43. From the desk of James Randi (Podcast)

[Larry Boy]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

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

~~ Paul

Well they claim to be "[s]upporting and conducting research into paranormal claims through well-designed experiments utilizing 'the scientific method'." (my italics)

Anyway, you agree it's not scientific then?

(source: About the Foundation - James Randi Educational Foundation)

[Venom]

Anyway, you agree that Alex is a chicken then?

More seriously, James Randi has published in the past more than a lot in books, in publications like "Skeptic Magazine" (US) and so on. So of course the peer-review process is playing is part here. The fact that he hasn't publish a precise description of every single experments he did doesn't change that fact.

And you can read a lot about the testing in this area of the JREF Forum:

Million Dollar Challenge - JREF Forum

Or even watch the JREF "urinating" testing there:

http://www.youtube.com/v/ytDq-4NIXCA&hl

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Venom

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?

Well it isn't just a challenge, because if someone fails it, they give Randi carte blanch to slag them off in public! The only sensible way to settle issues like this is by the scientific method.

From time to time kids in the UK play a deadly game called 'chicken' in which a group of kids compete to see who can cross the road latest in front of a lorry!

David

[jacob]

I don't see any reason why Alex should prefer MDC over a proper scientific method. After all, that's the way all science should work.

[Larry Boy]

Originally Posted by Venom

More seriously, James Randi has published in the past more than a lot in books, in publications like "Skeptic Magazine" (US) and so on. So of course the peer-review process is playing is part here. The fact that he hasn't publish a precise description of every single experments he did doesn't change that fact.

And you can read a lot about the testing in this area of the JREF Forum:

Million Dollar Challenge - JREF Forum

Or even watch the JREF "urinating" testing there:

http://www.youtube.com/v/ytDq-4NIXCA&hl

What's anything of this got to do with peer-review? Skeptic Magazine is not a scientific journal, it's a popular magazine, and what on Earth has the JREF forum (!) got to do with it? It's an internet forum! Putting up information on teve, in blogs, in magazines and books and on forums, is not how scientists work when they publish experimental results. If a parapsychologist did that, skeptics would say they were 'selecting the data'. But then a lot of skeptics claim they do anyway. Anyway, why do you treat skeptical research differently than parapsychological research?

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Larry Boy

What's anything of this got to do with peer-review?

What's anything of this to do with Alex not beeing able to fill in a simple form?

You're all very good at changing to topic of discussion in the hope we forget why we're all here: because Alex was too dum (or to clever, if he's strategy was to do everything he could in order NOT to take the challege) and didn't fill in the form.

It would be nice if you didn't try to change the topic of discussion.

We all know what's the MDC is: a testing for a prize of paranormal claimants. The testing follows the scientific methods.

That's it. No more, no less.

After that you can complain all you want about Randi not doing in the way you want (that's obvious that believers won't find the way Randi does things very attractive, no big news here ), frankly I just don't care.

The kind of testing is done in the past is really close of the kind of testing skeptics have been doing for decades in ordre to test psychics claimants and so on. Randi is legitimate for me, even if he don't (of course!) publish his results in a pro-Psi parapsychological publications.

So let's go back to Alex's complete failure, please.

[Larry Boy]

Originally Posted by Venom

What's anything of this to do with Alex not beeing able to fill in a simple form?

You're all very good at changing to topic of discussion in the hope we forget why we're all here: because Alex was too dum (or to clever, if he's strategy was to do everything he could in order NOT to take the challege) and didn't fill in the form.

It would be nice if you didn't try to change the topic of discussion.

I'm not. It's up to him whether he wants to apply or not. I'm advising him not to. How is that "changing the topic"? We're discussing whether to apply or not, aren't we? It's not like it's self-evident that you should want to apply, as it is, arguably, a very unscientific challenge.

If you want Alex to apply, as it seems you do, you better explain why the challenge is valid, in spite of the fact that it doesn't conform to standard scientific practice, even when it claims to use the scientific method, and in spite of its use of ridiculously strict criteria of success (again, nowhere near standard scientific practice), etc. So far you have only made references to a popular magazine, Randi's blog, the JREF forum, etc. How are these comparable to peer-reviewed scientific journals? It doesn't help to say "even if he don't (of course!) publish his results in a pro-Psi parapsychological publication", that's just dodging the question. "He" (that is, the researchers who set up the actual tests) can publish the results anywhere, as long as it is a scientific journal relevant to the issue in question (a psychology journal would be fine). (By the way, parapsychologists have published reports in mainstream journals. Several meta-analyses have been published in mainstream journals of physics and psychology, for instance.)

[David Bailey]

Venom,

Would you trust your research to be analysed by an organisation that can come out with the statement:

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

David

[Larry Boy]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Venom,

Would you trust your research to be analysed by an organisation that can come out with the statement:

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

David

Well, I suspect Kramer doesn't do the analyses, so perhaps that isn't fair. However, things like this do say something about the seriousness of JREF. The people involved in officially representing the organization should be able to make more professional - and informed! - statements than that.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Kramer is no longer involved with the challenge.

~~ Paul