heliocentric
Registered Senior Member
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3035098#post3035098
Will Randi (or his beard) make an appearance? lets hope so.
Will Randi (or his beard) make an appearance? lets hope so.
The randi-disciples are going loopy over this article
- Thread starter heliocentric
- Start date
heliocentric
Registered Senior Member
Seems like all the actions in the comment section now..its weird how sect-like these people are, scouring the net looking for anyone daring to critique randi's methods.
Here's the excerpt that caused all the fuss and the article in question..
http://culturespam.wordpress.com/2007/10/07/rise-of-scientism-and-the-pseudo-skeptics/
Here's the excerpt that caused all the fuss and the article in question..
http://culturespam.wordpress.com/2007/10/07/rise-of-scientism-and-the-pseudo-skeptics/
The original Wordpress article has 9 comments. The JREF thread now has 13. So hardly a "fuss".
So grrrr for making me read all that. But anyway. In the Wordpress article, olywood makes three criticisms of Randi's methodology (sunk deep under oceans of polemic):
1. Randi himself isn't a scientist.
2. He's personally involved in the selection process and has a huge financial stake in the outcome of the experiments.
3. He's made comments in the past that reveal an anti-woowoo agenda.
However what olywood fails to appreciate, it seems, is that none of these criticisms invalidate the methodology. As long as the experiments are conducted under rigorous scientific criteria none of the above observations should affect the outcome. He's not a scientist himself BUT the people who design his experiments are. His personal involvement in the process, if true (I don't know whether it is and, if so, to what extent), is a concern. It shouldn't affect the outcome of any properly conducted experiment - but it would be much better if he kept his distance. However: anyone with genuine abilities should still be able to wander along and leave Randi with egg on his beard. If they feel they've been unfairly treated they can always sue, and prove their abilities in court. Or go to the papers and tell the world what a charlatan Randi is.
This hasn't happened. Would you like to speculate as to the reasons why?
So grrrr for making me read all that. But anyway. In the Wordpress article, olywood makes three criticisms of Randi's methodology (sunk deep under oceans of polemic):
1. Randi himself isn't a scientist.
2. He's personally involved in the selection process and has a huge financial stake in the outcome of the experiments.
3. He's made comments in the past that reveal an anti-woowoo agenda.
However what olywood fails to appreciate, it seems, is that none of these criticisms invalidate the methodology. As long as the experiments are conducted under rigorous scientific criteria none of the above observations should affect the outcome. He's not a scientist himself BUT the people who design his experiments are. His personal involvement in the process, if true (I don't know whether it is and, if so, to what extent), is a concern. It shouldn't affect the outcome of any properly conducted experiment - but it would be much better if he kept his distance. However: anyone with genuine abilities should still be able to wander along and leave Randi with egg on his beard. If they feel they've been unfairly treated they can always sue, and prove their abilities in court. Or go to the papers and tell the world what a charlatan Randi is.
This hasn't happened. Would you like to speculate as to the reasons why?
Technically anyone can claim to be a Scientist, there isn't exactly a piece of paper identifying a person as being one over someone else. It shouldn't make any difference if Randi is or isn't a Scientist, although technically it can be argued he is a Scientist because he does want to learn about the way the world is in regards to telepathy and other para-psychological claims.
Quite frankly though every para-psychological claim has a rational scientific answer and unfortunately for the most part it usually involves the claim being manipulated by fraud.
Quite frankly though every para-psychological claim has a rational scientific answer and unfortunately for the most part it usually involves the claim being manipulated by fraud.
This sounds like another person who hasn't read Randi's challenge rules.
Randi himself is not personally involved in any screening of applicants. Nor is he personally involved in testing applicants, except rarely and with the agreement of the applicant. He sometimes plays a part in coming to an agreed test protocol with the applicant.
You don't have to prove your claim to the satisfaction of any one man.
What happens is that you, as a claimant, and JREF, mutually agree on what you consider to be a fair test of your claimed abilities, in advance. Once agreement is reached, only then does the test go ahead. The test is supervised by unbiased observers, and the protocol is made absolutely clear so that no subjective judgment as to what is a "success" or "failure" is possible. That way, results are unequivocal.
