43. From the desk of James Randi (Podcast)

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

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.

Chris, this trial was never going to be self evident indication of a paranormal effect because even if Jeff was standing in a puddle, the 'normal' explanation would be that *some* people standing for 15 minutes thinking about urinating weakens control. Why did JREF overlook this and go ahead with trial?

Chris, come on, this trial was a farce from beginning to end ....the only reason I can think why JREF might be happy to go along with it, not apply rules as strictly,and not falsify 'normal' explanations was because the daft claim helps makes other claimants as a whole look a bunch of fruitcakes?

You haven't answered my question. What would getting it published in a peer-reviewed journal achieve?

No serious journal would publish it (rightly in this case).

[David Bailey]

I don't suppose that JREF could have put this Rosemary Hunter character up to this nonsense just to gain some publicity and discredit Ψ research?

On the other hand, if she could successfully beam her power on to a Manchester United football crowd it might prove impressive

David

[Larry Boy]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

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.

No, we're supposed to investigate scientifically claims that have been made repeatedly throughout history, rather than scoffing at them. That's what it's all about.

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

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.

You obviously haven't been paying much attention to what I've been writing. I've pointed out repeatedly that science is a cumulative enterprise. So yes, I agree with you.

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

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

What's this supposed to mean? Parapsychologists have done tons of meta-analyses.

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

What would the peer-review by the parapsychology journals possibly add to the process.

A critical examination of the JREF testing.

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

The applicants have agreed to the protocols and the interpretation of the results in advance. You haven't answered this.

Yes I have. I wrote: "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)."

You, however, sidetracked the issue and began talking about Rupert Sheldrake and peoples' experiences. What was that all about?

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

This is actually more open than most scientific research.

You can't make all kinds of claims in public without having your research peer-reviewed. You'd probably agree with this if we were talking about parapsychologists. Keeping your files open for people to look at them is great, but you usually publish your results somewhere as well.

Look Chris, my problem with the challenge is that it pretends to be more than it really is. As soon as a parapsychologist publishes a positive result, Randi will shout at him to apply for the challenge. In what other branch of science would something like that happen?
As I said before, the attitude of many skeptics is that 60+ years of scientific research into psychic phenomena by hundreds of scientists, is useless as long as nobody wins the million dollars. But why should one challenge with occasional tests outweigh thousands of experiments by trained scientists? Why? It doesn't make sense.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Chris, this trial was never going to be self evident indication of a paranormal effect because even if Jeff was standing in a puddle, the 'normal' explanation would be that *some* people standing for 15 minutes thinking about urinating weakens control. Why did JREF overlook this and go ahead with trial?

Now you are simply accusing the JREF of cheating. You aren't David Mabusa by any chance?

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

You aren't David Mabusa by any chance?

Is that the guy who believes in Nostradamus predictions?

Chris, if you had read my posts, you will know I am not a determinist, I do not believe life is all mapped out, I argue the case for 'free will'. I do accept parapsychology lab evidence for precognition (to me the evidence looks better as a fairly short term effect, prediction of a event not greatly into the future) and again I do accept the evidence for 'presentiment' (an effect very shortly proceeding)

Do you still think I am David Mabusa?

To be fair, I have not looked at enough of Nostradamus predictions in detail to make an informed judgment, lets just say I am almost as skeptical of anyone making precise predictions into the future as you would be.

Also note, I am currently opposed to mediums 'fortune telling' ... as in giving advice. I am supportive of mediums or psychics confirming past events, which can be confirmed and judged right or wrong immediately and is completely harmless IMHO. Yes I do think *some* are beating the odds of cold reading due to investigation of the matter ...... however psychics only 'fortune telling' makes judging their accuracy difficult and worse precise details may influence people (with too much faith in fortune tellers) over important life decisions for the worse.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

Now you are simply accusing the JREF of cheating.

I prefer the word 'misrepresentation'. It looks like deliberate misrepresentation to me.... how else can you explain ....

From Randi.org website .....

'....Between 1997 and February 15, 2005, there had been a total of 360 official, notarized applications. Applications continue to pour in! ...

Million Dollar Challenge FAQ - James Randi Educational Foundation

This means someone (probably Kramer) counted the number of applications. However they can't seem to count the only important thing ... actual preliminary tests done Why? Probably because it shows JREF to have done so few since 1997 and Randi's credibility is compromised.

The website smudges the information with ......

To date, how many persons have been tested for the million-dollar prize offered by JREF?

That's not a simple question to answer. Many hundreds have applied, and most have had to be instructed to reapply — sometimes several times — because they did it incorrectly or incompletely. There are, at any given time, about 40 to 60 applicants being considered, but from experience we know that the vast majority will drop out even before any proper preliminary test can be designed. Of those who get to the preliminary stage, perhaps a third will actually be tested, and some of those will quit before completion.

Million Dollar Challenge FAQ - James Randi Educational Foundation

Randi didn't actually answer the question, the only indication is 'perhaps a third'? So that is
suggestive of 120 people have been tested by JREF? Here is my previous post on matter ....

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Randi often gives the impression he has tested many hundreds of people e.g. in this video, Randi makes a claim again around the 40:30 minute mark in video

'....'We have filing cabinets just full .....[reference to picture of Kramer with cabinets] .... all with little red stickers on them. That means they have been tested - no good.....'
YouTube - Authors@Google: James Randi

This statement is false Randi is presenting applications (that never reached the stage of a test) as failed tests. The forum has always shown an impressive long list of seemingly active applications – but how many were tested?

