43. From the desk of James Randi (Podcast)

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Larry Boy

(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).

I'm happy to tell you that, in this conference (at TAM5), Randi announced the future publication of a book about the experiments in the MDC (can't wait to read it, it's gonna be a good read):

http://www.youtube.com/v/wRlcsA3imGU&hl=en

Anyway, since most people on this forum don't really know a lot about the MDC, you should all watch this (especially Alex, since Randi is explaining that the main problem with the challenge is that the proponent can seem to be able to fill in even a simple paperwork ).

[Larry Boy]

Publishing a book about the experiments is hardly the same thing as submitting them to peer-review.

Anyway, you didn't reply to my actual question. It was: Why do you insist on defending a challenge that claims to be scientific but doesn't conform to the standards of mainstream science?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Chris

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. Instead they waste everybodies time in endless email exchanges lasting years.

Having had a little to do with some challenges in the past, I can echo Chris's statement. Some applicants are just nutjobs, but others seem intent on hijacking the process so that afterward they can say they tried to apply but "Randi just wouldn't accept my application."

~~ Paul

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

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.

Of course, one doesn't actually need Randi to point that out .... it is common place logic ...you are taking my comment out of context.

Are debunkers selective or just proponents?

If one is going to accuse a proponent of selecting successes, do debunkers select failures?
How would it show up, as people doing worse than chance?

Posted by KRAMER (Randi's $1million challenge assistant) 11th March 2005, 09:13 AM

'....Sorry but I cannot answer many of these questions, such as "Who performed best at testing". I've only been here a year, and answering a question such as this would take weeks of research deep into the files.

However, my understanding is that most applicants fail rather gloriously, performing far below CHANCE. According to everything I have been told, no one has performed well, or demonstrated anything that even came close to warranting further inquiry.

Can we get a Challenge historical wrapup/tally? [Archive] - JREF Forum

Curiously Kramer didn't correct his comment in that topic (if just careless) when others point out it should be close to chance.

How far are skeptics willing to go, to debunk what they are so certain is junk and 'select' what they think should be the 'right' result for the easiest debunk?

The 'skeptics dictionary' is selectively reporting the history of psi research IMHO to make it sound worse. If biased believers remember hits better, do biased debunkers remember misses better?

If skeptics are so wound up that someone making a paranormal claim is scam artiste, is it OK to make the claimant look extra foolish and debunking even easier? Houdini's assistant, after his death claimed Houdini asked him to plant object to make medium look guilty for easier debunking

Some skeptics seem too keen for the experiment to fail .... during CSICOP's test of Natasha Demkina, this quote from Andrew Skolnick (CSMMH) revealed his attitude during investigations. '.. I had a big fight with them [Hyman, Wiseman] at breakfast before the test. During the test, I just had to bite my tongue and "pray" that we weren't going to pay dearly for the numerous compromises that were permitted. We came awfully close to paying for those lapses'

Even Randi, I think, is cutting corners when debunking, he claimed JREF had done dog experiments, until Sheldrake contacted him for details. They hadn't .... Randi said he had done some casual experiments years earlier before JREF ... forgive me if I am skeptical of this claim without some evidence

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Some skeptics seem too keen for the experiment to fail .... during CSICOP's test of Natasha Demkina, this quote from Andrew Skolnick (CSMMH) revealed his attitude during investigations. '.. I had a big fight with them [Hyman, Wiseman] at breakfast before the test. During the test, I just had to bite my tongue and "pray" that we weren't going to pay dearly for the numerous compromises that were permitted. We came awfully close to paying for those lapses'

And yet people say that the experimental protocol was much too harsh on Natasha. Was it harsh or was it loose?

~~ Paul

[David Bailey]

If Randi uses assistants that make statements like

"However, my understanding is that most applicants fail rather gloriously, performing far below CHANCE."

I think we may be getting to heart of Randi's organisation's competency

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

I think we may be getting to heart of Randi's organisation's competency.

He may have been referring to dowsers.

~~ Paul

[Larry Boy]

Skeptics, you seem to be avoiding my question: Why do you defend a challenge that claims to be scientific but doesn't conform to scientific standards? (Such as publishing in peer-reviewed journals, using reasonable critera of success, etc.) You're pretty harsh when it comes to the quality of experiments in parapsychology, yet you seem to accept almost anything as long as it's opposed to parapsychological claims. Why is this? Anybody with a supposedly "skeptical" view of things should be able to see that the JREF challenge is neither fair nor very scientific.

Am I wrong? If so, please tell me why.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Larry

Skeptics, you seem to be avoiding my question: Why do you defend a challenge that claims to be scientific but doesn't conform to scientific standards? (Such as publishing in peer-reviewed journals, using reasonable critera of success, etc.)

I see nothing in the prize application that states that it is a scientific investigation.

~~ Paul

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

I see nothing in the prize application that states that it is a scientific investigation.

~~ Paul

Completely agree. It's a challenge. It's a prize. That's it.

Believers, you seem to be avoiding the question: why is Alex such a chicken?

If he had balls, he would have fill in the paperwork. (well, he can still do it, but I really doubt that he would do that, because he's not that confident in the "dogs that knows" phenomenom. He's confident enough for his own sloppy criteria, but not for going for the MDC).