EFT Claims

[Keneke]

I certainly can appreciate your monologue, jmercer. It is very frustrating. The problem is, I just didn't see an attack against woos, all I saw was snide remarks. It didn't seem like the cutting, damning accusations of Penn and Teller, it seemed like the bitter denials of an old man defeated. Of course, we know he is far from defeated, but image is everything, says the little Sprite Guy.

[EGarrett]

The most important points here that I see are...

1. It's easy and quick to link people to the FAQ. It could be even easier and quicker to have a "polite form response" of a few sentences that could be copied/pasted into e-mail.

2. I see no reason that Randi has to busy himself with these minor exchanges if they frustrate him so much. There are plenty of other people who can simply politely point would-be applicants to the rules page.

3. The JREF's goal is to promote critical thinking. You don't promote critical thinking to JREF members. They already understand it. You must promote criticial thinking to the objective people who haven't thought either way about it. You do that by being polite in your exchanges, so that uninterested passersby will see who's conducting themselves in the most mature and intelligent fashion.

[jmercer]

Quote:

Originally posted by EGarrett
The most important points here that I see are...

1. It's easy and quick to link people to the FAQ. It could be even easier and quicker to have a "polite form response" of a few sentences that could be copied/pasted into e-mail.

2. I see no reason that Randi has to busy himself with these minor exchanges if they frustrate him so much. There are plenty of other people who can simply politely point would-be applicants to the rules page.

3. The JREF's goal is to promote critical thinking. You don't promote critical thinking to JREF members. They already understand it. You must promote criticial thinking to the objective people who haven't thought either way about it. You do that by being polite in your exchanges, so that uninterested passersby will see who's conducting themselves in the most mature and intelligent fashion.

Interesting perspectives. I agree with # 1. Easy to do, and should probably be a part of JREF's email signature.

Number 2, on the other hand - you need to read Randi's commentary. He did it on purpose to prove a point, and he hired Kramer so he wouldn't have to do it.

Number 3 - This makes no sense. You speak about these dialogues as if they were public conversations on a sidewalk as people pass by. In addition, why would an uninterested passerby even take notice of a quiet and mature discussion? Moreover, why would an "uninterested" anyone gain any insights from observing an exchange in passing? You can't teach someone critical thinking in a single exchange, no matter how polite, mature and intelligent.

[SquishyDave]

Quote:

Originally posted by jmercer
Number 3 - This makes no sense. You speak about these dialogues as if they were public conversations on a sidewalk as people pass by. In addition, why would an uninterested passerby even take notice of a quiet and mature discussion? Moreover, why would an "uninterested" anyone gain any insights from observing an exchange in passing? You can't teach someone critical thinking in a single exchange, no matter how polite, mature and intelligent.

Nah, see what happens now is, whenever someone says "Oh no one ever wins the million, Randi sees to that!" You can point to evidence right in the commentary itself that seems to indicate this is true, Rand flat out failing to answer a simple question and getting nasty.

[SquishyDave]

My brother likes critical thinking also, but is not registered here. So I am posting his thoughts here, what follows is from him.

Questions:

1) Did Randi act in an appropriate manner when asked by a possible applicant if he qualifies for the million dollars?

2) Was the original question by the potential applicant one that should have been given a polite and appropriate response by the organisation under its guidelines. Question was “If I could demonstrate that EFT (Emotional Freedom Technique) works, would I win the million bucks?�

Arguments

Start with question 2)

Firstly, there is no evidence to suggest that “Sam� did not read the guidelines.

Secondly, rule one (appendix A) of the official rules clearly states that

Quote:

applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated

Also in FAQ2.2 (appendix A) it says

Quote:

Potential applicants are free to inquire (prior to submitting an application) as to whether or not their claim would be acceptable under the Challenge rules

Also his claim of EFT is neither explicitly listed as not being paranormal or being paranormal under FAQ 2.3 (Appendix A)

Conclusion

Answer to question 2
The potential applicant was well within his rights under the rules and FAQ guidelines to ask the question.

Following from that (and answer to question 1), Randi did not act appropriately when trying to ascertain the exact details/definition of the claim.

Another question that could be asked is did the potential applicant give enough detail about the claim for Randi to answer. The short answer would be probably not, however, in my opinion, this is irrelevant as Randi could have responded with a polite response saying he needed more information.

