that the applicant must come to the JREF in order to evaluate previous applications, then there is no excuse for the Challenger, in a case where scientific evidence exists which could fulfill the criteria of 'paranormal', of not going to review the data at the lab.

The applicant does not need to go to Florida. Recently, the chairman of the Danish Association of Astrologers was tested in Denmark.

(He failed, big time)

What happened to your own paranormal claims, Lucianarchy? Should I find that darn, long list of questions you haven't answered yet...? :)

[Markus702]

Originally posted by Kelvin G You hit the nail on the head. The anti-Randi crowd must do all they can do to destroy the credibility of the JREF challenge so they can continue to excuse away the likes of JE and SB who refuse to take the test.
Well I'm certainly not in the "anti-Randi crowd and believe in nothing paranormal. I would like to see failed testing attempts published for two reasons:
1) I generally find them interesting.
2) I think they'd be a valuable tool in educating those that are "on the fence" so to speak, when it comes to the issue of the existence of paranormal. I maintain that there are many people who fall into this category, as I did for quite a while.

[darling]

While I don't think that posting details of every challenge - most dowsing tests will be pretty similar - I do think it would be useful to give a few examples of the kind of protocol that has been used.

Obviously it has to be made clear that the protocol can be adapted to every individual claim, but I do think it would be beneficial to show a few selected examples to give people an idea of exactly what is required.

I'd happily volunteer, given the limitation that I can't make it to Florida!

[Fade]

Actually, Fade, we as tax payers do have that right

So I can demand that my churches start sacrificing goats and lambs, and that the american red cross shoot every 50th person?

Of course not. Your point is absurd.

So, the public definitely has the "right to know" more than anecdotes about these tests.

Then go to Florida and look. His records are WIDE OPEN to the public.

There's a website already available and many things already posted and linked here.

Look at the two brief write-ups that exist already. That's several pages of write-up. Who is going to be paid to do this? Where is the money from the sudden VAST increase in bandwidth going to come from?

Or, if print is really so much easier, why not make it available in a journal? Or even typed up and able to be ordered as a xeroxed copy? The issue is documentation of testing and some sort of access to the actual results--not just being invited to go to Florida and rummage through cartons and files to see if anything relevant turns up.


I see. The information is available to everyone. You think they owe you something, despite you not having anything to do with them, nor having ever contributed anything to them in the past, and think they should expend time and money to please you.

After all, if photos are too difficult to include (though Randi often puts photos with his commentary), why not just type up the report of testing as text?

Without photos we get the teeming millions claiming nothing ever happened, and it's all puffery :rolleyes:

Then, if this is really a problem, JREF is not prepared to live up to its mission statement regarding publishing testing results and should change it to say, "Results of these tests must remain confidential." So far, that hasn't happened.

You need to go back and re-read the part of the mission statement you posted here. Nowhere does it state every failed application is going to be published. A few instances of tests HAVE been published in Swift, as well as his books. The rest of the information is available at the JREF itself.

[Flaherty]

Originally posted by Clancy
The information Alexander mentions should be public knowledge, publicly posted here for educational purposes. I find Randi's refusal to do this--and his defensiveness about a very reasonable suggestion--very troubling.

I have to agree, but it's hard to come down on Randi without knowing what sort of form their data takes. However, it is a simple matter to make an Excel spreasheet with some basic information for future claims. It could have columns for the claimant's name, the date his completed application was received, a classification of his claim (dowsing, telekenisis, etc.), a success/failure indicator for the initial test, and a success/failure indicator for the preliminary test. That information ought to be easy to maintain. It seems the more difficult and time consuming task would be to record precise details of the claim and the precise testing procedure used and its results.

[TLN]

Luci, before you participate in new threads, you should really finish your old ones. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19687&highlight=Typical)

At the very least, you should acknowledge that you can't answer my question. You might gain some respect that way. But pretending it doesn't exist isn't helping you any.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I see. So, your complaint is that the applicant can't demonstrate something sufficiently to meet standard scientific criteria, so those criteria should be relaxed sufficiently to meet said applicant's "abilities"?


You have to be more clear what you mean by "criteria."

If the test requires the person to guess correctly at an 80% rate, when s/he only thinks she can be successful at a 55% rate (with 50% being random), then requiring 32/40 is certainly too high of a standard, and needs to be relaxed.

That's what TheOneCalledNeo appears to be talking about, and s/he is correct. OTOH, it is also moot because such things are already taken into account. In fact, this is origin of the original dispute between Randi and Browne. She kept asking "How many correct answers are enough?" and he kept saying "Well, what do you think you can do?" He can't give a cutoff until he knows what she claims to be able to do.

The requirements for someone who only claims to be able to beat chance by 1% are very different for someone who claims 100% success.

OTOH, if by "criteria" you mean that the test has to be such that the odds of winning by chance are less than 1 in a million, then it is not any different for any applicant.

[Markus702]

Originally posted by FadeSo I can demand that my churches start sacrificing goats and lambs, and that the american red cross shoot every 50th person?
I would think churches and educational foundations are exempt for very different reasons nullifying this argument.

Then go to Florida and look. His records are WIDE OPEN to the public.
Yes this is understood, and not really debated. The question at hand is, whether or not there is a way to make these (or rather future) records more accessible to the public.
Look at the two brief write-ups that exist already. That's several pages of write-up. Who is going to be paid to do this? Where is the money from the sudden VAST increase in bandwidth going to come from?
Are they brief or several pages long? Those are pretty damn descriptive synopsis of the tests. Would you not agree that a brief summary of those tests would be relatively easy to prepare?

I see. The information is available to everyone. You think they owe you something, despite you not having anything to do with them, nor having ever contributed anything to them in the past, and think they should expend time and money to please you.
I could be mistaken on this one, but I think I remember the person who made this quote stating the journals should be sent to paying members, and didn't suggest they should be given out for free. A point I don't neccessarily agree with as I think such information could serve to educate the general public.
Without photos we get the teeming millions claiming nothing ever happened, and it's all puffery
Has this happened before, and if so when? Or are you psychic and know this would be the end result. I feel a text based summary of future testing would be better than nothing, and I'll say again, help educate those that are on the fence in regards to paranormal existence.
And like I said earlier, we're probably going to have to just agree to disagree on a lot of these points.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


The applicant does not need to go to Florida.

They do if they want to review the previous applications.

Why can't the JREF go to the lab and review scientific evidence for which they could then award, if it fulfills the criteria of the Challenge, a Grant?

[The One called Neo]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

The Challenge rules state that both parties must be in agreement on the test protocols prior to testing. Yes, if the claimant doesn't like the setup he can walk away. There's money to be made in other venues, as numerous "psychics" continue to prove.



I do not understand how the above relates to what I said. It seems a complete non-sequitur.



Either the claimants can do what they claim to be able to do, or they can't. So far, it seems they can't.

And suppose someone claims to be able to produce phenomena of statistical significance only ie the test results will be of statistical significance, but not a great deal above that.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
They do if they want to review the previous applications.

Why can't the JREF go to the lab and review scientific evidence for which they could then award, if it fulfills the criteria of the Challenge, a Grant?

How do you do it Luci? How do you completely ignore that which you cannot address? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19687&highlight=Typical)

And moreover, how do you maintain the notion that you're correct despite retreats suchs as these?

[Genghis Pwn]

I would like to offer my services to go to florida and spend a month or two digitizing the results, building a database, and linking them to the net. Just pay me 1K per month for my living expenses, and we're in business.

BTW, is Mr Randi's place near the beach?? :D :cool:

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by The One called Neo

And suppose someone claims to be able to produce phenomena of statistical significance only ie the test results will be of statistical significance, but not a great deal above that.

I've tried to answer your question above, but you seem to keep bringing it out. Can you provide an example of what you are talking about?

[The One called Neo]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
I'm talking about the unhappiness in being compelled to agree to perform beyond what he thinks he can demonstrate.

So he has the option of attempting to pass an impossible challenge or simply not bothering at all. Great
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I see. So, your complaint is that the applicant can't demonstrate something sufficiently to meet standard scientific criteria, so those criteria should be relaxed sufficiently to meet said applicant's "abilities"?

Okay, so I apply to JREF, and claim I can guess an unknown person's name in a 1,000 tries. For this, I should be given the opportunity to walk away with $1m?



No, the possibility of chance needs to be effectively ruled out. I have no objections to the odds being millions to one (ie the probability assuming the phenomena concerned doesn't exist).

I think though that the applicant should only be required to demonstrate phenomena which for any one trial doesn't differ greatly from chance, but to do a sufficiently large number of trials so that the overall probability of performing successfully is at the requisette probability level (1 in 10,000,000 or whatever).

[The One called Neo]

Originally posted by Markus702
Originally posted by Kelvin G
Well I'm certainly not in the "anti-Randi crowd and believe in nothing paranormal.

But even if one were in the anti-Randi crowd, one might still not believe in any paranormal phenomena. This is the mistake that so many "skeptics" make. The logical fallacy of false dichotomy.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


You have to be more clear what you mean by "criteria."

If the test requires the person to guess correctly at an 80% rate, when s/he only thinks she can be successful at a 55% rate (with 50% being random), then requiring 32/40 is certainly too high of a standard, and needs to be relaxed.

That's what TheOneCalledNeo appears to be talking about, and s/he is correct. OTOH, it is also moot because such things are already taken into account. In fact, this is origin of the original dispute between Randi and Browne. She kept asking "How many correct answers are enough?" and he kept saying "Well, what do you think you can do?" He can't give a cutoff until he knows what she claims to be able to do.

The requirements for someone who only claims to be able to beat chance by 1% are very different for someone who claims 100% success.

OTOH, if by "criteria" you mean that the test has to be such that the odds of winning by chance are less than 1 in a million, then it is not any different for any applicant.
pg,

The One Called Neo is Interesting Ian. He is claiming that Randi sets the criteria artificially high. By "standard scientific criteria", I mean JREF constructs a null hypothesis based on the claim and designs the test criteria to distinguish the results from chance.

Cheers,

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by The One called Neo


No, the possibility of chance needs to be effectively ruled out. I have no objections to the odds being millions to one (ie the probability assuming the phenomena concerned doesn't exist).

I think though that the applicant should only be required to demonstrate phenomena which for any one trial doesn't differ greatly from chance, but to do a sufficiently large number of trials so that the overall probability of performing successfully is at the requisette probability level (1 in 10,000,000 or whatever).

So where, Ian, is your evidence that Randi's test criteria are not set correctly?

Cheers,

[TLN]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
The One Called Neo is Interesting Ian.

Why didn't you say so?

The Matrix Reloaded sucked. Seriously.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

The One Called Neo is Interesting Ian. He is claiming that Randi sets the criteria artificially high. By "standard scientific criteria", I mean JREF constructs a null hypothesis based on the claim and designs the test criteria to distinguish the results from chance.



Then you are correct in that those criteria don't change between applicants.

However, that is not the same way that Interesting Ian is using "criteria" as far as I can tell. But on the other hand, he has not responded to requests to explain what he is talking about if it is not addressed by what I have said.

[Brown]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
I've tried to answer your question above, but you seem to keep bringing it out. Can you provide an example of what you are talking about? I can't quite follow the argument, either. It seems to me that the concern is that the tests are made too difficult for the claimant. In particular, the concern is that the tests are set at levels that the claimant cannot hope to reach. The point seems to be that the claimant should be tested at the level of his claimed ability, and not at a higher level.

Well, then. If that's the concern, then the claimant should not make claims that are higher than his level of ability. The terms of the challenge provide:1. Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. This is the primary and most important of these rules.
2.Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the agreed-upon limits, will be accepted.... We consult competent statisticians when an evaluation of the results, or experiment design, is required....
12. EVERY APPLICANT MUST AGREE UPON WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A CONCLUSION THAT, ON THE OCCASION OF THE FORMAL TEST, HE OR SHE DID OR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CLAIMED ABILITY OR POWER.In other words, it seems clear that tests are based upon what the claimant claims to be able to do. The rules seem to allow for a certain degree of failure, since the prospect of using statisticians is called for.

If I understand correctly, Mr. Randi has in the past used multiple trials, and has agreed upon levels of performance that are below a what the claimant had publicly announced is his level of ability.

[Jeff Corey]

Specifically, if a kid is claimed to be able to read a NY Times blindfiolded, Her agents have to agrre to let Rani inspect the blindfold.
Since this is a variation on the nose peek, Randi gets to duct tape the holes and bridge of the nose.
Now the kid can read the Braile edition, but not the printed Times.
What's so complicated about that? Is any statstical test needed?

[The One called Neo]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


So where, Ian, is your evidence that Randi's test criteria are not set correctly?

Cheers,

My name is Neo :mad:

[jj]

Originally posted by The One called Neo


"They have mutually opposing interests. Randi wants to make success in the test as difficult as possible, the claimant wants success in the test to be as easy to acheive as possible.

Bla bla bla.

Can you prove what you allege Randi's position is?

Can you prove anything beyond the fact that he wants to make sure that the statistics don't allow a purely random success very often?

Since you're claiming to know Randi's internal states, please show that you have that ability, too, while I'm at it.

The staticals show here: ONLY the JREF members and KIDS (the ones who pays and donates money to the JREF) are the only one who are against the publication of the challenges.
They are just defending their leader and obeying the no matter what reason. They are just acting as fanatics.
They are not even able to know and show the REAL number of OFICIALLY applicants to the challenge.
The bla bla bla is just part of their absence of evidence.

