43. From the desk of James Randi (Podcast)

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

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

How do you know? Is this a mind reading claim?

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

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

I don't think he meant that - do you think he was joking, or what? However, I dunno, I guess if you can be president of the US and make gaffs like that, maybe we should not make too much of it!

David

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

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.

I just want to clarify, that I am not against Randi's challenge for those who are making claims of super strong psi effects under personal command and making advertsing claims like '90% accurate' for money. They should be able to win his prize and I am happy with Randi challenging them (even although trade laws can be used against such claims).

My objection is that Randi is implying all psi is false due to no one winning his prize, contrary to the much superior quality of reseach done by many parapsychologists.

Another problem is that the nature of the challenge assumes psi, if real, must be an ability under conscious command in humans. However psi seems stonger under less conscious mental states, it has thoughout history been associated with more subconscious/unconscious states of mind(s) ... this is clearly indicated in ganzfeld, dream telepathy studies, DMILS studies, collective (unconscious) psi effects, claims of 'trance' mediumship with no memory recall afterwards (e.g. the case of Leonora Piper), mulitple witnesses of poltergeist phenomena claiming they have nothing to do with what they observe and so on ...... however a 'challenge' by nature forces a more conscious state of alertness, increased pressure to produce psi as a conscious ability under great personal command..... it is perhaps the wrong way to look for it, at least in humans...

Dogs may have an advantage in this respect, if they don't know they are being tested, only the owner can feel the pressure

[Larry Boy]

Great summing up there, Open Mind.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Larry Boy

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.

The conditions are agreed to by the claimant. Are you saying that they are agreeing to unfair conditions and methods? Take the recent case of the woman who claimed she could make somebody urinate with mindpower. She signed a form agreeing to the exact conditions and methods for the test. The test was videotaped. The details of the challenge including the mutually agreed protocol are detailed here ROSEMARY HUNTER - Paranormal Urination. What is your exact problem? Do you think the JREF were unfair to this woman?

Do you have any examples of people that applied for the MDC, agreed to a protocol and now claim that they passed the test?

Seriously, just try to answer my question. Which peer-reviewed journal is going to accept a publication detailing a woman who thinks she can make people urinate but fails miserably during a test? You really think that somebody is going to write it up and submit it to Nature?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Larry

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.

The Challenge is not a scientific study. It is a test.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

My objection is that Randi is implying all psi is false due to no one winning his prize, contrary to the much superior quality of reseach done by many parapsychologists.

Yes, yes, everyone knows that the lack of winning the Challenge is not proof that psi does not exist.

~~ Paul

[kimosabu]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

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.



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

Ok - I'm genuinly trying to see the arguements from both sides here so bear with me... I'm fascinated by paranormal claims, and I would love to see someone conclusively demonstrate the existence of psi. However if it were my money and I was offering to *give* it away I expect I would want a similar benchmark. It would be a different story if I was *betting* someone, but thats not the case.

To put the 1 in 1,000,000 in context, if you correctly guessed a number between 1 and 1,000 once that would be impressive, but realistically could be random chance. If you do it twice in a row I think you would be on to something.

As far as the Ganzfeld experiment, yes it's *possible* that some psi is being demonstrated, but if the results are so marginal that it would take 4 years of nonstop testing to produce a 1 in 1,000,000 certainty, isn't is also possible that some inconsistency in the controls is causing the result rather than psi? In other words, if psi does exist why wouldn't someone - anyone (or any dog) - be able to demonstrate a near 100% hit rate?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

The conditions are agreed to by the claimant. Are you saying that they are agreeing to unfair conditions and methods?

I imagine they might well do so since, unless they agree, their applicaion won't proceed at all. Thus the option is between a near zero chance of winning the million by agreeing to unfair conditions, or a zero chance of winning by not agreeing to the conditions and hence their application being rejected.

[Open Mind]

Kimosabu, sorry if my post seemed a tad critical, I didn't notice this was one of your first posts in here. Welcome sir.