As to Randi not being a scientist, it matters not one whit.
He isn't interested in how your ESP might work, or what amazing physics lies behind your perpetual motion machine's workings. All he requires is that you show that you ESP works, so that nobody can dispute it, or that your machine produces more power output than is required to run it. To test those things is simple, and everyone can agree with the results.
Randi himself is not personally involved in any screening of applicants. Nor is he personally involved in testing applicants, except rarely and with the agreement of the applicant. He sometimes plays a part in coming to an agreed test protocol with the applicant.
You don't have to prove your claim to the satisfaction of any one man.
What happens is that you, as a claimant, and JREF, mutually agree on what you consider to be a fair test of your claimed abilities, in advance. Once agreement is reached, only then does the test go ahead. The test is supervised by unbiased observers, and the protocol is made absolutely clear so that no subjective judgment as to what is a "success" or "failure" is possible. That way, results are unequivocal.
As to Randi not being a scientist, it matters not one whit.
He isn't interested in how your ESP might work, or what amazing physics lies behind your perpetual motion machine's workings. All he requires is that you show that you ESP works, so that nobody can dispute it, or that your machine produces more power output than is required to run it. To test those things is simple, and everyone can agree with the results.
heliocentric
Registered Senior Member
This is actually false, going by information freely available on the web it seems that Randi has even gone as far as personally writing rejection letters to some applicants.
In this sense the article actually reflects the procedure more than enough to my mind.
Although i dare say its a given that Randi doesnt screen nor is personally involved with every single candidate.
However the idea that Randi is somehow 'outside of the loop' - preventing any sort of control over the experiments seems to have no real grounding in reality outside of what he may assert from time to time.
Again i dont think the article in anyway claimed that Randi took the role of both conductor and orchestra in the challenge, so its a rather moot point.
I think the idea of 'unbiased observers' is rather naive though.
All observers have some form of bias, infact i read an article a while ago which showed just how much statistical outcomes can favour the pre-experimental bias.
Even when you cant really find or point to any sort of bias within the experiment, it still has a knock on effect.
Clearly bias is an ongoing problem is science.
Therefore having a man (and various cronies) with a well publicised opinion and view on what can & can't occur within the realm of the paranormal seems like an incredibly foolish idea to me that just makes for bad 'science' all round.
bias elimination should always be key imho.
You're right it isnt anything to do with how ESP works (if it does atall) or even whether it exists. Its a public debunking excersise.
As the poster above me rightly stated one of the main problems with it is you now have to be famous to even enter the challenge.
This means it doesnt even qualify as parapsychology research, the challenge is now revealed as what it always was - an excersise in debunking high-profile stars with claims to psychic or 'paranormal' abilities.
Yeah this is the problem i have with the challenge if past incidents are anything to go by, he cant help but get involved - even in the initial stages.
Even if he werent 'publically involved' id still be highly skeptical.
Given that Randi does have such a high-profile stake in everything paranormal being bunk, it only takes a forwarded email from one of his JREF friends saying 'this person has far too great a chance of passing the challenge - i say we reject him' for them to be passed up.
Sure its a hypothetical, and im not saying this sort of thing goes on, but with a guy like Randi whos said things in the past like 'i always have an out!"
you sort of have to wonder where the line is actually drawn for someone like that. And of course the invested money makes me even more nervous about the whole thing, and tends to make me highly skeptical that this is science done the right way.
I think parapsychology is an interesting area of research and where fraud is taking place it deserves to be exposed, i can just think of far far better ways to go about it.
I believe people have atempted to sue Randi in the past actually, although i have no idea what ever came of it.
I certainly know that many people have criticised his methods as it relates to the challenge.
You also have to remember that most people dont ever get to take the challenge atall, there's always the option to simply deny someone the option of taking the challenge if they look like that might just scrape by, and thats always been Randi's trump card.
And now that you need to be some sort of tv-psychic just to even enter the challenge he's playing with the whole deck.
Last edited:
He isn't at a lot of the tests though. The protocol is agreed by the applicant. What is this influence that he is having which is causing "bad science"?