Thanks,
S&S

[TLN]

Originally posted by S&S
The staticals show here: ONLY the JREF members and KIDS (the ones who pays and donates money to the JREF) are the only one who are against the publication of the challenges.
They are just defending their leader and obeying the no matter what reason. They are just acting as fanatics.
They are not even able to know and show the REAL number of OFICIALLY applicants to the challenge.
The bla bla bla is just part of their absence of evidence.

Completely nonsensical. We'd all love to see every single test published, but understand that the JREF's limited resources prohibit that.

Nothing's being hidden here. There is no conspiracy theory. Sorry, I know how much Believers enjoy conspiracies, especially you S&S.

Originally posted by TLN


Completely nonsensical. We'd all love to see every single test published, but understand that the JREF's limited resources prohibit that.

Nothing's being hidden here. There is no conspiracy theory. Sorry, I know how much Believers enjoy conspiracies, especially you S&S.

What limited resources , since you are not even able to tell us a number of how many are The REAL notarized applications to the JREF challenge ?
You are just acting as a true beleiver of your cult.
Put real numbers , not anecdotal e-mails and letters.

Yes , your leaders are hidding the evidence,. The same evidence that is supposed to be part of the goal of this Educational Foundation.

Thanks,
S&S

[TLN]

Originally posted by S&S
Yes , your leaders are hidding the evidence.

Can you provide proof of this, or is this your cultish behavior? Did you request test data that was refused to you (this is a simple yes or no question that even you should be able to answer)?

Originally posted by TLN


Can you provide proof of this, or is this your cultish behavior? Did you request test data that was refused to you (this is a simple yes or no question that even you should be able to answer)?

You are just a JREF true Beleiver and a fanatic of Randi.

The proof is that you don't have any normal access to the information. Period.

You can not even tell the number of how many REAL APPLICANTS TO THE CHALLENGE were along its history .

Only members brainwashed like you are trying to defend something that is part of this Educational foundation.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

And don't forget to send your check , true beleiver..

[TLN]

Originally posted by S&S
And don't forget to send your check, true beleiver..

And don't forget to dodge my debate challenge coward.

Originally posted by TLN


And don't forget to dodge my debate challenge coward.

Coward are the ones who hides the information . Just ask Hal and Randi. I don't fear them.

Your debate challenge ?
Who are you ? Just another anonimous sock puppet and brainwashed JREF member? Just defending your leaders of your cult? Just offering them money and dinners and unconditional applauses ?

I challenged you here. You know my real name , who I am , Just ask your leaders to do it.

Your child excuses just make me laugh. True beleiver. Be free to insult me , you have the support of the administrators and moderators , it wiil be not new to me. Just send the money.

Thanks,
S&S

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by The One called Neo
My name is Neo :mad:
My, yes, let's all keep the sockpuppets in order, shall we? :rolleyes:

[TLN]

S&S, say whatever you wish. The bottom line is, you won't debate me.

Originally posted by TLN
S&S, say whatever you wish. The bottom line is, you won't debate me.

You are so arrogant like all the brainwashed true beleivers of the JREF.

You think that "your debate" is the only debate of this forum.

This thread is also a debate , and you are refusing to present evidences of the challenges . You are just using the insulting method of all cults , your excuses are just how a True Beleiver acts.

Thanks,
S&S

[TLN]

Originally posted by S&S
You are so arrogant like all the brainwashed true beleivers of the JREF.

You think that "your debate" is the only debate of this forum.

No, it's not the only one, just the one you're dodging.

I'll add you to the list of believers too scared to debate me via PalTalk.

[ShowMe]

Originally posted by S&S
The staticals show here: ONLY the JREF members and KIDS (the ones who pays and donates money to the JREF) are the only one who are against the publication of the challenges.
They are just defending their leader and obeying the no matter what reason. They are just acting as fanatics.
They are not even able to know and show the REAL number of OFICIALLY applicants to the challenge.
The bla bla bla is just part of their absence of evidence.

Thanks,
S&S


I am not a JREF member. I don't see the sense in trying to set up such a database.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread that is *against* publication.


Personally, I don't see the interest. Want to capture my interest? Bring in someone that passes the pre-challenge. Then write that up, *that* would be interesting.

Going through page after page of "Person X said he could dowse, he did not succeed better than chance" would be mind-numbingly dull.

Have someone pass the test. Cripes, have someone who has actually TAKEN one these tests complain that they passed & the results are being hidden & there would be some interest.

As it is, dumpster diving doesn't do anything except attempt to shift the focus to a non-event.

Have someone succeed in the preliminary test. That's all I want.

[edited for clarity]

Originally posted by ShowMe



I am not a JREF member. I don't see the sense in trying to set up such a database.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread that is *against* publication.





Hi ShowMe:

I know you don't have a proof that you are not an JREF member .
But I do have proofs of some JREF members , just because of their own posts in pasts threads.
Coincidentaly are members that are "protected" by the administrators of this forum. The rules are not applyied to them.

How can you be sure if the preliminary tests were fair enoughs , if you don't have a record of them ?

You don't even know the exact number of REAL applications to the challenge. More than hundred? Less than hundred?

You are not able then to figure out about the nature of them.
Remember , the rules said :only 2 breif paragraphs of your claim.

The rest are just excuses of a fear or a desorganization of the researches. Or maybe just a big fraud. How can you be sure if you don't have the evidence to check it.

Thanks,

S&S
S&S

[The Fool]

Originally posted by S&S
Coincidentaly are members that are "protected" by the administrators of this forum. The rules are not applyied to them.


Can you show us even one example of the rules being applied differently?

How can you be sure if the preliminary tests were fair enoughs , if you don't have a record of them ?

Because the person being tested agrees that the test is fair, If they don't think its fair they don't do it.....Honestly, how many times do you have to be told something before it sinks in?

[/B]
Anyway Mr Potato head, I thought you were leaving us? What is it with trolls and grand exits? Can't you think of a more original way to get attention?

Originally posted by The Fool

Anyway Mr Potato head, I thought you were leaving us? What is it with trolls and grand exits? Can't you think of a more original way to get attention?

And your point is ?

Or are you just showing like a member of the JREf with "$pecial power$"?

Thanks,
S&S

[Jeff Corey]

I participated in one prelimiary test with Ted Debiak, the President of NYASk, 3 years ago. This guy claimed to be able to change the output of a lightbulb in his living room. A camcorder showed he couldn't.
Case closed.

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
I participated in one prelimiary test with Ted Debiak, the President of NYASk, 3 years ago. This guy claimed to be able to change the output of a lightbulb in his living room. A camcorder showed he couldn't.
Case closed.

And your point is ?

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
I participated in one prelimiary test with Ted Debiak, the President of NYASk, 3 years ago. This guy claimed to be able to change the output of a lightbulb in his living room. A camcorder showed he couldn't.
Case closed.

And your point is ?
Was that a JREF official challenge? Do you have any proof that support your claim?

Thanks,
S&S

[Hand Bent Spoon]

Can we all agree that the tests could be published online at a very modest rate, say one per week or even one per month?

I think it would be a great new feature of this very web site, even if the tests were posted at a painfully slow rate, something being better than nothing.

I definately understand the lack of resources at the JREF. The Foundation is doing a lot of outstanding work, and I appreciate it. How they do as much as they do on a shoestring budget makes me very proud of those in charge of the JREF.

Still, that's not to say there isn't room for improvement (there is always room for improvement). Might a very modest thing like one test a week or one test a month (rather than what we have right now, which is nothing at all as to puting tests online) tax the system to the breaking point? I don't think so.

[Clancie]

I’ve learned some things during this discussion and, frankly, I now think there is even more cause for concern about the Challenge results than I did in the beginning.

But first...hopefully those of you speaking on behalf of Randi understand that no one is asking for documentation of all the applicants. The request is that JREF fulfill its stated mission and provide documentation of all those who have actually been tested.

Further, if it isn’t possible to go back in time to do it, why not start (with a simple summary of "claim, test, result") from now onward?

In addition....

1. This discussion, combined with Randi's response to Alexander is giving me the impression that—not only are there no clearly documented public records of these tests publicly posted--but that there are no clearly documented records of the results anywhere at all.

Could that possibly be true? Are all the results of tests debunking all these paranormal claims just “stuffed in tons of boxes” some place? That's sure what it sounds like. (And it fits in with Incitatus's claim he was refused access because of "records in disarray").

2. The legal JREF promise is to:

(1) Support and conduct research into paranormal claims through well-designed experiments utilizing "the scientific method" and

(2) Publish the findings in the JREF official newsletter, Swift, and other periodicals

3. Since this is stated goal is not happening with the Challenge preliminary tests (the "natural" place), where exactly does it happen?

4. There is innuendo from some here that my intention in raising this is to sabotage JREF, discredit Randi, etc. etc. Frankly, I resent that. Alexander wrote and asked Randi a legitimate question that I've wondered about myself.

Like any good skeptic (as I consider myself, by the way), I am looking for the truth. Also, I just read “Flim Flam” (which ends in 1982) and am frankly genuinely interested in what paranormal claims have been tested in the last 20 years.

In addition, why should anyone be afraid that the methodology/results used will discredit Randi/JREF if they are publicly known? Why should knowing details of tests discredit him? I’m assuming they would add to our store of knowledge about all this and demonstrate that JREF is fulfilling its educational mission. If not, then why not just improve them?

5. Additionally, Randi states that the goal of the Challenge is to "raise public awareness of these issues". How is that accomplished by burying results in assorted boxes and computer files?

6. Money, time, etc. may be valid excuses. But....where there’s a will there’s a way. What disturbs me is that, at Randi’s end, I see no interest whatsoever in finding a way to better document these results.

After all, people have given their time to the difficult job of moderating this board. If Randi asked for volunteers to help with the (much more interesting and entertaining) job of documenting Challenge results, I imagine he would get response. (If not, at least we would see that he feels documentation is iimportant. So far, however,....I don't see any indication that he does).

*****
And how many preliminary tests happen in a year anyway? If the rate is the same as described in "Flim-Flam", we're talking about, maybe reporting results of 2-4 preliminary tests a year.....

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Why can't the JREF go to the lab and review scientific evidence for which they could then award, if it fulfills the criteria of the Challenge, a Grant?

That could be a possibility, yes. Where is this "scientific evidence" of a paranormal phenomenon?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


That could be a possibility, yes.

The fact that the JREF refused to go to Arizona University and review data, vieos etc., when given the invitation, (following their own loud and brash armchair criticisms) indicates that possibility is extremely unlikely.

You'd think an educational foundation would leap at the chance of reviewing data from a Dr undertaking tests and research under the auspices of a well known American University. :confused:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancy
I’ve learned some things during this discussion and, frankly, I now think there is even more cause for concern about the Challenge results than I did in the beginning.

Is there? Despite all the very reasonable explanations you have read, you think it is even worse now? That tells me that you are not prepared to accept rational explanations.

But then again, I knew that already... ;)

Originally posted by Clancy
But first...hopefully those of you speaking on behalf of Randi understand that no one is asking for documentation of all the applicants. The request is that JREF fulfill its stated mission and provide documentation of all those who have actually been tested.

Nobody here (except maybe Hal Bidlack) is speaking on behalf of Randi.

Look through the Commentaries, and you will find plenty of those who have been tested. Do your homework, Clancy.

Originally posted by Clancy
Further, if it isn’t possible to go back in time to do it, why not start (with a simple summary of "claim, test, result") from now onward?

Sure, probably. If the time allows. You have learned by now that JREF is not the big, resourceful organization you imagined, and that you don't have the right to demand that they work extra to cater to your whims?

Originally posted by Clancy
1. This discussion, combined with Randi's response to Alexander is giving me the impression that—not only are there no clearly documented public records of these tests publicly posted--but that there are no clearly documented records of the results anywhere at all.

That may be your "impression", but that is an impression you probably don't share with that many people here. Why don't you ask those, who have actually been there - e.g. Hal Bidlack - if they have seen some documents?

Originally posted by Clancy
Could that possibly be true? Are all the results of tests debunking all these paranormal claims just “stuffed in tons of boxes” some place? That's sure what it sounds like. (And it fits in with Incitatus's claim he was refused access because of "records in disarray").

Yes, it could be true. Remember, that there is a lot of paper work involved here, as well as. How do you document someone who brings a device with him that will help him talk to goblins? We are not talking about neat little experiments in a lab, where everything is clean and easy to handle, and computers are everywhere.

Originally posted by Clancy
3. Since this is stated goal is not happening with the Challenge preliminary tests (the "natural" place), where exactly does it happen?

The findings are published in Swift, Clancy. Go check! Do your homework. Don't expect everything to be served on a silver platter.

Originally posted by Clancy
4. There is innuendo from some here that my intention in raising this is to sabotage JREF, discredit Randi, etc. etc. Frankly, I resent that. Alexander wrote and asked Randi a legitimate question that I've wondered about myself.

You "resent" it? I have to admit that I am a bit puzzled with your interest in this. You, who show no interest whatsoever in seeking evidence that your idol, John Edward, is really doing something paranormal. You, who accepts his lame excuses for not being tested. You, who accepts other peoples' claims of paranormal phenomena without any critical questions. And you have been highly critical of Randi before, and not just because of the Challenge.

