Experiment that satisfies million dollar requirement?

[Kevin Levites]

I wonder:

Supposedly, some people are actually able to navigate and find north and south because of some natural compass in our heads---something to do with deposits of biological lodestone (magnetite) in our heads.

I've heard that this is something we have in common with some birds, magnetotactic bacteria, snails, insects, and so on.

If a compass points to a powerful magnet, could a person who is capable of this (and specially trained) tell if a magnet was hidden inside a ceramic cup . . . rather like the shell game that you see con artists playing on the street?

If someone could consistantly spot which cup concealed a magnet while blindfolded (perhaps by having the cup placed close to his or her head), would this satisfy Randi's requirements?

P.S. I have a bad sense of direction, and I don't suggest that I can do it, but I wonder if some people can.

Best,

---Kevin

[Loss Leader]

I don't see why that claim would not qualify - with some work on the protocols, of course.

[Kevin Levites]

Thank you for replying.

Consider the following citation:

Baker, Robin R., "A Sense of Magnetism," New Scientist, 87:844, 1980. An abstract can be found at 'Science Frontiers Online.'

Evidentally, we have lodestone deposits in our sinuses and nasal bones.

If anybody takes Randi for his million dollars, I want a generous cut. I wonder if this idea has practical application for SCUBA divers and navy SEALs, who must find their way underwater and under other adverse conditions like sandstorms, etc.

Best,

---Kevin

[rjh01]

Magnetic compasses within a metal vessel are a poor method of navigation. The metal in the vessel will throw off the compass.

[Beady]

Evidentally, we have lodestone deposits in our sinuses and nasal bones.

As I heard it, this is predominately a male attribute. My wife hates me because I almost never get lost. OTOH, I have learned to follow her directions perfectly; whatever she says, I turn 180 degrees.

Seriously.

[Beady]

Magnetic compasses within a metal vessel are a poor method of navigation. The metal in the vessel will throw off the compass.

Not necessarily. I've got brass compasses and plastic compasses, and both are equally accurate.

If the best you've got is a compass, your navigation isn't going to be that precise, anyway.

[MRC_Hans]

If I were Randi, I would defer this to the scientific realm. The challenge is for demonstrating a paranormal feat. Thus, if there exists a reasonable plausible hypothesis that the ability to detect a magnet field has a physical explanation, I would require of the applicant to prove that HIS feat was due to a paranormal ability, which would mean that he would have to falsify the hypothesis of a physical explanation. In practice, this would probably mean that this particular feat is not eligible for the challenge.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Not necessarily. I've got brass compasses and plastic compasses, and both are equally accurate.

If the best you've got is a compass, your navigation isn't going to be that precise, anyway.Yes, the metal of the vessel has to be iron to influence the compass.

Hans

[TheBoyPaj]

I wouldn't have thought this was paranormal. It someone were to be born with this ability, it would be explainable by science.

I wonder how it would manifest itself, though? As a tingling? How would the brain interpret it? I guess I should ask a bird.

[Beady]

I wouldn't have thought this was paranormal. It someone were to be born with this ability, it would be explainable by science.

I wonder how it would manifest itself, though? As a tingling? How would the brain interpret it? I guess I should ask a bird.

It actually, AIUI, has yet to be explained by science. It's a theory, but I'm not sure whether it's been verified.

In my own case, I experience nothing recognizable as a manifestation. I can just tell you very broadly which way is North. I think the facts that I'm into astronomy and I'm fairly observant of my environment are mostly responsible; I doubt I'd do very well in a closed room. For instance, it's fairly easy to interpret shadows cast by sunlight to derive direction, and someone who does this automatically may seem, even to themselves, to have the fabled "bump of direction."

[TheBoyPaj]

It's a pretty pervasive theory, isn't it?

I found this this morning: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18424733.500.html

Whch is interesting but inconclusive.

I still don't understand how a homing pigeon could use this supposed ability to find its way home. So they know which way is north? How does that help them if they don't know their starting position?

[Cuddles]

Although looking at this : http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19125634.200-to-get-home-a-pigeon-just-follows-its-nose.html suggests that they don't use magents anyway.

[Beady]

I still don't understand how a homing pigeon could use this supposed ability to find its way home. So they know which way is north? How does that help them if they don't know their starting position?

And then there are all those stories about cats, whose owners transport them to a new home hundreds of miles away, find their way back to the original house.

[TheBoyPaj]

Although looking at this : http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19125634.200-to-get-home-a-pigeon-just-follows-its-nose.html suggests that they don't use magents anyway.

Now that's cool. Well, as cool as severing a pigeon's olfactory nerve gets.

[alfaniner]

...
Evidentally, we have lodestone deposits in our sinuses and nasal bones.
...


Or, as Tim "The Toolman" Taylor puts it, "I have iron boogers? Cool!"

[Blue Bubble]

Although looking at this : http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19125634.200-to-get-home-a-pigeon-just-follows-its-nose.html suggests that they don't use magents anyway.


She released 48 inexperienced homing pigeons 50 kilometres from their home loft. Half of them had had their olfactory nerve severed and half their trigeminal nerve, which is responsible for magnetic navigation. The next day, all but one ...
The complete article is 345 words long.

What a tease to stop there ("all but one ...").
:confused:

[robinson]

One can almost imagine, they did that on purpose.

[Kevin Levites]

If I were Randi, I would defer this to the scientific realm. The challenge is for demonstrating a paranormal feat. Thus, if there exists a reasonable plausible hypothesis that the ability to detect a magnet field has a physical explanation, I would require of the applicant to prove that HIS feat was due to a paranormal ability, which would mean that he would have to falsify the hypothesis of a physical explanation. In practice, this would probably mean that this particular feat is not eligible for the challenge.

Hans


I wonder if I have my terminology straight.

If ESP means anything beyond the five senses, then this magnetic sense would be a sixth sense and constitute 'extrasensory perception' by the strictest definition of the word.

I thought that the main purpose behind Randi's challenge is to give us a chance to scientifically investigate things like ESP, etc. If it turns out that the paranormal can be explained, then it would no longer be paranormal. Besides, it might be worth a million dollars to find out that we can demonstrate a sixth magnetic sense.

Best,

---Kevin

[Senor_Pointy]

I wonder if I have my terminology straight.

If ESP means anything beyond the five senses, then this magnetic sense would be a sixth sense and constitute 'extrasensory perception' by the strictest definition of the word.

I thought that the main purpose behind Randi's challenge is to give us a chance to scientifically investigate things like ESP, etc. If it turns out that the paranormal can be explained, then it would no longer be paranormal. Besides, it might be worth a million dollars to find out that we can demonstrate a sixth magnetic sense.

Best,

---Kevin

The problem here is that you're assuming we have only five senses, when we actually have a few more. (Balance comes to mind) Are these senses "extrasensory?" Since we already have a rudimentary scientific explanation of the phenomena, (iron in the sinuses/brain) I think it would fall squarely outside of the paranormal, unless it could be demonstrated that the proposed explanation isn't suitable.

[Kevin Levites]

I'm not sure I 100% agree.

I've read somewhere (I don't remember where) that certain aspects of quantum mechanics violate causality. I also remember reading somewhere that the vertebrate brain functions the way that it does because it's some kind of quantum computer.

Now, suppose a person was able to demonstrate precognition in the lab and I was able to credit this ability to the functions of quantum mechanics, then I've explained precognition scientifically yet I would still be able to claim the million dollars.

Best,

---Kevin

[robinson]

Experiments will not satisfy the MDC. It isn't about a new scientific discovery, it is about exposing frauds.

[William Smith]

I'm not sure I 100% agree.

I've read somewhere (I don't remember where) that certain aspects of quantum mechanics violate causality. I also remember reading somewhere that the vertebrate brain functions the way that it does because it's some kind of quantum computer.

