43. From the desk of James Randi (Podcast)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

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

~~ Paul

Skeptics are constantly insinuating that the failure of anyone to win the challenge gives a good prima facie reason to suppose that no paranormal phenomena exists.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

ROSEMARY HUNTER - Paranormal Urination[/url]. What is your exact problem? Do you think the JREF were unfair to this woman?

The question is ..... why did JREF bother to tighten the rules in April 2007 with so very few people being tested?

This application was after April 2007 rule changes that added (1) the applicant must have a 'media presence'. Did she? Or was it just a one off article of amusement in a newspaper? (I don't know) (2) The signed support of an academic. Who was this academic, did they support the actual claim being tested or another claim? (I don't know)

Also how did this trial pass the 'self evident' criteria, was it just JREF's Jeff Wagg saying 'no, nothing happened' at end? ( Also I thought Randi said they always pass out trials to independent researchers?

Also seemed to move quicker than normal from application to preliminary? The less credible the claim, the lower JREF set the bar?

Chris, surely you agree this was JREF taking the psi out of the paranormal, an attempt too associate all paranormal claims with nonsense?

Does this trial add to JREF's credibility or not?

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

The question is ..... why did JREF bother to tighten the rules in April 2007 with so very few people being tested?

Have you checked out some of the email exchanges? They go and on and the claimants never seem to be able to say exactly what they can do and how it is going to be demonstrated. Kind of like Alex!
Why shouldn't they tighten the apllication criteria to filter out more of the mentally disturbed.

Also how did this trial pass the 'self evident' criteria, was it just JREF's Jeff Wagg saying 'no, nothing happened' at end? ( Also I thought Randi said they always pass out trials to independent researchers?

WTF did you expect? A team of scientists hooking up conduction meters to Jeff Wagg's underpants? Last time I checked it was self-evident when somebody pisses in their pants when they aren't wearing diapers/nappies.

Also seemed to move quicker than normal from application to preliminary? The less credible the claim, the lower JREF set the bar?

If all applicants could state exactly what they can do and how they are going to demonstrate it they could probably get tested this fast.

Chris, surely you agree this was JREF taking the psi out of the paranormal, an attempt too associate all paranormal claims with nonsense?

You don't think this was psi?

Does this trial add to JREF's credibility or not?

I don't think it adds to Rosemary Hunter's credibility. It does show that the JREF do test claims.

You guys are whining that the results from the MDC are not published in peer-reviewed journals. Just explain which journal would accept a paper on Rosemary Hunter? What would having it published in a peer-reviewed journal achieve?

[Larry Boy]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

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

It claims to be "research" that is "utilizing 'the scientific method'." (About the Foundation*-*James Randi Educational Foundation)

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

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

That's not where the problem lies! The problem is that a lot of skeptics have the attitude that unless somebody wins the challenge, all scientific evidence of psi is useless! What kind of reasoning is that? Why should one publicity-seeking challenge be more important than over 60 years of scientific research by hundreds of scientists?

[Larry Boy]

Originally Posted by kimosabu

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.

Well the problem is that you can't solve a scientific problem by setting up a challenge that has a ridiculous benchmark in order to secure money that shouldn't be involved in scientific research in the first place. Now I know that skeptics will say that it's just a test, it's not a research, but see my above post for my response to that.

Originally Posted by kimosabu

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?

Because we're talking about human performance! In no ordinary psychology experiment would you expect a near 100% hit rate. Nor would you expect a football (or soccer, in the US) player to score every time he shoots. As for the effects being small, they're even smaller in a lot of medical research, and those results are still seen as valid.

[Larry Boy]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

The conditions are agreed to by the claimant.

The claimant doesn't necessarily know what's a reasonable scientific benchmark. Usually they think they think they're much better than they really are (if they have any ability at all, that is).

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

Are you saying that they are agreeing to unfair conditions and methods?

The benchmark is way too high for the results to be scientifically useful. In ordinary research it's usually 20:1.

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

Do you think the JREF were unfair to [Rosemary Hunter]?

I'm skeptical of her ability, but the fact a lot of the applicants probably are a bit self-deluded doesn't make the challenge valid.

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

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

No. What's the point?

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

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?