Well clearly it wasn't always an exercise in debunking high profile stars as they tested many unknowns for years before the rules changed.
What is wrong with testing the more successful psychics, dowsers ect? Wouldn't that be a reasonable palce to start? Imagine you had spent decades testing unknowns (80% are dowsers) and not one had ever passed the preliminary test. You can't understand the change in the rules?
You need to have "a television interview, a newspaper account, some press writeup, or a reference in a book, that provides details of the claimed abilities of the applicant. " A successful test by a local sceptics group would even qualify! Don't act like that is a lot to ask for.
Perhaps you are as fanatical as the randi-disciples that you criticise heliocentric.
While it is a controlled experiment (and that is important) it is a once off experiment so I don't think it is trying to masquerade as science. It is merely a demonstration - one that no one seems to be able to pull off. If someone were able to display their powers and win then the real science could start.
Please provide me with some information on someone being denied the test for no reason. As you think that most don't ever get to take the test that should be easy.
Last edited:
heliocentric
Registered Senior Member
Good science is about neutrality, you dont pin your beliefs to wall and make a spectacle of yourself while doing so.
What is the influence he's having? well id say he holds quite a considerable influence over the experimental designs, and the people who help them design them.
I dont think people realise how easy it is to actually sway an experiment just by having a person or people involved who have an absolutist view of where the experiment will lead.
Nothing to do with 'bad vibes' its more often not stuff that you wouldnt even pick up upon. Bias is one of the most ciritcal problems (id personaly say *the* most critical problem) in all of science.
As a debunking exercise - absolutely nothing. The entertainment industry is full of shills. The problem is someone like Randi will use a few of his debunkings here and there as a wider proof that everything even remotely 'paranormal' is complete guff.
Debunking cherry-picked tv-psychics is a world apart from parapsychology experimentation, you honestly cant see the difference?
Ive been accused of being pedantically skeptical, so some might definitely argue that.
As long as people realise the difference between this and parapsychology research then i have no problem with that. To me the Randi challenge is ultimately there for entertainment value.
Incredibly easy, all you have to do is look on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JREF
Worth reading the full article by the way, its pretty balanced to both sides of the argument and allows you to draw your own conclusions.
By the way i never said Randi never envokes a 'reason' to deny someone from taking the challenge, simply that he has that option to do so as he wishes.
Last edited:
Here you go again with that "famous" nonsense, Brent. I've already explained to you that it's open to ANYONE - you, me, your grandmother.
If it's just because you don't want to believe me, then go to Randi's website and actually read the rules for qualifying - please!!! (Yes, I'm still what you call a "hard" poster - meaning I try to deal in facts, not what someone decides to think about something.):bugeye:
The applicant can disagree to the design of the test though. If his influence is through design then this is very easily negated.
No one has passed his challenge in decades. It is a little more than “a few debunkings here and there”. Clearly he has seen a lot of people who think they have powers but don’t. Who cares what Randi thinks about the paranormal? His opinion should be even more motivation for someone to pass the test.
You don’t have to be on TV. You know this.
You have yet to show that any cherry picking actually occurs. The challenge is open to anyone; you only need to pass a test from a local group of skeptics. How hard is that?
It should be pointed out that cherry picking tv psychics seems to be part of parapsychology experimentation for some in the world of parapsychology, such as Dr Gary Schwartz. I have read many times of his successful testing of Alison Dubois and John Edward. Perhaps people only have objections when the psychics are failing. (Not necessarily directed at you heliocentric)
I see it as a demonstration. The million is a carrot to entice people with genuine powers to show them to the world.
Maybe it is there for entertainment value but you can’t just discard the significance of no one passing the test.
There is one person there who he rejected for reasons that seem legitimate. The jref didn’t want to be responsible for someone risking their life by starving themselves for days to win their challenge. However Randi has since agreed to make an exception and allowed him to take the test!
So show me someone being denied for an invalid reason or prove to me that Randi is cherry picking applicants.