Now, suppose a person was able to demonstrate precognition in the lab and I was able to credit this ability to the functions of quantum mechanics, then I've explained precognition scientifically yet I would still be able to claim the million dollars.

Best,

---Kevin

Well then, just do it, Kevin Levites. Apply today.

As soon as we know what you're claiming, we'll help you working out a protocol and get ready for a preliminary test.

[TheBoyPaj]

Basically, if Randi decides that it fits the remit of the JREF challenge, then it's acceptable. It doesn't matter your method is later adopted by scientists.

Mind you, you raise an interesting question. I have read that some animals (like rattlesnakes) can see in the infrared wavelength. What happens if, by some mutation, a human is born with this ability and wanted to be tested for it? It would be explainable by science, but would it be worthy of the challenge?

Of course, they could always keep quiet about the mechanism and do an "I can sense people behind a screen" challenge.

[Ririon]

I'm not sure I 100% agree.

I've read somewhere (I don't remember where) that certain aspects of quantum mechanics violate causality. I also remember reading somewhere that the vertebrate brain functions the way that it does because it's some kind of quantum computer.

Now, suppose a person was able to demonstrate precognition in the lab and I was able to credit this ability to the functions of quantum mechanics, then I've explained precognition scientifically yet I would still be able to claim the million dollars.

Best,

---Kevin
Not to ruin your hopes of a million dollars, but quantum computers can't predict the future any better than a regular computer. If you have a really good one, you can run some amazing simulations on them, but they would still be simulations. Not paranormal precognition machines.

Also, brains don't work like quantum computers are supposed to. You may have it confused with neural nets. All of this is interesting stuff, but not paranormal, I'm afraid. :)

[Beady]

All right, then, just precisely what is meant by "paranormal"? Dictionary.com says, "of or pertaining to the claimed occurrence of an event or perception without scientific explanation, as psychokinesis, extrasensory perception, or other purportedly supernatural phenomena."

Remember, the claim is about demonstration, not explanation. First of all, has this phenomenon definitely been shown to exist? If not, then it fits the challenge, and a demonstration of the ability would really be quite simple: seal someone's eyes shut, turn them around once or twice, and see if they can tell you which way is north. If they can do it 10 out of 10 times (or whatever), they win.

[rjh01]

Basically, if Randi decides that it fits the remit of the JREF challenge, then it's acceptable. It doesn't matter your method is later adopted by scientists.

Mind you, you raise an interesting question. I have read that some animals (like rattlesnakes) can see in the infrared wavelength. What happens if, by some mutation, a human is born with this ability and wanted to be tested for it? It would be explainable by science, but would it be worthy of the challenge?

Of course, they could always keep quiet about the mechanism and do an "I can sense people behind a screen" challenge.

This is not so far-fetched as it seems. Certain people can see into the ultra-violet part of the spectrum. They have had an eye operation for cataracts. Not sure how they could exploit it, but unless someone suspected it then it would be hard to detect.

[Pup]

Not sure how they could exploit it, but unless someone suspected it then it would be hard to detect.

If the challenge is ever won, I suspect it's going to happen along those lines. Somebody will have a unique natural ability, but rather than explaining it in reasonable-sounding terms, they'll deliberately blather on about some typical paranormal nonsense in a flawless imitation of a true believer. They need their magic dowsing stick, and their incense candles, and to say a prayer or two, and then they can point to the 1 pound steel ingot or find magnetic north or see the person's aura, or whatever.

The claim will be accepted as paranormal, and then the person will just use their ability and do it, while pretending to follow the rituals.

I've often wondered about that fellow who could identify what was on records by looking at the grooves. See http://skepdic.com/vinylvision.html . If he'd presented his ability as classic woo, accomplished with the help of a ouija board or pendulum or whatever, and come off acting a little crazy, would he have been accepted for the challenge?

[robinson]

Thanks for that link! Seems to prove what I already belived, that Randi will NOT pay any money for something that seems paranormal, but can be explained. In other words, a new ability will not get anyone a million dollars.



vinyl vision
from - http://skepdic.com/vinylvision.html

"Even though Randi promised to pay $10,000 to anyone who could demonstrate a paranormal ability [the prize is now $1,000,000], Lintgen's ability is merely abnormal, i.e., rare. Hence, his award was little more than a few moments of fame."

[TheBoyPaj]

It's also worth pointing out that the Lintgen test was not part of the Randi challenge. People like to claim that he promised to pay Lintgen the money, then refused. He didn't, and the challenge doesn't work like that.

If Randi accepts your ability as paranormal before you take the test, he can't change his mind if you pass.

[Pup]

If Randi accepts your ability as paranormal before you take the test, he can't change his mind if you pass.

Exactly. As I understand it, Lintgen never claimed his ability was paranormal, nor was it a trick in the sense that magicians do tricks, so he couldn't be "caught" in the normal magician ways.

So if someone had a real skill like his, the difficulty wouldn't be in avoiding detection while peaking through the blindfold or using a radio transmitter or palming the answers or whatever, like a typical fraud. The testers could control for all those things to no avail.

The difficulty would be in convincing Randi and/or the testers that you believed you were using paranormal powers to accomplish an apparently impossible feat. Everyone would be expecting either self-delusion and failure, or to catch a magician-style trick, and you might be able to sneak through.

[bduddy]

I wouldn't have thought this was paranormal. It someone were to be born with this ability, it would be explainable by science.

That would be true of anything that actually won the Challenge. The paranormal quickly becomes the normal. In the old days, "respectable" scientists scoffed at reports of rocks falling from the sky.

EDIT: And I believe someone was talking about earlier that animals such as birds and (possibly) humans are able to detect north. I seem to, have times, noticed an effect like that (being able to tell where north is), although probably most of my "results" are where I already have visual clues. Now, I'm not a woo-woo, but I'd be quite fine with a million dollars... I'm not entering, but would this be a good test?

1. Bring testee to a circular room with a celing and no apparent defects on the wall, floor, or celing (probably too hard to actually do...)

2. Blindfold testee, have a JREF or other rep spin them around several times

3. Unblindfold testee (or not, which could lower the room standards slightly) and have them point toward north

I'd say 1/2 of the results within 45 degrees of north would be a pass... does that look like something that would win me a million dollars? ;)

[listener]

When I was a child, my brother and I would walk a distance away from our house, where it was no longer in sight. He would tell me to close my eyes, and would turn me around a couple of times, and then ask me to point to where our house stood. I would invariably point in the wrong direction. When we would walk back toward our house, and it would come into view, I would have the sensation of the earth whirling around and stopping when the house location became "correct." Even now, in my advanced years, I have no sense of direction.:boggled:

[Earthborn]

Mind you, you raise an interesting question. I have read that some animals (like rattlesnakes) can see in the infrared wavelength. What happens if, by some mutation, a human is born with this ability and wanted to be tested for it?Actually, here (http://www.amasci.com/amateur/irgoggl.html) is someone who claims to be able to do just that. And he does not claim any special ability and that everyone can do it.

[TheBoyPaj]

That would be true of anything that actually won the Challenge. The paranormal quickly becomes the normal. In the old days, "respectable" scientists scoffed at reports of rocks falling from the sky.

My point is that we already have a working hypothesis for how birds do this, backed by some evidence. If someone passed the test using that method, it would almost fit with our current understanding.

If, however, someone was to win the challenge by predicting the future, we would have no idea how it was done because our current model of the universe does not allow for it. Likewise with telepathy. Even if someone demonstrated it, we would not understand it.

[Loss Leader]

I think all this talk may be getting a little ahead of the game. I doubt very much that any humans have the ability to magnetically detect north. We are a non-migratory species born in the pleasant warm climate of Africa. None of our ancestors and none of our current cousins appear to be migratory. There is no evolutionary reason for the ability to exist. And our history lacks any long-standing mythology regarding such an ability. I doubt that it is possible.