[EGarrett]

Quote:

Originally posted by jmercer
Number 3 - This makes no sense. You speak about these dialogues as if they were public conversations on a sidewalk as people pass by. In addition, why would an uninterested passerby even take notice of a quiet and mature discussion? Moreover, why would an "uninterested" anyone gain any insights from observing an exchange in passing? You can't teach someone critical thinking in a single exchange, no matter how polite, mature and intelligent.

Au contraire. These exchanges are easily passed around. Any organization that wants to influence the public should always be on its best behavior.

Standard politics...that's all.

[Zep]

If JREF truly considers itself an educational source then it has much of the role of a teacher. So if you consider that metaphor, who would you rather be taught by: the snappy old pedagogue who continually fumes at you and refers you to the text book if you ask a dumb question, or the polite but firm mentor who is prepared to review your efforts with you until you get it right by the book.

Remember: Most of the people who come up with these woo ideas have only a passing acquaintence at best (if at all) with science and logic and development of arguments and proofs. Their very lives are based on faiths, often passed down by force, which they cannot question for fear of losing all sense of personal stability. Whereas many of us regular skeptics live by science and logic and are comfortable using them, and can easily consider other viewpoints without feeling threatened ourselves in the slightest. Therefore to scold them for their lack of understanding of what we hold to be simple truths is somewhat condescending, I feel.

On the other hand, the persistent scam-artists are really just the "bad" variant of the skeptic. They fully understand the nature of phenomenon as well as we do, as well as the scam they are trying to pull, making them all the more contemptible!

[Ian Osborne]

It will be interesting to see if the issue is mentioned in this week's commentary...

[Darat]

Quote:

Originally posted by Zep
If JREF truly considers itself an educational source then it has much of the role of a teacher. So if you consider that metaphor, who would you rather be taught by: the snappy old pedagogue who continually fumes at you and refers you to the text book if you ask a dumb question, or the polite but firm mentor who is prepared to review your efforts with you until you get it right by the book.

...snip...

Slight aside:

Neither!

Seriously I don't think it is an either/or matter. A good teacher alters their approach depending on the person and also the person’s requirement at that time. The best teachers I ever had were the ones that (in hindsight) helped me only when I needed help, not when I wanted help. The most influential teacher I ever had was an elderly English teacher who was the epitome of an English schoolmarm. Incredibly strict and authoritarian in approach “don’t sniffle in my class� who would tell me if I was being lazy or even stupid (and I mean stupid in sense of meaning she considered I was showing a lack of intelligence for me) in no uncertain terms. However when I did need help because something was beyond my capabilities or I was struggling she would expend inordinate amount of time and effort to help me, help myself. Her approach meant I learnt to have confidence in my own abilities and to try but also taught me that there was no shame in seeking help when I needed it.


Back to the topic:


I don’t think there is one approach that “fits all�. To say, for instance Randi or the JREF should always be polite is just as wrong as to say they should always be rude. It has got to be horses for courses and of course Randi and the JREF do (and will continue to do so) make mistakes. In this particular instance it appears (in my opinion and from what I can read) that Randi was too quick to reach his conclusions and I would have thought a slightly more “polite� approach may have been more beneficial.

[Keneke]

Yeah, Randi did mention it again this week. Looks like there was more to the conversation than what we saw. To that I say: what a horrible edit job! But at least I am glad Randi is nowhere near as snide as he made himself seem.

[jmercer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Keneke
Yeah, Randi did mention it again this week. Looks like there was more to the conversation than what we saw. To that I say: what a horrible edit job! But at least I am glad Randi is nowhere near as snide as he made himself seem.

Yep, I agree. Context is just about everything in these kinds of discussions...

[BillyJoe]

Maybe it's just me but he still sounds gruff - to those who are gently suggesting that he may sound a bit gruff in his dealings with the claimant.....er.....sorry.....applicant

[Cosmophilosopher]

I agree that Randi's approach to this fellow was inappropriate, and only gives fuel to the fire that guys like Randi are not credible.
EFT could very well have certain effects, it COULD help a headache, or another psychosomatic complaint.
EFT is basically a perversion of Cognitive Therapy, and there CAN be some real effects with these processes. But it has to be TESTED FIRST.
The correct answer is... WE DON'T KNOW UNTIL ITS TESTED PROPERLY.

Regardless, Randi's approach was self-defeating, and has nothing to do with Skepticism.

