Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Noble  The conditions are agreed to by the claimant. |
The claimant doesn't necessarily know what's a reasonable scientific benchmark. Usually they think they think they're much better than they really are (if they have any ability at all, that is).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Noble Are you saying that they are agreeing to unfair conditions and methods? |
The benchmark is way too high for the results to be scientifically useful. In ordinary research it's usually 20:1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Noble Do you think the JREF were unfair to [Rosemary Hunter]? |
I'm skeptical of her ability, but the fact a lot of the applicants probably are a bit self-deluded doesn't make the challenge valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Noble Do you have any examples of people that applied for the MDC, agreed to a protocol and now claim that they passed the test? |
No. What's the point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Noble Seriously, just try to answer my question. Which peer-reviewed journal is going to accept a publication detailing a woman who thinks she can make people urinate but fails miserably during a test? You really think that somebody is going to write it up and submit it to Nature? |
No, I don't think Nature would be an appropriate journal. I do think a parapsychology journal perhaps could accept it though. They sometimes have
such papers detailing tests of persons claiming extraordinary abilities. But a parapsychology journal perhaps doesn't count in your view? If that's the case, just let me remind you that skeptics regularly contribute to such journals. They're not that biased.