In any case, it would be worth a million dollars to find a person who could do it. Newborn babies could have a couple grains of iron implanted quite harmlessly and then be trained in school to navigate around. In thirty years, Mapquest will cease to exist and a new age of enlightened commuting would dawn for mankind.

[William Smith]

I think all this talk may be getting a little ahead of the game.
...


Well, that's what you get when you have rookies starting threads with vague subjects they don't know much about and thus disappearing quickly. :rolleyes:



(I really miss some action in the freakin' Challenge Section.)

[ctw]

In any case, it would be worth a million dollars to find a person who could do it. Newborn babies could have a couple grains of iron implanted quite harmlessly and then be trained in school to navigate around. In thirty years, Mapquest will cease to exist and a new age of enlightened commuting would dawn for mankind.

Actually there's an interesting study described here (I can't post urls yet so search for :"Beyond sensory substitution – learning the sixth sense" and you should be able to find a downloadable pdf). Summary: subjects wore a belt that gave tactile signals of compass directions for six weeks; there were a number of interesting practical and subjective effects for improved navigation capability. It might be interesting if something like this was made standard in cars, and you had to use it while learning to drive...

Obviously this itself couldn't be used to win the challenge; but small implanted sensors might just do it?

CTW

[Cuddles]

Actually there's an interesting study described here (I can't post urls yet so search for :"Beyond sensory substitution – learning the sixth sense" and you should be able to find a downloadable pdf). Summary: subjects wore a belt that gave tactile signals of compass directions for six weeks; there were a number of interesting practical and subjective effects for improved navigation capability. It might be interesting if something like this was made standard in cars, and you had to use it while learning to drive...

Obviously this itself couldn't be used to win the challenge; but small implanted sensors might just do it?

CTW

Like this?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17022934.500

I don't see what this has to do with the challenge though.

[brettDbass]

vinyl vision
from - http://skepdic.com/vinylvision.html

Ooh, does this make me special?
When I've been regularly practicing my DJing I can do that too. Last time I tried I had 40 or 50 records I could do it with.

[Hyver]

I also DJ (Freeform and european hardcore) and I've found over the years that I can usually tell the genre of an EDM record just by looking at the grooves. I'm sure if I tried I suspect I could name a number of my favorite records in the same way.

[robinson]

Damn it! There are no paranormal powers! If somebody can do something we can't understand, it just means it hasn't been validated by science yet!

The history of the world has shown this over and over and over. The MDC by definition is not about finding some new scientific ability no one has ever documented. It is about exposing frauds, fakes, quackery and foolishness.

IMNSHO of course.

[tsig]

Damn it! There are no paranormal powers! If somebody can do something we can't understand, it just means it hasn't been validated by science yet!

The history of the world has shown this over and over and over. The MDC by definition is not about finding some new scientific ability no one has ever documented. It is about exposing frauds, fakes, quackery and foolishness.

IMNSHO of course.

Well, I've always taken the "finding new science" in the challenge justification with Large grain of salt.

Randi started this whole thing to expose cheats. So far he has a perfect record.

[soulhill]

If I were Randi, I would defer this to the scientific realm. The challenge is for demonstrating a paranormal feat. Thus, if there exists a reasonable plausible hypothesis that the ability to detect a magnet field has a physical explanation, I would require of the applicant to prove that HIS feat was due to a paranormal ability, which would mean that he would have to falsify the hypothesis of a physical explanation. In practice, this would probably mean that this particular feat is not eligible for the challenge.

Hans

By this definition, nothing could ever win the challenge. Let's take the ability to see the future. If someone could actually see into the future and it could be scientifically tested to the JREF's satisfaction, there would have to be a logical, if (ironically) unforeseen reason that the person had the ability to acurately predict events.

Whether the cause of that ability were a third eye in another dimension, alodestone in the sinuses or a gerbil up the butt is immaterial. If the ability can be proven scientifically, it is no longer paranormal, but mearly unexplained.

I think the issue would be whether those in charge of the challenge would want to accept the application of finding one's direction or concede that some sense of direction via this lodestone is a rational scientific posibility.

[saizai]

Why not just resort to the commonsense definition: anything qualifies so long as it is *currently* considered paranormal? Obviously *afterwards* it wouldn't be any more.

I would suppose (and IIRC have heard him say) that Randi ought to consider it worth $1m for advances in science that are that big anyway.

[robinson]

Well ..... IMNSO there are a few items in the list here
http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html#2.2
that could "win" the MDC. By this, I mean have a chance. Everything else is pretty much over the top nonsense for the now.
-------------------------
Chiropractic Healing (beyond back/joint problems).
Faith Healing.
Reflexology.
Applied Kinesiology
Clairvoyance.
The Existence of Auras
---------------------

The problem (remember, IMO) is how to test for them, and who decides what is "proof". The other issue, and I consider it a large hurdle, is what is the definition of each of those terms.

Some people might quibble about the definition, as if it doesn't matter. But in a challenge to perform or exhibit something, the definition of that "something" is the most important thing.

Like "Faith Healing". How you define that matters a great deal.

Faith healing for instance, simply happens all the time. Science calls it "the placebo effect". It works best when the place and setting and persons giving the placebo have an air of authority. It is such a common effect, drug trials have to subtract the percentage from the results to find what percent the drug actually is causing, in terms of improvement for the most part. Correct?

No joking. If that simple definition of placebo effect is not agreed on, this may seem like nonsense, correct? (please, hold the snide remarks, heh) :D

So "Faith Healing" must exlude the placebo effect in testing. You can't do that with real remedies, so how do you do it with something considered not real?

Just typing out the thoughts here.


The "human aura". What the hell does that mean? In the sense that you are trying to define it, for the purpose of a test. I know, I know, this may sound nuts, heh, but go with it for a moment. I mean, you have to define something that you don't believe exist, in order to conduct a test to see if it exist or not.

How can you conduct an experiment to test something that doesn't exist? Sure some woowoo may claim they "see" light around somebody, that it changes color and size and refelects health or mental states or whatnot. Isn't that really a claim that they "see" something when they look at people (or plants or animals or rocks or anything maybe), that appears like a nimbus or halo of light around a person?

Hell, I know how to set up lighting and conditions so anybody can see that effect. That doesn't prove there is some kind of energy field that shows up in the optical centers as "an aura", does it? If Randi himself saw the effect, he would just explain that it is an optical effect based on contrast and a simple scientific event that everybody can experience.

(it is actually)

How could you test to see if somebody is really seeing something, something subtle and beyond scientific measurement? What would be the protocol? Not to test if they see anything (I'm sure they do), but if there is anything in reality to be seen.

(yes, yes, we are indeed going off on a few tangents. who cares really?)

As to Chiropractic, and other health related events, how do you test that stuff?

For example, if somebody has a bad headache, and they get a Chiropractic treatment, and the headache goes away, how do prove that? To the MDC requirements? Nobody knows how to prove anybody even has a headache, so how can you prove its gone?

Or that anybody got rid of it using a technique? Before you go all rabid over this, think about it. Its a simple test. If a Chiropracter can relieve a bad headach, in a matter of minues, how do you prove that? And if you could prove it (MRI, blood pressure, blood test, something), wouldn't that be as scientific as it gets? Not paranormal, not woo, just a simple fact.

Would it win a million bucks? Its not back or joint pain, its a headache.

Same goes for reflexology or AK. How could you prove it works? I'm using a headache as an example for several reasons. Its a very hard thing to prove exist, its a common malady in humans, and if it can be relieved without drugs, its a great blessing to humankind. (and of course a headache can often be relieved, with nothing more than massage and other time tested methods). What does that add to the mix?

So what experiment would satisfy the MDC for something simple like that?

And to go even further astray, why would any Chiropracter that can relieve headaches bother to appply for the MDC? Knowing the problem of proving it to the JREF, and the fact they have made more than a million bucks already treating people with headaches?

Just throwing out some thoughts here. Don't anybody have a cow.


