James Randi Challenges Skeptiko’s Telepathic Dog

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Psibeliever

So, in the end, the challenge is meaningless - even to skeptics.

I'll agree to disagree with you about this.

Btw, do you have a link where Ray Hyman states than the MDC makes no sense from a scientific point of view? I want to read that in his own words...

[Psibeliever]

Originally Posted by Venom

I'll agree to disagree with you about this.

Btw, do you have a link where Ray Hyman states than the MDC makes no sense from a scientific point of view? I want to read that in his own words...

From the so-called Skeptical Inquirer:

Another thing that bothers me is the idea of a financial challenge to psychics. Scientists don�t settle issues with a single test, so even if someone does win a big cash prize in a demonstration, this isn�t going to convince anyone. Proof in science happens through replication, not through single experiments. Randi understands this, and he is careful to say this, but it gets lost in the PR effort. But many in the scientific community worship Randi because they wish they could be him. The wish they didn�t have the constraints of academia. He�s out there in the trenches, on the front line, and they envy him for that.

Read the entire interview here.

[Venom]

Very interesting. Thanks for the link.

[Psibeliever]

So, as I said, the Randi Challenge is meaningless, even to the skeptics - or, should I say, pseudo skeptics.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Psibeliever

So, as I said, the Randi Challenge is meaningless, even to the skeptics - or, should I say, pseudo skeptics.

No. The Randi MDC does exactly what it says it does. It tests whether a specific person can do what they specifically claim to be able to do.

If specific people make specific claims there is no valid reason why they should not demonstrate them under controlled conditions.

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

If specific people make specific claims there is no valid reason why they should not demonstrate them under controlled conditions.

Many already have. It's called science.

There are reasons why they shouldn't take this silly challenge though. Mainly because there is a chance the experiment may fail, and that's true for experiments that attempt to demonstrate established effects. If the experiment fails there will be consequences for the claimant's career and for the image of their respective field (if they are professional scientitst of course).

Other area's of science don't work like that. If an experiment fails then there's a little fuss within a small group of specialists and then everyone gets on with the science again.

But with the million dollar challenge, the experiment is broadcast across a host of media outlets. There are consequences for the claimant if the experiment fails. An example would be Jacques Benveniste. After the Horizon team came in and the experiment failed, he lost his laboratory and his job if I remember correctly. I guess it had something to do with the failed challenge attempt.

[Ersby]

Originally Posted by davidsmith73

There are consequences for the claimant if the experiment fails. An example would be Jacques Benveniste. After the Horizon team came in and the experiment failed, he lost his laboratory and his job if I remember correctly. I guess it had something to do with the failed challenge attempt.

Are you sure about this? I can't find anything about this online.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

No. The Randi MDC does exactly what it says it does. It tests whether a specific person can do what they specifically claim to be able to do.

If specific people make specific claims there is no valid reason why they should not demonstrate them under controlled conditions.

So why don't we use a Randi-style challenge for all disputed issues in science?

Why exactly does Ψ require a special procedure not normally used by the rest of science?

Hyman's quote implies that passing the Randi test is not a SUFFICIENT condition to accept Ψ, and I would argue that it is also not a NECESSARY condition. There are many medical experiments that report results that can't be taken as certain because of inadequate numbers of participants, or other factors. Each of these experiments would presumably fail a Randi-style test, but if several such experiments point in the same direction, people usually accept the result.

How much of science would pass a Randi test?

David

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by Ersby

Are you sure about this? I can't find anything about this online.

No I'm not sure. I'm recalling a Horizon documentary years ago called "Heretic" where Benveniste described what happened after the Randi et al experiment failed.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Why exactly does Ψ require a special procedure not normally used by the rest of science?

We have been there before. Do we need to say everything all over again?

Parapsychology is not a "normal field of science" because (for exemple):

- Problems of replications;
- Null results don't put any weight on the side of the Null hypothesis in proponents minds;
- post hoc rationnalisation of failure of replications (decline effects, experimenter effect, and so on);
- Low prior plausibility;
- No convincing theory of how the Psi can possibly work;
- and so on, ad nauseam.

When parapsychologists will behave like "normal scientists", the "normal procedures" will be apply for judging there field. Until then, we need the MDC.

By now you should know that by heart David, or are you just putting your hands on your ears when a skeptic is talking to you?