Ok but if Randi refused to let someone with genuine powers take the test, just as if he refused to pay the winner, then it would be a win for parapsychology and his credibility would be gone.
heliocentric:
Many of Randi's tests just aren't subject to any experimenter bias, though. They are set up that way.
For example, in a test of a water dowser, 5 containers might be buried in the ground in a row, with one containing water. This is done randomly. In fact, it doesn't even matter how the location of the full container is chosen, as long as 1 out of 10 containers actually contains water. The dowser then attempts to locate the container with the water, knowing that there are 5 possible locations and 4 empty containers.
How is such a test judged? Simple. It is repeated a number of times, with the full container potentially being buried in a different place each time (or not). By chance, we'd expect that if this is done 20 times, then any guy picked off the street will guess correctly about 4 times.
No judgment is required on whether the dowsing was successful or not. Either the dowser picked the full container or he did not, in each trial. There is no room for "bias".
If the dowser managed a success rate of, say, 15 out of 20 trials, instead of the expected 4, then this would surely count as a "pass" on the preliminary test.
But that has never happened so far, and essentially this test has been tried on hundreds of dowsers.
Not really. All you need is some independent evidence that you have the powers you claim. That requirement eliminates the self-deluded and insane, who believe they have powers even when nobody else can see any evidence that they do.
Are you saying that no high-profile psychic is legitimate, then?
I would have thought that anybody with actual psychic powers would be able to make money out of it, and would probably get quite famous. Surely, the professional psychics ought to be the first people tested. After all, thousands of people believe they have powers.
You presumably have evidence that this has occurred. Do you?
Most have utterly failed to make any kind of case. One or two (if I recall correctly) have had minor judgments against Randi on technical legal grounds.
At this stage, you really need to present some evidence that Randi has deliberately prevented people from being tested because he is worried they might pass a test.
Many of Randi's tests just aren't subject to any experimenter bias, though. They are set up that way.
For example, in a test of a water dowser, 5 containers might be buried in the ground in a row, with one containing water. This is done randomly. In fact, it doesn't even matter how the location of the full container is chosen, as long as 1 out of 10 containers actually contains water. The dowser then attempts to locate the container with the water, knowing that there are 5 possible locations and 4 empty containers.
How is such a test judged? Simple. It is repeated a number of times, with the full container potentially being buried in a different place each time (or not). By chance, we'd expect that if this is done 20 times, then any guy picked off the street will guess correctly about 4 times.
No judgment is required on whether the dowsing was successful or not. Either the dowser picked the full container or he did not, in each trial. There is no room for "bias".
If the dowser managed a success rate of, say, 15 out of 20 trials, instead of the expected 4, then this would surely count as a "pass" on the preliminary test.
But that has never happened so far, and essentially this test has been tried on hundreds of dowsers.
Not really. All you need is some independent evidence that you have the powers you claim. That requirement eliminates the self-deluded and insane, who believe they have powers even when nobody else can see any evidence that they do.
Are you saying that no high-profile psychic is legitimate, then?
I would have thought that anybody with actual psychic powers would be able to make money out of it, and would probably get quite famous. Surely, the professional psychics ought to be the first people tested. After all, thousands of people believe they have powers.
You presumably have evidence that this has occurred. Do you?
Most have utterly failed to make any kind of case. One or two (if I recall correctly) have had minor judgments against Randi on technical legal grounds.
At this stage, you really need to present some evidence that Randi has deliberately prevented people from being tested because he is worried they might pass a test.
heliocentric
Registered Senior Member
no the challenge isnt open to anyone, not by a long shot. You need to have some form of public profile. Even then, you have to pass muster and actually be allowed to take the test. And even after that you have to agree to any ad hoc design changes that are thrown up.
All done by an organisation with absolutely no academic reputation atall.
I think people working in parapsychology who build entire public careers upon x phenomenon being true as a priori are pretty much as dangerous as Randi.
Scientific neutrality is the key here, not selective-skepticism.
It really seems like youre not that aware of Randi as a character otherwise i think youd better understand my concerns here.
The million is alot more divisive than simply being there to 'entice' people to take the challenge (most people will actually take these challenges for nothing as long as they get basic expenses paid).