:D

[robinson]

How could you test to see if somebody is really seeing something, something subtle and beyond scientific measurement? What would be the protocol? Not to test if they see anything (I'm sure they do), but if there is anything in reality to be seen.
:D

Had to add something there. I know about the aura test with people behind people shaped barriers. She still saw "auras" even without people.

This proves she saw auras around people shaped barriers. I realize there may be some yelling and stuff, but even if you set it up so someone saw auras and you can't figure out how they see them, that doesn't prove an aura, it just proves the person is seeing stuff.

Damn, this is really hard to explain, where I am going with this thought. Say a test is set up, so you test to see if in the presence of a person, somebody sees something around the person. How does that prove the aura is real? It seems it just proves the person can tell if a person is hiding behind a barrier or not. That they claim the "see" something is still not proved. They could have some ability to detect people through cardboard, and their brain makes them "see" colors around them, but that doesn't mean there is an "aura", does it?

Yes, it would be an ability, to detect people through a barrier, but that can be done without any paranormal powers. In the sense of pointing out which barrier has a person behind it, and which does not. Which is what that aura test seemed to be going towards.

IMNSHO of course.

I'm also familiar with the statement from the FAQs "The evidence for claims involving healing and diagnosing disease by paranormal means must be VERY strong in order for the JREF to accept your claim, so be prepared to go the extra mile to provide ample evidence that your claim is worth investigating."

These days you can't prove a friggin new medication works without spending millions. How in the hell could anybody prove they "healed" anybody with some alternative treatment? In terms of the MDC? I don't think its possible to satisfy the MDC requirements for anything regarding health. Not by any scientific standards, without huge amounts of money and peer review. No way could it be done in the simplistic manner described by the challenge.

AAAhhhhh, all this thinking about woo crap is making me feel bad.

I'm going to go get in my black helicopter and go mutilate some more cattle.

[Gr8wight]

Faith healing for instance, simply happens all the time. Science calls it "the placebo effect". It works best when the place and setting and persons giving the placebo have an air of authority. It is such a common effect, drug trials have to subtract the percentage from the results to find what percent the drug actually is causing, in terms of improvement for the most part. Correct?


Just a little semantic quibble here. Faith "healing" and the placebo effect are not the same thing at all. The placebo effect occurs when people report an improvement in symptoms after receiving a remedy that they believe to be real. But, it is not a healing of a disease, it is just a psychosomatic lessening of symptoms. No actual disease, like cancer, or tuberculosis, or diabetes has ever been "healed" or "cured" by the placebo effect.

Faith healing refers to the claims of practitioners that they can truly cure or heal a disease instead of simply lessening the symptoms of said disease.

[robinson]

....The placebo effect occurs when people report an improvement in symptoms after receiving a remedy that they believe to be real. But, it is not a healing of a disease, it is just a psychosomatic lessening of symptoms. No actual disease, like cancer, or tuberculosis, or diabetes has ever been "healed" or "cured" by the placebo effect.

Faith healing refers to the claims of practitioners that they can truly cure or heal a disease instead of simply lessening the symptoms of said disease.

Ahh, definitions. How important they can be. My understanding of many medications is that they cause a reduction of symptoms. Including actuall recovery from the problem. As do placebos. In fact, there are documented cases of people recieving the wrong medication and still having a great recovery from a "disease" because they believed the medicine was working.

So what is the definition of "disease", and of "healing"? This speaks to one of the main points. How you define something matters a great deal.

[robinson]

And yes, I do expect a LOT of quibbling to follow.

:D

[Gr8wight]

Ahh, definitions. How important they can be. My understanding of many medications is that they cause a reduction of symptoms. Including actuall recovery from the problem. As do placebos. In fact, there are documented cases of people recieving the wrong medication and still having a great recovery from a "disease" because they believed the medicine was working.

So what is the definition of "disease", and of "healing"? This speaks to one of the main points. How you define something matters a great deal.

I think, for the purposes of testing "faith healing" a disease must be defined as something that the body cannot recover from without medical intervention. If someone tells me they are going to "heal" my cold, or flu, I'm not going to be impressed. However, if someone tells me they can cure diabetes, I will pay more attention.

[TheBoyPaj]

So "Faith Healing" must exlude the placebo effect in testing. You can't do that with real remedies, so how do you do it with something considered not real?

It can be excluded in testing of real remedies and alternative treatments. It's called double blinding.

Or that anybody got rid of it using a technique? Before you go all rabid over this, think about it. Its a simple test. If a Chiropracter can relieve a bad headach, in a matter of minues, how do you prove that? And if you could prove it (MRI, blood pressure, blood test, something), wouldn't that be as scientific as it gets?

How would you know that the person felt better because of what the practitioner did, rather than just the fact that he wore a white coat and had nice fingernails?

So what experiment would satisfy the MDC for something simple like that?

I suggest that, if you know someone who claims to be able to do this, you ask them to apply for the challenge and work out a protocol.

[TheBoyPaj]

Say a test is set up, so you test to see if in the presence of a person, somebody sees something around the person. How does that prove the aura is real? It seems it just proves the person can tell if a person is hiding behind a barrier or not. That they claim the "see" something is still not proved. They could have some ability to detect people through cardboard, and their brain makes them "see" colors around them, but that doesn't mean there is an "aura", does it?

You are correct, in as much as many challenges do not set out to prove the manner of paranormal event. They only indicate that something weird is going on.

I could claim to predict the outcome of 100 dice rolls. Am I using precognition, or am I influencing the rolls?

But it doesn't matter. The challenge is not about proving a theory about how something happens. If what you do is beyond current understanding, you win.

[steenkh]

Just a little semantic quibble here. Faith "healing" and the placebo effect are not the same thing at all. The placebo effect occurs when people report an improvement in symptoms after receiving a remedy that they believe to be real. But, it is not a healing of a disease, it is just a psychosomatic lessening of symptoms.
Actually, this is the popularized version of the placebo effect. In reality, it covers much more than just psychosomatic lessening of symptoms. It also covers actual healing by the immune system that would have occurred anyway, and it covers misdiagnosed illnesses that were thought to be something worse than they really are, like when patients survive a cancer tumor which in reality was a misdiagnosed benevolent tumor. It probably also covers many other things that I can just not remember right now! The essence is that the placebo effect is whatever kind of improvement that occurs when a blank treatment is given instead of the real treatment.

No actual disease, like cancer, or tuberculosis, or diabetes has ever been "healed" or "cured" by the placebo effect.
Exactly.

[robinson]

Its bad enough when a Woo says something dumb, but people who claim to be skeptics saying stuff that is JUST NOT TRUE bothers me even more. Its like, they should know better or something. Why is that I wonder?

The placebo effect is very well studied, and about 5 seconds of web search found this link
http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000109mag-talbot7.html
which even the most hardened close minded skeptic can't debunk.

For those unwilling to follow a link and read for a minute, it is a scientific study, with proof, about how powerful the placebo effect is It even works on osteoarthritis.

So before we say anything stupid, do some research. I don't believe it is anything paranormal, but it certainly shows the power of science, bevause they take an event they don't understand much, and call it the placebo effect, so it becomes scientific to them.

If you called it faith healing the scientist would roll their eyes and scoff, but since it is "the placebo effect", it can be studied, documented, even funded.

I can't wait for the October results.

[drkitten]

So "Faith Healing" must exlude the placebo effect in testing. You can't do that with real remedies, so how do you do it with something considered not real?

What? Of course you can exclude the pladebo effect in testing.

That's what "placebo-controlled" trials do.

I give group X the real drug, and group Y the placebo, and the improvement of group X relative to group Y is the improvement that can be attributed to the real drug.

Of course, for "the real drug" you can substitute "faith healing" if you like. But in this case, the measured "improvement" will not be statistically distinguishable from zero.



The "human aura". What the hell does that mean? In the sense that you are trying to define it, for the purpose of a test. I know, I know, this may sound nuts, heh, but go with it for a moment. I mean, you have to define something that you don't believe exist, in order to conduct a test to see if it exist or not.