Why are you all of a sudden so interested in proving the paranormal? Would you actively seek to get John Edward to be tested, or is it only others?

Originally posted by Clancy
Like any good skeptic (as I consider myself, by the way), I am looking for the truth. Also, I just read “Flim Flam” (which ends in 1982) and am frankly genuinely interested in what paranormal claims have been tested in the last 20 years.

LOL! Clancy, you are not a skeptic, OK? You have many times described yourself as a believer, so don't even try that little scheme. You show no inclination to accept rational explanations over paranormal ones. And you refuse flat out to accept any evidence that John Edward is a fake.

You just read "FlimFlam"? Good! You got a very good account of how the dowsing experiment went right there. Still think it's easy to document?

Originally posted by Clancy
In addition, why should anyone be afraid that the methodology/results used will discredit Randi/JREF if they are publicly known? Why should knowing details of tests discredit him? I’m assuming they would add to our store of knowledge about all this and demonstrate that JREF is fulfilling its educational mission. If not, then why not just improve them?

Classic woowoo-tactic. Nobody is "afraid" of anything, Clancy. We just realize that it isn't all that easy to do. It's easy to demand it, yes. But to do it?

Originally posted by Clancy
5. Additionally, Randi states that the goal of the Challenge is to "raise public awareness of these issues". How is that accomplished by burying results in assorted boxes and computer files?

Nobody is "burying" anything. You are being disingenious now. Randi is well-known around the world (he certainly had the Danish woowoo's running away!) for his work. Does he get the media attention his work deserves? No.

Originally posted by Clancy
6. Money, time, etc. may be valid excuses. But....where there’s a will there’s a way. What disturbs me is that, at Randi’s end, I see no interest whatsoever in finding a way to better document these results.

Yes, it is so easy for you to demand that other people find more time. What disturbs me is that, at your end, I don't see the slightest interest in finding out what really happens, when someone comes along with a paranormal claim. I frankly don't think you are playing with open cards, Clancy.

Originally posted by Clancy
After all, people have given their time to the difficult job of moderating this board. If Randi asked for volunteers to help with the (much more interesting and entertaining) job of documenting Challenge results, I imagine he would get response. (If not, at least we would see that he feels documentation is iimportant. So far, however,....I don't see any indication that he does).

I'm sure he would. And there would probably be people enough in Florida to help him. Time, Clancy. The one commodity we can never get any more of.

Originally posted by Clancy
And how many preliminary tests happen in a year anyway? If the rate is the same as described in "Flim-Flam", we're talking about, maybe reporting results of 2-4 preliminary tests a year.....

There are probably more, since we have seen a surge in paranormal interest since then. However, don't forget that of all the people who claim paranormal abilities (and John Edward is one of them!), very few people actually get as far as to file the application. And of those, very few actually are tested.

It's not as if Randi and JREF only do these tests, you know. But then, I suppose you have - now - actually read what JREF does.

All you need to do now, is to understand and accept what goes on in real life.

[Titananarchy]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


The fact that the JREF refused to go to Arizona University and review data, vieos etc., when given the invitation, (following their own loud and brash armchair criticisms) indicates that possibility is extremely unlikely.

You'd think an educational foundation would leap at the chance of reviewing data from a Dr undertaking tests and research under the auspices of a well known American University. :confused:

Why should it? The JREF has nothing to prove. Schwartz has the burden of proof to demonstrate his experiments are robust, not for Randi to prove that they aren't.

In other news, the Schwartz tests have been properly and incisively debunked as worthless by Dr Ray Hyman at http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-01/medium.html . Its been written in straightforward language how unbelievably sloppy Schwartz was and how embarassed the University of Arizona are with him.

But I predict that you'll take no notice of the critique, like the pseudo skeptical fanatic and creduloid that you are.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


The fact that the JREF refused to go to Arizona University and review data, vieos etc., when given the invitation, (following their own loud and brash armchair criticisms) indicates that possibility is extremely unlikely.

You'd think an educational foundation would leap at the chance of reviewing data from a Dr undertaking tests and research under the auspices of a well known American University. :confused:
Wow Lucy...what do you claim this university in arizona has? Let me guess...box loads of data. Data that shows nothing.... If you claim otherwise, tell us specifically what the data shows. Or do you want randi to help you data search some psi out of the random numbers???? LOL..... put up or shut up Luci, you constantly claim there is data proving the existance of psi effects all over the place....point me to one bit, just one little bit....I'll share the million with you.

[TLN]

It's amazing that you have time to make other posts, Lucianarchy, when you have unanswered questions in other threads. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19311&perpage=40&pagenumber=2)

Is it always your way to simply abandon questions you cannot answer?

Oh wait... it is.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

LOL! Clancy, you are not a skeptic, OK? You have many times described yourself as a believer, so don't even try that little scheme.



What is mutually incompatible with being a sceptic and a believer?




You show no inclination to accept rational explanations over paranormal ones.



Why cannot a paranormal explanation be rational?

[ShowMe]

A lot of posts on this thread by the true believers keep saying "How come Randi didn't go to Arizona when he was invited to do so?"

Perhaps a qucik search of the commentary archives will bring an answer?

Hmmm....from the March 23, 2001 commentary:

"I should also make this clear: Schwartz gleefully advertises my own refusal to be a participant in his games, and the psychics are now snickering that I fear his findings may bring my own conclusions into jeopardy. That hope may be safely abandoned. Dr. Schwartz fails to mention the reason for my refusal, which is based entirely on his insistence that I declare, in writing, that I will never share any of my observations or conclusions with anyone, in any way. I cannot operate under such onerous limitations, nor will I ever contemplate doing so. This man of science, who preaches loudly about forthrightness, openness, sharing, honesty, and evidence, will have none of it when it might damage his own cherished notions. This is not science, not in any degree."


I wonder why Schwartz would want something like that in writing? How odd....


As for the clamors of "How can you be sure if the preliminary tests were fair enoughs , if you don't have a record of them ? " it's yet another red herring. Bring forth a person that has taken the preliminary test that claims it wasn't fair, that they actually passed & Randi said they failed.

More red herrings and whining about the challenege. Here's a simple answer: have ONE person, ONE PERSON, pass the test and all of this is moot.

One person.

One.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Nobody is "burying" anything. You are being disingenious now. Randi is well-known around the world


I've told loads of friends that I contribute to this forum. Not one of them had ever heard of Randi! :eek:

[tamiO]

from Interesting Ian
Why cannot a paranormal explanation be rational?

Because rational people shave with a borrowed razor.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by tamiO
from Interesting Ian
Why cannot a paranormal explanation be rational?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Because rational people shave with a borrowed razor.



Huh??? :confused:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What is mutually incompatible with being a sceptic and a believer?

Clancy is not compatible with skepticism, inasmuch as she refuses any - and I mean any - evidence or even hint that John Edward is not a true medium. She has, however, no problems stating flat-out that e.g. Sylvia Browne is a fake, although she has much less knowledge of Sylvia than she requires skeptics to have of John Edward, in order to criticize each.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Why cannot a paranormal explanation be rational?

As in "proven", of course. :)

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I've told loads of friends that I contribute to this forum. Not one of them had ever heard of Randi! :eek:

Maybe you have the wrong kind of friends! :D

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by tamiO
Why cannot a paranormal explanation be rational?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because rational people shave with a borrowed razor.



Are you talking about Occams razor?
I agree one should use Occams razor as a general rule of thumb. But people on this board consider it both to be some sort of immutable law that simpler explanations necessarily have to be always correct, and also that by definition simpler explanations are those that both employ known principles and also are compatible with the materialist metaphysic.

In practice "Skeptics" don't adhere to Occams principle at all! They will prefer any explanation, no matter how convoluted or implausible, rather than just accept that something like anomalous cognition has taken place.

[wert]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian



In practice "Skeptics" don't adhere to Occams principle at all! They will prefer any explanation, no matter how convoluted or implausible, rather than just accept that something like anomalous cognition has taken place. Ah, the joys of stereotyping. :rolleyes:

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Are you talking about Occams razor?
I agree one should use Occams razor as a general rule of thumb. But people on this board consider it both to be some sort of immutable law that simpler explanations necessarily have to be always correct, and also that by definition simpler explanations are those that both employ known principles and also are compatible with the materialist metaphysic.

In practice "Skeptics" don't adhere to Occams principle at all! They will prefer any explanation, no matter how convoluted or implausible, rather than just accept that something like anomalous cognition has taken place.

Bingo!

It might help if you used the qualifier "some"; as in some skeptics and some people. I have always understood that using Occham's razor narrows down possibilities, but doesn't close doors completely. The door remains cracked until solid evidence arrives to blow the door open again.

[davefoc]

CFLarsen,
I suspect that we agree on most things in this world. Certainly I have always found your posts interesting and reasonable.

But, I am not as sure as you are that the preliminary test result reports shouldn't be written up and released, at the very least on a go forward basis.

I don't know how JREF is set up. Are those reports Randi's personal property? Then case closed. If he wants to release them he can, if he wants to save them for his books and commentaries, great. But if Randi is an employee of JREF, then those reports belong to JREF and given their stated goals the release of these reports seems to be consistent with that.

The goals as I see it of the release would be:
1. Validate that JREF is producing professional quality reports.
2. Provide credibility to the organization by providing evidence that they aren't burying successful tests.
3. Allow for review of protocols by outside entities.
4. Provide an organized source of information on paranormal test protocols for use by others interested in paranormal testing.
5. Encourage good record keeping to maximize the value of a test.

Of course, most of these goals are largely satisfied already by Randi's commentaries. However, speaking as an engineer who has done lots of testing, these commentaries are not substitutes for test reports.

[juryjone]

davefoc,

First of all, let me say that I am all for the JREF releasing the test results, and that, if I was a single guy, I'd be down there next week to volunteer my services in getting the material in shape. (isn't it amazing how your family can have more say in how you spend your vacation than you do?)

So although I'd like to see it, when you say the release of information would

Originally posted by davefoc

2. Provide credibility to the organization by providing evidence that they aren't burying successful tests.


I'd like to know exactly how it would provide credibility. The yahoos will just continue to say, "You're still hiding something" and then provide no proof, just like they do today.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Titananarchy


Why should it? The JREF has nothing to prove. Schwartz has the burden of proof to demonstrate his experiments are robust, not for Randi to prove that they aren't.


Then the JREF also have the burden of proof to demonstrate the detail of previous applicants / tests to prospective applicants. The JREF expects applicants to go them, so the JREF should likewise go to the candidate University to which they make an offer of a grant. Not to do so, given the JREF's own standard setting, is conclusive proof of a bogus challenge.

(BTW, Schwartz has debunked Hyman's sloppy review of the Arizona tests.)

[davefoc]

Juryjone,
On your first point about the extra effort involved to publish test reports:

I assume that JREF is, at least, producing some kind of reports to document the tests. If they are not, that would seem like a significant oversight and it would not be consistent with the practices of almost any scientific or engineering discipline. So what we are talking about here is the extra effort to release these test reports on a go forward basis and I believe that would involve a fairly small effort.

As to your second point about releasing the test reports not providing credibility. I agree completely. I should have worded my point on that a little better. I wanted to say improve credibiltiy, but even that might be a stretch.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Then the JREF also have the burden of proof to demonstrate the detail of previous applicants / tests to prospective applicants. The JREF expects applicants to go them, so the JREF should likewise go to the candidate University to which they make an offer of a grant. Not to do so, given the JREF's own standard setting, is conclusive proof of a bogus challenge.

No, JREF does NOT expect applicants to come to Florida. Randi travels all over the globe to test applicants. Read the Commentaries, Lucianarchy.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
(BTW, Schwartz has debunked Hyman's sloppy review of the Arizona tests.)

Where? Link, please?

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Then the JREF also have the burden of proof to demonstrate the detail of previous applicants / tests to prospective applicants. Why? JREF is making no claim regarding applicants who are rejected based on the inability to demonstrate any ability to even be tested.

Originally posted by davefoc
If they are not, that would seem like a significant oversight and it would not be consistent with the practices of almost any scientific or engineering discipline. Weeding out kooks is not a scientific discipline, and no one is claiming it is.

You people seem to be missing the point here. The prelims are not a scientific test of paranormal abilities, they are simply a requirement that a prospective applicant demonstrate that they have something worth looking into, and are not simply self-deluded nuts who are wasting the JREF's time. They are not intended to produce reliable data, but just separate the wheat from the chaff.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


No, JREF does NOT expect applicants to come to Florida. Randi travels all over the globe to test applicants. Read the Commentaries, Lucianarchy.



Which part of;

"the JREF also have the burden of proof to demonstrate the detail of previous applicants / tests to prospective applicants."

..did you not understand?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Why? JREF is making no claim regarding applicants who are rejected based on the inability to demonstrate any ability to even be tested.


If the JREF claim that there have been applicants and there have been tests, then the burden of proof is on them.

If they expect an applicant to go to Florida to see the proof, then the standard is set if they offer an educational grant to a lab /University.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
(BTW, Schwartz has debunked Hyman's sloppy review of the Arizona tests.) Yes, and Hyman debunked Schwartz' sloppy "debunking".

(Reference: Skeptical Enquirer, May/June 2003, page 61-64.)

