43. From the desk of James Randi (Podcast)

[kimosabu]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

4. I'M WILLING TO FORGO RANDI"S MILLION DOLLAR PRIZE.

Why would you do this? If you have a legitimate claim why not take his money?

To play devil's advocate, the JREF challenge is not a "bet"... he does not win anything if the applicant fails, he only stands to lose $1mm if the applicant is sucessfull. In that light I don't blame him for want protocol followed to their standards. His original message was "***Apply*** for the JREF’s million-dollar prize". Just trying to provide some insight into where the confusion may be coming from....

Also, I'm very curious as to why there is so much apprehension to going through the application process. I've only heard vague comments about the JREF never letting claims with a chance of winning get through the process, but I've never heard of any specific examples.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by 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.

Frankly, I don't see that they are mutually exclusive.

Randi made it very clear in his interview with Alex that the tests for the MDC would be conducted by scientists with appropriate credentials. Alex seems to have interpretted this as support for his personal ideas about how Alex wants to do the research.

There is no reason for the MDC not to done according to the scientific method.

The MDC has extra conditions to prevent outright fraud and self-deception.

Past research is not valid. Only actual demonstrations are suitable. This rules out things like doing 20 trials and putting 2 videos on youtube that happen to have "good" results.

The exact claim has to agreed upon before the experiment is done. The method of deteriming the success of the trial has to be agreed to before the experiment is done. This rules out post hoc data analysis, shoddy subgroup analysis and data mining.

Both of these are a part of the scientific method and are used to differing degrees to control for fraud and self-deception. There is a call for all pharmaceutical trials to be pre-registered for exactly these reasons.

And finally before anybody here starts blaeting about the scientific method then ask yourselves whether Alex is following the scientific method when he states "Dogsthatknow are real and we're gonna prove it", puts vidoes on youtube which he claims show telepathic dogs and makes numerous press releases.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Larry Boy

I'm not. It's up to him whether he wants to apply or not.

Fine. Just say "I'm not going to apply for the MDC".

Instead of doing this Alex creates a disjointed email exchange and 2 press releases where he dishonestly tries to create the impression that Randi has broken off negotiations.

[Chris Noble]

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

Everybody here knows that he meant that the applicants perform entirely consistent with chance.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by 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.)

The peer-reviewed journal bit is a red-herring. The criteria of success are mutually agreed to before the tests. The proponent can either win the challenge or fail.

What peer-reviewed journal is going to accept a paper describing yet another water-dowser who can't do what they claim to do? Seriously WTF do you expect? Do you want to see the Journal of Failed Million Dollar Challenges?

If they win the million dollars then scientists would give them the attention they crave and papers in peer-reviewed journals would follow.

[Larry Boy]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

The peer-reviewed journal bit is a red-herring. The criteria of success are mutually agreed to before the tests. The proponent can either win the challenge or fail.

But how are we to know the test has been done in a proper way if no results are published in a peer-reviewed journal? I guess my problem is the whole thing of setting up research as a "challenge". It's inherently unscientific.

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

What peer-reviewed journal is going to accept a paper describing yet another water-dowser who can't do what they claim to do?

As if scientific journals were full of papers describing failing water-dowsers... Actually, many journals seem quite happy to accept papers on psychic phenomena (as long as the results are negative, that is). If no mainstream journal accepts it, it could be published in a parapsychology journal (they usually have contributions from both skeptics and proponents, so they're not as biased as one may think).

[Larry Boy]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

Fine. Just say "I'm not going to apply for the MDC".

Instead of doing this Alex creates a disjointed email exchange and 2 press releases where he dishonestly tries to create the impression that Randi has broken off negotiations.

I agree that this seems dishonest. Sentences like "we even agreed to forgo the million dollar prize he offers in order to secure his involvement and resolve this question scientifically, but he refused" seem quite a bit confused. As far as I can see, Randi never agreed on such a thing.

Edit: I may have misinterpreted the sentence "We even agreed to forgo the million dollar prize he offers in order to secure his involvement and resolve this question scientifically, but he refused." I thought you were talking about you and Randi, but I suspect you're talking about your team of investigators. Is that right?

Anyway, I don't think it's fair to say that James Randi "broke off" negotiations, because as far as I can tell, there were no negotiations in the first place. Randi wanted you to apply for the challenge, and that's it, no?