How can you conduct an experiment to test something that doesn't exist? Sure some woowoo may claim they "see" light around somebody, that it changes color and size and refelects health or mental states or whatnot. Isn't that really a claim that they "see" something when they look at people (or plants or animals or rocks or anything maybe), that appears like a nimbus or halo of light around a person?

Again, I think you are making this harder than it sounds. If some woowoo claims that the colour they see "refelects health or mental states or whatnot," check to see if they can distinguish healthy (or happy, or whatever) people from unhealthy (whatever).

That's why Randi makes people define their own powers.




As to Chiropractic, and other health related events, how do you test that stuff?

For example, if somebody has a bad headache, and they get a Chiropractic treatment, and the headache goes away, how do prove that? To the MDC requirements? Nobody knows how to prove anybody even has a headache, so how can you prove its gone?

Or that anybody got rid of it using a technique? Before you go all rabid over this, think about it. Its a simple test. If a Chiropracter can relieve a bad headach, in a matter of minues, how do you prove that?


The same wwaw we proved that ibuprofen can relieve a bad headache.

[robinson]

A few points, firstly we have not yet established that placebo is anything more than a failure of accurate observation.


How interesting. I thought that this placebo nonsense was enough to start a topic, but did a search first to see if there already was one, and found a brand new topic about it. The second post was enough to make me shake my head and wonder just how stupid can people get?

It also serves as a link to get to that topic, for anybody who wants to move a conversation. But it already looks like a scepticwoo crapfest is brewing there.

Pity that.

The placebo effect is so well known, so well studied, and so powerful they have regulations and stuff about it. It would be as far from Woo as you can get, in a medical sense.

Why would a non-medical person think they know more than the entire AMA/FDA ? That reeks of Woo crap. Making stupid claims that can't be backed up by science. Stuff that any Doctor would laugh in your face over.

Maybe sceptics should have to do the same stuff a challenger for the MDC is required to do. Go get a checkup to see if you are healthy, before you can say stupid stuff on the JREF boards.

An FDA link-
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/100_heal.html

[robinson]

...Of course, for "the real drug" you can substitute "faith healing" if you like. But in this case, the measured "improvement" will not be statistically distinguishable from zero....

....The same wwaw we proved that ibuprofen can relieve a bad headache.

I'm pretty sure you were typing that when I posted the prior, so I'm going to wait things out.

As to the Ibuprofen, the MDC is not set up to allow the same proof as a drug trial. Just the financial situation is absurd. If you have the nillions to spend on FDA trials, it would be absurd to even worry about sceptics who claim what you proved scientifically, after millions of daollars and years of research, is bunk.

In other words, a Researcher who just spent a crapload of money and time proving the placebo effect works on surgery patients, with real problems, doesn't give a rats ass about some sceptic claiming it isn't true.

[drkitten]

I'm pretty sure you were typing that when I posted the prior, so I'm going to wait things out.

As to the Ibuprofen, the MDC is not set up to allow the same proof as a drug trial.

Which would be relevant if the standards for winning the MDC were as strict as the standards for drug trials.

Fortunately, they aren't. Randi has accepted proposals regarding varoius forms of alternative medicine. Usually the mere ability to diagnose with strongly better-than-chance probability is acceptable to win.

[robinson]

Do you have a link to those? I wonder what the protocol would be?

The headache example still stands. If the proof is simpler than the FDA requirements, what would it be?

[drkitten]

Do you have a link to those? I wonder what the protocol would be?

Check the "challenge applications" thread. There are -- literally -- dozens of claims documented there, of which a fair number have Randi-acceptable counterproposals.

[steenkh]

Its bad enough when a Woo says something dumb, but people who claim to be skeptics saying stuff that is JUST NOT TRUE bothers me even more. Its like, they should know better or something. Why is that I wonder?
I wonder if this comment was meant for me, because I did not feel it applied to what I said!

I am well aware that the effect that is popularly ascribed to placebo is the psycho-somatic effect that is the most fascinating, but in the end, placebo is the sham remedy that is given instead of the real remedy, and any improvement for the patients that got the placebo is covered under the placebo effect. And that includes all of the other effects that I mentioned, even if they are not so sexy to study.

[Gr8wight]

Its bad enough when a Woo says something dumb, but people who claim to be skeptics saying stuff that is JUST NOT TRUE bothers me even more. Its like, they should know better or something. Why is that I wonder?

The placebo effect is very well studied, and about 5 seconds of web search found this link
http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000109mag-talbot7.html
which even the most hardened close minded skeptic can't debunk.

For those unwilling to follow a link and read for a minute, it is a scientific study, with proof, about how powerful the placebo effect is It even works on osteoarthritis.

So before we say anything stupid, do some research. I don't believe it is anything paranormal, but it certainly shows the power of science, bevause they take an event they don't understand much, and call it the placebo effect, so it becomes scientific to them.

If you called it faith healing the scientist would roll their eyes and scoff, but since it is "the placebo effect", it can be studied, documented, even funded.

I can't wait for the October results.

That article supports exactly what I said. The men all reported improvement in their pain level after the surgery. However, their osteoarthritis did not go away. It was not healed, it just bothered them less. That is the placebo effect exactly the way I described it in my earlier post.

Later in the article they talk about a surgical procedure that used to be done to treat angina. A study found that placebo surgery resulted in an equal amount of reported improvement by patients. However, that study did not show that the placebo effect was equally efficacious to the actual procedure. What it showed was that the actual procedure wasn't actually efficacious at all, and the procedure is no longer used. This illustrates the exact reason why studies are placebo controlled.

Likewise, the purpose of the osteoarthritis study was not to prove that placebo surgery was an effective treatment, but to show that the arthroscopic surgery was an inefficacious and unnecessary procedure.

I maintain my position that the claims of so-called "faith healers" are that diseases are actually healed. A faith healer doesn't say, "I will make your arthritis less painful." They say, "I will make your arthritis go away." And that just doesn't happen.

[robinson]

I wonder if this comment was meant for me, because I did not feel it applied to what I said!


I wasn't talking about anyone really. Just the general concept. Doesn't it bug the crap out of you when somebody who is supposed to be DEFENDING scientific truth and rational thought, says something stupid? Obviously without any research or knowledge of what they are saying?

The surgical study I linked to above should put to rest the dumb comments about the placebo effect. But I think reading stuff would be a requirement. But reading stuff is, well, like work, and it might change peoples minds, so I sometimes think people don't bother to read anything, especially if they think they know everything already.

IMO of course.

"psycho-somatic", now there is a really great term. (but it really is one word)

I remember when stuff like ulcers, asthma, allergies and migraines were considered psychosomatic. I'm not making this up. People suffered these awful friggin health problems and Doctors said it was hysteria. Another friggin great word. It used to be you had to have an uterus, (hystera) to be labeled as hysterical. Now you can be hysterical if you have multiple chemical sensitivity, but I don't hear anyone laughing.

If history wasn't full of "scientific minded medical men" being really really friggin wrong about stuff, I might believe everything I hear. But I'm a GD sceptic when it comes to most stuff.

[robinson]

...I think, for the purposes of testing "faith healing" a disease must be defined as something that the body cannot recover from without medical intervention. If someone tells me they are going to "heal" my cold, or flu, I'm not going to be impressed. However, if someone tells me they can cure diabetes, I will pay more attention.

Hey, if some doctor says he can cure diabetes I will pay attention as well. I don't think anyone is claiming a placebo will cure anything. But it is damn interesting how powerful the mind is, when it comes to the body.

...

I maintain my position that the claims of so-called "faith healers" are that diseases are actually healed. A faith healer doesn't say, "I will make your arthritis less painful." They say, "I will make your arthritis go away." And that just doesn't happen.

I don't know any faith healers who say stuff like that, but I would agree with you, if someone is claiming to heal somebody, they are probably full of crap.