[Thanz]

There is a whole lot of hijacking going on in this thread. I would like a clear answer on a couple of questions:

1. Out of all of the people who apply (or try to apply) for the JREF challenge, how many actually go through the preliminary test? If it is at a rate of 55 per 650 (less than 10%), what is the big deal?

I would assume that the number of applications has increased since 1982. But even with the increased applications, judging from the commentaries, it seems that Randi doesn't spend a lot of time actually conducting preliminary tests.

2. If the number of actual preliminary tests is small (even as small as one a week) I don't see the huge cost of a short summary provided on a going forward basis. What is this huge cost? The tests are supposed to be designed so that success or failure is self evident. As such, the tests would not be complex (found gold/did not find gold). I would imagine that some records are generated anyway for legal purposes, so the work itself is already being done.

If I am correct in my guesses (about 1 test a week) I don't see how what has been proposed (a short summary of claimant/test/results) would take more than a half hour a week. Hardly a huge, expensive task.

[ShowMe]

My ribs hurt, this thread has caused me to laugh so much.

Sad thing is I believe some of these folks are serious.

The JREF has the burden of proof to show previous applicants? Gads, that's funny. No reason given, of course; just "they have the burden of proof" pulled out of their...um, ear I guess.

The paranormal challenge rules are there for anyone to see. Please, PLEASe...give me one person who can pass the test. I'm very serious here...it would shake the world, and I would do backflips to be shown something like that. It would be like being present at Kitty Hawk, the Moon landing, the discovery of penicillin and the first time I slept with my wife all rolled into one big astonishing package.

Cripes, even their hero Dr. Schwartz has been thoroughly debunked, and they keep coming back to him as an example. Hey Doc, how about agreeing that Randi can review the material without the need of a contract that he cannot disclose anything that he discovers?

Those of you that keep crying that you would have to go to FLorida to review these records, would you accept such a requirement from the JREF?

But, true believers, please continue. It's breaking up my day at work, even though it's making my sides hurt.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by ShowMe


But, true believers, please continue. It's breaking up my day at work, even though it's making my sides hurt. [/B]

What is a "true believer"? How is s/he distinguished from a non-true believer?

[TLN]

Keepin running away Luci. You only prove my point for me.

[SteveGrenard]

Show Me: Hey Doc, how about agreeing that Randi can review the material without the need of a contract that he cannot disclose anything that he discovers?


This issue has been discussed in the past at great length when it first came up. I seriously doubt the offer to Randi is open any longer. Randi severed dialogue with Schwartz on this issue, in fact he admits he deleted his subsequent e-mail without reading it. Randi's interpretation as presented here may be HIS (Randi's) interpretation only and then only up to a certain point. So while the issue may be moot, I am meeting with Schwartz tomorrow afternoon and I will ask him your question, now hypothetical, as well as his response to Randi's lament that he was "censoring" Randi or in any way preventing him from disclosing what he would've found had he accepted Schwartz' offer to inspect the work product, tapes, videos, lab notebooks and so forth on site.

BTW included in Schwartz' invitation to visit with the data on site were the referees Randi suggested: Stanley Krippner, Ray Hyman, Marvin Minsky and Michael Shermer, none of whom has said they were to be censored by Schwartz. Schwartz wanted an additional few referees to balance out the group. Krippner was the only one who was initially acceptable to Schwartz but interestingly Krippner was not able to act as a referee and he told Randi this but Randi did not reveal this until he was forced to
and then he did so in a commentary. He actually, in a round about fashion, denied any of his suggested referees had
declined but he finally admitted Krippner told him he was too busy to undertake a project such as this but might be able to participate in something that would be less involved. Perhaps Randi got confused over this. I don't know.

From what I read here, the terms of any challenge must be MUTUALLY acceptable to the parties and I am sorry so many see Schwartz trying to achieve that as some type of evasion. It was not.


Anyway ....I'll be back Thursday with the definitive response.

[Clancie]

From CFLarsen:
You just read "FlimFlam"? Good! You got a very good account of how the dowsing experiment went right there. Still think it's easy to document?
Yes, why wouldn't it be? The following example of a summary of the dowsing experiment in "Flim-Flam" is rough, but it took me thirty minutes (15 to read/make notes; 15 to type/revise it here). Only $15 worth of work at my going rate!:) (Although I'm sure Randi could find willing volunteers to do it for free if he ever wanted to). It would go faster with tests that happen only once, in one location (also with all details provided, according to a prearranged format).

Date: April - December, 1978

Applicant: Rosemary DeWitt

Claim: Can dowse a map to locate ancient ruins and artifacts whether the map is marked with coordinates or not

Part I

Participants Rosemary DeWitt; James Randi

Materials hand-drawn map ("Map A") of an area of Peru

Procedure:

*Using ERTS space mapping photos, I drew a map of an area of Peru known to have ruins and relics.

*I mailed the map and my directions ("Work on this sample") to Ms. DeWitt

*DeWitt returned the map with two areas circled

Result Both areas selected were in well-explored jungle that held no ancient ruins or artifacts

Part II

Participants: Rosemary DeWitt, James Randi, Philip Klass (CSICOP), Robert Sheaffer (CSICOP)

Materials:
Randi: camera, tape recorder, previous "Map A" and new "Map B", marker
DeWitt: dowsing device (6" brass tube with piece of bent coat-hanger wire inserted into the tube at nearly a right angle)

Procedure:

*The above participants met in Washington, D.C.

*I offered Mrs. DeWitt to try Map A again. She added 7 more sites to it.

*Given Map B, she determined and circled 4 spots on it

Results

* Time exposures showed DeWitt swinging the device herself which caused rapid spin

* None of the new sites selected held ruins or relics

Part III

Participants: Rosemary DeWitt, James Randi, Dr Ray Hyman, Robert Sheaffer, Michael Hutchinson (latter 3 all CSICOP members)

Materials (He doesn't say, but probably the same as in Part II above) A new map, "Numbers", of the same area of Peru, this time with coordinates mapped

Procedure

*I mail her the third map, "Numbers", in late September/early October

*3 months later DeWitt visits with me, Dr. Hyman, Robert Sheaffer, and Michael Hutchinson (doesn't say where), bringing the third map with her

*DeWitt spins rod and identifies the wrong spots, despite the fact that this part of Peru contains several famous ancient ruins

Conclusion

DeWitt identified 15 different spots on 3 different versions of the same mapped area of Peru. None of the locations were selected by her twice. She also missed identifying any of the famous sites on the map.

Result

Claim not demonstrated by Rosemary DeWitt

[davefoc]

Thanz said:
There is a whole lot of hijacking going on in this thread. I would like a clear answer on a couple of questions:

Exactly.

Unfortunately, a number of people have chosen to insult Randi, and a number of people, reasonably enough have chosen to defend Randi. What has been lost is any kind of response to the several people who have suggested that it might be a good idea to release reports about the tests that are done and perhaps some information like total applications received and reasons for not making it to the preliminary test.

Included among the people are people who admire Randi greatly, do not believe that there is the slightest corruption involved and are not talking about some guy in Arizona. We are just putting forth the notion that there is some possible benefit to releasing reports.

The goals that I put forth in a previous post for releasing the reports are repeated again below:
The goals as I see it of the release would be:
1. Validate that JREF is producing professional quality reports.
2. Improve the credibility of the organization by providing evidence that they aren't burying successful tests.
3. Allow for review of protocols by outside entities.
4. Provide an organized source of information on paranormal test protocols for use by others interested in paranormal testing.
5. Encourage good record keeping to maximize the value of a test.

The only objection put forth so far directly related to the problem of releasing the reports is that it would involve a great deal of effort. If this is true, perhaps there is another problem here. In every engineering and scientific environment that I am aware of the writing of test reports for outside review and to support conclusions is an essential element of the process. If JREF is falling below the norm, maybe that is something that could be improved.

That said, I don't think this is an earth shattering issue, I would just like to hear what some of the passionate Randi defenders have to say about what I think is the topic of this thread. If Hal and CFLarsen could see their way back to making a response it would be appreciated. I would enjoy theirs and others thoughts on this.

Also, Hal I miss your avatar.

[SteveGrenard]

I agree the thread was hijacked by CF Larsen, ShowMe and TLN among others regarding Schwartz. CFL brought it up first and as a consequence I responded to it. Sorry about that. I will still provide that answer from the "some guy" in Arizona as I cannot let stand the allegations or challenges of those who used the example of that case as a rationale or excuse permitting Randi not to publish his own results without getting "some guy's" response.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by ShowMe
My ribs hurt, this thread has caused me to laugh so much.

Sad thing is I believe some of these folks are serious.

The JREF has the burden of proof to show previous applicants?

If they claim that tests and applicants exist, then of course they do. Do you have a rational reason why they should be exempt from their own standards?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Which part of;

"the JREF also have the burden of proof to demonstrate the detail of previous applicants / tests to prospective applicants."

..did you not understand?

Which part of

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
The JREF expects applicants to go them, so the JREF should likewise go to the candidate University to which they make an offer of a grant. Not to do so, given the JREF's own standard setting, is conclusive proof of a bogus challenge.

..did you not understand?

Try to read what people write. Heck, try to read what you write.

Thanks for ignoring my question: Where has Schwartz "debunked" Hyman's "sloppy" review of the Arizona tests?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancy
Yes, why wouldn't it be?

You know why you could do it in 30 minutes? Because the work was already done for you! It had all been written up beforehand, all you had to do was to pick out the data and retype it.

This dowsing test was specifically described for the book. I doubt that even the Natalia Lulova test is described in that much detail.

One of which you can find described in the Commentaries. Have you actually gone through them, or are you waiting for others to do your homework for you?

Never forget that all of these are the preliminary tests: They are only designed to see if a claimant can perform. The actual test (which nobody has gotten to yet) will receive much more attention.

You actually see this as a problem? Why don't you see it as a problem that John Edward won't take the Challenge? If he did, that would surely put the onus on Randi!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
This issue has been discussed in the past at great length when it first came up. I seriously doubt the offer to Randi is open any longer. Randi severed dialogue with Schwartz on this issue, in fact he admits he deleted his subsequent e-mail without reading it.

As usual, we never get the full story when you tell it, Steve. You "forgot" to mention that Schwartz sent Randi emails with "James Randi, please do not read this." in the title:

"A few weeks back, I mentioned that I'd sent a letter to the University of Arizona offering them the JREF million-dollar prize in the form of a grant, to get around Professor Gary Schwartz's strong academic repugnance over the word, "prize." Still no response, as of this writing. But last week, a posting arrived on my e-mail that was titled, "James Randi, please do not read this." It was from Schwartz. Now, as you might imagine, I receive daily a number of juvenile attempts to get my attention, with titles from "Please Read" to "Urgent!". I delete them, not having the time to indulge children who need to be noticed. In accordance with Schwartz's instruction, I did not read his posting, and deleted it, unseen, unread. This is a Ph.D., folks, using kids tactics to challenge me. "
http://www.randi.org/jr/04-20-2001.html


Why can't you just present the facts, Steve? Why is it always necessary to point out that you are selecting your data?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Randi's interpretation as presented here may be HIS (Randi's) interpretation only and then only up to a certain point. So while the issue may be moot, I am meeting with Schwartz tomorrow afternoon and I will ask him your question, now hypothetical, as well as his response to Randi's lament that he was "censoring" Randi or in any way preventing him from disclosing what he would've found had he accepted Schwartz' offer to inspect the work product, tapes, videos, lab notebooks and so forth on site.

Could you also ask him to publish the first Campbell/Dalzell reading - like he has promised? Ray Hyman still hasn't seen it (as well as the rest of the planet).

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
BTW included in Schwartz' invitation to visit with the data on site were the referees Randi suggested: Stanley Krippner, Ray Hyman, Marvin Minsky and Michael Shermer, none of whom has said they were to be censored by Schwartz. Schwartz wanted an additional few referees to balance out the group. Krippner was the only one who was initially acceptable to Schwartz but interestingly Krippner was not able to act as a referee and he told Randi this but Randi did not reveal this until he was forced to and then he did so in a commentary. He actually, in a round about fashion, denied any of his suggested referees had declined but he finally admitted Krippner told him he was too busy to undertake a project such as this but might be able to participate in something that would be less involved. Perhaps Randi got confused over this. I don't know.

Again, you misrepresent what happened:

"My conversation with Dr. Krippner revealed that he had decided that he was, in his own words, "overloaded" at present, and that he wished Schwartz would "get his act together." He agreed that he could be involved with a test of Sylvia Browne (no, a full 73 days after her agreeing to be tested, she has still not responded!) but he said that the Schwartz data was just so voluminous, he would not be able — at this time of the year — to take the time required to look over the material. In my original phone conversation with Stanley, I had spoken with him about both a test of Browne and an examination of the Schwartz data, but not a "test" of Schwartz. Krippner had agreed to be presently involved with Browne, but not presently with the Schwartz data, for the reasons given. He just cannot at this time take on new projects, but this is the sort of thing on which we have worked in the past, and Stanley is most knowledgeable and proficient in this field. "
http://www.randi.org/jr/05-18-2001.html


Oops, you did it again.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
From what I read here, the terms of any challenge must be MUTUALLY acceptable to the parties and I am sorry so many see Schwartz trying to achieve that as some type of evasion. It was not.

