Ask James Randi to take Victor Zammit's million-dollar challenge.

[Arouet]

There's a big difference between demonstrating one single claim in am objective manner and debunking a whole book of claims in a subkective manner.

If a mutually agreed upon protocol is not arrived at there is no test.

He's said its a publicity stunt. That doesn't mean its a fraud - just that the main purpose is promoting the JREF. He's said its not science but science_like. I don't have a particular link but he's said it in various skeptical podcast interviews over the years. Maybe it'd turn up on google too

[Craig Weiler]

I don't accept that Randi has said that the MDC is a publicity stunt. Please provide some sort of proof.

[Psibeliever]

Originally Posted by Arouet

There's a big difference between demonstrating one single claim in am objective manner and debunking a whole book of claims in a subkective manner.

If a mutually agreed upon protocol is not arrived at there is no test.

Not quite - there was the recent incident with the homeopathist in which the protocol was agreed upon, and Randi moved the goalpost and wanted to start all over again.

Furthermore, he uses the lack of agreement as proof that the claim does not exist, which is not right. So Zammit can turn the tables on him.

Last, but certainly not least, I'm not sure what you mean by objective and subjective manner, but, as a lawyer, I do know of objective and subjective tests, and Randi has been totally subjective - that is in fact one of the criticisms of his MDC.

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by Craig Weiler

I don't accept that Randi has said that the MDC is a publicity stunt. Please provide some sort of proof.

Are you calling me a liar or that I'm deluded?

Honestly, to dig it out would require me to go back an search through a year of podcasts. If it helps, I remember exactly where I was when I heard one of them (either or randi or DJ saying it) it was at the hospital, at the coffee time donuts. Course if I remembered WHEN it was that might make it easier for me to figure it out.

How important is it to you? If it matters enough, I might try and find it. Would it impact your thoughts in any significant way, or are you just vaguely curious?

Originally Posted by Psibeliever

Not quite - there was the recent incident with the homeopathist in which the protocol was agreed upon, and Randi moved the goalpost and wanted to start all over again.

If I'm thinking of the same incident, I agree that Randi didn't behave well there, but it wasn't a goalpost move in terms of the protocols. They had had a test set up - then Randi had a heart attack and had to cancel, and then became unresponsive for awhile. He published at one point that the homeopathist had backed out then apologised and published a retraction, admitting that he had misunderstood. He had at first agreed to test them without going through the proper application process but then switched gears and demanded that they submit a normal application. That's the moving of the goalposts that I think you're referring to and I agree that it was wrong of him to do that. Apparently, through all of this the window that the homeopathist had to do the study closed since there was a change in hospital administration or something and the new regime wasn't open to the study, IIRC (or something along those lines).

Without a question mishandled. Randi should have assigned it to someone else while ill and the test should have continued. Even if he regretted making an exception in waving the application process, once he did he should have honoured it.

I agree that one of the big problems with the MDC has been in the negotiation of the protocols - however, none of that is addressed by Zammitt's version. That's part of my point - if Zammitt really wanted to satirize the MDC he should have focussed on that part - the initial negotiation. Zamitt loses the argument since his version doesn't satirize the right part.

Furthermore, he uses the lack of agreement as proof that the claim does not exist, which is not right. So Zammit can turn the tables on him.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'd agree that if he said that a person not agreeing to a protocol is evidence that psi doesn't exist that this would be a poor argument. I don't recall hearing him say that but I've only really heard him speak in podcasts so maybe he's said that elsewhere. If he did, I'd disagree.

Now: what he might have said that I'd agree with more is that some applicants have such shoddy and vague protocols because they believed they have abilities basically based on confirmation bias and when they actually construct a protocol the effect disappears and they constantly move the goalpost. I have experience with this myself over on Scepcop where I got involved with a guy who made certain claims so we developed a simple preliminary protocol (not a rigourous one) and every time it failed (immediately by the way) he came up with a special pleading for why it didn't work and adjusted his hypothesis about his abilities on the fly. It was quite an interesting case study in confirmation bias actually. He eventually just disappeared after continuing to be belligerent.