[steenkh]

I wasn't talking about anyone really. Just the general concept. Doesn't it bug the crap out of you when somebody who is supposed to be DEFENDING scientific truth and rational thought, says something stupid? Obviously without any research or knowledge of what they are saying?
Of course it bugs the crap out of you when a skeptic says something stupid. But it just did not happen here.

I remember when stuff like ulcers, asthma, allergies and migraines were considered psychosomatic. I'm not making this up.The reference was to the healing produced by a sham treatment after other factors were acounted for, like healing via the immune system or when the illness was less serious than originally diagnosed. Why do you object to the term "psychosomatic" (see, I can do it without the hyphen, too!) in this case? Personally, I wonder if there is anything left after the other factors have been accounted for, and I agree with Gr8whight that mostly you only see a lessening of the perception of symptoms, not an actual healing.

[robinson]

I'm not sure why people involved in a "conversation" using this forum can't be bothered to read articles directly concerning the discussion at hand. It must be some kind of mental blind spot, where anything that violates the pre-existing belief is just not registered. I'm not accusing anyone here of this, just commenting. This could relate to the MDC somehow. But back to the topic (which now seems to have four other topics related to it, over in science/medicine), why didn't anyone respond to the article, concerning the most obvious points?

"And strangely, the placebo effect is not limited to the subjective sensations of patients; some studies show actual physiological change as a result of sham treatments. Doctors in one study successfully eliminated warts by painting them with a brightly colored, inert dye and promising patients the warts would be gone when the color wore off. In a study of asthmatics, researchers found that they could produce dilation of the airways by simply telling people they were inhaling a bronchiodilator, even when they weren't. Patients suffering pain after wisdom-tooth extraction got just as much relief from a fake application of ultrasound as from a real one, so long as both patient and therapist thought the machine was on. Fifty-two percent of the colitis patients treated with placebo in 11 different trials reported feeling better -- and 50 percent of the inflamed intestines actually looked better when assessed with a sigmoidoscope."

http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000109mag-talbot7.html

This speaks directly to my opening commentary about Faith-Healing and the placebo effect. Naming Faith-based healing "the placebo effect" removes the paranormal aspect from the conversation. Now we are talking about a scientific/medical term, having labeled what is clearly a "mysterious effect of belief (faith) having real effects upon persons bodies, and minds", as "the placebo effect" (TPE)

Even when the event is labeled with a scientific term, and evidence provided for the true skeptic (years of medical research, FDA regulations, protocols for testing, etc), some simply won't accept that "the Placebo Effect" (TPE) is real.

So if something as well documented as TPE is rejected without any study, any willingness to look at the facts, what possible chance would anything really strange have? In the MDC?

Such as Faith Healing? (please, don't read more into this than I am saying). I am just thinking out loud. It seems to me (but without testing, I can't be sure), that there is some sort of mental blindspot when it comes to protocol for testing. In regards to the MDC.

Something as simple as a headache can't be observed. Nor can the relief of it. Of course anyone with a drastic headache knows it is real, the suffering is real, and relief would be real, but none of that can be tested in the MDC protocol.

(yes I remember the comment that it would be done the same as for drug test, but that is absurd regarding the MDC rules, and you well know it)

So if it is impossible to discuss something accepted and studied by science, (re: the other threads about placebo/nocebo effects), what is the point of trying to set up protocols/experiments that could satisfy the MDC requirements?

For example, any faith based healing that could be documented, can be explained away as TPE, misdiagnosis, healing by the persons immune system, or some other science based reason. So what would be the point?

[robinson]

*ahem*


I asked, what would be the point?

[Gr8wight]

I don't know any faith healers who say stuff like that, but I would agree with you, if someone is claiming to heal somebody, they are probably full of crap.

Revisiting this: how many faith healers do you know?

[Gr8wight]

I'm not sure why people involved in a "conversation" using this forum can't be bothered to read articles directly concerning the discussion at hand. It must be some kind of mental blind spot, where anything that violates the pre-existing belief is just not registered. I'm not accusing anyone here of this, just commenting. This could relate to the MDC somehow. But back to the topic (which now seems to have four other topics related to it, over in science/medicine), why didn't anyone respond to the article, concerning the most obvious points?

This is why everyone stopped replying to you, robinson. You claim you are not speaking about any specific person, yet you are complaining about a specific transgresssion, hence you must have be a specific person in mind. People don't take well to being accused of misbehaviour.

[robinson]

Revisiting this: how many faith healers do you know?

According to the claims of the MDC, I guess I know quite a few. But I don't believe there is anything paranormal or supernatural about what they do (all the time). In fact, it is very scientific, and they don't claim any supernatural powers at all. I doubt there is any chance of getting any of them to apply, because they are making good money helping people with real problems, and the protocol of the MDC is not set up for scientific proofs.

If you just started reading, that discussion is in this thread.

This is why everyone stopped replying to you, robinson. You claim you are not speaking about any specific person, yet you are complaining about a specific transgresssion, hence you must have be a specific person in mind. People don't take well to being accused of misbehaviour.

Its tempting to use the old saw, "If the shoe fits...", but what would be the point? I think some people don't take well to being challenged. Woo people certainly don't. There are more than a few comments here (Forums.randi.org) directed at my commentary, that seem to be either accusatory or flame bait. If it has no value, I just ignore it. OK not always, but I try. A waste of time.

I have plenty of experience debunking stuff, about 35 years of using science and reason to bug the crap out of people who believe stupid stuff.

The same method works on skeptics who blindly believe, rather than doing the work of actually researching and investigating stuff. I doubt that most people stop responding when challenged. But I don't really know. I only know about myself, not you or anyone else.

I know that sounds logical, but there it is.


... you are complaining about a specific transgresssion,...

I don't think so. Of course I could be wrong, but I like to ask questions, rather than accuse people. Questions bother some people. Why is that?

So does scientific evidence, especially when it seems to challenge what we think is true. How dare science prove us wrong.

heh

I'm trying to stay on topic here however. The question still stands. I don't really care if some woo claims there is no placebo effect, but when skeptics refuse to look at hard science, investigate something that occurs, it cast doubts upon the entire MDC. The spirit of it all.

I mean, put up or shut up is a pretty cool concept.


hmmm .... maybe that explains the silence after all ....
































:boggled:

[robinson]

I suggest that, if you know someone who claims to be able to do this, you ask them to apply for the challenge and work out a protocol.

BoyPaj,

I know many people who can relieve pain and suffering using methods that some people consider "woo". They consider it science. The people getting relief consider it worth paying money for. None of them would consider trying the MDC.

As was stated before, the MDC is about exposing frauds, not trying to discover something scientific. I would gather most AMA approved treatments could not pass the MDC. It just isn't set up for scientific problems. (example, how could you prove Ibuprofin decreases or relieves a headache, based on the contest rules?)

"Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result."

If something so accepted, so widely used as Motrin, can't be proved, how in the heck could anything else? In regards to headache relief.

I would love to think it is, that it really is about discovering something new, unknown, a breakthrough in understanding life and all that.

But from a scientific point of view, it just isn't about science. It is about proving certain things are bunk.

IMNSHO as always

:cool:

[William Smith]

Robinson, has your Mrs. cheated on you, has your alleged skepticness crusted over your brain or do you simply feel bored and look for friction?

[robinson]

Robinson, I can't think of any reply, so I will insult you, and hope nobody notices what a dick I am.

While tempting to take some anonymous moron to task, it would not serve any discussion, except perhaps the narcissistic.

[William Smith]

While tempting to take some anonymous moron to task, it would not serve any discussion, except perhaps the narcissistic.

Well, most certainly your humour and your memory seem a bit (c)rusty. Allow me to explain:

Robinson, has your Mrs. cheated on you,

Popcultural reference to the song of Simon & Garfunkel.

has your alleged skepticness crusted over your brain

From your first post: "I'm a short tempered, crusty old skeptic, so don't worry about hurting my feelings." http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1836608#post1836608

or do you simply feel bored and look for friction?