No, I don't think Nature would be an appropriate journal. I do think a parapsychology journal perhaps could accept it though. They sometimes have
such papers detailing tests of persons claiming extraordinary abilities. But a parapsychology journal perhaps doesn't count in your view? If that's the case, just let me remind you that skeptics regularly contribute to such journals. They're not that biased.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Larry Boy

It claims to be "research" that is "utilizing 'the scientific method'." (About the Foundation*-*James Randi Educational Foundation)

To be more exact it says that it conducts research into paranormal claims. It goes after specific claims made by specific people.

It doesn't do open ended exploratory research into "psi" and it doesn't claim to.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Larry Boy

The claimant doesn't necessarily know what's a reasonable scientific benchmark. Usually they think they think they're much better than they really are (if they have any ability at all, that is).

This is where I have a problem. Accordingly to Sheldrake we are supposed to attach a great weight to peoples personal beliefs of they think they (or their dogs) can do.

The benchmark is way too high for the results to be scientifically useful. In ordinary research it's usually 20:1.

And every 20th study would get statistically significant results by pure chance.

Most scientists know that it takes more than a single positive study to provide sufficient evidence for a novel claim.

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

You are not going to get a Nobel prize and a million dollars for one study with a p<.05.

Paranormal proponents attach far too much importance to single positive studies rather than the totality of the research program.

I'm skeptical of her ability, but the fact a lot of the applicants probably are a bit self-deluded doesn't make the challenge valid.

You still haven't come up with any valid reasons why it isn't valid.

No. What's the point?

The point is that you don't have any valid criticisms.

No, I don't think Nature would be an appropriate journal. I do think a parapsychology journal perhaps could accept it though. They sometimes have
such papers detailing tests of persons claiming extraordinary abilities. But a parapsychology journal perhaps doesn't count in your view? If that's the case, just let me remind you that skeptics regularly contribute to such journals. They're not that biased.

What would the peer-review by the parapsychology journals possibly add to the process. The applicants have agreed to the protocols and the interpretation of the results in advance. You haven't answered this.

According to Randi's FAQ

Some of the application information is available on the JREF?s forum, but the majority of it is on file at the JREF. You can make an appointment to visit the Foundation and view the applications by contacting a JREF representative.

This is actually more open than most scientific research.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

Have you checked out some of the email exchanges? They go and on and the claimants never seem to be able to say exactly what they can do and how it is going to be demonstrated. Kind of like Alex!
Why shouldn't they tighten the apllication criteria to filter out more of the mentally disturbed.

Do you think if JREF were truly concerned about people being mentally disturbed they would have tested a claim by a woman claiming she can make people urinate?

WTF did you expect? A team of scientists hooking up conduction meters to Jeff Wagg's underpants?

Possibly high voltage conduction meters I am only saying they seem to have twisted 3 of their own rules to accomodate this bizarre claim.
(1) I don't believe this women had a 'media presence' of any significance
(2) Where is the academic who was supporting her claim, doesn't JREF normally publish this to embarrass them?
(3) The result was not 'self evident' (requiring 'no judging') it wasn't independent and used the judgment of JREF challenge manager

You guys are whining that the results from the MDC are not published in peer-reviewed journals. Just explain which journal would accept a paper on Rosemary Hunter? What would having it published in a peer-reviewed journal achieve?

Is there anything scientific about any of Randi's challenges?

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Do you think if JREF were truly concerned about people being mentally disturbed they would have tested a claim by a woman claiming she can make people urinate?


Possibly high voltage conduction meters I am only saying they seem to have twisted 3 of their own rules to accomodate this bizarre claim.
(1) I don't believe this women had a 'media presence' of any significance
(2) Where is the academic who was supporting her claim, doesn't JREF normally publish this to embarrass them?
(3) The result was not 'self evident' (requiring 'no judging') it wasn't independent and used the judgment of JREF challenge manager

This person managed to fulfil the criteria that they were currently using. If she had been refused she would have grounds for complaint whether or not she is mentally disturbed. You wouldn't want the JREF to break their own rules would you?

I'm surpprised that you don't find it self-evident when you urinate in your pants. Try doing it in public and see how many people agree with you.

Is there anything scientific about any of Randi's challenges?

You haven't answered my question. What would getting it published in a peer-reviewed journal achieve? You can go to the JREF office and read the appliaction forms signed by the applicant if you want.