Last, but certainly not least, I'm not sure what you mean by objective and subjective manner, but, as a lawyer, I do know of objective and subjective tests, and Randi has been totally subjective - that is in fact one of the criticisms of his MDC.

Do you have an example? From what I understand, they will only agree to a protocol where the results of success or failure will always be clear and unambiguous. Zammit's version, however, depends on convincing three people that their deeply held beliefs are wrong. In the MDC, personal opinion or belief will not come into determining whether someone passed. Success will never be a matter of mere opinion. They will either accomplish the set out goals or not.

[Psibeliever]

Where did Randi post a retraction? I'd like to see it. And, if Randi acted wrongfully in moving the goalpost, why haven't the skeptical community pressured him to go ahead with the test?

This is a good time to turn the tables on him and put a clock counting the number of days in which he was supposed to go through with the test but haven't.

As for the issue of subjective v objective, look at Zammit's criticism. In fact, several other people have said the same thing about Randi's MDC.

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by Psibeliever

Where did Randi post a retraction? I'd like to see it.

You guys want me to really work tonight! Do you remember the name of the homeopath? Pretty sure it shows up easily in a search. that's how I found it awhile back.

Ok, think I found it (at least one version of it
SWIFT March 14, 2008

ANOTHER WITHDRAWAL*

Last week I mentioned at randi.org/joom/content/view/172/27/#i10 that a major test of homeopathy in Greece has met the expected fate, being abandoned by the homeopathy community.

Then below:

*CORRECTION: We apologize for the ambiguous title and first sentence. The parties are still at work in tests preparations in Greece and negotiations are still going on to finalize the arrangements. By the end of the summer the homeopaths had finally signed an agreement with a Greek hospital to host the test. Transferring the test to Hungary was only an alternative option and its failure – the dismissal from the Hungarian homeopaths – had not halted the preparations.

then later they changed their minds and required them to submit an application (linked below)


[quote]
And, if Randi acted wrongfully in moving the goalpost, why haven't the skeptical community pressured him to go ahead with the test? [quote]


Here's an invitation by Randi for them to reapply (again, I disagree with this tactic, but he did invite them: George Vithoulkas Homeopathy Challenge - Starting Anew)

As for the issue of subjective v objective, look at Zammit's criticism. In fact, several other people have said the same thing about Randi's MDC.

Maybe you can tell me what you think is subjective about figuring out whether someone has passed the MDC. As I understand it, the only acceptable protocols will be where the results are clear and not subject to interpretation. I get that there are issues about how the protocols are negotiated, but once agreed upon, I think pass or fail will always be very clear.

[Psibeliever]

Of course Randi wants to start anew - he moves the goalpost, the homeopathist tries again, and, if he withdraws, guess what, Randi gets to gloat. IOW, if they agree, do it, don't move the goalpost and ask to redo several years' work.

As for subjective v objective, as I said, look up what my fellow learned friend, Victor Zammit, has said.

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by Psibeliever

Of course Randi wants to start anew - he moves the goalpost, the homeopathist tries again, and, if he withdraws, guess what, Randi gets to gloat. IOW, if they agree, do it, don't move the goalpost and ask to redo several years' work.

I agree that they should have gone ahead with it as planned. As I understand it, it is now moot since the hospital where they were going to do the study is no longer allowing it.

As for subjective v objective, as I said, look up what my fellow learned friend, Victor Zammit, has said.

I've dissected his whole thing before, and I think you were involved in that thread. Why don't you just point out the part you're talking about so I don't have to go through the whole thing again.

[Psibeliever]

Here goes.

1. Randi requires a preliminary test, and, to date, no one has passed it. As Zammit says, there is substantial evidence to point to the existence of psi - even Ray Hyman and Carl Sagan have conceded that - and yet no one has been able to pass the preliminary test. So, as Zammit says, Randi's requirement is irreconciliable with the evidence to date.

2. Randi says the evidence must be self-evident, without the need for testing. Again, Zammit says that the rules of evidence are highly technical and require years of training. Furthermore, the various tests for psi have had to go through rigorous testing, and Hyman was part of the Stargate program run by the CIA.