Thread bumping, overly longish posts and you tend to go off on tangents or do sloppy argumentation. This thread serves as quite an example.


I tend to take people up on what they said. If you felt insulted, I sincerely apologize, robinson.

[steenkh]

But from a scientific point of view, it just isn't about science. It is about proving certain things are bunk.
I think everybody can agree that the MDC is not science. And mostly it is about proving that certain things are bunk, simply because most if not all such claims are bunk!. But I believe we should not overlook the fact that if somebody actually wins the challenge, then scientists can hardly just overlook it, and real science will inevitably follow.

[robinson]

nevermind

[robinson]

But I believe we should not overlook the fact that if somebody actually wins the challenge, then scientists can hardly just overlook it, and real science will inevitably follow.

I doubt it. Science isn't what it used to be. Scientist overlook things all the time. I doubt I could even get any scientist to listen to the whole story about how somebody won the MDC. And even if it was on videotape, they would just brush it aside, and say it was a clever fake.

Or even more likely, they would quote some science journal from years ago where all that was well established.

I wish I was making this up, but it really is likely. Tabloids and trash TV are a more likely audience.

[Gr8wight]

I doubt it. Science isn't what it used to be. Scientist overlook things all the time. I doubt I could even get any scientist to listen to the whole story about how somebody won the MDC. And even if it was on videotape, they would just brush it aside, and say it was a clever fake.

Or even more likely, they would quote some science journal from years ago where all that was well established.

I wish I was making this up, but it really is likely. Tabloids and trash TV are a more likely audience.

It's silly to speculate about something that has not happened.

[robinson]

Don't tell that to NASA. They do that stuff all the time.

[Gr8wight]

Don't tell that to NASA. They do that stuff all the time.

Ah, but NASA speculates about things that *might* happen.

[simonmaal]

I wonder:

Supposedly, some people are actually able to navigate and find north and south because of some natural compass in our heads---something to do with deposits of biological lodestone (magnetite) in our heads.

Hmm, I've heard this one before in relation to homing pigeons and their sense of direction. However, to prove this either way would be extremely problematic, because there are other processes involved, including visuo-spatial ability. I suppose we cannot discount the influence of other senses in providing us with a spatial guide; for example, upon hearing a noise, we are able to locate it due to the different amount of sound entering each ear.

However, a highly important factor seems to be the role of the hippocampus. People with impaired hippocampal function (associated with conditions such as Korsakoff's syndrome) can get lost on the way to the bathroom! The hippocampus works as a 'memory recorder' in response to information coming from all the senses (i.e. not just visual information), so memory seems to be an important part of sense of direction. I can easily move around my bedroom in the night without seeing where I'm going; this gets easier if I put on the light for a moment in order to take a 'visual snapshot' of the room. However, a study found that taxi drivers have a disproportionately large hippocampus compared to the rest of the population. Additionally, one person has already mentioned that men seem to have a better direction than women (research backs this up: on average, men seem to have better spatial ability).So it seems that our brains develop in response to the way we use them. Perhaps the gender differences are at least partially due to the professions chosen by men and women (a decision affected by social inequality, of course).

Before I digress into a discussion on gender differences, it's time to stop and take stock of where I'm going with all this: I have highlighted a number of other variables that could affect sense of direction. As such, I am unconvinced by the idea of magnetic fields being as powerful a guide to human sense of direction as this kind of research claims, although I do not discount that we do use them. I am saying that, until all of these other variables can be controlled for, the conclusion reached is disputable.

P.S. following the link that I visited will tell you the Website is far from objective: surprise, surprise, they are selling some ridiculous product alongside their report. This tells us all we need to know.

However, I cant post URLS yet

[simonmaal]

Damn it! There are no paranormal powers! If somebody can do something we can't understand, it just means it hasn't been validated by science yet!

Although I agree 100% with your sentiment, I have to say that science does not just 'discover' reality, it also constructs it. If there were an objective reality ‘out there’, research would simply be a process of finding the most efficient and accurate way to measure it. After all, is it not a fact that the world is round and revolves around the sun? However, the Babylonian system of astronomy once provided an accurate measurement and prediction of the ‘movement’ of the sun, moon and planets based on the motions of ‘the heavens’. Although this explanation has since been refuted, it nevertheless served a predictiveand descriptive purpose that would have made sense at the time. But is our current understanding of astronomy the final word? Based upon discoveries such as multiple rings around Saturn (as opposed to just 3), I would have to say that it probably isn't. It is true that we have increasinlgy sophisticated technology that throws open new methods of investigating the nature of the universe, but one thing remains: The criteria of science has been traditionally constructed through scholastic dogma: scientists are socialised into paradigms.

My argument might seem very pedantic, but as skeptics, do we not owe it to ourselves to think very critically about our own preferred methodologies, thus avoiding accusations of epistemic hypocrisy?

[Paul2]

Although I agree 100% with your sentiment, I have to say that science does not just 'discover' reality, it also constructs it. If there were an objective reality ‘out there’, research would simply be a process of finding the most efficient and accurate way to measure it. After all, is it not a fact that the world is round and revolves around the sun? However, the Babylonian system of astronomy once provided an accurate measurement and prediction of the ‘movement’ of the sun, moon and planets based on the motions of ‘the heavens’. Although this explanation has since been refuted, it nevertheless served a predictiveand descriptive purpose that would have made sense at the time. But is our current understanding of astronomy the final word? Based upon discoveries such as multiple rings around Saturn (as opposed to just 3), I would have to say that it probably isn't. It is true that we have increasinlgy sophisticated technology that throws open new methods of investigating the nature of the universe, but one thing remains: The criteria of science has been traditionally constructed through scholastic dogma: scientists are socialised into paradigms.

My argument might seem very pedantic, but as skeptics, do we not owe it to ourselves to think very critically about our own preferred methodologies, thus avoiding accusations of epistemic hypocrisy?Your argument merely equates "[making] sense" with "constructing," and that isn't what you really mean when you contrast construction with objective reality. Science "constructs" an objective reality. Objective reality is out there, but our filter on what it is necessarily focuses on something and leaves others out; it can also be accurate or inaccurate. I don't see the necessity to imagine that objective reality isn't out there just because finite, limited humans make up explanations about some things that differ from others or that can be more accurate or not than others.

The 12th guy holding the elephant's tail isn't that wrong when he says that the reality of a elephant is its rope-like character. The elephant's tail is objectively and really like a rope, but 12th guy is just focusing on one small part of the elephant. This doesn't mean he is constructing the elephant, one which doesn't have an objective reality.

[Cuddles]

Hmm, I've heard this one before in relation to homing pigeons and their sense of direction. However, to prove this either way would be extremely problematic, because there are other processes involved, including visuo-spatial ability. I suppose we cannot discount the influence of other senses in providing us with a spatial guide; for example, upon hearing a noise, we are able to locate it due to the different amount of sound entering each ear.

See my post #12. Although that study did not test for a magnetic sense, it did show that pigeons without a sense of smell cannot navigate. Given this, it seems unneccesary to hypothesise any new senses for which there is no direct evidence.

[robinson]

*deleted*

[Kevin Levites]

I wonder:

Does science have a fractal quality to it that allows us to approach ever closer to the objective truth . . . without ever actually obtaining it? Maybe "fractal" is the wrong word, and "asymptote" is better?

How would we know if we ever reached the end of all possible scientific discovery?

Best,

---Kevin

[Kevin Levites]

Your argument merely equates "[making] sense" with "constructing," and that isn't what you really mean when you contrast construction with objective reality. Science "constructs" an objective reality. Objective reality is out there, but our filter on what it is necessarily focuses on something and leaves others out; it can also be accurate or inaccurate. I don't see the necessity to imagine that objective reality isn't out there just because finite, limited humans make up explanations about some things that differ from others or that can be more accurate or not than others.