Back in 2005, I tried to find out exactly how many Randi had actually tested. The topic is still there .... Exactly how many ‘Preliminary Tests’ have actually been conducted? - JREF Forum

You will see in Post 4 that someone directly quotes Kramer (Randi's challenge assistant at the time) as saying in another topic .... 'There have been two tests since my arrival here one year ago. My understanding is that there has never been more than a couple of tests per year.'

(Note in post 4, the link doesn't work, however I read it at the time, this statement was missing did Kramer or someone else delete his comment? There is no reason to presume Kramer did not did not make that statement because he is clearly reading and taking part in the topic and didn't correct it. Also in the following topic, the same quoter (Gr8wight) is actually in private mail communication with Kramer, so perhaps Kramer said in e-mail not in public forum?
Can we get a Challenge historical wrapup/tally? [Archive] - JREF Forum

To return to the point ....

.... Therefore, according to Kramer (Randi's challenge assistant) 2 per year over the 10 years (since it was increased to 1 million) = only 20 people tested?

Why is Randi claiming he has tested hundreds, an application is meaningless, these were not tests at all...so is he counting his tests prior to $1million challenge? Dangling a $10,000 cheque in front of people and if they don't take up his challenge, it is notched up as a failed experiment?

....What about Randi's past research? Kramer says in topic '.....based upon my preliminary investigation, is that Challenge records were VERY incomplete prior to my arrival here. There wasn't even a real application file before I got here. We have a few VHS tapes of some tests, but it's unclear how many of those were official JREF Challenge tests, as many of these tapes are VERY old and without any paperwork or accompanying data.....'

[Chris Noble]

[quote=Open Mind;5249]I prefer the word 'misrepresentation'. It looks like deliberate misrepresentation to me.... how else can you explain ....[/QUOTE}

Randi didn't actually answer the question, the only indication is 'perhaps a third'? So that is
suggestive of 120 people have been tested by JREF? Here is my previous post on matter ....

The text that you quote clearly states that the majority of applicants drop out before they can agree on a protocol for the preliminary test. Of those that do manage to agree to a protocol only about a third are tested and some of these don't complete the tests. This is not suggestive of 120 people completing preliminary tests in the time frame you refer to.

I can't see the misrepresentation you are alleging. Have you got something other than dodgy maths to support your accusation?

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

The text that you quote clearly states that the majority of applicants drop out before they can agree on a protocol for the preliminary test. Of those that do manage to agree to a protocol only about a third are tested and some of these don't complete the tests. This is not suggestive of 120 people completing preliminary tests in the time frame you refer to.

A third of what? By 2005 JREF are talking about 360 applications (for 1 million challenge) and over 600 prior to 1 million challenge, what does 'reach the preliminary stage mean'? Isn't that just another term for discussing a protocol?

I can't see the misrepresentation you are alleging. Have you got something other than dodgy maths to support your accusation?

Chris, if JREF counted 360 notarized applications (+600 supposedly before increased to 1 million) .... how come they forgot to count or can't count the number of people who actually were tested? What is the problem?

Could the problem be Randi in past exaggerated the number he had tested to appear an authority on the matter so by mixing it with failed applications, the number looks higher?

I see they are publishing a book on the Challenge .... will they be able to count actual number of trials done this time?

Very simple question on website To date, how many persons have been tested for the million-dollar prize offered by JREF?

Randi's reply '....That's not a simple question to answer ......' etc. The answer does not even offer a ball park figure, it is a third of something .

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

A third of what? By 2005 JREF are talking about 360 applications (for 1 million challenge) and over 600 prior to 1 million challenge, what does 'reach the preliminary stage mean'? Isn't that just another term for discussing a protocol?

Chris, if JREF counted 360 notarized applications (+600 supposedly before increased to 1 million) .... how come they forgot to count or can't count the number of people who actually were tested? What is the problem?

Could the problem be Randi in past exaggerated the number he had tested to appear an authority on the matter so by mixing it with failed applications, the number looks higher?

Can you actually provide an example where Randi misrepresents the number of trials that have taken place?

According to wikipedia which cites Randi's book Flim Flam No offers to conduct a formal test have been extended because the rules require that a claimant must first pass a preliminary test, which no applicants have yet passed. According to JREF, over 1,000 applications have been submitted for the Challenge. of the first 650 applications (through 1982), fifty-four preliminary tests were carried out (Randi 1982:252). Most applications do not result in preliminary testing because they fail during the negotiation of experimental protocols.

So at least for this period about 8% of applicants completed preliminary tests. There does not seem to be any secrecy or misrepresentation involved.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

Can you actually provide an example where Randi misrepresents the number of trials that have taken place?

Let me check this out further. I seem to recall hundreds are mentioned on an old video clip but let check whether it is Randi or someone else's voice over.

.. of the first 650 applications (through 1982), fifty-four preliminary tests were carried out (Randi 1982:252). Most applications do not result in preliminary testing because they fail during the negotiation of experimental protocols.

This is prior to 1 million challenge, are the 54 preliminary details published anywhere? If anyone knows I'd like that information. Are these in the book 'Flim Flam'?

So at least for this period about 8% of applicants completed preliminary tests. There does not seem to be any secrecy or misrepresentation involved.

8% doesn't sound as good as 'a third' (of whatever he meant). 92% of applications failing seems rather high to me. I think I could walk down the street and get people to spend an hour of their time filling in forms then chancing their luck for a million. Why is it so low?