No? "Please delete this" is not an evasion? Refusing full, uncensored access to the data is not an evasion?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Anyway ....I'll be back Thursday with the definitive response.

I sure hope you get a chance to ask Schwartz for the Campbell/Dalzell transcript.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I agree the thread was hijacked by CF Larsen, ShowMe and TLN among others regarding Schwartz. CFL brought it up first and as a consequence I responded to it.

Yes, I know that you don't like me, and I know that you hate when I point out whenever you lie and misrepresent data. So you try to get back at me, with whatever you got.

Not much, it seems.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Which part of



..did you not understand?

Try to read what people write. Heck, try to read what you write.

Thanks for ignoring my question: Where has Schwartz "debunked" Hyman's "sloppy" review of the Arizona tests?

I understand that the JREF expect prospective applicants to go to Florida if they want to review past applications / tests / proceedures.

I understand that the JREF will not, otoh, go to a scientific lab and review data, tapes, transcripts, proceedure, methods, results, etc.

i understand that to be a double standard.

In respect of the debunking of Hyman, I understand that Dr Grenard initiated a thread in this Forum covering this very topic, I also understand that Dr Schwartz has the document in question archived at www.enformy.com , I am sure with a little effort you could now find it.

Best witches,

L.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


I understand that the JREF expect prospective applicants to go to Florida if they want to review past applications / tests / proceedures.

I understand that the JREF will not, otoh, go to a scientific lab and review data, tapes, transcripts, proceedure, methods, results, etc.
You know Luci I was thinking a similar thing. I have just found out that if I want to win the National lottery I have to actually go and buy a ticket. Outrageous.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Lothian
You know Luci I was thinking a similar thing. I have just found out that if I want to win the National lottery I have to actually go and buy a ticket. Outrageous.

Are you saying that the JREF Challenge is just a 'game'?

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Are you saying that the JREF Challenge is just a 'game'? I think of it more as a competition, but don’t have a problem calling it a game.

The ‘winner’ does not have to prove supernatural abilities or effects they merely have to succeed in passing the agreed experiment.

Anyone winning it will be in my opinion be ‘playing the game’ and beating the rules rather than proving something that doesn’t exist does.

But I am a lot more closed minded that the JREF.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I understand that the JREF expect prospective applicants to go to Florida if they want to review past applications / tests / proceedures.

Yeah, well...as Lothian says, go buy a ticket.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I understand that the JREF will not, otoh, go to a scientific lab and review data, tapes, transcripts, proceedure, methods, results, etc.

Not under the conditions that Schwartz demanded that Randi submit himself to. Would you accept that your findings could not be freely published?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
i understand that to be a double standard.

Nope. Simply saying no to censorship.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
In respect of the debunking of Hyman, I understand that Dr Grenard initiated a thread in this Forum covering this very topic, I also understand that Dr Schwartz has the document in question archived at www.enformy.com , I am sure with a little effort you could now find it.

I did your homework, Lucianarchy: Since you had no idea where it is, and obviously haven't read it, I found it at:

http://www.enformy.com/Gary-reHymanReview.htm

Now, whenever you get a chance to read it, could you point out where Schwartz has "debunked" Hyman's "sloppy" review of the Arizona tests? What is so wrong with Hyman's review?

In your own words, please. I can cut-and-paste myself.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Yeah, well...as Lothian says, go buy a ticket.
[quote]

Then The JREF can also buy a ticket to Arizona, no excuses.

[quote]

http://www.enformy.com/Gary-reHymanReview.htm



I suggest you discuss the issue of Dr Schwartz' debunking of Hyman under the already existing appropriate thread initiated by Dr Grenard.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Then The JREF can also buy a ticket to Arizona, no excuses.

JREF isn't making any excuses. Would you accept to be censored and banned from speaking in public about what you learned there?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I suggest you discuss the issue of Dr Schwartz' debunking of Hyman under the already existing appropriate thread initiated by Dr Grenard.

Sure! Want to join me?

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Then The JREF can also buy a ticket to Arizona, no excuses.Yes, camelot should come to my door to sell me a lottery ticket. Their expense would be much better spent on that than all those good causes.
Anyway,l I am going to be a millionaire after I buy the ticket and there are different rules for the rich.

[Clancie]

Lots of hijacking, yes. And, still no direct responses to these:

From Thanz

1. Out of all of the people who apply (or try to apply) for the JREF challenge, how many actually go through the preliminary test?

2. If it is at a rate of 55 per 650 (less than 10%), what is the big deal (to report results)?

3. If the number of actual preliminary tests is small (even as small as one a week) I don't see the huge cost of a short summary provided on a going forward basis. What is this huge cost? The tests are supposed to be designed so that success or failure is self evident. As such, the tests would not be complex (found gold/did not find gold).

4. I would imagine that some records are generated anyway for legal purposes, so the work itself is already being done. (I'll add, "Right?" since this is an interesting question in itself).

Also no response to these comments. Does everyone agree that these are reasonable reasons for having some available documentation of test results? I mean, seriously, why all the apparent stonewalling?

from davefoc

The goals as I see it of the release would be:

1. Validate that JREF is producing professional quality reports.

2. Improve the credibility of the organization by providing evidence that they aren't burying successful tests.

3. Allow for review of protocols by outside entities.

4. Provide an organized source of information on paranormal test protocols for use by others interested in paranormal testing.

5. Encourage good record keeping to maximize the value of a test.

originally posted by davefoc
The only objection put forth so far directly related to the problem of releasing the reports is that it would involve a great deal of effort. If this is true, perhaps there is another problem here.

In every engineering and scientific environment that I am aware of the writing of test reports for outside review and to support conclusions is an essential element of the process. If JREF is falling below the norm, maybe that is something that could be improved.

I agree with all of the above points, also with davefoc that it's not an earth-shattering issue. But...Randi raised it himself in this week's Commentary and it just seems that the justififcations offered so far--and the dodging of direct questions about testing--don't look very good, imo, especially for an organization dedicated to scientific education and critical thinking.

Maybe someone wants to try again?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


JREF isn't making any excuses.

Of course they are. With glaring double standards! Or perhaps the JREF would allow any applicant with a history of making factual errors to publish all and any of the findings from the JREF records in respect of previous applicants, methods, agreemements, protocols and tests.

"Dr SCHWARTZ: - When we learned how Randi operated, we decided that he could not be trusted to present the facts and the truth (see example below). Hence, we told him that we are happy for his consultation, but not his journalism, PRO OR CON the research. Randi does not like it when people question his questionable ethics. We have no need or interest in Randi's praise or propaganda; however, we do respect his suggestions on experimental design.

RANDI: Were I a participant in the Schwartz operation, the kind of information that I would look for, may already be available, either through others who participated in the work, or from video records that seem to come to hand by mysterious means. Please note the video frame shown here. It was made from one of Schwartz's "scientific experiments" with John Edward. The "medium" has just taken his seat in the lab, adjacent to another chair to his left where the subject is located. This is what Schwartz considers to be "isolation" of the two persons. Lo! Do we perhaps see Edwards [sic] here taking a quick test peek through an opening in the partition?

-Webmaster's note: Watch this Real Audio clip of the exact moment that Randi refers to here, of John Edward taking his seat, and decide for yourself! http://www.survivalscience.org/debunk/johnedwardsits.ram

Say not so! This is science, tight controls and all that, and Schwartz himself told Edward, "There will be no eye contact, so a screen will separate you." I'll bet that Edward chuckled when he saw the set-up!

Dr SCHWARTZ - The video clip shows John possibly looking through a crack that is less than 1/4 inch wide (not the 2 inches reported in Randi's misinformed comments in the Times of London). Randi has not seen the raw footage. If he did, he would discover that the reading is done with John (and the other mediums) facing the cameras - therefore, they could not see the sitter while they were doing a reading. Randi selects a single frame and then seemingly gleafully dismisses hours of recordings.

The fact is, Randi was invited to the lab to see the raw footage. Furthermore, in subsequent experiments, the crack was sealed with tape, then full floor to ceiling screens were used, and then the readings were done long distance.

Randi mentions none of this, even though he knows this is the case. His "omission" of the facts is a disgrace to the honest reporting of the facts. He knows his criticisms are without merit for the preponderance of the experiments and findings.

RANDI: Now, I make no claim that Edward actually peeked through the opening during the "reading." If we had the original material, we could not only make that observation, but many others, as well. But we'll never see that. What I'm pointing out here is that the opportunity to peek was certainly there, and it should not have been, had Schwartz known how to - or cared to - implement proper security. It's not too hard to do, Dr. Schwartz, even for a Ph.D.

VERITAS - Note, in our initial study, we were not concerned if John (or the other mediums) momentarily saw the sitter because they heard her voice almost immediately, and could tell she was female. However, when the reading actually occurred, John was looking at the camera, not at the tiny crack in the screen. And remember, the crack was subsequently sealed with tape, etc....

Why does Randi make a mountain range out of an ant hill? (I was being poetic for a moment)

RANDI: And how "definitive" was John Edward in this "reading"? Let me quote a short part of his guessing-game, prefaced by his usual opening. This 119-word excerpt takes exactly 26 seconds; try reading it in that period, and you'll see just how rapidly Edward speaks. The responses from the sitter are shown in square brackets.

VERITAS - The opening statement WAS general. It usually is. The approximately 100 pieces of information obtained during John's reading included initials, names, historical facts, personal descriptions, and temperament descriptions. Randi knows this, supposedly, since he read the published paper....

RANDI: {quoting John Edward} "Okay, what's going to happen, is there'll be a series of impressions, pictures, and words, and things that make no sense to me, come through in my mind. I'm going to tell you what I'm seeing, hearing, and feeling, and eventually ask you to confirm it and verify it, simply by yes's and no's. [Okay] Okay. Um, the first thing that's coming through is that somebody's talking about a male figure to your side. A male figure to your side would be a husband or a brother who has crossed over. Do you understand that? [Yes] Okay, actually there's two... there's three, there's three. They're showing me, one seems to be like a husband figure to you. Do you understand that? [Yes]." {end quote} Smug {Randi's comment}

RANDI: In passing, note that both those "Do you understand that?" inquiries resulted in "Yes" responses, but that does not indicate that the sitter has identified with either a husband or a brother or anyone who "seems to be like a husband figure to [her]". It only means that the sitter understood the statements.
This is just the same old fare, cold reading, exactly what Edward and the other "readers" do! If we had an entire transcript or tape of this series of guesses, we'd be able to evaluate it, wouldn't we? But we will never have that. Dr. Schwartz won't share it with us. Why? That slamming noise you hear is the door to his Ivory Tower closing.

Dr Schwartz: All media who come to the lab have seen the raw footage. So have magicians, visiting scientists, and others. Randi could have come to the lab, he could have come to the conference. Instead, he complains that we do not give him the raw data. Given all the misinformation presented by Randi above, can anyone blame us?

We told Randi he should come to the lab, and we would film him watching the raw video, and then film him commenting on the data. We also invited him to try to be a medium, and see if he can do as well as our mediums can. Randi declined both offers."

source - http://www.survivalscience.org/debunk/torandi-1.shtml

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancy
Lots of hijacking, yes. And, still no direct responses to these:


Have you actually tried to contact JREF yourself, or are you merely content with griping?

[CFLarsen]

Lucianarchy,

Your post is in violation with the forum rules. Please remove the massive quoting and provide links instead.

[Lucianarchy]

Now the evidence has been provided, one can see that the JREF reportage of John E 'peeking through a two inch gap' is clearly bogus and sufficient evidence for Dr Schwartz to enforce controls which do not allow any further sloppy and innacurate reporting.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Now the evidence has been provided, one can see that the JREF reportage of John E 'peeking through a two inch gap' is clearly bogus and sufficient evidence for Dr Schwartz to enforce controls which do not allow any further sloppy and innacurate reporting.

Are you saying that John Edward is not peeking through the gap?

[ShowMe]

Hmmm....too bad we don't have a picture of the infamous gap that Mr. Edward was seated next to, so we could decide for ourselves whether it was closer to 1/4" or 2" (which is a truly ludicrous reason to back out of the challenge...peeking is peeking and folks can do it in 1/4" rather simply).

Oh wait, we do....let's take a look at the photograph.....

http://www.randi.org/jr/03-23-2001.html

Wow. Looks a lot closer to 2" than the 1/4" that Dr. Schwartz claims is the reason he won't supply Randi with the data.

What a shock.

[richardm]

You can even see from Luci's video clip that the gap is a substantial one. So if arguing about the size of it is the reason the raw data's not forthcoming, then clearly that's a smokescreen. As it were.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Are you saying that John Edward is not peeking through the gap?

Well of course not! If you look at the video and not Ranid's one-off frame, you'll see that there is nothing to peek at, and if you continue to wathc the video, you'll also see that the sitting was done with the participants facing the camera.

I note you don't address the point of the 'two inch gap', which is clear proof of the JREF's on occaision innacurate / embellished reporting.

Dr Schwart was quite right to tighten the controls by tightening up the coverage of misleading publications.

[SteveGrenard]

One. Luci has my permission to use the quote off the SS website in the above post.

Two. The e-mail Schwartz sent to Randi with the subject line Don't Read this was sent AFTER Randi announced he was no longer reading and was deleting (w/o reading) Schwartz' e-mails to him. Timing is everything Claus.