The 12th guy holding the elephant's tail isn't that wrong when he says that the reality of a elephant is its rope-like character. The elephant's tail is objectively and really like a rope, but 12th guy is just focusing on one small part of the elephant. This doesn't mean he is constructing the elephant, one which doesn't have an objective reality.

Sorry, forgot to quote this in my last post.

[robinson]

As to Chiropractic, and other health related events, how do you test that stuff?

For example, if somebody has a bad headache, and they get a Chiropractic treatment, and the headache goes away, how do prove that? To the MDC requirements? Nobody knows how to prove anybody even has a headache, so how can you prove its gone?

Or that anybody got rid of it using a technique? Its a simple test. If a Chiropracter can relieve a bad headach, in a matter of minues, how do you prove that? And if you could prove it (MRI, blood pressure, blood test, something), wouldn't that be as scientific as it gets? Not paranormal, not woo, just a simple fact.

Would it win a million bucks? Its not back or joint pain, its a headache.

Same goes for reflexology or AK. How could you prove it works? I'm using a headache as an example for several reasons. Its a very hard thing to prove exist, its a common malady in humans, and if it can be relieved without drugs, its a great blessing to humankind. (and of course a headache can often be relieved, with nothing more than massage and other time tested methods). What does that add to the mix?

So what experiment would satisfy the MDC for something simple like that?

And why would any Chiropracter that can relieve headaches bother to appply for the MDC? Knowing the problem of proving it to the JREF, and the fact they have made more than a million bucks already treating people with headaches? And maybe even more relevant, does anybody in the Chiropractic field care what the JREF thinks of Chiropractic?

YMMV

[robinson]

I wonder:

Does science have a fractal quality to it that allows us to approach ever closer to the objective truth . . . without ever actually obtaining it? Maybe "fractal" is the wrong word, and "asymptote" is better?

How would we know if we ever reached the end of all possible scientific discovery?

Best,

---Kevin

I thought about that a bit. I think adding the word "science" to the question does little to nothing to the real question. Questions. Which are very old questions, sometimes called Philosophical questions. Can we ever know the truth? How would you know if you have discovered everything there is to discover?

The first scientist asked those same questions, about 2500 years ago. But this drifts way off topic ....

[The Atheist]

As to Chiropractic, and other health related events, how do you test that stuff?

For example, if somebody has a bad headache, and they get a Chiropractic treatment, and the headache goes away, how do prove that? To the MDC requirements? Nobody knows how to prove anybody even has a headache, so how can you prove its gone?

Or that anybody got rid of it using a technique? Its a simple test. If a Chiropracter can relieve a bad headach, in a matter of minues, how do you prove that? And if you could prove it (MRI, blood pressure, blood test, something), wouldn't that be as scientific as it gets? Not paranormal, not woo, just a simple fact.

Would it win a million bucks? Its not back or joint pain, its a headache.

Same goes for reflexology or AK. How could you prove it works? I'm using a headache as an example for several reasons. Its a very hard thing to prove exist, its a common malady in humans, and if it can be relieved without drugs, its a great blessing to humankind. (and of course a headache can often be relieved, with nothing more than massage and other time tested methods). What does that add to the mix?

So what experiment would satisfy the MDC for something simple like that?

And why would any Chiropracter that can relieve headaches bother to appply for the MDC? Knowing the problem of proving it to the JREF, and the fact they have made more than a million bucks already treating people with headaches? And maybe even more relevant, does anybody in the Chiropractic field care what the JREF thinks of Chiropractic?

YMMVWell, I can give you a completely impartial and non-JREF view on that question, robinson. You can't do it. The subject matter is just that; subjective.

It's clearly not possible to test for something where subjective analysis is used. There's a thread in here at the moment where some turkey claims he can cause medical issues to change physically. At least in that circumstance, a means of testing can be found for him to fail, but in a subjective situation where pain is involved it can't happen. Ity may be a possibility in the future at some stage where pain is able to be recorded, but even then, imponderables like pain thresholds would be even more difficult to measure.

Too hard.

As to what chiropractors think of JREF - well, I'm not in USA for a kick-off, but I know that chiropractors don't generally appreciate their dubious status and history being shouted out publicly, so I'd be surprised if they thought very highly of it. On the other hand, I bet that in public, they would take a "Well, of course, the JREF doesn't really know much about chiropractic. They're a sceptic/anti-paranormal organisation, aren't they? So, our paths never cross, chiropractic is a science" attitude towards it.

I think this subject has all the potential to be argued for another thousand years and still not be adequately answered, but then again, I can't imagine McCoy having much trouble fixing a crook back.

[Cuddles]

Well, I can give you a completely impartial and non-JREF view on that question, robinson. You can't do it. The subject matter is just that; subjective.

Of course you can test it, that's exactly what double-blind trials are for. If several people claim to have headaches, you split them into 2 groups, one of which is treated chiropractically and one which has a fake treatment. If there is no difference between the two groups afterwards you know chiropractic doesn't work. You may not be able to show that massage or touch has an effect, since any sham treatment must involve them, but you can definately show that chiropractic has the same effect as a simple massage.

[a_unique_person]

As I heard it, this is predominately a male attribute. My wife hates me because I almost never get lost. OTOH, I have learned to follow her directions perfectly; whatever she says, I turn 180 degrees.

Seriously.

I know the problem. "Left" means "Right", usually.

[steenkh]

Of course you can test it, that's exactly what double-blind trials are for. If several people claim to have headaches, you split them into 2 groups, one of which is treated chiropractically and one which has a fake treatment.
It could be a problem to design a sham treatment that could be used instead of a chiropractic treatment. The manipulations can be dangerous, so you cannot just perform manipulations that are not needed or necessary.

[Cuddles]

It could be a problem to design a sham treatment that could be used instead of a chiropractic treatment. The manipulations can be dangerous, so you cannot just perform manipulations that are not needed or necessary.

Surely just a normal massage? I'm fairly sure I wouldn't know if I was having chiropractic adjustments or just a massage. As long as you only take people who have never been to a chiropracter before there shouldn't be a problem. The problem comes when you want to tell the difference between any kind of manipulation and nothing, since people can probably tell if they are having a massage or not.

[steenkh]

Surely just a normal massage? I'm fairly sure I wouldn't know if I was having chiropractic adjustments or just a massage. As long as you only take people who have never been to a chiropracter before there shouldn't be a problem. The problem comes when you want to tell the difference between any kind of manipulation and nothing, since people can probably tell if they are having a massage or not.
Most people who go to a chiropractor would have heard about it from other people or would read about it. It would be difficult not to notice that you only got a massage, just like it is unlikely that would not notice that you got a massage instead of acupuncture.

You might be able to find some people who have no idea of what is a massage and what is chiropractic treament. Perhaps some Brasilian Indians?

[petre]

Perhaps some Brasilian Indians?

Wow, that's a LOT of Indians.

Sorry, had to be done.

[Cuddles]

Most people who go to a chiropractor would have heard about it from other people or would read about it. It would be difficult not to notice that you only got a massage, just like it is unlikely that would not notice that you got a massage instead of acupuncture.

You might be able to find some people who have no idea of what is a massage and what is chiropractic treament. Perhaps some Brasilian Indians?

Apparently I have no idea what chiropractic treatment is. I thought it was basically a massage, but with more popping of joints. I would assume a trial would be done on volunteers who were determined suitable for one by a doctor, so they would not neccesarily have chosen chiropratic outside of the trial. It would be fairly simple to select only people who didn't know how chiropractic works, and I think there are a lot more than you suggest. It would, however, be trickier to stop them finding out once they know they are part of a trial.

[rjh01]

Of course you need not tell the control group what the trial is all about. You could tell them that it is about if a simple massage will help them. Or if a new pill (blessed by Randi of course) will help them.