No, the unclaimed million is there to 'symbolise' the bunk nature of anything remotely paranormal. Its a very dangerous game to start playing, and certainly not one that id like to see adopted by the scientific community.
Since you couldnt source information in a wiki article that i readily offered up to you im starting to think this conversation is a bad idea.
Before rushing to anyone's defense - check your facts first, otherwise youre defending something you havent even investigated.
As of January 2005, no offers to conduct a formal test have yet been extended by the JREF to an applicant.
and
Critics also frequently[Who said this?] refer to controversial case of Yellow Bamboo. A man, who personally voluntered to test Yellow Bamboo's claims that they can knock down attackers by shouting, was actually knocked to the ground during the test. [10] It wasn't formally accepted as a preliminary test by JREF because the test was conducted at night and video tape of the event was considered unacceptable due to poor visibility.[11] Several people experienced with stun-guns suggested, upon viewing the video, that it appeared a stun-gun had been used.[12]
Now it could be that alot of these applicants get turned down on legitimate reasons, however we basically only have the word of Randi and his friends to go on who are all screaming 'anything' anti-paranormal.
This isnt like a university conducting a controlled parapsychology experiments, universities have reputations and conform to tightly regulated standards.
Randi is a retired magician who amassed a few friends who are prepared to stand in on his behalf where ever possible.
What would you think if i had a high profile public reputation built on claims of telepathy or water-dowsing being a real and absolutely valid phenomena, and i staked alot of money on it being absolutely true and then decided to set up my own experiments with some friends to prove that it was true.
Would that scream *bias alert*? it should. So i really cant see why Randi should be any exception, unless you can give me a very good reason.
Read the wiki article again, or have alook on the JREF forums.
Btw there's no real way to sort out if Randi denied applicants on valid or invalid reasons, and im afraid knowing Randi im not prepared to give the benefit of the doubt.
Last edited:
It has been, until recently. I'm sure you've read your own wikipedia article, so you'll know the details.
JREF does have an academic reputation, as it happens. But even if it did not it wouldn't matter. The testing process is quite transparent. If it was flawed, anybody could point that out. Randi's reputation depends on it being fair.
Because nobody has passed the preliminary test.
Not at all.
Go here:
www.randi.org
All challenge applicants are listed, and all communications between the applicants and JREF are available as public documents.
You do not have to rely on the word of Randi. Read the applicants' own words, and the JREF's communications with them.
For a start, I'd ask to see details of your experiments, to check that they were above board. If they were, I'd say good luck to you.
Again, you need only read the JREF forum to see why applicants are accepted or rejected. It's all on the public record.
heliocentric
Registered Senior Member
Im happy (to a limited extent) that the experiment-design is transparent, although that doesnt really mean anything in the way you think it does.
Many subjects end up disagreeing with the ad hoc terms somewhere down the road and alot of the experiments never even get off the ground.
Of course you can read this one of two ways - either protocals are envoked on the fly which absolutely eliminate the possiblity of anything taking place (even if the phenomena is real).
Or the applicant really is a fraud (as randi believes all paranormal claims are) and he realises that there's no way of passing the test.
Youve also got the huge problem of the whole organisation being founded upon the idea that all paranormal claims are false.
And youve also got the extended problem of these people acting as gatekeepers to the challenge - both screeing people on the way in and on the way out.
*Take away the political agenda (i dont care how well controlled the experiments are designed personal feelings have a habit of effecting the outcome quite considerbly once you tally up the statistics)
*take away the money purse (which only serves to muddy the water).
*Get a university with a long running reputation of conducting controlled experiments - and id be happy.
No, Randi's reputation actually rests on noone getting their hands on the million.
So because these communcations are logged, that eliminates the possiblity of deceit or lying on anyone's part? im not sure how that logic pans out attal.
Assuming the worst, is it really impossible for someone at the JREF to simply envoke a 'get out clause'?
Infact isnt that one of Randi's famous quote - 'i always have an out!"
Im sorry i just find this whole setup incredibly motivated by personal agenda, and for all the transparency in the world i cant convince myself that this is good science.