I made a post about this serious problem in the Skeptic community.
Randi-style Skepticism's BLINDSPOTS
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...threadid=55990

[jmercer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cosmophilosopher
I agree that Randi's approach to this fellow was inappropriate, and only gives fuel to the fire that guys like Randi are not credible.
EFT could very well have certain effects, it COULD help a headache, or another psychosomatic complaint.
EFT is basically a perversion of Cognitive Therapy, and there CAN be some real effects with these processes. But it has to be TESTED FIRST.
The correct answer is... WE DON'T KNOW UNTIL ITS TESTED PROPERLY.

Regardless, Randi's approach was self-defeating, and has nothing to do with Skepticism.

I made a post about this serious problem in the Skeptic community.
Randi-style Skepticism's BLINDSPOTS
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...threadid=55990

Read it. Rant on, it's amusing.

[Cosmophilosopher]

What else that is very amusing, is the fact the EFT might very well be able to eliminate a headache.

Its just relaxation, and suggestion, and some tapping. A placebo.
Hypnosis, visualization and relaxation can very easily eliminate headaches with some people.
So can placebos.
There is lots of evidence for the effects of the placebo.
http://www.dylan.org.uk/placebo.html

I was shocked the way Randi treated this guy. When people approach a professional institute, they should be treated professionally, whether or not they are professional. Just set up a proper system to deal with people, and treat them all with respect.

I was also very surprised when he said that relieving a heachache in this way would qualify for the prize.
Perhaps someone who practices medical hypnosis should take him up on it. Here is a link to quite a bit of scientific evidence, that hypnosis has real physical effects on certain medical conditions. Hypnosis is just relaxation, and focussed cognition.

Hypnosis: Applications in Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery
http://www.emedicine.com/derm/topic921.htm

Also, Cognitive Therapy has scientifically proven that our Cognitions literally can cause depressions, panic, and many other physiological responses.
To deny this is pure folly and blindness.

http://www.beckinstitute.org/FolderID/194/SessionID/{A8437DEC-686D-48BA-9778-653492950CDE}/PageVars/Library/InfoManage/Guide.htm

or http://tinyurl.com/9ma7g

In my view, it seems most of these so-called alternative treatments are placebos, and placebos CAN work.

There is nothing supernatural about the fact that our Cognitions PROFOUNDLY influence our physiological responses. That is an established fact.

[-42-]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cosmophilosopher

I was also very surprised when [Randi] said that relieving a heachache in this way would qualify for the prize.
Perhaps someone who practices medical hypnosis should take him up on it.

The Real Deal:
Tap on left finger, tap on forehead above ear and say "You love yourself completely"

The Placebo:
Tap on middle finger, tap on forehead above the eye and say "You love yourself completely"

Keep in mind, they are selling that the tapping locations matter, since that's what they teach.

[pmurray]

The challenge is a challenge: "You say you can do X? Well, do it and we'll give you a million bucks."

But medical claims are particularly difficult to demonstrate. Clinical drug trials, for instance, often involve thousands of volunteers and hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[BillyJoe]

CP,

Quote:

Originally posted by Cosmophilosopher
In my view, it seems most of these so-called alternative treatments are placebos, and placebos CAN work.

Placebos are used to see if a particular treatment works. If the improvement seen with the treatment is no better than that seen with the placebo, then the treatment is useless. It's pretty simply really.

BJ

[davefoc]

pmurray wrote:

Quote:

But medical claims are particularly difficult to demonstrate. Clinical drug trials, for instance, often involve thousands of volunteers and hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Yes, I thought that immediately about the claim. And the related issue of how one would go about separating the placebo effect from the paranormal effect that tapping in a particcular place accompanied with some magic words cures headaches.

I doubt that it is possible. And if it were it would not be the kind of thing that JREF is capable of testing. It would probably be necessary to dig up lots of people that are prone to serious headaches, have medical professionals in cooperation with the subjects characterize their headaches as objectively as possible and then do lots of controlled experiments to see if any significant difference could be found for any sorts of physical manipulation treatments. You'd have to control for the expectation of patients. For instance if a patient had expectations that a particular treatment would work that treatment might be more effective on him.

Overall, a very costly experimental regimen way beyond the means and skills of JREF to actually carry out. Although it would have been very difficult if not impossible to explain this to some individuals it might have been nice to try, I thought.

In essence this is a homeopathy type claim with the added problem that it is difficult to devise good double blind tests because the treatment is obvious to the subject. For the most part, JREF can't test most homeopathy claims either. These require medical professionals and large resources for controlled medical trials. Although, JREF can test some homeopathy claims that can be reduced to simple double blind experiments. I doubt that any of this potential applicant's claims could be reduced to a claim testable within the scope and resources of JREF but once again this was the key problem of the claim related to the JREF prize and I thought the exchanges should have been oriented to explaining that to the individual

I wonder if the people who have been arguing for a FAQ that would cover some of the standard type claims don't have a point. A few paragraphs on what kinds of medical claims can be tested might have been useful to this guy.

[jmercer]

Quote:

Originally posted by davefoc

I doubt that it is possible. And if it were it would not be the kind of thing that JREF is capable of testing. It would probably be necessary to dig up lots of people that are prone to serious headaches, have medical professionals in cooperation with the subjects characterize their headaches as objectively as possible and then do lots of controlled experiments to see if any significant difference could be found for any sorts of physical manipulation treatments. You'd have to control for the expectation of patients. For instance if a patient had expectations that a particular treatment would work that treatment might be more effective on him.

Overall, a very costly experimental regimen way beyond the means and skills of JREF to actually carry out. Although it would have been very difficult if not impossible to explain this to some individuals it might have been nice to try, I thought.

In essence this is a homeopathy type claim with the added problem that it is difficult to devise good double blind tests because the treatment is obvious to the subject. For the most part, JREF can't test most homeopathy claims either. These require medical professionals and large resources for controlled medical trials. Although, JREF can test some homeopathy claims that can be reduced to simple double blind experiments. I doubt that any of this potential applicant's claims could be reduced to a claim testable within the scope and resources of JREF but once again this was the key problem of the claim related to the JREF prize and I thought the exchanges should have been oriented to explaining that to the individual

I wonder if the people who have been arguing for a FAQ that would cover some of the standard type claims don't have a point. A few paragraphs on what kinds of medical claims can be tested might have been useful to this guy.

Well... the Challenge agreement and the FAQ written by Bethany pretty much make the bearing of the cost clear:

Quote:

Challenge
All of the applicant's expenses such as transportation, accommodation, materials, assistants, and/or all other costs for any persons or procedures incurred in pursuit of the reward, are the sole responsibility of the applicant. Neither the JREF nor JR will bear any of the costs.

Quote:

FAQ
5.4. Who pays for my expenses, and why?

You do. It's spelled out in the Challenge rules. Remember that your position in the Challenge is that of defendant. But it's also important to realize that there is an important difference between this and a court of law: you are not innocent until proven guilty. Rather, you are normal until proven paranormal, and it is up to you to prove your paranormality. This means that you have to pay for travel, you have to pay to build any devices you want to demonstrate, and so forth. All the ingredients required in proving your claim are yours and yours alone. The JREF will under no circumstances incur such costs.

Under the circumstances, I would expect that any applicant who wanted to be tested for a medical-based claim would be required to follow the appropriate process as you described above. Prohibitively expensive, unless they're independently wealthy, of course.

Between the Challenge and the FAQ, there's really no excuse for an applicant to show complete ignorance of the requirements. Question aspects of it, certainly - but not simply be ignorant of it.

[Cosmophilosopher]

Its not so simple, actually.
If sugar water gives a placebo effect, then it has value in that sense.

If there are cognitive-behavioral techniques used WITH the placebo, then the results can EXCEED a basic placebo, in certain instances.

If it is an "active placebo", that gives dry mouth, etc, then it can also exceed the placebo response, and even equal the drug response.
The human body can even give effects as powerful as morphine, in certain instances.
It can also STRONGLY effect immune response, in ways that are not yet understood.

There is nothing simple about it at all. Its amazingly complex.

This is why many so-called skeptics could perhaps be called delusional, if anyone is delusional about this subject. If not delusional, then at least of a overly-simplistic primitive and uneducated mindset, and unable to perceive the subtleties in Nature, as it conflicts with their primitive, ignorant and oversimplified beliefs.

Quote:

Originally posted by BillyJoe
CP,

Placebos are used to see if a particular treatment works. If the improvement seen with the treatment is no better than that seen with the placebo, then the treatment is useless. It's pretty simply really.

BJ

[Cosmophilosopher]

As far as The Challenge, since it is open to the public, there are going to be all sorts of Wild Claims being made from unprofessional people, and even unstable people.
Instead of mocking these people, it would be a great opportunity to open a discussion about how science works, and how difficult science is, and how expensive it is to do proper tests, etc. This could be done in an open way to educate the wider community.
It COULD be a wonderful chance to deal with these issues, in an educational way.

Also, when someone comes making claims about EFT, then all they need is a protocol for them to go through, and try to set up tests, etc.
It doesn't have to become a personal whipping session.
Its not "personal".

Behaving in an unprofessional manner just serves to help discredit something like The Challenge in the minds of the New Age folks.

Also, for so-called skeptics to claim that EFT doesn't work, without any studies being done, is just as wrong as claiming it works without any studies.
I actually knew a guy who did this EFT thing, and in my view its really a cognitive-behavioral intervention, and that can have real results, in certain limited circumstances.

But to claim it is "nonsense" is a false statement.
Its efficacy is unknown until it is properly studied.
That's it.

Is Randi going to listen to reason and modify his approach?
Not a snowflakes chance in hell.

So us in the wider skeptical community have to make clear publicly that Randi's style is not disciplined skepticism, but really just aggressive Debunking, which can function as a type of entertainment for some people, and create a type of cult-following.
But skepticism needs a more measured, precise, RATIONAL and less emotional approach to really impact the wider community, in my view.
If there are going to be emotions, we would be wise to communicate more positive emotions about the wonderful Cosmos, and the marvelous fabric of reality and the universe we live in.

[BillyJoe]

Cosmophilosopher,

Quote:

Originally posted by Cosmophilosopher
Its not so simple, actually.
If sugar water gives a placebo effect, then it has value in that sense.

In what sense?
You would use sugar water as a placebo only if you were doing a clinical trial of a solution that tasted like sugar water. The placebo would measure the psychological effect of drinking a solution that tastes like sugar water. If the test solution does no better it is useless for the condition being treated. (However, it would be simpler to put the solutions into identical capsules)

Quote:

Originally posted by Cosmophilosopher
If there are cognitive-behavioral techniques used WITH the placebo, then the results can EXCEED a basic placebo, in certain instances.

You would measure the effect of CBT against not with placebo to see if CBT is effective. I'm not sure what a placebo would look like in this case however.

Quote:

Originally posted by Cosmophilosopher
If it is an "active placebo", that gives dry mouth, etc, then it can also exceed the placebo response, and even equal the drug response.

I guess you mean that (for example) sugar water could have a greater placebo effect than sugar water placed in a capsule. However, it is still a placebo effect. To say that the effect of a placebo can exceed a placebo effect is a bit confusing I think..

Quote:

Originally posted by Cosmophilosopher
The human body can even give effects as powerful as morphine, in certain instances.

Yes....by producing endorphins (morphine-like substances).

Quote:

Originally posted by Cosmophilosopher
This is why many so-called skeptics could perhaps be called delusional, if anyone is delusional about this subject. If not delusional, then at least of a overly-simplistic primitive and uneducated mindset, and unable to perceive the subtleties in Nature, as it conflicts with their primitive, ignorant and oversimplified beliefs.

Yes, Randi!

regards,
BillyJoe

[Cosmophilosopher]

An "active placebo" is a placebo that gives certain side-effects like a real drug, but they have nothing to do with what is being tested.

So if an antidepressant is being tested, an "active placebo" might be an antihistamine, that would give "dry mouth", which makes the placebo even MORE convincing to the patient and the doctor.
So the person is taking an antihistamine, but because they are getting dry mouth they THINK, "holy crap, this is the real drug!".
These types of active placebos can have a much greater impact than a pure dummy pill.

My point is that the entire acupuncture schtick, or all of the other cognitive-behavioral stuff that goes along with EFT, or whatever, could function as an active placebo, as the last time i checked, someone shoving needles in my ass, or tapping me on the head, is a real side-effect.
For True Believers, they are going to BELIEVE what they are being told.

So you could test it by changing the procedures, but much of the cognitive content would stay.
A better way to test EFT would be to take ALL of the cognitive part out of it.
Bottom line, until those EFT guys do some PROPER tests, then EFT is scientifically unproven.

[BillyJoe]

Cosmo,

I believe we are on the same wavelength.

BillyJoe