JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » JREF Topics » Million Dollar Challenge
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 25th November 2012, 10:35 AM   #81
FluffyPersian
Critical Thinker
 
FluffyPersian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 258
Originally Posted by Musibrique View Post
A significance test does not simply test the claim, "this succeeds 80% of the time" The p-value tests the null-hypothesis, not the alternative.
Actaully, "this succeeds 80% of the time" can be the null hypothesis But in that case, you'd have a 2-tailed test with an alternative hypothesis of

HA: Pi<>.8

In most MDC tests, on the other hand, you'd want to test whether something succeeds MORE THAN X% of the time.

However, as I said aboavae, the significance level and the population proportion being tested are two different parameters ("inputs").
FluffyPersian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 02:46 PM   #82
xtifr
Graduate Poster
 
xtifr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sol III
Posts: 1,271
Originally Posted by FluffyPersian View Post
No, it doesn't. The significance level, which is what you're apparently referring to, is separate from the threshold proportion and the sample size.
Yes, sorry. The point is, a claim "this works 100% of the time" will require a different protocol from the claim "this works 80% of the time".
__________________
"Those who learn from history are doomed to watch others repeat it."
-- Anonymous Slashdot poster
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore."
-- James Nicoll
xtifr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 03:48 PM   #83
GnaGnaMan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 403
Originally Posted by Musibrique View Post
Not necessarily. It actually depends on how good is the psychic. A telekinetic, for example, can be a professional of getting 55% heads/tails. However, it is most likely that the psychic will not reach a p-value of 0.001 in the small run. If the JREF wants to test his/her claim with an 80% chance of getting a p-value of 0.001, JREF would need a sample-size of 1704 coin tosses. Of course this isn't a problem with claimants who have high hit rates and claim they are professional of doing so.
Not sure how this relates to what I was saying.
It should be possible to perform 2000 coin tosses in less than 2 hours so there does not seem to be a problem with getting tiny p values if someone can really get 55% right on a coin toss.

OTOH how would one notice that ability in the first place? That would take 1000s of recorded coin tosses as well.

Also, if someone is genuinely telekinetic then surely one would be able to test this in a better way than coin tossing. It's seems gratuitous to introduce a random element. Why not just use a force sensor? I guess that's not the point, though.
__________________
"I don't think it's quite fair to condemn the whole program because of a single slip-up."
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 04:55 PM   #84
Marcus
Master Poster
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,008
There is only one way to succeed in the MDC. One must make a claim that can be tested sufficiently in a single day to prove that the odds of chance success of 1 in 1000 have been exceeded (for the preliminary).

This would be simple indeed if the various practitioners could do what they say they can do.

The fact that no one has passed the preliminary speaks volumes.
Marcus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2012, 10:02 PM   #85
Musibrique
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 52
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
There is only one way to succeed in the MDC. One must make a claim that can be tested sufficiently in a single day to prove that the odds of chance success of 1 in 1000 have been exceeded (for the preliminary).

This would be simple indeed if the various practitioners could do what they say they can do.

The fact that no one has passed the preliminary speaks volumes.
You don't understand. You may think an applicant can easily reach a p-value of 0.001 or 0.000001 if the applicant could do what the applicant claims. However, it's not that simple. Statistically speaking, the probability of an applicant reaching such p-value actually depends on the applicant's hit rate as well as the sample-size of the test. It's a process known as statistical power.

What you're saying is nothing but absurd.
Musibrique is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2012, 01:02 AM   #86
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 5,954
Originally Posted by Musibrique View Post
the probability of an applicant reaching such p-value actually depends on the applicant's hit rate.
Which is why JREF always ask the applicant what their hit rate is, so they can take that into account as they help them design a suitable protocol.
__________________
"The correct scientific response to anything that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause". David Attenborough.
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2012, 03:39 AM   #87
GnaGnaMan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 403
Originally Posted by Musibrique View Post
You don't understand. You may think an applicant can easily reach a p-value of 0.001 or 0.000001 if the applicant could do what the applicant claims. However, it's not that simple. Statistically speaking, the probability of an applicant reaching such p-value actually depends on the applicant's hit rate as well as the sample-size of the test. It's a process known as statistical power.
Correct enough but it is unclear what you think this implies.
Nothing about this makes what Marcus said "absurd"-
__________________
"I don't think it's quite fair to condemn the whole program because of a single slip-up."
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2012, 05:28 AM   #88
Marcus
Master Poster
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,008
Originally Posted by Musibrique View Post
You don't understand. You may think an applicant can easily reach a p-value of 0.001 or 0.000001 if the applicant could do what the applicant claims. However, it's not that simple. Statistically speaking, the probability of an applicant reaching such p-value actually depends on the applicant's hit rate as well as the sample-size of the test. It's a process known as statistical power.

What you're saying is nothing but absurd.
It's all about applicants being able to perform the paranormal feats they claim that they can.

If someone can really communicate telepathically or dowse for gold, the exact probabilities necessary to satisfy JREF are not that important, they just have to demonstrate their claimed abilities.

In fact, the odds are just a guideline. Not all claims can easily have probabilities assigned to them. If JREF decides a claim is paranormal, and can be tested in a reasonable amount of time, it is a potential candidate.
Marcus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2012, 10:17 AM   #89
xterra
So far, so good...
 
xterra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: On the outskirts of Nowhere; the middle was too crowded
Posts: 1,332
Musibrique and Marcus,

I believe that my post

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...67#post8392067

is relevant to your disagreement.


xterra
xterra is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2013, 06:49 AM   #90
Diploid
New Blood
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Rabbit Hole
Posts: 19
Smile

Originally Posted by FluffyPersian View Post
Some folks have argued that the Challenge is unfair because the p-values and effect sizes called for are too extreme.
I think the JREF is looking for people with genuine ability, not people who are lucky. Even a fair coin will flip heads 20 times in a row if you try it long enough and the JREF prize has been on the table for some 50 years, if I remember correctly.

Besides, why should it be any easier for someone to guess a number between 1 and 10 than between 1 and a trillion? You either can or can't do it. The range is irrelevant.
Diploid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » JREF Topics » Million Dollar Challenge

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:42 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.