You do know bias is still an on-going problem in science? It seems as though since the introduction of single-blind and double-blind protocals everyone believes its a dead issue. Which is actually quite a destructive idea.
Ive read them.
Again, i think you're envoking a fallacy that people never lie or that it isnt possible to skew your true intentions by envoking a 'reasonable excuse'.
Last edited:
heliocentric:
I read most of the cases where a test doesn't get off the ground as a problem with the applicant not being able or willing to agree to an actual scientific test. Many applicants have turned out to be incapable of actually articulating what they themselves claim they do, to the extent where a test protocol can even be suggested.
It is far from the case that all applicants are frauds. Many sincerely believe they have special powers, I am certain. But the ones who are not fraudulent also tend to be the ones who have no conception of what a scientific test is.
Actually, I think it was founded to skeptically (NOT cynically, by the way - there is a difference) inquire into claims.
No. If the million was won, then scientists would be flocking to examine the amazing phenomenon on display, and Randi would probably be hailed as the person who opened a new vista of scientific knowledge.
You seem very keen to discredit Randi and JREF. It is almost as if you see the organisation as an affront to your own beliefs.
Let me ask you straight out. Do you believe in any form of the "paranormal"? ESP? Ghosts? Astral travel? Speaking with the dead? Anything? And do you make money from promoting such believe?
Or are you just an "unbiased" commentator?
If you claim that has happened, you need to provide evidence.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, of course.
My opinion is that Randi does a good job of exposing "flim flam", as he calls it. Given that society is flooded with false claims from those out to separate suckers from their money, he is performing a valuable community service.
Most claims of bias do not involve blinded studies, as far as I am aware.
I read most of the cases where a test doesn't get off the ground as a problem with the applicant not being able or willing to agree to an actual scientific test. Many applicants have turned out to be incapable of actually articulating what they themselves claim they do, to the extent where a test protocol can even be suggested.
It is far from the case that all applicants are frauds. Many sincerely believe they have special powers, I am certain. But the ones who are not fraudulent also tend to be the ones who have no conception of what a scientific test is.
Actually, I think it was founded to skeptically (NOT cynically, by the way - there is a difference) inquire into claims.
No. If the million was won, then scientists would be flocking to examine the amazing phenomenon on display, and Randi would probably be hailed as the person who opened a new vista of scientific knowledge.
You seem very keen to discredit Randi and JREF. It is almost as if you see the organisation as an affront to your own beliefs.
Let me ask you straight out. Do you believe in any form of the "paranormal"? ESP? Ghosts? Astral travel? Speaking with the dead? Anything? And do you make money from promoting such believe?
Or are you just an "unbiased" commentator?
If you claim that has happened, you need to provide evidence.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, of course.
My opinion is that Randi does a good job of exposing "flim flam", as he calls it. Given that society is flooded with false claims from those out to separate suckers from their money, he is performing a valuable community service.
Most claims of bias do not involve blinded studies, as far as I am aware.
You are throwing up all these imaginary obstacles. All you need to do is pass a test by a local group of sceptics! An article in the local paper would do! Then you can take the test. You are welcome to keep pretending that it's a lot to ask for.....
Show me an example where the design of the test was changed ad hoc.
So you claim but you are unable to give a valid reason why.
Your link was supposed to demonstrate people being refused the test. Remember this "Please provide me with some information on someone being denied the test for no reason."? Yellow Bamboo were a group who took the test and provided a dark, shaky video of the event. I remember when it happened. They did take the test but the video wasn't accepted because they didn't meet the requirements which were made very clear before the demonstration. So do not accuse me of not reading your article.
I'm still waiting for you to show me one example of someone being unfairly refused the test or the prize. If your only objection is that maybe he could refuse then that is a poor excuse.
How many tests have been done by people with at least some interest in the outcome? Plenty. If the appropriate controls are there then it doesn't matter. You have yet to demonstrate anything wrong with jref test controls.
Who could ever do parapsychology research? According to you it must be biased if believers or sceptics do it.
Actually I suggest you read the jref rules. There is plenty of arrogance in your post heliocentric but you are not coming up with any answers.
Last edited: