43. From the desk of James Randi (Podcast)

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

The support of somebody like Clive Wynne is irrelevant. The experiment should be designed so that the results are self evident. If the videos that Alex put up on youtube are representative of the effect then there should be no problem.

Chris, even if the results were as self-evident as on video (yes it looks self-evident to me) .....I don't think Randi will accept these as self evident.

The only tool in Randi's toolbox is a hammer and everything resembles a fraudulent nail. He would rather assume something utterly far fetched like the owner training the dog to look at a rooftop two miles into the distance and the owner was secretly followed by someone who then signals to someone on roof top who inturn signals to dog ....as long as their is a theoretical fraudulent method Randi isn't going to accept anything as 'self evident' .......he will probably demand the dog is blind folded, ears and nostrils blocked .... or 'dogs that know when their owners are coming no where near home towards the soundproof, magnetically shielded lab

But hey I hope I am wrong... and Randi is less paranoid than I suspect

[Open Mind]

I say let Alex do his own thing ......wherever that leads...

If Alex had turned down Randi's challenge .... then Randi would use it to pre-empt any positive results Alex obtained in future. As shown in other topic Randi has counted refused or failed applications as tests ..... when someone points out few applications led to trials, he just presents these like evidence the claims were false by being turned down.

So Alex's response was correct in my opinion .....the $1million prize is the debunker's excuse to raise the bar much higher than normal statistical significance required in science. It is also an excuse to use anti-paranormal cronies as independent judges. By inviting JREF's to support the trial outcome using truly independent judges without the prize money, they have to play fair or look biased......the tables have been turned

I can tell some above feel uncomfortable with Alex slightly mocking Randi in the last podcast .... but do bear in mind just how often Randi mocks those in his commentary for not taking up the challenge (on his terms) .... again the tables are turned, now with Alex giving commentary on Randi not accepting his terms.

And remember Randi contacted Alex..... was it just sword rattling?

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

I say let Alex do his own thing ......wherever that leads...

If Alex had turned down Randi's challenge ....

Unless Alex actually fills out the form and applies for the challenge then he has turned it down.

No amount of bullshit can obscure this.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Deadpool

There seems to be confusion here and I'm sure Randi would be confused aswell. The first email, which seems odd for an opening email, tells Alex to apply for the challenge. Alex says "Let's do it." Seems like he's agreeing to apply to the challenge to me. It is never clearly stated that Alex does not want to do the challenge. And he seems to assume that Randi knows what he is talking about.

It is still not clear what Alex is going on about and what he is proposing so it's no wonder that Randi has no idea.

Even if Alex isn't going to take the challneg then he could at least detail exactly what claims he is making, how he is going to demonstrate them and how he is going to judge their success.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Chris, even if the results were as self-evident as on video (yes it looks self-evident to me) .....I don't think Randi will accept these as self evident.

Until Alex tells us exactly how many other trials were done and what the success was then indeed most intelligent people would not regard them as self-evident. As Randi points out they are selected data.

But if the results really are as clear as Alex makes out then he should have no problems coming up with a protocol for the challenge. If Alex doesn't want the million dollars then give it to a charity.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

Chronicles the email exchange between Skeptiko host, Alex Tsakiris and noted Skeptic, James Randi regarding DogsThatKnow experiment.

Read the entire email exchange

Click here to read more ...

As far as the research that will establish whether the DogsThatKnow phenomena is real, or just wishful thinking on the part of dog owners and psi proponents, we?ll leave the question to independent researchers qualified to answer such questions. Again, this is in line with your own statements about this matter:


?So, it wouldn?t be me doing the test. It would be someone like Chris French or Wiseman, or some other scientist with the proper credentials. Plenty of places could do this sort of thing, and we always, always have it out of house. We don?t do the tests ourselves. We always turn it over to a lab or to an association, organization, college, whatever, who will do the experimentation, the whole run on the thing, and announce the results at the end of it.? (http://www.skeptiko.com/blog/?p=7)

Perhaps Alex should reread the transcript of the interview he did with Randi.

Randi is clearly saying that that the testing for the MDC should be conducted by scientists with proper credentials. Why Alex would think that this contradicts other criteria for the challenge is not clear.

The transcript continues.

"That?s the way we have staged the million dollar challenge, and it will always be that way. We will not interfere with it, ourselves, personally, and if they don?t want me to be there, I won?t be there.


When they did the homeopathy test for the BBC some years ago, they said, ?We?ll keep you informed.? I said, ?No, don?t keep me informed because the homeopath said that I put out negative vibrations that will interfere with the success of the test. So, just don?t tell me when the test is taking place. Only call me after the test has taken place.? They did exactly that, and the homeopath failed, miserably, dramatically."

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

If you actually look at the documentation on the JREF site you would see that the vast majority of challengers never manage to articulate what they can do and how they are going to demonstrate it.

This could either mean that:

a) They have no idea what sort of anomalous phenomenon they can demonstrate.

or

b) They don't know to what statistical significance they can demonstrate it on demand.

I assume you mean "b".

But why should they need to know since Randi and co dictate what constitutes a success or failure?

Specifically state how you are going to judge the success or failure of the trial.

It can't be the testee who judges this, otherwise one could specify that any performance whatsoever would constitute a success, even if there didn't appear to have been any paranormal phenomenon demonstrated whatsoever.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

Unless Alex actually fills out the form and applies for the challenge then he has turned it down.

No amount of bullshit can obscure this.

I completely agree with that.

For me all that dodging was just a "play" he played in order to look "good" in front of his fellow Psi-believers, while at the same time beeing sure he will not have to really take the challenge.

If I didn't want to take the challenge (but still look "cool" to some fans), I would have act exactly has he did.

[David Bailey]

Venom and Chris,

If you are doing research, do you feel the need to rush of to a magician-showman to validate what you do? It sounds to me as though this challenge is little more than a pointless distraction.

Why the hell should Randi have the right to set up his test as he sees fit, and then slag off people who decline his 'challenge'. Perhaps it is time that someone took him to court for defamation of character.

Remember that (contrary to some of the things that people have written) Alex is no stranger to Randi - they did a podcast together! Read those e-mail exchanges in that context.

David

[Larry Boy]

I have said this before, but I can't see how the challenge can claim to be a "scientific" one when the results are never made open to scrutiny to scientific peers in a journal (tell me if I'm wrong about this, but I've personally never heard of any of the results from a JREF test being published). Also, it's in and of itself not very scientific to set up research as a "challenge", as that inevitably will lead to the criteria for success being ridicously strict, nowhere near the standard level (as they can't risk the money being lost due to someone's luck). Randi wants one single test (or a couple of them) to be conclusive, and this is a problem. The effect may simply not be that strong. As you know, a lot of experiments in psychology and medicine require thousands and thousands of trials to show clear results. Why should parapsychology be any different?

The answer is that it should not. You know, science is done across laboratories, in different settings, by different researchers, over years, and over a lot of trials. It is not done the way Randi's test is set up. Even Ray Hyman acknowledges this.

So, my question to the skeptics on this forum is: Why do you insist on defending a challenge that is nowhere near scientific? You are the ones who're supposed to be critical of bad science. You have to be consistent. You can't defend something just because it's opposed to claims of the paranormal.