I will report tomorrow whether or not Randi was required NOT to reveal anything about what he saw, had he visited the lab, without first clearing it with Dr. Schwartz (e.g. censorship).
Had Randi read the rest of Schwartz' e-mails instead of deleting him he may have had a different impression of what the offer was, why it was phrased that way and whether or not he was truly asked to legally bar himself from talking about his visit to the lab.

The conclusion by Luci that Schwartz was quite right to insist on controls to insure accurate reportage by Randi was highly intuitive and formed a large part of the reason Schwartz wanted to videotape Randi as well as discuss his findings with him prior to publication or public release. Schwartz wanted everything documented whereas Randi wanted looser conditions where the on-site lab inspection was concerned.

[CFLarsen]

Lucianarchy is right. In the reading, there is no gap, because the second screen has disappeared!

When John Edward comes in the door, there are two screens.

When we see the reading, there is only one.

What happens to the second screen?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
One. Luci has my permission to use the quote off the SS website in the above post.

Regardless, it is against the rules of this board to quote that much. You cannot just overrule this board, Steve.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Two. The e-mail Schwartz sent to Randi with the subject line Don't Read this was sent AFTER Randi announced he was no longer reading and was deleting (w/o reading) Schwartz' e-mails to him. Timing is everything Claus.

Truth is everything, Steve. Something you would be wise to remember, because - as usual - you don't tell the whole story:

"Now after reading this, Dr. Schwartz may choose to begin crowing that I'm resisting communication with him, fearing his inevitable victory. I dropped out of his circle when he told me I had to be secretive about anything I observed of his operation. If and when he withdraws that injunction, and he begins to make good on the promises he made to the JREF and myself, then we can talk, but not until then. I just don't have the time to stroke his ego and listen to his evasive tactics. I have people out there who are serious about their work, and don't live in an Ivory Tower. "
Commentary, April 6, 2001


Why should Randi want to talk to someone who wants to censor him?

Again, you don't tell the whole story.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I will report tomorrow whether or not Randi was required NOT to reveal anything about what he saw, had he visited the lab, without first clearing it with Dr. Schwartz (e.g. censorship).

Of course, it would be nice to see what documents Schwartz required Randi to sign and rules to obey. I predict that we will never see this.

Did you ask him when he will publish the first Campbell/Dalzell reading?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Had Randi read the rest of Schwartz' e-mails instead of deleting him he may have had a different impression of what the offer was, why it was phrased that way and whether or not he was truly asked to legally bar himself from talking about his visit to the lab.

Are you now complaining that Randi deletes the emails that Schwartz wants him to delete??

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The conclusion by Luci that Schwartz was quite right to insist on controls to insure accurate reportage by Randi was highly intuitive and formed a large part of the reason Schwartz wanted to videotape Randi as well as discuss his findings with him prior to publication or public release. Schwartz wanted everything documented whereas Randi wanted looser conditions where the on-site lab inspection was concerned.

You don't get it, do you? Do you honestly (you might want to look up that one) think it would stop with Randi looking at the data? No, more would look, and if Randi had fibbed, he's be out in the cold in no time.

Schwartz has no business imposing censorship on those who get to see the data.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Lucianarchy is right. In the reading, there is no gap, because the second screen has disappeared!

When John Edward comes in the door, there are two screens.

When we see the reading, there is only one.

What happens to the second screen?

As you can see, there was nothing to peek through regarding the cavernous invention of Randi! The participants were sitting facing the camera. John Edwards would have had to get up out of his chair in order to 'peek' round the screen, so the picture of John out of his chair, before the session began is quite misleading, and again qualifies Dr Schwartz's tightening of the controls over accurate reportage.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
As you can see, there was nothing to peek through regarding the cavernous invention of Randi! The participants were sitting facing the camera. John Edwards would have had to get up out of his chair in order to 'peek' round the screen, so the picture of John out of his chair, before the session began is quite misleading, and again qualifies Dr Schwartz's tightening of the controls over accurate reportage.

You really don't get it, do you?

Look at the image that Randi shows. Two screens, a visible gap.

Look at the video. When John Edward enters the room, two screens. Visible gap.

Then, look at the reading. One screen, no gap.

Schwartz himself states:

"Furthermore, in subsequent experiments, the crack was sealed with tape, then full floor to ceiling screens were used, and then the readings were done long distance."
http://www.survivalscience.org/debunk/torandi-1.shtml

When are these screens changed?? Before the sitter arrives? Then why are the split ones there? After the sitter arrives? You gotta be kiddin'...

Why - oh why - is John Edward allowed to even enter a room with a screen you can peek through? Whatever size the crack may be, why is it even there?

Schwartz is incredibly incompetent.

[ShowMe]

Then, look at the reading. One screen, no gap.[/B]



CF,

I must disagree. If you watch the tape you see that there are 2 screens there, with a (close to 2") gap in between them. (Actually, if you freeze the frame about 6 seconds into the clip you see a gap that is probably closer to 4"). As Edward sits in his seat it looks likehe may even be taking a peek around the partition, but we'll assume he wasn't.

The rest of the clip is taken from an angle that would be viewing the partition straight on. The second screen is still there, but is being filmed from the front so all you see is the front edge.

If this was posted as evidence that Edward couldn't peek because the subject was facing the camera, then whoever posted it could not possibly have watched it with a critical eye.

Cripes, I don't see how they could have watched it at all and came to the conclusion he couldn't peek.

(edited to add quote so CF would understand what I was disagreeing with)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by ShowMe
I must disagree. If you watch the tape you see that there are 2 screens there, with a (close to 2") gap in between them. (Actually, if you freeze the frame about 6 seconds into the clip you see a gap that is probably closer to 4"). As Edward sits in his seat it looks likehe may even be taking a peek around the partition, but we'll assume he wasn't.

Nope. We don't "assume". We have to know! :)

Originally posted by ShowMe
The rest of the clip is taken from an angle that would be viewing the partition straight on. The second screen is still there, but is being filmed from the front so all you see is the front edge.

Nope, the angles are wrong. Look at the moment when JE comes through the door. The back partition is turned towards JE, which - judging from the camera angles during the reading - should be visible to the front camera.

Originally posted by ShowMe
If this was posted as evidence that Edward couldn't peek because the subject was facing the camera, then whoever posted it could not possibly have watched it with a critical eye.

Well, you know...I have a quick, but rather rude answer to that one...but I'm sure Steve wouldn't like it! ;)

Originally posted by ShowMe
Cripes, I don't see how they could have watched it at all and came to the conclusion he couldn't peek.

Precisely. Or perhaps...they just didn't believe he would? Reading Schwartz' book, he doesn't strike you as the least gullible man on earth, does he?

[ShowMe]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Nope. We don't "assume". We have to know! :)


Nope, the angles are wrong. Look at the moment when JE comes through the door. The back partition is turned towards JE, which - judging from the camera angles during the reading - should be visible to the front camera.


I think that shows the angles are exactly correct for what I'm referring to. In fact, if you watch the film at the 22 second mark & look at where the gap should be, you'll see that there is another partition there.

I think it's just camera angles, but there are two paritions there. I will, however, simply concede the point because it boils down to agreeing with you that this test was sloppy. And that's being kind. No need to get caught up in the minutia of how large the gap was, or whether or not Edward peeked. The fact remains that there were no controls in place to prevent him from doing so.

And, in an attempt to keep my post at least slightly on-topic, I'll add this:

I have yet to see a decent argument for writing up the failures. In the Olympics we don't get hours and hours of the folks that lost the qualifying rounds, and if you asked the Olympic committee to compile and send you such a list I doubt they would want to go through the time & expense.

So, for all you True Believers out there, all you have to do is produce ONE person that can pass the test. Just one.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by ShowMe
I think that shows the angles are exactly correct for what I'm referring to. In fact, if you watch the film at the 22 second mark & look at where the gap should be, you'll see that there is another partition there.

Nope. Sorry, can't see it. Can you show me a screenshot?

Originally posted by ShowMe
I think it's just camera angles, but there are two paritions there. I will, however, simply concede the point because it boils down to agreeing with you that this test was sloppy. And that's being kind. No need to get caught up in the minutia of how large the gap was, or whether or not Edward peeked. The fact remains that there were no controls in place to prevent him from doing so.

True. But it does help being able to show why it was sloppy! :)

Originally posted by ShowMe
And, in an attempt to keep my post at least slightly on-topic, I'll add this:

I have yet to see a decent argument for writing up the failures. In the Olympics we don't get hours and hours of the folks that lost the qualifying rounds, and if you asked the Olympic committee to compile and send you such a list I doubt they would want to go through the time & expense.

Very true.

Originally posted by ShowMe
So, for all you True Believers out there, all you have to do is produce ONE person that can pass the test. Just one.

Yep. It must be easy, considering that John Edward - as well as many other psychic mediums - sell kits where you can get better at being psychic.

Where is this Psychic Superman?

[Clancie]

And speaking of derailing....<sigh> It's beginning to look like an intentional diversion to me by Randi supporters who apparently just can't respond to some direct and honest questions....<sigh>

[SteveGrenard]

Luci: John Edwards would have had to get up out of his chair in order to 'peek' round the screen, so the picture of John out of his chair, before the session began is quite misleading, and again qualifies Dr Schwartz's tightening of the controls over accurate reportage


JE was wearing 16 or more EEG leads placed over various parts of his skull. These were kept in place by the bandana type headpiece but the wires trail off the back of the head. If you sit down without tilting your head as you do so you will sit on the wires and tangle them. EEG techs routinely tell subjects so wired to tilt their heads as they sit in order to avoid sitting on and tangling the wires.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancy
And speaking of derailing....<sigh> It's beginning to look like an intentional diversion to me by Randi supporters who apparently just can't respond to some direct and honest questions....<sigh>

Not at all. It just happens that threads evolve.

As far as I remember, you have even "derailed" threads yourself, usually when you couldn't face the music.

But if you insist, let's get this thread back on track:

Have you actually tried to contact JREF yourself, or are you merely content with griping?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Luci: John Edwards would have had to get up out of his chair in order to 'peek' round the screen, so the picture of John out of his chair, before the session began is quite misleading, and again qualifies Dr Schwartz's tightening of the controls over accurate reportage

Nobody is talking about peeking around the screen. We are talking about that gap, Steve.

Please try to stay on the subject, instead of these incessant attempts of diverting the focus.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
JE was wearing 16 or more EEG leads placed over various parts of his skull. These were kept in place by the bandana type headpiece but the wires trail off the back of the head. If you sit down without tilting your head as you do so you will sit on the wires and tangle them. EEG techs routinely tell subjects so wired to tilt their heads as they sit in order to avoid sitting on and tangling the wires.

Yes, that's nice. However, John Edward isn't exactly immobilized.

[Markus702]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Not at all. It just happens that threads evolve.
Hey CF this thread has definitely been somewhat derailed, but like you I don't think it was in any way intentional and threads often evolve as you say. But there is a question I was wondering if you knew the answer to, as you seem to be pretty active with the JREF. My qeustion that may have been answered at some point on this thread, but damned if I can find it;
Do you know a rough average of how many preliminary tests the JREF conducts each year. If you or anyone else knows that would be great.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Markus702
Do you know a rough average of how many preliminary tests the JREF conducts each year. If you or anyone else knows that would be great.

I only have a vague idea, stemming from reading the Commentaries. You can read them yourself and form your own estimate.

Or, of course, write to Randi yourself. :)

[SteveGrenard]

In reference to questions concerning the public release of uncensored transcripts of one on one mediumistic readings, I can now provide the following response.

No, this will not be done because such readings contain numerous pieces of personal information related to the sitter and the deceased which the sitter, as an experimental subject, does not want released. This is why snippets of transcripts and tabulations of hits/misses and %s are released but precise details are not, nor will they ever be so long as the sitter objects to the release of this kind of information. Researchers examining the data or auditing it are bound by these conditions as well.
Randi apparently and for whatever reason felt he should not.

"Sanitizing" such transcripts would amount to altering /editing them and this is not something that can be done properly nor would it be acceptable and could be construed as misleading. Therefore, it was decided instead to report on the results and categories of information rather than to include precise details which could hurt the sitter and violate their privacy. I am sure anyone here would insist on these same conditions were they a sitter in such an experiment and sensitive private information was given.

In the matter of Randi being allowed to see them but not to release them, that injunction was for the same reasons as cited above. At no time was Randi prohibited from discussing the results of the testing or his ultimate opinions, but if he was to be privy to private information of the sitters it would've been necessary to legally bind him regarding release of that information. This was not, apparently, something he was willing to do nor was he interested in discussing it after Schwartz brought this condition to his attention. In addition Schwartz thus asked for him to discuss any information he would release beforehand with him. Schwartz wanted to insure the integrity of his responsibility to the sitters. Even the televised excerpts of the HBO sittings were subject to these kinds of legal restraints.

I hope, once again, that the above position is clear. It is really not subject to debate but since it was brought up once again here I wanted to clarify it once again in this context.

[Pyrrho]

Your answer makes sense, Steve. You do realize, though, and I hope Dr. Schwartz realizes, that, with such restrictions in place, he is virtually a "witness to his own cause". His results can't be taken as valid merely on the merits of him saying they're valid.

