One More James Randi Email

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I think it is a mistake to think of JREF as a research/investigative organisation at all. It seems to me that it is the ultimate example of a skeptical organisation whose purpose is simply to make life as difficult as possible for ? researchers.

It has nothing to do with "psi" researchers. I don't think Randi cares one bit if somebody spends their time researching "psi".

The MDC is for people who make specific paranormal claims. The MDC simply asks how can you tell whether a specific claim is true. The simple way is do just demonstarte it. If Uri Geller claims he can bend spoons with mental power then get him to bend spoons under controlled conditions. If Sylvia Browne claims she can sppeak with the dead then get her to demonstrate this. If Alex Tsakiris puts up videos on youtube and claims that "Tommy" can telepathically detected when his owner/s is coming home then why not simply demonstrate this and win the MDC.

Simply state what your claim is, how you are going to demonstrate it and what accuracy you re going to get.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

Randi's hiding behind this goofy Challenge thing because it allows him to avoid dealing with scientific inquiry into areas he's uncomfortable with.

Richard Feynman said:

Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

The only goofy thing about the MDC is the silly reasons people who make paranormal claims come up with for not taking the challenge.

[scomsjw]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Well whether you call the phenomenon pyschic, it has been reported over and over again. What is so wrong with investigating it? I'll bet if you asked around those of your friends with dogs, you would discover some of them with dogs that do this.

One of the reasons I'm skeptical of this particular claim is that I have grown up with pet dogs and never noticed this type of behaviour. This is a very personal and anecdotal observation (and therefore worthless) but I think I would have noticed if any of them had this ability. I have noticed a tendency for some dog owners to make bizarre claims about their beloved pets (e.g. "he understands everything I say") and my intuition is that this is another one of those claims. For this reason the anecdotal evidence does not persuade me of anything. I would not have the patience to get involved in a watertight experiment but would be fascinated to see someone else do it. I suspect this is part of Alex's problem it is just so boring to control for all those variables.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Do you do research? If so, would you like your research to be validated by JREF with the promise of public scorn if they did not OK it? Normal peer review can be rough and unfair at times, but this is ridiculous!
David

I'm not putting videos up on youtube and claiming that they show a telepathic dog. If I made similar claims I wouldn't be surprised If I was challenged in exactly the way that Randi challenged Alex.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I think it is a mistake to think of JREF as a research/investigative organisation at all. It seems to me that it is the ultimate example of a skeptical organisation whose purpose is simply to make life as difficult as possible for Ψ researchers.

Agreed... one has to wonder why a real "research/investigative organization" would not be in favor of indepenant reseach by a qualifed university???

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by pacificwhim

I see what you're saying, Alex, but the whole episode makes you look a bit (unintentionally, I'm sure) evasive and misleading.

- explain...

Since you have gotten very promising results so far from the experiments, and since Randi is clearly not going to play by the rules you would like to establish, why NOT apply and jump through the MDC hoops? It appears that's the only way you're going to get the JREF people to play ball. Otherwise, what's accomplished?

If you hoped to "expose" Randi as anti-science or opposed to work that might defy his beliefs, do you really think you're going to change the mind of a single person in the pro- or anti-Randi camps?

- I think the process has already revealed a lot about Randi. While many have already made up their mind about him, others need fresh evidence of how he operates.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by scomsjw

One of the reasons I'm skeptical of this particular claim is that I have grown up with pet dogs and never noticed this type of behaviour. This is a very personal and anecdotal observation (and therefore worthless) but I think I would have noticed if any of them had this ability. I have noticed a tendency for some dog owners to make bizarre claims about their beloved pets (e.g. "he understands everything I say") and my intuition is that this is another one of those claims. For this reason the anecdotal evidence does not persuade me of anything. I would not have the patience to get involved in a watertight experiment but would be fascinated to see someone else do it. I suspect this is part of Alex's problem it is just so boring to control for all those variables.

I don't think personal anecdotal observations are worthless at all - they often provide the ideas for research. My own experience was with one of our cats that seemed to anticipate our (pretty random) homecomings while sat in a neighbour's house. Purely by chance, the setup was almost ideal, given that it was before the era of cheap video cameras, etc. Unfortunately, at the time I was very skeptical and just dismissed what my neighbour told me as fanciful...

You raise a serious point - some pet owners go a bit overboard about the abilities of their pets This is exactly why Alex and Rupert Sheldrake have both invested the time to study the claim. Really, if this claim were false, I would have thought the random-return-time experiment would have easily revealed this to be so.

Were your circumstances conducive to observing this phenomenon? Sheldrake's estimate is that only 50% of dogs can do this, furthermore, unless your dog was overlooked by a camera or someone else was at home, would you even know?

This is a serious question. Isn't there a problem here if whoever does any research into this phenomenon is considered sloppy/biassed if they get any positive results? Alex has shared some preliminary results with us - just as might happen in any laboratory. This does not mean he is ready to publish a watertight paper at this stage, nor, I think does it justify all the criticism that a few people here have heaped upon him.

David

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

Agreed... one has to wonder why a real "research/investigative organization" would not be in favor of indepenant reseach by a qualifed university???

Who says they aren't?
The BBC Horizons attempt at the MDC involved a number of independent qualified scientists overseen by the Vice President of the Royal Society Professor John Enderby.

Why are you pretending that these are mutually exclusive possibilities?

[Venom]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

- I think the process has already revealed a lot about Randi. While many have already made up their mind about him, others need fresh evidence of how he operates.

I think the process has already revealed a lot about Alex Tsakiris.

On you're podcast you like to give big talks, but in reality you're a chicken and you don't even dare to fill the paperwork for the Million Dollar Challenge. That shows that you're not so convince by your "dogs that knows" experiment. If you were, the MDC would be consider by you a piece of cake.

I'm really disappointed. I tought there was some hope you would try the challenge and have your "psychic dog" claim tested.

But hey, you're too savvy (like Uri Geller, Sylvia Brown & co.) to really have your claim tested, are you?

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

Agreed... one has to wonder why a real "research/investigative organization" would not be in favor of indepenant reseach by a qualifed university???

Randi is in favor of independant research by a qualified university AFTER YOU FILL OUT THE PAPERWORK. No paperwork, no interrest. He can't be more clear than that, and still this doesn't reach your brain.

Well, anyway, I'm sure you understand that. It's just the lame excuse you came up with in order not to have to take the challenge. Sylvia Brown was: "I don't know how to contact James Randi" and you it's "Randi doesn't agree to an independant research". Both are B.S., but ables you to look good in front of your fellow believers.

That kind of lame excuses just piss me off.

[David Bailey]

Venom,

Ask yourself this. Why should one man (plus small organisation) be permitted to sit in judgement over all research in a particular area? Suppose this were done in some other uncertain area of research - cosmological evolution, extraterrestrial life, fluctuations in the 3K background, the effectiveness of anti-depressants - would the quality of research be improved?

David