[Chris Noble]

[quote=Larry Boy;5181]But how are we to know the test has been done in a proper way if no results are published in a peer-reviewed journal? I guess my problem is the whole thing of setting up research as a "challenge". It's inherently unscientific.[quote]

I think you misunderstand the purpose and scope of peer review. The vague innuendo appears to be that Randi is cheating. Peer review doesn't necessarily prevent fraud. The reviewers don't come and check your lab books to see whether you have really done the experiments that you claim to do. They generally trust that you are reporting the experimental results accurately.

The people taking the MDC agree to the conditions beforehand. They sign douments agreeing to the protocol. The experiments can be done by independent scientists agreed to by the claimee. The BBC homeopathy trials were conducted by independent scientists. The whole point of this is to prevent the claimee whinging about the protocol afterwards. I really don't see what your point about peer review is.

Are you suggesting that there are people that have taken the MDC and have been cheated by Randi? This is the innuendo. These people have signed documents with the agreed to conditions. Are you really suggesting that they did what they claimed they could do and Randi didn't give them the money?

As if scientific journals were full of papers describing failing water-dowsers... Actually, many journals seem quite happy to accept papers on psychic phenomena (as long as the results are negative, that is). If no mainstream journal accepts it, it could be published in a parapsychology journal (they usually have contributions from both skeptics and proponents, so they're not as biased as one may think).

A large number of the applicants to the MDC challenge have been dowsers. Do you really think that you could publish numerous accounts of self deluded would be dowsers who fail miserably when they are asked to do what they claim they can do? Most rejection letters from journals complain about the lack of novelty. Self deluded dowsers are hardly novel!

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by kimosabu

Why would you do this? If you have a legitimate claim why not take his money?

To play devil's advocate, the JREF challenge is not a "bet"... he does not win anything if the applicant fails, he only stands to lose $1mm if the applicant is sucessfull. In that light I don't blame him for want protocol followed to their standards.

Randi's 'standards' are heading towards impossible to win ....When Randi was asked by Ted Dace, odds of 1000 to 1 in preliminary followed by 100,000 (or was it 1,000,000 to 1? I can't recall without checking) ....this is not scientific .... Randi in theory could still stamp ridiculous odds like 800,000 to one a failure.

The only way to debunk Randi's (propaganda against psi claims) prize is to get him involved without prize or to endorse a less arbitrary, more scientific standard, not giving him the excuse to raise the bar by offering money as in a competition.

Also, I'm very curious as to why there is so much apprehension to going through the application process. I've only heard vague comments about the JREF never letting claims with a chance of winning get through the process, but I've never heard of any specific examples.

If you work out the odds it could take an effect size of the Ganzfeld experiment running one experiment per day, every day over 4 years to win prize, the applicant pays the costs, how much would it cost?

Hopefully dogs have stronger psi

[Larry Boy]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

I think you misunderstand the purpose and scope of peer review. The vague innuendo appears to be that Randi is cheating. Peer review doesn't necessarily prevent fraud. The reviewers don't come and check your lab books to see whether you have really done the experiments that you claim to do. They generally trust that you are reporting the experimental results accurately.

Are you suggesting that there are people that have taken the MDC and have been cheated by Randi? This is the innuendo. These people have signed documents with the agreed to conditions. Are you really suggesting that they did what they claimed they could do and Randi didn't give them the money?

Why are you accusing me of "suggesting" things I've never said? Why are you putting things in my mouth, like "are you really suggesting that they did what they claimed they could do and Randi didn't give them the money?" Where on Earth did you get that from? I've never said anything like it. Please stop fabulating and argue the points I've made, not the ones you have made up yourself.

Look, I'm not suggesting that Randi et al cheat, I'm suggesting that perhaps the conditions are not fair, and that the methods aren't good enough. And of course I understand that peer-review doesn't prevent fraud! It can help detecting it though, as it did in the case of the Soal experiments in telepathy.

Why is it okay for Randi's organization to say they have debunked all kinds of claims, without even publishing the evidence, when a parapsychologist never could do the same without receiving severe criticism? It's quite ironic that you complain about Alex videos and the lack of information in them, but at the same time defend Randi's claims about having debunked all kinds of things, without a shred of supporting documentation. You have to be more consistent. You can't set other standards for skeptics than for proponents.

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

A large number of the applicants to the MDC challenge have been dowsers. Do you really think that you could publish numerous accounts of self deluded would be dowsers who fail miserably when they are asked to do what they claim they can do? Most rejection letters from journals complain about the lack of novelty. Self deluded dowsers are hardly novel!

The Ganzfeld experiments were replicated dozens of times and reported over and over again. Why shouldn't the JREF investigation teams be able to publish their tests over and over again? Anyway, they could at least do it once, but it seems they haven't even done that.