[SteveGrenard]

This is not exactly true. Dr. Schwartz works with several research assistants, skeptics on his own faculty and visiting researchers including myself. We are all bound by such confidentialtiy concerns and ethics. If anyone of these people, and they include a committee of faculty skeptics, has found that the transcripts do not match the reported results you can be sure it would be brought to Schwartz's attention, the ethics committee of the university and, eventually, to the attention of the public.

So Schwartz is not working in a locked room with him having the only key.

Insofar as publishing the transcripts is concerned, it was also suggested by some that Schwartz et al do what is routinely done in medical case histories and that is to use pseudononymous initials or code names for sitters. Unfortunately given the small number of sitters and the disclosure of their prior identities, including on television, this was not an option. Anyone who knew them, could, from the nature of the reading, ultimately determine for whom the reading was for after the fact. If this was a study involving dozens or hundreds of anonymous sitters it may've been possible to release some such transcripts while masking the identities of the sitters. None of the sitters objected to having their identities published or publicized but they did have privacy concerns about some of the information they received. Randi, however, would've been privy not only to their personal information but also their identities had Schwartz complied with his request to ship all work product including video/audio tapes and transcripts to him at JREF in Ft Lauderdale.

[Marc]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Your answer makes sense, Steve. You do realize, though, and I hope Dr. Schwartz realizes, that, with such restrictions in place, he is virtually a "witness to his own cause". His results can't be taken as valid merely on the merits of him saying they're valid.

It makes sence, but like most of Steve's other posts might not be exactly true. For some time on TVtalkshow board he was claiming that Schwartz was prevented by HIPAA regulations from sharing that data. It was pointed out that HIPAA does not cover Schwartz's experiments, and in any case those regulations are not even in effect yet.

Also the claims of not being able to share personal information seems pretty silly when Schwartz has published the names of several of the sitters. I'm sure CFLarsen will be able to provide more details on this.

btw, I've read Schwartz's reply to Hymann's report and to my review. Both times he does a very poor job of countering the arguments and evidence presented. Heck, he seems to ignore them, and I'm not sure but he might be outright lying on a couple points.

[Jeff Corey]

Marc,
Could you please provide a link to your review and Schwartz's reply to it?

[CFLarsen]

Marc,

Ah, but of course! Here are the sitters in Schwartz' tests:

HBO-readings:

Patricia Price, a school teacher living a two hour drive from Tucson.
Ronnie Nathanson, appliance saleswoman at Sears, Tucson.

Both sitters' identity is known. Also, personal information is reported in the book (e.g. Pat's husband is Mike who drives and rebuilds Harley Davidson bikes and is later reported killed). Not much reason for anonymity here, is there?

Miraval readings:

Patricia Price, same person as in the HBO-reading (an unacceptable choice, btw)
Elayne Russek (Linda Russek's mother, also an unacceptable choice)
Diane Goldner, author of "Infinite Grace" (who actually meets with the mediums the day before the experiment!)
Heather Rist, an undergraduate at the University of Arizona (she's working for Schwartz', for chrissakes!)
Christopher, a sometime staff member of Schwartz' (duh!)
An unnamed phycisian (the Pretty in Pink reading, which is all we hear from that reading)


The other four sitters are neither identified in the book, nor is their data described. We don't know what happened here.

Canyon Ranch completely silent readings:


Juliet Speisman, an undergraduate student of Schwartz'. She also had a friend who had been read by JE, and had been trying to get a reading from JE for two years.
Sabrina Geoffrion, a member of Schwartz' research and administrative team. Lots of personal information is given.
Janna Excel, a grief counsellor at a local cemetary and leads a large monthly NDE experience group at a local church.
Terri Raymond, with a background in clinical hypnosis. A friend of Linda Russek's.
Lynn Ferro, a research coordinator for Dr. Andrew Weil.
Gary Schwartz himself (completely unacceptable!)


Ah, the benefits of a well-attended database... :D

Steve,

Does Schwartz know that you habitually lie, misrepresent and threaten others?

If he wants to learn about the details, he can contact me.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Not at all. It just happens that threads evolve.

As far as I remember, you have even "derailed" threads yourself, usually when you couldn't face the music.

But if you insist, let's get this thread back on track:

Have you actually tried to contact JREF yourself, or are you merely content with griping?

Well, there is a difference between evolving and hijacking. This thread got derailed when people tried to use the failure of Schwartz to share his data with Randi as some sort of argument in favour of Randi not publishing his data. The two are not connected, and any mention of Schwartz is simply noise obscuring the signal here.

As to asking Randi himself, this thread was started as a reaction to Randi's commentary in which he responds to such a request (in a somewhat snappish manner, IMO). In Randi's commentary, he also makes this terrible argument:Alexander also wrote that this investment of labor and money "would make [our] site seem more respectable and less like the crazies that [we] complain about." His perception is ridiculous. We've received wide approval and acceptance for our site — which currently receives some 85,000+ page views a day, internationally. I'll rest on that record. As if the number of page views were relevant. By that argument, porn sites must be the most respectable of all!

Others have tried to examine the whole of his response, and asked some questions regarding it for discussion, which those who have defended Randi's response have ignored. It pains me to see people go on and on about others not answering questions etc. and then exhibit the same behaviour themselves.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Thanz
It pains me to see people go on and on about others not answering questions etc. and then exhibit the same behaviour themselves.

Can you list these unanswered questions?

[SteveGrenard]

It makes sence, but like most of Steve's other posts might not be exactly true. For some time on TVtalkshow board he was claiming that Schwartz was prevented by HIPAA regulations from sharing that data. It was pointed out that HIPAA does not cover Schwartz's experiments, and in any case those regulations are not even in effect yet.

Reply: Prior to HIPAA various state regulations applied. HIPAA formalized and tightened up on procedures for disclosing protected health information. Many states, for example, protect the identities of persons with HIV/AIDS including deceased persons. Would you like the world to know that your mate died of this disease? Some people may not like that idea regardless of what you think about it. This is just one example of what is being protected here. The information that was disclosed about sitters and their deceased relatives was disclosed because it was permitted. And it seems that you and othgers ignored the fact that the identities of the sitters was freely disclosed as well but because their identity was disclosed does not automatically make them fair game for disclosing all their information. This is about the lamest arguments I have seen on this board.

You ignore the fact that James Randi:

1) severed further dialogue with Schwartz on this issue.

2) misinterpreted the need to protect information not subject to disclosure by refusing to agree not to do so and to clear it with the principal investigator first. Obviously Randi wanted open season on this information and clearly this did not and was not going to happen.

Also the claims of not being able to share personal information seems pretty silly when Schwartz has published the names of several of the sitters. I'm sure CFLarsen will be able to provide more details on this.

Reply: Names of sitters is not their information just as names of patients is not their diagnosis, lab results or treatment plan. If you call the hospital you can find out who is a patient there or check on a name with patient information. You cannot get any further information on them. Surely the distinction should be obvious.

btw, I've read Schwartz's reply to Hymann's report and to my review. Both times he does a very poor job of countering the arguments and evidence presented. Heck, he seems to ignore them, and I'm not sure but he might be outright lying on a couple points.

Reply: You are, of course, entitled to any opinions you have re this subject.

[Jesse]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
2) misinterpreted the need to protect information not subject to disclosure by refusing to agree not to do so and to clear it with the principal investigator first. Could you re-phrase this, please?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by TLN


Can you list these unanswered questions?

Here is a repeat of a post I made on page five, which was largely ignored (sorry, I don't know how to post a url to a specific post):

1. Out of all of the people who apply (or try to apply) for the JREF challenge, how many actually go through the preliminary test? If it is at a rate of 55 per 650 (less than 10%), what is the big deal?

I would assume that the number of applications has increased since 1982. But even with the increased applications, judging from the commentaries, it seems that Randi doesn't spend a lot of time actually conducting preliminary tests.

2. If the number of actual preliminary tests is small (even as small as one a week) I don't see the huge cost of a short summary provided on a going forward basis. What is this huge cost? The tests are supposed to be designed so that success or failure is self evident. As such, the tests would not be complex (found gold/did not find gold). I would imagine that some records are generated anyway for legal purposes, so the work itself is already being done.

If I am correct in my guesses (about 1 test a week) I don't see how what has been proposed (a short summary of claimant/test/results) would take more than a half hour a week. Hardly a huge, expensive task.

Also, summarized by Clancy on that same page along with some points made by davefoc:
Lots of hijacking, yes. And, still no direct responses to these:

From Thanz

1. Out of all of the people who apply (or try to apply) for the JREF challenge, how many actually go through the preliminary test?

2. If it is at a rate of 55 per 650 (less than 10%), what is the big deal (to report results)?

3. If the number of actual preliminary tests is small (even as small as one a week) I don't see the huge cost of a short summary provided on a going forward basis. What is this huge cost? The tests are supposed to be designed so that success or failure is self evident. As such, the tests would not be complex (found gold/did not find gold).

4. I would imagine that some records are generated anyway for legal purposes, so the work itself is already being done. (I'll add, "Right?" since this is an interesting question in itself).

Also no response to these comments. Does everyone agree that these are reasonable reasons for having some available documentation of test results? I mean, seriously, why all the apparent stonewalling?

from davefoc

The goals as I see it of the release would be:

1. Validate that JREF is producing professional quality reports.

2. Improve the credibility of the organization by providing evidence that they aren't burying successful tests.

3. Allow for review of protocols by outside entities.

4. Provide an organized source of information on paranormal test protocols for use by others interested in paranormal testing.

5. Encourage good record keeping to maximize the value of a test.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
originally posted by davefoc
The only objection put forth so far directly related to the problem of releasing the reports is that it would involve a great deal of effort. If this is true, perhaps there is another problem here.

In every engineering and scientific environment that I am aware of the writing of test reports for outside review and to support conclusions is an essential element of the process. If JREF is falling below the norm, maybe that is something that could be improved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I agree with all of the above points, also with davefoc that it's not an earth-shattering issue. But...Randi raised it himself in this week's Commentary and it just seems that the justififcations offered so far--and the dodging of direct questions about testing--don't look very good, imo, especially for an organization dedicated to scientific education and critical thinking.

Maybe someone wants to try again?

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
2) misinterpreted the need to protect information not subject to disclosure by refusing to agree not to do so and to clear it with the principal investigator first.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could you re-phrase this, please?


Certainly. Randi misinterpreted and I am being polite because I do not know otherwise. Randi stated that if he reviewed the data on site he would be censored and have to have everything cleared by Schwartz in advance. This was not true even though this is what he said. What was true is that Schwartz wanted him to clear release of protected or private information.
Randi and his referees could've visited the lab, examined the tapes, audios and transcripts and then said no, JE only got a 40% hit rate, not an 85% and here's why, etc etc. Randi, thinking that what Schwartz wanted was total control about ANYTHING he could say about the test seriously misinterpreted
(and then continued by his own hand to do so in his commentaries) this request by Schwartz. Schwartz could not even discuss it with him because at this juncture Randi deleted and did not read any mail or take any calls from him. From Randi's POV it was non-negotiable;he was insulted and he would not be dictated to by Schwartz or the practical necessity of what is standard operating procedure in a University and University Medical center environment where experimental subjects undergo any sort of testing or other participation.




Randi refused to do so. He said so. I hope this clear. What is at issue here is that by misinterpreting Schwartz's conditions he doesn't actually realize what it was .....he refused to do......

I am sure we can all agree this is what is meant by the
expression:

"Failure to communicate...."


And BTW Marc as Schwartz is a member of the faculty of medicine at the University of Arizona, all privacy regulations: those of the state, of the University and of the Federal government apply and will always apply to any research he conducts with human subjects. You can interpret any way you want to. It is not open to debate.

[Jesse]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Randi stated that if he reviewed the data on site he would be censored and have to have everything cleared by Schwartz in advance. I think this may be a syntax problem. 'on site'?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Jesse
Thanz, You are duplicating and manipulating the text.

Duplicating - yes. I said "here is a repeat of my post...". The reason I repeated it is because I don't know how to link to a specific post, and didn't want to bother summarizing.

Manipulating - no, it was strict cut and paste. I just left out my editorializing in my original post.

[Jesse]

I take you at your word.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Randi stated that if he reviewed the data on site he would be censored and have to have everything cleared by Schwartz in advance. This was not true even though this is what he said. What was true is that Schwartz wanted him to clear release of protected or private information.

Word against word.

Not Schwartz' against Randi's , but Steve Grenard's against Randi's.

Guys...it's kinda a foregone conclusion, don't ya think? :)

Steve, you cannot possibly ask anyone to accept your word for this. You, a known, habitual liar. Please.

Let's see the records. In fact, let's see Schwartz get on this board and start talking.

(I still note that Schwartz has not published the first Campbell/Dalzell reading, even though he promised. Now, it's for reasons of privacy? Masculine bovine manure, if you ask me...)

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Word against word.

Not Schwartz' against Randi's , but Steve Grenard's against Randi's.

Guys...it's kinda a foregone conclusion, don't ya think? :)

Steve, you cannot possibly ask anyone to accept your word for this. You, a known, habitual liar. Please.

Let's see the records. In fact, let's see Schwartz get on this board and start talking.

(I still note that Schwartz has not published the first Campbell/Dalzell reading, even though he promised. Now, it's for reasons of privacy? Masculine bovine manure, if you ask me...)