3. Randi has an exclusionary clause, which prevents people from suing. So the Greek homeopathist could be precluded from suing Randi for detrimental reliance - that's a concept in law. Furthermore, Randi's clause seems to preclude binding arbitration, which would require a court or tribunal to impose objective standards for the test.

4. Furthermore, he has been saying that the protocol has to be agreed on, which means that he can demand anything he wants, and, if there's no agreement, there's no test. And he can then taunt the other side for not taking the test. IOW, it's agree to my terms or I will make fun of you - he's been doing that with Sylvia Brown. This point, above others, means his MDC is completely subjective.

I've pointed it out, and some skeptics have suggested I sue Randi. That's not possible, because, first of all, I have no standing (another legal concept), and, second, his conditions require an exclusionary clause.

If you still don't understand what I say, you should ask your lawyer to explain it to you. Actually, ask Randi if he will agree to a court imposing binding terms on his test.

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by Psibeliever

Here goes.

1. Randi requires a preliminary test, and, to date, no one has passed it. As Zammit says, there is substantial evidence to point to the existence of psi - even Ray Hyman and Carl Sagan have conceded that - and yet no one has been able to pass the preliminary test. So, as Zammit says, Randi's requirement is irreconciliable with the evidence to date.

Huh? The MDC is about testing specific claims made by specific people based on mutually agreed upon protocols. What does that have to do with the interpretation of any other evidence in favour or against the psi hypothesis?

2. Randi says the evidence must be self-evident, without the need for testing. Again, Zammit says that the rules of evidence are highly technical and require years of training. Furthermore, the various tests for psi have had to go through rigorous testing, and Hyman was part of the Stargate program run by the CIA.

I'm not sure what quote from Randi you're referring to as the MDC by its very nature a test. I think you're referring to what I mentioned several times above, which is that the protocols must set out a test that is not subject to interpretation. So you seem to be agreeing with me.

Remember, passing the MDC does not mean that psi exists - it means that the applicant successfully passed the agreed upon protocols. The MDC is not a review of parapsychology, so I don't know why Stargate or any other parapsychological experiment is relevant.

3. Randi has an exclusionary clause, which prevents people from suing. So the Greek homeopathist could be precluded from suing Randi for detrimental reliance - that's a concept in law. Furthermore, Randi's clause seems to preclude binding arbitration, which would require a court or tribunal to impose objective standards for the test.

Well, first I suspect it would be hard to enforce that clause if damage was done, but IIRC it wasn't about suing over him welching on the million - if he didn't pay up I believe the person could sue even on the terms of the agreement. But regardless, what's the point, how does this relate to the test being objective or subjective?

. Furthermore, he has been saying that the protocol has to be agreed on, which means that he can demand anything he wants, and, if there's no agreement, there's no test.

Right

And he can then taunt the other side for not taking the test. IOW, it's agree to my terms or I will make fun of you - he's been doing that with Sylvia Brown. This point, above others, means his MDC is completely subjective.

No: that's not what we've been discussing. I've agreed there can be issues in coming up with a protocol, but what we've been discussing is how do you determine whether someone has passed once a protocol is agreed upon.

I've pointed it out, and some skeptics have suggested I sue Randi. That's not possible, because, first of all, I have no standing (another legal concept), and, second, his conditions require an exclusionary clause.

You're going a bit off topic here: what would you sue Randi for? Are you a former applicant? If so, maybe start a thread on your experience, I'd like to hear about it!

If you still don't understand what I say, you should ask your lawyer to explain it to you. Actually, ask Randi if he will agree to a court imposing binding terms on his test.

I'm a lawyer myself (though albeit not a contracts lawyer, so I don't claim to have expertise in that matter). But why are you bringing in the legal stuff here anyway? That's not what we've been discussing. If you think there's a point to reviewing his exclusionary clause I guess we can do that, but before we bother I'd want to know what turns on it. I don't think any unsuccessful applicants have suggested that they passed the preliminary test but Randi refused to acknowledge it, so it seems to be a purely hypothetical problem at this point.