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