Claus, Dr Grenard has presented you with perfectly good evidence. You're are being irrational, and somewhat hysterical in your calling him a habitual liar, a charge I know you to be reprehensibly dishonest in making.

We have seen previous examples of poor reportage coming from the JREF in this thread, there is also this example:

"The January 2000 issue of Dog World magazine included an article on a possible sixth sense in dogs, which discussed some of my research. In this article Randi was quoted as saying that in relation to canine ESP, "We at the JREF [James Randi Educational Foundation] have tested these claims. They fail." No details were given of these tests.

I emailed James Randi to ask for details of this JREF research. He did not reply. He ignored a second request for information too.

I then asked members of the JREF Scientific Advisory Board to help me find out more about this claim. They did indeed help by advising Randi to reply. In an email sent on Februaury 6, 2000 he told me that the tests he referred to were not done at the JREF, but took place "years ago" and were "informal". They involved two dogs belonging to a friend of his that he observed over a two-week period. All records had been lost. He wrote: "I overstated my case for doubting the reality of dog ESP based on the small amount of data I obtained. It was rash and improper of me to do so."

Randi also claimed to have debunked one of my experiments with the dog Jaytee, a part of which was shown on television. Jaytee went to the window to wait for his owner when she set off to come home, but did not do so before she set off. In Dog World, Randi stated: "Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked by." This is simply not true, and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape. " Source: http://www.sheldrake.org/controversies/randi.html

Given the above, the evidence in total suggests that it is more likely that Dr Grenard's version of events has been reported correctly.

Randi's commentary on the University of Arizon and Dr Schwartz has now been debunked, using true skepticism with Dr Grenard going direct to the source.

[CFLarsen]

Lucianarchy,

The case with Sheldon (you are in violation once again with the rules of this board by posting so much) is well known. You are not proving anything, except that Randi admits errors. He didn't lie. He overstated his case. And, contrary to what you and Steve do, he fessed up.

As for your own claims...well, we know by now that you do not, on principle, back up any of your claims, so as for your own credibility? Pah!

Now, as for the lies etc. of Steve Grenard: I have to ask you, sincerely: Do you really want to see that? You might not like it, although I strongly suspect that you will merely brush them off as lies. Even though they are verbatim quotes of Steve's.

I have noticed that the two of you have kinda shacked up lately. I am not sure who will suffer the most from that entendre, you or Steve. I suspect it's a case of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Time will, as always, tell. But it might be a rough awakening for some...

[Marc]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Marc,
Could you please provide a link to your review and Schwartz's reply to it?
Unfortunatly no. My review was published in the NESS newsletter and a recent issue of Skeptic. (interesting to see how two different editors took the same text and altered it before publication) Schwartz's response is in the current issue of Skeptic. None of these are currently online anywhere as far as I know.

Steve
Prior to HIPAA various state regulations applied. HIPAA formalized and tightened up on procedures for disclosing protected health information. Many states, for example, protect the identities of persons with HIV/AIDS including deceased persons.
Two different attempts to misdirect right here. First you did not cite state regulations, you cited HIPAA regulations. If you are now agreeing that HIPAA did not apply then you lied before when you said they did. Second it was already established that even if HIPAA was in effect, it still would have no bearing on this as it has nothing to do with healthcare or even medical research.

So you prove my point about how you misrepresent facts, and are still unable to demonstrate how there is any reason to prevent access to the data.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You are not proving anything, except that Randi admits errors. He didn't lie. He overstated his case. And, contrary to what you and Steve do, he fessed up.



Now you understand why Dr Schwartz needed to ensure tight controls over some of the data. Only a gullible rube would hand scientific data over to a not qualified scientist with a history of errors and sloppy reportage. Perhaps Mr Randi is too used to dealing with carnival type rubes, he needs to adopt a more scientific approach if he is to be taken seriously by either the scientific or skeptical community. Don't get me wrong, he's good at showmanship and has done some good work in exposing some of the more dubious characters who prey on the non-skeptical community, but Dr Schwartz is clearly doing good science, and deserves the protocols and methods of review as accepted in the international mainstream scientific community.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Now you understand why Dr Schwartz needed to ensure tight controls over some of the data. Only a gullible rube would hand scientific data over to a not qualified scientist with a history of errors and sloppy reportage. Perhaps Mr Randi is too used to dealing with carnival type rubes, he needs to adopt a more scientific approach if he is to be taken seriously by either the scientific or skeptical community. Don't get me wrong, he's good at showmanship and has done some good work in exposing some of the more dubious characters who prey on the non-skeptical community, but Dr Schwartz is clearly doing good science, and deserves the protocols and methods of review as accepted in the international mainstream scientific community.
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Psiload]

Marc wrote:

Unfortunatly no. My review was published in the NESS newsletter and a recent issue of Skeptic. (interesting to see how two different editors took the same text and altered it before publication) Schwartz's response is in the current issue of Skeptic. None of these are currently online anywhere as far as I know.

I just happen to have that issue of Skeptic at hand. I just love the part of Schwartz's response where he tries to weasel out of the silly 'photons are not much larger than the head of a pin' claim he made in one of his books. A claim that you had called him on in your review. As per usual, his rebuttal backfires on him, and only serves to land more egg onto his face:

Schwartz wrote:

"With his focusing on generalizing, (Marc's name) literally misinterprets the sentence"The photons that have travelled billions of miles to make their way into your pupils are not much bigger than the head of a pin" to imply that I believe that photons are as big as the head of a pin-when I was obviously referring to the fact that the pupil of the eye, when it is constricted, is not much larger than the head of a pin."

Talk about a pinhead.:rolleyes:

[Marc]

Been a looooong time since covering scentence structure in high school, but let's see. The photons that have travelled billions of miles to make their way into your pupils are not much bigger than the head of a pin 'photons' is the subject of the scentence. 'are' is the verb, and 'bigger than the head of a pin' is the direct object. I interperted the scentence correctly. Either he is lying or he wrote it that way by mistake, in which he and his proof readers should be embarased. But he did not admit to any mistake in the scentence, so does he have poor reading comprehension in not understanding the error? Is he unable to admit any mistake was made in composing the scentence?

I like how he claims his superior knowledge of physics by claiming it states in his book how he got a perfect score in some college physics exam. I didn't notice anything like that when I read the book. Is he lying about it being in the book? Will have to check if it is in the index, not reading the whole thing again to find out. If it is in there my question is Why? Why would someone feel the need to brag about his test scores when he is trying to publish a science based book? Oh, and from reading his books I find it very hard to believe he passed any physics exam, unless he forgot everything he learned since then.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Marc
Been a looooong time since covering scentence structure in high school, but let's see. The photons that have travelled billions of miles to make their way into your pupils are not much bigger than the head of a pin 'photons' is the subject of the scentence. 'are' is the verb, and 'bigger than the head of a pin' is the direct object. I interperted the scentence correctly. Either he is lying or he wrote it that way by mistake, in which he and his proof readers should be embarased. But he did not admit to any mistake in the scentence, so does he have poor reading comprehension in not understanding the error? Is he unable to admit any mistake was made in composing the scentence?


Criticising them for one proof reading error, is not skepticism. .:rolleyes:

If you discovered Randi made an error more serious than proof reading, what would you do, write it up for publication in 'Skeptic' magazine?

Deal with the facts; Dr Schwartz has provided positive evidence which supports the hypothesis for survival after death. The commentaries by the JREF on Dr Schwartz have been debunked and there now appears to be no rational reason why the JREF do not now make progress with their offer of an educational Grant of $1m.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
...Dr Schwartz is clearly doing good science, and deserves the protocols and methods of review as accepted in the international mainstream scientific community.

I agree completely, if you change the "good" to "sloppy and uncontrolled".

[ShowMe]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey


I agree completely, if you change the "good" to "sloppy and uncontrolled".

Many years ago I earned my living as a painter (of walls and the like, not the artist type). My boss would always get upset if one of the customers found a glaring mistake.

"You're professional painters" he would lament. "How can someone who isn't a professional find a mistake that you missed?"

I often think of this when looking at Dr. Schwartz's "experiments". As a non-scientist I can see huge, gaping problems with the protocol; even in the film clip that was offered on this thread as proof, it proved the case that the controls were sloppy at best.

So how can an alleged "scientist" miss these gaping holes that we laymen are able to see so easily?

[Clancie]

Personally, I think Schwartz has made a unique contribution to advancing the study of all this by actually getting 5 of the most reputable mediums to be tested by him at U of A.

That said, a number of things I've read make me feel he is far too biased to be an impartial observer. I don't think he intends to do poor research, but that his admitted bias on behalf of mediumship has blinded him to the importance of using better research methods....

[Marc]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Criticising them for one proof reading error, is not skepticism. .:rolleyes:

my criticism of his work was in no way based on a single proof reading error, if indeed that is what it was. If you look you will find that Schwartz did not say it was a proofreading error, or that the scentence was in any way at all erronous. I pointed it out in my review as a glareing example of a poor grasp on physics, of which there are many examples which certainly can not be discounted as proof reading errors.



Deal with the facts; Dr Schwartz has provided positive evidence which supports the hypothesis for survival after death. The commentaries by the JREF on Dr Schwartz have been debunked and there now appears to be no rational reason why the JREF do not now make progress with their offer of an educational Grant of $1m.
You learn to deal with the facts. Schwartz has done nothing but play around with poorly done experiments that do nothing to advance knowledge or evidenct. Randi's commentaries have not been debunked, certainly not by Steve.

I do agree there is no rational reason not to make progress with the offer of a grant of $1m, the thing that is holding it up is Schwartz's continued refusal to let anyone examine the data. Once he stops that, and the data is shown to hold up, then the UofA should get the million.

[Clancie]

Thanz,

Re: hijacking. I can see that those of us with questions about the preliminary tests won't be getting any answers here. (I'd even settle, at this point, to know how many preliminary tests are given in a year. But I'm not holding my breath....)

I think I'll go ahead and write to Randi, but I can't imagine that I'll get any further with my questions than Alexander did. Worth a try, I guess....

[ShowMe]

Originally posted by Marc
the thing that is holding it up is Schwartz's continued refusal to let anyone examine the data.

Reading this, for some reason, crystlaized something that's been bouncing around in my brain for a bit.

Schwartz had to know that this research would be controversial, ESPECIALLY if he found *any* sort of proof (which has yet to be forthcoming).

The most recent excuse is that "private information can't be given out".

Um....He used people that wouldn't sign a privacy waiver, or didn't have them sign one?

What kind of poor planning is that?

[Marc]

Originally posted by Clancy
Thanz,

Re: hijacking. I can see that those of us with questions about the preliminary tests won't be getting any answers here. (I'd even settle, at this point, to know how many preliminary tests are given in a year. But I'm not holding my breath....)

I think I'll go ahead and write to Randi, but I can't imagine that I'll get any further with my questions than Alexander did. Worth a try, I guess....

Well asking us how many tests or applications they do a year is rather useless. None of us are involved in that process, except maybe a few from local skeptics groups (like NYASk) who occationaly get to perform the test. I believe the person to ask is Andrew as he handles the incomming requests.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Deal with the facts; Dr Schwartz has provided positive evidence which supports the hypothesis for survival after death.

I suppose this isn't a "claim" either, huh?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Marc



I do agree there is no rational reason not to make progress with the offer of a grant of $1m, the thing that is holding it up is Schwartz's continued refusal to let anyone examine the data. Once he stops that, and the data is shown to hold up, then the UofA should get the million.

Then the JREF must agree to comply with scientific protocols, there is no reason why they should be exempt. The control oveer confidentiality is a standard throughout all scientific research, particularly in psychology. There is no excuse for the JREF to hold up the process of awarding the $1m educational grant they initiated, none whatsoever.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
There is no excuse for the JREF to hold up the process of awarding the $1m educational grant they initiated, none whatsoever.

Except that 1, it's not a grant and 2, no one has passed the challenge.

[chuff]

Does anyone know how many people have actually attempted the preliminary?

I'd be interested to read brief, individual summaries of those who'd tried. Names not really necessary, just real brief, like:

===========

Subject A: Claimed to have the ability to make smoke come out of his ears.

Testing methodology: Smoke detector placed above and next to subject's head.

First attempt: Face of subject turned a bright red as he appeared to hold his breath and put his head and upper torso under severe pressure, but no smoke appeared (although he -did- pass wind on this and every subsequent attempt).

Test results: Did not satisfy original claim.

===========

It seems like if JREF can run the nice webpage it does, they'd be able to include some kind of information about the attempts at the "challenge" itself.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by chuff
Does anyone know how many people have actually attempted the preliminary?

I'd be interested to read brief, individual summaries of those who'd tried. Names not really necessary, just real brief, like:

===========

Subject A: Claimed to have the ability to make smoke come out of his ears.

Testing methodology: Smoke detector placed above and next to subject's head.

First attempt: Face of subject turned a bright red as he appeared to hold his breath and put his head and upper torso under severe pressure, but no smoke appeared (although he -did- pass wind on this and every subsequent attempt).

Test results: Did not satisfy original claim.

===========

It seems like if JREF can run the nice webpage it does, they'd be able to include some kind of information about the attempts at the "challenge" itself.

Randi does post periodic reports on people trying to pass the challenge in his weekly SWIFT commentary on the site's homepage.

[Dogwood]

:(
I can't believe I missed all this.